Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2007

Rob Nicholson Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed as part of its anti-terrorism strategy to reintroducing these two fundamental provisions to the Anti-terrorism Act. We may remember that these were the provisions turned down by the opposition last year, but we are committed to giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need to fight terrorism in this country.

I know that the justice committee is going to be very busy this fall, so I think it is very appropriate that this be introduced in the Senate. The bottom line is that we will not give up the fight against terrorism in this country.

Penny Priddy Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, eight months after security certificates were struck down by the Supreme Court, the Conservatives are taking another shot at it, but tinkering with a fundamentally flawed idea is not going to make it any better. If a person plots a terrorist attack in Canada, he or she should be tried, convicted, and jailed in Canada, not suddenly deported to another country.

Why is the government choosing to fight terrorism with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and not the Criminal Code of Canada?

Stockwell Day Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, we are collectively astonished at the lack of understanding the member has just demonstrated. The Minister of Justice has been very clear about the ATA provisions. They have nothing to do with deportation.

If she wants to try to readjust and make the question a little more direct, with common sense, maybe we could handle it. People are deported when they are deemed to be inadmissible to come into this country. We are certainly going to maintain that particular process.

Penny Priddy Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, security certificates are also a serious violation of our rights and freedoms. Yesterday the Conservatives tabled special advocate legislation, but the public safety committee heard extensive testimony earlier this year that the system has serious problems in places such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

The minister knows this, so why is the minister proposing something that we already know does not work in other countries?

Stockwell Day Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, there is the issue of security certificates, which we dealt with yesterday, and there is the area of the provisions in the Anti-terrorism Act, which the Minister of Justice is dealing with today.

The particular provisions we dealt with yesterday were at the request of the Supreme Court. We have followed those very carefully. We have drafted the legislation very carefully. It is not precisely as the information from other countries. As a matter of fact, we have looked at other countries to make sure that what we have done is going to meet the demands of the Supreme Court.

We are also pleased that the Liberals have indicated, at least thus far, that they are going to support us on this.

Scott Simms Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, changes to the Canada Elections Act have resulted in more than one million rural Canadians losing the right to vote in the next election. Twenty-five per cent of voters in Newfoundland and Labrador, 30% in Saskatchewan, 30% in the Northwest Territories and a whopping 80% in Nunavut will lose their right to vote.

What will the government do to fix this?

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the member is a legitimate and serious question. We are of course concerned. We want to ensure that everybody's right to vote is protected.

I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. I am confident that, should we have an electoral event before we can correct it in another fashion, he is prepared to use his adaptation power to ensure that no Canadian loses the right to vote.

Scott Simms Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, I would like to accentuate the point. I thank the hon. minister for his response, but the government and indeed this Parliament have a responsibility to fix this. All Canadians have the right to vote. It is unacceptable to have such a large portion of the population unable to vote because of a glitch in the amended elections act.

Rural Canadians do deserve better. This is a serious issue.

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of members of the House who may not be familiar with the situation, the issue is one of addresses that are post office boxes where there are no municipal addresses for individuals. In an effort to put through Bill C-31, all parties in this House supported amendments to tighten up the identification--

Peter Van Loan York—Simcoe, ON

All parties but for the NDP, I should add. That is fair.

They supported elements to ensure that we had integrity in the electoral process. This element was missed. I suspect that all parties will want to enthusiastically support efforts to correct this deficiency. In any event, we are confident that if there is an electoral event on the horizon no one will lose the right to vote.

Navdeep Bains Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that Nova Scotia is poised to become the latest victim in the flawed softwood lumber agreement.

It was bad enough that the Conservative government left $1 billion in the hands of the U.S. government and its lobbyists. It was bad enough that it negotiated higher duties and quotas for Canadian companies. Now it has become apparent that the forestry program initiated by any provincial government will be sued by the United States.

Will the minister tell us whose side he is on and whose interest he represents?

David Emerson Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be congratulating the government for putting in place the softwood lumber agreement because what he is pointing to is the very protectionist group that repeatedly, for years and decades, brought actions under chapter 19 of NAFTA against the Canadian industry. Those allegations were always unfounded.

The allegations that are being made today are unfounded but the softwood lumber agreement protects our industry against trade actions of that kind in addition to putting over $5 billion back in the pockets of Canadian companies.