37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 095
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 16, 2001
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Order in Council
Appointments |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Interparliamentary
Delegations |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Sexual
Predators |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
VIA Rail |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order
Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Anti-terrorism Act |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden
(Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden
(Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden
(Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Roger Gallaway |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Roger Gallaway |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Dystonia |
|
|
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Lisa's Law |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Gala des prix Excellence La
Presse—Radio-Canada |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East,
Lib.) |
|
|
Ontario Wine Industry |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Genetically Modified
Foods |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mike Harris |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
World Food Day |
|
|
Ms. Jean Augustine
(Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.) |
|
|
Violence Free Week |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ) |
|
|
Joyce Reid |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Co-Op Week |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
World Food Day |
|
|
Mr. Larry McCormick
(Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP) |
|
|
Judge Michael Sheehan |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
NATO Parliamentary Assembly
|
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga
Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Week Without Violence |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
Breast Cancer |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay
(Madawaska--Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Anti-terrorism Act |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-terrorism Act |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Customs and Excise |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North
Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-terrorism Act |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-Terrorism
Legislation |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Public Health |
|
|
M. André Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska,
PC/RD) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Highway Infrastructure |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Division No.
148 |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Airport
Security |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk
(Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
[------] |
|
|
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
|
|
Mme Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
|
|
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis
(Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis
(Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes |
|
|
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Stan Keyes |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis
(Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State
(Latin America and Africa), Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George--Peace
River, PC/DR) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Blood Samples Act |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville |
|
|
Mr. Louis Plamondon |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
|
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
|
|
Mr. John McCallum |
|
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
[------] |
|
|
(Division 149) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Income Tax Act |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 150) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the second time
and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Food and Drugs Act |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bob Speller
(Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain,
BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Anti-Terrorism Act |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bob Speller
(Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Labour, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk
(Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 16, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[English]
Order in Council
Appointments
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official
languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the
government.
* * *
(1005)
Interparliamentary
Delegations
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the
honour to present to the House, in both official languages, two reports from
the Canadian Branch, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the 40th
Canadian Regional Conference which was held in Edmonton, Alberta from July 16
to 22, 2001 and the 47th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, which was held
in Australia from September 4 to 14, 2001.
* * *
Petitions
Sexual
Predators
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition on
behalf of concerned citizens of Yellowhead on the protection of children from
sexual predators.
The petition calls on parliament to pass legislation
requiring a minimum jail sentence of 20 years for violent sexual child
predators. They call for legislation that would see repeat offenders jailed
indefinitely.
The petition is part of the Carrie's Guardian Angel
Initiative and was signed by 825 of my constituents.
* * *
VIA Rail
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise to present two more petitions
from the citizens of Peterborough and the surrounding region who are very keen
that VIA Rail service be resumed between Toronto and Peterborough.
They see this as providing great environmental
advantages in the reduction in greenhouse gases and helping Canada meet its
Kyoto agreement. They see it as reducing congestion on the highways and
reducing accident rates on the highways. They see it as something which will
strengthen the business environment not only of Peterborough but also of the
greater Toronto area.
This project, the re-establishment of VIA Rail, has
support in eight federal ridings.
* * *
(1010)
Questions on the Order
Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West—Nepean, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Discussions have taken place between all parties and
the member for Davenport concerning the taking of the division on Bill C-287
scheduled for later today at the conclusion of private members' business. I
believe you would find consent for the following:
|
|
That
at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-287, all questions necessary to
dispose of the motion for second reading be deemed put, a recorded division
deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, October 17, 2001 at the expiry of
the time provided for government orders. |
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there
agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Anti-terrorism Act
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-36, an act to amend the
Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds
of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts, and to enact measures
respecting the registration of charities in order to combat
terrorism, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, I want to thank members for
the opportunity to rise in the House this morning to speak in support of Bill
C-36, the Government of Canada's anti-terrorism act.
[Translation]
Before commenting on specific measures, I would like to
highlight this government's commitment to the fight against terrorism. This
bill represents an important component of the federal government's
comprehensive strategy to strengthen national security.
[English]
The horrific terrorist acts of September 11 created
suffering, fear and uncertainty. These events challenged Canadians' sense of
safety and security and it is this that we must address as our first
priority.
Terrorism seeks to undermine the rule of law and human
rights. Terrorism seeks to undermine our values and way of life. Terrorism
tries to turn one community against another, religion against religion, and
race against race. Terrorism seeks all these things but it will achieve none of
them, not here in Canada. This government has been clear but it is worth
repeating over and over again: this is not a war against any one group or
ethnicity but a war against terrorism.
(1015)
[Translation]
The measures contained in this bill target persons and
activities that undermine the security and welfare of Canadians. Our efforts
are directed against terrorist acts, not against the members of a specific
community, ethnicity, or religion. Diversity is one of Canada's greatest
strengths and we are taking measures to protect it.
[English]
We are marshalling our resources against the forces of
terror while still maintaining our commitment to the enduring values of
democracy. Striking the proper balance has always been the challenge of
democratic governments. This has never been more true than it is today. We are
protecting our values and defining the threat that terrorism poses to free and
civilized nations everywhere. These values receive an important part of their
legal expression in the charter of rights and freedoms. We will protect the
very thing that terrorism seeks to disrupt, namely, maintaining the balance
between an open and just society and a safe and secure one.
Bill C-36 is one element of the Government of Canada's
comprehensive action plan on Canadian security, a plan whose objectives are to
stop terrorists from getting into Canada and protect Canadian citizens from
terrorist acts, to bring forward tools to identify, prosecute, convict and
punish terrorists, to keep our borders secure and to work with the
international community to bring terrorists to justice and address the root
causes of hatred.
In developing this legislation we have paid close
attention to what other democratic countries are doing in their fight against
terrorism. It is important that we act in a way that is consistent with the
approach of other democratic nations and in conformity with international
law.
The world changed on September 11 in a way that changed
our collective sense of safety and security. Reviewing our legal framework was
one component of a more thorough review undertaken by the federal government to
strengthen our national security. Be assured that all democratic nations have
undertaken a similar re-examination.
Canadians have much to be proud of and much to protect.
This bill strikes a balance between our desire to maintain the values of
freedom and individual rights and our collective determination to protect our
citizens.
[Translation]
Canadians can rest assured that we kept in mind the
rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter when drafting our
proposals.
[English]
The bill reaffirms the equal right of every citizen of
whatever religion, race or ethnic origin to enjoy the security, protections and
liberties shared by all Canadians.
Amendments to the criminal code would allow the courts
to order the deletion of publicly available hate propaganda from computer
systems such as an Internet site. Those who post material will be provided the
opportunity to convince the court that the material is not hate propaganda. The
provision would apply to hate propaganda that is located on Canadian computer
systems regardless of where the owner of the material is located or whether he
or she can be identified.
Further, criminal code amendments would create a new
offence of mischief, motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion,
race, colour, national or ethnic origin, committed against a place of religious
worship or associated religious property.
In addition, the Canadian Human Rights Act will be
amended to clarify that communication of hate messages using new technology,
such as the Internet, constitutes a discriminatory practice. While such
communication is already interpreted to be discriminatory, these amendments
will add certainty and clarity to the law.
I should like to describe the approach we have
developed in Bill C-36. The proposed legislative package focuses on three
elements. Bill C-36 targets terrorist activity and those who would carry out or
support such activity. The three main objectives of the new measures are as
follows: first, to suppress the very existence of terrorist groups; second, to
provide new investigative tools; and, third, to provide a tougher sentencing
regime to incapacitate terrorists and terrorist groups.
The bill seeks to identify, dismantle, prosecute and
punish terrorist activity. Bill C-36 includes criminal code amendments to
ratify the remaining two United Nations conventions and protocols related to
terrorism. The suppression of terrorist financing convention concerns the
freezing of terrorist property.
It would prohibit dealing in any property of an
individual involved in terrorist activities and it would prohibit making
available funds and financial means or services to terrorists. These measures
would allow a federal court judge to order the seizure and forfeiture of
property used in or related to terrorist activity.
The suppression of terrorist bombings convention
contains provisions relating to the targeting of public places, government or
infrastructure facilities or transportation systems with explosives or other
lethal devices including chemical or biological agents. The term explosive or
other lethal device is defined broadly to include toxic chemicals, biological
agents and radioactive substances. Ratification of these two conventions would
reflect Canada's commitment to work together with the international
community.
Let there be no doubt. Whether we are in North America
or somewhere else in the world, terrorism represents a global threat, the force
of which reverberated in the cities of New York and Washington on September 11.
We shall take all legitimate means necessary to undermine the forces of
terrorism. We must without hesitation work with our neighbours and with our
allies to ensure that those who seek to terrorize the innocent and support
terrorists understand that we will cut off their money. We will find them and
we will punish them for their acts of violence.
The legislation before the House would provide a
definition of terrorist activity for the first time. This definition is
critical, as many of the legal implications under the bill are tied to the
concept of terrorist activity. The first element of the definition outlines the
offences that are established in the 12 international conventions related to
terrorism, all of which we have signed.
Equally important, however, is a general definition
that refers to acts or omissions undertaken for political, religious or
ideological purposes and which are intended to intimidate the public, force
governments to act and cause serious harm.
We have carefully restricted the definition to make it
clear that property damage and disruption of an essential service are not in
and of themselves sufficient to constitute a terrorist activity. The action
taken must also endanger lives or cause serious risks to the health and safety
of the public.
This is an important issue about which some of my
colleagues have expressed concern. To respond to their concerns let me assure
the House and all Canadians that this definition shall in no way include
legitimate forms of political dissent. It would not impinge upon the lawful
activities of legitimate political groups or lobby organizations. In addition,
the legislation would permit the designation of groups whose activities meet
the definition of terrorist activity.
I will speak now to the issue of new offences as laid
out in the legislation and as targeted to acts of terrorism. Comprehensive new
terrorism offences under the criminal code have been created. These include
offences relating to participating in, facilitating or instructing terrorist
activity and harbouring others who carry out terrorist activity.
(1020)
These offences would criminalize a full range of
activities related to terrorism. For example, a person who helps to train
another person in an otherwise legal activity such as flying an aircraft would
commit a crime if the trainer knew it would help the other person carry out a
terrorist activity. This would be the case regardless of whether the trainer
knew when, where or how the terrorist activity might be carried out.
The new offences related to direction of or instruction
in terrorist activity would allow us to go after the leaders of terrorist
organizations. The most severe penalties, up to life imprisonment, are attached
to these offences.
I have spoken about the effort demonstrated in the bill
to maintain a balance between a firm commitment to eradicate terrorism and the
protection of civil liberties for all Canadians. There are safeguards built
into these new terrorism offences throughout the bill. Notably the required
proof includes specific intent or actual knowledge in relation to the
prohibited conduct.
We are all aware that the lifeblood of terrorist
organizations is money. Bill C-36 proposes new measures under the criminal code
to combat the financing of terrorism. It includes measures related to the
seizure, restraint and forfeiture of terrorist property. The new measures
related to financing would allow us to effectively go after the heart of
terrorist financing networks.
For example, it would be an offence to collect or
provide cash knowing that it would be used to facilitate or carry out an
offence that constitutes terrorist activity. It would be an offence to provide
financial services knowing that they would be used to facilitate or carry out
terrorist activity or to benefit a terrorist group. Persons in the financial
services industry who knowingly engage in transactions related to terrorism
could find themselves charged criminally.
These measures are also subject to safeguards including
substantive and procedural requirements governing seizure, restraint and
forfeiture. Third party interests including those of the innocent families of
those involved would be protected.
I should like to turn now to the element of the bill
that would provide for preventive arrest as a way of assisting law enforcement
officers to disrupt terrorism acts. The September 11 events heightened our
awareness of the highly sophisticated nature of terrorist activity.
Sophisticated communications, modified organizational
structures and an ability to evade traditional investigative methods require us
to examine what other tools may be available to help security and enforcement
officers carry out their investigations. The preventive arrest is one such
tool.
If an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a
serious terrorist offence is about to take place and suspects that the arrest
of a particular person would prevent it, then that person can be detained and
brought before a judge. These measures would only be available under strictly
defined conditions and would be subject to numerous procedural safeguards.
The consent of the attorney general would be required
as a prerequisite, save for emergency circumstances. The person would be
brought before a provincial court judge within 24 hours or as soon as possible,
and a maximum further period in detention of 48 hours would be possible if a
judge so orders.
The object of bringing the person before the court is
for the court to consider whether conditions should be imposed upon the
person's movements and associations. The court may impose such conditions or
may release the person without conditions. If the person refuses to accept
conditions the court may commit him or her to prison for up to 12
months.
The bill also amends the proceeds of crime or money
laundering legislation. Fintrac's mandate would be expanded to gather, analyze
and disclose information on terrorist money laundering. The safeguards built
into the Fintrac process would be maintained.
(1025)
The charities registration act would be enacted as part
of the bill to allow for the denial or removal of charitable status from
organizations that provide resources directly or indirectly to terrorists. This
would be subject to both ministerial and judicial review.
Bill C-36 would also provide for investigative hearings
under the criminal code. These hearings would permit the gathering of evidence
in investigations of terrorism offences prior to the laying of charges. There
is an existing procedure under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
Act that allows us to do this for other countries, but there is nothing
comparable for our own investigations. The United States has investigative
grand juries that perform a similar function.
This investigative hearing would not be a trial of an
offence. Evidence given could not be used afterward in criminal proceedings
against the person. The right to counsel would apply, as would the rights of
privilege and other rights of non-disclosure under the law.
The bill would also amend the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service Act to clarify its mandate and enable it to investigate
threats to Canada, including those arising from religious or ideological
objectives in addition to political causes that it now covers. As we have seen,
terrorists may be driven by motives other than the purely political.
The bill would amend the National Defence Act to
continue and clarify the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment,
CSE, to collect foreign communications. The CSE's functions of collecting
foreign intelligence and of protecting Government of Canada communications
systems are particularly important in the context of action against
sophisticated terrorist networks that use computers and satellite telephone
systems.
Subject to strict conditions the bill would empower the
Minster of National Defence to authorize interceptions in limited
circumstances. Safeguards to ensure the privacy of Canadians are built into the
legislation.
Other provisions of the bill include the updating and
refinement of the Official Secrets Act. This act would be renamed the security
of information act and would better address national security concerns.
The amendments cover threats of espionage by foreign
powers and by terrorist groups, espionage against Canada's national security,
defence, international relations and economic interests. They also address the
intimidation and coercion of any émigré community in Canada.
The Canada Evidence Act would be amended to allow for
better protection of sensitive information during legal proceedings. One of the
key reasons we need this improved protection is to be able to assure our allies
that sensitive information they provide to us can be protected from
release.
The Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and
Personal Information Protection Act would be amended to allow the Attorney
General of Canada to issue certificates prohibiting disclosure of information
for the purpose of protecting national security, national defence or
international relations. This would be consistent with Canada Evidence Act
provisions respecting the protection of such information in court
proceedings.
I want to say a few words about the sentencing regime.
The bill would implement an aggressive sentencing and parole regime for
terrorism offences including a maximum of life imprisonment for many offences
and restricted parole eligibility. Those who instruct anyone to carry out a
terrorist activity would be subject to a maximum of life imprisonment.
In addition, the criminal code would stipulate that
sentences imposed for terrorist offences are to be served consecutively to any
other offence imposed relating to the same activity or event.
These are the main elements of our legislative
proposals. Legislation alone is not the complete answer to the security
challenge we are facing. Rather, it is one element of the government's plan to
deal effectively with terrorists and those who support them.
It is incumbent on us to ensure that our laws meet our
present day needs. As such, this package includes a three year parliamentary
review clause because we acknowledge the fact that our needs may change in the
weeks, months and years ahead.
(1030)
Today I want to reassure Canadians that their
government has listened to them and acknowledged their desire for action. It is
responding with a legislative package that I believe meets their expectations
not only in relation to combating terrorism but in its commitment to protecting
individual rights and freedoms.
Our world changed dramatically on September 11 but not
in the manner that the terrorists who planned and carried out the horrific
attacks had hoped. They aimed to frighten us, disrupt our lives and force us to
question our most basic democratic values of freedom and liberty. They did not
succeed. Our commitment to democracy is stronger than ever. Together all
Canadians are committed to increasing public security while maintaining our
core values.
Bill C-36 represents an appropriate legislative balance
to reflect Canadian values. Though our allies may have designed different
legislative means to suit their legislative and constitutional frameworks, we
nevertheless share a collective goal: to provide our citizens with security for
themselves, their families and their communities.
I welcome review of the legislation by the House. I
encourage all members to participate in the review and to support passage of
the legislation.
(1035)
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have
been consultations between House leaders and there is unanimous consent for the
following motion which I would like to put to the House. I move:
| That, notwithstanding any Standing
Order or usual practice, no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall be
taken up this day and the House shall sit after 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of
considering Bill C-36, provided that the House shall adjourn at 10:00 p.m., and
provided that, if no Member rises to speak before that time, the debate shall
be adjourned and the House shall be adjourned and during such debate the Chair
will not entertain motions for unanimous consent. |
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
Mr. Peter MacKay:
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the
presence of the minister today, the importance of the new legislation and the
fact that she has given a riveting and informative speech on it, would she
entertain a short period of questioning from the opposition? I seek unanimous
consent of the House for that.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. I
am pleased to take part in the debate today regarding the long anticipated
anti-terrorism legislation. I am pleased to see the new found enthusiasm of
members on the Liberal benches to fight terrorism. After years of inaction and
denial the light finally went on over there, especially in view of the
circumstances of September 11.
The bill being tabled today is an important step
forward and reflects many of the issues the Canadian Alliance has been raising
over the past years. The bill echoes many recommendations made by Canadian
Alliance members of parliament, including the identification of terrorist
organizations, the ratification of international obligations to suppress
terrorist bombings, and banning fundraising activities that support
terrorism.
As recently as September 18 our party introduced a
supply motion putting forth a number of the same elements Bill C-36 introduces.
The motion unfortunately was voted down as the government accused the Canadian
Alliance of playing politics or trying to score political points.
It is disappointing that the government has chosen to
disparage the opposition for raising legitimate security concerns, not only in
the past month but over the past number of years. It is even more disappointing
that the government has forced Canadians to wait so long before finally
introducing the same measures it previously disparaged.
The United Kingdom has had strict laws banning
terrorist fundraising and other terrorist activity for a year and a half, and
the United States has had such laws in place for a number of years. However
Canada has not taken any legislative action in this area until now. It appears
that government members have finally acknowledged the gravity of the situation
now that the tragedy of September 11 has forced them into action.
Although some positive and necessary measures are being
announced in the proposed legislation, in the days and weeks to come members of
the Canadian Alliance will be urging the minister to take further steps to
improve the provisions of the bill.
One issue that needs to be raised and debated is the
failure of the government to ban membership in organizations that are clearly
identified as terrorist organizations. If the purpose of an organization is to
engage in terrorist activities, what possible justification can there be for
permitting individuals to continue to belong to the organization?
The Liberal government has argued in the past that such
a provision might be considered unconstitutional. However, making it illegal to
participate in a group proven to be a terrorist organization is a reasonable
limit on freedom of association and other freedoms in the charter.
When the primary, if not the sole, purpose of such an
association is to commit illegal terrorist acts, the safety and security of all
citizens may reasonably supersede the individual rights of the persons
participating in the organizations or conspiring to commit the acts. If the
courts do not believe our citizens are deserving of this protection they should
tell us so, but the government should have the courage to include that in the
bill.
Contrary to the suggestions found in justice department
publications, the provision would not make participation in a terrorist
organization illegal unless it could be proven that a person had the intention
to facilitate illegal actions for the organization. This is the same misleading
characterization that was in the government's previous organized crime
legislation. People need to understand that the provisions make clear the
additional responsibilities a prosecutor would need to demonstrate in a court
of law.
(1040)
Another concern is that the bill does nothing to
address Canada's new status as a haven for terrorists seeking to flee the
consequences of their crimes in other countries. The Canadian Alliance has
called on the government to put in place laws to ensure terrorists are
extradited promptly and without reservation to countries that respect the rule
of law. However the bill fails to address this serious concern.
The Supreme Court of Canada's United States v Burns
decision of February 15, 2001, created a safe haven in Canada for violent
criminals, including international terrorists, regardless of nationality, who
come to Canada to escape lawful punishment in the United States or any other
democratic country.
The anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act of
1996, passed by the United States congress, makes terrorism a federal crime
punishable by death. Any suspected terrorist who travels from the United States
to Canada to escape prosecution may therefore not be extradited unless
assurances are given by the U.S. that the person would not face the death
penalty.
It is troubling that if the criminals involved in the
New York City or Washington attacks made their way to Canada to avoid
prosecution the Canadian government would be prohibited from extraditing them
pursuant to United States v Burns unless there were undefined exceptional
circumstances. These circumstances are required by the court, so the law
becomes the policy playground of unelected judges who define such circumstances
on a case by case basis.
These are not simply the comments of members of
Canadian Alliance or opposition members. In a related case last February, the
day after I stood in the House and said the United States v Burns case was
creating a safe haven for terrorists in Canada and the Minister of Justice
stood and denied it, her own lawyers on behalf of herself and the Minister of
Immigration expressed their concern to the supreme court in precisely the same
words. They said its decision could create a safe haven for terrorists.
They cited the case of Suresh and Ahani, suspected
terrorists from Sri Lanka and Iran respectively who have claimed refugee status
in Canada and are using charter rights to appeal against deportation. Canadian
Alliance members have asked the minister to reopen the Suresh arguments. The
Supreme Court of Canada has not yet delivered its judgment but the minister is
entitled in exceptional circumstances to request that the case be opened.
Given the events of September 11, these are clearly
exceptional circumstances. The Minister of Justice has refused to ask the
Supreme Court of Canada to reopen the Suresh case. Accordingly it is unlikely
that she will be able to extradite foreign terrorists after the court makes its
ruling.
In extradition and deportation cases Canadian laws must
ensure that terrorists are expelled from Canada promptly and without
reservation to face the consequences of their acts. I would ask the minister to
reconsider adding such provisions to the legislation. Canadians require legal
certainty, not vague assurances by the minister or unelected judges. The
security of Canadians is too important to be the policy plaything of unelected
judges.
(1045)
Another worrisome issue is that the bill fails to deny
parole to terrorists convicted of multiple murders. Under the anti-terrorism
bill sentences would be served consecutively for a number of offences. However
sentences of life imprisonment are excluded. In other words, if a terrorist
commits murder he or she would be eligible for parole yet for lesser offences
the sentences must be served consecutively.
In light of the fact that terrorists attempt to
indiscriminately kill and take as many lives as possible, it is self-evident
that those who kill in this fashion should never be released from custody. A
second opportunity to participate in a mass murder should never be provided,
and certainly not provided by the House.
Another concern I draw to the attention of the minister
is the joint prosecutorial authority afforded by the legislation. It is clear
that both the provincial attorney general and the federal attorney general may
initiate prosecutions under the legislation. However I submit that in view of
the international scope of terrorism prosecutions should remain in the hands of
the federal attorney general.
I agree there should be co-operation with the
provincial attorneys general, but the scope of these investigations and the
involvement of CSIS and the RCMP require federal direction.
My real fear is that this provision was included simply
to download financial responsibility to the provinces and to allow the federal
minister of justice to escape political heat whenever she or he did not want to
take authority for a prosecution.
We have seen before where the federal government
downloads responsibilities after passing a law. The burden of the prosecution
and the financial cost associated with those laws then remain on the province.
This legislation is a matter of national security. It should be dealt with by
the federal attorney general and resourced through parliament.
Many Canadians have serious and legitimate concerns
that civil liberties may be sacrificed in the government's attempt to quash
terrorist activity. Regardless of the gravity of the security threats facing
our country all citizens must be assured of legal protection from the arbitrary
exercise of state power. That is why it is so important that the legislation
clearly spells out the rights of police and security agencies. We want to
provide police and security agents with this authority but not on any terms.
The terms must be carefully and clearly delineated in the
legislation.
Canadians want to see evidence that the federal
government is taking strong and effective legislative measures to improve
national security. I do not think these measures need be at the expense of
personal freedoms.
The legislation is raising and will continue to raise
civil liberty concerns in the course of this debate and beyond. The preventive
arrest and the investigative hearings provisions of the bill will surely come
under charter scrutiny. The new power of preventive arrest would allow a peace
officer to arrest a suspected terrorist if there were reasonable grounds to
suspect that the person was about to commit a terrorist activity. The section
on investigative hearings would compel material witnesses to disclose
information relating to terrorism to a judge even without a formal
trial.
(1050)
It appears that both these measures are reasonable,
especially in the context of the investigative hearings where there is
protection from self-incrimination. However, the due process that is imported
into the investigative hearings may in fact prevent the timely disclosure of
information necessary for action against pending or imminent terror
activity.
We have to balance those due process concerns with the
ability of our authorities to get timely information. In view of the fact that
there are no penal consequences as a result of the investigative hearing both
processes could be sped up because there are no criminal consequences to that
and we need to bear that in mind.
Some of the amendments to the criminal code regarding
hate crimes are also of concern. For example, under the bill courts may order
an Internet provider to delete an item from the computer system if it were
deemed hate propaganda. The courts may also order the custodian of the computer
system to provide any information relating to the whereabouts of the person who
created the hate propaganda.
The increased abilities of our police and security
agencies also need to be carefully considered. It is important to remember that
our laws dealing with national security have not kept up with advances in
technology in terms of proposed changes to laws governing wiretapping
procedures. Criteria for obtaining warrants and electronic surveillance orders
to monitor terrorist activity should have been streamlined and modernized years
ago. Our frontline workers need to be able to respond to the virtually
unlimited resources, funds and technology of terrorist
organizations.
The analogy can be made in the context of organized
crime. It seems that terrorist organizations and organized crime have unlimited
funds. Our police and other security agencies do not. As my colleague pointed
out yesterday in question period, the government seems to put its priority on
registering the shotguns of duck hunters rather than providing our security
services with those resources. Spending $100 million a year on registering the
shotguns of duck hunters for no bona fide criminal activity is an absolute
disgrace. If the government wants to find money to prevent crime, let it do so
by abolishing this very ill conceived national long gun registry.
Another concern is the very close bureaucratic
relationship between our federal police, the RCMP, and the solicitor general.
If we are giving police this broad power and if it is justified under the
charter in order to accomplish these security needs, then we have to take steps
to divide that close relationship between the solicitor general and the
commissioner of the RCMP.
The commissioner of the RCMP is a deputy minister in
his own department. It is wrong for a national police force to have that kind
of relationship with the minister. There needs to be protection so that the
police work is separate from the political work or the possibility of political
interference in that police work.
(1055)
My colleagues in the NDP have raised the issue that the
legislation may suppress bona fide political dissent. That too is a legitimate
concern. One of the ways to address that issue is not by diluting the
legislation, but by putting a proper reporting system in place so that the
heads of the RCMP or other security agencies do not report to the solicitor
general but to an independent committee of the House made up of non-partisan
members of the House or members from both sides of the House. This is a very
important step that we can take in order to ensure that police powers are
properly used.
The unprecedented terrorist attacks of September 11
will certainly influence the courts' rulings on security matters. We must allow
the courts to do their work after we have considered and passed this
legislation.
As the Minister of Justice said, the courts read
newspapers, so they know what is going on. It is too bad the minister could not
have supplemented that knowledge by expanding the arguments against Suresh. The
minister missed a golden opportunity in these exceptional circumstances to make
a clear stand against terrorism by indicating very clearly the arguments that
need to be made to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Over the course of the past month the Canadian Alliance
has drawn attention to the fact that although Canada signed the international
convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism almost two years
ago, it has not ratified the convention because the federal government failed
to put into place the necessary legislation to stop terrorist fundraising.
Now that the legislation has been introduced, it
appears that the justice minister was less than frank with the House and
Canadians when she implied in the House in response to questioning that she
could seize money under subsection 3(2) of the United Nations Act. This section
has been amended by new legislation on goods, wares or merchandise; in the very
section that she said would allow her to seize those assets, including money,
those words have been deleted and replaced with the word property.
Although the minister implied that this section, as it
was then, gave her the authority to seize assets, the Canadian Alliance
consistently said that the government did not have the legislative authority to
do so. It is now clear that this is in fact the case.
It is unfortunate that ministers of the crown would
spend their time in question period being vague and less than frank in order to
make up for legislative and policy failures, however, I welcome the new
provisions that would allow the government to ratify the UN convention and to
take this long needed action to suppress the essential financial resources
needed by terrorist organizations.
There are a number of amendments to other acts in the
bill, including the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds
of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, the National Defence Act and many others. We
must be diligent in ensuring that all amendments to these acts strike the
appropriate balance between national security and the right of the public to be
informed of government business. The leader of the PC/DR coalition has been
especially vigilant in respect of this disclosure. He has mentioned it in
various questions and other statements, as have other members of the
House.
Some of the amendments to the Access to Information Act
are troubling. For example, the bill would allow the attorney general to
prohibit the disclosure of information for the purpose of protecting
international relations, national security or defence. This sweeping provision
could potentially restrict the information available to Canadians to a great
extent. Information about the deficiencies of the Sea King helicopters may not
have been revealed if the attorney general could have used the blanket
prohibition of protecting national security to prevent such information from
being released.
(1100)
The bill should not be a cover to allow the government
to continue to evade its security responsibilities as it has done over the last
number of years. These types of amendments to the Access to Information Act
need to be very carefully considered.
The government also claims that the bill clarifies the
mandate of the Communications Security Establishment. Currently the CSE is a
government agency that provides guidance in the area of information technology.
However the mandate extended to the CSE in the bill gives considerable legal
authority to the agency. For example clause 102 of the bill allows the Minister
of National Defence to authorize the CSE to intercept private communications
for the sole purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence. This amendment to the
National Defence Act is a major shift of the responsibilities of the CSE and
should not pass through the House without due consideration of its
implications.
Along the same lines I also have concerns about
amendments to the Official Secrets Act. Secrecy legislation is primarily
designed to protect the security of the state from espionage. However, the
broad wording of Canada's Official Secrets Act means that it may be used to
sanction the unauthorized release of almost any information held by
government.
We must be mindful of this when considering any
amendments to the act. In view of the answers we have heard provided to the
House by ministers of the crown, for example the solicitor general, matters
that routinely are given to members of the press in the United States by the
American government are denied access here in the House. The minister simply
stands and says that it is a matter of national security and cannot be
disclosed. If the minister is taking that position on the basis of the existing
act, we can imagine what the minister would do with enhanced powers. We need to
clarify the powers that the ministers may have in denying Canadians the right
to information that does not undermine national security.
The last but perhaps most important concern I would
like to raise today is the matter of resources. The legislation, as good as it
is in its various aspects, will be of little value if the Liberal government
does not provide adequate resources to our frontline forces in the fight
against terrorism. The government consistently says it gives a certain amount
of money over a number of years, but when we divide that money over those
number of years and subtract the money that has been taken out of the security
budget and look at what actual money is going to frontline police and security
services, we realize that the money certainly is less than adequate. Again I
only need make reference to the kinds of boondoggles into which the government
has been willing to put money, like registering the shotguns of duck
hunters.
The United States passed legislation in 1996 that
requires the government to commit resources to support a wide range of security
measures. The Canadian bill has no such requirement. It is the responsibility
of the government to provide adequate resources to our frontline police and
security agencies in the fight against terrorism. Without this support Canadian
security cannot be assured.
The government has taken some important steps. Although
we will be considering the provisions of the bill very carefully, it is
imperative that the legislation move forward as quickly as possible. I
therefore thank members of the House for the increase in the number of hours
for debate to raise concerns and move the matter along.
(1105)
All Canadians are entitled to live in peace and
security. While the government has finally moved to respond in a meaningful way
to the threat of worldwide terrorism, much remains to be done. Members of the
Canadian Alliance, the opposition, are committed to working with the government
to ensure that the steps necessary to achieve peace and security in Canada are
accomplished.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, BQ):
Madam Speaker, as we all know we have been asking the
minister to introduce legislation that will allow Canada to fulfill its
international commitments in the fight against terrorism for some time
now.
It is therefore understandable that since the events of
September 11 we have been looking forward to this bill on terrorism. Now that
we have it, the question is whether or not it lives up to our expectations.
First, we can only applaud the fact that the minister
has finally introduced legislation that truly outlaws activities that finance
terrorism. Whether it be for organized crime or terrorists, money is the
lifeblood of war.
By starving an organization of its sources of
financing, we greatly reduce its striking power. Furthermore, by adding seizure
and freezing of assets, we can begin to take seriously the government's claim
that it wants to wage war against terrorists.
Unfortunately, from part 6 on, the bill contains, word
for word, Bill C-16, the bill on funding charitable organizations. What we
thought we could call the late lamented Bill C-16, has risen from the tomb.
Apart from a few cosmetic changes, it is to be found in Bill C-36 almost in its
entirety.
On April 30 I summarized Bill C-16 in the following
terms: suspicion, discretionary power, enigmatic proof, and lack of control.
Six months later, I have no choice but to reiterate these same comments about
part 6 of this bill on terrorism.
We do not deny that it is appropriate to protect the
integrity of the charities registration system by preventing their use as a
cover for terrorist organizations. What we dispute is the way the government
wants to go about achieving its ends.
This spring we criticized the fact that it went against
too many principles of justice for it to pass royal assent. To let this happen
would constitute a dangerous precedent in terms of the violation of procedural
guarantees. However, yesterday the minister slipped the same bill, give or take
a comma, under our nose. Worse yet, the inquisitional procedure established by
Bill C-16 now applies to a body that wants its name removed from the list of
organizations involved in terrorist activities.
Now under the bill before us the governor in council
will be able to establish by regulation a list containing the name of any
entity that might be associated with terrorist activities.
What does that mean, exactly? In both cases, the entity
and the charity appear before a judge who can reach a decision from evidence
submitted in camera and without the party or parties being present.
In even clearer terms, let us suppose that a charity
loses its charitable status following the signing of a certificate by the
solicitor general or the Minister of National Revenue. The organization will be
allowed to ask the judge to quash the certificate. However, it is possible that
the judge will base his decision on information that the organization will
never have access to.
The same goes for a group that wants to see its name
struck from the list of organizations associated with terrorist activities.
That group will have to go before a judge, who will determine whether or not to
remove the group's name from the list. However, this could take place without
the applicant ever knowing why his name first appeared on such a
list.
By violating such fundamental and elementary rules of
evidence as the disclosure of evidence, the government is ignoring the
contradictory nature of our judicial system. All the more worrisome is the fact
that the evidence adduced will be based on information provided primarily by
CSIS. Knowing the practices used by CSIS and its difficulties in striking a
fair balance between national security and rights and freedoms, this might be
cause for concern.
(1110)
With such provisions, we can legitimately ask two
questions. Either the information is not circulating between ministers or else
the government has simply decided to turn a deaf ear to the representations
made by countless witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on
Finance when it reviewed Bill C-16, which at the time was sponsored by the
solicitor general.
Since it is hard to imagine that the Minister of
Justice was not informed of what went on during the proceedings of that
committee, the only plausible assumption is the second one. Considering all
that went on with the young offenders bill, could this be a habit with the
minister?
In the same vein, during the first sitting of the
Standing Committee on Finance, which took place on May 16, the solicitor
general and the Minister of National Revenue tried to explain to us why Bill
C-16 did not include the definition of the term terrorist. The solicitor
general said, and I quote:
[English]
| If you are aware, the courts have
indicated that it is not necessary to define terrorism. |
[Translation]
He went on to say:
[English]
| When you evaluate around the world to
find an exact definition for terrorism, it is about impossible. |
[Translation]
As for the Minister of National Revenue, he specified
the following:
| Merely coming up with a definition or
defining parameters would basically, at the end of the line, end up taking away
tools or options that we would like to have in this bill. |
Yet, to cite just two examples, the U.K. terrorism act
and the French penal code have successfully done what these two ministers felt
was impossible at the time they were defending Bill C-16 before the committee.
The British legislation reads as follows:
[English]
| In this Act “terrorism” means the use
or threat of action where: |
| The use or threat is designed to
influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public
and, |
| The use or threat is made for the
purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. |
[Translation]
As for the French penal code, terrorism is defined as
follows:
| Certain criminal offences are
considered terrorism when the acts are intentionally linked to an individual or
group whose purpose is to cause a serious disruption of public order through
intimidation or terror. |
This is followed by a list of the criminal offences
considered acts of terrorism. I will spare members that, however. We can see
that there has been a sort of attempt in Bill C-36 to define the terms
terrorist activity, terrorist group and terrorism offence.
Considering that the term was virtually undefinable,
according to the two ministers, one might well think that the Minister of
Justice has done nothing to simplify things. Bill C-36, instead of providing a
definition along the French or British lines that states right off what is
involved forces us to constantly jump from one reference to another, and we
have almost forgotten what we were looking for by the time we get to the end of
the chain of searches. Fortunately the basic content is there, but the form
needs more work. In actual fact, there is no definition of terrorism, just
definitions for act, action or omission.
In addition, as we have been seeing for some time now,
law enforcement officials are demanding a considerable increase in their
powers, but must the powers of the various government bodies responsible for
security be increased in order to mount an effective campaign against
terrorism? Well might one wonder. In the October 6 issue of La Presse,
journalist Yves Boisvert wrote:
| Nothing useful will be accomplished
without effective information services and an intelligent police
community. |
What constitutes an effective information service? One
thing is certain, that is, it is certainly not by keeping tabs on groups such
as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the Anglican Church, the United Church
and the Raging Grannies that we are going to dismantle a major terrorist
network. Yet considering that some fifty or so organizations and approximately
350 individuals are already being watched closely by CSIS as part of its
anti-terrorist program, there is no lack of genuine terrorist threats. We may
therefore conclude that if the resources and energies were concentrated in the
right place, part of the problem would resolve itself.
Furthermore, in order to be intelligent, must the
police be authorized to commit criminal offences as provided for in the
organized crime legislation? By placing above the law those who are supposed to
enforce it, such measures can only succeed in institutionalizing crime within
law enforcement agencies.
Must we also bend the rules of evidence in order to
compensate for deficiencies or errors in a case before the courts? Since a
police investigation can have a tremendous impact on an accused, the work of
law enforcement officers must be guided by rules imposing maximum
rigour.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the primary
mission of police officials is to protect public safety. This is not some
contest to make a maximum number of arrests leading to charges, particularly if
these charges are the result of bungled investigations. Not only will the
public not be better protected, but in fact it will be even more vulnerable to
possible abuses of authority. This would be to replace one threat with another.
If such guiding rules are limited, there is a good chance that corners will be
cut.
Bill C-24 opened a door that will be very difficult to
close and its long term impact could be catastrophic. By allowing a peace
officer to detain a person following an arrest without a warrant, Bill C-36
just opens another door. If there are sceptics, just think of what happened
during the October crisis with the War Measures Act: there were hundreds of
arbitrary arrests and heavy handed searches without warrants, undoubtedly the
worst case of abuse of power ever known in Quebec.
(1115)
It is fine to introduce anti-terrorism legislation, but
let us not forget that this is merely a legislative tool that cannot be
effective in and of itself. The best legislation in the world is useless if
there are not competent people with a good head to implement it and ensure
compliance with it. This includes police authorities, intelligence services and
customs officers.
In the case of customs officers, there is still a lot
of work to do to change their approach, which remains much more focused on
alcohol and cigarette purchases. I made a quick trip to the United States after
the September 11 events and when I came back to the Canadian border, the only
reflex of the customs officer was to ask me what I had bought that
day.
This speaks volumes about the concerns of those who
normally should be the first line of defence of our national
security.
On the issue of possible abuse, the minister is also
grabbing relatively extraordinary powers, since her bill gives the attorney
general the authority to unilaterally suspend in a totally arbitrary fashion
the application of the Access to Information Act, through powers usually
reserved for the commissioner.
Once again, this type of political interference is a
cause for concern, particularly since the government has been severely
criticized recently, both here and elsewhere, for its policy of silence.
If we look at the amendments to the Firearms Act, we
see that the governor in council can exempt any category of non-residents from
the provisions of this bill.
According to information received yesterday morning
from departmental staff, the amendments to the Firearms Act would apply solely
to air marshals responsible for ensuring on board security on international
flights.
If this is the objective the minister had in mind, it
would be worth her while to say so clearly in her bill. Given the circumstances
behind the creation of Bill C-36 and the government's policy of being reactive
rather than proactive, we understand that this bill was drafted hastily. We
hope, therefore, that we can count on the minister's co-operation when the time
comes to propose the necessary amendments to fill in the gaps.
Given the urgency of the situation, the government must
not be allowed to use the crisis situation as a pretext for sneaking its bill
through. At any rate, the damage is already done, and the situation could
hardly be worse, considering the state of psychosis that reigns just about
everywhere
If we are to equip ourselves with such a significant
tool, such a restrictive and invasive one as an anti-terrorist bill, then we
might as well take the time required to make sure we have the best legislative
framework possible. The committee stage must not be glossed over. We are
certain that many people will want to be heard and we cannot afford to not take
advantage of the valuable contribution of their expertise.
There is one more point we feel it is important to
raise. At present, the bill specifies that a thorough examination of its
provisions and application must be carried out within three years of its
enactment. At this point, we feel it would be wise to reduce that three year
deadline to one year.
Considering the fact that these are exceptional
circumstances and that we are presently debating measures that are equally
exceptional, we cannot afford to wait three years before reassessing this
legislative framework that is taking us into uncharted territory. We must
prevent any opportunities for mistakes and a shorter review period is the best
way to make adjustments if the circumstances so require.
To close, as the Prime Minister so wisely stated, we
must be vigilant and prudent in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the
past.
(1120)
When it comes to mistakes of the past, we have no doubt
that the Prime Minister knows what he is talking about, since he was a minister
in the Trudeau cabinet during the October crisis of 1970.
There is no magic bullet when it comes to terrorism, as
I have already said. At first glance Bill C-36 appears harsh and invasive.
However, it would be inappropriate to remain passive in circumstances such as
these.
Basically we will have to take the necessary time to
ensure that this bill will allow us to fight terrorism effectively while
minimizing the inconveniences to citizens.
In short, we must be sure that Bill C-36 will do more
good than harm.
(1125)
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to
address Bill C-36 and to put on the record the concerns of the New Democratic
Party.
I want to begin by saying a few words about the context
in which we are having this debate. Obviously the context is set primarily by
the events of September 11 and the need that follows from those events for
Canada to consider whether or not its current legal regime is adequate to
prevent terrorist activity here in Canada or prevent Canada from being used as
a place where terrorist activity in other countries can be financed or in other
ways supported.
This drive for new and better anti-terrorism
legislation is driven by the legitimate concerns and the legitimate fear that
have arisen out of September 11. It arises also out of the motion passed at the
United Nations subsequent to September 11 which calls on all nations of the
world to implement anti-terrorist legislation and to implement UN conventions
with respect to the prevention of terrorism within 90 days. The government is
moving to do that. That is a good thing and something which we welcome
regardless of what particular concerns we might have about the legislation that
is now before us. That is part of the context, i.e., September 11. However, we
are not doing this in isolation. Unfortunately we also are considering this
legislation in the context of the last few years here in Canada.
What I mean by that is the events that happened, for
instance, at the APEC meeting and subsequently in Quebec City. They are on the
minds of many people. The government might say that is an entirely different
thing. The question is whether or not the bill is designed in such a way to
make sure that the kind of protest activities that took place in Vancouver at
the APEC meeting, in Windsor at the OAS meeting and in Quebec City at the FTAA
meeting will be treated differently from the kind of activity which is
addressed in this particular legislation. That is one of the concerns we bring
to the table, because we know that it is a concern out there within a certain
constituency in the Canadian public.
In the end, all of this is really a question of trust.
It is really a question of not what the legislation says and not what the
government says, but whether or not Canadians trust that the spirit and the
letter of the law will be followed and not in some way or another abused. That
is really what is at stake here. No amount of citing the relevant clauses of
the bill and saying that something cannot happen will do. If people believe out
of their own experience or from reading or learning about the experiences of
others that either the government or the police have an inclination in some
circumstances to abuse powers and to treat as unlawful that which is lawful,
then they find themselves in a position of not being able to give the kind of
approval they would otherwise probably like to give.
(1130)
All Canadians feel there are things that need to be
done, particularly in the parts of the bill that have to do with the
ratification and implementation of the UN conventions. That is not something
that anyone is taking any issue with at all. There are other things in the bill
that are more problematic and which need to be further discussed, explored and
explained in committee.
We need to hear from Canadians who have concerns about
particular aspects of the bill. We want to have a good process in committee
where time is taken to hear from these Canadians so they can put their concerns
on the record and so that we might even be able to amend the legislation, if
necessary, if that is the will of the committee.
I would like to deal with the issue of trust. The
definition of a terrorist activity, not the one that comes out of the UN
conventions but the one which the government has put into the bill, in section
83.01 states:
| (b) an act or omission, in or
outside of Canada, |
|
ç
|
(A) in
whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective
or cause, and |
|
ç
|
(B) in
whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of
the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or
compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international
organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the person,
government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and |
|
ç
|
(A) to
cause death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
|
|
ç
|
(B) to
endanger a person's life, |
|
ç
|
(C) to
cause a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of
the public, |
|
ç
|
(D) to
cause substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if
causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in
any of the clauses (A) to (C) and (E), or |
|
ç
|
(E) to
cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service,
facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful
advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that does not involve an
activity that is intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any
of clauses (A) to (C). |
These are the clauses having to do with death or
serious bodily harm, endangering a person's life or causing a serious risk to
the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public.
At first reading one might be tempted to think that
pretty well covers it because the government has said that as long as it has to
do with lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work and does not
involve these other terrible things then everything is fine.
However, there are a couple of problems I would like to
explore further in committee. I am not making a final judgment on the
particular clause. For example, it does raise the question of what is lawful
advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work.
If it were clear as to what was lawful and what was
not, then there would not be a problem. However there is such a thing as an
unlawful stoppage of work or an illegal strike. The law is now able to deal
with them, but it would be a legitimate concern that illegal stoppages of work
might somehow fall under the ambit of this if other criteria were met. These
are the kinds of things I hope to ask the minister and others about in
committee.
What is lawful? Lawful sounds good but a lot of young
people thought they were engaged in lawful protest in Quebec City way beyond
the perimeter and not challenging the wall or engaging in any property damage
or anything like that. They were just sitting around, talking to each other,
when all of a sudden they were tear gassed, fired upon with rubber bullets and
treated as if they were doing something unlawful.
(1135)
This comes back to trust and I think it is regrettable.
I would prefer that we were dealing with anti-terrorism legislation in a
context of trust where all Canadians could feel they did not have a government
that was careless about their civil liberties and right to lawful protest.
Instead we are unfortunately not just dealing with the context of September 11,
which should be the overriding concern, but the backdrop for this in the minds
of a lot of Canadians is APEC and Quebec City.
One thing the government has to do is persuade those
Canadians who have scepticism arising out of those experiences that this is
entirely different and that this would not be used to harass legitimate
protestors or get in the way of legitimate protests.
That brings me to the next concern that my party has
which deals with the notion of preventive arrest. It is just a concern at this
point. We know that in certain circumstances over the last few years certain
people who were known to be participating in protests were all of a sudden
charged with something, detained, and were not able to be at the protest. I
will not mention any names but this is a known fact.
The minister said in her speech, and it is stated in
the legislation, that the preventive arrest issue is not arrest without warrant
forever and ever. The person would have to appear before a judge after 24 hours
and could be detained for another 48 hours. It is only a judge who can order
further detention and then only if the person is unwilling to meet the
conditions laid down by the judge.
I understand all of that. That does not mean to say
that in the wrong hands this could not be used as a way to harass people who
were planning on attending certain events and suddenly find themselves the
object of this provision.
I know the minister said the legislation is not
intended for that sort of thing at all, and I hope it is not. I even believe
that it is not in the minister's mind. I am trying to convey the spirit of
scepticism that exists among a great many people arising out of the experiences
over the last few years. There would not be any more need to trump up charges
against anybody because this provision in Bill C-36 could be used.
Another concern I have was raised by the member for
Provencher. It deals with the use of the phrase anything damaging to
“international relations” as a reason for non-disclosure when it pertains to
information made available in the context of various investigations, hearings
or determinations by the government.
The member for Provencher said that this was a very
broad category. Almost anything could be construed as damaging international
relations. We experienced this in the past when the government felt obliged to
uncritically accept the views of other governments with respect to activity
happening in Canada.
I remember controversies some years ago when the Sikh
community in Canada found itself at odds with the government because it was
taking the view of the government of India as the uncritical truth about what
was happening there or the uncritical truth about what was happening within
that community here.
As long as we have communities in Canada that are
concerned about struggles and conflicts in other countries, there will
inevitably be a divergence of opinion in many circumstances between what people
here believe and what the government there believes. It does not mean that
either of them are particularly malevolent in this respect. It is just a fact
of life that there will be a divergence of opinion.
(1140)
What this could possibly suggest is that for any
disclosure of information that would be found unacceptable or unfriendly to a
foreign government with which Canada wanted to maintain good relations, we
could not disclose it in the context that the bill is describing. That is
another concern which we will have to explore at committee because the views of
other governments are not always pristine, balanced or objective, or certainly
they may be different from views held in Canada either by a particular group of
Canadians or by Canadians in general.
There has been much said about preserving the balance
between liberty and security. We must not just respect Canadian values in this
regard. We need to respect Canadian values as set out in the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. The government claims that it has done this. We will
want to hear evidence about this in committee and perhaps debate among
ourselves whether this bill meets that challenge.
In fairness to the government and to the charter, the
charter has already had its effect on this legislation. My understanding is
that the bill does not go as far as the British anti-terrorism legislation.
This is because we have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Britain
does not. That may well be the reason for the difference. For example,
intellectual support for terrorist groups or causes associated with terrorism,
or even membership in certain organizations, is not proscribed by in Bill
C-36.
The charter has already done its work in changing what
might otherwise have been brought before us by the government. It is still
legitimate to ask whether or not what we have before us is not so much charter
proof but whether it corresponds to what the charter demands of us.
I suggest to the government that it consider whether or
not the bill should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada at the same time
as it is being debated and studied in the House of Commons and pre-studied in
the Senate. As we know, the Senate will begin to study the bill at the same
time as the House is seized of it, which is an unusual procedure, but it is
being done so that the bill can be passed expeditiously.
Why would the government not consider referring the
bill to the Supreme Court of Canada for an urgent judgment, not at its leisure
but within the same framework of time as the House is dealing with the bill? If
the House can deal with it and the Senate can deal with it, surely the supreme
court could deal with it. Then we would not need this debate about whether or
not the legislation meets the requirements of the charter.
Another matter I would like to raise and which I hope
we will be able to consider in committee has to do with the whole question of
whether or not certain aspects of the bill should be sunsetted. The bill
provides for a parliamentary review after three years.
We live in extraordinary circumstances. It might be
advisable to consider that what seems acceptable today to the government, to a
majority of the House or perhaps to everyone ultimately, might not seem
acceptable or necessary in a year or two.
(1145)
Therefore, because I have seen these parliamentary
reviews before and they tend not to mean very much, there might be some need to
consider looking at a sunset clause instead of having a parliamentary
review.
Finally, we need to consider the whole matter of
resources, because all of this will be for naught if we do not give the
agencies charged with these responsibilities the resources they need. In that
respect we have to redress the damage that has been done to the public sector
in so many ways by the government ever since it took office in 1993.
Mr. John Bryden
(Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg--Transcona has
anticipated some of the concerns that I will be putting forward myself when my
turn comes to make remarks.
He mentioned the problem of protests and worried about
whether the legislation applied to proper protest movements, labour marches and
that kind of thing. I wonder, does he think the legislation should apply to
protest movements where violence is planned, where it is deliberate?
I do not think APEC is a good example, but Quebec is a
good example of where protesters actually deliberately organized assaults on
the police lines, if you will, and there was a deliberate planned intention to
use violence. Should that type of individual come under the ambit of this
act?
Mr. Bill Blaikie:
Madam Speaker, I want to find out from the government
members whether they feel that kind of individual falls under the ambit of the
act. Regardless of whether or not such an individual would fall under the act,
we have always made it clear that what we are trying to defend here and what we
use as our benchmark for analyzing the bill and other things is the right of
Canadians to legitimate peaceful protest and dissent.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very
thoughtful commentary. I was particularly happy to hear his suggestion that the
legislation should include some form of sunset clause. Of course if necessary
it could always be re-enacted by parliament with any necessary amendments to
take care of any flaws that would have become evident after a couple of years
in operation. I am glad he made that point.
In looking at this, does the hon. member have any
specific examples that he has seen in the past in his lengthy parliamentary
experience where by this sort of clause has been used effectively? Could he
suggest a more concrete way in which this would be appropriate for this
legislation?
Mr. Bill Blaikie:
Madam Speaker, I am not sure to which clause the member
is referring. I am not sure whether he is referring to the clause in the bill
having to do with parliamentary review or whether he is referring to a clause
that is not yet in the bill having to do with sunsetting.
In either case, clauses having to do with parliamentary
review are ultimately upheld. That is to say the review takes place. Sometimes
it does not take place on time. Sometimes there are good reasons for that
because the committee that needs to do the review might be seized with
something more important or whatever. Sometimes it does not take place because
the government is not particularly interested in that happening right away so
it is delayed.
However, it is only a parliamentary review when a
committee makes recommendations. Again, as is the case in our system, the
government is not required to respond to whatever the parliamentary review
comes up with. A committee could look at it and say that it is not working,
that it has turned out to be an overreaction or that it has led to curtailment
of freedoms that we did not intend, et cetera. Yet nothing happens because
there is no obligation on the part of the government to implement whatever
recommendations come out of a parliamentary review.
The advantage of a sunset clause would be that the
government would be obliged to reintroduce the legislation. Therefore it would
be forced, if you like, to use the opportunity if it wanted to, to take certain
things out, to amend certain things, or for that matter to add to the
legislation. That seems to me to be the advantage of a sunset clause over a
parliamentary review clause.
(1150)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, the hon. member probably realizes that
at the present time the border crossings are under the regulations and guidance
of Revenue Canada. I find it rather strange that at our border crossings people
are being issued bulletproof vests and calculators. They are revenue collectors
in most cases. As the events have turned in the last little while, I firmly
believe it is time to remove Revenue Canada from being the controlling body of
these individuals who are dealing with security of our borders and move it to a
law enforcement agency, probably the solicitor general or someone like that, to
protect the nation.
What does the member personally believe in, protection
or collection?
Mr. Bill Blaikie:
Madam Speaker, the question sets up a dichotomy which I
am not sure I accept. I confess to the hon. member I have not given a lot of
thought to it. I did not see it as particularly relevant to the bill but as
they say in question period sometimes, I will take his comments as a
representation.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak
to this debate on Bill C-36. This is a very important bill.
[English]
I would indicate at the outset that members of the
Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition are
generally supportive of this legislation and enthusiastically supportive of the
need to bring about changes in our internal security measures and the way in
which we deal with terrorism in this country.
I begin my remarks by saying that this debate has taken
a very constructive tone. It has been representative of the recognition by all
members of the House of the desire on the part of Canadians to plug some of the
legislative gaps that exist to address the issue of terrorism head on. I think
in fairness that this legislation is an attempt to do just that.
Ideally in every sense we would like to see laser
guided precision when we deal with issues such as this, of public security. I
hope that my remarks will be indicative of a genuine desire to improve and
buttress this legislation in some way.
It is encouraging to see that the government has taken
decisive action. Following September 11 there was a public need, a very anxious
nervousness that direction and leadership be displayed by the government. After
one month this legislation is here. In fairness I believe that it is a good
bill. It is a bill that attempts in a broad way in an omnibus form to address
some of the holes that are there and which have been exploited by international
terrorists.
There are some shortcomings. There is room for
improvement. In particular this legislation needs to be given greater detail.
The legislation needs to be put under the microscope and the lamp not only by
members of parliament but by those who will be affected. As the minister
herself indicated in her remarks, this is not the be all and the end all. There
is going to be a need for further legislative changes in the areas of
immigration, border security, economics and trade and customs and excise. All
of these areas have been affected in a profound way by this horrific event
which was the pinnacle, in our generation, of aggression brought to bear in
North America. It is a time for measured and introspective action but action
nonetheless.
Elements of this legislation that will improve upon our
internal security measures include the announcement that police will be able to
carry out preventive arrests, that is, arrests of individuals without charge
under strong suspicion of activity related to terrorism. There is a subtle but
important change in that bar, that standard that is to be applied by CSIS
agents which is now afforded to the RCMP. That is to say they can arrest on
reasonable suspicion as opposed to reasonable grounds. It is of such importance
when dealing with terrorism that police should be afforded that
standard.
I would argue there is more that can be done. The issue
of preventative arrest is something that is going to cause a lot of jitters and
nervousness among the communities. There are safeguards in place which we are
quick to acknowledge. The individuals brought to justice must appear before a
judge within 24 hours. They can be detained a further 48 hours, bringing it to
a total of 72 hours in custody. Yet they must have this appearance before a
judge and there must be reasons given. During that time in custody it is good
to see it enunciated that they will be able to afford themselves charter
rights, that is, right to counsel, right to disclosure, reasons for being held
in custody. All of those traditional rights will still apply and those
safeguards should apply.
This type of pre-emptive strike on the part of police
officers is a response to the seriousness and the grave implications that can
flow from terrorist activity.
The use and implementation of investigative hearings is
an important step that we find in Bill C-36. The police can take a person into
custody and deduce information and question a person with respect to terrorist
activity. The person appears before a judge and is required to answer
questions. The individual cannot be forced to incriminate himself or herself
but may be forced at least to respond to questions about his or her
activities.
(1155)
How compromised would their individual rights be? That
remains to be seen. The return to a power that used to exist in Canada and
still exists in the United States, for example the process of grand juries,
would be an interesting experiment but one upon which we must embark in our
efforts to deal with terrorism.
Increasing the powers of the Communications Security
Establishment is an important step. Currently the CSE is only allowed to
monitor communications outside Canada. Under this legislation CSE would require
only the authorization of the Minister of Justice before monitoring discussions
between a foreigner and someone in Canada.
With regard to monitoring, Bill C-36 would allow police
to obtain one year surveillance warrants for suspected terrorists. While
benchmarks and criteria would need to be met, police would have an increased
and expanded ability to monitor and conduct surveillance on communications that
relate to terrorist activity.
Currently police can perform this type of surveillance
for only 60 days. The efforts of the bill to expand that ability are important.
It also makes an effort to streamline and expedite the ability to get warrants
and wiretaps. The current process is extremely onerous and is an impediment to
the ability of police to monitor criminal activity. There is a need to expand
this in the general context of police work.
I would have liked the bill to set out a clear
definition of terrorism as we have seen in the United Kingdom, however, I
commend the government for including a definition of terrorist activity. This
was taken from many sources.
I am told there are 190 definitions of terrorism in
legislation around the world. Bill C-36 defines terrorist activity as action
taken for a political, religious or ideological purpose that threatens the
public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a
person, causing property damage likely to injure people, or disrupting an
essential service or facility.
The definition does not state that terrorist activity
does not involve lawful activity such as protests and strikes. There is
therefore concern, as has been mentioned by my colleague from
Winnipeg--Transcona and others in the debate, that legitimate political protest
might fall under a rather broad umbrella.
Bill C-36 is defined in such a way that judges applying
common sense criteria would not find that legitimate forms of protest or
activities deemed counter to the government would fall under this ambit.
However, even before this legislation came into being there was a politicized
element to protests such as those we witnessed in Quebec City.
When students in bandanas and ripped jeans who carry
signs are cracked down on by police in a violent and forceful way it causes
concern, almost paranoia, in the minds of many. We must be cognizant of that.
We must also be cognizant, as was mentioned by the Alliance critic, of the
political interference or politicization of RCMP and security measures. We know
that the Prime Minister's surrogate son, Jean Carle, involved himself far too
heavily in police activity in Vancouver.
That was a serious concern. It was examined by a judge,
Judge Hughes, who came out with strong recommendations and repudiations
regarding the RCMP. We cannot ignore such politicization. As was suggested, it
calls for a greater firewall between the solicitor general and the commissioner
of the RCMP to prevent the guiding hand of the PMO from playing a role in the
way security is carried out. Governments sometimes have a vested interest in
suppressing that type of activity, as we have seen at the APEC
inquiry.
(1200)
I would support a list of terrorist organizations and
individuals being put together on the recommendation of the solicitor general
and an order in council. This would be a legitimate attempt to identify those
who have participated in fundraising or any activity that could be connected to
terrorism.
Having a list available to be shared among security
services would be an important step toward controlling and, it is hoped,
preventing action on the part of those enumerated. It would allow for
legislative tracking. It would allow for cross-references with various
organizations including CSIS, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration,
Interpol and other international partners in our security services attempts to
curtail terrorist activities.
There would be safeguards. Groups that appear on the
list could appeal. They could appeal to the solicitor general and the list
would be reviewed every two years.
The more substantive measures in the bill entail
changes to the criminal code and the creation of new offences. The criminal
code offences would deal with instructing or soliciting support for a person to
carry out a terrorist act. Maximum penalties of life imprisonment would be
attached to such activity.
This is all being done against the backdrop of the
horrific events that occurred in the United States on September 11 in various
locations including New York City and Washington. With such life altering and
life taking implications these criminal code offences take on a poignant
meaning. Knowingly facilitating the activities of a terrorist group would be
punishable by 14 years. Harbouring a terrorist would be punishable by 10 years.
Fundraising for or participating in a terrorist group would be punishable by 10
years.
There will be heated debate over the practical
implications of Bill C-36. Further definition of what it means to participate
may be required. However let us keep it in the proper context. The legislation
does not go as far as that of the United Kingdom where even passive support for
a terrorist organization can result in criminal charges.
Bill C-36 would allow for and encourage the freezing
and seizing of assets of terrorists and their supporters. That is a welcome and
necessary step. As has been noted numerous times, assets are the lifeblood that
keeps terrorist organizations alive.
We know they are here in Canada. CSIS has produced a
list that clearly identifies 50 terrorist cells operating in the country and
350 individuals who are involved in the cells. They are here and they are
active. Cutting off their lifeblood of financial assets and resources is one
important step in eventually eliminating, curtailing and capturing those who
engage in terrorism.
Introducing consecutive sentences is a welcome step but
it does not address another shortcoming in the criminal code: the anomaly that
allows mass murderers to avail themselves of early release. Through provisions
of the criminal code they can avail themselves of statutory release. This is
one of the ridiculous anomalies that exist in our criminal code.
Bill C-36 would change sentencing provisions to make
terrorists ineligible for release until they have served half their sentences,
but they could still avail themselves of early release provisions that exist
under the National Parole Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
There will be further discussion and examination of this at the committee.
Someone who exhibits such a blatant lack of respect for
human life is unlikely to avail themselves of rehabilitation. For that reason I
am encouraged by the harsh sentences outlined in Bill C-36. However the parole
eligibility may lessen and blunt the instrument of justice in this regard. At
the very least there must be a clear and unequivocal statement of denunciation
when it comes to terrorist activity.
(1205)
Some of the anticipated fallout or backlash against
Bill C-36 from groups concerned about civil liberties is addressed in the
substance of the bill. It calls for the strengthening of laws against hate
crimes by punishing the destruction of churches or mosques with sentences of up
to 10 years. It would also take steps to make it easier to remove hate
propaganda from the Internet.
Concerns have been raised about this by Internet
service providers, particularly smaller ones who make legitimate efforts to
monitor their systems. In many instances service providers do not have the
capability or resources to fully complete that task yet they are good corporate
citizens. They are concerned that criminal liability will attach to them
because they are providers or facilitators of the communication of hate
propaganda.
Nonetheless I endorse the attempt to dissuade anyone
from facilitating, aiding or abetting the distribution of hate propaganda. In
this heated and extremely troubling time there has been a backlash against
certain communities. It is encouraging that the legislation includes provisions
to prevent people from lashing out at religious organizations and followers of
the Muslim faith who are often the antithesis of those who engage in violence
or terrorist activity.
The bill's amendments regarding the Official Secrets
Act are meant to counter espionage by taking into account new computer
technologies and the need to fight intelligence gathering activities by foreign
powers and terrorist groups. This is a recognition that the means of
communication have changed substantially. We need to update ourselves and use
new methodologies to monitor new forms of communication. That is what Bill C-36
would allow the law enforcement community to do.
The bill would also amend the Canada Evidence Act to
protect information obtained by foreign intelligence agencies when used in
Canadian courts. It would amend the Firearms Act to allow air marshals, mainly
from the United States, to fly into Canada. These amendments are a clear common
sense recognition that the world we live in has changed substantially and that
we need to accommodate changes that have taken place in countries like the
United States.
I encourage all members to support these provisions.
Members of the coalition will be reviewing Bill C-36 at the committee level and
supporting the majority of them. The bill's provisions would allow police, CSIS
and others that provide security to develop a more effective methodology for
combating terrorism.
My greatest concern, which has been expressed numerous
times, is about the resource allocation that would be required to implement
these changes. The bill's provisions for new powers of arrest, investigative
techniques, investigative hearings and use of warrants would all require
additional resources and training.
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
has referred to $250 million in new resources. When that is spread out over
time and we allow for the bureaucratic assistance that goes with law
enforcement, the actual impact on person power and frontline policing will be
fairly minimal when one considers the task. We will be pressing the government
for more specifics in that regard.
There are concerns about the bill's powers of arrest
and detention. Those matters will be pressed at the committee level and further
meat will be put on the bones with respect to details. If the legislation is
enacted it will be up for review in three years. A sunset clause of greater
duration may be necessary.
(1210)
The Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative
coalition will be supporting the legislation in its first instance while
looking for improvements at the committee level and providing an indepth
examination. I look forward to that process taking place, as do all Canadians,
and the speedy passage of Bill C-36 into law.
Mr. John Bryden
(Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, earlier I put a question to the member for
Winnipeg--Transcona and I do not think I expressed it very well so I would like
to try it again.
Subsection 83.01(b) defines terrorist activity. It
clearly and explicitly would include the kind of violent protest that we saw in
Quebec City, the throwing of Molotov cocktails there, as well as whenever
leaders from across the world meet at World Trade Organization conferences and
there are attacks on police and barriers with the use of violence.
Does the hon. member feel that parliament should
endorse this as a definition of terrorist activity in the ambit of this
legislation? Is this something we want the bill to catch?
Mr. Peter MacKay:
Mr. Speaker, I know my learned colleague has a
longstanding interest in human rights and protecting the public when it comes
to access to information. Yes, I believe this legislation would very much
envelope acts of violence and where the requisite mental element exists for
actions that are intended to clearly put people's lives in danger.
The government in its wisdom has brought forward a bill
that is sufficiently broad to include that activity. Whether it is someone from
another country perpetrating an act of violence of the magnitude that we saw on
September 11, or whether it is an individual who purposely prepares a weapon or
a bomb or engages in a dangerous act, that in my view is terrorism. It is a
threat to public security and it has to be dealt with in the harshest and most
just but swiftest fashion. I agree that this definition would encompass that
type of activity.
(1215)
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, toward the end of his remarks my hon.
colleague made reference to a sunset clause. Would the hon. member echo the
remarks that were made by the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona with regard
to the value of having a sunset clause which would require a re-enactment or a
review of the law at the end of a set period so that any problems that occurred
and any excessive measures that may have been included could be rectified at
that time?
Mr. Peter MacKay:
Mr. Speaker, I agree that a legislative sunset clause,
particularly for these provisions, many of which arguably infringe on the area
of human rights and freedoms, mobility and protection from police powers,
should be re-examined and put through the rigours of a re-examination in four
to five years or basically the life of this government.
As demonstrated by the events of September 11, things
changed dramatically. They changed for the worst on that date. That is not to
say that they could not improve in the future with some hope and optimism. To
that end, if we are living in a safer, gentler world in years to come there may
be a need to pull back some of these provisions. That is not the case now with
this heightened sense of awareness of terrorism.
There should be a sunset clause, particularly for some
of these provisions. I hope we will have an opportunity to examine that issue
in committee. I suspect that there is some willingness and some openness on the
part of the government to do just that.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, if in the event there is a sunset clause
or even a review of this piece of legislation, does my hon. colleague feel that
there is an adequate provision in the committee structure to deal with this
issue?
Should there be a change in the committee structure?
Should there be a committee dealing with national security or some measure for
reviewing the legislation? Does my hon. colleague feel that there is a
committee process in place that can do justice to a review of this piece of
legislation?
Mr. Peter MacKay:
Mr. Speaker, I agree that currently our committee
process is somewhat flawed and there is a need to re-examine it. In the short
term we will not be able to reconstruct our committees in a way that will
address the concerns my colleague raised.
However, we are dealing with a very specific
legislative response to a terrorist act and there is a need to fill legislative
gaps. The committee structure could have been expanded to envelope some of the
more critical elements of terrorism including immigration and the concerns
around border security. All these issues unfortunately will not be touched upon
in the current legislation but I suspect there will be future
legislation.
I am concerned about public knowledge of the bill. It
is not currently available on the Internet. The information commissioner does
not have a copy. I am sure my friend opposite would share those concerns.
Members of the public will have to be given a certain amount of information so
that they may digest the impact of the bill, both good and bad. Committees do
not always allow for that to happen.
Committees will be televised in this instance which
will provide Canadians with a greater opportunity to see the details of the
legislation. We will have to re-examine how these committees work in the future
because they have been abused by the government. They have been controlled to a
far larger extent than they should be.
Individual members, both on the government and the
opposition sides, should be encouraged. A lot of talent is being overlooked and
ignored as a result of the way the current committee structure
works.
(1220)
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the remarks of
the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. There are many themes
throughout the speeches we have been hearing, starting with the member from the
Canadian Alliance, the member from the Bloc and the member from the
NDP.
One of the themes that keeps coming up is the possible
fear that even if the bill is being put forward with the best of intentions of
the Minister of Justice, some of the powers afforded the police or the
authorities within the bill could go beyond the original planned purpose and
could be exercised with a force greater than anyone would have contemplated in
the Chamber, to the detriment of peaceful protesters.
It may go beyond and be used in a way to undermine what
we as Canadians have always viewed as peaceful, lawful protests. Would the hon.
member care to expand on the possibility of that happening with Bill
C-36?
Mr. Peter MacKay:
Mr. Speaker, I have said that the bill in its proper
interpretation will not tread into the area of civil disobedience of a peaceful
nature and legitimate protests against government activity. I was concerned
even prior to the legislation that there is opportunity for political
interference. We saw that at APEC. It was clearly identified.
The legislation is aimed more at specific acts of
violence meant to disrupt legitimate government activity. There has to be a
degree of accountability for it to work. We will have an opportunity to hear
from groups that will be affected.
I do not believe it is ever legitimate for college
students who are engaged in a peaceful demonstration of sorts to be subjected
to violence themselves. Violence will not solve any problem in this instance.
However, when an individual goes out and deliberately engages in dangerous acts
such as throwing a firebomb or carrying a weapon, that type of activity should
be and is covered by the legislation. I am hoping it will be implemented in a
reasonable fashion.
Mr. John Bryden
(Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the
member for Parkdale--High Park. I want to begin by saying that I echo the
comments made by my colleague opposite. I believe that the time for tolerance
of violent protest is at an end because violent protest is a type of terrorist
activity. It is designed to intimidate and to disrupt the democratic process.
However, I would stress in the same context that we would not want the
legislation to interfere with rightful dissent and peaceful protest and I do
not believe it does.
I would also like to echo the idea of a sunset clause.
What is contained in the legislation is so profound, so important and so
contrary to the way Canadians would like to see themselves and yet so terribly
necessary in the context of international terrorist threats. I hope the
government will seriously consider, instead of a statutory review, a sunset
clause perhaps after five years, not counting an election year.
The reality is that a committee will never examine the
issues contained in the legislation in the kind of depth that parliament should
examine it. I hope the government will seriously consider that
prospect.
The government may have to separate out from the
legislation as a consequence the clauses dealing with the statutory creation of
the Communications Security Establishment, and rightly so, because the
Communications Security Establishment is a very important institution that
pertains to national security and is little known and understood in this
country. It ought to be subject to a separate debate in the House. That is
something that I would like the government to consider.
More important, something that concerns me very
specifically, and I sound the alarm, is clause 87 which would change the Access
to Information Act. There are other clauses such as clause 103 and clause 104
which would change the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents
Act and the Privacy Act. These clauses give the Attorney General of Canada the
right to issue certificates that prohibit the disclosure of information
pertaining to international relations, national defence or security.
We can see the rationale for that. There is certain
information in times of crisis that one would want to protect, but the trouble
with clause 87 is that it makes an exclusion instead of an exemption from the
Access to Information Act. The clauses amend section 69 of the Access to
Information Act by adding a further section, section 69.1.
Section 69 of the Access to Information Act excludes
cabinet confidences. It provides for the release of cabinet documents after 20
years. By adding section 69.1 after section 69 there is no 20 year release
date.
In other words, what happens is that the Attorney
General of Canada would be able to exclude information from public view forever
with no review, no outside ombudsman or court. No one can see what it is doing.
One might argue that since this pertains to international relations and
national defence there could be a case made that there are secrets in those two
areas that should be kept indefinitely, however not security.
Section 87 enables the government to withhold
information pertaining to security issues forever. Mr. Speaker, that is
terribly dangerous. That is the excuse that has been used by dictatorships
throughout history and around the world. We are talking about police
information being withheld forever.
(1225)
Mr. Speaker, we cannot have that. I hope the government
will seriously reconsider what it is doing by this particular clause 87 and the
ones relating to the other two pieces of legislation. This cannot be. I am sure
it is an oversight on the part of the government.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Access to
Information Act does provide exemptions for security issues and for
international relations. An exemption enables a review by the access to
information commissioner and by a federal court, which in the interests of
democracy I think is a much better situation, but the Access to Information Act
is still flawed because these exemptions also withhold information
indefinitely. At least there is a review by the courts, but nevertheless, the
information can be held under the current legislation indefinitely.
One change I would like to see to the Access to
Information Act, which could be put in this legislation, would be that security
information, international relations information, defence information, should
have some automatic release review, a timeline of, say, 30 years or even 50
years. The point is that when we are dealing with the need for government to
act in secret, certainly in the public interest when it is acting in secret, we
must make sure in a democracy that there is a time for disclosure. Under the
current Access to Information Act with an exemption there is no time for
disclosure.
This legislation makes the situation even worse because
an exclusion makes it impossible for any kind of oversight or review. So, Mr.
Speaker, I do hope the government will review its position on that.
There are other areas of the legislation that interest
me that I would like to see a little bit more on, such as requiring charities
and non-profit organizations to be financially transparent. It is one thing to
put up penalties for fundraising for terrorism, but we have to have the
mechanisms to see actually how funds are moving. We can see it in a casino.
There are mechanisms to track how casinos use money. We cannot see how money is
used in charities and especially non-profit organizations.
Mr. Speaker, charities have to send in a financial
information return to Revenue Canada, which is a very incomplete document and
anyone can fill it out, but at least it is some kind of information for the
public, but when a non-profit organization sends its financial information
return to Revenue Canada, it is not a public document. Consequently, there is
no transparency whatsoever for a non-profit organization.
The difficulty with this legislation is while it has
provisions for lifting the charity registration status, a charity that is
raising money for abusive purposes, not just terrorist activity but for
laundering money or for organized crime, can just move on to become a
non-profit organization and have a higher level of secrecy.
So these are some things that I think should be
reviewed by the government.
I also point out, just to go the full circle, the
legislation would appear to capture the special interest groups that promote
violent activity, like some of the animal rights organizations. I think we will
probably hear from them in the course of this debate.
(1230)
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
government's anti-terrorism plan as outlined in Bill C-36, the new
anti-terrorism act. The main purpose of the bill is to give us better tools to
address and better protect ourselves from terrorism.
As the Minister of Justice noted this morning in the
House of Commons, the new legislation contains the following measures: first,
measures to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists; second,
measures to provide new investigative tools to allow enforcement in national
security agencies to better undertake their work; and third, measures to ensure
that Canadian values of respect and fairness are preserved and the root causes
of hatred are addressed through stronger laws against hate crimes and
propaganda. It is these last measures I wish to address today.
Since the apocalyptic events of September 11 the
Government of Canada has been firm in its resolve to stand by the values of
tolerance, respect and equality. I would like to take this opportunity to
remind members of what the Prime Minister said in the House on September 17. He
said “Today more than ever we must affirm the fundamental values of every race,
every colour, every religion and every ethnic origin”. The Prime Minister also
noted on that day that we will not give into temptation in a rush to increase
security, to undermine the values that we cherish and which have made Canada a
beacon of hope, freedom and tolerance to the world.
It is important to remember that our plan to fight the
rise of terrorism in the world must include action to fight against the rise of
intolerance in our midst. Expressions of hate have no place in Canadian
society. They undermine the very fundamental values of respect, equality and
security and cause damage to a multicultural, tolerant and law-abiding society.
Last night the Prime Minister reminded us once again
that Canada is a land of immigrants, a place where people from almost every
nation and faith on earth have come to find freedom, respect, harmony and a
brighter future. Therefore as part of its anti-terrorism act the Government of
Canada is proposing changes that address the root causes of hatred, reaffirm
Canadian values and ensure that Canada's renowned respect for justice and
diversity is reinforced.
These measures would include the following: first,
amendments to the criminal code that would allow the courts to order the
deletion of publicly available hate propaganda from computer systems; second,
amendments to the criminal code which would create a new offence of mischief
motivated by bias, prejudice or hate committed against a place of religious
worship or associated religious property; and third, amendments to be made to
the Canadian Human Rights Act to extend the prohibition against hate messages
beyond telephone messages to include all communications technologies. I will
continue to elaborate on these measures.
It is important to remember that Canada, along with
other like-minded countries, has embarked upon a war against terrorists and
terrorism. Unfortunately, because recent acts of terrorism are associated with
people of a certain faith, some regrettably and wrongfully view it as a
religious war. Osama bin Laden himself, in his pre-taped message the day after
the United States attacks, actually called upon the Muslim world. He is the one
who is inciting that hatred. More unfortunately, here in Canada some Canadians
of Muslim faith have been made the targets of the anger Canadians are feeling
against those whom they feel are responsible.
At the same time as we take measures to protect
ourselves from terrorist activities, we want to ensure that Canadians of any
origin do not become a target for hatred. We want to make sure that everyone in
the country in all circumstances will continue to enjoy the rights guaranteed
by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this context the right to
freedom of religion guaranteed by section 2(a) of the charter takes on
particular importance. The criminal code already protects any group
distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin from statements of
hatred directed against them.
(1235)
In fact, it is an aggravating factor for sentencing
purposes when an offence is motivated by hatred. The Canadian Human Rights Act
already protects any person from repeat communications by means of
telecommunications of any matter that is likely to expose that person to hatred
or contempt by reason of this person being identified on the basis of a
prohibited ground of discrimination.
I previously noted that the bill includes additional
measures to better protect from hatred those who have become vulnerable because
they belong to a group distinguished by factors such as race, religion or
ethnic origin. The bill would create the offence of mischief motivated by
hatred in relation to places of religious worship or objects associated with
religious worship found in such a place.
The harm done by a mischief against a religious
property goes far beyond the physical damage to the property. The greatest harm
comes from the message of hatred that is conveyed by the mischief. Such
mischief would create fear among worshippers of a specific religion and divert
them from the practise of their religion. It is because we recognize these far
reaching implications that we want to create an offence of mischief that is
related to the purpose of the property damage, regardless of the value of that
property.
The offence of mischief in relation to religious
property would be a very serious offence. It would be subject to a maximum
penalty of 10 years when prosecuted on indictment or 18 months when prosecuted
on summary conviction.
In addition, the government is proposing two provisions
that respond to the fact that the Internet is now an easily available and
efficient means of communication of hatred. The Canadian Human Rights Act would
be amended to clarify that communicating by computer hate messages against a
person identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination is a
discriminatory practice. In addition to any other penalty, persons found
responsible for these messages could be required to cease and desist from this
practice.
The criminal code would be amended to authorize the
court to order deletion of publicly available online hate propaganda when it is
stored on a server that is within the jurisdiction of the court. This procedure
is independent from prosecution. It would allow the material to be deleted in
cases where the person who posted it is unknown or is outside the country. The
person who posted the material would be given an opportunity to be heard before
the judge would decide to order deletion of the material.
The criminal code already provides for the seizure and
forfeiture of copies held for sale or distribution of any publication found by
the court to be hate propaganda. This procedure would parallel in the
cyberworld a procedure that is available in the material world.
Protecting minorities from discrimination and hatred is
a value that is well established in Canadian law. For more than 30 years the
criminal code has protected from hatred identifiable groups, which are defined
as any group distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. The
communication of statements in a public place inciting hatred against an
identifiable group is an offence when it is likely to lead to a breach of the
peace. The communication of statements other than in private conversations that
wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group is also an offence.
Advocating or promoting genocide, whether in public or in private, is an
offence.
More recently we have made it an aggravating factor for
sentencing purposes when there is evidence that the commission of an offence is
motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on factors such as race, national or
ethnic origin, language, colour or religion.
For almost 20 years the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms has protected our fundamental liberties and provided for equal
protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on factors
including race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religion.
The Canadian Human Rights Act, which applies to the
private sector under federal jurisdiction, prohibits discrimination based on
factors that include race, national or ethnic origin or religion.
Finally, it is important that we have the legislative
means to defend ourselves against terrorists, but it is also equally important
that we do that without discriminating against Canadians of minority religion
or ethnic origin.
(1240)
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate
on Bill C-36. As I mentioned in the House a number of weeks ago, this debate
should have taken place months ago. Although we commend the government for
bringing the legislation forward to parliament, we wonder why the government
waited such a long time and why it took such an alarming wake up call to
mobilize the government into bringing forth these necessary legislative
initiatives to immediately ensure the security and safety of Canadians and of
our nation, Canada.
On that note I quote an article appearing in
yesterday's Toronto Star by James Travers. He said:
| As the federal government begins to
tear down walls protecting terrorists operating in Canada, it has some dirty
little secrets of its own to hide. For years, the Prime Minister's cabinet has
been receiving increasingly worrisome reports that this country is a prime and
easy target...The evidence is overwhelming that the federal Liberals knew a lot
and did very little. In confidential yearly cabinet briefings, in dozens of
documents sent to specific government departments and even in some public
statements, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) repeatedly warned
that Canada, along with the U.S. is among the world's pre-eminent terrorist
targets. Those threats were documented in CSIS reports that government sources
say became noticeably more specific--and frightening--after 1996. Following a
surge in refugees, the intelligence agency identified a lengthening list of
organizations and 350 individuals active here...In fact, the federal government
should have recognized the threat to this country as far back as June 23, 1985,
when Air India Flight 182 was bombed killing 329 passengers and crew. Until the
attacks on New York and Washington, that was the most deadly terrorist attack
in modern Western history. Now the federal government is desperately trying to
respond by bringing forward legislation and introducing security measures that
for years have been relegated to the bottom of the agenda. It clearly hopes
that the current flurry of activity will somehow mask years of
inaction. |
On September 18 during our supply day the Canadian
Alliance called upon the Liberal government to bring forward anti-terrorist
legislation. Within that legislation we asked that there be a provision for the
naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in
Canada.
At first glance it would appear that Bill C-36 falls
short of that recommendation. Subclause 83.05(1) provides for the establishment
of a list on which:
|
|
--the
Governor in Council may place any entity if, on the recommendation of the
Solicitor General, the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that (a) the entity has carried out, attempted to
carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity; or (b) the
entity is acting on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with an
entity referred to in paragraph (a). |
I do not see anywhere in the legislation authorization
for the publication of that list unless I am missing something in the bill,
although under subclause 83.05(7) there is authorization for the solicitor
general to publish in The Canada Gazette notice of any person no longer
a listed entity.
Publication of the names of those who are known
terrorists or who have terrorist connections would effectively warn lending
institutions and others not to do business with those individuals or
groups.
I also point out the use of the word may as opposed to
the word shall in subsection 83.05(1).
(1245)
Without the word shall effectively there is no
obligation for the establishment of a list. Bill C-36 provides discretionary
power to the governor in council to set up a list. Furthermore, under clause
83.05 there is to be a review of the list two years after the establishment and
every two years thereafter to listen and to determine whether there are still
reasonable grounds for an entity to be listed.
Why is the government contemplating delisting a
terrorist who, according to the definition carried out, attempted to carry out,
participated in or facilitated a terrorism activity? Why has the government
suggested the absurd notion that criminal records should not follow a person
through life?
In criminal law now we can have a pardon after a number
of years. After perhaps five years a person can apply for a pardon, but a
terrorist could be delisted after two years after carrying out such atrocious
acts.
Bill C-36 makes participating in, facilitating,
instructing and harbouring terrorist groups an indictable offence for which a
person is liable to imprisonment for variable maximum terms.
Although I fully support and commend the government for
finally proscribing these activities, as it is obligated to do under the UN
convention, I would hope it is receptive to amending this section of Bill C-36
to provide for minimum sentences.
Without a prescribed minimum sentence a person arrested
and convicted for knowingly facilitating a terrorist activity could receive a
conditional sentence. Clearly the magnitude of any and all forms of terrorist
activity warrants a stiff period of incarceration.
With regard to sentencing I would also hope the
government is willing to amend clause 83.26 of Bill C-36 to allow for
consecutive life sentences. It is absolutely abhorrent to think that a person
convicted of a terrorist act in which there were multiple deaths is eligible
for parole after 15 years because the Liberal government has repeatedly failed
to eliminate section 745 of the criminal code which unjustifiably grants
killers a chance at early release.
Again at first glance there appear to be no provisions
within Bill C-36 allowing for the deportation of alien terrorists. The United
States anti-terrorist legislation, which I would like to point out was
introduced within eight days of the September 11 attack on America, makes
membership in terrorist organizations reason for exclusion from that country.
Furthermore, it permits the deportation of aliens if sentenced to more than
five years in prison. I would highly recommend that the Canadian government
follow suit. In the next couple of weeks as Bill C-36 is moved through
committee and as we take a look at it in greater depth, I am sure other
omissions will become apparent.
Before closing, I encourage the Minister of Justice to
stand firm in her resolve to balance the rights of Canadians with their
security. I know in the next week the Canadian Bar Association and others may
challenge Bill C-36 as going too far and unnecessarily restricting civil
liberties. However, the time has come when we must determine whether or not the
right of many to be safe and secure justifies an infringement of some basic
individual rights and freedoms.
A poll conducted between October 2 and 4 by the
Globe and Mail, CTV and Ipsos-Reid revealed that 80% of those surveyed
were willing to surrender some freedom in exchange for tighter security. A high
percentage of respondents would support submitting themselves to providing
fingerprints for a national identity card which they would be required to carry
at all times and show on request to police or security officials. Fewer, but
still a majority, would support letting police stop them at random and search
their vehicles without reasonable suspicion that they had committed an
offence.
(1250)
Far too often the courts are making new laws in their
rulings. Judges are substituting their judgments over the elected
representatives of the people and of parliament. According to university
Professor Jane Hiebert:
| Since the Charter's introduction the
judiciary has passed judgment on the constitutionality of a breathtakingly
broad range of political and social issues from the testing of cruise missiles
in Canadian airspace to euthanasia...Effectively, the Charter offers a
convenient refuge for politicians to avoid or delay difficult political and
moral decisions. Elected representatives can insulate themselves from
criticism, and political parties can avoid risking party cohesion by ignoring
controversial issues-- |
I urge the minister not to abdicate her responsibility
by clearly articulating within this legislation the intent of parliament to
effectively balance liberty against greater security. I will be splitting my
time with the hon. member for Kelowna.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for splitting his
time. It makes it possible for me to speak earlier in the day rather than
later.
I think the government is taking the right step by
moving in the direction of introducing Bill C-36. However, as my colleague
asked so clearly, why did it take so long? I also recognize that the bill was
probably put together very quickly on very short notice. Apparently people
seemed to think there was no need to do anything like this.
Now we have legislation that is omnibus in nature and
covers a variety of other acts that are to be amended by this bill. Perhaps
some of the safeguards that need to be included in the bill have not been
thought of or have not been adequately dealt with. I will focus on a couple of
them.
I refer to a particular phrase that the hon. minister
stated in her address to the House earlier this day. It had to do with dealing
with the root causes of hatred. Perhaps the issue here is not so much hatred as
it is fear.
What happens in terrorist operations is that terrorists
use fear as their weapon. It is one thing to destroy property or to destroy
human lives, but hatred is a motivator, as I think we all know and have
experienced. It gets the adrenaline flowing.
In the game of hockey adrenaline can really run high.
People do not really hate the opposition, but by golly they sure get boiled up
every once in a while and sometimes perhaps there is an element of that. When a
player can strike fear into and intimidate the opposite team member, the team
member will avoid the other player. Damage does not have to be done because the
fear is debilitating.
What is happening in our country right now is that we
are not acting as perhaps we ought to do. The threat of terrorists is to
intimidate to the point where it incapacitates the individual. That is a much
more subtle effect than simply destroying someone, because it affects everyone.
It is one thing to take down two towers in the centre
of New York City. It had a terrible effect. We feel very sympathetic to the
families involved. However it is affecting all of us. It is affecting our
celebrations.
On Saturday I was at a wedding ceremony where candles
had been ordered to be part of the table setting. They were delayed and got
there an hour before the reception was to take place. Why? They had been
ordered six months ago. They had been held up because of the September 11
events in New York City.
Every one of us is affected. It does not bother some a
great deal, but others are fearful. There are people, for example, today who
refuse to get on an airline because of the fear of what will happen to them and
whether it is safe to travel. That is the fear I am talking about. That is the
effect it has on our economy. I suggest we really look at the effectiveness of
terrorist acts at striking fear into the hearts of individuals, rendering them
almost incapacitated.
I will move on to another point. The definition of a
terrorist act causes me some concern. I do not think I have time to read
everything, but I will refer to the overall section referring to an act that is
committed:
|
|
--in
whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of
the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or
compelling a person, a government, or a domestic or an international
organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the person,
government or organization is inside or outside Canada...and that is
intended...to cause death...and that is intended to cause serious interference
with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether
public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent
or stoppage of work that does not involve an activity that is intended to
result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of the clauses. |
(1255)
The hon. minister took great pains this morning to
emphasize this, so I would like to ask the members as well as the committee
members who will meet to discuss the bill to consider the example of what
happened in Vancouver when the transit system was incapacitated by a strike for
more than six months. It was not the express intention of the union or the
group of people that brought about the strike to cause severe difficulty, but
the strike did so and it was not unknown that it did.
If the intention is the issue but the result is
immaterial, I think that to separate them is perhaps misleading. Not only must
we intend to do something bad, but if we do something bad whether we intended
to or not the act itself becomes a bad one. It is not that this is not what
should be done in the act. The caveat here, what ought to be so strong, is that
it does not mislead the public and allow certain freedoms to be exercised at
the expense of others.
On the balance side of this position is the intrusion,
if you will, by the power of the state through its police officers and other
peace officers to, on the suspicion or belief that a terrorist act is about to
be committed, charge and detain someone without particular evidence in place,
to simply put someone aside because it is believed that person will be doing
something such as intimidating people or destroying property. In some cases it
would be correct and I think the police should have that power, but there ought
to be clear safeguards as to what kinds of things would support that belief
that someone might engage in such activities.
There are some things in the bill that ought to be
fixed. I do not want the minister to go away from this thinking we are totally
opposed to the bill. We are not and I certainly am not, but we ought to be very
careful about civil liberties and at the same time not open the door to certain
other opportunities that might cause us other difficulties.
With the time I have left, I would like to make one
more point with regard to the operation of CIDA. This morning a column in the
National Post written by Diane Francis makes a very interesting case.
She asks the question: Should CIDA, a taxpayer funded organization, support
organizations like Minga, which is operating in Colombia?
It is not quite clear. I certainly do not know the
details of what is going on there, but the implication of this column is that
it is not clear whether Minga is aiding and abetting the operation or the
function of three groups: the National Liberation Army, the Revolutionary Armed
Force of Colombia or the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia.
If Minga is in fact doing that, then it actually is in
collaboration with organizations that have been put on the list of terrorist
organizations by the United States of America. If she is right we ought to take
a very careful and serious look at it. I know the bill suggests that we should
not fund any terrorist organizations and I am sure the Government of Canada
would never think of doing that, but it could be that unless there is a clear
and careful audit of how moneys like those from CIDA, for example, are spent
and applied such moneys might find their way into organizations such as
these.
I really would ask this question and I would ask the
minister to ask the Minister of Finance and the minister in charge of CIDA to
look at where the money is going, how it is being applied and whether it in
fact finds its way indirectly to terrorist organizations.
With that, I would like to suggest that the committee
look very carefully at this legislation and that we in parliament support the
principle of the legislation, surely, but let us look at the details in such a
way as to look after our civil liberties and deal with the real
issues.
(1300)
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member
for London--Fanshawe.
I am pleased to speak about our national response, as
embodied in the bill, to the events of September 11. In particular I want to
talk about parts 1 through 5 as presented in Bill C-36 because I think
Canadians expected, wanted and are supporting a toughening, a codification or a
creation of a number of new offences that come as a result of a closer
examination of terrorist activity in the world. The world is becoming a much
more sophisticated place and the means of creating terrorism and chaos in our
society, as we have seen, is happening in new and previously unimagined
ways.
From that perspective I think Canadians would support
us on parts 1 to 5 and at the same time would expect us to move in tandem with
other countries, particularly the G-8 and under the banner of the United
Nations, which collectively are moving to eradicate those who would create
chaos and who in fact are terrorists.
I would refer to four objectives of the bill,
particularly in parts 1 through 5, the criminal provisions of the bill. Those
objectives include stopping terrorists from getting into Canada and protecting
Canadians from terrorist acts. One is a corollary of the other. Of course to do
that police and other security forces need the tools to identify, to prosecute
and above all to punish those who would commit these acts.
The third objective would be to prevent the Canada-U.S.
border from being held hostage by terrorists and impacting on the Canadian
economy. As someone who represents a border community, I can say that what
occurred on September 11 has had a very direct impact, and not only on our
regional, provincial and national economies, but it has had a very tangible
result in terms of lines at the border in both directions, outbound and
inbound.
Of course the fourth objective is to work with the
international community to bring terrorists to justice and, most important, to
address the root causes of such hatred and venom as expressed by these
people.
I think there is great support from the Canadian public
for the bill, which would define and designate the terrorist groups and their
activities. We would make it an offence to knowingly participate or facilitate
the activities of terrorist groups. We would make it an offence to knowingly
harbour or hide terrorists. We would create tougher sentences for terrorist
offences and tougher parole provisions for terrorists.
Cutting off financial support and making that a
criminal offence is a very important part of this. Of course as I said at the
outset, moving in tandem with other UN signatories to certain provisions and
conventions is very important. It is very important that it not be a unilateral
action on the part of Canada but in fact a collective action of many
countries.
Once again I will say that I think the public knows and
expects that we have to make it easier in certain very specific conditions for
authorities, those being police forces, the local forces or RCMP or CSIS or
whatever, to collect the kind of evidence that is necessary. It is necessary to
have electronic surveillance. It is necessary in certain very limited cases to
compel disclosure of information that may be held by people. It is also
necessary to amend the Canada Evidence Act so that we can collect information
and not disclose it in a public forum that would be detrimental to the
country.
(1305)
Canadians are fully supportive of all of those
provisions. I also think the bill contains an excellent provision, the three
year review provision, because we are caught in the middle of a whole series of
events which assume a particular state of mind both nationally and
internationally. We do not know the nature, the extent or the duration of this
matter, so we have enacted laws which are fitting and proper under the current
circumstances. At the same time the three year review allows us to consider the
effect of these laws and the conditions in three years' time so that we may
determine then whether these laws are enough, too much or not enough. It is
very important that laws be considered in a timeframe, both current and short
term, but not entrenched forever. In that respect I know that Canadians are
quite supportive of this, that they expect it and support it.
What I would now like to talk about is what is referred
to as part 6 of the bill because we have heard a great deal of talk about
balancing rights, a lot of talk about the charter and a lot of talk about rules
of natural justice. I want to point out that part 6 is not about criminal law
but civil law. It is about, in this international year of the volunteer, those
people who have another element to them, that is, they wish to help others,
whether in this country or in other countries. It is about the provision of
charitable acts by people in this country to those both in and out of this
country. Let us be clear about part 6. It is not about criminal law. It is
about civil law and it is about charities.
We have heard a great deal of talk about the rules of
natural justice, one of which is this one: Who is my accuser, who is making an
accusation against me, what is being said specifically against me and do I have
the right to question and to meet that person making the accusation? I point
out to members present that part 6 was before the House prior to the summer
recess. At that time it was called Bill C-16. It was referred to a committee of
the House after first reading. I would point out, far be it from me to say,
that it was widely rejected by that committee. It was not a question of one
party rejecting it. It was a question of everyone on that committee being
disturbed by it.
Some excellent points were made before that committee
in terms of what part 6 is about, so as the bill proceeds from the House to the
justice committee I would invite the committee to revisit what was said about
part 6. All Canadians will support parts 1 to 5, but I think part 6 has some
disturbing elements, the principal point being that when one examines that
provision one sees that nobody would know who is making the accusation, what
specifically is being said or in fact who is saying it. It would be fed through
the sieve called CSIS, which would then provide a summary of perhaps what was
said, or more properly, of what the allegations were, but little or no
detail.
This would have dire consequences for those people in
this country with a long tradition of helping others, and this is international
year of the volunteer. Part 6 does not meet that fundamental rule of the rules
of natural justice, that is, who is making the accusation, what is being said
and do I have the right to meet that person and question them?
Finally, I would also point out that part 6 of this law
imposes an absolute liability on a charity.
(1310)
It has nothing to do with anyone's intention. One can
imagine some very innocent occurrences where people believe they are doing the
right thing when in fact, through misfortune or lack of attention, the money is
diverted to somebody who has less than honourable intentions quite innocently
by those paying it. Effectively, the result under part 6 would be the end of
that charitable cause. That is unfortunate.
When the bill goes to committee, I would ask that the
members pay very close attention to part 6 and all the provisions thereof.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend opposite is a lawyer,
does he think there is anything in the bill which would tarnish our bill of
rights? Is it possible that the individual rights of society could supersede
the safety and protection of the entire nation?
I am really concerned about the latter. Do our
individual rights exceed the security of our nation as a whole?
Mr. Roger Gallaway:
Mr. Speaker, in many respects we are moving into
uncharted waters. These are exceptional times. Certainly the objective of the
bill is the security and safety of our country and of individuals
therein.
The member will know that there are portions of the
bill which in another time were never contemplated because it was deemed there
was never any need for such types of laws. In terms of the criminal law, the
events of September 11 have certainly turned the tide so that the rights of the
collective, the safety of the collective and the safety of the nation are being
brought forward and will supersede.
For example, I would refer to the section where a
person might be, for all intents and purposes, arrested without charges and
held for 24 hours prior to being taken before a judge. If we were to suggest
that to be the case, six weeks ago people would have said that we could not do
that.
However, if we look at it in terms of the events and of
the public mood, the public opinion and the culture of the world today, that is
not seen in light of those horrendous acts of September 11 as being an
unreasonable provision for public safety and protection. In that respect, where
otherwise criminal law parts 1 to 5 are applicable, the public is
there.
I would like to think that judges do not live in a
vacuum. They are quite aware of the climate, although it could be argued that
sometimes they are not. However, certainly because of the greater beliefs,
fears and apprehension of people today, judges would see this as a reasonable
provision for public safety.
(1315)
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from across the way
for a very informative speech this afternoon. My question has to deal with the
deterrent values, or at least the potential deterrent values, built into this
legislation.
A number of the new classifications for criminal
terrorist activities or advising others to commit terrorist activities, now
bring with them the potential for life imprisonment in Canada.
Does my colleague believe that this type of deterrent
would be successful with terrorists who clearly have shown in the past no
appreciation for the value of human life? In particular, we might need to look
at legislation that would more speedily extradite and/or deport individuals
back to their countries.
Many people would view life imprisonment in Canada's
prisons as a step up from what they are used to in their home countries.
Therefore, I am a little concerned whether the deterrents would provide the
effect for which we are looking.
Mr. Roger Gallaway:
Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question. The
corollary is that if we had previously apprehended the 19 who commandeered
those planes and killed those hundreds of people and said that we were
returning them to their country of origin, that would not have been a
deterrent, as I see it.
What do we say to people who are capable of overriding
the very natural instinct to live and survive by committing mass suicide among
themselves? There is an element in all of this that is relative and that is
that any kind of punishment, whether it is in Canada or in some other country,
is of no consequence to them whatsoever.
The bill aims not only to address those who commit the
acts but also those who support the network people. Obviously the 19 did not
act as a collective of 19 or as 19 solo acts. There was some cohesion to that
group which meant there were support operatives either in the United States or,
as has been suggested, in Europe. It is to get at those people who are the real
threat.
What do we do with people who are willing to commit
suicide? No number of threats of any kind will prevent that.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Sarnia--Lambton
gave us a pretty good explanation of this legislation. I enjoyed listening to
his comments. I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-36, which will
put the government's anti-terrorism plan into place.
Quite clearly the bill is aimed at terrorist
organizations and it seeks to strengthen the investigation, prosecution and
prevention of terrorist activities at home and abroad. The bill has two primary
objectives: to stop terrorists from getting into Canada and to protect
Canadians from terrorist acts.
Canada has been fortunate to have a very peaceful
history, unlike our neighbour to the south. September 11 is one more horrible
example of that, but it has probably made Canadians question if we will
continue to have a peaceful history without threat. We know now that Canada is
in a position of being threatened. Our safety and security as a nation and as
individual citizens of this nation have been threatened. It is important that
the bill be in place to help protect Canadians from any possible terrorist
acts.
The bill brings forward the tools necessary to
identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. As my colleague from
Sarnia--Lambton noted, the bill seeks to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from
being held hostage or under threat by terrorists, which would have a very
deleterious effect on the Canadian economy.
Since I have been working with the Minister for
International Trade, this brings home much more clearly the importance of the
Canadian--American border in our trading relationship. We see that nowhere more
clearly than in southwestern Ontario.
In my home community of London, Ontario, people
regularly cross the American border either at Sarnia Port Huron or
Windsor-Detroit. It is as simple as going to see a ball game or a hockey game
and returning that same evening. Thousands of people cross the border daily to
go to work. There is also an enormous amount of trade across those two border
points.
We need to reflect on the fact that the twoway trade
between Canada and the United States now stands at $1.4 billion every day of
the year. We need to reflect on the fact that there are some 250 million
crossings at the border by individuals, be it for recreational purpose or
work.
It is very important the legislation be in place to
restore the confidence that has been somewhat shaken in Canadians and
Americans. They want to continue to live in a society that has been free and
open. The openness of our border is a good example of that.
Therefore it is very important that all these steps be
taken to re-establish the confidence that we normally have had between our two
countries, where individuals can travel and move safely across the borders and
where business can continue in an unhindered way. The statistics I just
mentioned show the enormity of this two way trade. Something like 87% of our
exports go to the United States.
The bill creates a situation whereby Canada will be
working with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and to
address the root causes of such hatred. In that regard I want to put forward a
suggestion for the minister's consideration and I intend to take this up with
her individually.
(1320)
This suggestion comes from leaders in my own community,
particularly Muslim leaders in London, Ontario, who consistently condemn the
terrorist attacks of September 11. They have proposed the idea that perhaps
Canada is an ideal country to host an international forum on terrorism. Perhaps
we are the perfect country to say that we should, as an international
community, gather and discuss the terrorist threat and discuss very basic
questions like who is a terrorist and what is the proper definition of a
terrorist. There have been some very famous people in history who have been
considered terrorists. Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist in his own
country and he went on to lead his nation. He is obviously one of the
outstanding individuals in history in recent times. This suggestion has some
merit. Perhaps Canada would be well advised to take a lead in looking at the
whole issue of terrorism and working with our international partners. I am
happy to put that suggestion on the record and I will pursue it individually
with the appropriate persons.
The proposed anti-terrorism act includes measures to
identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. These include: defining and
designating terrorist groups and activities to make it easier to prosecute
terrorists and those who support them; making it an offence to knowingly
participate in or contribute to or facilitate the activities of terrorist
groups or to instruct anyone in how to do any of those activities; making it an
offence to knowingly harbour a terrorist; creating tougher sentences and parole
provisions for terrorist offences; cutting off the financial support of
terrorist groups; making it an offence to knowingly collect funds for or
contribute funds to any such group. It would also ratify the two UN
anti-terrorism conventions, the international convention for the suppression of
the financing of terrorism and the international convention for the suppression
of terrorist bombings, as well as the safety of United Nations and associated
personnel convention.
I believe Canadians overwhelmingly support the
legislation and the need for it. Some valid concerns have been raised.
Certainly they have been raised with me, about the fact that we do not slip in
a draconian series of measures that would somehow infringe unnecessarily on our
rights as individuals. I think the bill strikes the proper balance between the
need to fight terrorism and the need to protect of our civil liberties.
The bill has several safeguards which I will mention
briefly. There will be a parliamentary review of the anti-terrorism legislation
in three years. As the Prime Minister noted in his speech last night, the
minister is committed to requesting and supporting such a review sooner if it
is deemed to be warranted.
Clearly defining provisions so that they are targeted
at terrorists and terrorist groups would allow obviously legitimate political
activism and protest which are so much a part of our democracy and which we
witness every day outside on the steps and the lawns of parliament. I am very
proud as a Canadian that I see those groups. I do not see them as a nuisance.
They are here demonstrating peacefully about causes that are important to them.
They cover everything from an individual priest here day after day expressing
his strong pro-life views to groups like the Falun Gong. They have been out
there recently demonstrating about activities they feel are discriminating
against them in China.
It is very important that we have this balance and that
the safeguards are there. They are important and good safeguards. The burden of
proof, the onus, is on the state, as it should be. In other words an individual
would still be innocent until proven guilty even if he or she is accused of a
terrorist activity. That is fundamental to our democracy.
There are other safeguards built into the legislation
that I do not have time to enumerate right now. Suffice it to say that I think
the bill is very important.
(1325)
I know that my constituents overwhelmingly support the
bill. My constituents have some concerns about not having this legislation go
too far. The bill addresses those concerns very well and I am pleased to
support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the
remarks of the member opposite.
In the context in which we now find ourselves, it is
not easy to criticize such a bill, but my duty as a parliamentarian does compel
me to point out that the only acts of terrorism I have ever known in my entire
life in Canada were committed by the RCMP. They burned barns. An RCMP officer
had a bomb explode in his hands on the steps of the Steinberg family residence.
I recall this incident, which took place in 1970.
Law enforcement officers running wild are very
dangerous. While full of good intentions, this bill fails totally to provide a
control mechanism or structure.
Just days ago, we received some 150 recommendations
from the Canadian Police Association. If we were to grant their request, you
and I both, Mr. Speaker, would be stuck in some holding tank, in a glass
enclosure, and stripped of our individual freedom.
I understand that it is the nature of police work to
exercise control over just about anything that moves. Policing, we are told, is
a necessary evil, but parliamentarians must not be too easily swayed by these
kinds of claims.
The bill to combat terrorism lacks controls. It is
permanent. Yes, it is up for review in three years. Does the member not think
that when those three years are up it should be extended by a vote in
parliament rather than continuing in force forever, as long as parliament has
not recalled it? I would recommend the opposite approach. This is a very
dangerous bill.
Even in its wildest dreams, the Canadian Police
Association never dared hope it would be given so many powers in a single
document as it would be with this bill.
Does the member not see a certain threat to individual
freedoms in this, despite the good intentions?
(1330)
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien:
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely dumbfounded to hear any
member of parliament, but particularly one from the province of Quebec, tell me
that he has no recollection of terrorist activities in Canada except for those
of the RCMP. That is absolutely incredible.
I would suggest that the hon. member talk to the family
of the Hon. Pierre Laporte and hear what their views are about the absolutely
incredible statement he just made. I cannot believe it. I will not go into a
full explanation of the 1970 FLQ crisis and the murder of Pierre Laporte. I do
not need to do that, although I certainly could. I am afraid I would probably
become quite annoyed if I did that.
I want to answer the hon. member's question. He is
proposing a built-in sunset clause or a clause that would automatically cause
the bill to no longer be in effect at the end of three years. I do not think
that is a very good idea at all. It is unnecessary.
First of all, the Parliament of Canada, which the hon.
member was elected to and is a part of, can achieve that in any number of other
ways that are already in existence. The bill can be revoked.
The Prime Minister in his speech last night very
clearly indicated that although the bill calls for a parliamentary review
automatically at three years, the government is open to a review sooner if it
is deemed wise by parliament to do that. There is no intention of having some
never ending bill that cannot be reviewed.
I invite the hon. member to come over and have a
discussion. I will tell him the rest of the story about the FLQ crisis which he
conveniently ignored.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I think that parliament has before it, as
we often say, an exceedingly important bill. I really think it is the most
important bill the House of Commons will pass. This bill responds to an event
that occurred on September 11 and to much more than that as well. The bill, the
way it is drafted at the moment, goes perhaps a bit too far.
Let me explain. If there is one thing we must make sure
of it is that the House does not improvise in passing the bill, not with a bill
like this one. We must take time to examine every angle of the bill. As many
people as possible and the experts must be consulted in order to produce a law
that meets our objective of fighting terrorism effectively.
The attacks on New York and Washington must certainly
not change anything in the way we live and do things in Canada, but neither,
given that the laws are passed here, must anything be changed in Quebec's
approach either. To succeed in getting us to change and alter our practices
would be the supreme victory for the terrorists. They would know we are afraid
and would change the way we live and deprive our fellow citizens of their
freedoms in exchange for security on paper.
In our reactions and attitudes we must look primarily
for balance between heightened security measures and the need to keep freedom
in the central and vital space it occupies in our society. We must protect
ourselves, but we must also be aware of the fact that liberty will always be
fragile whatever we do and whatever legislation we may pass in this House so
long as there are men and women prepared to die for a cause and through hatred.
No legislation will be able to stop them.
We can, however, have legislation that will enable us
to prevent attacks such as the those that have recently taken place. We can
have a bill that will help us gather information on terrorists, on the people
we really want to target with such a piece of legislation, but caution is
required.
We must not have just any old law to stop such people.
Legislation is needed, but not at the expense of our collective and individual
rights and freedoms. Sacrificing our freedom would in fact be capitulation,
because freedom is, more than anything else, what defines life in a democracy.
The choices we will be making are not, therefore, only choices for security,
they are choices for society. Such choices, informed choices, cannot be made
overnight. A sense of balance must inform our analysis of Bill C-36.
At the present time, looked at as a whole I believe the
bill's purpose is laudable. The bill as a whole will be applied in conjunction
with other existing Canadian statutes. The criminal code will continue to
apply, as will the anti-gang legislation. Hon. members will recall that Bill
C-24, now in the other place awaiting royal assent, enables police officers to
commit illegal acts.
(1335)
With the anti-gang legislation and this bill, Bill
C-36, which amends over 20 Canadian statutes and a series of regulations, the
powers of the police force appear out of balance with the liberties we
enjoy.
I know it is not mentioned in the bill, but at some
point the police, thanks to the anti-gang legislation, will be able to commit
illegal acts under the law and perhaps break it. This was certainly not the
government's aim, but we must not lose sight of the fact that these two laws
apply concurrently. Neither blocks the other.
By allowing a police officer to act illegally under
Bill C-24, we cannot be sure he will not use this part of the act to do things
that are illegal under Bill C-36. Yet he would be justified in doing so for
purposes of national security. Is this just rhetoric on my part? I hope
so.
I do not think it is rhetoric to say that because it is
important to watch what is going on and to try to produce the best legislation.
I think this is what the people of Canada and Quebec expect of us.
A look at the federal government's anti-terrorism plan
and its objectives reveals four major objectives. There is no reason to oppose
them. Perhaps the way it goes about achieving them in the legislation gives us
the right, in a country like ours, to question them.
The first objective is to prevent terrorists from
entering Canada and to protect Canadians against acts of terrorism. I have no
problem with this objective. I would certainly not defend the terrorists or say
that their rights were protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. I was saying on the subject of gangsterism and organized crime, that
it is not true the charter exists to protect them. I say the same thing about
terrorists. However, the rights and freedoms honest people enjoy at the moment
must not be denied them.
The second objective involves providing the tools to
identify terrorists, bring them to justice, sentence them and punish them. This
needs no explanation and there is no doubt that we support this
objective.
The third objective is to prevent the Canada-U.S.
border from being taken hostage by terrorists, which would have repercussions
on the Canadian economy. That is obvious. Moreover, this is not the first time
the Bloc Quebecois has questioned the work being done by customs officials on
the borders of Canada and Quebec.
As far as money laundering is concerned, for at least
five or six years now the Bloc Quebecois has been saying over and over that the
borders between Canada and the United States are as full of holes as a sieve
and that Canada enjoys the wonderful international reputation of being a
country where money laundering is easy and where there may be the least
monitoring of this.
I know that this is being corrected. I know that we
have not been a voice crying out unheard in the wilderness for those five or
six years. I know that the government has amended some laws in response to
overtures by the Bloc Quebecois. I know that as far as Bill C-36 is concerned
the criminal code is also being amended, with a far more specific objective:
terrorist groups. This is a good thing.
I do not, however, think that the wake up call of the
events of September 11 was necessary for this to happen. Actions could have
been taken back when we started talking about the situation, back when we began
to address the problem represented by Canadian customs and the Canada-U.S.
border.
The final objective is to work with the international
community to bring terrorists to justice and address the root causes of their
hatred.
We can see that these are four praiseworthy objectives.
On that basis one could not be opposed to a bill to implement provisions to
attain those objectives.
(1340)
However, the questions that arise have to do with the
text we have before us. The bill is more than 170 pages in length and contains
dozens, even hundreds, of amended sections and expanded definitions regarding
the threat to national security among other things. There are increased powers
conferred to some members of the cabinet. The Minister of Justice, the
Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of National Defence would all have
increased powers when it comes to electronic surveillance, for example. They
would be able to decide if an individual will be monitored. It is the minister
who would be responsible for the final decision. Have they gone too far? That
is a tough question.
Are we asking enough tough questions? I hope that the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I emphasize the words human
rights, will do just that in a calm manner with all the time it needs and that
this bill will be carefully examined.
If Canada had pursued these four objectives by
ratifying international treaties that it has already signed, by making them
law, then in all probability I would not be standing here right now giving a 20
minute speech on this subject. In order to attain its four objectives, the
government included two conventions in this bill.
The first one is the international convention for the
suppression of the financing of terrorism. It freezes terrorists' assets by
preventing the use of assets belonging to a person who is involved in terrorist
activities and in preventing the provision of property and financial or other
related services to terrorists. These measures enable a Federal Court judge to
order the freezing or seizure of property used to support terrorist
activities.
This is the convention that had been signed but never
had force of law in Canada. This convention is included in Bill
C-36.
In order to achieve the objectives I outlined earlier,
there is no problem with this approach and I applaud the government on this.
Indeed, the government should have done this before September 11. This was its
responsibility. It failed when it came to implementing the international
convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.
Frankly, I imagine that the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service knew before September 11 that there were people raising
funds for terrorism in Canada. I certainly hope it knew. If it did not, I have
my doubts about the effectiveness of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service. If it did, why was it waiting to tell somebody? If it did pass the
information along, why did the solicitor general or the Minister of Justice do
nothing when a convention had been signed to that effect? There is a problem
somewhere.
The other convention is the international convention
for the suppression of terrorist bombings. This convention contains provisions
on the targeting of places of public use, government facilities, infrastructure
and transportation systems for attacks using explosives or other lethal
devices, including chemical or biological agents.
Here again, I hope that the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service was on some sort of trail in Canada while groups were on
Canadian soil and had certain similar objectives. It is perhaps not as clear as
in the first convention, but I hope that CSIS, with the millions of dollars,
close to a billion, which it regularly receives to manage its affairs, had a
good idea of what was going on.
These two conventions are therefore implemented by Bill
C-36. Once again we have no problem with this.
There is one point about which we have some legitimate
concerns and I think that anyone interested in individual and collective rights
and freedoms must share those concerns.
(1345)
A large number of sections in the criminal code are
amended and many new ones are added to deal with terrorism.
I invite hon. members to read the definition of
terrorist activity; it is not a simple definition. It refers to ten conventions
that Canada signed and implemented over the years. It is a definition that
makes reference to other sections, to international conventions, to a large
number of possibilities.
Terrorism as such is not defined, just like the federal
government refused to define the notion of criminal activity--
An hon. member: Gangsterism.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes, gangsterism. The
bill defines terrorist activity by referring to conventions. About terrorism or
terrorist activity it says that it is as an act committed for “a political,
religious or ideological purpose”, which threatens the public and national
security because it “is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to a
person”, “to endanger a person's life”, “to cause substantial property damage”,
and might “cause serious bodily harm” as a result of “serious interference with
or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system”.
This is just one part of the definition. I did not
mention the ten conventions that make reference to certain definitions of what
may constitute a terrorist activity.
Just the part of the definition that I mentioned
deserves a closer look. More than ten or fifteen minutes are necessary before
adopting this clause. Experts are required, and no one in this House has the
expertise to really be able to say whether or not this is going too far.
There may be members who have some expertise, but it is
tinted by the party line of their political formations, and that includes
myself, so outside experts are required to take a hard look at these
definitions and tell us if we are right to be concerned about a possible
violation of certain freedoms.
We could discuss this issue for a long time. I could
talk about such a bill for hours, but since time is always a consideration I
will deal with the core of the issue.
Another point that raises concerns is the whole
question of electronic surveillance. Under the criminal code it is possible to
use electronic surveillance by obtaining a warrant if surveillance is carried
out for a specific time period, but the person being monitored must
subsequently be informed of the fact.
Now all of this has been turned upside down. The
monitoring period has been extended. The minister now has direct input. It will
all be very vague. The way it will really operate is unclear. We do not know
what limits there will be.
When more powers are granted to the police, as is the
case here, whether it be preventive arrests, arrests without a warrant, or the
Attorney General of Canada suspending the Access to Information Act whenever he
pleases if he believes that national security is threatened and there is no one
to oversee what he is doing, no one to question the minister's decision, this
is of concern to me.
The fact that this law would not be reviewed for three
years is also cause for concern in my opinion.
Why does the minister, and this is the question I asked
her yesterday in the House, not promise to have this law reviewed or make it
possible to have this law reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights after one year?
With everything that is happening on the national and
international scene, I am convinced that following its adoption Bill C-36 will
be more or less widely applied throughout Canada, depending on the
case.
(1350)
Over the course of the year, the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights could properly examine what has been done and
determine if there has been any abuses. What we need to keep in mind is that we
must prevent any abuse in applying exceptional legislation such as
this.
As I have run out of time, I am prepared to answer any
questions.
(1355)
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest
to the speech of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for
Berthier--Montcalm. I believe that the Minister of Justice, the government
opposite and all the members of this House should pay attention to what he
said. We can only recognize his professionalism in reviewing the young
offenders bill, the anti-gang legislation and the other bills introduced by the
Minister of Justice.
Our justice critic is concerned, as are an increasing
number of people, by the haste surrounding the tabling of this bill. Yes, there
is some urgency in this context of real terrorism, but there are also
considerations relating to this bill that deserve our attention.
I would like to ask the hon. member for
Berthier--Montcalm if, in his opinion it could be risky to pass this bill
quickly. The government is saying it is a matter of days and hours. Should we
take time to consult experts to make sure that this bill is everything we want
it to be?
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur:
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter and I
believe that in such a matter, improvisation, fear, haste and rushed action are
all ill-advised. We must take the time to examine this extraordinary bill. I
believe that a bill of its kind is rarely passed in a parliament such as
ours.
What is first and foremost is that we must not
improvise. We must pass a piece of legislation that attempts to maintain a
degree of balance between national security and individual and collective
rights and freedoms. The drawbacks must be addressed. As the bill is worded at
this time, I believe that these run contrary to certain rights and freedoms.
Our sights must be readjusted.
What does please me, and at the same time reassures me,
is that yesterday the Prime Minister said that the committee would examine this
question and listen to what people have to say and that it will be empowered to
amend those clauses which go too far or involve goals the government is not
interested in attaining. For instance, one or more of the definitions contained
in the bill might affect the labour movement and those taking part in illegal
walkouts. I do not believe that the objective of this bill is to consider them
as terrorist groups. All that needs doing is to review the definition and
perhaps tighten it up a bit, bringing it more in line with the objective, which
is to combat terrorism.
This is not something that can be done overnight.
Pushing the bill through at full speed is not the way to do it. We must take
our time. Time is something we have here in this House, as well as in the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, to examine this bill along with
specialists and people who are used to working with the charter of rights and
freedoms and similar legislation. We will then be able to shape legislation
that is more acceptable and that particular strikes a balance between national
security and individual and collective rights and freedoms.
The Speaker:
The hon. member will have six minutes left for
questions and comments after oral question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Dystonia
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, dystonia is a neurological disorder that
can disable its victims with painful and involuntary muscle spasms. Sadly the
cause of dystonia remains a mystery. This little known disease often goes
undiagnosed in patients causing them deep psychological distress, emotional
withdrawal and isolation from the rest of society.
Fortunately the families and friends of those who
suffer from this devastating disorder have formed the Dystonia Medical Research
Foundation. The purpose of the foundation is to create a greater awareness of
dystonia, to discover the cause of the disease and to eventually find a
cure.
In support of this dedicated group, I ask my colleagues
in the House to join me in proclaiming the week of October 14 to 21 to be
National Dystonia Awareness Week. During this time we call upon all Canadians
to learn more about dystonia, how to recognize its symptoms and how to treat
those who suffer from the disorder. The more we understand about dystonia, the
closer we are to the cure.
* * *
(1400)
Lisa's Law
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced in the House a
private member's bill that I hope will make a difference for children in the
country. I hope Lisa's law will better ensure that the health and safety of
children are at the centre of our justice system.
I hope the proposed amendments to the Divorce Act will
help make sure that sexual offenders, especially those who have committed
sexual offences against children, cannot use court orders to force their own
children to visit them in jail.
Earlier this year I walked with two children aged five
and six and their mother, Lisa Dillman, into Bowden Penitentiary. Against their
wishes these children were being forced to visit their father who had committed
and was convicted of terrible sexual offences.
These two children have endured a great deal of
psychological trauma. They and their mother have struggled long and hard to be
liberated from the terrible burden of a court system that puts their perverted
father above their own safety and security. I ask that all members of the House
support these amendments when Lisa's law is read again.
* * *
[Translation]
Gala des prix Excellence La
Presse—Radio-Canada
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the House the
name of the person of the year, 2001. He is Normand Legault, the owner of the
Montreal Formula 1 Grand Prix.
The award was presented at the Gala des prix Excellence
La Presse—Radio-Canada because of the success of the Grand Prix and his
involvement in the world of business and in public life in Montreal.
The other winners are Christiane Germain, the chair of
Développement Germain-des-Prés; Stanley Vollant, the first Native surgeon in
Canada; Marie-Nicole Lemieux, contralto; Chantal Petitclerc, an athlete at the
Sydney Paralympics and Freda Miller of the Montreal Neurological
Institute.
I want to congratulate these people on their
involvement in our society. They are truly inspiring models for Canadians.
Congratulations.
* * *
[English]
Ontario Wine Industry
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the
significant contribution Ontario vintners make to both the Ontario tourism
industry and the Canadian economy in general.
Ontario wines meet the highest standards of quality and
excellence, drawing travellers and connoisseurs from across Canada and around
the globe who want to appreciate the calibre of Ontario's wines firsthand.
From the Niagara Peninsula to Prince Edward county, the
vineyards of the Ontario wine industry have proven that Canadian wines have the
maturity and quality to compete with the best in the world.
I encourage my colleagues and all Canadians to partake
in the sights, smells and tastes of Ontario wines through the simple purchase
of a bottle of wine produced in Ontario or by embarking on a breathtaking tour
of the wine country.
The contribution of the Ontario wine industry to
Canadian culture and the Canadian economy deserves our recognition and
appreciation.
* * *
Genetically Modified
Foods
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the need for a mandatory labelling system
of genetically modified foods was made evident by the events of last summer.
For example, we had the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors ordering major
grocery chains to remove from the shelves labelled products or cover labels
identifying products that are GM free.
One wonders whether it is fair to leave an issue as
basic as the consumers' right to know what they eat to the whim of food
retailers. Why are consumers denied the information they need to make informed
purchasing decisions with regard to genetically modified foods?
I invite my colleagues in the House to give serious
consideration to these questions and to support Bill C-287 when voting on it
tomorrow.
* * *
Mike Harris
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today we learned that Premier Mike Harris
of Ontario has announced his intention to step down. As premier he leaves all
Canadians a rich legacy. He will long be remembered for his common sense
revolution: the promises to cut taxes, balance the budget, eliminate barriers
to growth and introduce work for welfare.
His ideas, which are now widely embraced, were in 1995
considered extreme. The elites scoffed, pollsters scoffed, the media scoffed,
other parties scoffed and the federal Liberals are still scoffing today.
However he was right, his critics were wrong and the people of Ontario agreed
with him.
In government, despite extreme and sometimes violent
opposition, Mike Harris delivered on his promises and more. People found it
refreshing that a leader would keep his word. In 1999 he was rewarded for this
with a new mandate.
On behalf of Canadians and the official opposition
Canadian Alliance, I offer my hearty congratulations and thanks to Premier Mike
Harris. We wish him and his family the very best.
* * *
(1405)
World Food Day
Ms. Jean Augustine
(Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today is World Food Day. This year's theme
is “Fight hunger to reduce poverty”. Hunger is the most critical manifestation
of poverty. Eliminating hunger is the first step toward reducing poverty and
ensuring food for all.
Around 800 million men, women and children are
chronically hungry. Hunger causes illness and death, robs people of their
potential to work, cripples children's learning capacity, and undermines the
peace and prosperity of nations. Raising public awareness about the problems of
hunger and food insecurity is necessary in the fight against hunger.
At the World Food Summit in 1996 nations including
Canada committed themselves to cutting by half the number of hungry people by
2015. This November governments, NGOs and other international agencies will
meet to review the progress made and consider ways to accelerate efforts to
reach this goal.
On this occasion let us strengthen our solidarity in
the struggle to make sure that everyone on the planet has enough to
eat.
* * *
[Translation]
Violence Free Week
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, despite the tragic events of September 11,
we can still imagine a life without violence. During violence free week, held
between October 14 and 20, let us encourage children, adolescents and adults to
imagine a world without violence.
To this end, we must focus all our energies and our
institutions. Parliamentarians, schools, community organizations and parents
must join forces to create safe, violence free living, working and recreational
spaces.
I would like to draw attention to the part of the
campaign directed at children. Despite the current situation, we must show
children that life is possible without violence.
Violence is neither normal nor justifiable. Our
children must never accept violence in their life. Let us take time together to
give them the greatest gift possible: a life free of violence.
* * *
[English]
Joyce Reid
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I announce
the passing of one of my constituents, Ms. Joyce Reid, who died on Friday,
October 12, 2001.
Joyce was someone who believed that in addition to
one's responsibilities to family and work one should also give something back
to society. To that end she filled her life with volunteering for numerous
community projects and political campaigns.
Joyce did not view politics with disdain. She viewed
politics as an important component of a developed and civilized society. She
believed that in the end politics was as good as the people who took time to
participate in it.
Joyce was a tireless and dedicated volunteer in our
community. Her many friends in the Swansea and High Park neighbourhoods will
greatly miss her. I shall always remember her as an inspiring example of how to
fully participate in and better the society one lives in.
* * *
National Co-Op Week
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this week is National Co-Op Week.
Appropriately it coincides with the declaration of October 16 as World Food
Day.
Canada's co-ops and credit unions play an important
role in many communities across the country. This is especially true in rural
Canada where co-operatives perform a vital role in the production of our
nation's food.
It is fitting that the House of Commons recognize the
role of co-operatives in our economy and acknowledge the fundamental part they
play in putting food on our tables and on tables around the world.
Co-ops and credit unions are significant contributors
to other sectors of the economy as well, with over 15 million members and
160,00 employees across Canada.
One particular credit union in Manitoba deserves
special recognition. Staff members at Assiniboine Credit Union in Winnipeg give
their time to numerous community activities including free business counselling
to local self-employment programs.
As a member of parliament from Manitoba, I am proud to
draw their community efforts to the attention of the House of
Commons.
* * *
World Food Day
Mr. Larry McCormick
(Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today is World Food Day, the day we
commemorate the founding of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, the FAO, in Quebec City on October 16, 1945.
This year's theme, “Fight hunger to reduce poverty”,
underscores the need to refocus attention on hunger as the first step to
reducing poverty.
As Canadians we benefit from the success of an
agriculture and food sector that provides us with safe and nutritious food. As
a member of the FAO, Canada is a strong supporter of efforts to reduce hunger,
promote sustainable agriculture and encourage the integration of developing
countries into the world economy.
Still, according to the FAO, there are over 800 million
people in the world facing hunger. World Food Day is an opportunity to remind
us that we cannot be complacent in the fight against hunger.
* * *
(1410)
Canada Post
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, October 16 is the 20th anniversary of
Canada Post. While Canadians give Canada Post a passing grade in general, it
gets a big fat F for failure when it comes to its treatment of its rural route
mail couriers.
These couriers are the only group of workers in the
country who are specifically barred from any of the basic rights that all
employees are guaranteed in Canada. Subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post
Corporation Act denies rural route mail couriers the right to vacations,
statutory holidays, pensions, employment insurance, Canada pension plan, health
and safety legislation, or the right to free collective bargaining that all
Canadians enjoy under the charter.
We should mark the 20th anniversary of Canada Post by
fixing this historic injustice once and for all. The government should delete
subsection 13(5) of the act and give these hardworking Canadians the rights
that all Canadian workers enjoy.
* * *
[Translation]
Judge Michael Sheehan
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to
pay tribute to Judge Michael Sheehan, who yesterday received the Maurice
Champagne rights and freedoms award from the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de
Montréal.
Devastated by the death of his son, this courageous and
very wise father decided to become involved by being there to listen to the
distress of others and making a remarkable contribution to suicide prevention
efforts.
When he speaks, Judge Sheehan reminds us that human
life is what we hold most dear and that in fact people contemplating suicide do
not want to die but just end their suffering.
This suffering is on the increase. Every day in Quebec
there are 250 suicide attempts, five of which are fatal. In 1999, 316 women and
over 1,200 men lost their life in this tragic manner.
Judge Sheehan's contribution to the prevention of
suicide in Quebec is, of course, invaluable but his message is inspiring as
well and helps to demystify this sad reality.
* * *
[English]
NATO Parliamentary Assembly
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga
Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly held its
annual meeting in Ottawa over Thanksgiving weekend. Delegates from all our NATO
allies and associate countries were lavish in their praise of all aspects of
the conference, including security.
I take this opportunity to thank everyone whose hard
work helped create a world class event. I include yourself, Mr. Speaker. Along
with your colleague from the upper chamber you were kind enough to host a
spectacular reception in the Centre Block which featured Canadian talent and
foods.
While many of my colleagues were happy to contribute, I
should make special mention of the member for Don Valley East and the member
for Toronto Centre--Rosedale. Both made excellent presentations to committees
of the assembly. I particularly thank the Prime Minister for opening the
plenary session with a powerful and moving speech.
Finally, I thank the employees of the House of Commons
and Senate who worked tirelessly on the conference as well as the RCMP and
Ottawa police services. It was a proudly Canadian event.
* * *
Week Without Violence
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, October 14 to October 20 marks the YWCA's
Week Without Violence. Created by the YWCA in 1995, the Week Without Violence
now spans over 50 countries and has become part of an international commitment
to eradicate violence in all its forms.
This week organizers will be challenging thousands of
Canadians across the country to imagine their lives without violence by
engaging communities in a variety of activities and dialogues around violence
and its prevention.
Last year 33,600 children, youth and adults
participated in hundreds of these activities at over 300 schools in 600
communities. With the publicity it received the message of the YWCA's Week
Without Violence reached over five million Canadians.
As one of the largest and oldest women's service
organizations in Canada, the YWCA is Canada's largest provider of shelters to
women and children. It has been its longstanding commitment to bring an end to
all forms of violence. I thus encourage all Canadians and parliamentarians to
play their part in ensuring that the Week Without Violence will last all year
long.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Breast Cancer
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay
(Madawaska--Restigouche, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to the House and to all
Canadians that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Breast cancer is a serious health problem for Canadian
women. The federal government is concerned about the physical and psychological
suffering caused by this disease.
In 1992, the federal government launched a $25 million
initiative through Health Canada to combat breast cancer. In June 1998, the
federal government renewed its commitment to the Canadian Breast Cancer
Initiative by announcing stable, ongoing funding of $7 million
annually.
Thanks to federal leadership and with the help of a
national network of devoted partners, we are working to reduce the incidence
and mortality of breast cancer and to improve the quality of life of women
affected by it.
My congratulations to all those who are devoting their
time and energy to this serious health problem.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[Translation]
Anti-terrorism Act
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, one month ago, at our earliest
opportunity, the official opposition moved a motion to enact anti-terrorism
legislation similar to the bill introduced yesterday by the government.
What specifically was it about the Canadian Alliance
motion that justified the government wasting one month before coming around to
the Canadian Alliance arguments in favour of introducing an anti-terrorism
bill?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government does its homework in all
circumstances. Unlike the opposition, however, we do it before we introduce
bills.
A bill such as this calls for a great deal of thought
and study so that we can strike a balance between the protection of Canadians'
fundamental rights and freedoms and their safety. We are not here to seize
opportunities as they go by, but to introduce excellent bills.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have still had no specific
answer.
[English]
We are left wondering about this anti-legislation law
but we support some of it. When it is enacted will it make much difference for
terrorist organizations operating in Canada?
Under the new law, even if bin Laden's band of
murderers, al-Qaeda, is named as a terrorist group, his followers across Canada
could still stand and proudly declare that they are members of that group.
Could the Prime Minister explain that to us?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition should
know, if there were supporters of al-Qaeda in the country, if they participated
in, if they contributed to, if they facilitated, if they instructed or if they
harboured in relation to any of the activities of al-Qaeda, they in fact could
be investigated, charged and prosecuted.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, they can still be proud
members.
In the war on terrorism many things should be done but
a few things must be done. Under the bill, a terrorist convicted of a mass
murder would still be eligible for parole and would definitely be free to walk
around in Canada after 25 years.
Could the Prime Minister explain how this discount for
mass murderers meets his test of reasonableness?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is incorrect. If
one is convicted and sentenced to a life sentence, there is no guarantee or
reason to assume that the person would necessarily be granted parole at any
time.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the point is that the terrorists could in
fact receive parole. The anti-terrorist legislation tabled by the justice
minister yesterday provides parole for terrorists who commit mass murder. Under
the bill a terrorist would be eligible for release after 25 years even if
convicted of killing thousands of victims.
Why will the Liberal government not amend the law to
ensure that terrorists who commit mass murder are never released from
custody?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague is not trying
to indicate that murderers are automatically paroled at the end of 25 years.
The fact is that it is a life sentence and the first chance for parole is at 25
years.
My hon. colleague is also aware that public safety is
always the number one priority when dealing with parole.
(1420)
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister should read the bill. The
government's own backbenchers, specifically the member for Mississauga East,
warned the government of this glaring problem in the criminal code when it
comes to dealing with mass murderers and serial killers. The same is true with
respect to the anti-terrorism legislation.
Will the minister address this frightening concern and
amend the legislation to ensure that convicted terrorists never have a second
chance to commit mass murder?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is well aware
that if an individual is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, life is
life. The first chance for parole is at 25 years but life is life in this
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the attacks of September 11 force us into
an exceptional situation that requires exceptional measures. In the case of the
anti-terrorism act, if the situation improves, the exception must not become
the rule.
In order to respond properly to both immediate and
future needs, will the Prime Minister agree that it would be more prudent to
provide a sunset clause that would, after three years, force parliament to
reassess the situation and decide whether or not to renew the anti-terrorism
legislation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, not only am I in agreement with the hon.
leader of the Bloc Quebecois but ,as I said yesterday in response to a
question, if three years is too much, we are prepared to shorten that
period.
If this is extraordinary legislation and if it must be
used in very specific circumstances, I am totally in agreement with the fact
that the government should review it. If any piece of extraordinary legislation
should no longer be necessary, there should be a requirement for it to be
withdrawn.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am not merely referring to a review of
the law.
To repeat the Prime Minister words of yesterday, we
must avoid the errors of the past. What I am referring to is setting, right
from the start, a fixed time limit for this law, a law we will also have to
review.
Would the government be prepared to set a fixed
expiration date for this bill?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the committee is going to examine the
bill. There may be some elements of it that will have to be retained, because
they represent an improvement over the act we have at present.
We cannot, therefore, say immediately that the entire
act should be withdrawn. There may well be certain elements of it that would
improve existing legislation, and it will be in the interest of Canadians and
the freedoms enjoyed by Canadians to retain them in the criminal code.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has to understand that
people's rights and freedoms are at stake here and this is why we are raising
the matter again.
Given that even the American congress provided for such
a clause in its own legislation, making it null and void at the end of three
years, I ask the Prime Minister if he would not do well to do the same
thing.
Would it not send a signal that he truly has individual
rights and freedoms at heart if he said right now that the operation of the law
will be limited in time?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I invited the committee to examine this
bill. I have just explained that even before three years have passed, it will
perhaps be useful to review it, because parts of it will no longer be
needed.
I would hope that this is the case, as it would mean
that terrorism was defeated. I am however open to all amendments.
The hon. member must also consider that in Canada, to
protect the public, we have created the charter of rights and freedoms, which
will always be used by the courts.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the government's bill in fact goes well
beyond the charter and compromises rights traditionally enjoyed by the people
of this country.
I would ask the Prime Minister not to confuse “review
of the application of the law” with “operation of the law”.
What we are calling for is a law with a limited life of
three years, with mechanisms for annual review so that parliament can check how
the secret service and the police are applying it.
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is making a
mistake, because he is implying that this law suspends the charter of rights
and freedoms, which is not the case.
This legislation is entirely in keeping with the
charter. The committee worked to ensure that the new legislation did not
contravene the charter.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just mentioned the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know how attached he is to it
because I was here in the years when he made the case for it in the House of
Commons.
Given the appropriate attachment of the government to
the charter and given the controversy about whether or not the bill actually
meets the test of the charter, would the government consider a referral to the
supreme court of the more controversial elements of the bill so that the court
might consider it simultaneously? We could still do this in the urgent way that
the government considers necessary.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has just indicated,
we believe the legislation fully complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. Therefore we see no reason to refer this matter to the supreme
court.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that other people may think
differently and it may be in the government's interest to prove that it does
meet that test by referring in the way that I have suggested.
Would the Prime Minister indicate whether he would be
open to sunsetting, as has been suggested, certain sections of the
bill?
I would agree with him that some sections having to do
with UN conventions are not things that should be sunsetted but there may be
more controversial elements that could be sunsetted. I wonder whether the
government would be open to that.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think there is a place to make this
debate. We have a committee that will meet very soon and it will look at all
that. I want the members to look at that.
I want to affirm again that, yes, rather than rushing
into this legislation we took our time because we had a goal. We wanted to have
a bill against terrorism that would not work against the charter of rights and
freedoms. I wanted the charter of rights and freedoms to remain completely
intact despite the legislation.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, would
provide police officers with sweeping new powers that need to be properly
understood in order to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected. This
will mean the retraining of thousands of police officers across the
country.
With many of these officers working for cities,
municipalities and towns that are already cash-strapped due to federal
downloading, will the solicitor general please tell us when he intends to
announce the details of this retraining and how he intends to pay for
it?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, this
government put $1.5 billion into the public safety envelope, $250 million about
a week or so ago to address immediate needs, and $9 million to address training
and personnel for the RCMP.
What we are doing is making sure that the personnel
that is required is there and the technology that is required is there to make
sure that we continue to live in a safe country.
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, a short version of that is more money but
when.
Certain provisions of Bill C-36 raised questions
regarding the overextension of ministerial discretion. The bill allows the
minister to authorize actions which could be subject to abuse. There are broad
powers to limit public access and possibly civil rights.
Will the minister commit today to include not only a
fixed sunset clause but also an oversight committee that we likely have in CSIS
and the RCMP to avoid political interference and to avoid the possible
undermining of political or police impartiality?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on that note I will not make such a
commitment today.
I think it is fair to say that the role of the attorney
general in the legislation is very important because we do believe in
accountability, political and public accountability.
(1430)
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general just stood in the
House today and said that when someone is given a life sentence life is life.
He would have Canadians believe that there is no one out there who is back in
society, free after a life sentence. The minister knows there are many mass
murderers who are free after 25 years.
Will the government amend the legislation to ensure
that terrorists who commit mass murders are never released from
custody?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, another measure that was taken by the
government a number of years ago was the creation of the dangerous offender
classification. If someone is convicted under that it is an indefinite sentence
and he or she could spend the rest of his or her life in prison.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the solicitor general said that
the RCMP was given $64 million to fill any gaps and to hire new RCMP officers
as needed.
I remind the solicitor general that in 1994 the
government cut $175 million over some years and 2,200 positions.
In that $64 million that was announced, how many new
officers will that bring into the force and to what new positions? Could he
announce that today?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing I do not do it is
run the operations of the RCMP.
What the government and I do is make sure that the RCMP
and CSIS have adequate resources to make sure this country has one of the best
police forces in the world and to make sure our society remains safe. We have
done it and we will continue to do it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, according to the very broad definition of
what constitutes a terrorist activity in the Minister of Justice's bill, many
participants in the Quebec City summit could have been considered
terrorists.
How can the minister assure us that with a definition
as broad as this, some of the demonstrators at the Quebec City summit would not
have been apprehended as terrorists?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member cares to read the
definition of terrorist activity he would find that it is a fairly finely
defined definition and one that we have taken great care with to ensure that
those who would carry out lawful and legitimate activities, be it political
protests in relation to labour movements or other things, are not affected by
the legislation.
If the hon. member wishes to discuss this point further
I would be happy to do so at committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, concerns were raised during preliminary
consultations involving those who have read the section in question, that such
a broad definition of what constitutes a terrorist activity would lead to
abuse.
My question is quite simple. Given these legitimate
concerns, does the minister intend to tighten up this definition in order to
avoid mistakes and the risk of abuse?
Will the minister issue clear directives to try to
avoid, as much as possible, abuse of this legislation? That is what I am asking
the minister.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we believe the definition is clear and we
believe there will be no abuse of the definition of terrorist
activity.
As I have said, I will be more than happy to take up
this matter with the member in committee. In addition, the hon. member should
remember that we have a three year review period built into the legislation.
Unlikely as it may be, if there is some abuse we can certainly deal with it at
that time.
* * *
National Security
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canada's trade flow with the United States
is the lifeblood of our economy sustaining thousands of Canadian
jobs.
Today B.C. premier Gordon Campbell is in Ottawa
representing the majority of provincial premiers to lobby the Prime Minister
for a continental security perimeter. A perimeter will not threaten our
sovereignty but rather strengthen our personal and economic
security.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House today whether or
not he will work with the premiers on this issue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being with the
premier for lunch and we discussed that. He understands that the goal of the
federal government is to make sure that the flow of goods with the United
States will not be interrupted by terrorist activities. It is the best thing to
do.
This is not the time to be talking about there being a
big problem because in reality there is no danger at the Canadian border. We
will make sure of that. Those who come to Canada can only come by plane and we
have seven airports to take care of them. The people walking from the north to
the south are not very numerous these days.
(1435)
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, maybe the Prime Minister should visit the
borders and he would realize there is a different reality than the one he
has.
Eight provincial premiers, the international trade
minister, business leaders and Liberal and opposition MPs, along with the vast
majority of Canadians, are calling for a continental perimeter to secure our
trade with the U.S. It seems the only one out of sync is the Prime
Minister.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House why everyone is
wrong and he is right? Is it because Brian Mulroney is calling for the
perimeter?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, long before they asked questions I was on
the line with the president of the United States.
The president of the United States told me that it was
in the interests of Canada and of the United States that the free flow of goods
at the border be accommodated quickly. That is the exact goal of this
government and the government of the United States despite the gloom and doom
of the official opposition.
* * *
[Translation]
Anti-terrorism Act
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the existing Access to Information Act
allows the government to refuse to disclose information, and it is up to the
commissioner and eventually to a tribunal to decide whether such refusal is
justified.
By contrast, the anti-terrorism bill gives to the
attorney general the power to decide alone not to release certain documents.
Can the minister explain why she is giving this
responsibility to the Attorney General of Canada, that is, herself, rather than
to the information commissioner?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, there may be
information in relation to national security and the security of our allies and
others that we do not want disclosed in a judicial or other hearing. The
legislation would permit the attorney general to certify the non-disclosure of
that information.
I would hope that nobody in the House would suggest
that we should be disclosing information that could possibly undermine national
security or threaten the lives of those who work on behalf of this country and
our allies.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning we have been told that
we must not change our way of living and that democracy must prevail because it
is the best protection against terrorism.
How can the minister reconcile these reassuring
comments with the provisions of the bill that seek to take the powers of the
commissioner and the courts and transfer them to the attorney general alone,
thus making the latter judge and jury regarding what the public should or
should not know?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member deliberately misconstrues
the extent of the provision to which she refers.
It is a very limited provision in which the attorney
general can certify the non-disclosure of certain limited information that is
clearly in the national interest or affects the international relations of this
country and its allies.
* * *
Customs and Excise
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canada Customs has instructed its officers
not to stop, detain or arrest people suspected of being armed and
dangerous.
In the policy guidelines, paragraph 16 instructs
officers to let these individuals go through and then to call the local
police.
Will the minister equip our customs officers to do
their job properly and get rid of this ludicrous policy?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, customs officers are well trained. We know
that based on the brand new legislation they have been given what is called
officer power. Therefore they have the right to arrest people when they show up
at the border.
We all know that customs officers are not police. Over
the past decade we have been working with national police forces and local
police forces. As the safety of our employees is of prime importance, they must
be allowed to use their judgment. If they believe a person could be a threat to
their life they only have to get in touch with the local police who will arrest
those people and make sure we--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Wild Rose.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, those people roam around a long time. Bill
C-18 was supposed to give customs officers the power to enforce the criminal
code at the border. The problem is that the bill applies to less than
one-quarter of the crossings and to none of the international airports. This
means agents at 115 land crossings and all of our airports cannot detain and
arrest criminals.
Does it not make sense to the minister during these
times of security to grant the same powers to the officers at customs all
across Canada?
(1440)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, customs officers have the necessary powers
to fulfill their duties.
A question I would like to ask is, why does the
opposition member always try to blame Canada? We are doing a wonderful job on
this side of the House. We are working in co-operation. We are one component in
the first line of defence. We are working with immigration, the RCMP and CSIS.
It is through co-operation that we will fight terrorism.
* * *
Health
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of
Health.
Canadians are concerned about the recent reports of
anthrax exposure in the United States. Just yesterday parliamentarians and our
staff members were concerned when we heard about a suspicious material on
Parliament Hill.
Could the minister please tell the House what
stockpiling of supplies has been done to respond to the heightened public
concern about anthrax?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Health Canada is stockpiling for 100,000
people. We already have stock on hand for 40,000 people to meet our goal in the
immediate future.
As for yesterday, we were all relieved to learn that
the tests disclosed that the samples proved negative. I want to take this
opportunity, on behalf of the House, I am sure, to thank and congratulate the
emergency response personnel who did their usual superb job in the
circumstances.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North
Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is on the same topic. The fact
of the matter is that by the minister's own reports this country is not
prepared for a bioterrorist attack and does not support our first responders,
particularly our firefighters, with training and support to deal with a
biological or chemical attack.
In fact, the reports all show that Ottawa may be the
only centre that is fully trained and prepared to deal with an anthrax
attack.
My question for the Minister of Health is how long do
the rest of Canadians have to wait before they have trained professionals in
place to deal with bioterrorism?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, across the country provincial medical
officers of health, local authorities and, indeed, provincial ministers are
well aware of the need to co-ordinate efforts and Health Canada is providing
leadership in that regard.
Months before September 11, we sent the Ottawa model
across the country. We have been engaged in training personnel across the
country. The kind of strong response we need was shown here in Ottawa
yesterday.
Health Canada is working to make sure that we provide
that strong response wherever it is required.
* * *
Justice
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP have confirmed that students of
Arabic background studying in Canada are being questioned and investigated,
particularly if they are studying engineering or sciences.
I would like to ask the Minister of Justice what the
legal basis is for this practice. Does she believe that singling out a
particular group based on ethnicity, country of origin or what they are
studying contradicts the intent of Canada's multiculturalism policy to full and
equitable participation in all aspects of Canadian society?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is aware that
there are measures to take if it is felt the RCMP has acted inappropriately.
The tragic events of September 11 are being investigated by the RCMP and CSIS
in co-operation with the FBI to make sure that we find the terrorists and bring
them to justice.
* * *
The Budget
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, ministers have been announcing a lot of
new spending lately and while some of it is very necessary, most of it is not
in the last budget. The finance minister's own website states:
| Most years the Government releases
one major document that sets out where and how it plans to collect and invest
taxpayers’ money. How much money will go to pay down the debt? How much to
health care? Will taxes go up or down? The answers affect all Canadians, and
they will be in that document, the budget. |
It has been almost 600 days since we have seen such an
elusive document. Will the finance minister share the answers with Canadians by
presenting a full fall budget?
(1445)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleagues
in the government on the series of announcements demonstrating just how clearly
Canada has taken a leadership role in dealing with terrorism.
I also want to point out to the hon. member that it was
last October that the government brought down an economic statement in which
the largest tax cuts in Canadian history were presented, the largest transfers
to the provinces for health care and education were presented, and in which
there was the largest debt paydown.
* * *
National Defence
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, over three years ago the auditor general
of the day stated that our Canadian forces needed a $1 billion increase
annually to retain its effectiveness and avoid further rust out of its
resources. This was agreed to by the Conference of Defence Association and by
the minister of defence's senior staff.
I do not want the Minister of Finance to joke or laugh.
I want him to tell us when he is going to bring in a budget and put the money
back into the military so it can do its job.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on an urgent demand of the minister of
defence, I am taking the question.
Let me say that in addition to my other colleagues, I
congratulate the minister of defence who in last October's statement received a
substantial increase in his funding. In fact the Department of National Defence
has been one of the departments receiving the most new spending.
I understand the hon. member getting exercised but what
she ought to get exercised about is terrorism because we are going to fight it
and defeat it.
* * *
Health
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it was rather interesting to hear
yesterday that the health minister had no specifics about his preparedness for
an anthrax attack. This morning after the cabinet meeting he had no specifics
but all of a sudden he has coughed up some specifics. That is very
interesting.
The minister has yet to officially approve any drugs at
all for the treatment of anthrax. Why would the minister be stockpiling
medicine that he has not even approved?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I answered a question today about
specifics. It was a good question that I thought deserved a very good answer
and I provided one.
On the subject of the pharmaceuticals, Health Canada is
stockpiling antibiotics that are appropriate and effective for use against
anthrax. These antibiotics are recognized around the world by countries that
are aware of such things. We are putting in place stockpiles of drugs that will
effectively respond to the health needs of Canadians.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, if the drugs are so effective and
appropriate, why has the minister not approved them yet?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not understand the
question. A whole variety of wide spectrum antibiotics are approved by Health
Canada, are in use in the country and are available to Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
Anti-terrorism Act
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in the anti-terrorism bill, the government
gives the Communications Security Establishment means to engage in electronic
surveillance.
How can the government justify that the Minister of
National Defence will be the only one to authorize electronic surveillance,
instead of calling on a judge to obtain such authorization?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to domestic operations of
that kind, there in fact is a judicial oversight, but with respect to foreign
entities that is something that does come under CSE and that is something that
is completely in accordance with all Canadian law.
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, how would national security be better
served by giving a minister the responsibility to decide whether or not
electronic surveillance is required rather than asking a judge, as is currently
the case?
Why change that?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, again this is outside the limits of
judicial overview within Canada because this is in foreign countries. We are
targeting foreign entities. We do have substantial safeguards and regulations
for how this is done. We do have a judicial person who is a commissioner who
oversees CSE and ensures that in fact it stays within the laws of Canada, stays
within the regulations and continues to operate in a lawful fashion. This is to
try to stop terrorism, to make sure we get the information we need to stop that
kind of problem from coming to Canada.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, an expert on money laundering has been
quoted in news reports today as calling Canada the Maytag of the north, well
known to terrorists and other criminals as a good place to launder
money.
The justice minister and the finance minister both
assured us that the government had the legal power to seize and freeze the
financial assets of bin Laden and other terrorists. If that was the case, will
the Prime Minister explain why this new bill changes the very law that his
government said had the powers already?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before in the House,
under section 3(2) of the United Nations Act we do have the power to commence
civil forfeiture proceedings, but what we are doing in the anti-terrorism
legislation is putting in place a strengthened and more formal process by which
we have the power to seize, to restrain and to seek civil forfeiture. Let me
make it absolutely plain that under section 3(2) of the United Nations Act that
presently exists we do have the power to seek civil forfeiture of frozen
assets.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, section 3(2) of the United Nations Act is
the act that the government is changing under this law. Two senior ministers
weeks ago asserted that the government had the legal power to seize and freeze
bank accounts, and yet at the first opportunity they have changed the law.
Why did two senior ministers state in the House that
the government had these powers?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we do have that power and in the
legislation what we are doing is streamlining and formalizing that process.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
National Defence. Given our current military commitment to the coalition
against terrorism, could the minister advise the House what measures are being
undertaken to recruit and retain personnel within the Canadian armed
forces?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, recruitment and retention is a problem not
only for us in the Canadian forces but for all of our allies as well. We have
entered into an aggressive program of recruitment and also into changing some
of the terms of service to try to keep a higher level of retention.
I am pleased to report that in terms of recruitment we
are far surpassing the numbers we expected at this point in time. For example,
on regular forces, after just six months over 85% of our annual quota has been
reached. In terms of reserves, we are already 50% over what we wanted for the
entire year.
* * *
Anti-Terrorism
Legislation
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the British anti-terrorism law provides
for compensation to citizens who are victims of terrorism. The government's
proposed bill omits these important provisions.
Why does the justice minister want the innocent to
suffer in our war against terrorism?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we do not want the innocent to suffer in
our war against terrorism. What we want to do is protect the innocent from the
acts of terrorist organizations and individuals.
However the hon. member raises a very interesting point
and I think it is one that would be well worth some discussion and review in
committee. That is why we are looking forward to having the opportunity to
engage parliamentarians and others before committee.
(1455)
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. anti-terrorism legislation
provides compensation and safeguards for the victims of terrorism. The
government's bill appears to totally omit those provisions.
Why have the government and the Minister of Justice
chosen to ignore this very important issue?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have just said I think the hon.
member raises a very interesting point and it is one that we should discuss at
committee. I would be very happy to engage him or others from his party on this
point in committee.
* * *
[Translation]
International Aid
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, more and more observers are sounding the
alarm in connection with the millions of human beings, many of them children,
who might die of starvation in the near future in the context of the
bombardments taking place in Afghanistan.
Can a responsible government remain unmoved by such a
terrible reality and, consequently, does the Canadian government intend to step
up its direct humanitarian assistance in order to avoid a human tragedy of such
scope that millions of people might starve to death?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has in fact been very
active. We have specialists on the ground at the border working to assist in
getting food into Afghanistan.
The major crisis is in the country. There is a great
deal of work being done with refugees in Pakistan, in Iran and around the area
but getting through to the inside is where the major problem is. There is some
food getting in now with private trucks and so on but it is still a major
problem and that is where we are working.
Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, around the world today there are millions
of people living without adequate food.
In the past few weeks our eyes have turned to the
plight of the people in Afghanistan. However, around the world there continue
to be many who share this daily challenge and plight.
My question is for the Minister for International
Cooperation. Today is World Food Day. What will the minister do to address
world hunger?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the theme for World Food Day is “Fight
Hunger to Reduce Poverty”. This is very important.
The problem is not only with food production. It is
also a problem of insufficient income to buy food, of poor health in regard to
producing and consuming food and not having an appropriate balance of vitamins,
minerals and available food.
In fact UNICEF has recently recognized and
congratulated the Prime Minister for Canada's example of global leadership in
saving millions of lives of children around the world by providing vitamin
A.
* * *
[Translation]
Public Health
M. André Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska,
PC/RD):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The events of recent days have brought focus to bear on
the importance of the relative dimension of public health in the battle against
terrorism, along with the need for reliable information on the real or
perceived threat of bioterrorism.
In light of these events, will the Prime Minister be
appointing the Minister of Health to this famous cabinet committee on national
security?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am currently working in close
co-operation with my colleagues. We are all fully engaged in the process in
order to prepare Canada against these threats.
I have already made a statement today to the effect
that Health Canada is working with its provincial partners. I am a member of
the team and we are all working together.
At the end of the day, the most important thing is to
assume our responsibilities, and we will do so.
* * *
[English]
National Security
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, customs agents do not have the ability to
defuse potentially dangerous situations. They are advised to allow people they
feel who are of high risk to enter our country. Then they are supposed to call
the RCMP or the police afterward.
Will the minister give customs agents the authority of
peace officers to allow them to protect our Canadian citizens more
efficiently?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, some months ago customs officers were
provided with what we call officer power. Officer power has been implemented in
some ports, at land borders, of course, and at seaports and airports.
As well, customs is not the police department. Over the
past decade we have worked with local and national police. This is what we will
keep doing in the future, making sure as well that the safety of our officers
is a prime concern of Canada customs.
* * *
(1500)
[Translation]
Highway Infrastructure
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, in a visit to
Chicoutimi last week, expressed an interest in covering half the cost of work
on a four lane highway in the parc des Laurentides.
The Quebec minister of transport, Guy Chevrette,
immediately asked to pay for half of it, so the work can begin
immediately.
Was the Minister of Finance serious in his remarks and,
if so, when will he provide a cheque? We are just waiting for him.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my honourable colleague knows very well we
have an infrastructure program for highways across the country. It is a
$600 million program.
The provinces and the federal government split costs
50:50, and the provinces establish the priorities; this is a provincial
responsibility in the context of a national highway system.
* * *
[English]
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker:
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in
the gallery of Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director-General of the World Health
Organization
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Points of Order
Division No.
148
[Points of Order]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if you look at yesterday's Hansard
you will see a list of those who voted yea in support of the opposition day
motion, but my name does not appear.
I want to say to the House that I was present during
the vote. It was not my intention to abstain. It was my intention to vote with
my colleagues in support of the opposition day motion. I shared the position of
my colleagues in support of it then and I share that position now.
I hope there will be no misunderstanding on this. I did
not abstain and did not intend to abstain.
The Speaker:
Is the Deputy Prime Minister asking that his name be
included in the list of yeas for yesterday's vote?
Hon. Herb Gray:
Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted if the House would
agree that I would be so included. I would appreciate that very
much.
The Speaker:
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Privilege
Airport
Security
[Privilege]
Mr. Jim Gouk
(Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on October 4 the Minister of Transport
appeared before the transport committee. In the course of his opening
presentation he referred to a ministerial directive he had written requesting
that cockpit doors of Canadian aircraft be locked for the duration of the
flight.
I advised him I had flown on Canadian aircraft since
the time the directive had apparently been written and had seen cockpit doors
open on several occasions. The minister's response to that was that “On the
question of cockpit doors, I have to say that if you have been on flights where
this is the case, you have an obligation as a member of parliament to report
that to me or my officials, the date, the time”.
I further asked the minister if he would be willing to
table any ministerial directives issued to the department on airport security
since September 11. His response to this request was as follows, that “Most
government documents are available under access to information. If we can make
them available to you, we will”.
That is not acceptable. On one hand the minister is
stating that I have an obligation as a member of parliament to report any
observations I make that contravene his directives. On the other hand he is
advising me that I would have to rely on access to information to find out what
that directive is. This is not unlike the situation that occurred in the case
of Bill C-36 which is now before the House. The government provided information
to the media before providing that same information to MPs.
In the case of the minister's departmental directives,
he states that we need to report observed breaches of his directives without
ever having been informed by the government of their existence. In such cases
we are to rely on material acquired from access to information, and if we are,
how are we to know that the material even exists to ask for or what we are
supposed to ask for? Does the minister expect us to rely on reports in the
media, which is how we got our initial information on Bill C-36?
I submit that the minister, by creating directives
which he then claims MPs have an obligation to be in compliance with and by not
providing those directives to MPs, has caused a breach of parliamentary
privilege in that he has created an obligation for specific performance by MPs
and then prevented MPs from fulfilling that obligation.
I ask that this be remedied by requiring the Minister
of Transport to table all ministerial directives issued to his department on
airport security since September 11.
(1505)
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have just become aware of this so-called
question of privilege from my colleague from Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan. He
is misplaced by raising this as a question of privilege.
It is true that in committee at the time he offered the
fact, in response to the discussion about cockpit doors being ordered closed
pursuant to regulation under the Aeronautics Act, that he had many occasions
where pilots were not obeying us. I said to him that he had an obligation, as
did any citizen, when they saw the law transgressed or if they suspected the
law was being transgressed, to report it to the appropriate authorities. I
would think that he should not contest that. That particular directive was well
publicized.
I told the hon. member that we would make information
available to him, as we do for committees in general. However, if he requires
items that go beyond the scope of a particular discussion in a committee, he is
free to use the access to information remedy.
He is mixing apples and oranges. He is somehow saying
that his privileges have been infringed upon. I would say that he is not
discharging his privileges if he does not come forward and give evidence, give
flight numbers, give the time and the locations of these planes because the
allegation is that he has been sitting on aircraft when the law is being
broken.
The Speaker:
It is hard to know how there could be a supplementary
question of privilege. The Chair is prepared to deal with this at the moment. I
have heard the two sides and I had real difficulty in even allowing this. This
is clearly a dispute between members about what happened in a committee. In my
view the matter should be dealt with in the committee.
If the member has a disagreement with the minister, I
suggest he get the committee to call the minister back. The minister can attend
with any documents that might need to be tabled and they could be tabled there.
He can answer questions from the member and could indeed suggest remedies to
the member for dealing with these matters, if there is a dispute.
This is not one in my opinion that involves the
privileges of the member or of members of the House as defined in the works on
this subject, including Maingot's description of privilege in the House and the
description contained in Marleau and Montpetit.
In my view this is an inappropriate place for this
matter to be raised. It is a matter that was raised originally in committee.
The dispute arose out of committee proceedings and the matter ought to be
settled in the committee and not here. I invite the hon. member to do
so.
I do not want to get into an argument. By having
allowed the matter to go this far, we have obvious disputes as to the facts and
what happened in committee and what should happen between one side and another.
I am not prepared to continue to go on with this because I know the hon. member
will say this is what he wants and the minister will want to say what he wants.
I am not prepared to allow this to continue here because in my view this is an
appropriate matter for the committee and not for the House.
(1510)
Mr. Jim Gouk:
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you consider that there
are certain pieces of evidence, not arguments or disputes, but very specific
two single points of evidence, that should be considered before you render that
final decision on this question of privilege.
The Speaker:
I have considered the evidence and I have indicated
that the evidence is something that should be dealt with before the committee,
not in the House. This is a matter for the committee to take up and I invite
the hon. member to go back to committee. No doubt the minister would love to
appear again. The committee will be able to work something out, hear evidence
and everything it needs to hear to resolve the matter. It is not an appropriate
one for the House.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am distressed because I fly all the time
and I now hear that I have a legal obligation to report these things. What is
the penalty? What is the document? Can we somehow get that information?
The Speaker:
I am sure that if the hon. member asks legal counsel,
he will be able to get any legal document that is required. If there are
regulations or statutes in force, the hon. member can satisfy that without
raising it as a question of privilege in the House. I am sorry it is not a
matter of privilege. The laws and statutes and regulations are public. There is
legal counsel who could give him advice on the subject. I am sorry, this is not
to be discussed here.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-36, an act to amend the criminal code, the Official Secrets Act,
the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other
acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order
to combat terrorism, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the member's
remarks. I served with him on the justice committee and know him to be a
thoughtful member in the area of human rights. We recently did work on the
organized crime bill, the money laundering bill and others, but I was not part
of the committee at the time. Those bills were subject to review, I believe.
Could the member share with us his position or his
party's position on the review of those acts versus the review of this one, and
give me a sense of how they are different?
(1515)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur:
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the
review of this legislation that was authorized, we agreed to review the
legislation and anything to do with its enforcement to see if it was properly
implemented.
It is not the first time that the Bloc Quebecois asks
for a provision to be added so that the legislation is subject to an automatic
review. I cannot seem to remember what bills exactly we were dealing with, but
at the justice committee, we oftentimes consider such bills. Unfortunately, I
have no examples that come to mind right now, but I certainly could provide
some to the member. Members of the justice committee are often asked to
consider such issues and we frequently ask for these pieces of legislation to
be reviewed.
What we have before the House is an extraordinary and
lengthy measure that gives new powers to police officers, as I said earlier,
including the authority to arrest people without a warrant and to proceed with
preventive detention.
During question period, my hon. colleague from
Saint-Hubert talked about the new powers granted to the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada concerning the enforcement of the Access to
Information Act. There is a whole panoply of exceptional powers being granted
to the Solicitor General of Canada, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of
National Defence.
Since this is extraordinary legislation, a very special
bill, the Bloc Quebecois is asking for a yearly review and wants the bill to
have only a three year life expectancy. If, after three years, it is deemed
necessary to renew it, parliament would again get to vote on this
bill.
This is a very exceptional set of circumstances for
which we need to take exceptional measures.
If the government truly intends to pass extraordinary
legislation to balance national security and individual and collective rights
and freedoms, if that is what the government really wants, then it should
recognize that we are right and amend the bill accordingly.
Mme Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree in the House, and my
colleague will say once again that we are in an exceptional situation that the
House has never had to deal with before.
Terrorism is new to us. We have to deal with it, but we
must also be sure that the laws we pass here do not infringe rights and
freedoms. The public must also be protected. We do not simply want to say “We
are going to arrest everyone for any reason whatsoever”.
So it is important that we review this bill and make
sure we really need it at certain times. We do not know what will happen in the
next year.
Does my colleague not think that it would be
preferable, according to events, for us to return to the House and review,
improve or change certain provisions contained in this bill?
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur:
Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that, as the member
for Berthier--Montcalm, I would support any act that seeks to improve national
security, public security.
But we must not go overboard and let people use this
bill, whose goals are good and laudable under the circumstances, distort its
application and engage in abuse.
As I said this morning, we must not only look at Bill
C-36. We must examine it, but with the existing criminal code, with the
existing federal legislation. We must also look at it while keeping in mind the
eventual implementation of Bill C-24, which is in the Senate and which is
waiting for royal assent.
Let us not forget that Bill C-24, the anti-gang
legislation, allows police officers to commit acts that would be considered
illegal under any act passed by parliament.
When Bill C-24 was passed in the House, there was no
anti-terrorism bill on the horizon. Now we have one. We must look at the bill
in its entirety and understand that police officers have increased powers under
the organized crime legislation and the anti-terrorism act. All this put
together could lead to abuse.
This legislation should be reviewed every year and a
three year cut-off date should be set. After three years, this act would become
obsolete. It would no longer be in effect, unless parliament brought it back,
debated it and passed it again.
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time. Given that I
have a very short period of time, I simply want to frame two or three quick
arguments by way of advice to the committee that will consider the bill.
As everyone has gone to some lengths to point out,
these are difficult times.
I would like to start by congratulating all the public
servants who have worked so hard to make the very necessary adjustments quickly
to provide us with increased security and protection as we sort out what is
going on in the world.
I want to congratulate the staff at the justice
department. This huge bill amends more than 23 other bills. It deals with some
of the most sensitive issues in our body of law, issues that affect our
individual, personal and civil rights. It is not easy.
I also want to congratulate the members of the cabinet.
It has been little more than a month since the events took place. They got all
this work done and produced a bill that is, on a very preliminary reading,
quite fair and balanced.
I do have concerns about some of it which I will speak
to in a minute, but it was remarkably more balanced than I had feared when I
first heard they were coming forward with a bill of this magnitude.
At the same time, there is an old saying that there are
two things children should never see: the making of law and the making of
sausages. Justice done in haste can carry within it some very big problems. To
try to put through a bill of this size, which deals with so many important
rights of individuals, raises cause for at least wonder and concern.
I congratulate the Prime Minister in this instance. I
listened with great care to his speech last night. I was particularly taken
both last night and today with not just his willingness but with his
instructions to and urging of the justice committee. He said:
| But we all recognize that the
legislation has, of necessity, been prepared quickly. Therefore, the role of
the justice committee of this House in scrutinizing the bill will be of
particular importance. It must examine the bill through the lens, not only of
public safety, but also of individual rights. |
With his history in protecting human rights, I thank
him for handing that responsibility over to the committee because I am sure it
will do a good job. It will give us some time hopefully to reflect on some of
these issues.
I really want to frame three arguments here.
By and large the bill does a very good job. It brings
into force a couple of United Nations conventions that we had not yet ratified.
I would recommend to everyone in the House that they read the speech of our
colleague from Mount Royal who went through the 12 conventions in some detail
and talked about Canada's leadership role in this area. It is an important
opportunity for us to share with the rest of the world some of the expertise
and feelings we have developed here.
Some of the issues regarding the changes to
investigatory powers could be better understood as modernizing the body of
tools that the police have available to them. In fact, the communication
technologies have changed rapidly over the last couple of decades. Some of the
instruments the police have to do investigations simply have not kept
up.
There is a recognition that there needs to be more work
done in this area and I believe we will see a more extensive review. This one
was done quickly to deal with those most egregious or difficult areas in terms
of mobile wiretapping to allow them to take advantage of the various
technologies or to interact with some of the newer technologies to track people
or to confirm their suspicions of terrorist acts.
I can broadly support that, but given the rapid changes
in technology we need a more thorough review of this. I hope the minister will
reinforce our intention to proceed with it, even though we have passed some of
these articles of the law.
The second area is a more difficult one. Anyone who has
dealt with privacy or access legislation knows that there are certain
categories of information that not only are secret, but the very existence of
them needs to be denied.
(1530)
It is a funny conundrum in a free and open society. One
of the simplest examples, and we went through this when we looked at freedom of
information relative to organized crime, is that if we had the right to ask a
question not about the substance of an investigation, but about the very
existence of an investigation, that could be enough to alert criminals to
something of which they were not formerly aware.
In this case some of the secrecy provisions are around
information to be received from other countries. It is a necessary provision.
The U.S. or any other country will not share with us information that has been
uncovered by their systems if they feel that information may be leaked. However
it is necessary to have comprehensive arrangements to track down terrorists
worldwide. It raises questions though when things are done in darkness and are
absent from public review.
There was a question, which I rather agreed with, about
the need to establish third party review. It can be done in secrecy. Judges can
be sworn. However there needs to be a mechanism. This is a fundamental
question: Who watches the watchers?
One of our jobs in this Chamber is to ensure that
people's rights are protected. If we cannot for legitimate reasons, and I would
say this is only when there is legitimacy to the secrecy, we still need to have
an oversight mechanism that is empowered.
In many cases there is evidence of that, there is
reference to the courts and we have a lot of opportunities to get a third party
involved. However it is not quite as clear in the areas of the Official Secrets
Act and some of that information. The committee should have a look at
that.
The final thing of which I want to speak is the thing
that worries me the most. Perhaps I should not say worries me, but I would like
to offer it as a solution to the problem. The problem is we are in an
extraordinary time. There is a lot of need to act quickly to address this but
we do not know how we will feel about this in two or three years. We do not
know how effective it will be. We have made some fairly sweeping changes and
they will have an impact on the body of rights that we exercise, so we should
consider sunsetting certain clauses of the act.
By that I mean not just reviewing, I mean certain
clauses of the act should cease to be in effect by a given date, and I have a
recommendation on that, unless the House re-debates and re-passes
them.
This is not a provision we use in Canada very often and
I would not normally argue for it except for two things. The mechanism that we
use is one of parliamentary review. We have 32 acts outstanding right now that
contain review clauses. The trouble is we do not necessarily get around to it
in a timely way.
I note there is a three year review for the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act. The bill came into effect in 1992. The
subcommittee was established to review the act in November of 1998 and to
review it again in February of 1999. We have not been very good at following up
on these reviews.
Also, reviews sometimes carry within them the sense
that we will just look at it and tinker with it. When it is something as
fundamental as our individual rights, they deserve more fulsome debate at a
time when we are not immediately under the pressure of the anthrax, or the
terrorist attacks or everything else that is going on in this environment.
I can support the passage of the bill, subject to the
review and advice from the justice committee, but I would recommend that we do
as the U.S. house did when it put a sunset clause that had an interesting kind
of additional version to it. I would not sunset the whole bill. I would sunset
only certain clauses in it.
The U.S. sunsetted it for three years. It said that
those sections would cease to have effect on December 31, 2004, but it gave an
out clause. It said to the president in that case, and we would say it to our
Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister, that if it were indicated that the
sections were required for national security they would remain in force for two
additional years. That would buy a little time if there were concern about this
thing failing.
I think that would work here. It is critical that when
we get more distant from these events that we re-debate and re-pass these
provisions.
I also want to share a bit of information from
Canadians. Canadians are quite worried about what has been going on, as one
would expect, and there has been a fair bit of surveying. Ipsos-Reid just did a
lengthy survey on what people would be prepared to accept. This was within 10
days of the events in New York City.
The question asked was: “Do you agree or disagree with
the statement, I would be prepared to see our police and security services get
more powers to fight terrorism, even if it means they might tap my phone, open
my mail or read my personal e-mail?” At that time, 10 days after those events,
only 50% of Canadians agreed with that; 53% in the weighted sample.
Then they were asked “Would you be willing to give up
some of your civil liberties?” Again there was an ambiguity about that.
Mr. Geoff Regan:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pardon me for
interrupting but I wish to advise you that all government members henceforth
will be splitting their time.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in relation to the member's proposals
regarding sunset clauses, it seems to me that there has been a bit of consensus
emerging in the House. We now have members from the Alliance, the Tories, the
New Democrats and several Liberals who have spoken in favour of sunset clauses,
and I think this outline is particularly interesting.
There are some systemic differences between the
Canadian and American legislative systems. In the American system the president
functions separately from the congress, whereas in the Canada the Prime
Minister functions within the House.
First, would a review that takes place or an extension
that requires a vote of the House not seem to the member to be superior?
Second, could he be a little more specific about which
sections of the law he thinks should be included in the sunset
clause?
Mr. Reg Alcock:
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to be terribly
specific. Frankly, it is a huge bill which I just received yesterday and I am
not a lawyer. It references 23 separate acts and does not necessarily give the
text of them. It is a huge piece of work, and I thank God every day I am not a
lawyer.
However I do have a lot of faith, quiet frankly, in the
justice committee. I served on it for a while. I know a good portion of the
membership. They are smart as can be. They will give this real review. On the
government side, there has been an indication that the government is prepared
to accept the advice from the committee.
The member makes a good point about the difference in
the two systems, although I think the committee, if challenged, can find a
Canadian solution to that. The proposal is really simple: sunset it for a
specific date.
The sunset is better than review because it forces us
to debate it rather than simply have it done in committee, then table a report
saying that it is okay. I would sooner have the House engaged in it, as it
should be on issues of individual rights. However, it gives an out clause
because we do not know what will happen in three years from now.
It was suggested to me that if we get all these
security services ramped up and it has the potential of ending in three years,
about half way through people may start getting nervous about whether they have
these powers or not. Therefore, give the authorities one extension and at the
end of that, it is either reviewed and passed or it is gone. I think that is
reasonable.
I would not do that for all acts. Reviews are a
legitimate mechanism when we are talking about economic and commercial acts.
However, the bar should be higher when we talk about things that affect our
rights.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, unlike many of the debates that we have in
this place, this is an issue that Canadians are fairly seized with. The number
one question that most Canadians would ask is: How will this affect me? Will
this bill give broad sweeping police powers to the state and interfere in my
everyday activity, or is this a bill that will provide safety and security for
me and my family?
It is important that we discuss this bill in the
context of both of those questions. Bill C-36 is in fact an anti-terrorist
bill. It is not an anti-immigrant bill, anti-refugee bill, anti-Muslim bill,
anti-Afghani bill, anti-Pakistani bill, or anti any of those things because if
it were it would truly be anti-Canadian. Unfortunately the debate around this
entire issue is in some quarters, mostly the media, focused on this
aspect.
There have been many times in this place when my
friends opposite and I have disagreed, sparred and had vociferous debates.
However this is a time when parliamentarians an all sides of the House have
shown that their number one concern is for the safety of Canada.
I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and the
other leaders of the opposition, even the leader of the NDP. Even though we may
not agree with her particular position on this matter, there is a constituency
within Canada that shares her viewpoint. This democratic place called
parliament is the place where those kinds of countering viewpoints need to be
put forward.
I am interested in some of the suggestions made by the
previous speaker regarding sunsetting. There is a section of the bill that
requires it to be revisited and redebated in three years time. Whether it is an
automatic review in three years or a cancellation of certain policies, unless
they are reaffirmed in this place they are all issues that can be fairly and
effectively dealt with in committee. They are technical aspects as to whether
or not certain search and seizure aspects of the law should be continued or
discontinued.
Should there be a wiretap that lasts one year instead
of 90 days? Should there be intrusive abilities to monitor situations within
this country, abilities that we would probably not have supported on September
10 of this year?
Since September 11 we have had to look at life through
a different prism. Canadians are frightened and justifiably so. However, what
concerns me is some of the hysteria that has literally thrown gasoline on an
open flame.
I refer to recent allegations in the media last week
which said that 50 refugees from Afghanistan and Pakistan had been allowed into
the country without any security checks whatsoever. I can say that the
switchboard, if we want to call it that, in my constituency office lit up.
People were concerned and outraged as to how this could happen.
I too was concerned as to how we would allow someone
in, particularly today but at any time in our history, without a reasonable
security check and so I investigated. What did I find? I found that there was
not one refugee from Afghanistan or Pakistan.
On that given day at Pearson airport there were indeed
29 people who applied for refugee status, which is not an unusual occurrence.
The largest volume of refugees come through Pearson airport. Each and every one
of those people was fingerprinted, photographed, checked through CSIS and
cross-checked through the RCMP. No one was allowed to enter the country without
a security check.
I will not be critical of anyone in particular in this
case. However some members have said that when refugees come to this country
and are a security risk or a flight risk, meaning they will not turn up for
their hearing, then they should be detained. They are detained if those
determinations are made.
I can take anyone who wants to go to a number of motels
in the Brampton-Mississauga community that have been acquired as detention
centres by the federal government to see families languishing. If there is a
problem in our refugee system, and there is, it is in the length of time it
takes to process the applications to provide a fair hearing.
We believe that Bill C-11, which will be before the
House after it passes through the Senate, would help in that regard because it
would allow single person panels instead of the three people needed to hold the
hearings now. That should triple the number of hearings and should speed up the
process dramatically. That is a case of human rights that need not interfere
with this bill or any bill that targets anti-terrorism.
I wholeheartedly support Bill C-36. It is a response
that our government has put forward in a timely, thoughtful and well researched
way which says to Canadians that the government will fight terrorism with its
friends in America, Great Britain and around the world. We will stand united as
members of NATO as we have in other conflicts in the world.
A clause was invoked as part of our agreement with NATO
known as article 5. Article 5 states that when a member of NATO is attacked all
members are attacked. It is an all for one clause. If any Canadian falls
through the cracks of discrimination in our zealous attempt to fight terrorism,
the att