Bill C-17 (Historical)

Combating Terrorism Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions)

This enactment replaces sections 83.28 to 83.3 of the Criminal Code to provide for an investigative hearing to gather information for the purposes of an investigation of a terrorism offence and to provide for the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person to prevent them from carrying out a terrorist activity. It also provides for those sections to cease to have effect or for the possible extension of their operation.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on my party's behalf about Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).

I must reiterate that the Bloc Québécois is opposed in principle to Bill C-17. The Bloc Québécois has what I feel is a responsible, logical process for analyzing such measures. Any measure that deals with terrorism must strike a balance between security and respect for basic rights. Therein lies the problem because the dichotomy makes this bill ambiguous. We have to ask ourselves this question. Yes, it goes without saying that we must keep people safe. We were reminded of that just last week during memorial ceremonies at Ground Zero in New York. Although it happened nine years ago, we cannot forget the terrorist attacks or those who lost their lives.

People deserve reassurance. We have to keep people safe. However, a wrong-headed government or one acting in bad faith could use the security imperative as an excuse to investigate, conduct searches or imprison any person who seems suspicious based on very subjective criteria. That is why we have charters to guarantee respect for basic rights.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that both imperatives have to be respected and taken into account. We know what the Conservatives have shown us since coming to power and even before then, when they were in the opposition. I have been here since 1993, and we have seen their reform agenda. Let us not forget that the Conservative Party used to be the Reform Party. The Conservatives do not like to be reminded of that fact. Then they became the Canadian Alliance, and now they are the Conservative Party. Let us not forget, however, that the old reform base is still very much alive for many Conservative members. Still, I know that some of them have a more progressive approach. I would not want to generalize and be accused of demagoguery. We have to recognize the progressive elements in the party, and during face-to-face discussions, we can see that some of the party members do not share the party's ultraconservative views.

With this in mind, the Bloc Québécois became very involved in the review process of the Anti-terrorism Act and its operation, a review which is provided for in the act itself. As the previous speaker mentioned, under the sunset clauses, we must now proceed with this review again.

The Bloc Québécois has taken time to examine the issue thoroughly. I said earlier that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill in principle. That idea did not just come to us out of nowhere. Opposing this principle was not a decision that just popped up like a jack-in-the-box.

From December 2004 to March 2007, the Bloc Québécois listened to witnesses, read submissions and interviewed experts, community representatives and law enforcement officials. We conducted a comprehensive analysis with those concerned by the application of this legislation. It is all well and fine to adopt an inapplicable or utopian law, but we have to realize that law enforcement representatives, especially those working on cases involving terrorism, have to enforce that law and apply it day by day.

During the Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act's specific study of two provisions in Bill C-17, the Bloc Québécois made its position on investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions clear.

The Bloc Québécois felt that the investigative process needed to be better defined. We still feel that way today. In our opinion, it is clear that this exceptional measure should be used only in specific cases in which it is necessary to prevent activities where there is imminent peril of serious damage, and not in the case of misdeeds already committed. The nuance is important.

However, we were strongly opposed to clause 83.3, which deals with recognizance with conditions. Not only do we feel that this measure is of little, if any, use in the fight against terrorism but, more importantly, there is also a very real danger of its being used against honest citizens.

The Bloc Québécois finds that a terrorist activity deemed dangerous can be disrupted just as effectively, and in fact more effectively, by the regular application of the Criminal Code, without the harmful consequences that a preventive arrest can trigger.

Therefore, we recommended abolishing this approach, and we won our point on February 27, 2007. Today, our position has not changed. On the one hand, the investigative process should not be reinstated unless major changes are made to it, which is not the case with Bill C-17. The government would have had the opportunity to do so with the introduction of this bill.

On the other hand, preventive arrests have no place in the Canadian justice system, given their possible consequences and the fact that other provisions which are already in place are just as effective.

Of course, in the time I am allotted, I could speak more about the technicalities, but I would like to close by focusing on the fact that law enforcement officers are telling us that they can still use other provisions of the Criminal Code to arrest someone who is about to commit a criminal offence.

A criminal offence would also include a terrorist act. I think our police officers are competent. They are professionals who keep the peace and protect the safety of our constituents. There is no doubt about that. The Conservative government does not have a monopoly on discipline and law and order.

The Conservative Party is in no position to lecture anyone. Those best suited to enforce the Criminal Code are our peace officers and various levels of police, be they municipal other otherwise. In Quebec, we have the Sûreté du Québec, which is the envy of many police forces across the country and around the world.

The structure of the Sûreté du Québec and the professionalism of its members are often envied by other countries. And foreign delegations often come to study the Quebec police system, which is a credit to us, I believe.

I mentioned earlier that police can use the Criminal Code to make an arrest. For example, paragraph 495(1)(a) of the Criminal Code states the following:

A peace officer may arrest without warrant

(a) a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence;

The officer has the discretionary authority and does not need to wait for a criminal offence to have been committed before intervening. Criminals have even gone to court saying that it was unfair that when they were preparing to rob a bank that the police waited on the corner for them to leave their car, about to rob the bank, before they intervened. That argument has actually been used in court, which is ludicrous. And unfortunately, there are lawyers that have defended such cases.

In other words, just because an officer is hiding does not mean that he cannot intervene. Rather, the officer plays a preventive role. He does not need to wait for something bad to happen. He is supposed to chase thieves, but he must also prevent criminal acts from happening. And this is why we feel that Bill C-17 is completely useless. We do not need it.

This bill, if adopted as is, could be used to label an individual as a terrorist based on flimsy evidence. In this regard, I spoke earlier of the erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms. We could compare this situation to that of Maher Arar upon his return from Syria, before he was exonerated by Justice O'Connor. Maher Arar's case is the most blatant example of a person who was judged according to completely subjective criteria, requiring Justice O'Connor's inquiry to exonerate him.

If this new, temporary provision of the Criminal Code had been used, a judicial decision could have imposed conditions based on the fear of terrorist activities.

That is what I wanted to say to my colleagues in the House and to the people watching us on television. I stand by what I said: the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the principles of the bill. I am well aware that the Conservatives react whenever we oppose one of their bills to amend the justice system and undermine the fundamental rights of citizens.

I will just make my prediction now, not because I have looked into a crystal ball but because, as usual, we know how the Conservatives operate. If the opposition does not like this bill and is opposed to the bill, they will say that the Bloc Québécois supports terrorists. I am saying it and we are about to hear it. Madam Speaker, just sit there until the end of the debate, read the papers tomorrow, and you will see the headline, the Bloc Québécois supports terrorists. It is like the time we were told that the Bloc Québécois supports pedophiles. Conservative demagogues said those things. Most of us are parents; some of us are grandparents. They said that the Bloc Québécois protects pedophiles rather than children.

This summer, I promised myself that I would not get angry. However, I am getting angry again because I am thinking about that. Yesterday, I spent the day with my two and a half year old grandson. Being told that we protect pedophiles is no laughing matter. That is Conservative-style demagoguery.

I am eager for an election so we can unmask the Conservative demagogues opposite.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his eloquent defence of justice in this country. He has raised a couple of troubling aspects of the bill.

This piece of legislation points to the continuing erosion of democratic rights and civil liberty rights under the current Conservative government. We have seen the firing of any number of heads of public agencies. We have seen people, who do not agree with the Conservative government, such as the recent Veterans Affairs ombudsman not having his contract renewed, and on and on.

The member mentioned Maher Arar and of course that was an absolute travesty of justice when the government did not step up to protect his rights. The current legislation shows a lack of balance between security and fundamental rights. In fact, this piece of legislation would allow for imprisonment of up to 12 months or for the imposition of strict recognizance conditions on individuals who have not been charged with any crime. Could the member comment on this continuing erosion which Canadians consider to be pretty fundamental to who we are as Canadians in terms of civil liberties and our values of justice?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the NDP for her question. It is clear that Republicans are gurus to our colleagues across the way, that the Conservatives draw their inspiration from the George W. Bush years. The approach in those days was repressive rather than preventive. That is the difference. This was never more apparent than during the G20 summit, when over a thousand arrests were made in Toronto this summer. More than 1,000 people were denied their individual freedoms. These people only wanted to demonstrate, not necessarily to use violence, but to express their discontent with the influential people of this world who meet to make decisions on our behalf.

These people only wanted to demonstrate. Some 1,000 people were sent to jail when the City of Toronto adopted a bylaw that made a mockery of all individual freedoms.

The Conservatives' approach and their bills do not make sense and this permeates through other levels. The Toronto city council adopted bylaws that completely tore up certain charters, swept aside the right to demonstrate and the right to oppose decisions that might be made during the G20. More than 1,000 people were unjustly put in jail. I remind my colleague that most of those people were Quebeckers.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have listened all afternoon to these kinds of tirades about the safety of this country. As we know, Canada faces the very real threat of terrorism, as does the rest of the world. Yet, I hear a Bloc member saying that this legislation, which is intended to renew previous legislation passed by a previous Liberal government, is useless. I have sat in this House for four and a half years. I have listened to that member. I have listened to his colleagues in the Bloc. Not once have they proposed any legislation that would make this country safer when it comes to terrorism.

I challenge that Bloc member to go to his constituents, stand up at a public meeting and say, “I'm not prepared to do anything to protect you against terrorists”. It is a shame. I challenge that member to defend that shameful position in this House again.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, you can see the Conservatives' attitude. Earlier, I told you that I did not need a crystal ball to know that they would react this way to any opposition.

The member has challenged me. I will give him one example. Perhaps the member should have paid attention to politics before getting elected. I was elected in 1994. In 1995, when the Liberals were in power, the Bloc Québécois was directly responsible for amending the Criminal Code to enact anti-gang legislation. The Bloc Québécois did so in response to the murder of young Daniel Desrochers in the riding represented by my former colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Réal Ménard, who is now mayor of the borough of Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. All that young Daniel Desrochers wanted was the right to ride his bike safely. He happened to be near a Jeep 4x4 during the biker wars—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, he should let me answer. Actually, that does not bother me because I will speak to those intelligent enough to listen. He is interfering with my concentration.

I would like to tell him about Daniel Desrochers, an eight-year-old martyr. He was riding his bike on the sidewalk on a street in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. While he was passing a Jeep 4x4 that belonged to one of two biker gangs, the vehicle exploded. Young Daniel Desrochers was hit in the head with a piece of metal and died.

The Bloc Québécois' justice critic, Réal Ménard, waged a heroic battle, and the Bloc Québécois succeeded in passing an anti-gang law. That was thanks to the Bloc.

My colleague, who has been in the House for just four years, should do what the Speaker of the House does and reread Hansard because Parliament was around long before he got here. He did not invent Parliament.

That is just one example because I do not have time for more.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord could talk about another example, for instance, the drugs found growing in fields. In the past, criminal groups were heavily involved in drug trafficking. One political party that has been working very hard in the fight against crime is the Bloc Québécois.

There are other examples like that one. Most of the time—people often forget this, as I think the member can attest—in about 80% of cases, the Bloc Québécois supports the bills introduced by the government.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for reminding us about the marijuana growers who literally terrorized our honest corn producers, especially in Montérégie, in the area of Saint-Hyacinthe, Drummondville, Chambly, and so on. Our honest producers were truly being terrorized. They were being threatened and traps were set in their fields. The Bloc Québécois worked hard on that issue, especially our colleague Yvan Loubier, who was the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Another example comes to mind, that is, the reverse onus in the case of individuals living off the proceeds of crime, when proceeds of crime are found in their homes. That is another file that the Bloc Québécois pushed ahead.

I hope the Conservative demagogues will not try to skirt the real issue here. As my colleague from Gaspésie said at the end of his speech, any time the Conservatives have introduced a bill that was sensible, reasonable, realistic and achievable—which is a very rare combination—the Bloc Québécois has supported it.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the second reading debate in relation to Bill C-17.

It is perhaps timely that this debate begins only days after the only man convicted in the Air India bombing, Inderjit Singh Reyat, was found guilty of committing perjury during the 2003 trial of Ajaib Singh Bagri and Ripudaman Singh Malik, who were ultimately acquitted of criminal charges arising from the Air India bombing. It is a sober reminder that terrorism has caused the death of hundreds of Canadians. Let us not forget the tragic total resulting from that mass murder, 329 passengers and crew, when Air India flight 182 was blown up in mid-flight, and two baggage handlers were killed at Tokyo's Narita Airport.

The hon. members of this House may recall that in November 2005, the Subcommittee on Public Safety and National Security of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness heard testimony from Maureen Basnicki, whose husband died at the World Trade Centre on 9/11, and from Mr. Bal Gupta, chair of the Air India Victims Families' Association. Their testimony was given as part of the parliamentary review of the Anti-terrorism Act. In his testimony, Mr. Gupta read into the record the following recommendations:

The Anti-terrorism Act should not be repealed or softened, and its provisions should be strengthened by closing loopholes...There will be more legal tools to compel witnesses to testify in terrorism-related cases.

At that time, the two powers that Bill C-17 proposes to reinstate, the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions, were part of the Anti-terrorism Act. They had yet to sunset. Later, according to newspaper reports, Mr. Gupta supported extending the life of these tools when Parliament was debating whether to extend them or to have them sunset in early 2007. As members know, they did sunset in 2007.

The Air India tragedy and the events of 9/11 remind us that when enacting anti-terrorism legislation for combating terrorism in a manner that has due regard for fundamental human rights, we must consider not only the rights and freedoms of those that may be accused of terrorism, but also the tragic human cost to terrorism itself, not only the deaths of or harm done to the victims, but also the harm done to their families.

I recently came across a study written by Professor Craig Forcese, which included the following quote from Mr. Justice Laws of the English Court of Appeal. It eloquently describes the difficult task facing legislators in this area. It is a long quote, but an important one, so I hope members will please bear with me. He wrote:

This grave and present threat [of terrorism] cannot be neutralised by the processes of investigation and trial pursuant to the general criminal law. The reach of those processes is marked by what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt...In these circumstances the state faces a dilemma. If it limits the means by which the citizens are protected against the threat of terrorist outrage to the ordinary measures of the criminal law, it leaves a yawning gap. It exposes its people to the possibility of indiscriminate murder committed by extremists who for want of evidence could not be brought to book in the criminal courts. But if it fills the gap by confining them without trial it affronts “the most fundamental and probably the oldest, most hardly won and the most universally recognised of human rights”: freedom from executive detention.

In light of these concerns, it is appropriate that any proposal to reinstate the powers of the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions should be subjected to rigorous review. It is right and proper that this bill should now be reviewed by this Parliament. In doing so, however, I would remind hon. members that this bill does not appear out of the blue. It is a culmination of efforts by previous Parliaments to seek to improve this legislation, including the parliamentary committees that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act.

Bill C-17 was carefully drafted to respond to many of the recommendations made by both the Senate and the House of Commons committees that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act. Not all recommendations were accepted but many were. In addition, a previous version of the Bill, Bill S-3, was reviewed by the Senate special committee on anti-terrorism, and as a result, further amendments were made. These are all incorporated into Bill C-17.

Further, I would add, there has also been a judicial review by the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada, of one of the two key tools found in this bill, the investigative hearing.

I wish to address much of the remainder of this speech to a number of criticisms made in the investigative hearing during that legal challenge and the court's response to them. Hopefully, this will give all hon. members a better understanding of the complex issues raised by this tool and how it was fashioned in a manner to protect fundamental human rights.

Perhaps the major argument against the investigative hearing was that it denied a person the right to silence and/or the right of self-incrimination. However, the court rejected this argument. After examining the robust protection against self-incrimination found in the then existing legislation, the court noted:

--the procedural protections available to the appellant in relation to the judicial investigative hearing are equal to and, in the case of derivative use immunity, greater than the protections afforded to witnesses compelled to testify in other proceedings, such as criminal trials, preliminary inquiries or commission hearings.

As well, in order to prevent possible future abuse, the court expanded the use and derivative use immunity protections beyond the scope of criminal proceedings to include deportation and extradition proceedings.

Another major argument was that the investigative hearing compromised the independence of the judiciary because it co-opted the judiciary into performing executive investigatory functions in place of its usual adjudicative role. However, the majority of the Supreme Court rejected this claim, arguing that:

The function of the judge in a judicial investigative hearing is not to act as “an agent of the state”, but rather, to protect the integrity of the investigation and, in particular, the interests of the named person vis-à-vis the state.

Another argument made was that the independence of Crown counsel was compromised because the Crown counsel's role became impermissibly intertwined with the police task of investigation. Again, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, pointing out that, in part:

--one may assume that by bringing Crown counsel into the judicial investigative hearing process, the legislature intended that the Crown would conduct itself according to its proper role as an officer of the court and its duty of impartiality in the public interest...The mere fact of their involvement in the investigation need not compromise Crown counsel’s objectivity, as the critical component is their own “necessary vigilance”--

Another argument was that the investigative hearing in the court challenge was that the judicial investigative hearing in the circumstances of this case served the improper purpose of obtaining pretrial discovery for the Air India trial. However, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada rejected this argument, agreeing with the trial judge that its purpose had been predominantly investigative.

As well, in a companion case issued the same day, the Supreme Court held that the open court principle applies to an investigative hearing. It held that while the application for an investigative hearing should not be held in public, akin to the application for a search warrant where it comes to the investigative hearing itself, there should be a presumption of openness.

In reaching this conclusion, the court adapted the Dagenais/Mentuck test which had been developed in case law in relation to publication bans to the investigative hearing. The court acknowledged, however, that there could be circumstances where the presumption could be rebutted. It stated:

It may very well be that by necessity large parts of judicial investigative hearings will be held in secret. It may also very well be that the very existence of these hearings will at times have to be kept secret. It is too early to determine, in reality, how many hearings will be resorted to and what form they will take. This is an entirely novel procedure, and this is the first case — to our knowledge — in which it has been used.

To summarize, Bill C-17 builds upon the original provisions governing the investigative hearing. It builds upon them by adding additional safeguards, but the foundation remains the same. This foundation was examined by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004 and was upheld to be constitutional. In our future deliberations about this bill, we should not forget that the investigative hearing has already passed the test of compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Let me now proceed to the recognizance with conditions provision. Unlike the investigative hearing provision, the recognizance with conditions power created in 2001 by the Anti-terrorism Act was never tested in the courts. However, it is based on the peace bond provisions found in other parts of the Criminal Code, albeit with modifications so that it can be used to disrupt nascent terrorist activity.

It is particularly with regard to the recognizance with conditions that the quotation from Lord Justice Laws that I used at the beginning of my speech is apt.

This is because it can be used in circumstances where the information obtained by the police gives rise to a reasonable belief that a terrorist activity will be committed, where there is insufficient information that could allow the police to arrest the person for involvement in a terrorism offence, but there are reasonable grounds to suspect that it is necessary to impose a recognizance with conditions on the person to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity.

Some have argued that this is too great an extension of the criminal law power. Let regular police powers apply, they argue, in which case they mean that the police already have the power to arrest someone who they believe on reasonable grounds is about to commit an indictable offence. However, the difficulty with this proposal is that it would severely restrict the ability of the state to prevent terrorism because it requires an “about to commit test” which reports the concept of imminent harm.

In contrast, the recognizance with conditions provisions found in Bill C-17 increases the ability of the state to take preventative measures to protect persons from terrorism, but it does so, in my mind, in a way that is consistent with the rule of law. Hence the need for a two-pronged test to be satisfied: a reasonable grounds to belief test, and a reasonable grounds to suspect test. Reasonable suspicion alone is not enough.

Moreover, I also point out that important accountability mechanisms are built into the provisions of this bill. Some of these are carried forward from the original legislation. First and foremost, the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions would be subject to a sunset clause which would result in their expiry after five years unless renewed by parliamentary resolution. As well, there would be annual reporting requirements by the federal government and the provinces on the use of these provisions. Although, in the case of the federal government, there would be an expanded reporting requirement.

In addition, these provisions would not be able to be used unless the consent of the appropriate attorney general is first obtained. This is true even in the case of a person who is arrested without warrant under the recognizance with conditions tool. While the peace officer in such a case would be able to arrest the person to bring the individual before a judge, he or she would still have to obtain the consent of the appropriate attorney general in order to lay any information before such a judge. This is a condition that must be satisfied before a hearing can take place to decide if a recognizance should be imposed.

Also provided for in the bill is a provision inserted by the Senate when it was reviewing a previous version of Bill S-3. Parliament must review these provisions prior to the date that they sunset. As part of this review process Parliament would be able to examine the degree to which these provisions had been used, successfully or unsuccessfully, and would be able to make a determination based on the available evidence as to whether or not these provisions would continue to be needed.

I believe all of us in this House believe that terrorism should be combated. For those who believe that the existing criminal law is sufficient to combat terrorism, I respectfully disagree. I believe events both outside and inside Canada, such as the recent convictions in the Toronto 18 case and the recent arrests in Toronto, show that the threat of terrorism is an ongoing concern and that there is a need for the tools of the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions.

However, I also recognize that in order to combat terrorism successfully these measures must be crafted so as to ensure adequate protection of fundamental rights. By examining the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to the investigative hearing, I hope I have dispelled the concerns that it violates fundamental human rights and basic notions of fairness. Indeed, I would ask all hon. members to reflect on the fact that Bill C-17 improves upon the safeguards found in the original legislation. I urge all members to support the passage of this bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened very attentively to the parliamentary secretary give the reasons for reintroducing a bill that expired years ago. As the member knows, the original provisions were brought into the House but they were not used and Parliament chose not to renew them. Yet the government is choosing at this time to bring this bill forward.

The member has already made the case of those who have been raising a contrary point of view on this, that the recent arrests and some investigations have been done with existing Criminal Code provisions. What is very clear is that the underfunding by the government of our police forces, something that has an impact in a whole variety of areas, and the breaking of promises around funding for RCMP, is something that would do a lot more to address concerns generally than the provisions in the bill that, as has already been noted, were not used and expired.

I can only wonder why the government is bringing the bill forward at this time. It does not seem to make sense except when we look at the summer the government has had. The Conservatives made appalling, inappropriate decisions around the census. They have had boondoggles around the untendered nature of the billion dollar jet fighters, around the fake lake and the billion dollar cost of the summit and the $130 million paid out to Abitibibowater basically because Abitibibowater was upset. All of these boondoogles, moneys paid out, have turned the tide of public opinion against the government.

It seems to me that what we are seeing today is a government that is so desperate that it wants to try to revive fear by throwing together legislation that was not used in the past and was not renewed by Parliament rather than dealing with the real issues about which Canadians are talking. Is that not the real reason why the government is bringing this forward today?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Madam Speaker, obviously I disagree with the member. Innocent people are being killed around the world on a daily basis by terrorists. Terrorist plots are happening right now in Canada. We have seen it with recent arrests. Our law enforcement officials are telling us that these provisions are necessary to keep Canadians safe.

While it appears that no investigative hearing had been held or recognizance with conditions imposed before the previous provisions expired, this should not suggest, in my opinion, that they are not important or not needed in the future. We should take comfort in the fact that based on past experiences with previous provisions, law enforcement officials and prosecutors have demonstrated caution and restraint with respect to the use of these provisions. Moreover, law enforcement agencies have expressed their support for the continuation of these previous provisions.

It is incumbent upon all members of the House to do what is necessary to keep Canadians safe. In my view Bill C-17 would do that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to put the question to the hon. parliamentary secretary that I have put to a number of members in the House on speaking to the bill.

While the hon. member has spoken eloquently about the need to stand up and protect Canadians, so on and so forth, we need to stand back and take a look at the intent of the bill. We need to ensure that all Canadians are treated equally under the law and accorded equal rights according to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and according to the basic principles of the rule of law and democracy on which our country stands.

I have yet to hear the government define a terrorist or a terrorist activity. The bill, which has never been used and which has languished for four years, is supposedly an incredibly important law. There have been concerns with terrorism and security around the world for quite some time, including in our country. Therefore, I concur with my colleague who earlier asked why now. How would the bill ensure that the rights of all Canadians to be treated fairly before the law are protected, that they have a right to remain silent, that they have a right against self-incrimination, that they have the right to know the charges against them and the right to be charged before they are incarcerated?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to know the definition of a terrorist activity, I would suggest she read the Criminal Code of Canada. She might also take the time to read the Air India Supreme Court decision, which I referred to in my speech earlier.

If she were to look at the Criminal Code of Canada, she would see that subsection 83.01(1)(b)(ii)(E) defines the general definition of terrorist activity in such a way as to exclude from the scope of a serious interference within a central service, lawful or unlawful advocacy protest, dissent or stoppage of work unless there is an intent to cause death, serious bodily harm, endangering a person's life or causing a serious risk to the health or safety of the public.

I suggest that perhaps the hon. member take the time to read the Criminal Code of Canada, which she is here to uphold, and then she will know what a terrorist activity actually is.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. I have been listening to the speeches this afternoon and it is quite interesting from our coalition partners to hear some of things they have in common, being soft on crime and it seems soft on terrorism.

I listened to some of the comments and how they are so misinformed. The last speaker talked about how individual rights and freedoms would not be protected with the bill.

The parliamentary secretary has already talked about how it has passed the Charter of Rights analysis with the Supreme Court. He has talked about how the bill evolved in the past.

Could the member explain to the House why sometimes reasonable measures are necessarily required during a terrorist situation? The previous speaker, the other coalition partner, mentioned that we should be funding more police officers.

There is a really important vote coming up this week about gun registry. Could he perhaps explain what the logic is if some of her colleagues flip-flop? If we got rid of the gun registry, we would have more money to fund the front line police officers.

Could the member comment on that?