Bill S-7 (Historical)

Combating Terrorism Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act

This enactment replaces sections 83.28 to 83.3 of the Criminal Code to provide for an investigative hearing for the purpose of gathering information for an investigation of a terrorism offence and to allow for the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person to prevent them from carrying out a terrorist activity. In addition, the enactment provides for those sections to cease to have effect or for the possible extension of their operation. The enactment also provides that the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness include in their respective annual reports their opinion on whether those sections should be extended. It also amends the Criminal Code to create offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit certain terrorism offences.
The enactment also amends the Canada Evidence Act to allow the Federal Court to order that applications to it with respect to the disclosure of sensitive or potentially injurious information be made public and to allow it to order that hearings related to those applications be heard in private. In addition, the enactment provides for the annual reporting on the operation of the provisions of that Act that relate to the issuance of certificates and fiats.
The enactment also amends the Security of Information Act to increase, in certain cases, the maximum penalty for harbouring a person who committed an offence under that Act.
Lastly, it makes technical amendments in response to a parliamentary review of these Acts.

Combating Terrorism Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. What we saw happening in minority governments, where members were expressing the will of the people, has now been disregarded. The Conservatives will often talk about having a strong stable majority, but the reality is that they got 39.8% of the vote. That is hardly a majority of Canadians who are reflecting their point of view.

One of the things the report says about fixing the deficiencies in parliamentary review of anti-terrorism laws is, “Anti-terrorism provisions are too radical to be left unscrutinized. Independent reporting may also serve to galvanize more regular and transparent policy thinking within executive governments, as it appears to have done in the United Kingdom.”

The government often touts that it is a leader in transparency and accountability. If that were actually the case, then there would be the kind of reporting and oversight that is very important for this kind of legislation.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering whether the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan could provide the source of that report that she is quoting from? I just want see how those comments might be leaning.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is not really a point of order, but the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan may wish to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two reports. The first is the IRPP's Choices, “Fixing the Deficiencies in Parliamentary Review of Anti-Terrorism Laws: Lessons From the United Kingdom and Australia”. The other report is from the Journal of Legislative Studies entitled “The Impact of Post-Enactment Review on Anti-Terrorism Laws: Four Jurisdictions Compared”. This is the version of the record that was first published on February 15, 2012.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

We talked a few seconds ago about transparency and accountability. However, I think that the bill is yet another example of smoke and mirrors. It is intended to deflect Canadians from the things that are really important toward things that are not pressing or urgent. It is intended to scare and strike fear into the hearts of Canadians. Apparently, the Conservative government intends to govern this country through fear.

The bill would reintroduce measures that all parties agreed in 2007 should disappear, and they did. Those measures were severe incursions into civil liberties. As it turned out, the measures never were necessary to be used to combat any kind of terrorism that went on this country, and that is both for the terrorism we heard about and the threats I am sure the public did not hear about because the police were able to find it and stop it before it happened.

Why is this being reintroduced now? Why is the bill the single most important thing facing Canadians now and on the top of the agenda for the Conservative government to carry forward? I think the answer is because it would deflect Canadians from thinking about some of the more serious problems that are going on.

Apparently, the anti-terrorism bill turned out to be unnecessary in 2007, but the Conservatives are introducing it anyway. NDP members will not be supporting the bill, as we believe it is an unnecessary incursion into civil liberties.

I believe the government is perhaps being a little two-faced on the whole notion of civil liberties. Members will recall the rancour and rhetoric over the gun registry. During the past several months of the Conservative's term in office, the use of a gun registry was a huge incursion into a person's individual private right to own a firearm, which is, of course, an American right and not a Canadian one. Nevertheless, the Conservative government was saying we had to protect civil liberties. However, here it is saying that it wants to diminish civil liberties. I do not think it should go unnoticed that the government is two-faced about this.

As a union representative in my previous life, I often had to be on guard against employers and others who were attempting to create incursions into civil liberties under the guise of protecting their investments and public safety, and their profits ultimately. For example, although it was ruled by the Supreme Court to be in violation of Canadian law, employers often wanted to have the right to test the urine, saliva and blood of their employees. It was for no apparent reason but just because they wanted to. Unlike the United States, the courts in this country have determined that it is an unreasonable incursion into our civil liberties; yet, employers keep trying to do it. They keep trying to find ways to get around these laws.

One has to wonder what would happen if, as a result of these pressures by employers, insurance companies started to take these kinds of incursions into our civil liberties. I fear that if the insurance companies looking after our health and well-being were able to accomplish these civil liberty incursions, they would be able to refuse to insure people on the basis of something they discovered as a result of a saliva test or blood test that took place long before. We have to be ever vigilant against that.

On this side of the House, we are ever vigilant against incursions of our civil liberties. However, the Conservative government believes that it needs to rule through a climate of fear. It needs to create a sense of fear in the public of Canada so that Canadians will be cowed into being appreciative of the few good things the government might happen to do. If there is anything the government has proven over the past year and half, it is that it is single-mindedly using a law and order agenda as its entire raison d'être.

There is no reason that this particular piece of legislation should be top of mind. There are far more important things that we should be doing and that we should be afraid of. However, the government would rather distract us with threats that there are imminent terrorist attacks and we must therefore change the law to allow the forces of justice in this country to have access to things that it turns out they do not need.

We believe that as a result of the application of the original Anti-terrorism Act in 2001, that $92 billion has been spent, over and above what would normally have been spent, to combat terrorism in this country. Is that a just way of spending our money? I do not think anybody would be able to tell. However, if what we are doing is creating this climate of removal of civil liberties and spending money to do it, then we must be vigilant against that, and in turn perhaps save some taxpayer dollars.

The government wants us to be afraid of terrorism, economic turmoil in other countries and environmental groups, but it forgets that Canadians are afraid of more important things that are closer to home. We should be afraid of carbon dioxide emissions and what that is doing to the planet. The government has apparently turned a blind eye to that. It has decided that there will not be a reaction from the government to implement the Kyoto Accord, or any other method of restricting the use of CO₂ emissions to change our climate.

The other thing that is alarming Canadians is the ever-escalating price of energy, particularly in the east part of the country, and the imbalance that is created between the government's determination to ship our energy supply to other countries while starving other parts of the country of energy. We do not have a national energy strategy from the government. We do not have a security of energy, and people are starting to feel it. The government is clearly reacting in a way that is not in keeping with what Canadians are fearing.

There is a twisting of democracy going on. Canadians should be afraid of that. With the implementation of time limits, of prorogation, and with these giant omnibus bills that are coming forward to Parliament, we have a twisting of the democratic process, in such a way that Canadians ought to be afraid. The government would rather distract them with talk of terrorism than to actually get at the real problems that face Canadians.

It is also an example of the weird priorities of the government. We are the only ones talking about this because the government has not put up any speakers on this particular act. The government appears to think this is the most important thing facing Canadians. However, in terms of public safety, there are more important things that are closer to home that we should be talking about.

In my riding, there are gun crimes almost every month. In Toronto, six Somali youth were killed by handguns. We are not doing anything to combat the proliferation of handguns into our cities in this country. We would do something to take away some civil liberties and combat terrorism, but that is not what is killing people in this country. Handguns are killing people in this country, and certainly in the city of Toronto.

We also have the spectre of tainted meat. People are more afraid of tainted meat right now than they are of terrorism. Yet, the government's response is to say Canadians should pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, that things will be fine and this company will resurrect itself.

We have the very real problem of jobs. There are not enough jobs to go around. There is only one job for every five people who are unemployed, and we have no indication from the government of any strategy to deal with that, other than to suggest that more temporary foreign workers are necessary. We now have something like 300,000 temporary foreign workers who have come into this country.

The people in my riding are more afraid of losing their jobs than they are of terrorism. Yet the government's approach has been to bring forward an anti-terrorist bill as the most important measure that needs to be faced by Canadians and the most important fear that Canadians should have.

Therefore, the NDP will be rejecting the bill on the basis of the lack of accountability, transparency and the incursion into civil liberties that is going on in the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and concur with many of his thoughts, especially when he talked about the issue of priorities and the fact that there were many other things with which we could deal.

I must admit that I am a little surprised. He made reference to the omnibus bill, saying that it should have been broken down. I thought it was interesting that just yesterday the Liberal Party suggested that the omnibus bill in fact be broken down and the pension portion be taken out, yet the New Democrats said no to that. He made reference to priorities for the government. We would have thought that would be a priority for the NDP also, as opposed to wanting to protect our pensions possibly. Who knows?

Why did the NDP say no to allowing the omnibus bill to broken down to take out the pension issue? I agree with him that maybe the government is using this bill as a diversion. Would the member mind answering that specific question? Why did the NDP say no?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not privy to the conversations that went on behind the scenes on that, but I am aware that the omnibus bill is yet another example of the twisting of democracy by the government, creating systems of enormity that force the members on this side to vote against their consciences, even though there are things they may agree with in the bill.

The Prime Minister himself has expressed reservations about the use of omnibus bills as a method of getting many pieces of legislation done at the same time that have a wide variety of topics that need to be studied by different committees. Instead, this one will be studied by the finance committee. It is wrong, it should stop and we should watch out for it, as should Canadians.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for his brilliant speech, in which he pointed out that the NDP supports the fight against terrorism and that Bill S-7 gives Canadians a false sense of security.

The bill does not provide police and intelligence services with the resources they need. We have the legal tools needed—in international treaties and the Criminal Code, for instance—to combat illegal terrorism activities.

What stood out for me was when my distinguished colleague said that the Conservative Party had spent $92 billion and had therefore poorly managed this project. Furthermore, in terms of people's quality of life, it completely ignored any notion of respecting human rights.

This bill acts as a smoke screen and avoids talking about the real problems. As for quality of life, Canadians care a great deal about their health and safety. Canadians want a national energy strategy and a national transit strategy. These are priorities and they would help tackle the real problems that the Conservative government refuses to talk about.

My questions, therefore, are as follows: will Bill S-7 take away the freedom of expression of Canadians who wish to demonstrate or engage in acts of dissent that have nothing to do with terrorism? Will it eventually lead to social profiling or labeling someone an environmental extremist for asserting their rights?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has hit the nail on the head. This bill is a diversion. It is really not the most important thing facing Canadians. The most important things facing Canadians now are the economy, jobs and the ecology. Those things the Conservative government has refused to talk about or introduce matters dealing with those things and, instead, is giving us increased penalties for terrorism. I doubt there are terrorists who would read the bill and say, “I'd better not do that because the penalty went up”. It does not work that way. Increasing jail sentences for certain terrorist-related offences is not a deterrent. It does not stop terrorists from doing their jobs.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill S-7, which originated in the Senate. I have a question. Why did it originate in the Senate and not in the House of Commons? The Senate is less democratically elected than the House of Commons. It is very important that it is the representatives of the public, not the people appointed by the Prime Minister, who debate these important bills.

Bill S-7 has four main objectives, which I will summarize here. First, it amends the Criminal Code in order to provide for investigative hearings and to allow for the imposition of a recognizance with conditions—the so-called preventive arrest; second, it amends the Canada Evidence Act to allow judges to order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information about a trial or an accused once the appeal period has expired; third, it amends the Criminal Code to create new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit a terrorist act; and fourth, it amends the Security of Information Act to increase the maximum penalty for harbouring a person who has committed or is likely to commit a terrorist act.

Again, the government is cracking down on imaginary terrorists. In 2001, the Chrétien government had similar provisions passed in the House. None of those provisions have been in effect since December 31, 2006. Since then, given the very small number of terrorist acts or presumed terrorists acts in Canada, the laws that were in effect between 2001 and 2006 have not been necessary.

Why was this bill introduced in the Senate? What motivated the government to introduce it? Let us not forget that it was the government that introduced this bill in the Senate. It was not a senator who did this on his or her own initiative. It was truly the government that introduced it and that is telling us that it is important.

What is motivating the government? What exactly should we be cracking down on? This bill will have serious repercussions for human rights in Canada. Canada has always been a world leader when it comes to human rights. They are enshrined in our Constitution.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has about two minutes before question period will start and then he will have about four minutes after question period to conclude his remarks.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief.

I will be voting against the bill under consideration today, essentially because it will violate rights entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must not take away basic human rights in Canada unless there are real, substantial, indisputable reasons to so do. There must be fundamental criteria to justify trampling on human rights. Quite frankly, I have not heard any in our debate on this bill. Furthermore, the Senate said quite the opposite.

We do not see why this bill should proceed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has five minutes.