Rick Norlock

[The Environment, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today the third report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that the world must stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by 2015 in order to keep global temperatures from rising.

The report also states that cuts in gas emissions can be achieved through the development of biofuels, increases in fuel efficiency and the use of renewable energy like solar power.

Can the Minister of the Environment tell us what Canada is doing to meet the challenge of climate change and turn the corner on greenhouse gas emissions?

[Justice, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member for York West rose in this House yesterday and accused the Government of Canada of being soft on criminals and not caring for the victims of crime.

Let me set the record straight.

We recently established the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

We have dedicated $52 million to give victims of crime greater support and a more effective voice in the federal corrections and justice system.

We have hired a victim services officer to respond to the needs of victims.

The National Parole Board will strengthen communication with victims and ensure better quality in service delivery and parole hearings.

The government supports victims of crime. We have acted to toughen the Criminal Code by tackling everything from reverse onus at bail hearings to mandatory minimum sentences.

I know the member for York West will be eager to convince her leader to support these measures because they do what she says she wants. In 2005 she said:

What's wrong is there's too much plea-bargaining with the Crown and judges are not passing down tougher sentences like they could.

[Canadian Forces, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, since day one, Canada's new government has been a government of action. We have been working diligently on all fronts to make Canada a stronger, safer and better country for all Canadians. This government has consistently recognized that national defence is vital to achieving this vision.

This government has stated on several occasions that it was taking steps to affirm our Canadian sovereignty, to defend our territory and to protect Canadians and their interests.

This government knows it is the men and women of our Canadian Forces who transform these national defence policy objectives into discernible action. It is our Canadian Forces who conduct Arctic patrols to assert our sovereignty and ensure our security in the north. It is members of our Canadian Forces who work day and night with their counterparts in Norad to protect our continental air space. It is members of our Canadian Forces who right now are working in Afghanistan with their colleagues from other government departments and with our coalition partners to help build a better life for the Afghan people and a safer world for Canada.

When we say that this government will work hard to assert Canadian sovereignty, defend our territory and protect Canadians and their interests, it means we will work hard to support our Canadian Forces. We cannot fulfill these responsibilities without them.

That is why I support today's motion which calls on the House to affirm its commitment to Canada's military personnel and calls on the government to continue to provide the Canadian Forces with the best possible equipment and support to carry out its responsibilities.

To be a government of action, we need to continue supporting the men and women in uniform who are defending our country and our citizens every day.

The government has already taken measured steps to boost the capacity of the Canadian Forces.

In budget 2006 we announced a sorely needed increase of some $5.3 billion over the next five years to Canada's defence budget. We also announced that part of this funding would be used to increase the military's numbers. Our military strength declined significantly over the last decade and a half while the demands we placed upon our forces did not. Today some 10,000 military men and women are working on the front lines here at home to defend our territory and protect our citizens. On any given day, there are about 8,000 soldiers, sailors and air force personnel who are training for, engaged in, or returning from missions abroad.

The military cannot continue to fulfill all of these responsibilities without placing an excessive burden on individual members and their families. That is why we are working to increase troop numbers. I must say I was very pleased to hear the Minister of National Defence say just last month that the number of applications for enrollment in the Canadian Forces is already up some 25% from last year.

This government also knows that our men and women in uniform cannot do their jobs safely or effectively without the proper equipment. That is why last June my hon. colleague, the Minister of National Defence, travelled to bases across the country to announce directly to military personnel that they would be getting the equipment that they need.

He informed our soldiers in Halifax that we plan to acquire three new joint support ships to replace the 35-year-old replenishment ships. These will be state of the art multi-role vessels that will enhance our navy's ability to fulfill its domestic maritime security responsibilities and support Canada's foreign policy objectives.

The minister then stood at CFB Valcartier and announced plans to acquire some 2,300 new medium size logistics trucks. These will replace our aging trucks that are plagued by growing maintenance problems. These trucks are the logistics backbone of our army and the acquisition of new ones will dramatically improve the capability of our land forces.

The minister also flew to Edmonton to announce plans to purchase 16 medium to heavy lift helicopters, reinstating a vital capability that aircraft crews and soldiers have done without for over a decade. With these new helicopters our forces will be better able to respond to disasters and emergencies here in Canada and they will be able to protect when deployed on missions abroad.

The final stop on the minister's trip last June was 8 Wing Trenton where he announced a boost to the air force's tactical airlift capability with the planned purchase of 17 new tactical lift aircraft. While he was there, he announced the planned acquisition of a new capability for Canada's military strategic airlift. This acquisition will mark a new era for Canada's military. It is a promise that this government is already delivering on.

Just over a month ago the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Industry, and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services announced that a contract has been signed for four C-17 Globemaster aircraft. By the end of this summer the first of these planes will be on the very tarmac at Trenton where the Minister of National Defence made his initial announcement.

All together, these equipment and support projects total some $17 billion. But that is not all. In budget 2007 presented just last week by my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance, this new government has announced more. Supporting the development of Canada's multi-role, combat capable defence forces means not only recruiting more people and procuring new equipment, it also means taking care of the very people who fill the ranks.

The latest initiatives outlined in budget 2007 speak directly to the importance of supporting the men and women who wear Canada's army, navy and air force uniforms, and their families.

First, this budget provides for an increase to field operations allowance of soldiers exposed to hazardous and difficult conditions in their work. This increase will bring the army's allowance in line with that of the air force and the navy.

This builds on another initiative that we implemented in December which makes sure that soldiers sent home from the field due to injury continue to receive payments equivalent to the operational allowance they would have received until the end of their planned deployment.

This budget also announced initiatives for our veterans. Canada's gratitude for military service does not stop when military members retire, so our concern for their needs should not stop either. The latest budget provides money to the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve the services it provides to our veterans.

It provides money for the establishment of five new operational stress injury clinics across Canada, doubling our capacity to care for veterans, Canadian Forces members still serving, and their families who may be suffering from operational stress injuries. These clinics provide critical mental health and peer support services to those suffering from things like anxiety, depression and addiction.

The budget also provides for a veterans ombudsman to ensure that Canada's veterans are receiving services according to the standards set out in our new veterans bill of rights.

Our military members make significant sacrifices every day. In Afghanistan today they are ready to put their lives on the line to protect us and everything we stand for. In past missions they have done exactly the same. The least we can do is always make sure that they are taken care of regardless of whether they are in uniform now or were before.

The initiatives of this new government begin to address the military's needs. I say they begin to address the military's needs because these cannot be the end of our efforts. It is important to show our support for this motion today as a pledge of our sustained commitment to rebuilding and revitalizing Canada's armed forces as a symbol of our gratitude and support of our men and women in uniform.

Clearly this government has been supporting Canada's military personnel since day one. We must be diligent in supporting the Canadian Forces just as the Canadian Forces are diligent in serving us.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last night the opposition parties voted against extending the two special emergency provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act.

As a member of the subcommittee on the Anti-terrorism Act, I am saddened that the Liberal members of that committee, the members for Ajax—Pickering, Vaughan and Richmond, who previously endorsed the view that the provisions were necessary for the safety and security of Canadians, decided to play politics and voted against the motion last night.

They, along with other members who flip-flopped, ignored the sound advice of their colleagues, such as Bob Rae, Anne McLellan and John Manley.

For the past few weeks, numerous groups, including family members of the Air-India victims, wrote letters pleading for support for the renewal of these provisions. What a shame that Liberals chose to ignore their pleas.

We on this side are still dedicated to protecting Canadians from the threat of terror.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member. I am very concerned that a member of this House would make statements basically saying that the very people who are employed by this country, the police, members of CSIS, people who protect our borders, and give of themselves day in and day out, conspired with another country in the Arar case.

We looked at the Arar case when the subcommittee was giving its input into the Anti-terrorism Act. The current government accepted all 23 recommendations. That member's government under the previous prime minister actually commissioned the Arar report. What country on the face of this earth gives its citizens more protection than this Dominion of Canada?

Yes, occasionally things do happen, but there was no conspiracy. If there were, there would have been criminal charges underway in this country.

To take a few little facts and to make them out to be that everything is wrong is totally inaccurate. I do not believe for one minute that there was a conspiracy. I would ask my colleague to please guide us to where in the Arar report it says there was a conspiracy by people of this country with people of another country as--

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his hard work. As he knows, I cannot get into certain specifics but I can tell the House that the hon. member provided the committee with what I would say was the major part of the revisions that were enacted. The reason we did so is a testament to his work ethic and desire to ensure the Anti-terrorism Act is fine-tuned in order to make it more relevant to today's needs.

During the committee's deliberations, we discussed the powers the police or the state actually have and whether those power were radical. We decided they were not. At one point we were specifically referring to recognizance with conditions. Recognizance with conditions was inspired by the existing powers of the Criminal Code, such as recognizance with conditions under section 810 where personal injury or damage is feared. We know those provisions have been and continue to be used.

As well, we know that section 49 of the Criminal Code permits a police officer to arrest without warrant anyone he or she believes is about to commit an indictable offence. One of the great protections of the Anti-terrorism Act is that it permits police to apprehend individuals before the terrible thing happens, before an aircraft is blown out of the sky or flown into a building. This is one of the necessary components of the Anti-terrorism Act.

With regard to investigative hearings, witnesses can be compelled to testify at the investigative stage, which is new to the Criminal Code, but witnesses' testimony has always been compellable at trial. However, as I mentioned before, it parallels the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the Competition Act, as well as in public inquiries and coroner's inquests.

The committee deliberated and considered those provisions and I am confident that the Minister of Public Safety will be introducing them as a result of the comprehensive work my friend has alluded to. He will continue to ensure that the Anti-terrorism Act provides the protections necessary for Canadians.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to educate people who are watching and listening to the debate as it unfolds and who may be asking themselves what an investigative hearing is. I am going to inform the House and my hon. colleague on some of the issues surrounding investigative hearings.

Sections 83.28 and 83.29 of the Criminal Code allow the courts to compel a witness who may have information regarding a terrorism offence to justify and provide real evidence. The process is as follows and here are the protections in this legislation.

With the prior consent of the attorney general, a peace officer investigating a terrorism offence that has been or will be committed may apply to a judge for an order requiring a witness who is believed to have information concerning the terrorism offence to appear before the judge to answer questions or produce an item of real evidence.

If the judge believes that there are reasonable grounds that the person has information concerning a past terrorism offence, the judge may make an order for the gathering of information. If the judge believes there are reasonable grounds that a terrorism offence will be committed in the future, that the person has direct and material information and that reasonable attempts have already been made to obtain the information, the judge may make an order for the gathering of that information.

What are some of the safeguards with regard to these investigative hearings? Only a judge of a provincial court or of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction can hear a peace officer's application for investigative hearings. We see that there is a protection to society that says if a police officer has some information that he or she thinks is important, the police officer cannot willy-nilly make arrests. The police officer must first go to a judge to ensure that the rights of the person who has that information are protected.

To make sure that there is additional balance the prior consent of the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general or solicitor general of a province is needed before a police officer can apply for an investigative hearing. We see the maintenance of balance and those protections are not only there but they continue. The law of this country makes sure that police officers go through the appropriate steps with the appropriate counterbalances to ensure the right thing is done. There must be reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence has been committed and that the information concerning the offence, or that reveals the whereabouts of a person suspected by a police officer having committed the offence, is likely to be obtained by the hearing before an order is granted. Or there must be reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence will be committed, reasonable grounds to believe that a person has direct or material information that relates to a terrorism offence and reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information from the person.

We can see that there are balances. We can see that the previous government kept in mind and that this government continues to keep in mind and to maintain those balances which are necessary to ensure that person's rights and freedoms are protected.

As I previously stated, the Supreme Court has upheld these two so-called controversial parts of the Anti-terrorism Act. That is the protection that Canadians need to know and do know are there.

I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to inform the House and Canadians that the matters we are discussing here today are relevant, and that the Supreme Court has already reviewed them and found them to be totally within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide further clarification regarding the government's motion to extend the sunsetting provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act.

Let me begin by telling the House what the motion is not. It is not about security certificates. It is not about the detainees in Kingston. It is not about the war in Afghanistan. And it most certainly should not be about partisan politics. It is about continuing to provide two important tools to Canada's law enforcement authorities to assist in the investigation and the prevention of terrorist attacks, nothing more.

Prevention in medicine, as we know, is the most economic and efficient way to reduce and prevent disease. Also, in law enforcement, prevention of the crime is much more cost effective and much more effective in every sense of the word than investigating an actual crime.

There has been a great deal of hyperbole in this House in the course of this debate. The word “draconian” has been thrown around and there have been claims that these powers are an assault on the civil liberties of Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The recognizance with conditions power is not new or unusual in Canadian law. Similar powers exist in the peace bond provisions of the Criminal Code that aim to prevent the commission of personal injury and sexual offences as well as criminal organization offences. Parliament has clearly found it appropriate to take the preventative approach to these types of crimes. To argue that we should not do so for terrorist activity would be illogical.

I mentioned the recognizance portion of the two apparently very worrisome parts of the Anti-terrorism Act, worrisome in that some members choose to make more of these two provisions than they really should. As I mentioned, recognizance with conditions is already in the Criminal Code. These two provisions were inspired by existing provisions such as the recognizance with conditions power under section 810, where personal injury or damage is feared. As well, section 495 of the Criminal Code permits a peace officer to arrest without warrant anyone he or she believes is about to commit an indictable offence.

With respect to investigative hearings, that we compel witnesses to testify at the investigative stage is new to criminal law, but witnesses have always been compellable at trial. However, this has parallels in the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act as well as the Competition Act, in public inquiries and in coroners' inquests, so this is not new.

As for the investigative hearing power, it has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. The majority of the court held that it does not violate section 7 rights of the charter and does not infringe on the protections regarding self-incrimination. In doing so, the justices described the situation we face as follows:

The challenge for democracies in the battle against terrorism is not whether to respond but rather how to do so. This is because Canadians value the importance of human life and liberty, and the protection of society through respect for the rule of law. Indeed, a democracy cannot exist without the rule of law....

Yet, at the same time, while respect for the rule of law must be maintained in response to terrorism, the Constitution is not a suicide pact....

It is a complicated task for sure. We strive to maintain the rights and liberties that make Canada great while addressing a threat that strikes at the very basis of our society, but our Supreme Court has determined that Parliament got it right. Parliament got it right in the first instance. That is why we are here today, attempting to maintain that “getting it right”, to make sure of that in trying to maintain the delicate balance of rights and the protection of human life and property when we have to bring in acts such as the Anti-terrorism Act.

I would also refer to the words of the member for Mount Royal who, in 2005, provided a perhaps more nuanced description of the challenges we face. He said:

The underlying principle here is that there is no contradiction in the protection of security and the protection of human rights. That counter-terrorism itself is anchored in a twofold human rights perspective.

First, that transnational terrorism--the slaughter of innocents--constitutes an assault on the security of a democracy and the most fundamental rights of its inhabitants--the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

At the same time, and this is the second and related human rights perspective embedded in the relationship between counter-terrorism and human rights, the enforcement and application of counter-terrorism law and the policy must always comport with the rule of law.

The member for Mount Royal concluded his comments by stating:

The importance of this legislation cannot be understated. Canadians need to be reassured that their government has both done all we can to protect them against terrorist acts without unnecessarily infringing on their individual rights and freedoms.

We have also heard recently the comments of other prominent members of the Liberal Party. Anne McLellan, for example, has been quoted in the media as saying, “The situation today is, if anything, more dangerous and more complex and the powers have never been abused”. Why would we take these tools away from law enforcement? Former deputy prime minister John Manley also took the unusual step of issuing a statement in support of these powers. He stated, “I believe that cabinet and Parliament got the balance right in 2001-02,” and “I do not believe that anything has changed to make that balance inappropriate today”.

The extension we are proposing does not in any way threaten civil liberties. In fact, if the motion were defeated, Parliament would be putting at risk what the member for Mount Royal acknowledged as the most fundamental right we enjoy: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The right to be protected from terrorist attacks is what we are addressing with this motion.

All members should also carefully consider the statements that have been made by the victims of terrorism in support of these powers. The Air-India families and others have made it clear that the investigative tools of law enforcement must not be curtailed. Many have reacted with shock and dismay at the prospect of losing the investigative hearing power which may yet provide the answers to the questions surrounding the deaths of 329 innocent airline passengers in 1985; 329 innocent airlines passengers who died as a result of one of the most horrific terrorist acts that has been portrayed on Canadian citizens.

British Columbia's solicitor general has also echoed these concerns.

In concluding my statement, I would like to clarify one other matter relating to reviews of the Anti-terrorism Act being undertaken by committees in both Houses. I do appreciate the fact that the House of Commons committee tabled an interim report last October on these powers. I appreciate its diligence and hard work. I am proud to say that in this House today there are two members of that committee. The government continues to await the final reports of both committees. I am proud to say that those reports are within weeks of coming to this hallowed institution.

Referring to the committee's reports, I can tell the House that all told, the work totalled some 44 meetings over 83 hours and literally hundreds of hours of research. The committee's report will be thorough and it will be comprehensive. I can assure the House of that.

Because of delays in the parliamentary review of the Anti-terrorism Act, the committees have asked their respective houses for more time to report. The government also needs more time. We need more time to delicately fine tune a piece of legislation that is already providing the kind of protection that this country needs.

I am asking for support to extend these provisions. The government is simply saying it does not want these important powers to expire while it is considering the House of Commons committee's recommendations and awaiting its final report. We also hope to soon receive the Senate's input. I believe we have recently done so.

This is why we are seeking only a three year extension, not five years, but a three year extension. It is a temporary extension that will allow for proper government analysis of the entire workings of the Anti-terrorism Act and the preparation of an appropriate government response and subsequent parliamentary debate.

We will be responding to the subcommittee's interim and final reports together. This has been our intention all along. But we must not allow timing issues to scuttle these important provisions. If the Anti-terrorism Act reviews had been completed by December 2005 as anticipated by the legislation and not interrupted by the last federal election or other delays, this would not be an issue today, but the parliamentary reviews were delayed.

Extending the powers for three years will give effect to the original intent behind the sunsetting and parliamentary review clauses of the act; namely, the debate on the sunset clause would be fully informed by the final reports of both parliamentary review committees, as well as by the government response to their recommendations. The government's motion will ensure that these measures are not lost by default in the absence of this informed debate.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

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

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

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

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

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

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

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