Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 118 (Official Version)

He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-213, an act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with cruelty to animals is one of two bills before the House dealing with cruelty to animals. It is a Senate bill that was introduced in the House on December 11, 2006, following its approval in the Senate on December 7.

Senator John Bryden prepared this legislation and has had the support of many of his colleagues. Today at second reading I am asking for the support of this assembly to refer Bill S-213 to the justice committee for review and recommendations.

Since the dawn of civilization, mankind has had a close relationship with animals, with nature and with the environment. Evidently all was not perfect and, as a result, Canadian legislators, more than 100 years ago, saw the need to develop sections of the Criminal Code to take particular individuals who would abuse, mismanage or neglect animals to court.

Today we continue to hear reports of persons who cause undue harm to animals and of persons who are injured or killed by them. Today, there are press reports of a keeper at a zoo in the United States who was killed by a jaguar.

Municipalities, provinces and the federal government are called upon to legislate and regulate definite standards that we must follow with regard to our relationship with animals. In this debate, we must think in terms of both domestic and wild or natural animals, which are usually the responsibility of the provinces.

Domestic animals, whether household or farm related, have close ties with their owners. Owners are expected to provide food, shelter and protection. This is an expensive business and owners are usually prepared to spend a significant amount of income on their so-called pets.

Within our urban areas, this ownership and related care is a fast growing industry, with food, grooming and veterinary costs, yet in cities and in urban areas we have problems with pets that often are large and sometimes do things in the environment that cause problems for our sewage and drainage systems. We see problems related to that activity.

In rural Canada, animals offer similar enjoyment to their household owners, but most are managed to provide food and clothing or to do work for their owners. Also, our cities and rural areas have wild animals that live naturally without our help. Our heritage is reflected by the beaver, which helped explore our continent, and the polar bear, which symbolizes our present struggle with the environment.

Then, too, we must not forget the medical and scientific community, those researchers who use animals to study the health of mammals and our biological connections to them.

This legislation, Bill S-213, does not attempt to define standards by which owners or participants in relations with animals are judged. Rather, it is presented as an amendment to present legislation that will increase penalties on those considered by our society as abusing animals. It is a common sense approach to a standard of acceptable behaviour.

Undoubtedly there are those who want us to go further. However, it appears that there has been difficulty in reaching a consensus on developing explicit legislation. For example, there are concerns that certain pets are dangerous to the security of others; concerns with the killing of animals by hunters and especially aboriginal peoples in northern and remote communities; the assessing of farming operations; the confinement of animals at farms, in zoos or with the circus type of presentations; the monitoring of horse racing; the utilization of animals by university and scientific researchers; and above all, the elimination of pests in both urban and rural settings.

The list goes on. It is within the context of this debate that I offer to present Bill S-213 to the House.

The intention of Bill S-213 is to update the penalty provisions dealing with animal cruelty within the Criminal Code. In summary, Bill S-213 amends sections 444 to 447 of the Criminal Code by making all animal cruelty offences hybrid offences, meaning that prosecutors can choose, based on the determination of the seriousness of the offence, whether to pursue an indictment or summary conviction in a particular case. Previously, sections 445 to 447 were punishable only by summary conviction.

Bill S-213 also increases the maximum penalties. For offences of cruelty, the maximum penalties under summary convictions are increased to be a sentence of 18 months in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000. For offences of neglect, the maximums are changed to a six month prison term and a $5,000 fine. In comparison, depending on the seriousness of the charge, those guilty of an indictable offence can be charged with either a term of up to five years in prison for cruelty offences or a term of up to two years in prison for offences of neglect.

Bill S-213 also makes two other changes to the Criminal Code. Under proposed subsection 447.1(1) it adds an order of prohibition and restitution. It allows the court to prohibit an offender from owning, having custody of, or residing with an animal for a period of time of any length or permanently, whereas the maximum now is only two years. As well, the accused may be ordered to pay any related costs for the care of an animal when it is under the care of another person or organization as a result of the commission of an offence.

Now that I have presented a brief description of this bill, I wish to address its place within the history of animal cruelty bills debated in this House. Amendments to the Criminal Code on cruelty to animals were introduced in December 1999 as part of an omnibus bill aimed to amend the Criminal Code. This was Bill C-17. After it died on the order paper, a similar bill, Bill C-15, was introduced in March 2001, but upon being referred to committee, this bill was split into two sections. Bill C-15B became an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals) and the firearms act. However, it too died when Parliament was prorogued in October 2002.

Bill C-15B was later reintroduced as Bill C-10. Approved in this House, it reached the Senate committee for consideration and again the bill was split, this time to an act to amend the farms act, Bill C-10A, and an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), Bill C-10B.

Bill C-10B was the birth of the first bill solely dedicated to animal cruelty amendments. This bill, however, also eventually died on the order paper, as did its successors, Bill C-22 and Bill C-50. It is clear to see that the animal cruelty bills of the past have been victims of serious reservations and timings.

These attempts to amend animal cruelty legislation have been subject to considerable debate. Throughout this evolution, numerous stakeholders have been consistently critical of the proposed amendments pertaining to the substance of the bills and the nature of the offences.

It appears that the only consensus that has been drawn around the animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code was in regard to the proposed changes to the punishment for offences. These recommendations have remained virtually consistent throughout the different reincarnations of the animal cruelty bills. Bill S-213 is a replication of these penalty amendments. It attempts to change nothing in the Criminal Code. It does not attempt to redefine animal cruelty or to make new offences.

In response to the opposition to the bills previously studied in the House of Commons and the Senate, Bill S-213 attempts to simplify the issue and focuses animal cruelty legislation on penalties. It does this in order to amend legislation that was first enacted in 1892. These penalties were consented to in recently defeated legislation. Bill S-213 therefore responds to the demands to update Canadian law in accordance with public opinion on the seriousness of crimes of animal cruelty.

There have been several stated reasons for changing the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code. First, the current penalties fail to reflect the seriousness of the crimes against animals. Second, the prohibition on offenders owning animals needs to be extended and Bill S-213 enables the court to place a permanent ban on ownership. Third, the court will be granted the means of ordering an offender to pay for the care needed for an animal as a consequence of an offence.

(1110)

As mentioned above, in response to this impetus for change, Bill S-213 includes all of these in the amendments. This bill will update the Canadian Criminal Code in response to the desire to offer more protection to animals and to increase the power of prosecutors to advocate stronger punishments. It will ensure that crimes of animal cruelty will be taken more seriously, as they should be. Bill S-213 recognizes that changes to the penalty provisions are needed at present.

We cannot deny that there may be opposition to Bill S-213. Some critics contend that this bill does not afford animals enough rights, but what those critics may not so readily admit is that the reason many of the previous bills did not pass is that they potentially disrespected the rights of those dependent on animals for their livelihood. Farmers, university and scientific researchers, aboriginal peoples, and fishers and hunters have all had serious concerns.

The issue at stake, therefore, is that legal implications of changes beyond those in the penalty provisions are uncertain. Previous attempts to redefine offences of cruelty against animals have been interpreted by various stakeholders to threaten the legalities of animal use.

Indications are that Bill S-213 has wide-ranging support. Public support for this bill has been expressed by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies, wildlife federations and recreational associations from all 12 provinces. They have all indicated support.

By not proposing amendments beyond the penalty provisions, Bill S-213 ensures that what is legal today would remain legal tomorrow. Most important, Bill S-213 protects the rights of animals and offers better tools of prosecution, yet it does not offer new grounds on which to challenge legal animal use practices. However, amidst the debate on the matter of animal cruelty, these issues have been clouded.

Recently in this House and in the media the issue of animal cruelty has been getting more attention, but let us question what the issue really is. Our laws need to be improved. Penalties need to be increased. It is very important that the animals within our society receive proper care, proper protection and proper concern by our legislators.

(1115)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the presentation by the hon. member. I would like to ask him one question and get his opinion.

It seems that in the past few years there have been many heinous crimes committed against animals. I am thinking in particular of the growing interest in cockfights. I also understand that now there are scheduled arena events between pit bulls. There are puppy mills. All of that is not to mention the individual convictions that have taken place over a number of years.

Does the member strongly believe that what it is going to take to shut down certain operations of that nature is more severe penalties?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Charles Hubbard:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the fact that he has spoken in the public domain recently on this very important issue and for his question. I would hope that as society progresses we will see the termination of such things as puppy mills. Cockfights certainly have been prohibited by Canadian legislation for a long period of time. I know there are concerns about certain dogs. I have not heard not much about the so-called dogfights, but I know that certain dogs certainly are a menace to some people in society. I know that certain municipalities are attempting to control the fact that some of these dogs may be at large.

I know and I hope that as Canadians, if we work together at all levels of government, we can see that animals are treated properly, that they are respected and, above all, that they are enjoyed by the people who see them as some of their closest friends.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill S-213 but, as the member knows, while many of the veterinarian colleges seem to support the bill, the Atlantic Veterinary College does not. It uses the argument that penalties are not enough, that the legislation needs to move further in terms of puppy mills and those areas.

How does the member respond to the suggestion that just increasing penalties will do the trick when many in society feel that it is cruel the way puppies are raised in puppy mills? How does the member feel this bill would deal with that effectively?

(1120)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Charles Hubbard:

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque has been a farmer most of his life. In the last number of years he has spent in the House he does done a tremendous job for his people back on Prince Edward Island and for all Canadians as a supporter of agriculture.

In terms of his question, we must remember that the amendments would place heavy fines on individuals and prohibitions from owning animals on those who have puppy mills or are abusing animals. It is sad to see in the press that some people have such a love of cats that they will be found to have 25 cats in their households under very unsanitary conditions. These people may do this through a love for their animals but we must have regulations to deal with it and prohibition would probably be the main one in terms of those who have puppy mills and attempt to breed a lot of dogs to have available for sale in various places without proper pedigrees or registrations.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Miramichi for sponsoring the bill in the House. I also want to recognize Senator Bryden for bringing this issue to the forefront.

As we all know, Bill S-213 passed the other place and was reported back from the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee with only one amendment. The amendment deleted the second clause of the bill which was the coming into force provision. With that provision deleted, the bill would come into force without the need for an order in council.

Bill S-213 amends the Criminal Code in relation to the sentencing of offenders convicted of animal cruelty. It does not create new offences or modify existing ones.

Currently, the Criminal Code provides a number of distinct animal cruelty offences. Some offences prohibit very specific forms of conduct and others are more general in nature. They include: wilfully killing, maiming, wounding, injuring or endangering cattle; wilfully killing, maiming, wounding, injuring or endangering animals other than cattle which are kept for lawful purpose; wilfully causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal; causing unnecessary pain to an animal by failure to exercise reasonable care; abandoning an animal in distress; baiting an animal; injuring an animal during transport; releasing a bird from captivity for the purpose of shooting it immediately upon its release; neglecting to provide adequate food, water and shelter or care to an animal; and keeping a cock pit.

The two most frequently charged offences are those of wilfully causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal and causing pain, suffering or injury by neglect. These types of actions are in fact what most Canadians think of when they think about animal cruelty. Cruelty can be intentional, meaning the result of conduct that a person knows will or would likely cause harm, or it can be the result of gross negligence, severe inadvertence or just plain indifference to the potential suffering of an animal.

With respect to maximum available penalties, all offences, except those in respect of cattle, are summary conviction offences only. This means that the maximum sentence that an offender can get is six months in prison, a $2,000 fine or both. This maximum applies no matter how heinous the act of cruelty.

By contrast, offences in respect of cattle are pure indictable offences and subject to a maximum of five years imprisonment. One question raised by the law and addressed by Bill S-213 is whether this distinction is still justified. I will return to this point shortly.

The Criminal Code also contains what is called a prohibition order. This mechanism allows a judge to order a convicted offender to refrain from owning an animal for up to two years. Prohibition orders are not just meant to punish. They are mostly preventative. They actually work to keep animals away from animal abusers. In this way, they are aimed primarily at preventing future cruelty toward animals. Prohibition orders are actually imposed relatively often in animal cruelty cases. The courts clearly feel that the prohibition order is a valuable tool at their disposal in dealing with people who abuse animals.

Bill S-213 appears to propose three changes to the current animal cruelty regime, all in the nature of penalty enhancements. All the measures address concerns that have been identified with the existing law. Concerns with the law can be clearly and simply stated: the penalties are too weak to deter and punish animal abuse. Bill S-213 responds to this concern. No reasonable person would disagree that a maximum sentence of six months for even the worst case is inadequate and trivializes animal cruelty.

There is strong agreement across all sectors that the low maximum penalties for cruelty are both inadequate to denounce animal cruelty as acceptable and to punish acts of cruelty when they do occur.

To respond to this concern, Bill S-213 would amend the sections of the Criminal Code that set out the various offences of animal cruelty and describe the maximum penalties for those offences. It accomplishes its objective in the following three ways.

The first aspect of Bill S-213 increases maximum terms of imprisonment. To do this, Bill S-213 makes all offences hybrid, meaning that the prosecution may choose to proceed by way of summary conviction or by way of indictment, depending on the seriousness of the case. Currently, all the offences, except those in relation to cattle, are straight summary conviction offences.

(1125)

Bill S-213 would then separate offences into two categories: first, for injuring animals intentionally and, second, for injuring animals by criminal neglect. This is an important distinction. Some people commit cruelty on purpose and others commit cruelty not on purpose but rather by extreme neglect. Under traditional criminal principles, knowingly or intentionally doing something is more blameworthy than doing the same thing by gross inadvertence. Accordingly, the maximum available penalties are normally much higher for crimes that involve deliberate action than for crimes committed by negligence.

The current six month maximum applies to cruelty committed by neglect as well as cruelty committed intentionally. Bill S-213 would address this by distinguishing between the two types of cruelty. Bill S-213 would assign different maximum penalties to each, according to the different degree of seriousness.

For the new category of offences that require intention or recklessness, the maximum term of imprisonment would be increased to 5 years on indictment and 18 months on summary conviction. The new 5 year penalty would also cover the offence of causing pain, suffering or injury by a failure to exercise reasonable care or supervision. For the other offences, such as abandoning an animal in distress or failing to provide suitable water, food or shelter, the maximum penalty on indictment would be raised from 6 months in prison to 2 years.

The separation of offences according to their degree of fault and the assignment of different maximum penalties would be consistent with other types of criminal offences.

Of course, the increase in the maximum terms of imprisonment would also better reflect the seriousness of animal cruelty and better accord with Canadians' views on this terrible crime.

A second aspect of Bill S-213 would remove the current two year maximum duration of an order prohibiting an offender from possessing or living with an animal. As I mentioned, the courts are fond of prohibition orders in animal cruelty cases and in some cases have found creative ways to extend a prohibition order past the maximum term of two years. The courts and the public clearly agree that some offenders should be denied the privilege of having animals in their homes for longer periods of time than just two years. This change would respond to those concerns and would enable courts to more adequately prevent future offences by prescribing whatever duration was appropriate.

Third, Bill S-213 would introduce a new power to allow the sentencing judge to order the offender to repay the cost of medical care and other forms of care that another person or organization spent caring for the animal that was victimized. Often, animal welfare agencies or humane societies take in animals that have been abused. If they take in an abused animal and the person who abused the animal is later convicted, this new power would be a means of holding the offender financially responsible for the cost of their crime. Making offenders reimburse those costs associated with the crime, like other kinds of restitution in the Criminal Code, would help to foster a sense of responsibility in the offender. It would also help animal welfare agencies recoup the cost of their work.

Under the applicable provincial legislation, agencies can recoup the funds associated with caring for neglected animals from the people responsible for neglecting them. It is important to recognize some of those agencies, like the SPCA, that help with animals that have been abused.

Those are the three principal amendments in Bill S-213. Together they constitute a significant improvement to the current law and one with which all Canadians would agree.

The government supports Bill S-213 and encourages all members to support it as well.

Of course, many members in the House are aware of past legislative efforts to improve the animal cruelty laws. As members are well aware, none of the bills introduced by the previous government over the course of about five years ever passed both chambers.

In addition, it is well-known that there was some disagreement concerning controversy over those bills. Some animal industry groups feared that certain changes would open the door to their being prosecuted for their traditional activities. We do not need to get into the details about that long and drawn out history.

What we have before us today is a private member's bill that has one simple objective: improving the law's ability to deter, denounce and punish animal cruelty and make offenders take greater responsibility for their crimes. It is for those reasons that I encourage all hon. members to support Bill S-213.

(1130)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to congratulate the member for Miramichi on sponsoring the bill introduced by the hon. senator, who was a member of this House and a colleague of mine when I was elected in 1993.

Everyone knows that the debate on cruelty to animals goes back a long way. Six other bills have been introduced in six years: Bills C-10, C-10B, C-15B, C-17, C-22 and, lastly, C-50, the most recent bill, which was introduced during the last Parliament.

Six bills have been brought before Parliament. The bill we are discussing this morning is the seventh. What is more, the member for Ajax—Pickering has introduced an eighth bill. All this has us thinking about the type of legislation we want.

One thing is certain: the status quo is not an option. It is unbelievable that, with one exception, the Criminal Code provisions on cruelty to animals have not been reviewed since 1892.

The situation can be summarized as follows: the punishment for people found guilty of wounding, neglecting, abusing, maiming or killing animals cannot exceed six months in prison or a $2,000 fine, except in cases where cattle are wilfully killed.

Certainly, the bill we are discussing this morning has merits. But it can be improved. I want to be very clear, for those who are watching. The Bloc Québécois will support the Senate bill, Bill S-213. And we also hope that this House will support Bill C-373, introduced by the member for Ajax—Pickering.

The bill before us this morning has three main points in its favour. First, it corrects the outdated sanctions, which are far too mild. These sanctions pertain to people's relationship with animals in the 19th century, when the Criminal Code was conceived.

This bill will make courts more likely to impose stricter sentences on those who commit offences against animals, that is, those who are convicted of misconduct against animals, such as mutilation, killing, negligence, abandonment or refusing to feed animals.

The minimum sentence, when prosecuted by indictment, will be five years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. The Bloc is pleased with that provision of the bill. That provision can also be found in Bill C-373, introduced by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering.

This bill also corrects the existing anomaly that a court—through a prohibition order, which courts may impose —can prohibit the owner of an animal from having an animal in his or her possession for a maximum of two years. The bill before us today gives the courts the power to impose such a prohibition order for the owner's entire lifetime.

The third benefit of this bill is that it allows for restitution mechanisms through which the courts can order an individual to pay the costs if an animal has been taken in by an animal welfare organization, for example. A court could therefore order restitution and individuals who committed offences of negligence or intentional cruelty could be forced to pay the organizations that have taken in mistreated animals.

These three benefits alone represent a considerable improvement to the state of the law and warrant our support of this bill.

(1135)

A number of our constituents have written to us comparing Bill S-213 from the Senate and the bill introduced by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering that I hope will be debated later. If memory serves me correctly, the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering is 124th or 126th on the list. The political situation being what it is, Parliament may dissolve. We hope not, even though the Bloc Québécois is confident about the future.

In the event that Parliament dissolves before the bill by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering is debated, we propose that this House fall back on the bill from the Senate. In any event, the short-term gain would be the possibility of increasing maximum penalties for those found guilty of mistreating animals.

I want to be very clear. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We would also want Bill C-373 to be passed, and for our constituents to know that these bills are not incompatible or mutually exclusive. The following three provisions are not incompatible with Bill C-373: increasing the penalties for animal cruelty offences; extending orders of prohibition on owning an animal; and implementing restitution mechanisms for individuals to compensate animal protection organizations. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support both bills.

Before explaining why this House should vote in favour of Bill C-373, I want to say that I know that my caucus colleagues and other parliamentarians in this House have always been concerned, when we have debated previous bills on protecting animals and on cruelty toward animals, about ensuring the ancestral rights of the first nations under section 35 of the Constitution, so as not to compromise legitimate hunting and fishing activities, and about legitimate research activities that may involve doing research on animals.

No one wants this House to adopt measures that would end up penalizing hunters and fishers. Senate Bill S-213 provides guarantees in this regard that may not be as attractive as those found in Bill C-373. Clause 3 of Bill C-373 sponsored by our colleague for Ajax—Pickering clearly states that, if the bill is adopted:

3. Subsection 429(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 443 where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

This means that a hunter or fisher cannot be prosecuted for such activity if it is deemed an aboriginal right or if he or she has a hunting or fishing licence, and this activity is recognized by the legislator. I say this because I am convinced that several parliamentarians in this House have heard representations on the balance that must be maintained between our desire to protect animals against cruelty and the right of hunters, fishers and aboriginal peoples to carry out activities that are recognized in law.

The bill introduced by the member for Ajax—Pickering clearly sets out this guarantee. In conclusion, we hope to amend the Criminal Code insofar as these provisions are concerned. We recognize the three major benefits of this bill and we hope that the House will also adopt Bill C-373. These two bills are a winning combination.

(1140)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-213. I would like to advise the House that the NDP will not be supporting the bill.

We take the issue of cruelty to animals very seriously. The current animal cruelty laws were enacted in 1892 and have not been substantially altered in 114 years of Parliament's rule over this land. The answer to dealing with these issues is not simply to cosmetically increase the sentences that are being meted out for offences that are not enforceable in the first place and have not been enforceable over many years.

There have been many instances of animal cruelty where the RCMP has not bothered with charges because the punishment meted out was not worth pursuing the case and it was impossible to prove wilful neglect. We need more of a deterrent. We need something that speaks to the nature of animal cruelty in a modern context.

Hon. members who have spoken before me have talked about the history of dealing with this issue in Parliament over the last seven years. Parliamentarians and governments have tried to focus on this issue and have found that it is impossible to move modern legislation through the two Houses that deals with animal cruelty.

The former government's Bill C-50 was not allowed to pass through the Senate. In 2003 it had support from animal protection groups, animal industry groups such as farmers, trappers and researchers, the vast majority of Canadians, and all parties in the House of Commons.

We have seen a disconnect when dealing with this issue of animal cruelty. We are stuck. We are only dealing with this bill now, not another companion bill, that would achieve support in the House and in the Senate. On the one hand we can put this bill forward which will cosmetically increase the penalties for animal cruelty, but it will not deal with the fundamental issues of a modern animal cruelty bill. That is not adequate. It should not be adequate to parliamentarians. It was not adequate in 2003 and I fail to see how it has become adequate today.

When we look at animal cruelty and the opportunities for the misunderstanding that comes with harvesting of animals, with the use of animals in agriculture, those things cry out for a clear definition. They cry out for a modern bill that would set the terms and conditions by which human beings could deal with animals. Without that, the deterrents are meaningless.

My constituents have spoken to me on this issue and have urged me not to support Bill S-213. I see their logic. I am concerned. The hon. member for the Bloc said that if we set higher deterrents without understanding the nature of cruelty to animals and without outlining it carefully in the legislation, we may find that it will lead to difficulties in different industries in the future.

(1145)

My constituents still are part of the trapping industry. My constituents utilize animals in a modern fashion. When I look back through the history of trapping, humane traps were designed by trappers in response to their understanding of the nature of cruelty to animals. That is admirable. The industry looks at how it conducts business and regulates itself to a great degree. The understanding of the nature of that can lie with the industry very well.

In my own home community of Fort Smith, the Conibear trap was originally developed by a trapper who worked for many years in the bush. He saw how leghold traps worked and how effective they were and how the tools they used worked with the animal population they were harvesting.

Those types of issues need understanding in a bill. It is not good enough simply to increase the sentences for the actions of society toward animals. We need to understand how to use the law to make society work better with animals. That requires more than simply raising the penalties in a law that was first enacted in 1892 and virtually has not changed since then.

I do not think that this action today is correct. We need to look at the question in its entirety. Parliamentarians in the past have done that. We have not been able to come to a full consensus in both houses but we have a duty to Canadians to act correctly in this fashion.

Our party's justice critic may have an opportunity to expand on this in further debate. I urge members to consider carefully what is being done here.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by thanking my fellow New Brunswicker, the member for Miramichi, for introducing this important animal protection bill in this House.

The members who spoke before me this morning have clearly described the legal reasons why we have now reached the point where we must take action to improve the protection of animals and prevent cruelty to animals. In fact, this Parliament has expressed that feeling on several occasions in recent years. It did so unsuccessfully, however; it was unable to receive royal assent for a bill that would modernize the rules regarding penalties and the concept of animal protection.

The author of this bill in the other house is Senator Bryden, an eminent legal expert. As the parliamentary secretary said this morning, the senator has worked very hard to build consensus among a number of groups, around this bill and around the serious need to expand and strengthen the penalties available to judges when someone is convicted under the cruelty to animals provisions of the Criminal Code.

I have supported other bills in the past, like those introduced by my government at the time, to modernize the animal protection provisions of the Criminal Code. As other members, including the member for Hochelaga, have mentioned, those bills were not adopted or given royal assent before an election intervened or before the term of a Parliament ended.

Our colleague in the other house, the author of this bill, rightly decided that there was one aspect of the subject on which there was significant consensus: the need to increase the punishment, to expand the tools available to judges and prosecutors for sentencing someone who breaks the law or dealing with someone who has been convicted of violating these provisions of the Criminal Code.

In the past, other bills may have been too ambitious. As my colleagues have said, that does not mean that Bill S-213, which is now before this House, should not pass just because we are waiting for some more comprehensive reform in the future.

It is my opinion that if this House decides to support this bill today, that is a very good start. It is an acknowledgement, and a clear message to prosecutors, judges and the police, stating that this Parliament believes in animal protection and has sent a message against cruelty to animals in all its forms.

However, we recognize the need for balance. I believe the member for Hochelaga talked about balance.

In rural regions like mine, there are hunters, commercial fishers, recreational fishers and farmers. There are also people belonging to first nations. It is my privilege to represent in this House a first nations community, the Mi'kmaq. They have a long-standing tradition of using animals for perfectly legitimate purposes. These ways of using animals do not constitute animal cruelty at all. Moreover, for many people, this is also a research-related issue. We have made major progress in medicine because researchers have used animals in their research. I think that balance is essential in this respect as well.

These cases do not constitute animal cruelty in the same sense as the examples my colleague from Wild Rose brought up when he asked the member for Miramichi a question. Those were examples of abhorrent behaviour. I think there is consensus in this Parliament—at least I hope there is—that the sentencing regime in the Criminal Code must finally be modernized.

(1150)

I was very pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary support this bill on behalf of the government. As all members are well aware, striving for perfection can sometimes prevent us from doing what is achievable.

(1155)

[English]

This morning colleagues have described some of the very important technical reasons that Bill S-213 merits adoption by this House. The other place has studied this question extensively. Senator Bryden from New Brunswick has done an outstanding job at building consensus around one element that received not much objection, which is the issue of modernizing the sentencing regime.

Bill S-213 in a very compelling way sets up a system of hybrid offences. This is a long-standing tradition in criminal law where prosecutors can decide based on all the circumstances of the case if in fact the offence is one of deliberate cruelty to animals and would obviously require a more severe sanction than perhaps might one of neglect. By allowing prosecutors to proceed by way of indictment as a more serious criminal offence with much more serious prison sentences attached to a conviction under indictment, Parliament sends a very compelling message to those who might seek to abuse animals either by committing an act that the courts hold to have been an abuse or cruelty to animals or those who may neglect animals and fail to provide the essentials which, in turn, also are offences under the Criminal Code and appropriately should be.

Colleagues should think carefully before seeking to achieve a more global reform of the legislation with respect to cruelty to animals and miss the opportunity before us today to modernize in a very important way the sentencing regime. This can be a very good first step toward perhaps finding at some future point another balance in terms of other bills that may come before the House. A great deal of work has gone into this.

[Translation]

Discussions lasted a long time, especially in the other place. A consensus was reached and I urge my colleagues to review the list of organizations across the country that support this bill. These groups represent, among others, urban communities, hunters, researchers and veterinarians.

I know that my time is running out, so in closing, I would like to congratulate the member for Miramichi, who took the initiative to introduce Bill S-213 in this House. I would ask my colleagues to acknowledge the work that has been done to find balance on this issue and to recognize, as I do, that this is an excellent first step that will modernize the animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

The hon. member for Wild Rose will have 10 minutes, of which five minutes are today.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I will cut my speech short today and try to cover a couple of points that I think were missed in the discussion this morning.

First, in response to my Liberal friend who just spoke, we have a history of owners of operations such as puppy mills who pay a $2,000 fine, relocate their operations and continue on with their mills.

There are two things I like about the bill. First, it increases the penalty for those kinds of operations. The second is the prohibition. They are ordered never to engage in that activity again. The ownership of animals should not be any part of their privileges.

The bill has a lot of good things in it that need to be moved forward. Is there room for improvement? Possibly so, but in order to get the improvement, this needs to pass second reading and get to committee. We need to listen to the witnesses and testimonies before committee, and if it can be improved, that is the time to do it.

The NDP would simply reject the bill and say that the status quo is good enough. However, the status quo is not good enough for Canadian people, of whom I am aware. They want to see some serious changes. If we reject Bill S-213, then the status quo will remain in effect for quite some time.

The bills that were previously mentioned would be forever getting to the House. We are operating under a minority government, never knowing when an election is going to be called and whether a bill is going to die. I would like to see this bill passed before any election occurs, and not have it die on the order paper. We have to show society that we are serious about doing something on these issues.

The one major thing we missed in all the speeches is the fact that studies have shown that a high majority of individuals sitting in penitentiaries today because they have violently attacked human beings, young children in particular, have a background of animal abuse prior to their convictions for these kinds of other violent crimes. There seems to be a connection.

If we keep that in mind, maybe we can realize the importance of getting the bill through the House and getting it approved as quickly as possible so we can try our very best to break that connection with increased penalties, more severe punishment and prohibition.

Any individual who mistreats an animal, as in some of the cases of which I have most recently been made aware, should not be allowed to own another animal for the rest of his or her life. We do that for many other kinds of crimes. In particular, I think of guns. If people misuse guns, there is a very good chance they will never own another one. It should be the same thing for pets or other animals.

There is also a myth out there that this will not cover wildlife and stray animals. They are already fully protected in the Criminal Code. However, we need are courts, adjudicators and Crown prosecutors who are willing to push the envelope when these things, these individuals, get to court. We need them to say loudly and clearly that the activities they have engaged in are unacceptable in this society and that they will pay dearly for their crimes.

I listened to the Bloc member who talked about the SPCA taking possession of animals when there was misuse. We have to be very careful. Not too long ago, I reported on a case in my riding of a farmer who took a culled cow to the market. He was charged because the cow had cancer eye. He spent $17,000 of his own money to fight it in court. He could have paid a $1,000 fine and not go to court, but on principle, he took it to court and won the case. Those kinds of incidents have to stop.

(1200)

Let us get the bill to committee. We have to hear witnesses and have them testify as to what they would like to see in changes and amendments. Then we can move on with what I think is one of the most important issues of this year.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

When Bill S-213 returns to the House, there will be five minutes left for the hon. member for Wild Rose.

Orders of the Day

[Statutory Order]

* * *

[English]

Anti-terrorism Act

The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to make some brief remarks. I have only 10 minutes to speak to the Anti-terrorism Act, which was passed by the House. I do not think a single member of Parliament would disagree that at the time we were in a climate of considerable fear and apprehension.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. He has provided astounding leadership around the issues with which we have been grappling ever since.

Members who have been following the anti-terrorism debate in the House will know that my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh has filed a minority report in relation to the two issues principally before us now, those sections of the Anti-terrorism Act that pertain to investigations and preventive arrests.

It will surprise no one that I am in absolute agreement with my colleague, the justice critic for the New Democratic party. In fact, all my colleagues stand together to oppose what we think remain provisions of the act that were clearly recognized at the time to be out of balance with what was necessary to achieve, weighing off security demands against civil liberties and human rights.

The fact that the government is not prepared to allow the sunset clause to apply to these two provisions is a clear and an alarming signal that it has not learned the lessons, lessons well learned by a great many Canadians at a grave expense and a tremendous cost to those victims of the overzealousness of some of these provisions.

No one has said this better than the NDP justice critic. Terrorism cannot be fought with legislation. It must be fought through the efforts of intelligent services, combined with appropriate police action. There is no act of terrorism that is not already a criminal offence, punishable by the most stringent penalties under the Criminal Code. This is obviously the case for premeditated, cold blooded murders. However, it is also true for the destruction of major infrastructures.

It is very much the view of the NDP that if in any respect the Criminal Code is lacking, the legislation is insufficient to deal with the threat of terrorism, then this can be amended. If the police do not have the full legal means needed to deal with terrorism threats, then that legislation should be amended. No one has brought forward the amendments that would address this in the Criminal Code.

In our view, the lessons of post 9/11 absolutely lead to the position we have taken today, and that is we have to learn those lessons and apply them. This means we should let those two overzealous measures expire as the sunset clause indicated.

As we began the debate on the legislation, there was a truly superb coalition effort of Quebec Muslim and Arab organizations. They came to the Hill and sought the opportunity to meet with members in all caucuses. I am not sure if they succeeded in doing that. However, it was an excellent experience for the NDP caucus to hear the presentation of that coalition.

I will briefly quote from what is an excellent brief. I want to ensure that it goes into the record. It was one of the most concise and intelligent analyses of the issues we face. The second point in the recommendations brought forward in their analysis of what happened post-9/11 reads:

In Canada, antiterrorism laws...and the applications of the Security Certificates have created a socio-political climate of prejudice fueling Islamophobia and Arabophobia. Canadians and Quebeckers of Muslim faith or Arab heritage are singled out as a threat to national security which is affecting their rights and liberties.

(1205)

If anyone questions whether that is an accurate description of what has happened to a great many Canadian Muslims and Canadian Arabs post-9/11, simply look back on the disgraceful question period that took place last week. At the sheer mention of the anti-terrorism provisions subject to the sunset clause, the Prime Minister stood in and by reference, by innuendo, spoke about a family member of a member of the House in terms of him being a candidate to come before the secret investigations.

Nothing could more stringently underline why the sunset clause should apply to those investigations. Instead of the Prime Minister creating such innuendoes, he should have been asking, if he has learned any lessons at all about RCMP leaks, why these leaks about someone who may or may not appear before a secret investigation were being given to the public? Why would the Prime Minister participate in referencing what had to be leaks coming from the RCMP? I hope members of the House will reflect on lessons that need to be learned.

I want to briefly quote from the final words of Maher Arar, which he shared with an audience of people across political party lines. However, it was a grave disappointment that only the leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister, chose not to attend the event. The other party leaders were there. Also a large number of representatives from the other caucuses were there, except the government caucus. This again leads us to believe the government has not learned the lessons of the overzealousness post-9/11.

Here are the words of Maher Arar on that evening of tribute to Monia Mazigh and Maher Arar for the work that they had done for Canadians around the issue of the appropriate balance between security and civil liberties:

—I want to remind you that our rights and freedoms are an inheritance, paid for dearly by countless others before us who saw or experienced injustice, and fought it, often not for themselves, but for those who would come after them. We need to respect this inheritance for its value to us and to our children, as well as for the price others paid for it.

Finally, there was a truly superb address given at the outset of that evening. It was a very fine, insightful, scholarly address by Dr. Tyseer Aboulnasr, who said in part:

Friends, let us never forget that nations are not judged by the laws they write up and lock up in libraries, nations are judged by how they act at times when their dedication to these laws are truly tested. Every country that has chosen to sacrifice the liberties of its citizens and hold them in shackles has done that out of belief that this is necessary for its security. We, Canadians, know better. We know that security without liberty is simply imprisonment. Nothing is more secure than a maximum security prison. We deserve better. We cannot let Canada turn into a maximum security prison by imprisoning one Canadian without the presumption of innocence till proven guilty and without the full opportunity to defend themselves.

For that reason I was genuinely shocked. The day after this superb speech was made in tribute to Maher Arar and Monia Mazigh, the former solicitor general, under the Liberal government, stood in the House in answer to a question I raised. He said that as far as he was concerned we had achieved exactly the right balance between security and civil liberties in the post-9/11 era.

I respectfully disagree with him and I urge members to see the wisdom of letting the sunset clause of these two overzealous measures take effect. They are covered in the Criminal Code and can deal with future threats of terrorism, which we all take very seriously.

(1215)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the government's motion relating to extending certain clauses of the Anti-terrorism Act that are subject to sunset at the end of this month.

The Liberal opposition has thought long and hard on this issue. This party, while in government, introduced the Anti-terrorism Act and this House passed certain provisions subject to a five year sunset which we are considering in the House today.

The position of my party is clear. These provisions providing for preventive arrest and investigative hearings should sunset and they should sunset because they are flawed.

The Commons committee and the committee in another House that reviewed these provisions believed that while some of the provisions are worthwhile they were seriously flawed. The committees had made extensive recommendations on how to address these flaws, how to ensure they better contribute to our public safety and how to better safeguard against the potential abuse of human rights.

[Translation]

The Liberal Party is proud of its record on defence and public safety, and I want to stress that this record is in line with civil liberties.

[English]

The point is that government has ignored the recommendations of the House and Senate committees. The government has failed to present to this House clear proposals to extend these provisions in a modified form which take into account the concerns of parliamentarians.

[Translation]

In fact, the government has not formally engaged the opposition in any way. It has not submitted any proposals to us. We have known since last October that Canada's Anti-terrorism Act needed a complete review. The government has done nothing.

[English]

This has presented the House and the country with an up or down choice. The government seeks to present all parties in Parliament with the following choice: vote to extend these provisions or risk being labelled as soft on terror.

Let me be clear. This party has never been soft on terror. As the leader of my party has repeatedly stated, if the government presented this House with clear proposals to redraft the anti-terrorist legislation to take into account the sensible suggestions made by the House and the Senate committees, the official opposition would act expeditiously and responsibly.

To repeat, the party has never been soft on terror. The House knows and the government knows that after the attacks of 9/11 the Liberal government acted decisively and we will always do so.

[Translation]

The Liberal government at the time also knew something else: measures that may be necessary in an emergency must always be reviewed once the danger has abated. That is why the original legislation included sunset clauses so that, once the immediate danger had passed, Parliament could calmly assess whether those measures should be renewed and, if so, how.

[English]

This is where we are today or where we ought to be if this country were led by a responsible government. If this country were led by a government that said, “We are in a minority position in this House. Let us reach out to the opposition. Let us listen to what the committees of the House and the committees in another chamber said. Let us come back with revisions to the legislation that better balance security and liberty”, we would have responded positively. Instead, in the government everything is political. Everything is an opportunity to jam the opposition.

That is fair enough. We are all politicians in the House, but there are some issues on which we should try to put politics aside and put the security of our country first.

Hon. John Baird: I was reading a book of yours. It didn't say that.

Mr. Michael Ignatieff: Now, now. I do not believe the hon. member has read my words correctly, but I continue.

The government has alleged that it is the opposition that is playing politics and is endangering national security by voting to sunset these clauses. However, it well knows that these clauses have not been used once in the entire time they have been on the statute books. The case that we are endangering public safety by our actions is fanciful.

Here we do come to material that I have considered in my previous work. Abridgments of civil liberties can be justified but only if public safety absolutely requires it and then only under strict conditions. If this is the test, the clauses should sunset because they have not proven absolutely necessary to the public safety. The government, in essence, has not proven its case, and, on these questions where our liberties are at stake, the government must prove the case of public necessity beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Sunset clauses are placed in legislation precisely to ensure that temporary and emergency provisions of the law enacted to cope with special circumstances do not anchor themselves permanently in our law and, by so doing, begin moving the equilibrium of the law away from where it should always be: balancing security and liberty, public order and individual freedom.

If we renew these clauses as the government proposes, we risk moving that plumb line of the law. Temporary measures will become permanent and what becomes permanent will become unbalanced. The law will begin to privilege security at the expense of freedom, to the eventual detriment of us all.

Let me go further. If we consider the ruling of the Supreme Court last Friday on the security certificate provisions of the Immigration Act and if we further consider the reports of the parliamentary committees, both in this House and in another place, it is clear that the entire anti-terrorist architecture on the statute books needs comprehensive revision.

(1220)

[Translation]

That is the main challenge that this government, which has been in power now for 13 months, has refused to face. The Conservatives may say that they need more time, but they have had plenty of time. The parliamentary committee in charge of reviewing the sunset clauses submitted its report last October, five months ago. Has the government been asleep since then?

[English]

The foundations were well laid but the building needs revision, that is the point.

While the government was slumbering, the parliamentary committee made recommendations on the investigative hearing provisions to give authorities the powers they need to protect us against forthcoming threats. The government has thus far failed to take into account the conclusions of that committee.

For preventive detention, the other sunset clause at issue in this debate, members of the parliamentary committee pointed out that section 495 of the Criminal Code already gives the police the authority to arrest without warrant a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes is about to commit an indictable offence. This power is already in the criminal law of Canada and the additional powers sought in preventive detention are, in our judgment, strictly unnecessary.

If such powers exist in the criminal law, the government will need to prove, and it has failed to do so, that the preventive arrest provisions of the ATA have the overriding necessity that it claims.

That is the issue here. A free society can contemplate limited abridgments of the civil liberties of citizens only if the government offers clear public justification in Parliament of its case. It has failed to do so. These clauses must sunset and then the government should come back with redrafted measures and a case to justify them to the House and to the people. Should the government bring back measures that meet the test of public necessity and demonstrate that it has listened to the considered opinions of the committee of the House and the Senate, the opposition will respond.

[Translation]

The government needs to do more than just repair these defective clauses. It needs to give serious consideration to the opinions expressed by the honourable members of the Senate in the recent report entitled “Fundamental Justice in Extraordinary Times”.

[English]

This report makes my point. The entire architecture of Canada's anti-terrorism laws require substantial amendment. The foundations laid by the Liberal government are sound but there is room for substantial change if Canadians are to remain safe and have their liberties secure.

The report in the Senate, for example, recommends removal of the motive requirement from the Criminal Code definition of terrorist activity. It also recommends removing the reference to political, religious or ideological objectives from the definition of threats to security to Canada. All this, if done by a careful government, would provide greater protection for the free expression of opinion in Canada and prevent religious or racial profiling in Canada's anti-terrorist policy.

[Translation]

Without committing itself in advance to any specific initiative in this area, the opposition urges the government to listen to these suggestions and come back to this House with legislative amendments that meet public safety objectives while providing greater protection for Canada's minorities against religious and racial profiling.

(1225)

[English]

In this and other areas, the report of the other house makes a convincing case. It states that our laws and policies to prevent and combat terrorism should be reformed to better reflect the objective of ensuring the security of Canadians while protecting the civil liberties that are the basis of our democratic society.

Why will the government not react positively to the sober second thought offered by the other chamber to Canada's anti-terrorism laws? Why will it not come to the House with proposals that reflect in detail these sensible recommendations? Why is it presenting members with a false, up or down, black or white choice to sunset or not to sunset? Sunset or not to sunset is not the question. Why has the government waited six months to take action to fix Canada's legislative framework on anti-terrorism? Why has the government, and it is a minority government after all, failed to reach out to the opposition and work with them to amend the laws we need to protect our citizens? Why has it decided that it is in its interest to jam the opposition rather than to serve the people?

I leave it to the other side to answer those questions but I would suggest that the answers tell us much about the character of the government and the character of the hon. member who leads it. For the government, politics comes first and good public policy comes a very distant last. Canadians deserve better.

[Translation]

The government has had plenty of time to review and improve these clauses, but it has done nothing. As a result, the sunset clauses will expire, if that is the will of this House. Once that happens, the government, which could have avoided that situation at any point in the past six months, will have to repair the damage it will have done itself. If it comes back to this House with reasonable measures that meet the test of public necessity, that protect the public while protecting civil liberties, the official opposition will be ready to do its duty constructively.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be clear right from the outset that the Anti-terrorism Act was tabled by a Liberal dominated House of Commons at the time. The act as it stands demands that an unamendable motion be laid before Parliament.

We are not here to debate a whole new bill. We are here to debate whether or not to renew the act due to the sunset clause for another three years.

The Liberals are under tremendous pressure. We are talking about the safety of Canadian citizens against terrorism. Former Liberal ministers have spoken against the current Liberal position; Anne McLellan and John Manley are two of them. The B.C solicitor general has also spoken against the Liberal position as it stands right now.

The families of the victims of the Air-India tragedy, one of the largest and most tragic terrorist events ever brought against Canada are asking the Liberals to reconsider their position on the Anti-terrorism Act.

Of course there is the Senate committee report which was released just last week which is asking the Liberals to reconsider their position and to act in the best interest of Canadians.

These are a lot of different groups, different in the sense that they do not necessarily have links between them. They are all asking the Liberal Party to reconsider its position because they know that the Liberal position is against the best interest of Canadians.

How would my colleague respond to that, especially to Canadians?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff:

Mr. Speaker, the issue is relatively simple. The sunset clause issue cannot be seen apart from the flaws in the anti-terrorist legislation in general.

The remarks that I made to the House were that the parliamentary committee and the Senate committee have said that we can renew these provisions only if there are substantial revisions to the provisions themselves and if there are revisions to other aspects of the anti-terrorist legislation. It is that duty to introduce companion legislation where the government has failed, presenting the House with a false up or down choice on sunset which neglects the wider context of legislative change that simply has to be made if Canada is to be adequately protected.

The other side of the House is presenting this as a choice between those who are soft on terror or tough on terror, which is an entirely false issue. This side of the House is prepared to work constructively with the other side of the House to put a comprehensive piece of legislation together that addresses the flaws that two parliamentary committees have now indicated very clearly.

We cannot in conscience vote to not sunset clauses. What would happen is that the entire architecture of the anti-terrorist legislation would lumber forward into the future encumbered with all these defects. Now is the time to act, and the government should act.

(1230)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore the following question. Are there provisions other than those set out in the Anti-terrorism Act for preventing a terrorist plot in the works? How effective would these provisions be? Is it possible, among other things, to keep an arrested person in prison because they were plotting a terrorist act?

Could he also tell us what abuse he thinks there might be of these provisions, which would require persons arrested under the Anti-terrorism Act to sign a recognizance in order to be released, rather than be sent to jail. How could this be abused?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff:

Mr. Speaker, it is with some hesitation that I will answer this question.

I will simply say that the Supreme Court ruled on these issues last week. In its decision, the court stated that it is possible to detain a person preventively, but that person's rights must be protected.

According to the Supreme Court's decision, our system for protecting the rights of these individuals is obviously not good enough. We must make some changes. It pointed out the dangers. There are some individuals who have been held for six years in an irregular situation. The Supreme Court is trying to fix this situation, which is part of a larger problem. Our country's anti-terrorist architecture is flawed, and there are problems we must solve with new legislation.

I hope the member from the Bloc will support the other opposition parties in pressuring the government to take responsibility and fix these flaws.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the Liberal leader in waiting. Before he becomes Liberal leader, I think it is incumbent upon him to understand how Parliament works and how things have to go forward.

There is no question that the Liberals brought this legislation forward. They put a number of provisions and requirements in the legislation, including the fact that a single unamendable resolution be laid before Parliament and members had to say yea or nay.

He talked about negotiations and about the opportunity for the Liberals to have their say to make changes to the legislation. There is no provision for that according to the bill that was brought forward by the previous Liberal government. The Liberals simply have a responsibility to either stand with Canadians and protect them or to tell Canadians that their security and their safety do not matter. The future Liberal leader should make it clear to Canadians whether or not he supports the security of Canadians.

He talked about the Liberals not wanting to politicize this. The Liberals had the opportunity to delay this from happening and negotiate some type of an agreement, but they failed to do that. They have decided to proceed with politics and put the security of Canadians on the line.

(1235)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff:

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite introduced a number of entirely irrelevant considerations. I am struggling to winnow out the elements of his contribution that are irrelevant and focus solely on those that are relevant.

I would simply make the observation that the sunset clause issue has to be seen in the context of an anti-terrorist legislation whose foundations are solid because they were created by the previous Liberal government and commanded the assent of both sides of the House. As we have lived with these provisions over five years, it has become apparent both to the parliamentary committee and to members of my colleague's own party that there are substantial defects in this legislation that need to be addressed.

The government has had six months, since October, since the parliamentary committee reported, to come back to the House with legislation. A responsible government would have come back to the House with legislation that would have addressed in a comprehensive form the defects this legislation faces. Then we would not be put in the false position of sunset or not to sunset.

The key point here is that even those who support the renewal of these clauses are troubled by some of their implications, troubled by their potential operation. A responsible government would deal with these problems and solve them.

Instead, we have been put in a situation which seems to me not to serve the public interest. In my judgment, the public interest should be served by a comprehensive review of this legislation. As I have said already several times, and the leader of my party has said many times, we would be prepared to respond positively to that initiative.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the ongoing debate concerning provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act subject to sunsetting, I felt it my duty to rise in the House to set the record straight. I ask all hon. members to listen with an open mind on what is unquestionably a matter of critical importance to our collective safety.

When speaking about these powers, investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions, we must work by way of comparison to the anti-terrorism powers of other democratic states. They will clearly show that restraint is built into the scope of their application. Let me first discuss the investigative hearing procedure.

The United States has a grand jury system. The grand jury wields significant powers not shared by other investigative agencies. The federal grand jury may compel the cooperation of persons who may have information relevant to the matters it is investigating. Any person may be subpoenaed to appear and testify under oath before a grand jury. If individuals who are subpoenaed fail to appear or refuse to answer questions, they may be held in contempt absent a valid claim of privilege.

The grand jury may subpoena the owner of documents or other evidence to present them to the grand jury, on pain of contempt, absent a valid claim of privilege. If a witness or the custodian of a document asserts a valid privilege, he or she may be provided with use and derivative use immunity and then be required to comply with a subpoena to testify or produce evidence.

The U.S. Patriot Act represented a marked departure from past changes to grand jury secrecy rules. The act permits disclosure without court order to a list of federal agencies with duties unrelated to law enforcement. Although the material disclosed must relate to foreign intelligence or counter-intelligence, the Patriot Act defines those terms with considerable breadth. I would add that there are also equivalent investigative hearing provisions in Australia and South Africa.

By contrast, in the United Kingdom the onus is on the person having relevant information relating to terrorism to disclose the information to the police. A person who fails to disclose to the police information which he or she knows or believes might be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism is guilty of an offence and liable to punishment of up to five years' imprisonment.

Let me now turn to the recognizance with conditions power. In Canada the use of the recognizance with conditions provision is dependent on reasonable grounds to believe that a specific terrorist activity will be committed in addition to a reasonable suspicion that the imposition of a recognizance is necessary. Arrest without warrant is limited in scope where, for example, there are exigent circumstances and if the person is detained, the period of detention is limited, generally up to a maximum of 72 hours before the hearing takes place. If the person refuses to enter into the recognizance with conditions, he or she may be jailed for a term not exceeding one year.

Compare the scope of this provision to some of those found in the U.K. In the U.K. the police may arrest without warrant a person whom he or she reasonably suspects is a terrorist. This differs from normal arrest powers in that there is no need for there to be any specific offence in the mind of the arresting officer, thereby allowing for wider discretion in carrying out investigations. The maximum period of time that a person could be held in detention without charge under this power has been extended since 2000 from 7 days to 14 days, to the current 28 days.

There are other powers as well given to the police in the U.K. For example, under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a constable in uniform, having received an authorization from a police officer having at least the rank of assistant chief constable, may stop a vehicle in the place set out in the authorization and search the vehicle, driver or passenger. It also extends to a pedestrian or anything carried by him or her in the area. The senior official may issue the authorization if it is considered expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.

The police are required to inform the secretary of state of the authorization as soon as is reasonably practicable, and to continue, it must be confirmed within 48 hours. An authorization may be up to 28 days and can be renewed.

As well, the U.K. also put in place in 2005 a system of control orders which may be imposed on a person to prevent terrorist attacks. These orders can be imposed on citizens and non-citizens alike. There are two kinds of control orders that may be imposed: those which do not derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights, and those which do derogate from the convention. The latter would arguably apply in cases of house arrest. Some of these control orders have been challenged in the lower courts and their lawfulness will ultimately be decided by the House of Lords.

(1240)

In Australia, legislation has been enacted creating a system of control orders and preventative arrests of terrorist suspects. With regard to preventative detention, the Australian federal police may apply for an order for preventative detention of a terrorist suspect where there has been a terrorist act or where a terrorist act is imminent.

However, the period of preventative detention is limited to 48 hours. In contrast, and in addition, many Australian states and territories have enacted legislation allowing preventative detention for up to 14 days.

Given this comparison, I would suggest that far from being blunt instruments, these provisions in the Anti-terrorism Act designed to prevent terrorism are modest in scope and finely tuned to their purpose.

At this time, I would like to turn to another major issue that has been raised by opposition parties in deciding, to date, to oppose the recognizance with conditions provision found in section 83.3 of the Criminal Code.

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has argued that the recognizance with conditions power is not needed because paragraph 495(1)(a) of the Criminal Code has long provided a peace officer with the power to arrest without warrant a person whom he or she believes is about to commit an indictable offence.

It has been further argued that in such a case the person can be brought before a judge and released on recognizance with conditions. The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has also contended that the recognizance with conditions power under the ATA is very different in nature from the peace bond process found in section 810 of the Criminal Code and has very different consequences.

He has argued that in his experience section 810 is often used with regard to apprehended domestic violence or stalking rejected lovers. In contrast, in his view, the recognizance with conditions under the Anti-terrorism Act can catch innocent people who may not be aware of the reasons for which terrorists are soliciting their aid.

He also states that under section 810 a person is subject to a summons to come before a judge and is not arrested, and that the judge cannot commit the person to a prison term unless the person refuses to sign the recognizance after listening to all the parties and being satisfied by the evidence educed that there are reasonable grounds for the fears.

Allow me to reply to these arguments in turn. There are a number of differences between section 495 of the Criminal Code and the provisions setting out the recognizance with conditions contained in the Anti-terrorism Act.

Paragraph 495(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, in part, sets out the power of a peace officer to arrest without warrant a person who is reasonably believed to be about to commit an indictable offence; that is, a serious crime.

The recognizance with conditions provision in the ATA requires, first, that a peace officer have reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity will be committed and suspects on reasonable grounds that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person is necessary to prevent a terrorist activity.

In short, under the recognizance with conditions provision in the ATA the timeframe allowed for preventive intervention is longer than that provided for in section 495. There is no requirement that the terrorist activity be imminent; namely, about to be committed.

This represents a substantial difference that may, in practice, result in the prevention of terrorist activity and in saving lives.

The relevant arrest without warrant power in section 495 is restricted to those persons who, it is reasonably believed, are about to commit an indictable offence. These individuals, in other words, must be on the verge of committing a serious crime.

The recognizance with conditions provision in section 83.3 of the Criminal Code is not as narrow as section 495. It can apply to anyone who fits the statutory criteria set out in section 83.3 of the Anti-terrorism Act. A peace officer requires reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity will be committed and that the imposition of the recognizance with conditions is necessary to prevent a terrorist activity from being carried out.

For example, while the police may suspect on reasonable grounds that particular individuals have contributed to or been associated with certain terrorist activities, they may not yet have the grounds to arrest these individuals and charge them with having committed a provable crime. In other words, they would not have grounds to arrest without warrant for being about to commit an indictable offence under section 495 of the Criminal Code.

(1245)

They would, however, be able to request a judge to impose a recognizance with conditions under the Anti-terrorism Act and place the person under judicial supervision in an effort to prevent any terrorist activity from actually occurring.

To be fair, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin recognizes that the recognizance with conditions power is broader in scope than section 495 of the Criminal Code. However, he disapproves of this, expressing concern that a person placed under this kind of recognizance with condition can be branded a terrorist without ever being charged with a terrorism offence. He makes an analogy to a robbery about to take place, arguing that police can use section 495 to arrest the accused because he or she is about to commit a crime. The police, he says, can do the same with regard to a terrorist activity being planned.

This argument ignores the fundamental difference between terrorism and other forms of serious crimes, including organized crime. In this regard, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has chosen to disregard the advice given to him by Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of the U.K.'s anti-terrorism legislation, who was questioned by the House subcommittee in November 2005.

In response to a suggestion from the hon. member that terrorist investigations are quite similar to those which must be undertaken into organized crime, Lord Carlile disagreed. He said:

With organized crime, it is often possible for the police investigating that crime to leave arrest until very late. Indeed, for example, there was a huge robbery at London Heathrow Airport a couple of years ago—I was involved in the case for a time professionally—in which they allowed the robbery to take place, and they arrested the robbers whilst they were committing the robbery, with the result that in the end most of them pleaded guilty. You can't run that risk with terrorism.

I could point to a number of operations, if I were able to describe them in detail, in which the police and the security services in the United Kingdom have felt they had to intervene very early because of the risk of frightened or nervous terrorists trying to bring an act to fruition much earlier than was originally intended. This means that a great deal of the evidence gathering has to take place after what is sometimes regarded as a premature arrest.

This reality of the need to intervene at an early stage to disrupt and deter a potential terrorist activity in its nascent stages lies at the heart of the difference between the recognizance with conditions in the Criminal Code and section 495 which, while appropriate for regular crime, including organized crime, is not adequate in order to prevent acts of terrorism most effectively.

Let us carefully examine the differences between section 810 of the Criminal Code from the recognizance with conditions power under the Anti-terrorism Act.

First, under the recognizance with conditions in the Anti-terrorism Act, as in section 810, a judge may issue a summons to a person to appear. The general rule is that a peace officer must lay information before a judge and have the judge compel the person to attend before him to determine if a recognizance with conditions should be imposed.

The arrest without warrant in section 83.3 is very limited in scope. It applies only where exigent circumstances make it impracticable to lay the information, or where a summons has been issued for the person to appear and the peace officer suspects unreasonable grounds that the detention of the person is necessary to prevent a terrorist activity from taking place. This is in sharp contrast with section 495, which is exclusively an arrest without warrant power.

Second, under the recognizance with conditions power in the Anti-terrorism Act, as in section 810, if the person signs the recognizance and abides by the conditions, he or she remains at liberty and will not be sentenced or have a criminal record.

Third, the suggestion has been made that the section 810 peace bond process deals only with cases of domestic assault or stocking that do not really rise to the high level of harm or notoriety that terrorism does.

It should be noted, however, that peace bonds in the Criminal Code can also apply in respect of other serious criminal conduct, such as the cases of fear on reasonable grounds that a person will commit a criminal organization offence. A person placed under a peace bond in these circumstances is also not guilty of any offence, and yet is placed under a severe stigma without necessarily being found guilty of any crime.

Finally, I would point out an important difference between the peace bond set out in section 810 and the recognizance with conditions power in the Anti-terrorism Act. Unlike the section 810 peace bond, the recognizance with conditions under the Criminal Code cannot be used unless the relevant attorney general consents to information being laid by a peace officer before a judge, and this applies in all cases.

(1250)

This is a key and important safeguard that is curiously not mentioned by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

For the benefit of all members of the House, let me summarize the major safeguards found in the recognizance with conditions provision found in the Anti-terrorism Act.

First, the consent of the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general or solicitor general of the province is required.

Second, a peace officer has limited power to arrest a person without warrant in order to bring him or her before a judge, such as in exigent circumstances.

Third, a peace officer who detains a person must either lay information with the consent of the relevant attorney general or release the person.

Fourth, in order to lay information, a person detained in custody must be brought before a provincial court judge without unreasonable delay, and in any event within 24 hours of arrest or as soon as possible thereafter if a judge is unavailable.

Fifth, only if the judge is convinced that the necessary reasonable grounds exist, may the judge order that the person enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and to comply with any other reasonable conditions for a period of 12 months. Only if the person refuses or fails to enter into the recognizance can the person be committed to prison.

A person subject to a recognizance has the right to apply to vary the conditions under the recognizance order.

Finally, federal and provincial attorneys general are required to report annually on most uses of this power. The Minister of Public Safety and ministers responsible for policing in the provinces are required to report annually on the arrest without warrant power.

Given these safeguards, it is apparent that this provision has numerous safeguards to prevent possible abuse.

Let me end by imploring the members opposite to consider the words of Lord Carlile of Berriew. Yes, there is a difference between organized crime and terrorism. The threat of mass murder is different from the threat of individual violence.

We need to have the tools to prevent these attacks at their nascent stages, not just when the crime is about to be committed, for to wait is to endanger the lives of those we wish to protect. It is a time for foresight, and foresight demands that these provisions be extended.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would nevertheless like to point out that these provisions have never been used in the past five years. I would like to remind the hon. member who spoke before me that the offence of conspiracy also exists. Conspiracy is an agreement between two people to commit an indictable offence. I do not see how the police can believe they should arrest an individual if they do not have any information to indicate that that individual has demonstrated, in one way or another, their intention to commit a terrorist act. When an individual has discussed such an act with someone else, or when they have begun preparations, only then has a conspiracy offence been committed and the police can arrest a suspect, bring that individual before a judge and charge them with conspiracy. The judge can even refuse bail if they believe that the plans are advanced or are dangerous.

Lord Carlisle tells us that we should not allow terrorist acts to be committed. However, it also seems to me that, if we use the conspiracy charge to bring a suspect before a judge, we interrupt the terrorist activity the same as if we bring that individual before a judge to enter into a recognizance.

How would the hon. member react if his son or one of his friends had met terrorists at school or university and had contact with them without knowing they were terrorists? How would he react if authorities concluded—as it was concluded in the Maher Arar case—that he was likely a terrorist and ordered to enter into a peace bond, because there was evidence and grounds to believe, given those meetings, that he may have been part of a terrorist plot? Does the hon. member think that his son could later travel to the United States or even keep his job?

(1255)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux:

Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question regarding the point about how these powers appear not to have been used in the last five years and whether we really need them, just because they have not been used does not mean they are not important and that they will not need to be used in the next three years. I would like to point out as well that the member's very question undermines the position of the Liberal Party, in that it shows that great restraint is used by peace officers in actually applying the provisions we are talking about under this Anti-terrorism Act.

Second, the member asks about my son or daughter and how I would like it and so on. The provisions contained within the Anti-terrorism Act are constitutional. In 2004, in a reference related to the Air-India prosecution, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of these provisions. That is important to know.

Third, these provisions are used only under the most dire of circumstances. At the end of my speech, I read out for members the conditions that must apply and pointed out the caution that is taken before applying these two provisions. If somebody meets the circumstances of those provisions, then yes, these provisions should be brought against them, and if not, then they would not be. I think we have seen that in the lack of use of these provisions over the last five years.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for his work on this and many issues in making Canada truly a safer place for every Canadian and in ensuring that we have the tools necessary to keep Canadians safe.

Earlier I questioned the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore about this whole issue. He talked about bringing a resolution forward to amend the bill. I would like to ask the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell if it is his understanding that a resolution could amend this bill to include all the things that the Liberals want included. The Liberals are talking about all kinds of things in regard to changing it. Is it the understanding of the hon. member that a resolution could truly do what the Liberals are asking it to do?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux:

No, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding, and it is common knowledge, that the Anti-terrorism Act that we are debating right now was brought forward by the Liberal-dominated government at that time and passed in Parliament. It was considered important legislation. It was considered well presented legislation as well.

Within the Anti-terrorism Act, it demands that an unamendable motion be laid before Parliament. As I was explaining to the member who spoke just before me, we are not here to discuss completely redoing the Anti-terrorism Act, but within the act is this provision regarding an unamendable motion at the end of the sunset period in order to renew the provisions contained within the Anti-terrorism Act.

What Liberal Party members are doing, of course, is throwing up a smokescreen, one of delay, duck and dodge. They do not want to address this issue head-on. They do not want to act in the best interests of Canadians. They are acting in a very partisan manner. As I also read out for the member previously, they are under tremendous pressure from different organizations across Canada to change their position for the best interests of Canadians.

(1300)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest while the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell was explaining this to the House and particularly to Canadians, because in this House, of course, we are unfortunately beginning to see lines being drawn where lines should not be drawn. By lines being drawn, I mean that parties are taking positions surrounding the Anti-terrorism Act that historically they have not taken. In particular, our Liberal confreres across the way are now displaying what I believe to be an ill-advised stance with regard to the Anti-terrorism Act.

In regard to the act, I would like to ask my hon. friend a question. Why is the government not considering in this motion the changes recommended by the subcommittee? I will repeat that, in this particular motion, because this is a motion that has some procedural mechanisms surrounding it. Perhaps the hon. member would be able to respond to that.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux:

Mr. Speaker, as I explained in my previous response, the Anti-terrorism Act as passed by a Liberal-controlled Parliament at the time demands that an unamendable motion be laid before Parliament, so we are not able to amend the motion.

What we want to do is implement the provisions contained within the Anti-terrorism Act for another three years, in which case there is another sunset clause after three years, and then Parliament will revisit the Anti-terrorism Act to weigh the security of Canadians, the threat of terrorism and the conditions within Canada at that time.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise and speak to this motion. I must say that I feel rather ashamed. I was here in the House in 2001 when we had the debate. I remember very well all the questions raised by the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who was the opposition leader at the time, as well as those of our justice critic, Michel Bellehumeur, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.

We were worried about a number of things. The first was the very definition of terrorism and a terrorist act. I do not want to return to all that because the Supreme Court did not rule on it. The other extremely important questions that we raised had to do with procedural fairness, the right to a full and complete defence, and how best to achieve a laudable objective. We need to remember the situation in 2001 and how concerned we were, especially in view of what had happened in the United States. We know how close the historical bonds have been between Canada and the United States, bonds that led a former Canadian Prime Minister to say of our relationship that geography made us neighbours but history made us friends.

We could not remain unmoved by the collapse of the twin towers and all the information pouring forth about terrorist networks, real or potential. I would like to thank the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, by the way, for all the vigilance he has shown.

The speeches we heard this morning are pretty amazing in some respects. I should say, first, that for me the Liberals and the Conservatives are the same. We need to remember what the Liberals were saying. The Bloc was very clear. Not that we were great seers or prophets, but we did anticipate a few things. Some provisions of the bill that was being introduced, Bill C-36, were obviously incompatible with the basic principles on which our justice system is built.

I remember very well the questions and comments made by the justice minister at the time. They were even more unacceptable in that she was a former professor of constitutional law who had written articles on legal guarantees and procedural fairness, which I had had occasion to read.

The Liberals and Conservatives were animated by a common desire to move as quickly as possible and respond to the emergency because the situation was indeed very worrisome.

I read the Supreme Court ruling from beginning to end. What the Supreme Court told us is that in a democracy, and in a system where the rule of law means something, the end never justifies the means. As parliamentarians, we must respect that. The Conservatives and the Liberals were of one mind; we realize, with hindsight, that their position does not stand up to our most basic principles of justice.

It is demagogy, to some extent, to rise this morning in this House and to make it seem as though there are those who are concerned about the safety of citizens and those who are not. All parliamentarians in this House are concerned about the safety of citizens. However, it may be that, in our work as parliamentarians, we have to propose measures that push the boundaries when it comes to how we perceive the evidence or how we see the process unfolding.

I was in this House when Bill C-95, the first anti-gang bill, was adopted in 1997.

(1305)

The definition of a criminal organization then was: five individuals who, in the past five years, committed offences punishable by more than five years' imprisonment.

At that time, there was also a sense of urgency. However, I would never have thought about rising in this House and voting for this bill, which was to be revised by Bill C-24, if the principal condition of the law had been to deny the accused access to all the evidence. That is the problem with this bill. I am surprised that no government members have noted this fact.

We will have an opportunity to mention this: the Criminal Code does contain mechanisms for preventive detention. First, common law recognizes this principle and the Supreme Court has recognized it several times. We need not go very far. Section 495 of the Criminal Code—if my memory serves me correctly—allows a police officer to arrest, on reasonable grounds, a person he believes has committed or is about to commit an offence.

Later, of course, the individual will have a trial and can be represented. All legal guarantees will be offered and justice will be served the way it should be in an adversarial system, in other words, the public prosecution lays charges and provides evidence and the accused can defend himself or herself. Getting to the truth is what this confrontation should be all about. That is not what is being proposed in the antiterrorist provisions.

We are not against the fact that measures are needed. I am sure that the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin never said anything of the sort. We acknowledge that some individuals may pose a threat to national security. It is true there are terrorist movements.

I remember attending lectures given by researchers from the Raoul Dandurand Chair in strategic and diplomatic studies. We know that terrorist movements have been at work and that they will be in the years to come. We are even told that the largest terrorist movements, which constitute the worst threat to the security of modern states, are those with religious motivations.

We know all that. We are not questioning the fact that in legislation, whether in the Immigration Act or in other legislation, a minister may be asked to review situations where individuals will have to be deemed threats to national security. We recognize that and we agree that in all modern countries, particularly in vast countries and countries where borders are porous, it is acceptable for these provisions to exist.

Nonetheless, there is something quite unbelievable in these provisions. The Supreme Court said that the way in which the antiterrorist provisions are set up, in their wording and the way the courts are called to interpret them, some procedural guarantees are being breached. I will come back to that.

This leads to the following question. Can these terrorist movements be dismantled by using the provisions in sections 83.27, 83.28, 83.29, and 83.3? Why have these provisions not been invoked? Logically speaking, just because they have not been invoked yet does not mean they will not be in the future, but this is nonetheless a measure of their immediate relevance.

Under the existing Criminal Code—as we were reminded—an individual can be arrested without a warrant. It even sets out that in individual can be brought before a judge, compelled to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and prohibited from contacting certain individuals. This is set out in section 810 of the Criminal Code.

(1310)

Section 465 even includes a provision that allows for the arrest of individuals on the basis of conspiracy alone and because there is a risk they will commit acts at a later date. It is not as though we are completely without any other legislative recourse, or as though there is nothing in our existing legislation.

Something is very troubling. While we may not agree on how our political system operates, we cannot deny that there is a recognized tradition of respect for human rights. This includes Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act adopted in 1977 and, more recently, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the National Assembly, in 1982, at the time the Canadian Charter was debated, we did not agree on the management of linguistic rights. Nor did we agree on section 27 pertaining to the enhancement of multicultural heritage. We nevertheless recognize the charter as a tool for the protection of human rights, particularly for judicial guarantees, which, moreover, already exist and were already set out in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. We recognize that it serves as a tool for the promotion and enhancement of human rights.

As legislators, how could we have let ourselves become distracted? The Bloc Québécois cannot be blamed because, based on the recommendation of the leader of the Bloc and our justice critic, we voted unanimously against BIll C-36.

Why did we vote against Bill C-36? Because we did not believe that an individual could receive a fair trial without access to the evidence, especially the most important pieces of evidence, the ones supporting the charges or leading to a guilty verdict. The Supreme Court spoke of “sensitive information”. That was the main problem with the proposed law.

I would like to quote what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said on page 54. A unanimous ruling is significant, after all. In a decision written by Madam Justice McLachlin, the court said:

I therefore conclude that the IRPA's procedure for determining whether a certificate is reasonable does not conform to the principles of fundamental justice as embodied in s. 7 of the Charter.

This is serious. Legislators should be very concerned about this paragraph. I have difficulty understanding the government's obstinate refusal to recognize the proposed law. Of course, the Conservatives were not responsible for creating it; the Liberals were.

I hope that all Parliamentarians in this House will acknowledge that things have been taken too far, that due process is not happening and that even though we have a general duty to protect our fellow citizens, we must have safe communities. Specifically, we must protect our fellow citizens from possible terrorist attacks.

The court will explain what it means by the “principles of fundamental justice” embodied in section 7. This section is well known to us all. It concerns life, liberty and security of the person. The Supreme Court will say that those rights cannot be interfered with. First and foremost, we must ensure an impartial hearing.

The Supreme Court considered the question of the evidence being introduced ex parte, that is, the judge reviews the evidence, but not in the presence of both parties, specifically, defence lawyers for the person named in the certificate.

Is it not troubling to know that a person who does not appear before the judge—a judge who has reviewed the evidence, including the sensitive information—cannot refute that information, cannot correct the facts, cannot explain them, cannot respond to the quality of the information provided and the credibility of the informants?

(1315)

Not only did the Supreme Court say that it was a miscarriage or denial of justice, as must exist for section 7 of the Charter to apply, but it also said that judges hearing the evidence ex parte are placed in a position where they cannot be impartial. Is this not tantamount to asking them to be investigators?

The court said that not allowing a person detained under a certificate to receive all of the evidence and be able to refute, explain and correct it, and to question the source of the evidence infringes section 7.

The court did not say that security certificates are unnecessary. Over the next year, the court invites the legislator to review the way in which certificates are issued. It is interesting to remember that the court gave the United Kingdom as an example. In committee, this was even brought to the attention of parliamentarians. The court even gives Canadian examples where the members of a House of Commons subcommittee, who were hearing from employees of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, were able to respect the security and confidentiality requirements and still carry out their parliamentary work.

The court also has the following observation, and again I will cite Justice McLachlin. Furthermore, no parliamentarian or minister has provided an explanation for this. I hope they will during our exchanges later. Justice McLachlin said, “—Why the drafters of the legislation did not provide for special counsel to objectively review the material with a view to protecting the named person's interest—as was formerly done for the review of security certificates by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, and is presently done in the United Kingdom...has not been explained”.

The United Kingdom has also passed antiterrorist provisions. The court wonders why we did not take the same route. The court proposes a compromise between complete denial of access to sensitive information about the person named in the security certificate and the possible confidential nature of certain information in thwarting terrorist attacks, in other words a procedural fairness requirement, a requirement for respecting basic justice. The court says that if we want to maintain these balances, these powers that have to be balanced between national security, confidentiality of certain information, but also the rights of those who may be charged—who are in fact charged in some cases—then we need access to information. I hope the government will take this into account during the review it has been given one year to do.

In closing, I cannot believe that people were detained for five or six years. I am running out of time. However, we have to remember that different rules apply depending on whether the person is a permanent resident or a foreign national when it comes to a review of detention. A permanent resident gets this review within 48 hours and every six months. A foreign national can be imprisoned for 120 days without ever having their detention reviewed. As the Supreme Court pointed out, this does not make any sense.

I will stop here, but, once again, I believe there is no reason to be proud today of Bill C-36. In my opinion, this House would have been better advised to listen to the Bloc Québécois when it gave these warnings. Fortunately, the Supreme Court was able to take an informed look at this legislation that offends human dignity and the best we can do is to review it.

(1320)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have carefully followed the line of reasoning the member has put forward and I must say that I find it very compelling where he alludes to ex parte orders and the general application of the rule of law where within a reasonable period of time one who is accused for alleged criminal activities has the absolute right to confront those who are making the allegations within a reasonable format.

I realize that this particular legislation balances out the higher interest with those individuals but I do not understand that. I wonder if the member could help the House understand in terms of natural law, the right for a balanced and fair hearing and due process, how this legislation can be charter compliant when the charter has from time to time adjudicated on the rights of individuals under similar circumstances as they are placed on the fulcrum of public debate with respect to the higher community interest.

How, in the member's view, can this legislation be charter compliant? I really have not been able to understand that and perhaps with the background he has he could take the opportunity to outline that for the House.

(1325)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I do not know whether I understood it, but I will try to answer as best I can.

First of all, I believe that the Supreme Court has clearly established that the charter provides the same guarantees, the same protection, whether or not someone is a Canadian citizen, and that that must be applied.

Does this mean that ex parte hearings are incompatible with the charter under any circumstances? No. For example, for fingerprint orders, in some cases of judicial release and in other situations, it is possible to hold a hearing where only one party is present.

However, that is not what we are talking about with regard to anti-terrorism provisions. What we are talking about is the fact that the person named in the certificate never has the opportunity to see all the evidence, especially so-called “sensitive” information.

The individual is not only denied the right to see this evidence, but is not represented. First, this places the judge in an unusual position, and second, the individual's rights are denied. The Supreme Court focussed its analysis on section 7 of the charter. Other provisions were mentioned, such as arbitrary detention and the right to equality under section 15, but the Supreme Court based 80% of its judgment on this point.

This is disturbing. I repeat, what concerns me is that for a legislator, for a democrat, the end never justifies the means. Canada also had and still does have Criminal Code provisions on conspiracy, preventive arrest—section 810—and arrest warrants. All that is possible.

I believe that there was a desire to act quickly and that the government and the official opposition at the time misjudged the situation. The best thing we could do for Canada's reputation with respect to human rights, which has already been marred by the Arar case, would be to correct these provisions.

The Supreme Court itself has proposed solutions. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has also proposed solutions, but I am afraid that this government is so dogmatic and hard-nosed that it is likely to ignore such recommendations. I know what this government thinks of judges, and it is not very reassuring.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, we clearly heard that one of the checks on potential abuses with the application of these sections subject to a sunset clause is the requirement to obtain the authorization of the Attorney General.

Since the appointment of the Attorney General, my colleague for Hochelaga has heard him reply to various questions and participate in certain debates. Is it reassuring for him to know that the Attorney General can deny the sometimes unreasonable requests of the police?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard:

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the Attorney General is quite a respectable person. Some say that he is charming, conciliatory and that he is very committed to being an honourable parliamentarian. However, we must look at the entire relationship that he may have with police forces and the complete respect that he must have for certain procedural guarantees that we are entitled to expect in a state which abides by the rule of law. My colleague is right: I am somewhat concerned.

The ruling has been handed down. It has put the government on notice to correct certain abuses. The Supreme Court identified potential solutions but it has given the government a fair amount of leeway. I hope this government will come to its senses.

To be true to history, I must also say that the government is not solely responsible because, at the time, the government of the day acted just as precipitously.

In reply to my colleague's question, I would say that I am somewhat concerned because I am familiar with the Attorney General's view of the police and judges. I hope that the Conservatives will nevertheless set aside a somewhat unfortunate dogmatism and will put forward solutions that respect the guarantees provided by section 7.

(1330)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion to extend the provisions of Section 83 of the Criminal Code, which, if they are not extended by a vote of the House, will lapse and die. Arguably, if there is a need for these types of provisions, new legislation will need to be introduced, thereby creating a gap in our law, if it is the will of the House and the government to proceed in that way.

These particular sunset provisions were added to the Criminal Code by Bill C-36 after extensive justice committee study and public debate. I was very involved in the work of the justice committee and I do have some personal knowledge of those events at that time.

The sunset provisions were inserted at the insistence of a number of people, including members of the House, for two possible scenarios. The first was the possibility that the provisions, which were quite new to the Criminal Code, might be misused in some way. It turns out that the sections have not been used and therefore have not been misused.

The second reason was in the event that the sections were not needed. Over time it was felt that the perceived need for this type of procedure might not be there and if the conspiracy that gave rise to this legislation was to end, diminish or calm, it could be argued that these more robust procedural provisions might not be necessary and that our ordinary laws might prevail and be usable.

In my view, I do not think either of those circumstances have occurred. There has not been a misuse of the provisions and the conspiracy that gave rise to them has not ended or calmed. I will speak to that later in my remarks.

One could say that these provisions were certainly not enacted because they were not needed. If they were not needed, they would not have been enacted. In fact, the public servants and parliamentarians who generated the legislation could see the need at that time and that is why they were enacted. One could argue that circumstances have changed and that is part of the subject of debate here today.

Why were the sections needed five years ago? I think the reason relates to the fact that there was an acknowledged gap in our criminal law, our common law, that simply evolved through the passage of time. Prior to the last century, the subject of security of the state was in the hands of the king. In fact, it was listed among the king's prerogatives and the king actually did take care of that kind of business.

We have all read history books and seen the movies. The king and his forces would actually detain and arrest people who were conspirators against the state. I suppose they did not make fine distinctions in those days whether it involved a conspiracy, a sedition, a subversion or a treason. These were all components of the common law in those days. The king simply would detain the person, perhaps arrest the person and make use of the dungeon and eventually liquidate the conspiracy.

(1335)

After we entered into the 20th century, with the growth of civil liberties and written constitutions, it became apparent that our citizens needed rule of law. Commonwealth jurisdictions then adopted what were then known as the war measures acts. When the state entered into a serious war conflict, it relied on special legislation called the war measures act. It was used during the first world war and the second world war.

Eventually, in the modern context, those pieces of legislation were seen to be a bit too draconian for peacetime and therefore were dropped. We no longer have a war measures act. As a result, the legislation we relied on through the Korean War and the two world wars up to about the 1960s is no longer there so that the state cannot rely on any special provisions. It must use the criminal law.

We then had the terrible events of 9/11. Roughly 300 or 400 miles from here as the crow flies, we witnessed the events in Washington, New York and Pennsylvania. Following that, other events occurred in Bali, Madrid, Philippines, London and an almost event in Los Angeles. These events have been ugly. They were terrorist attacks, killing and maiming many and creating the maximum in violence, disruption and disorder. That is the nature of the threat.

As I mentioned, we do not have the provisions that used to be contained in the war measures act, and not only do we not have those, but in years gone by the state could rely on conspiracy laws. However, with the evolution of modern evidentiary rules, it becomes very difficult to convict for a conspiracy. As a result, because the sections have fallen into disuse, not many police or crown prosecutors are good at using them and the courts are not comfortable with them.

I would also point out that we no longer have grand jury investigations. These were part of our criminal process. A grand jury would be invoked, put in place and would investigate allegations of a criminal act or a conspiracy before they actually occurred or just after they happened but before criminal charges were laid. Two or three decades ago our jurisdiction stopped using the grand jury procedure.

At the end of the day, our laws have given up on the war measures act, the law of conspiracy and grand juries. My point is that there has been, by happenstance, a gap in our law. In peacetime, our laws work quite well. We are always reforming them but our laws generally are up to the test, but when the state gets into a conflict or it is at risk, it would be my view that the state needs to rely on a different set of provisions. These sunsetted provisions in Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, were intended to fill the gap.

It is also worth noting that all of our major allies had to do the same thing. This is not just a Canadian story. Our allies in the U.K., the United States of America and Australia all had to legislate to fill this gap in their laws as well. That is a notable thing and we in the House should take note of it. This is not a circumstances peculiar to Canada.

(1340)

It is important to segregate things which are not politically, legally connected. I have read some of the debates and I have seen some of the media on this. We are not dealing with investigative warrants under the Security of Information Act. We are not dealing with investigative warrants taken out by CSIS to deal with threats to the security of Canada under the CSIS Act. We are not dealing with continued detention under the Immigration Act. We are not dealing with security certificates, which are removal procedures under the Immigration Act. All of those things are outside the envelope of what we are dealing with here.

We are dealing with two sections. The first one, the investigative hearings section, is both retrospective and prospective in its stance. It can look in the rear view mirror at threats and offences and terrorist activities that happened previously, or prospectively or pre-emptively into the future. The second one is the detention with recognizance section and that is pre-emptive in perspective. In other words, it does not look backward. It is there for the purpose of pre-empting an imminent terrorist attack.

I have tried in my own layman's way to conjure up a scenario when these sections would be used. This is one thing that is actually missing from the debate and I am not sure why. I am curious why security professionals or government officials have not offered a scenario which would explain a bit more clearly how and why these sections would be used. I realize that security professionals do not want to alarm the public. They do not want to reveal existing procedures. They are under oath to keep their information inside a security loop. These are probably some of the reasons we have not had that element of this debate.

It is also notable that this country's security apparatus is populated by officials who do not have the power of arrest. This is a very important distinction here. Most people think that CSIS officials can run around and scoop people off the street. The fact is they cannot legally or otherwise. CSIS officials are not even armed. They do not arrest people. The only people who arrest in this country are peace officers, that is, police officers. All the security professionals on the job are not able to make an arrest, whether it is at CSIS or CSE or in transport. They must be peace officers before they can arrest anyone.

As we develop our intelligence data, it is important to realize that if there is going to be any pre-emption of a terrorist attack by an arrest, it would be done by a policeman, not by our security apparatus. Most of the information we get involving security and intelligence comes from the broader security and intelligence apparatus. Some of it comes from police intelligence, but the bulk of it comes from our security and intelligence apparatus and our allies. That is a very important and indispensable function.

Because we do not have a scenario here, I am going to suggest the scenario of a border attack somewhere on the Canadian border. I do not think I am being right off the page here in suggesting there could be an attack. I do not have to go into any gory details; let me just say that an attack is possible and that the attack is imminent. Let me suggest that police and authorities may not have all the data needed to obtain a Criminal Code warrant for any of the existing provisions in the Criminal Code. They may have only one or two persons identified. They may have a possible target identified. They may have detected part of a cell and a likely target. They may not be able technically to connect all of the dots necessary to obtain a Criminal Code warrant. If they can, then they can take out a Criminal Code warrant and make an arrest.

Let me suggest as well that this data has not come from their own sources, but has come from an intelligence agency or an allied intelligence agency. I will assume for the sake of my scenario that the information is credible and real.

(1345)

Given the potential for massive violence and disorder, pre-emption becomes the order of the day. It becomes a priority. If people are not sure what massive violence and disorder is, they should think about what happened in London, Madrid or New York City, just to get the flavour of what this is.

Under these sections a peace officer using credible data, probably packaged by an intelligence agency, either domestic or ally, would then present the information very quickly to the attorney general of a province. If some members think that is time consuming, some of our constituents have to wait sometimes to see an MP or to see a cabinet minister, but I can say that getting through to the attorney general of a province on a matter of priority happens very quickly. I have had the pleasure of dealing with an attorney general on a matter of that nature, and it was a very prompt and a very quick turnaround time. The information is then packaged for an attorney general, who must provide consent in writing. The information is then taken to a judge, who must also sign off and issue the warrants.

The procedure for the use of these sections is judicially supervised in the beginning. It is consented to by the attorney general representing the government. It is managed by a peace officer, police officer, subject to the Criminal Code. The entire process in both sections has been judicialized. It is totally judicially supervised. There is a warrant, a judge, an attorney general, and a totally judicialized procedure. It looks awfully charter compliant to me.

It has already been mentioned that our courts have agreed that these procedures are charter compliant. An argument that the charter is a reason that these sections should not be renewed, in my view, respectfully to all of those who feel that way, is not on; I do not accept that. There may be other issues involving civil liberties that concern them, but certainly not the charter, at least not in a way that I have heard in this House or in the courts up to now.

There are some side notes worth noting. Both the committee of this House and the committee of the Senate have reviewed these provisions and have reported back confirming their support for the provisions.

Also, there exists, as I pointed out earlier, an arguable symmetry between the provisions that we have enacted here and the provisions enacted by our major allies. They operate on the assumption, and I know there was collaboration back at the time these sections were enacted, that our legislation bears some analogy to their own, that when we deal with our allies, they will have the ability to act quickly, and when they deal with us, we will have a similar ability to act quickly.

If these two sections are to lapse, it is arguable that our legislation will not be so symmetric, will not coincide with the legislation of our allies. Since the threat of conspiracy persists, and I am informed that it does, they may be curious as to why we would allow these two sections to lapse.

I would attribute the argument that the sections have not been used to good intelligence work and good luck. Both of those have contributed to that. Regarding the suggestion that the sections are not needed, one only has to look at weekend reports from the United Kingdom, where public reports are that the threat level there is as high as it has ever been.

With all due respect to many in the House who are concerned about the civil liberties aspects of this, I hope the record will show that these sections are charter compliant and that they are there for the benefit of Canadians as a whole as a protection order. I hope colleagues will take all of that into consideration in the vote.

(1350)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently while my hon. friend was speaking on the two very important issues surrounding the Anti-terrorism Act and those parts of it that are governed by the sunset clause. I heard him recount with great intensity the necessity of having attorneys general supervise some of the issues surrounding those two provisions.

I would like to read a quote from the Supreme Court which deals specifically on this issue. The Supreme Court justices were referring in this case to certain issues surrounding the two items we are talking about here. They dealt specifically with an accusation that the sections violated section 7 rights of the charter. The quote is as follows:

The challenge for democracies in the battle against terrorism is not whether to respond, but rather how to do so. This is because Canadians value the importance of human life and liberty, and the protection of society through respect for the rule of law. Indeed, a democracy cannot exist without the rule of law....Yet, at the same time, while respect for the rule of law must be maintained in the response to terrorism, the Constitution is not a suicide pact,

I wonder if the member would like to comment on that.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Derek Lee:

Mr. Speaker, I could comment by agreeing with it. I think the court has it right.

I think everyone in this House would agree that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should not be used as a recipe book for a terrorist attack. The challenge is to have a balance where the state has the tools necessary to protect the broader public interest, including preventing an attack, but at the same time ensuring that all citizens are treated fairly in terms of their civil liberties.

We have made some mistakes as a country. We could argue they were minor; for the individuals involved they were serious. Failure to observe the letter and spirit of the charter has gotten us into difficulty. Our country would be better if we could observe the charter throughout everything. Getting that balance just right is the goal.

In creating these provisions, the two we are dealing with, I cannot recall provisions which were subjected to greater charter compliant scrutiny at the parliamentary level than these. The provisions are littered with charter compliance mechanisms and sidebars. Although the court has not had the ability to test these provisions in a real life scenario, I am very confident that the court would be supportive of Parliament in doing whatever it thinks best, provided we give due regard to the individual under the charter.

(1355)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying just how much I admire the member for Scarborough—Rouge River and to what extent I have valued his legal mind in the past.

First, I would like to comment on something he said. He said that many of our allies have taken similar measures. I would like to quote something Kofi Annan said during the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security held in Madrid on March 10, 2005. After discussing the dangers of terrorism in relation to human rights and the rule of law, he added that:

—If we sacrifice them in our response, we are handing a victory to the terrorists.

I regret to say that international human rights experts, including those of the UN system, are unanimous in finding that many measures which States are currently adopting to counter terrorism infringe on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Upholding human rights is not merely compatible with a successful counter-terrorism strategy. It is an essential element in it.

In my opinion, these are the kinds of remarks we consider when we try to strike a balance between the effectiveness of the proposed measures and the potential for abuse they represent.

The honourable member quite rightly said that he himself was obliged to invent a scenario to explain when these provisions would be used. How is it that even though committee members asked, nobody else was able to identify a dangerous situation to which these provisions could apply, when there are other provisions in the Criminal Code, especially those against conspiracy?

According to him, charges of conspiracy are now uncommon. Yet in my practice, I have seen a great many. They are very easy to prove because most of the time, they are uncovered by electronic surveillance. Even in the example he gave, there was clearly a conspiracy and, therefore, the potential for charging someone and bringing them before a judge, who could deny bail on the basis of the evidence presented.

We, too, want to strike a balance with effective measures. That said, they never have been and it seems they never will be, yet they are still dangerous.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Derek Lee:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member himself is no stranger to public security issues.

I do not have any trouble with the quote from Mr. Kofi Annan or with the Supreme Court quote earlier. Even our deputy leader, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, has articulated similar sentiments in a book.

I accept that there has not been placed before the House a hypothetical real scenario whereby we could show that our conspiracy laws would be inadequate and fail and the terrorist attack could proceed unimpeded unless we wanted to abuse the law in the absence of these sections that we are dealing now with in the sunset.

It is an excellent question. It may be that the absence of a scenario reveals that we in Canada just are not able to put together enough evil minds to create that kind of ugly scenario. I hope one never develops.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

[English]

Scouts Canada

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, through Scouts Canada, young people in my riding, like those across the country, are making enormous contributions to their communities. In the process, they are learning valuable life skills and becoming better citizens.

Although I was not among the founding scouts in 1907, I am proud to have been a member of the first scout troop in my hometown of Sebringville. I can appreciate the positive influence this organization continues to have in shaping young lives.

This year, scouts from across Canada are celebrating their centennial year. I urge all members to pay tribute to their local scout troops and their dedicated volunteers for this important milestone.

* * *

New Brunswick

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that Fredericton was among a delegation of communities from Atlantic Canada to visit Ottawa to advance their priorities and concerns. Their projects remain in limbo because of government inaction.

In my riding, there is Fredericton's proposed convention centre, to which we committed $8 million. While the Conservatives said “me too” in the last election, no progress has been made because they failed to replenish the strategic infrastructure fund.

On the route number 8 Marysville bypass, I am concerned that the government is putting feeder routes on the back burner. The people in Fredericton and Nashwaak Valley cannot wait any longer for this safety issue to be addressed.

We have yet to see a new round of the municipal rural infrastructure fund despite the minister's assurances it would be replenished for New Brunswick by December.

Lastly, victims exposed to agent orange and other herbicides at CFB Gagetown are still waiting for the government to deliver on its promise of full and fair compensation.

This minority government is not getting things done in New Brunswick.

* * *

(1400)

[Translation]

Jean-Paul Filion

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Jean-Paul Filion.

On February 24, Mr. Filion turned 80 years old. This resident of Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, in my riding, is one of the big names in the cultural history of Quebec and Canada. Before singer-songwriters such as Vigneault, Ferland and Leclerc, Mr. Filion was making his mark in the late 1950s. His first album, in 1958, earned him the Grand prix de la chanson canadienne. That same year, his famous song La Parenté sold more than 100,000 copies and made Mr. Filion a well-known songwriter.

The Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame recently inducted this song during an evening of tribute, honouring his musical genius and his great contribution to our cultural heritage.

This song, forever etched into the musical memories of an entire generation, resonated deeply with many Quebeckers, especially on New Year's Day.

Happy birthday, Mr. Filion.

* * *

[English]

Forestry Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, St. Marys Paper is an important employer in Sault Ste. Marie. Its 400 employees produce paper that is purchased primarily by magazines and large retail companies for high quality advertising flyers and catalogues. Bankruptcy protection means that St. Marys is part of a forestry sector in crises.

When the northern Ontario economy was in trouble before, the NDP government in Ontario stepped up and saved many mills and communities. Fifteen years later we need governments to step up.

It is good news that FedNor will commit to help with the technology upgrade that will make the company more competitive, but much more will be needed, including significant resources and a plan.

The federal government must return to its traditional role of helping to stabilize economies. Pensions must be protected. The government should immediately convene a summit of all stakeholders in the forestry sector to formulate a national recovery plan. This summit should look at trade and monetary policy, research and development, and manpower planning.

Working families are suffering. This crisis cannot be solved without governments doing their part.

* * *

Scouts Canada

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House today to recognize Scouts Canada as they celebrate 100 years of services to the young people of our great nation.

The art of teaching life skills is a value unparalleled, because it teaches young people to excel and prosper. Lieutenant-General Baden-Powell's original vision has touched millions of young people. The scouts have used their value-based scouts' promise and law to help build a better world, where people are fulfilled and contribute to society.

Today there are more than 600 youth member scouts able to experience fascinating programs at our very own Camp Samac, a 200-plus acre facility donated by Colonel Sam McLaughlin of Oshawa.

Scouting volunteers are the lifeblood of Scouts Canada and are proud to contribute thousands of hours annually to ensure that youth across Oshawa and Canada receive quality programs that enable youth to experience their full potential.

I ask all parliamentarians to rise today to recognize Scouts Canada's service to our nation and celebrate its centennial year.

* * *

Canada Winter Games

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I was thrilled to be at the opening ceremonies of the Canada Winter Games this past weekend in Whitehorse.

It was inspirational to see Larry Smith there as the chair of the Games and Piers McDonald as the president of the host committee. I congratulate them and the 4,100 volunteers who are there in Whitehorse right now helping all the people.

It was inspirational to see those young athletes, who we know will own the podium in 2010 in Vancouver.

It was unfortunate, however, that the sport minister for the federal government was unable to be there in order to hear the committed and urgent pleas by provincial and territorial ministers for sport infrastructure and physical activity infrastructure. That is what we as a government had promised them previously.

* * *

(1405)

Fisheries

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on Friday past, instead of contributing to second reading debate or even taking a position on a new Fisheries Act, the new Liberal fisheries critic moved a hoist amendment.

Why? He said it was to allow further consultation and to answer “so many questions”.

Parliamentary procedure states:

The adoption of a hoist amendment is tantamount to defeating the bill by postponing its consideration. Consequently, the bill disappears from the Order Paper and cannot be introduced again, even after the postponement period has elapsed.

Here is what the Liberal critic intends to prevent: real accountability of a minister to Canadians; giving provinces and fishers a real say in the decisions that affect them; strengthened fish habitat protection; and a fair and deterrent sanctions regime.

The Liberals had 13 years to consult. They just did not get it done. Somehow it is hard to believe they just need another six months.

* * *

[Translation]

Sheila Watt-Cloutier

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to inform this house that Sheila Watt-Cloutier, from Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec, has been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

This nomination recognizes Ms. Watt-Cloutier's invaluable contribution to social and environmental causes that affect the Inuit and honours her for drawing the world's attention to the impact of climate change and pollution on the traditional way of life of the aboriginal peoples and the Inuit who live in the Arctic and elsewhere.

Ms. Watt-Cloutier, along with 62 Inuit elders, has filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, alleging that American greenhouse gas emissions violate the Inuit's environmental and cultural rights.

I want to salute the outstanding work done by this woman, who has made the world's great decision-makers aware of the dangers of global warming, yet has not managed to convince one of the main stakeholders: this government. The Bloc Québécois and I congratulate Ms. Watt-Cloutier on her nomination.

* * *

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the cat is out of the bag on the Kyoto protocol. We have learned that when the Liberals were in power, they thought only of their image. What a surprise.

According to the Toronto Star, Eddie Goldenberg, former Prime Minister Chrétien's strategist, has said that the Liberals never really believed it was possible to achieve the Kyoto targets. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of the cabinet at that time, and that is what he himself said in the National Post in July 2006.

Signing the protocol was nothing but a sop to public opinion. Nevertheless, greenhouse gas emissions rose by 28% under the Liberals. What deception.

Unlike the Liberals, our government is not only telling it like it is when it comes to the environment, but taking practical steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the ecoenergy initiative and the Canada EcoTrust program, which have a total envelope of $3.6 billion.

Yes, the Conservatives are thinking globally and acting locally.

So what are the Liberals waiting for to support the clean air and climate change bill?

* * *

[English]

The Prime Minister

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker:

One moment it's a cathedral, at another time there [are] no words to describe it when it ceases, for short periods of time, to have any regard for the properties that constitute not only Parliament, but its tradition. I've seen it in all its greatness. I have inwardly wept over it when it is degraded.

Those are the words of former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker.

I believe that had Mr. Diefenbaker watched the Prime Minister's attempt to undermine the character of a member of the House last week he would have “inwardly wept”.

Often in life we as human beings in a rash moment may find we have regrets. Our character is found in our ability to admit we were wrong and to apologize. I would hope that given another opportunity today the Prime Minister will apologize for his remarks and aspire to Mr. Diefenbaker's higher ideal.

* * *

[Translation]

Anti-terrorism Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak here today in order to clarify the government's motion to extend the clauses of the Anti-terrorism Act that are about to expire.

[English]

The motion is not about security certificates. It is about the security of Canadians. It is not about detainees in Kingston or the war in Afghanistan. It is about the right to be protected from terrorist attacks. And it most certainly should not be about partisan politics. It is about providing two important tools to Canada's law enforcement authorities to assist in the investigation and prevention of terrorist attacks, nothing more.

The extension we are proposing does not in any way threaten civil liberties. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the constitutionality of these provisions.

The Liberal Party should stop the partisan games. Do what is right. Do what is right to defend the safety and security of Canadians. Vote to defend the Anti-terrorism Act.

* * *

(1410)

Cluster Munitions

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday thousands of Canadians will take part in a national day of action against cluster bombs and landmines. Events and demonstrations across the country will include making piles of shoes, representing all the lives and limbs lost to mines and cluster bombs, and collecting signatures urging the Conservative government to take a leading role internationally against cluster bombs.

Late last week the Government of Canada belatedly gave its pledge to destroy its stockpiles of cluster munitions and joined with other countries agreeing to a process that will forever ban these weapons, which indiscriminately kill and maim. Ninety-eight per cent of the victims are civilians and twenty-seven per cent are children.

The Ottawa convention banning landmines came into effect eight years ago this week and Canada led the world in that fight. In the fight against cluster munitions, Canada is being dragged along rather than showing the way. It is time for Canada to show it can be at the forefront of disarmament again. It is time to show real leadership.

* * *

Health Care

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Zed (Saint John, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the establishment of the Medical Education Training Centre at the Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation in Saint John. We must ensure that this school is established immediately so enrolment can commence in the fall of 2008.

There is widespread bipartisan support for this project, from New Brunswick health care workers, from the Moncton, Miramichi and Fredericton hospital authorities and from Premier Shawn Graham, who supports the immediate establishment of this school.

Currently, there is an acute shortage of doctors in New Brunswick. The Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation in Saint John is a national leader for health care and a centre of excellence. It is the natural place for the establishment of our medical school.

I once again urge the Minister of Health and the federal government to provide funding that will help make this project a success. By working together as a team in Saint John, we can build a stronger community.

* * *

[Translation]

Ski Competitions

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Johanne Deschamps (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, it was a memorable weekend for two Quebeckers who earned gold medals for skiing. On Saturday, Érik Guay earned the distinction of being the first Quebecker to earn a gold medal in world cup downhill skiing. The next day, Jasey-Jay Anderson won the gold medal at the world cup of snowboarding in the parallel giant slalom event.

Érik Guay, from Mont-Tremblant, is currently ranked fifth in downhill for the season and 13th overall. His bronze medal, won on Friday, made him a favourite to win gold the next day. He will dedicate the next few days to training for upcoming competitions. This athlete, still recovering from injury, can be proud of his performance, and especially of his tenacity and perseverance.

Jasey-Jay Anderson, also from Mont-Tremblant, won the gold medal during the world cup of snowboarding. It is his first medal in two years.

The Bloc Québécois is very proud of the performances of these two athletes from Quebec and we wish them many more victories during the rest of the ski season.

* * *

[English]

Academy Awards

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, last night Canadians were given a reason again to be proud. Torill Kove, one of our Canadian filmmakers, won the Oscar for best short animated film for The Danish Poet. This is the second time that Ms. Kove has been nominated, but last night's award enshrines years of successful work in animation, scripting and directing.

[Translation]

Norwegian by birth, this woman passionately transformed her childhood hobby, drawing, into a creative force. Her studies at Concordia University in Montreal, begun in 1982, led to her first Oscar nomination in 1999 for her short animated film My Grandmother Ironed the King's Shirts.

Last night's Oscar will be added to a number of other awards, including Kodak awards for the films All You Can Eat, Fallen Angel and Squash and Stretch.

[English]

On behalf of all Canadians, I extend my sincere congratulations to Ms. Kove and thank her for once again showing the world that Canada is the place for artists to showcase their world-class potential.

* * *

Leader of the Opposition

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Dolittle has done it again. The Liberal leader has flip-flopped on whether our troops should risk their lives in Afghanistan. He has now taken three contradictory positions on the mission.

First, as a former government minister, the Liberal leader helped send our troops into harm's way in Kandahar. Then, in opposition, he voted against that same mission. Now Dr. Dolittle says that he wants the troops to stay for another two years, something he voted against only two months ago. The Liberal leader is playing politics with the lives of our troops.

What kind of man puts our troops into battle as a minister, votes against their mission while they are risking their lives for it and then reverses himself again to support the mission when it suits him?

Dr. Dolittle cannot be trusted to lead our troops or keep us safe when he changes his mind every time he sees a new poll. The Liberal leader did not get the job done. He will never get the job done.

Oral Questions

[Oral Questions]

* * *

(1415)

[English]

Anti-terrorism Act

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, the Prime Minister wrote to the Canadian Arab Federation that in order to have balance between public security and rights and freedoms, “We believe there needs to be periodic reviews by Parliament of the Anti-terrorism Act”.

Why has the government not done a full review of the act, despite having received a comprehensive report from the committee of the House over five months ago on how to improve the act?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the committees of both chambers have been studying the bill and the committee has been given an extension to study the bill.

In the meantime, the government has proposed extension of the existing provisions of the act. We did so with the support of the Leader of the Opposition until a couple of weeks ago when he abruptly flip-flopped his position on the issue, ignored the facts, ignored the advice of leaders of his own party and ignored the need for compromise.

However, late last week members of the other place suggested a specific compromise on this legislation. Would the leader of the Liberal Party agree to that compromise suggested by his own colleagues?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must understand, we cannot extend today and worry about rights tomorrow.

[Translation]

As far as anti-terrorism is concerned, the government has a duty to use an effective, fair and rational approach.

Does the Prime Minister agree that his immoral and demagogic behaviour of last week undermines his credibility when it comes to finding an effective, fair and rational approach for Canada?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has already ruled that these things respect civil rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Leader of the Opposition should also respect this ruling.

I see that last week, the Liberal Party accused the RCMP of working with the government to leak information to the media. The journalist in question has denied this allegation. This is an attack against the RCMP. It is another attempt by the Liberal Party to discredit the RCMP, and the Liberal Party should apologize to the RCMP.

* * *

The Prime Minister

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is quite legitimate to attempt to discover how such a leak occurred, a leak that tarnished the reputation of a family, with the complicity of the Prime Minister.

Last Friday, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada posted on its website—a site paid for with public money—an outrageously partisan press release basely attacking all members of the opposition.

Is the Prime Minister now going to tell us that, after saying that he wants to politicize judges, he now wants to politicize the public service?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me like the leader of the Liberal Party has just repeated the charge, the charge being that the RCMP is somehow working with the government to leak information to the media. In fact, the journalist in question has denied this.

The RCMP, as everybody in the House knows, conducts its investigations independently of the police. This is an outrageous, unsubstantiated slur against The Vancouver Sun, the journalist, the RCMP and once against blocking justice for the Air-India families.

In response to the allegation about the website, I spoke to the minister. He is willing to change the statement “soft on terror” till the Liberal leader—

(1420)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

The Speaker: The

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is seeking to conceal or make us forget the fact that he scandalously impugned the reputation of a member of the House last week.

I return to the issue that we are discussing, which is the House and Senate committees have been reviewing Canada's anti-terror legislation. They have come up with suggestions to improve it. The government has ignored those recommendations.

The question before the House should not be to sunset or not to sunset. The question is how to fix Canada's anti-terror laws. Why is the government failing to live up to its responsibilities?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, up until two weeks ago we would have been able to agree on re-passing former Liberal legislation. I point out that I just offered, in this question period, to adopt the recommendations of the Liberal Party's own Senate report last week. I understand the leader of the Liberal Party is not interested in compromise.

Since the deputy leader apparently is, would he be interested in working together to pass legislation based on that compromise?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker—

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has the floor. We would all like to hear his question.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff:

Mr. Speaker, as the leader of our party has often stated, we are willing to work with the party in power, with the government, in order to find sound solutions to our problems.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to propose measures to replace those that expire this week?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this government has already proposed several possible compromises to the Leader of the Opposition. Up to now, he has refused these compromises and threatened members of his own caucus who wished to protect Canadian citizens against terrorism.

If the leader of the Liberal Party is not prepared to support his own legislation, will the deputy leader of the party support the compromise proposed by his Senate colleagues?

* * *

Quebec Elections

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Jean Charest suggested that equalization and federal transfer payments would be eliminated should the Parti Québécois be elected. According to Le Devoir, Mr. Charest said, “There is every indication that the money will be cut significantly the day the PQ comes to power”. During a press conference, the Prime Minister said that this was an interesting debate.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what he finds so interesting about this debate? Does he agree with Mr. Charest?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I read the Premier of Quebec's comments. I think that what he said is not at all what the leader of the Bloc is suggesting. The Premier of Quebec is a very serious man and he is perfectly capable of stating his own position.

As Prime Minister of Canada, I have no intention of getting involved in Quebec's elections.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, nevertheless, it is his duty to clarify things. Mr. Charest also stated that the day after a sovereignty referendum in Quebec, the federal government would cut Quebeckers' old age pensions and the guaranteed income supplement, even if Quebeckers continue to pay their taxes until negotiations begin.

Does the Prime Minister agree with Jean Charest?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc decided not to run for the leadership of the Parti Québécois. That would have been his opportunity to participate in provincial elections. The leader of the Bloc has proposed a lot of funding for Quebec in the environmental file. The government promised to give the Government of Quebec even more. That funding will be in the budget.

Will the leader of the Bloc support his own policy?

(1425)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is being vague. I am simply asking him to tell us, here in this House, whether he can correct the comments made by Jean Charest, who is using blackmail in the middle of an election campaign.

Can the Prime Minister simply confirm to us that as long as Quebeckers are paying taxes to the federal government they will in turn be entitled to payments from Ottawa? We are simply asking him to confirm that.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous Liberal government, this government recognizes the fiscal imbalance between governments in Canada and is committed to rectifying that fiscal imbalance; that is, moving to fiscal balance in Canada, which we will do on March 19 in the budget.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance is responding, I have another question for him. It is important to know what he thinks exactly.

There is a budget coming up on March 19. Does he have two scenarios in mind: in other words, does he have one scenario if the Liberals win in Quebec, and another if everything points to a PQ win in Quebec? Does he have two scenarios, or just one? This will answer the question.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that the rectification of the fiscal imbalance toward fiscal balance will be in the budget. It will be a very good budget for Quebec. I look forward to welcoming the support of the Bloc Québécois for the budget.

* * *

Security Certificates

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that security certificates violate the charter and principles of fundamental justice.

One alternative, the special advocate model used in the U.K., is unfair and inadequate. Prominent advocates have resigned because they know it prevents the right to a fair hearing and the accused are still deprived access to the case against them.

What solution does the Minister of Public Safety propose to ensure a fair and transparent process, in line with the charter and principles of fundamental justice?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member somewhat miscategorizes the Supreme Court's decision.

The Supreme Court said that the security certificate process is necessary for public safety in the fight against terrorism. It did find some provisions unconstitutional. It suspended the effect of that judgment for one year and, I think, laid out for Parliament a pretty clear road map on how to rectify the legislation so that we can continue to sustain the security certificate regime.

However, the government will be acting on the recommendations of the Supreme Court and I would hope that this hon. member and all members of this House will support the government when it does so.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah and Hassan Almrei, three security certificate detainees, have been on a hunger strike protesting the inhumane conditions at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. It is now day 83 of their hunger strike.

Will the Minister of Public Safety appoint the Correctional Investigator of Canada as an ombudsperson to investigate their grievances immediately and before someone dies on this hunger strike? Is the minister prepared to start negotiations on conditions of release for all of these men?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, rather than the typical approach of the NDP of trying to introduce yet another layer of bureaucracy to deal with the problem, we have already taken more rapid action on that by having the Red Cross visiting this facility on a regular basis, by making sure there is a health care practitioner there every day, and by making sure that the variety of fruit juices, soups and other items, such as honey and yogourt, that the people are requesting are there.

Even more important, the Supreme Court did not say that it was wrong for people to be kept in that facility. We intend to keep them there in a humane manner.

* * *

[Translation]

Court Challenges Program

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the court challenges program played an important role in preventing the government from violating the Constitution. It allowed minority groups, such as the Canadian Arab Foundation, to intervene in key matters such as that of the security certificates. This Conservative government cut this program and believes that only the rich should be heard at the Supreme Court.

Does the government recognize that it is putting women and minority communities at a disadvantage?

(1430)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. We have the most open and fair judicial system on the face of the earth. A review of the court cases that have come before the courts and the decisions by these courts are testimony to how well our system is working. That should be applauded by the hon. member.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Justice misunderstood my question on the fact that this government cut the court challenges program. Today, the highest court called for changes to the legislation on security certificates. In 2006, the Prime Minister wrote to the Canadian Arab Foundation and promised to change this legislation.

Why did the Prime Minister go back on his promise? Why is he refusing to respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, unless the courts require him to?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the hon. member would respect the plan that we have put before this Parliament. We have had extensive legislation to fight crime to make our communities safer.

What has amazed me in the last couple of weeks has been the Liberals' attack on the anti-terrorism provisions and now they have a problem with security certificates. After all, this was their agenda. Why can they not at least support the agenda that they brought before this Parliament?

* * *

Public Service

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Public Safety broke Treasury Board guidelines and jeopardized the non-partisan neutrality of Canada's respected Public Service. He posted Conservative propaganda on his department's website that attacked opposition MPs and co-opted the machinery of government, which is supposed to be neutral.

Will the minister explain to Canadians why he crossed the line and used a government website to launch partisan slurs? Where was his judgment when he did this?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that a direct quote from me was put on that particular site. It was not a Public Service comment. It was a direct quote. The quote said, “Opposition parties are being soft on security and soft on terrorism.”

If the member would like, I could add to that to make it more accurate, or not more accurate, but to intensify the point. I could simply add that the Liberals have voted against their own terrorism legislation. I could add that if that would make her feel better.

* * *

The Prime Minister

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, he does not understand the neutrality of the Public Service and the respect it deserves not to be pulled into partisan politics.

Last week, the Prime Minister used an article from The Vancouver Sun to launch an attack against a private citizen and a member of this Parliament. The Prime Minister has a duty to determine the facts before going carelessly ahead with allegations.

Did the Prime Minister verify the information, or does he not care about whether smears are true? Is he ready to apologize today to this member of Parliament?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we were pleased to hear members of the families who had lost loved ones in the Air-India disaster join many Liberals and others in saying that some provisions should be left in place, so that we can prevent a tragedy like this from happening again.

In fact, when the Air-India family members were here, it was the Liberal leader who dismissed them as being emotional. They were emotional, but they were still on point. We should have those provisions to protect Canadians and the Liberals should support them.

* * *

[Translation]

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, an internal report intended for the Prime Minister suggests that, by formulating a plan based on intensity rules for greenhouse gas emissions, the Conservative government will allow the oil sands industry to increase its greenhouse gas emissions by 179% between 2000 and 2010.

Will the government admit that, with these intensity rules, it is only encouraging a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, not at all. We are in the process of creating a policy to regulate the industry in Canada, not only concerning greenhouse gas emissions, but also concerning air quality. Our work is not complete. We are still consulting before we take action.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, troubling reports show that climate change is seriously affecting life in northern Canada. The permafrost is melting, and houses and other structures are becoming unstable.

Does the government not understand that the only possible solution—and it is urgent—is establishing absolute reduction targets and creating a carbon exchange?

The government must stop showing favouritism for the oil companies and shift that favouritism to the environment.

(1435)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, our first piece of legislation for Canadians was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Positive action has not been taken here in Canada for the past 10 years. That is why we are in the process of formulating the strictest regulations for industry in the history of Canada, for the benefit of the environment. We are working very hard and we will discuss this excellent initiative more in the coming weeks.

* * *

Transport

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport can repeat all he wants that air safety is not threatened. However, making airline companies responsible for determining the level of safety is another stop towards a system of self-regulation that eventually will eliminate inspectors.

How can the minister claim that he wants to maintain the required inspection levels when he plans on cutting in half the number of inspectors in a few years?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, once again, my honourable colleague in leading us down the wrong path.

[English]

I will quote Captain Brian Boucher, senior director of flight operations, Air Canada Pilots Association, who said:

We understand that the rationale for the Bill is to enhance the safety of Canada's aviation system...We deal daily with the operational implications of the Air Regulations. It is not an exaggeration to say that flight safety IS our world.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, if his approach is so perfect, as the minister claims, how is it that a senior public servant of his department, Mr. Preuss, threatened the Canadian Federal Pilots Association with reprisals if it testified before the Standing Committee on Transport? If everything is perfect, as he claims, what is his department afraid of?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the committee is free to call whomever it wants to shed light on the matter.

To date, Canada's civil aviation system is the best in the world. It provides the Canadian public with the necessary measures and an additional system, a safety factor, to make all citizen feel safe.

* * *

[English]

Finance

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation calls him the minister of gimmicks. He has used deceitful gimmicks, like saying he will cut the lowest income tax rate and then putting it up, or costly gimmicks, like when his Ontario government ran on a balanced budget, knowing that it had a $5 billion deficit. Let us not forget this very silly net tax gimmick, which thankfully he does not talk about any more.

Ontarians gave the Conservatives the boot for these practices. Why does he think they will work in Ottawa?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal finance critic could think it is silly to pay down public debt, reduce the interest that has to be paid on public debt, and guarantee tax reductions to Canadians year after year going forward. Only a Liberal finance critic would say that.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, going back to Queen's Park, only a Conservative would think that a $5 billion deficit was a balanced budget. He still has not learned from that experience of running a deficit when he said it would be in balance. Back in those days that government booked and spent billions of dollars from the sale of Crown assets and then it forgot to sell the assets.

As this minister contemplates the sale of up to $7 billion in government buildings, why does he think that the Queen's Park mismanagement will work in Ottawa?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that as the finance minister of Ontario I balanced the budget. I will say this to the member opposite--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. The minister will say it in a minute, but I have to be able to hear what the minister says. A whole bunch of other members want to hear it too.

We will have some order. The member for Markham—Unionville has asked a question. He is entitled to hear the answer. I am sure he is very interested to hear it.

The hon. Minister of Finance has the floor and we will now hear from the minister with some order in the House.

(1440)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty:

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the finance critic opposite for finally admitting this weekend that Canadians are overtaxed. I do have a complaint. If he is going to use lines from my speeches, he should pay royalties.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government reminds one of a remake of the Harris government: $3 billion in anticipated revenues that did not come in; $2.6 billion in savings that have not been identified; several billion in asset sales that did not happen. In Ontario, this resulted in the discovery of a $5.6 billion deficit. Imagine what would happen here in the federal government.

Why is the Minister of Finance using economic trickery to fool Canadians?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the members opposite in the Liberal Party are so depressed about Canada's great economy. We have the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. We have the highest rate of engagement in the workforce in 30 years. We have controlled inflation and we will have a great budget on March 19. I hope the member for Wascana enjoys it.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it only proves that the member of Parliament for Wascana worked very well when he was the minister of finance.

[Translation]

Before Ontarians fired it for making such a huge financial mess, Mike Harris's government massaged the province's numbers. It announced the sale of assets worth over $2 billion, but all they really collected was $132 million. They were off by 94%.

Currently, the Conservatives are getting ready to sell federal buildings.

Why is the Minister of Finance planning to make the same mistakes for Canadians that his government made in Ontario?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the budget will be balanced and we will continue our prudent economic management in Canada. However, there has been a big change in the past year, which is that taxpayers' money is being returned to the taxpayers of Canada. It is being returned to families for the benefit of children in Canada and not to the friends of the Liberal Party referred to by Justice Gomery.

* * *

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, through a concerted multilateral, multifaceted effort, Canada is helping to build a secure, democratic and economically viable Afghan state. This morning, the Prime Minister announced up to $200 million in additional aid funding for Afghanistan's reconstruction and development.

Could the Minister of International Cooperation share with the House how this funding will be used?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, these funds will be used to strengthen good governance, community development and the microfinance sector. They will also go toward demining and road construction. This new contribution is in addition to the money we have already spent on a number of programs that have produced tangible results.

Last spring, our government decided to do more to help Afghanistan, unlike the former government. This announcement reaffirms our commitment to development and reconstruction. With our whole of government approach and increased cooperation with our partners, we will achieve the desired results.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, there was no plan with the announcement on Afghanistan aid today to change this mission for the better. The recycling of old commitments and a change in the communication plan will not save Afghan lives.

What the government continues to ignore is the role that Pakistan is playing in the insurgency. What the Afghans need is more clean water, electricity and food aid for displaced people, not more tanks.

When will the government make real news and rebalance this mission?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the member does not understand the meaning of our mission in Afghanistan. I will give a few examples of the tangible results we are achieving there.

This year, over 300,000 Afghans will receive microcredit. That is double last year's figure. Every month, nearly 12,000 Afghans access microcredit to start businesses and create jobs for themselves. Children are attending school. Nearly a third of these children are girls. Training is also being provided for women.

I repeat, clearly, the member does not understand the meaning of our—

(1445)

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is really sad that even an announcement from the Prime Minister does not change the tired old lines from the government.

Sending leased German tanks to Kandahar will not improve Afghan lives. These are 30 year old tanks designed for fighting in European forests, not the deserts of central Asia. The chief of the land staff told me that the crews on these tanks will see temperatures of up to 60° Celsius by summer.

Why is the government sending Canadian soldiers into battle with tanks that overheat and armour that does not stand up to the new Taliban weapons?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at all possible options to deal with this issue. I am quite confident that in the next few months we will have a solution. We send to Afghanistan the very best equipment we can for our forces and, yes, we intend to win the arms race with the Taliban.

* * *

Visitor Rebate Program

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on December 20, Nova Scotia's minister of tourism sent a letter to the federal Ministers of Industry and Finance saying that the government's decision to cut the visitor rebate program will negatively impact the tourism industry.

Why did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance mislead the House by telling it that Nova Scotia supported the decision when all provinces opposed the decision to kill the rebate program that will kill thousands of Canadian tourism jobs?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the evidence indicated only 3% of tourists used the GST rebate. It was a relatively inefficient program.

I can say, however, that we have heard various representations concerning the issue, particularly with respect to conventions and so on. These are matters that are being taken into consideration in our deliberations in trying to encourage tourism in Canada.

We have also heard representations on behalf of the Canadian Tourism Commission, another important aspect of building up tourism in Canada. These are all important issues, not only for Nova Scotia but for all of Canada.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the minister ought to read his mail from provincial ministers who are united in their belief that it is bad public policy to make Canada the only country in the OECD without a visitor rebate program.

On December 4, the industry minister met with all the provincial tourism ministers, all of whom expressed their opposition to the government's decision. The Minister of Industry agreed with their position and offered to champion their position at the federal cabinet table.

Has the Minister of Industry championed their position at the cabinet table or was he just telling them what they wanted to hear?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, as the member opposite knows, is spending about $350 million this year to promote tourism in Canada. This is an important challenge for all of us. It is one of Canada's major industries.

We are working hard as we prepare the budget to try to further enhance the support we can offer for tourism in all regions of Canada.

* * *

Human Resources

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Garth Turner (Halton, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, last month, of the 160,000 people who entered the workforce, half of them found no work. In fact, the jobless rate has been rising since a low point reached during the last government. It is no wonder when more than $8 billion have been cut from programs such as workplace training, student employment and science and innovation.

The question is simple and direct. Where is the government's plan to train people for the jobs of the 21st century?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am very puzzled to see the member for Halton in the House today. I thought he had committed to Canadians that if a member of Parliament changed sides, himself for example, there should be a byelection. Perhaps he could go out and ask the people of his constituency the questions.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Garth Turner (Halton, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I asked a legitimate question of a government in power looking after the interests of Canadians.

Let us think about it: 3,000 jobs lost at Chrysler, 200 jobs lost at Canard, 300 jobs lost at Hershey and that is all the minister and his government can come up with. My constituents and Canadians deserve an answer and they deserve it now.

(1450)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's concerns with job losses, at least with regard to himself, since he did not seem to be willing to put that one on the line even though he said before that he would.

However, this is an economy that has been very strong. We are very concerned about the potential layoffs that have been occurring but let us keep in mind that last month was one of the biggest job creation months in the history of Canada.

* * *

[Translation]

Status of Women

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Johanne Deschamps (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, women's groups and unions are rallying, calling on the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women to reverse her decision to close 12 of the 16 regional offices of Status of Women Canada this April.

Does the minister intend to agree to the demands of these women's groups, which are asking her to reverse her decision and to restore the funding for Status of Women Canada?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous government, this government will redistribute these administrative savings to projects that help women directly.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Johanne Deschamps (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to this government. The minister already confirmed that the $5 million in cuts to Status of Women Canada will affect only administration and that services offered to women will not be affected.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women admit that cutting $5 million from the budget and closing 12 of the 16 regional offices will lead to reduced services for women, whether we like it or not?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I totally disagree. In fact, $5 million will go to women directly in their communities, which means more money and more services right in their communities. This will make a difference in the lives of Canadian women.

* * *

Immigration and Refugee Board

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury has served Canada with distinction for over 40 years, including holding senior positions at the Public Service Commission, CSIS and the Treasury Board.

Could the government confirm to the House the status of Mr. Fleury as chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada? Has he in fact resigned?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, I received a letter of resignation from Mr. Fleury. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Fleury for the 42 years of public service that he has provided and I wish him all the best in the future.

* * *

Justice

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Ontario convicted violent sex offender, Paul Callow, known as the balcony rapist, has served his sentence, has been released from prison and is now planning to settle in my constituency of Surrey, B.C. This man has admitted to raping over 26 women and is considered a high risk to reoffend.

What is the government doing to stop high risk dangerous criminals like Callow from moving into our communities when they are likely to reoffend?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on a specific case but I can assure the hon. member that we are absolutely committed as a government to containing violent criminals, keeping them off the streets and making our communities safer.

The good news is that we have introduced Bill C-27 which takes direct aim at repeat offenders who commit crimes over and over again by placing the onus on them to show why they should not be designated a dangerous offender. That is the good news. The bad news is, like all anti-crime measures this month, it is being opposed by the Liberal Party.

* * *

Canada Revenue Agency

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, an internal audit at Canada Revenue Agency has revealed that the government is unwilling to investigate big corporations for fear of harming relations with them. That fear is costing ordinary Canadians about $1.4 billion in owed corporate taxes. That is equivalent to the income tax paid by almost 400,000 ordinary Canadians earning $40,000 a year.

Why is the government increasing the prosperity gap between the middle class and the big corporations instead of making those corporations pay their fair share?

(1455)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Carol Skelton (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the internal audit of the CRA demonstrates yet another example of the Liberals ignoring the Auditor General's recommendations.

In 1996, the AG made recommendations to the Liberal minister but it took 10 years and nothing was done. The Liberals may not take the Auditor General seriously but this government does and the internal audit will be implemented this year.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, this is not the only example of neglect we have seen at the Canada Revenue Agency. The Auditor General reported this month that taxes on foreign incomes were not being investigated or collected either. In fact, in Toronto, which has 40% of the workload, there are no investigators with international tax expertise.

When will the revenue minister stop neglecting her duties and make corporate Canada pay up, just like they make everybody else pay up?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Carol Skelton (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I take my job very seriously and we are trying our best to get people who can audit our corporate overseas accounts, as many as we possibly can. I must reassure my colleague that they are very qualified people and we intend to look after the situation.

* * *

Immigration and Refugee Board

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister is bent on stacking the judiciary to suit his own ideological partisan agenda. It now appears that Mr. Fleury and the IRB are victims of Conservative bullying as well.

How can Canadians be comfortable with the fairness of the IRB process when the Prime Minister wants to use it as a tool for Conservative social engineering?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I believe Mr. Fleury would take exception to that. He himself said that he chose to retire because he wants to spend more time with his family. After 42 years of dedicated public service, he deserves that. I believe that the hon. member should apologize to Mr. Fleury for that.

* * *

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, in the Toronto Star last week Eddie Goldenberg, former chief of staff to former prime minister Jean Chrétien, pulled back the dark curtain and admitted the Liberals had no intention of meeting the Kyoto accord. He said the government was not even ready to do anything about it. Yet in the same newspaper on the same day the Leader of the Opposition said, “The previous Liberal government's plan laid the foundation for positive action to fight climate change in Canada and [put] us on a path to meet Kyoto commitments”.

Can the Minister of the Environment tell the House what he thinks of this flip-flop and what the government is doing to take action on the environment?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I was troubled to read the headline in the Montreal Gazette, “We had no hope of meeting Kyoto: Chrétien's top adviser”.

Last night many Canadians watched the Academy Awards and there was, sadly, one award which was not handed out. That is the award for the biggest flip-flop on the environment. Do you know who won, Mr. Speaker? Stéphane Dion and the Liberal Party of Canada.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I can see why there are a lot of cries of disapproval of that conduct. The hon. Minister of the Environment has violated two rules.

Hon. Monte Solberg: He is a new member, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: I would like to think of him as a rookie, but he knows he is not.

The hon. minister knows that mentioning other members' names is against the rules and so is using a prop, and that looks suspiciously to me like a prop. I hope he will restrain such conduct in future and refrain from such answers.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition for the next question.

* * *

Anti-terrorism Act

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, about the Anti-terrorism Act--

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

(1500)

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion:

Mr. Speaker, about the Anti-terrorism Act, I guess that the Minister of Public Safety, having received the report of the House five months ago, has done a point by point analysis of the report. Will he table his point by point analysis of this report and when will he table it so that we may see it?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we are very prompt to table all information related to this particular issue. As a matter of fact, part of the review that was conducted had the Liberals on record as supporting an extension of two very important provisions. The Liberals are actually asking for an extension of five years. We thought three would be good. We have offered other compromises.

We would like to see the report that the Leader of the Opposition must have received to create this colossal flip-flop. He has gone against the committee, he has gone against the Senate, he has gone against former Liberals. What report did he receive to cause this colossal flip-flop that he has done?

* * *

[Translation]

Intellectual Property

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, copyright infringement costs between $20 billion and $30 billion annually in losses to our businesses. For example, Polyform in my riding holds a patent for an insulating foam, and its innovation has been copied by another company. Obtaining a patent is expensive, but defending it in court costs even more.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recommends amending the legislation on intellectual property. What is the Minister of Industry waiting for to provide better protection for intellectual property and give this legislation more teeth?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. We are concerned about what my colleague has just said.

I am waiting for detailed recommendations from the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in order to continue our study of all the recommendations.

Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings]

* * *

[Translation]

Report on Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 32(2) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, I have the honour to lay upon the table, in both official languages, the Report to Parliament on Afghanistan entitled “Canada's Mission in Afghanistan: Measuring Progress”.

* * *

[English]

Points of Order

Bill C-257--Canada Labour Code

[Points of Order]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I want to rise at this point to seek a ruling on whether two amendments to Bill C-257 adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities are in order.

Bill C-257 was reported from committee on February 21 with amendments. I submit that three of these amendments are out of order, namely, the committee amendments to the bill's proposed new subsections 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 of section 94 of the code.

These amendments are out of order because they are beyond the scope and purpose of Bill C-257 for two reasons. These amendments now seek to indirectly amend the application of section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code, a section requiring the maintenance of services where interruption would cause immediate danger to health and safety, which is a provision that is not originally included as part of Bill C-257. In so doing, they would also dramatically expand and alter the effect of section 87.4 introducing the much broader concept of essential services.

Not only is this beyond the original content of Bill C-257, it is arguably contrary to its original purpose. These amendments do not relate to the purpose of section 94 of the Canada Labour Code, the original purpose of that section being to proscribe unfair practices.

In terms of subsection 2.1, the amendment to subsection 2.1 of section 94 of the code is out of order because it is beyond the scope and purpose of Bill C-257.

This amendment attempts to make the bill “subject to section 87.4” of the Canada Labour Code, which is a section, as I said, dealing narrowly with imminent danger to life and health in the event of a strike. Because section 87.4 is not referred to elsewhere in this bill, this is clearly a provision that attempts to reach back to this section. I therefore submit that the amendment is out of order.

The amendment to subsection 2.3 of section 94 of the code is out of order because it is beyond the scope and purpose of Bill C-257. That was the ruling of the chair of the committee on February 15 when this amendment was first put forward by the member for Davenport. However, this decision was overruled by the committee, which then adopted the amendment. Let me take a moment to explain why this amendment is beyond the scope of the bill.

Section 94 of the Canada Labour Code prohibits employers and unions from using unfair labour practices. This section would be changed under Bill C-257 by prohibiting replacement workers during a strike or lockout, and adding powers for the minister to investigate compliance.

The committee chair ruled that the amendment to subsection 2.3 was out of order because it adds the new concept of “essential” services to section 94 of the Canada Labour Code, which is not relevant to that section.

In order to understand the context of the committee's decision, it is important to note that on February 14 the member for Davenport proposed an amendment to section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code which sought to ensure the continuation of essential services in a strike given the ban on replacement workers proposed by Bill C-257. The chair ruled that amendment out of order because section 87.4 was not opened up in Bill C-257 as originally introduced.

Section 87.4 of the code addresses the obligations of employers, unions and employees to maintain certain activities during a strike or lockout. It does not use the word “essential” to describe these activities. Rather, it allows the Canada Industrial Relations Board to designate which activities, services and operations must be maintained in order to prevent an “immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”.

After the committee chair ruled on February 14 that amending section 87.4 was out of order, the member for Davenport moved an amendment on February 15 to add a new subsection 2.3 in section 94 of the Canada Labour Code to set out essential services which must be continued during a strike. However, section 94 of the code does not deal with the continuation of services in any way but simply lists unfair labour practices for employers and unions.

Adding the new concept of essential services in section 94 of the Canada Labour Code could affect the operation of section 87.4 by the back door by altering the way the Canada Industrial Relations Board would interpret section 87.4.

As this amendment also attempts to broaden the role of the board, this amendment both reaches back and broadens the scope of Bill C-257. It is therefore out of order on both counts. What is more, this new concept of essential services is not a defined term either in the previous statute or in the amendment. No definition is offered.

(1505)

The amendment to subsection 2.4 of section 94 of the code is also beyond the scope and purpose of Bill C-257. The committee chair also ruled on February 15 that the amendment to subsection 2.4 was out of order. However, again the committee overturned the chair's ruling and adopted this provision. This amendment to the Canada Labour Code would add new powers to the Canada Industrial Relations Board regarding essential services during a strike or lockout. However, as noted earlier, section 94 deals with unfair labour practices, not the powers of the board for essential services. Therefore, the amendment to the proposed new subsection 2.4 significantly alters the nature of section 94.

I would also note that because section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code provides authority for the Canada Industrial Relations Board to maintain services during a strike or lockout, the new subsection 2.4