Bill C-16 (Historical)

Charities Registration (Security Information) Act

An Act respecting the registration of charities and security information and to amend the Income Tax Act

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, whether we have a sunset clause or not, it does not change the fact that a three year period for an in-depth study of the consequences of this bill is way too long. Of course, reports on the investigations and on the preventive arrests will be prepared yearly by the attorney general, the solicitor general and their provincial counterparts.

However, this does not add any guarantee that would lead us to believe that the government will set the record straight if some slip-ups occur along the way. There could be three years worth of blunders before the government looks into the matter again. There again, nothing guarantees that this review will be made at all, because it is far from unusual to see deadlines not being respected and acts not being reviewed on time. Extraordinary legislation introduced in exceptional circumstances necessarily requires a more stringent control that the one the minister is suggesting.

As for wiretapping, on October 24, Allan Borovoy, adviser to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said before the committee that CSIS already had all the necessary tools to conduct wiretaps.

Mr. Borovoy also mentioned, although this was not his final conclusion, that new powers would not be needed, and that, before infringing on civil liberties, we should demonstrate that this will result in a significant improvement of existing security. Given that, according to this advisor, this has not been demonstrated, one must wonder why the minister is allowing the defence minister to authorize electronic surveillance without prior judicial approval.

After alienating the right of parliament to decide the reinstatement of this legislation, by refusing a real sunset clause, the minister is also taking away from the courts the right to authorize the electronic surveillance of communications. The political and judicial branches have become one.

Now, a word on preventative arrests and increased powers. These provisions could very well jeopardize the delicate balance between security and freedom. Under this bill, an individual could be detained for 24 hours on the basis of mere suspicion, even if the words “reasonable grounds” are used in the same clause. But reasonable grounds and suspicions are clearly quite different.

As a matter of fact, legal literature recognizes that mere suspicion does not constitute sufficient grounds for action that has to be taken on the basis of reasonable grounds. Besides, the Barreau du Québec has stated that under constitutional law, these two concepts are contradictory. It even went as far as saying that the concept of suspicion would introduce a discretionary leeway which could lead to arbitrary arrests. Moreover, in her opening speech at the inaugural meeting of the committee, the Minister said:

I remind my hon. colleagues that there are instances where, in other free and democratic societies like the United Kingdom and, most likely, the United States, once they have passed their new legislation, detention will be allowed for a period of up to seven days.

We could also remind the minister that no later than this morning, in reference to this measure and others, such as communications intercept, the questioning of target groups and possible trials before a martial court, the headline on the front page of Le Devoir read “Is the United States to become a police state?”

At one time, Moscow was much safer than several North American cities but those were the days of communism, when security was based on a political tyranny which was promoting terror. Surveillance was everywhere and denouncement was a way to survive. Are we prepared to pay such a price? As Alain Gagnon would say, to ask the question is to answer it.

The attorney general could refer any person to a judge whether or not this person is directly or indirectly linked to a terrorist group or activity. In a way, this provision is like giving a fishing license to the authorities. The bar association was also critical of this provision, arguing that it interferes with the right to remain silent, when no charges have even been laid yet.

The least we can say is that Bill C-36 gives the police outrageous powers which would not be tolerated in more ordinary times. These provisions remain hard to justify, despite the present crisis. One may question the relevancy of such measures in light of two recent events which got our attention.

Here is the first case. In mid-October, the media reported the story of an individual named Abdellah Ouzghar. To give some background, Ouzghar had been convicted in absentia to five years in jail, last April, by the criminal court of Paris. The charges were, among others, being part of a crime syndicate for the purpose of planning a terrorist act. Furthermore, Interpol had already issued two international arrest warrants against Ouzghar, and the warrants mentioned his address in Hamilton.

Under the Extradition Act, the RCMP was to proceed with the temporary arrest of this individual so that France could then apply for his extradition. Yet, it took more than one year after the issue of the first arrest warrant and also six months after his conviction in France for the RCMP to finally arrest him on October 12 of last year.

Here is another example. In early November, the media reported another no less commonplace incident involving an individual named Liban Hussein. The RCMP has candidly admitted that it did not take any step to arrest this Ottawa resident, whose name was on the list of people and organizations actively involved in the financing of Osama bin Laden's terrorist activities. Finally, it was only after the individual gave himself up that the RCMP arrested him.

In both cases, we doubt very much that this flagrant carelessness on the part of the authorities, especially the RCMP, can be justified by legal constraints. In fact, the authorities have all the tools they need to act effectively, but they do not know how to use them. Is it carelessness or incompetence? Whatever. It is absolutely pointless to give more powers to people who do not know how to use the ones they already have.

As for the procedure for establishing the list of terrorist entities or the list used to deny or revoke charitable status, I commented on it at second reading of Bill C-16 as well as at second reading of Bill C-36 and, nothing having changed since, my comments will be the same. Therefore I refer members to my two previous speeches.

In conclusion, Bill C-36 is just one more step toward an abusive centralization of powers that used to be reserved to entities that were independent from the government. Moreover, what is more serious is that this power grab eliminates any notion of impartiality.

I can only conclude that, with Bill C-36, not only is the government seriously infringing our rights and freedoms, but it is taking advantage of a crisis situation to compromise the principle of the separation of powers.

The headline on the cover of the latest issue of the Journal du Barreau read “Anti-terrorist Bill C-36: Legitimate Goal, Bad Vehicle”. This title summarizes the position of the Bloc Quebecois very well, and this is why we will be voting against this bill.

Anti-terrorism Act

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we had great hopes for this bill. We thought that it was possible to reconcile security and freedom. It seems that we were expecting too much from the government.

Following the sad events of September 11, we recognized that we had to change our way of doing things and moreover of seeing things. We realized that we had to take real action to reassure citizens. Obviously, it is essential to ensure the protection of every citizen against the threat of terrorism.

Following these tragic events, we also learned to appreciate what makes us unique, that is democracy and freedom. So, why in this case put aside democracy and freedom in order to compromise them? Why put aside these values, which are so precious, instead of reaffirming them and making them even more precious?

At second reading, we said we were in favour of the principle, because we thought it was necessary to have an anti-terrorism act. However, this bill is unacceptable for us. We tried to amend it but only one of our amendments was accepted by the committee. As far as the amendments made by the minister are concerned, they are really not enough to re-establish a true balance between security and freedom.

The government saw fit to grab broad powers in this bill to justify excessive control of our freedoms. It is inconceivable that in the society like ours one might think that we are gullible enough to accept such an approach. Enough is enough. Any reasonably intelligent person will speak up against this abuse of power.

We could never have imagined that one day the world would be changed for ever by a plane crashing into the World Trade Centre, just as we could never have imagined that one day our government would decide to sacrifice our rights and freedoms, as is the case today. Where are we and where are we going? The answer scares me.

The principle—security— is noble, but the approach is harmful and hypocritical. It makes even less sense when it is our political leaders who are acting this way. This is a golden opportunity for the government to grab limitless powers while having a legal reason to do so. This is where we are at and where our so-called democracy is at.

The government put forward many amendments, but it is too little too late. In spite of these amendments, it is still grabbing excessive power and unfortunately freedoms are being denied as a result. Do not tell me that these attempts at amendments are broad and positive, this is not true. Once again, it is only window dressing.

First, the Bloc Quebecois was asking for a sunset clause. A sunset clause was aimed at putting an end to the bill except for the part implementing various international conventions. The sunset clause would have caused the act to cease to be in force after three years. That is what the Bloc Quebecois wanted.

True enough, one must react to these unusual circumstances, but one must not panic and fall into the trap. This is why the bill must be limited in time.

The Bloc Quebecois' proposal would have allowed the government to face the terrorist threat without losing sight of the fact that, at the end of the day, our freedoms must prevail.

The request was rejected. Instead, the justice minister amended the bill to include a sunset clause coming into effect after five years and concerning only two paragraphs. It involved preventive arrest and investigative hearings. This is obviously not good enough. As a matter of fact, it does not amount to a sunset clause, because one only has to obtain a resolution from both Houses to be able to extend the application of those paragraphs.

Second, as far as the review of the legislation within three years is concerned, this period is much too long. The Bloc Quebecois suggested one year, which would immediately have allowed us to avoid risks of violating individual rights and freedoms. We have shown that this bill could really violate to several aspects of the charter, and the Barreau du Québec has also underlined that possibility.

Moreover, given the haste surrounding the drafting of the bill, the risk of errors and, consequently, the probability of violating individual freedoms are heightened. It would be wise to review this legislation after one year in order to adequately deal with its obvious flaws.

The government's reaction has been to refrain from changing the bill and to rely on ministers responsible for the enforcement of the law to produce reports on the number of arrests and investigative hearings. That is all, and that is not enough.

Third, the Bloc Quebecois condemns the fact that the attorney general can get around the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act concerning certain types of information. It is unbelievable that such a way of doing things is and can be proposed as being entirely justified and justifiable. The information and privacy commissioners must keep all their powers, rather than increasing those of the attorney general.

Fourthly, we also deplore the fact that Canada waited until such unprecedented tragedies took place before reacting and taking note of the two international conventions. This is something that ought to have been done a long time ago. While Canada is constantly boasting of what a lead role it plays, it is still clearly demonstrating that this is not the case.

A fifth point is that we protest the fact that this bill deviates from the appearance of justice, to implement provisions which, in fact, are a repetition of Bill C-16, the bill on the registration of charities.

Charities will not be able to believe in justice when evidence is given behind closed doors without the key parties even being present. The main question that arises here is this: how can one offer defence against something one does not even know about?

Sixth, the bill enables the governor in council to put entities on the list of terrorists without any legal authorization and without that entity having access to the evidence supporting its inclusion on the list. That is unacceptable. It is a reversal of the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt. What have we come to? It is easy to see where we are headed, which is why our present concerns are justified.

Seventh, it must be emphasized that the government did not consult the Quebec justice department. There is an emphasis everywhere on co-operation and collaboration. But this is a principle the Government of Canada seems not to grasp. It seems that advantage is being taken of the unusual situation to cast aside the constitutional provisions relating to exclusive areas of jurisdiction, such as the administration of justice. Looking around us, it is easy to see that co-operation is what will defeat terrorism.

Another point of concern to us is that the government has not seen fit to assess the costs associated with enforcement of this bill, if sufficient financial means to apply it properly are not in place. This is one more demonstration that this bill is triggered by the panic set off by the threat of terrorism. We can conclude that, if the means are not there, all of the objectives of this bill will be nothing but empty words.

Ninth, the Bloc Quebecois would like the Communications Security Establishment to be required to get an authorization from a judge before wiretapping. It is another example of appropriation of powers by the government, in this case the Department of National Defence, which will be able to intercept communications with a simple written note to that effect.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the individual freedoms and the freedom of association because of the broad and sketchy definition found in the bill. Despite the justice minister's amendment, the potential for abuse remains and many protest groups could be included in the definition. The amendments we tried to defend and to promote in committee were defeated. This is totally unacceptable in a democratic society that is based on freedom of information.

In short, the merit of this bill rests on the necessity to respond to the terrorist threat. But the extent of the impacts on our liberties is inordinate.

While it is certainly a great thing to take action in the current context, care must be taken not to overreact and restrict democratically acquired rights.

Instead of promoting the development of our rights and freedoms, the government is withdrawing, figuring this should reassure the public.

What is happening is the complete opposite, with the government becoming more crafty, overpowering, controlling and disrespectful through this bill.

The government is giving itself the power to act arbitrarily and is openly showing total disregard for the charter of rights and freedoms, which it insisted on imposing and is now at the centre of our freedoms.

History has always shown the contrary. It is in countries where the respect for the rights and freedoms is highest that public safety and security is best ensured. As suggested by the Bloc Quebecois, our freedoms must be promoted. In other words, we have to promote who we are.

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very impressed at having the opportunity to speak to Bill C-36. When we were elected last year, we were all given the mandate to represent our fellow citizens. I do not think anyone here in this House expected to be carrying out this type of debate. We have a heavy responsibility in doing so.

This is the debate on second reading. It is important to bear in mind that, at second reading, the debate focuses on the principle of the bill, What is involved, then, is the balance between the battle against terrorism and the defence of human rights, between the security that must be in place and freedom, the respect of the right of citizens in this society to act, and their protection in their dealings with the machinery of government and the justice system.

This is, therefore, a very important substantive debate. It is also one that leads us to much consideration of the matter of good faith. Today the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have both admitted that this bill may have been prepared a little hastily and that there may be some elements that will need to be looked at in the committee and report stages.

The bill includes elements of interest. We will have to listen very carefully to the witnesses who come to tell us what they think of this legislation. People such as members of the bar, for example, may deal with the bill's implications and impact, and with the protection of human rights. Others will also address the issue of security and the importance of having an anti-terrorism act.

In light of the September 11 events, I think we agree on the need for strong and decisive action. We must eradicate terrorism and one of the tools at our disposal is the proper use of legislation. We have a duty to ensure the protection not only of the public, but also of its rights. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has adopted a very responsible attitude.

Many aspects of this bill deserve to be examined very thoroughly. I am thinking, for example, of the definition of a terrorist activity. Because of the need to act quickly, we may have a definition that will lead to abuse. We will have to ensure that there a proper balance is struck between police forces' ability to act and the assurance that all honest citizens in our society will nevertheless be protected. This is a very important aspect that needs to be thoroughly examined in committee. This issue is not an easy one. We must give it very careful consideration.

Another very important element is the fact that we are faced with an exceptional situation. We would not want our society to have to take such strong action as a matter of course. We are faced with a urgent problem which we all hope will disappear over time.

Therefore, perhaps we should consider having an act that will be in effect for a limited time only. This would ensure that when the threat of terrorism no longer exists, when we are in control again and when public security is ensured, there will be a time limit so that the government will not use on a permanent and regular basis means that we do not wish to see used in our society. So, we should determine whether this bill could include specific provisions that would lapse over time and not be of a permanent nature. Are there others provisions that deserve to be of a permanent nature?

For example, numerous aspects of the international conventions that were signed should be maintained. However, there may be other elements for which this is not necessary.

For instance, if access to information mechanisms are retained, is what we are asking acceptable, if the government approves revocation of the powers of the privacy commissioner in order to take them over itself? I do not think anyone in the House would dare introduce such a proposal under normal circumstances. The question will have to be asked if the measure is to apply. Is it to apply to the medium term and is it renewable? The government should perhaps make sure that certain elements have a time frame in the legislation and that, as we have asked, there will be an annual review of the law.

The bill provides that the review will be at the end of three years. In this area, a lot of things can happen in three years. A lot of bad things can happen. I think the government would do better to pay careful attention, that is have an annual review.

The bill will be passed soon, this fall, before the Christmas holidays, and then, in the coming year, action may have to be taken. There must be follow-up in committee. Next year, when parliament resumes, we would have to assess whether we did what had to be done, whether government had gone far enough and whether certain things should be corrected. These elements are important.

I would also like to speak to the question of wiretapping. Today, in question period, it became clear that simply defining which laws cover this aspect is not clear. Things are not entirely clear. Does it mean issuing a blank cheque and permitting things, which, after a while, could be used for something totally different from terrorism surveillance? These questions must be asked. It is a matter of responsibility to do so; it has nothing to do with impeding the work of parliament.

In examining this bill, I believe that the Bloc Quebecois has had a very responsible attitude. We have not blocked the bill. We believe that we must take time to study the bill seriously and carefully. There are many elements to consider.

Perhaps it is of less importance, but Bill C-16 on charities, a bill with some substantive problems, has been integrated into the bill. We must use the opportunity to examine these issues carefully at committee in order to see if improvements can be made in this area.

Once again, this is extraordinary legislation for a society that should normally be able to function without this type of legislation. We agree that Canadians must know that steps are indeed being taken to fight against terrorism, but that we will ensure there will be a balanced approach at the same time.

Given all of these points, I think we must proceed with care. The committee must be allowed to do its work as well and as seriously as it can, and must hear advice and ensure balance at all times.

The debate at second reading is on whether or not this bill should be studied in committee. According to Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice , and I quote:

--passage of the motion for second reading simply implied that the House had given preliminary consideration to the bill and that, without any commitment as to the final passage of the bill, it had authorized its reference to a committee for detailed scrutiny.

Particularly important bills such as this test the entire system. They test our parliamentary procedures. This is a bill which merits careful attention. It is a bill which asks us to consider the good will of the parties in the House.

The Prime Minister said that this bill deserved serious consideration. We expect that, when it returns from committee, there will be suggestions for amendments which could make it much more effective and bring it more sharply into line with the stated objectives.

When the committee has done its work, it will be up to us to say whether or not the new form it sends us is acceptable. We will also have report stage to evaluate the result of the committee's work and, finally, debate at third reading.

Throughout this process, the Bloc Quebecois considers it very important that it be possible to improve the bill at each stage in order to make it acceptable, useful and desirable to our society in the present special context. We must not forget that it is also a piece of legislation that may have an impact on human rights legislation for a long time to come.

The international crisis we are now experiencing will have repercussions not just on security, but also on the protection of rights for the future. We must devote whatever time and energy is necessary to make this the best legislation possible. We must be attentive to the requirements submitted so that we end up with a balanced bill.

This must be our objective: a bill that strikes the right balance between the fight against terrorism and respect for human rights. This is what I hope we will do together, with a minimum of partisan politics, so that ultimately we have an opportunity to produce an excellent tool to help in the fight against terrorism and the defence of human rights.

Privilege

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Hamilton West.

I appreciate the opportunity to consider the bill that is before the House. Rather than read through all the points that other people have said, I thought I would convey some of my thoughts about what I hope the committee members will look at when the bill is before them. They have a very difficult job looking at legislation and they do not have the vast experience of another context. This is a new context for all of us. It is a new context for the legislators, for people in our enforcement agencies, for the people who have drafted the bill and for all people who have anxieties.

We have to be calm and we have to be rational. This legislation will last longer than our fears. This legislation could last indefinitely.

There are provisions in the legislation calling for a three year review. I have already heard many people suggest there be sunset provisions, to use the common vernacular.

I have to think of the practicality. What would it mean if we were in the middle of a case and this legislation sunsetted based on provisions in the legislation? Perhaps the committee could consider sunsetting parts of the legislation, perhaps some of those provisions that are the investigative hearings or the preventative arrest, new procedures that we are coming to. Perhaps we could look at that. To see what are the practical advantages and disadvantages perhaps would be something worthy of attention by the committee.

Earlier I heard statements indicating that we will not be testing this at the supreme court for constitutional predisposition. It is not impossible but it is very difficult for courts without factual situations to deliberate on the constitutionality of a law. Usually individual cases have different levels of hearings from trial to appeals all the way up to the supreme court. They are heard on the basis of specific facts of whether a provision is inside or outside, constitutional or unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, it is void and we start over.

The bill before us today is new. It must have been incredibly difficult work for the teams of lawyers and parliamentarians around the cabinet table to look at this legislation and try to make it charter proof. Many of us would agree that some of these provisions are riding pretty close to what we would consider a normal edge.

All of us in this Chamber are concerned about the charter of rights and freedoms. We fought very hard in Canada to get that charter. We do not want to give it up lightly. It is our obligation as parliamentarians to closely scrutinize this bill. There is a need to get some appropriate legislation in place, but we do not have to be on the steamroller. We can take the time to ask questions, to do the work, to make the necessary examinations and to call a number of witnesses who are experts in their various fields. We also have to live with the reality of today. It is a different world after September 11.

Let me go back to before September 11. We think this is a new bill. I am a member of the finance committee and last spring we looked at Bill C-16, the deregistration of charities provisions. It has found a new life as part 6 of this bill. The whole bill in theory is under the auspices of the Minister of Justice. However part 6 is actually under the auspices of the minister of revenue and the solicitor general. That is the reincarnation of what was Bill C-16 except there have been a few changes.

One of the major changes is the inclusion of definitions of terrorism that were missing in Bill C-16 and which the committee had stated were needed. It also changes the period of potential inquiry into hearings from three years to seven years. That is quite an incredible increase.

What else is different about these parts? First let me speak to the parts that are specifically under the Minister of Justice and all the various provisions, whether they are changing other pieces of legislation or are new punishments, new crimes or new powers.

In large part society is leaning toward the acceptance of security over freedom, except we always have to take into account the proportionality test that any court would look at in a piece of legislation like this. Are the crime and the outcome related? Are they proportional? This is when section 1 of the charter comes into play.

Even though I have not gone through all of these sections in detail, I believe that a large number of people in Canada will come to the conclusion that even though these are unusual limiting provisions and procedures, they would be willing to go this far in these extraordinary situations. The proportionality is there, although it is not laid out in stone.

The proportionality test is different in part 6. Part 6 is not about criminal law. In criminal law there has to be mens rea. The person has to have thought about it. The person has to have knowingly done something wrong, it has be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was wrong, and then there are consequences.

There are a lot of safeguards in that system. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high standard. It is difficult to prove and there is a good reason why it is difficult to prove. We have higher sentence structures in the bill. I agree with those structures.

Part 6 is an administrative procedure that is talking about the result of stripping a charitable status. That is the outcome of all of the procedures.

There are some provisions based on something we are already doing as a government in section 40 of the Immigration Act to set up a special procedure where there is a hearing before a judge. Under the Immigration Act it usually is the immigration minister and the solicitor general. In this particular piece of legislation it would be the solicitor general and the revenue minister, CCRA. They will take some evidence. The evidence they want to show is not evidence that would be revealed in a court. Why? It is sensitive classified material. Perhaps it puts at risk a personal information source.

The ministers have to take this on reasonable grounds. Basically this is the level of proof when someone is charged and there is an arrest. This is not beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not the civil balance of probabilities. There are different bars. It is a fairly low bar.

When we were examining this section, we were concerned with a series of potential problems that could have a very chilling effect on the charities in Canada. These charities have made their views known. The committee had not finished its hearings. In fairness to the government, it had not made its case yet.

Serious concerns were laid out. People can read our data in the finance committee transcripts of the hearings last spring. The government was aware of these. We thought the legislation would not go in the form it was in. We thought there could be changes. In fact, it came to us for our input because it was draft legislation.

It is here now and it is unchanged. Many organizations are fearful of the outcome of this legislation. I particularly want to say that this procedure under subsection 40.1(5.1) has never constitutionally been upheld in any court because it was excluded by the Attorney General of Canada in the Ahani decision on section 40.

I have made my concerns known to members inside the various departments here. I will have them give my concerns to anyone who is interested. There are many good areas which we have to look at carefully. I am supportive, as would all of us be, the doves and hawks, of getting the work done and dealing with terrorism.

Anti-terrorism Act

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for London--Fanshawe.

I am pleased to speak about our national response, as embodied in the bill, to the events of September 11. In particular I want to talk about parts 1 through 5 as presented in Bill C-36 because I think Canadians expected, wanted and are supporting a toughening, a codification or a creation of a number of new offences that come as a result of a closer examination of terrorist activity in the world. The world is becoming a much more sophisticated place and the means of creating terrorism and chaos in our society, as we have seen, is happening in new and previously unimagined ways.

From that perspective I think Canadians would support us on parts 1 to 5 and at the same time would expect us to move in tandem with other countries, particularly the G-8 and under the banner of the United Nations, which collectively are moving to eradicate those who would create chaos and who in fact are terrorists.

I would refer to four objectives of the bill, particularly in parts 1 through 5, the criminal provisions of the bill. Those objectives include stopping terrorists from getting into Canada and protecting Canadians from terrorist acts. One is a corollary of the other. Of course to do that police and other security forces need the tools to identify, to prosecute and above all to punish those who would commit these acts.

The third objective would be to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists and impacting on the Canadian economy. As someone who represents a border community, I can say that what occurred on September 11 has had a very direct impact, and not only on our regional, provincial and national economies, but it has had a very tangible result in terms of lines at the border in both directions, outbound and inbound.

Of course the fourth objective is to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and, most important, to address the root causes of such hatred and venom as expressed by these people.

I think there is great support from the Canadian public for the bill, which would define and designate the terrorist groups and their activities. We would make it an offence to knowingly participate or facilitate the activities of terrorist groups. We would make it an offence to knowingly harbour or hide terrorists. We would create tougher sentences for terrorist offences and tougher parole provisions for terrorists.

Cutting off financial support and making that a criminal offence is a very important part of this. Of course as I said at the outset, moving in tandem with other UN signatories to certain provisions and conventions is very important. It is very important that it not be a unilateral action on the part of Canada but in fact a collective action of many countries.

Once again I will say that I think the public knows and expects that we have to make it easier in certain very specific conditions for authorities, those being police forces, the local forces or RCMP or CSIS or whatever, to collect the kind of evidence that is necessary. It is necessary to have electronic surveillance. It is necessary in certain very limited cases to compel disclosure of information that may be held by people. It is also necessary to amend the Canada Evidence Act so that we can collect information and not disclose it in a public forum that would be detrimental to the country.

Canadians are fully supportive of all of those provisions. I also think the bill contains an excellent provision, the three year review provision, because we are caught in the middle of a whole series of events which assume a particular state of mind both nationally and internationally. We do not know the nature, the extent or the duration of this matter, so we have enacted laws which are fitting and proper under the current circumstances. At the same time the three year review allows us to consider the effect of these laws and the conditions in three years' time so that we may determine then whether these laws are enough, too much or not enough. It is very important that laws be considered in a timeframe, both current and short term, but not entrenched forever. In that respect I know that Canadians are quite supportive of this, that they expect it and support it.

What I would now like to talk about is what is referred to as part 6 of the bill because we have heard a great deal of talk about balancing rights, a lot of talk about the charter and a lot of talk about rules of natural justice. I want to point out that part 6 is not about criminal law but civil law. It is about, in this international year of the volunteer, those people who have another element to them, that is, they wish to help others, whether in this country or in other countries. It is about the provision of charitable acts by people in this country to those both in and out of this country. Let us be clear about part 6. It is not about criminal law. It is about civil law and it is about charities.

We have heard a great deal of talk about the rules of natural justice, one of which is this one: Who is my accuser, who is making an accusation against me, what is being said specifically against me and do I have the right to question and to meet that person making the accusation? I point out to members present that part 6 was before the House prior to the summer recess. At that time it was called Bill C-16. It was referred to a committee of the House after first reading. I would point out, far be it from me to say, that it was widely rejected by that committee. It was not a question of one party rejecting it. It was a question of everyone on that committee being disturbed by it.

Some excellent points were made before that committee in terms of what part 6 is about, so as the bill proceeds from the House to the justice committee I would invite the committee to revisit what was said about part 6. All Canadians will support parts 1 to 5, but I think part 6 has some disturbing elements, the principal point being that when one examines that provision one sees that nobody would know who is making the accusation, what specifically is being said or in fact who is saying it. It would be fed through the sieve called CSIS, which would then provide a summary of perhaps what was said, or more properly, of what the allegations were, but little or no detail.

This would have dire consequences for those people in this country with a long tradition of helping others, and this is international year of the volunteer. Part 6 does not meet that fundamental rule of the rules of natural justice, that is, who is making the accusation, what is being said and do I have the right to meet that person and question them?

Finally, I would also point out that part 6 of this law imposes an absolute liability on a charity.

It has nothing to do with anyone's intention. One can imagine some very innocent occurrences where people believe they are doing the right thing when in fact, through misfortune or lack of attention, the money is diverted to somebody who has less than honourable intentions quite innocently by those paying it. Effectively, the result under part 6 would be the end of that charitable cause. That is unfortunate.

When the bill goes to committee, I would ask that the members pay very close attention to part 6 and all the provisions thereof.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we all know we have been asking the minister to introduce legislation that will allow Canada to fulfill its international commitments in the fight against terrorism for some time now.

It is therefore understandable that since the events of September 11 we have been looking forward to this bill on terrorism. Now that we have it, the question is whether or not it lives up to our expectations.

First, we can only applaud the fact that the minister has finally introduced legislation that truly outlaws activities that finance terrorism. Whether it be for organized crime or terrorists, money is the lifeblood of war.

By starving an organization of its sources of financing, we greatly reduce its striking power. Furthermore, by adding seizure and freezing of assets, we can begin to take seriously the government's claim that it wants to wage war against terrorists.

Unfortunately, from part 6 on, the bill contains, word for word, Bill C-16, the bill on funding charitable organizations. What we thought we could call the late lamented Bill C-16, has risen from the tomb. Apart from a few cosmetic changes, it is to be found in Bill C-36 almost in its entirety.

On April 30 I summarized Bill C-16 in the following terms: suspicion, discretionary power, enigmatic proof, and lack of control. Six months later, I have no choice but to reiterate these same comments about part 6 of this bill on terrorism.

We do not deny that it is appropriate to protect the integrity of the charities registration system by preventing their use as a cover for terrorist organizations. What we dispute is the way the government wants to go about achieving its ends.

This spring we criticized the fact that it went against too many principles of justice for it to pass royal assent. To let this happen would constitute a dangerous precedent in terms of the violation of procedural guarantees. However, yesterday the minister slipped the same bill, give or take a comma, under our nose. Worse yet, the inquisitional procedure established by Bill C-16 now applies to a body that wants its name removed from the list of organizations involved in terrorist activities.

Now under the bill before us the governor in council will be able to establish by regulation a list containing the name of any entity that might be associated with terrorist activities.

What does that mean, exactly? In both cases, the entity and the charity appear before a judge who can reach a decision from evidence submitted in camera and without the party or parties being present.

In even clearer terms, let us suppose that a charity loses its charitable status following the signing of a certificate by the solicitor general or the Minister of National Revenue. The organization will be allowed to ask the judge to quash the certificate. However, it is possible that the judge will base his decision on information that the organization will never have access to.

The same goes for a group that wants to see its name struck from the list of organizations associated with terrorist activities. That group will have to go before a judge, who will determine whether or not to remove the group's name from the list. However, this could take place without the applicant ever knowing why his name first appeared on such a list.

By violating such fundamental and elementary rules of evidence as the disclosure of evidence, the government is ignoring the contradictory nature of our judicial system. All the more worrisome is the fact that the evidence adduced will be based on information provided primarily by CSIS. Knowing the practices used by CSIS and its difficulties in striking a fair balance between national security and rights and freedoms, this might be cause for concern.

With such provisions, we can legitimately ask two questions. Either the information is not circulating between ministers or else the government has simply decided to turn a deaf ear to the representations made by countless witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance when it reviewed Bill C-16, which at the time was sponsored by the solicitor general.

Since it is hard to imagine that the Minister of Justice was not informed of what went on during the proceedings of that committee, the only plausible assumption is the second one. Considering all that went on with the young offenders bill, could this be a habit with the minister?

In the same vein, during the first sitting of the Standing Committee on Finance, which took place on May 16, the solicitor general and the Minister of National Revenue tried to explain to us why Bill C-16 did not include the definition of the term terrorist. The solicitor general said, and I quote:

If you are aware, the courts have indicated that it is not necessary to define terrorism.

He went on to say:

When you evaluate around the world to find an exact definition for terrorism, it is about impossible.

As for the Minister of National Revenue, he specified the following:

Merely coming up with a definition or defining parameters would basically, at the end of the line, end up taking away tools or options that we would like to have in this bill.

Yet, to cite just two examples, the U.K. terrorism act and the French penal code have successfully done what these two ministers felt was impossible at the time they were defending Bill C-16 before the committee. The British legislation reads as follows:

In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where:

The use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and,

The use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

As for the French penal code, terrorism is defined as follows:

Certain criminal offences are considered terrorism when the acts are intentionally linked to an individual or group whose purpose is to cause a serious disruption of public order through intimidation or terror.

This is followed by a list of the criminal offences considered acts of terrorism. I will spare members that, however. We can see that there has been a sort of attempt in Bill C-36 to define the terms terrorist activity, terrorist group and terrorism offence.

Considering that the term was virtually undefinable, according to the two ministers, one might well think that the Minister of Justice has done nothing to simplify things. Bill C-36, instead of providing a definition along the French or British lines that states right off what is involved forces us to constantly jump from one reference to another, and we have almost forgotten what we were looking for by the time we get to the end of the chain of searches. Fortunately the basic content is there, but the form needs more work. In actual fact, there is no definition of terrorism, just definitions for act, action or omission.

In addition, as we have been seeing for some time now, law enforcement officials are demanding a considerable increase in their powers, but must the powers of the various government bodies responsible for security be increased in order to mount an effective campaign against terrorism? Well might one wonder. In the October 6 issue of La Presse , journalist Yves Boisvert wrote:

Nothing useful will be accomplished without effective information services and an intelligent police community.

What constitutes an effective information service? One thing is certain, that is, it is certainly not by keeping tabs on groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the Anglican Church, the United Church and the Raging Grannies that we are going to dismantle a major terrorist network. Yet considering that some fifty or so organizations and approximately 350 individuals are already being watched closely by CSIS as part of its anti-terrorist program, there is no lack of genuine terrorist threats. We may therefore conclude that if the resources and energies were concentrated in the right place, part of the problem would resolve itself.

Furthermore, in order to be intelligent, must the police be authorized to commit criminal offences as provided for in the organized crime legislation? By placing above the law those who are supposed to enforce it, such measures can only succeed in institutionalizing crime within law enforcement agencies.

Must we also bend the rules of evidence in order to compensate for deficiencies or errors in a case before the courts? Since a police investigation can have a tremendous impact on an accused, the work of law enforcement officers must be guided by rules imposing maximum rigour.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the primary mission of police officials is to protect public safety. This is not some contest to make a maximum number of arrests leading to charges, particularly if these charges are the result of bungled investigations. Not only will the public not be better protected, but in fact it will be even more vulnerable to possible abuses of authority. This would be to replace one threat with another. If such guiding rules are limited, there is a good chance that corners will be cut.

Bill C-24 opened a door that will be very difficult to close and its long term impact could be catastrophic. By allowing a peace officer to detain a person following an arrest without a warrant, Bill C-36 just opens another door. If there are sceptics, just think of what happened during the October crisis with the War Measures Act: there were hundreds of arbitrary arrests and heavy handed searches without warrants, undoubtedly the worst case of abuse of power ever known in Quebec.

It is fine to introduce anti-terrorism legislation, but let us not forget that this is merely a legislative tool that cannot be effective in and of itself. The best legislation in the world is useless if there are not competent people with a good head to implement it and ensure compliance with it. This includes police authorities, intelligence services and customs officers.

In the case of customs officers, there is still a lot of work to do to change their approach, which remains much more focused on alcohol and cigarette purchases. I made a quick trip to the United States after the September 11 events and when I came back to the Canadian border, the only reflex of the customs officer was to ask me what I had bought that day.

This speaks volumes about the concerns of those who normally should be the first line of defence of our national security.

On the issue of possible abuse, the minister is also grabbing relatively extraordinary powers, since her bill gives the attorney general the authority to unilaterally suspend in a totally arbitrary fashion the application of the Access to Information Act, through powers usually reserved for the commissioner.

Once again, this type of political interference is a cause for concern, particularly since the government has been severely criticized recently, both here and elsewhere, for its policy of silence.

If we look at the amendments to the Firearms Act, we see that the governor in council can exempt any category of non-residents from the provisions of this bill.

According to information received yesterday morning from departmental staff, the amendments to the Firearms Act would apply solely to air marshals responsible for ensuring on board security on international flights.

If this is the objective the minister had in mind, it would be worth her while to say so clearly in her bill. Given the circumstances behind the creation of Bill C-36 and the government's policy of being reactive rather than proactive, we understand that this bill was drafted hastily. We hope, therefore, that we can count on the minister's co-operation when the time comes to propose the necessary amendments to fill in the gaps.

Given the urgency of the situation, the government must not be allowed to use the crisis situation as a pretext for sneaking its bill through. At any rate, the damage is already done, and the situation could hardly be worse, considering the state of psychosis that reigns just about everywhere

If we are to equip ourselves with such a significant tool, such a restrictive and invasive one as an anti-terrorist bill, then we might as well take the time required to make sure we have the best legislative framework possible. The committee stage must not be glossed over. We are certain that many people will want to be heard and we cannot afford to not take advantage of the valuable contribution of their expertise.

There is one more point we feel it is important to raise. At present, the bill specifies that a thorough examination of its provisions and application must be carried out within three years of its enactment. At this point, we feel it would be wise to reduce that three year deadline to one year.

Considering the fact that these are exceptional circumstances and that we are presently debating measures that are equally exceptional, we cannot afford to wait three years before reassessing this legislative framework that is taking us into uncharted territory. We must prevent any opportunities for mistakes and a shorter review period is the best way to make adjustments if the circumstances so require.

To close, as the Prime Minister so wisely stated, we must be vigilant and prudent in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

When it comes to mistakes of the past, we have no doubt that the Prime Minister knows what he is talking about, since he was a minister in the Trudeau cabinet during the October crisis of 1970.

There is no magic bullet when it comes to terrorism, as I have already said. At first glance Bill C-36 appears harsh and invasive. However, it would be inappropriate to remain passive in circumstances such as these.

Basically we will have to take the necessary time to ensure that this bill will allow us to fight terrorism effectively while minimizing the inconveniences to citizens.

In short, we must be sure that Bill C-36 will do more good than harm.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation among House leaders this morning. I want to thank the House leaders for their excellent co-operation for the following motion which I am now prepared to move to be adopted without debate. I move:

That Bill C-16 be withdrawn;

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice, immediately upon the adoption of this order, a minister of the crown shall table a Notice of Ways and Means motion, which shall immediately be deemed to have been concurred in, whereupon the House shall proceed immediately to the ordinary daily routine of business, except for introduction of private members' bills, presenting petitions and questions on the order paper, which shall be taken up at 3 p.m. this day;

That private members' business shall not be taken up this day, but the House shall proceed directly to government orders; and

That, at the ordinary time of daily adjournment this day, the House shall continue to sit and shall resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider a motion “That the committee take note of the international actions against terrorism”, provided that, during consideration thereof, (a) the Speaker may from time to time act as Chair of the committee, (b) the Chair of the committee shall not receive any quorum call or any motion except a motion “That the committee do now rise”, (c) after the first spokesperson for each party, no member may speak more than once or for more than ten minutes, (d) when no member rises to speak, the committee shall rise and (e) when the committee rises the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting day.

Supply

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, security experts around the world expressed concern about some charitable organizations financing terrorist groups.

I noticed today in an English language newspaper that leaders of these charitable organizations, here in Canada, are opposed to Bill C-16, which revokes the charitable status of organizations that finance terrorism.

I would like to hear from my hon. colleague opposite on this issue.

Terrorism

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we see laws on the books but we do not see laws in force.

In April we came to the House with Bill C-16 and we said that it was not a terrorist bill but we were called fear-mongers. The fact is that provincial governments prefer their plan much more than the federal plan that does not exist.

The national counterterrorism plan has not been agreed to by the provinces. It is still not clear if the federal plan would prevail in times of crisis. Provinces are putting together their own plans in the absence of a commitment from the solicitor general to national security.

Will the solicitor general immediately put an end to this leadership vacuum?

Committees of the House

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will continue acknowledging that this is an important issue for all citizens, for all people of the world. If we do not stand clearly for people in other nations who are suffering, then people in our own nation could suffer. We must stand together and clearly indicate the things that must be done to protect people everywhere and to grant safety and security.

We cannot assume in a post-cold war world that we are beyond security threats. We cannot assume that just because we are thousands of miles away from the smouldering religious and ethnic conflicts of the Middle East and Central Asia that these conflicts will not affect us. Some 40 to 60 Canadians have already been killed by a brutal act of mass murder that may well have been planned in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban regime.

Parliament must address, and address it now, the security challenges which we face at home and abroad and the measures which we must take both to punish the terrorists who launched the brutal attacks in New York and Washington and to protect Canadians against the threat of future terrorist attacks. We can no longer delay putting the safety and security of Canadians at the forefront of the political agenda.

In 1938 Winston Churchill published his foreign policy speeches. He was lamenting British indifference to Hitler's repression and military buildup. He entitled those speeches “While England Slept”. This is how Churchill described the policies of Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin at the time for his failure to act firmly in the face of Hitler's totalitarianism: “decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent”.

We cannot let this description stand as an epitaph for Canada which has proven itself unready to confront the challenge of terrorism. We have a history in the last century of being ready and willing and having the will to do so and that must continue in this century.

Unfortunately, in the two weeks since the horrific events in New York and Washington, the government has not been clear in terms of specific action to give us confidence that Canada is taking the war against terrorism seriously. The official opposition, our members of parliament, want to work with our Prime Minister and the government in the war against terrorism but we need something to work with. We need the specifics.

We have to consider what the government has done and what it has failed to do since the events of September 11. We need to consider its inaction in bringing in comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation. Other countries have it.

We need to consider the government's inaction in bringing forward safety and security measures to protect Canadians at the borders, at our airports and on airplanes. We heard again today the government absolutely ruling out air marshals on airplanes. It is time to restore consumer confidence in our airlines, yet almost without debate, something that could be positive was ruled out without discussion.

Let us consider the government's inaction in failing to commit more resources to the armed forces, to the RCMP, to CSIS and giving them a clear and broad mandate to act against terrorism, both at home and abroad.

Last Tuesday, one week after the terrorist attacks in the United States, the official opposition brought forward a motion which called upon the government to draft comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation, similar to what is found in other freedom-loving nations. In that resolution we called for the government to table anti-terrorism legislation forthwith similar in principle to the United Kingdom's terrorism act, 2000. We called for specific provisions to be included in such legislation, specific things, not just words, but action.

We called for the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada. We called for a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism. We called for a provision for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations.

Yesterday we had confirmation in the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance that some 27 organizations had their assets frozen, that action had been taken immediately. When we could not find evidence of that having taken place, we posed the question again today. Now we hear that possibly that was not done but the government will not tell us whether or not it was done.

As a matter of fact, two ministers are at odds with each other. The Minister of Finance is saying those assets were frozen immediately and the Minister of Justice does not know if they were and is not able to confirm that. We need immediate ratification of the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

We called for the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or inciting terrorist acts abroad from Canada.

We called for prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are capital offences. We have also called for detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations.

Those are pretty basic requests. The vast majority of Canadians stand shoulder to shoulder with us in making those requests. We were not requesting these things for political opportunism or advantage. We wanted to be flexible. We wanted to allow the government, and as many parties as possible, to embrace these proposals.

I moved an amendment to the resolution that would have allowed the government to table such legislation in draft form before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for its consideration. We were happy to have the government do that. We asked that it do that but even this was too much for the government. Instead it tried to propose that the committee simply discuss the concept of anti-terrorism legislation but was unable or unwilling to produce legislation itself even in draft form.

As I have said, we are trying to support the government and the Prime Minister but we need something specific to support. I find it hard to understand a week later what elements of our resolution the government found objectionable. It will not tell us; it will not tell anyone. Maybe it is reticent to name and ban specific terrorist groups that are known to operate in Canada.

In reply to questions from the official opposition on fundraising activities by a known front group for the Tamil Tigers, the solicitor general said in the House on June 2 last year under questioning by the member for Lakeland:

--it is important to note that CSIS does not provide a list of terrorist organizations and it does not provide a list of people or organizations that it is targeting.

The hon. solicitor general seemed to imply that the fact Canada does not name known terrorist organizations publicly was somehow a strength of Canadian law. That is not a strength. It is a weakness that needs to be strengthened.

Our friends and allies in the United States and the United Kingdom are ready and willing to name banned organizations. Many of these organizations are present in Canada as well.

We have named and gone through a list of these groups that have been named. We know them. There are also 27 organizations and individuals named on President Bush's list whose assets the United States have seized and frozen. Some of these groups are also operating in Canada, including al-Qaeda and other similar groups.

Why is the government so resistant to publishing an official list of proscribed organizations so that these kinds of terrorist groups can be publicly known? What is the problem with doing that?

We cannot get the answer from the government. Up until yesterday the Minister of Justice implied that she simply intended to follow the precedent of anti-gang legislation that would define criminal gangs. It is not simply defining them. It is naming them so that the public knows who they are. We have to name them. We have to prohibit membership in the organizations, named and known violent terrorist groups committed to the destruction of freedom and democracy.

In the view of the official opposition this would be a wholly inadequate response to the threat of international terrorism. Merely being a member of a group like al-Qaeda should be enough for police to take somebody into custody whether or not that person can be linked to specific crimes. The very purpose of al-Qaeda is murder and destruction. That is its stated purpose. If it is a restriction of freedom of association to ban such a group, it is most certainly a limitation which is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. It is a group that is committed to murder and destruction.

We are sensitive to and well concerned about freedom, freedom of association, freedom of speech. We still can hear ringing in our ears the warning of another century where it was made clear that any time people were willing to give up a freedom for security, there was a risk of losing both. But the extreme element of this, to not address the most extreme attacks on our freedoms, also puts us at the risk of losing both freedom and security.

Freedom of speech is something we fiercely defend, but a person cannot walk into a theatre and shout fire. It would be harmful to the innocent people there. There are limits and we are drawing those lines.

Yesterday in the House the Minister of Justice indicated that she was considering a system which would include a list of proscribed groups. We in the official opposition certainly hope that she does listen to our appeals in that regard, but again we ask the question, what is she waiting for?

Along with our call for naming terrorist groups, which seems to give the government pause, we are calling for a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism and provision for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations. The vast majority of Canadians are behind us on this issue.

Over the past few days the government has been extremely confusing on these points, as we have already indicated. On Monday the Prime Minister said in Washington that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions had already ordered the assets of bin Laden associates to be frozen in Canada the previous Friday. That is what the Prime Minister said. In fact all that had happened was that OSFI had sent a letter to financial institutions with the names of some of the dead hijackers and asked the banks to check to see if they had any bank accounts to assist the FBI with its investigation.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance indicated in the clearest of terms that if not on Friday, then at least yesterday they had in fact frozen the assets of bin Laden, al-Qaeda and all of the other terrorist groups, individuals and front organizations on President Bush's 27 name financial most wanted list. It is recorded clearly in Hansard . The finance minister said that those assets had been frozen. Today we find out that possibly that is not the situation, but we cannot get a clear answer.

Again, all that OSFI had done was send out an information circular containing the president's order and asked Canadian banks and financial institutions to co-operate in investigations. The only concrete measure that the government seems to have taken to seize and freeze assets is an order in council that was put in place back in February which implemented security council resolution 1333 and called for the Canadian assets of bin Laden himself, al-Qaeda and the Taliban to be frozen. That is the only action and that was back in February.

We certainly support that measure, but apparently not a single bin Laden or al-Qaeda dollar has been frozen in Canada since this measure was put in place in February. President Bush's list goes beyond just bin Laden and the Taliban. He targets 27 different groups and individuals, including the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines, the Groupe islamique armé of Algeria, and a number of other groups.

The United States wants to crack down on the financial sources of terrorism around the globe. Despite protestations from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, the government has not brought forward a single regulatory or legislative change since September 11 that will help fight the financial war against terrorism. That is unacceptable.

Perhaps the government does not want to ratify the international convention for the suppression of terrorist financing. It had two years to do so. We have been calling on the government to ratify that convention, but it is still in limbo.

We were beginning to assume the worst. The Prime Minister was asked in Washington whether Canada would ratify the convention. He replied that legislation was before the House and that the opposition was blocking it. That is not acceptable behaviour for a Prime Minister who is asking for co-operation. We in the official opposition are offering that co-operation. We are offering to the government to bring in legislation under its name and to take all the credit for it. Yet the Prime Minister says that we are opposing it, which is simply not the case.

There is no legislation currently before the House that gives effect to the international convention. The government admits that Bill C-16 is only a partial step and does not meet the standards of the convention itself. Bill C-16 takes away the tax breaks from terrorist groups but it does not ban fundraising.

When it is explained to Canadians what steps the government has taken to fight the war against terrorism, they are told the government is suggesting that if someone gives to a terrorist group that person would no longer get a tax break. That is unacceptable.

Two weeks after the tragedy in New York the government has not implemented the international convention for the suppression of terrorist financing despite the fact it has been in the government's in box for two years. Perhaps the government is unwilling to create specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or inciting terrorist acts abroad from Canada.

Our own Senate committee chaired by William Kelly stated in 1999 that Canada was a primary venue of opportunity to support, plan or mount terrorist attacks. There is a danger of terrorist attacks in Canada, but there is a greater danger of terrorist groups trying to conduct support activities or plan their attacks elsewhere, especially in the United States, from Canadian bases. That is a grave danger.

Anti-terrorism legislation should not simply ban terrorist fundraising but all kinds of terrorist support activities that may be undertaken in Canada. That would include training activities, recruiting and communications. Terrorist groups should not be permitted to use Canadian Internet web servers to promote their cause of destruction and murder. All of these kinds of support activities should be addressed by a new anti-terrorism bill.

The British legislation requires and creates new crimes for members of terrorist groups undertaking these kinds of support activities on British soil. Canada should do no less.

Perhaps the government objects to the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism even if the charges are capital offences in the country where they were committed. Anti-terrorism legislation must change our laws regarding the extradition of suspected terrorists.

Terrorism knows no borders, so we cannot let Canada become a safe haven for those who would rely on the humanitarian compassion of Canadian laws to avoid justice in their own countries or the countries where they have committed their murderous crimes.

If a government like the United States seeks people accused of terrorism in Canada and we are convinced that there is reasonable evidence, we should turn them over regardless of the fact that they may face a penalty there that would not apply here. This would require a change in Canadian law to send a signal to terrorists that they cannot take advantage of Canada to avoid facing justice for their crimes in other countries.

One can imagine the outrage if one of the perpetrators of those awful acts in New York City or Washington, maybe even the criminal mastermind who so carefully co-ordinated the flight schedules of the terrorists, found his way to Canada and we found ourselves, as we would today, unable to extradite such a person to the United States to face justice.

Canadian law must address this possibility now. It is a very real possibility that those suspected of these horrendous crimes could be headed for, if not already having crossed, the Canadian border.

Some may say that is a hypothetical possibility. A Yemeni national whose flight to the U.S. was diverted to Toronto is currently being held for possessing false passports. He had Lufthansa uniforms in his possession even though he was not an airline employee. This person may have been involved in the planning of the atrocities that took place in the United States and may be charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Thanks to the U.S. supreme court decision concerning Burns and Rafay it is doubtful whether the government could extradite that person to face the consequences of the murderous actions in the United States. Most Canadians will not stand for that.

The government may have objected to our call for the detention and deportation to their country of origin of failed refugee claimants or others illegally in Canada who have been linked to terrorist organizations. Canada has a wonderful reputation for having open arms and an open heart to those people truly seeking safety and wanting to pursue their hopes and dreams in a nation that promotes freedom and democracy.

That is a reputation we richly have and deserve. We also have a reputation for being a haven to people of evil intent who are opposed to freedom and democracy, who do not mind the thoughts of planning mass destruction and murder. That is a reputation we need to shed and we can only do it with clear options.

Ahmed Ressam failed his refugee claim. He was under investigation by CSIS and he was arrested for theft in Montreal. Yet he could not be deported. Why? It is because Canada does not deport people to Algeria. This ridiculous policy means that Canada could become a haven for terrorists from any country whose legal systems are not perfect reflections of the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

This has to change because it is absurd. Somebody illegally in Canada from a country like Egypt, Turkey or Saudi Arabia, who has broken our laws, who has been linked to terrorism, who has possibly murdered our citizens, may be able to stay in this country with impunity and only asked to check in at an Immigration Canada office once or twice a month.

Nabil Al-Marabh, a failed refugee claimant, arrested for trying to enter the United States on a false passport was released by the Immigration and Refugee Board on July 11. He has since been arrested in Chicago as a possible suspect in the World Trade Center attacks. He should have been detained or deported to his country of origin and not allowed to roam free on the streets of Toronto and perhaps free to plan the horror that took place on the streets of New York City.

These were the common sense anti-terrorist policies rejected by the government when it rejected the Canadian Alliance motion on anti-terrorism legislation. Now the government, belatedly, is talking about bringing forward legislation of its own.

We are telling the government today that our motion is the standard to which we will hold it accountable. We hope that the government has the courage to swallow its pride and bring forward legislation that will satisfy all six of our provisions and satisfy what the majority of Canadians want to see. We want to give whole support to the government at this time in the war against terrorism, but the government needs to give us something to support.

Anti-terrorism legislation is just one part of an effective war on terrorism. We also need measures to increase the security of our borders, to improve safety in our airports and on our airplanes, and to ensure that our cities have effective emergency preparedness plans and that vital facilities like nuclear plants are safe.

We have seen little action on safety and security in the last two weeks from the government. We have seen the Minister of Transport move to order cockpit doors locked on airplanes and apparently airlines are replacing metal with plastic cutlery although we have not seen that happen yet.

However we have not seen the kinds of safety and security measures that Canadians are looking for. There is no government money for improved baggage screening. There is no provision for increased RCMP, customs and immigration enforcement presence at our airports.

Many Canadians are reeling over the layoffs at Air Canada. However, before the government rushes in with financial aid we should first look at where it has clear responsibility to act quickly to protect the safety and security of our airports and airlines. Let us restore consumer confidence in the airlines so that once again Canadians will fly with a sense of security in our skies. If we are to put taxpayer dollars to work, let us put them to work in security first.

Instead we have seen a complete rejection of the idea of air marshals despite the fact that El Al, the safest airline in the world, has had them for 30 years and despite the fact that the United States is now implementing them. What is the problem with air marshals on airplanes? It is one of the things that Canadians would like to see. If the government wants to increase the confidence of the flying public, providing air marshals would be one of the strongest confidence building measures it could take.

We need to protect the integrity of our border with the United States. Despite the Prime Minister's assurance that Americans had no concerns about the Canadian border, United States Attorney General John Ashcroft stated yesterday that the Canada-U.S. border “has become a transit point for several individuals involved in terrorism”.

Attorney General Ashcroft announced that enforcement on the Canadian border would be beefed up, a sentiment that may send chills up the spines of Canadians in places like Windsor and from coast to coast where a total of some $2 billion in trade flows each and every day.

If we want to avoid a crackdown in Canada on the U.S.-Canada border that would hurt Canada, we must do our best to show that we take the security of Canada and the United States seriously.

This is an issue of personal safety and security and of economic safety and security. In a time of uncertainty in the markets we need to send certain signals of security so that the markets will respond accordingly.

We have to consider creating a more effective border control and taking such measures as arming Canada customs guards with sidearms for the performance of their duties. Part of this is ensuring that we have identification systems that are not open to abuse.

We have seen how easy it was for Ahmed Ressam to obtain a Canadian passport with only a forged baptismal certificate. We know from Immigration Canada's own documents that the IMM 1000 permanent residence document is easily forged and frequently sold on the black market, but the government does not plan to bring in new security ID cards until 2003. We cannot wait; terrorists will not be waiting.

In the United States, next to the efforts to create an international coalition to fight terrorism, the most dramatic response has been to create a new office of homeland security under former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. He will be responsible to integrate the different domestic security and safety agencies that are operative in the United States.

We need to talk about this. We need a discussion to see if efficiency and reaction times to protect our citizens can be improved. We need to discuss how that might happen.

We are not saying this is the answer. We are not saying it is an answer. However we need to have at least a discussion to consider the possibilities. What is prominent in our minds is the safety and security of all Canadians. That issue should be foremost. It should get full consideration.

Finally I will return to where I began: Canada's international role in fighting the war against terrorism. There is much Canada could do at the international level, both diplomatically and as a provider of humanitarian aid, to improve the human condition and alleviate the excruciating pain of refugees and people in wartorn countries.

We must see that we do all we can. This should be a key focus, but it should be done without taking our eyes off the goal of doing all we can to fight terrorism.

Unlike the United Kingdom, Canada cannot be relied on to make a significant military contribution to a potential campaign against the Taliban or other possible state sponsors of terrorism. I want to say clearly that this is no fault of the brave, committed, courageous and dedicated people of our armed forces. They are committed to freedom and safety and to protecting it at any cost. We appreciate and respect that. We want them to be supported and given the resources to be able to do the job.

As we lose our ability to fulfill our international military commitments to our allies because of a lack of resources, our international diplomatic clout with our allies and others will decline accordingly. It has been doing that.

Britain has already provided troops to the U.S. led coalition. British SAS forces may already be engaged in action against the Taliban in the mountains of Afghanistan. As a consequence the United Kingdom is taking the war on terrorism seriously. The British foreign secretary is visiting the Middle East and taking the initiative in firming up the coalition. Prime Minister Blair was invited to take a position of honour at President Bush's speech during which Blair accepted the president's compliment that the United States had no truer friend than Great Britain.

Britain's role on the world stage in this crisis is significant and secure because Britain is ready and willing to commit the resources necessary to make an important contribution to the war against terrorism.

Canada's ability to make a contribution is seriously in question. Under the terms of the 1994 defence white paper Canada is pledged to make certain military commitments to its allies.

In a crisis we are in a serious position. The 1994 document commits the Canadian forces to deploying overseas one brigade, which is approximately 5,000 troops; one battalion group, which is approximately 1,000 troops; and to do so within 90 days. The vanguard elements of the force must deploy within 21 days.

The white paper also says that Canada must be able to deploy one CF-18 fighter wing with at least two squadrons of 12 to 24 aircraft each; a naval task force consisting of four to six destroyers and frigates, one to two submarines and one support ship; an Aurora land based maritime patrol aircraft; and a supporting transport squadron with C-130 transport aircraft.

Almost every external expert on Canadian defence policy is highly doubtful about whether we can deliver on any of these commitments. It is not due to lack of desire. It is due to a lack of resources from the government to equip our troops to be there when needed.

I want Canada to make an effective contribution to fight this war. However there is an obligation to point out some of the serious shortcomings facing the men and women who serve in our armed forces. I will address some of the concerns about Canadian commitments.

As I have said, we are pledged to provide one fighter wing of between 24 and 48 aircraft to our allies. During the war in Kosovo, Canada deployed one reinforced CF-18 fighter squadron of 18 aircraft. This constituted a maximum commitment involving nearly all our combat ready CF-18 pilots. Unfortunately many of these pilots have since left the air force. We ran out of precision guided munitions or smart bombs and had to secure emergency supplies from our allies. We did not have a strategic refuelling tanker aircraft to support fighter deployments.

Much of the army's major equipment, such as Leopard C1 tanks and M113 armoured personnel carriers, is antiquated. The government will claim some of the equipment has been modernized. However the so-called modernization was criticized as inadequate by the auditor general's April 1998 report.

In other areas the army has no capability at all. It has no attack or heavy lift helicopters. For an army that stresses mobility this is surprising and saddening. Our inability to deploy ground troops overseas is poor. During Kosovo it took two months to deploy 800 ground troops to the region.

In an article in the Canadian Military Journal in the spring of 2000 the commander of task force Kosovo, Colonel Michael Ward, described the airlift for that deployment as a near catastrophe. That description came from one of our committed and dedicated colonels involved in the task force.

Our claim to be able to deploy ground units within the timeframe suggested by the white paper is dubious and for several reasons.

First, the army has not exercised at the brigade level for nine years. DND admits that if it deployed a brigade it could not sustain it for longer than six months. DND says deployment timeframes of 21 or 90 days are needed to assemble a formation and make it ready to move to the point of embarkation. Actual deployment and training in theatre would take additional time.

Second, our air and sea transport is in bad shape. Our air force has no heavy lift aircraft. It must rely on our allies, or incredibly it must rent aircraft. Nineteen of our thirty-two C-130 transports are about 35 years old and badly in need of replacement. The navy has only two support ships which must be used either to transport troops or to refuel and rearm ships at sea. Using the ships for one task means they would be unavailable for the other.

Third, the United States has quietly informed Canada that it will not accept a commitment of less than a brigade within its operational space for ground combat operations. A brigade sized unit is seen as the minimum because smaller units are not self-sufficient fighting formations.

Fourth, while our navy is probably in the best shape of all our forces even it has problems. The navy could probably assemble the task group it is committed to provide. However at present one of its four destroyers and seven of its twelve frigates are at reduced readiness. That means it would take some time to ready them for deployment.

The navy is short about 400 highly skilled technical personnel. This will make activating ships very difficult. In addition, not all our new submarines ordered from Britain have yet been delivered. The 35 year old Sea King helicopters are in terrible shape, as I mentioned earlier. They are often unable to get airborne due to breakdowns.

Why are our armed forces in such desperate shape? It is because between 1993 and 1999 the Liberals cut the defence budget by 30% in real terms. We are tired of hearing about a little bump upward here and a little bump upward there. It does not compensate for a 30% reduction in real terms since 1993.

Over the past 10 years the total number of military personnel numbers has fallen from about 90,000 to less than 58,000. That is a 35% drop. While the government claims the forces are more combat capable than they were 10 years ago, the facts tell another story. Some new equipment is beginning to arrive but it is not sufficient in and of itself to restore capability.

A parade of former officers, the Conference of Defence Associations, the Royal Canadian Military Institute and the auditor general have raised similar concerns about the combat capabilities of the Canadian forces.

The government put new money into defence in the year 2000, a move it constantly trumpets as a great success. However it has been assessed by many independent experts as insufficient to address the broader crisis, and it is a crisis, in the Canadian forces. Very little of the increase will go to equipment. Most of it will make up for shortfalls in the operational budget.

The auditor general has identified a potential funding shortfall in the equipment budget of $30 billion up to and including the year 2012. If Canada is to be taken seriously in the international war against terrorism we must act at once to rebuild our military. We must be capable of meeting our commitments in the white paper of 1994. We must take this matter seriously because we are no longer at peace. We are at war with terrorism.

As I said to the House last week, the war on terrorism is not what William James called “The Moral Equivalent of War”, the periodic moral and social campaigns against collective problems like the so-called war on drugs or the war on poverty. This is a real war and it will be fought, at least in part, with ships, artillery and airplanes.

The Minister of National Defence has emphasized that this will not be a conventional war, or perhaps not in whole. As we have said, the war against terrorism will be waged on a lot of fronts. It will involve intelligence work, law enforcement, domestic safety, security, diplomatic initiatives and humanitarian aid. However conventional warfare will undoubtedly be involved.

For 50 years NATO has existed as a purely defensive military alliance, possibly the most successful military alliance in modern history. NATO has never needed to intervene to protect one of its members from external attack because it seemed unthinkable that any aggressor would attack a country protected by the umbrella of the alliance.

All that changed on Tuesday, September 11, when an enemy attacked the largest city of the most powerful member of the NATO alliance. All that changed on September 11, when 6,000 innocent civilians were brutally murdered by fire from the sky.

On Wednesday, September 12, for the first time in its history NATO invoked its fundamental principle, article 5 of the NATO charter, which states that an attack on one is an attack on all.

This is the time to stand by our friends, our allies and especially our neighbour to the south. We must leave no doubt whatsoever as to our commitment to them and to NATO. We have neither seen or heard from the Liberal government the same clear level of support offered by the government of the United Kingdom or even the government of Australia.

As I have said before, there are no rear guard positions in the war on terrorism. There are only frontlines. That is exactly where Canada should be. We should be standing shoulder to shoulder with other democratic nations that believe in, support and cherish freedom and democracy as much as we do.

I will reiterate our obligation under article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Article 5 in part states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them...shall be considered an attack against them all and...if such an armed attack occurs, each of them...will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith...such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force--

We are morally obliged to offer all assistance possible within our capabilities, up to and including military assistance, to the United States and our NATO allies if requested.

We must all stand together in a great coalition against this darkness and this evil of terrorism. But, if we are to do our share, as we hope the Prime Minister will commit to doing, we must rapidly rebuild our forces and make sure that procurement is improved.

We want peace, make no mistake about that, but we must remember that the best way of ensuring peace is to have a strong and committed Canadian forces.

In all the areas I have outlined, comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation, measures to increase the safety and security of Canadians, a clear commitment to strengthen national defence and to a Canadian military war against terrorism, and humanitarian aid, the government has fallen down.

As we face future threats of terrorism, whether they originate from Osama bin Laden and his allies and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, we will need to move swiftly and resolutely on all these fronts.

What we have seen over the last two weeks in terms of specific action, not glowing words or rambling rhetoric, has not been encouraging. We have seen a government that is relying too much on rhetoric and tiny baby steps, never doing by halves what it can do by quarters.

We want to support the government and the Prime Minister but we need something specific to support.

I have taken the time this afternoon to lay out our concerns in detail and to convey the seriousness with which the official opposition is taking in this war on terrorism. We also believe absolutely that we are reflecting the concerns of a majority of our citizens. We know that in a time of war the opposition has a special duty to support the Prime Minister and the government as far as conscience allows.

I have to say that immediately upon seeing, watching and hearing about these evil attacks on New York City, I was immediately in communication with our Prime Minister, immediately saying that we would be there to support, to stand side by side and to be with the government.

I have indicated a number of times in the last several days that we want to support. A number of times I have stood in the House and outside the House and, even for the small things the government has done, I have expressed appreciation to the Prime Minister. I have thanked the Prime Minister. I have said that we will support the Prime Minister. I have said those things many times.

All of us have watched with some dismay at the difference in response from the leader of the government as we watched where time and again in the United States the president of the United States takes the initiative, reaches out to members of the opposition, members of the senate majority and minority parties, and includes them in discussion on legislation, in discussion on what needs to be done. He even includes them in the memorial services.

We have seen nothing, not one of those things, from the Prime Minister or the government, and yet we continue to stand here and say that we want to support the Prime Minister and the government. We must give Canadians something specific to support in the war against terrorism.

Terrorism

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

That is not an action, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister surprised opposition members yesterday when he told reporters in Washington that we were blocking legislation currently before the House that would ratify the international convention on terrorist financing. In fact, last week the government voted against the Canadian Alliance when we moved to ratify the convention.

Bill C-16 does not ban terrorist fundraising. It only takes away their tax receipts. To which bill currently before the House is the Prime Minister referring? Which bill will fulfill Canada's commitments under the international convention? Which bill was the Prime Minister talking about?

Canada-U.S. Meeting

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it is with sadness but hope that I participate in this special debate this evening, as parliamentarians from all parties continue to express their sympathy, empathy and support for our friends and neighbours in the United States of America in the wake of the tragedy of September 11.

This debate is being undertaken to assist our Prime Minister as he prepares to meet U.S. President Bush next Monday and as the world readies its response to the terrible terrorist attack on thousands of innocent victims in New York City and Washington, D.C. I would point out that this debate is a result of the government implementing even better measures than past governments allowed for members of parliament from all parties, whatever level of the bench, to participate actively in assisting government to devise appropriate policies as we move forward.

I expressed shock for and support of the constituents of my riding of Algoma--Manitoulin who can hardly believe the events that have unfolded before our very eyes. We also pay tribute to the firemen, police and other rescue workers who have worked tirelessly to find those who may have survived these tragic events. We can hardly count the loss of family, friends and work mates. Shock waves will be felt for years to come.

I must admit to a great sense of pride, having seen the outpouring of pity and support for stranded travellers who landed at different airports in Canada, to those who have participated in the numerous memorials, particularly the wonderful and very spiritual ceremony on Parliament Hill last Friday, to those who have given blood or money.

I would like to point out that there was a very nice letter from a former CFL player, J.C. Watts, who is now a U.S. congressman. In his letter he thanked Canada for its support at this very difficult time. I recommend this letter to the editor in the September 17 issue of the Globe and Mail .

I also want to acknowledge the calls and e-mails from constituents who have expressed a variety of views but certainly a consistent view of support for our American friends and neighbours. I thank Susan Hare, Art Blackledge, Keith Hobach, Wayne Van Sickle, Larry Killins, Dean Anderson, Sandra Saxson, Robyn Kaufman and many others for taking the time to contact me and to help me and all of us come to the best solution at this difficult time.

Our task tonight is to try to imagine the Prime Minister in his meeting next Monday with U.S. President Bush and his closest advisors. I am certain, after expressing again the empathy, sorrow and grief of Canadians, that he will want to get on to the very important business of what do we do next? I suspect he will consider very seriously ideas and comments such as follows.

First, that Canada as a full NATO partner, recognizes that an act against one of our partners is an act against ourselves. It is an act against all those who hold democracy and freedom among mankind's loftiest goals. The Prime Minister might consider and I am sure he will exhort President Bush to continue to take the necessary time to fully understand, as much as possible, the challenge ahead.

We all want to eradicate terrorism from the world. It has been with us a long time. The solutions will take a long time.

This is clearly not a traditional war with agreements, protocols and conventions. It is a war with no rules. It is a war with an unnamed and unknown, and where do we find such an enemy? As one U.S. official said “this is a marathon not a sprint”.

The Prime Minister might also want to exhort President Bush to resist the temptation to see this war against terrorism as an act needing revenge. Nor should this war be seen as a battle between good and evil. Nor should this war be seen as a battle among religions.

We all know that the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and those of all faiths, believe in reaching their higher goals through peaceful means. It is only the extremists, the few in all societies sadly, who wish to impose their self-centered, selfish and greedy views on others.

I see terrorists, like criminals everywhere or like biker gangs or drug lords, as those who profit from destabilizing society. I see them more like a disease. We must use measures that are unusual but effective, for in their attempts to diminish law and order, they increase their control in profit. Decent people everywhere loathe such behaviour, regardless of race, colour, creed and religion.

The Prime Minister will no doubt say that Canada is prepared to stand “shoulder to shoulder with our U.S. neighbours and friends”. The free world must act decisively and firmly together to reduce or indeed eliminate the threat of terrorism everywhere, not just here at home.

In offering Canada's military strength, a military of which we are very proud, we recognize that the traditional big gun approach will not likely work. This is a time for precise, well-considered, multilateral action that is both firm, forceful and accurate.

I caution the unnecessary creation of martyrs among the terrorist leaders, which may not serve us well over the long term.

I would like to point out for my opposition friends, particularly the previous speaker, that Canada has taken much action already, action started long before the tragic events of last week, actions such as signing all 12 of the UN counter terrorism conventions and actions such as allocating $1.5 billion in the year 2000 budget for the RCMP, CSIS and other departments related to public safety.

The government introduced Bill C-16 weeks ago, which deals with charitable organization registration and money being flowed to terrorist groups. This bill would put an end to it.

I could go on about other measures taken by the government.

I would like to come to the end of my remarks by asking whether, in offering Canada's full support to whatever extent all of NATO and our U.S. neighbours in particular require, we should also look at this as an opportunity that within this cloud there is a silver lining to find a degree of global co-operation and co-ordination, which we have never reached, and that, in taking a little extra time to get it right, this might lead to international co-operation on scourges beyond terrorism, scourges such as poverty, disease, pollution and others.

When all is said and done, I believe Canada needs to be there with its counter-intelligence, expertise, military resources, diplomatic resources, humanitarian resources and whatever we can offer, all the while remaining fully sovereign when it comes to making decisions that affect our security and our people. Canada has and will continue to be a beacon of light in the world, a beacon of peace but one prepared as a nation to act.

God bless the world.

Supply

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my remarks to one narrow aspect of the motion before us and that is the part of the motion that calls on anti-terrorism legislation that should specifically ban fundraising for the purposes of supporting terrorism anywhere in the world. It is all very well to pass legislation like that but if there is not the ability to actually implement a ban like that then it falls far short of what is desired.

Mr. Speaker, you of all people will remember that for many years now I have been an active campaigner for the reform of Canada's charity legislation and regulations. You will know and remember, Mr. Speaker, that I did two reports in which I examined some 500 charities. I examined their financial information returns, compared them to the published financial statements that they put out and kept track of them in a general fashion.

Mr. Speaker, you will also remember that what I found was that Canada's $90 billion charity industry runs essentially without any kind of legislative oversight whatsoever. In other words, the money is being raised by big charities and small charities across the land and is being spent and no one knows how it is being raised or where it is being spent.

I am the first to say that there are many very good charities but the reality is Canada has become notorious worldwide for the ease with which a terrorist organizations and groups engaged in ethnic conflicts in various parts of the world use Canada's absence of meaningful not for profit legislation in order to raise money here in Canada and transfer those funds to support these conflicts abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I know you will find this hard to believe and many of the members in the House will probably be surprised to hear this, but the reality is that there are only guidelines for charities in Canadian federal legislation. There are no actual standards of financial reporting. There are no standards of corporate governance and we have a situation where a charity can raise a million dollars or so. A small charity with some ethnic ties abroad can raise this money and there is no mechanism at all for the federal government to determine how that money was raised because there is no requirement to keep receipts. The money can then be disbursed by third parties. It literally can be transferred out of the country and spent by a third party in ways that we will never know.

This is obviously an invitation to all kinds of abuse. This is not the time, in this particular sensitive time, to actually name the type of organizations or name the specific organizations that I have encountered that are engaged in very unusual activities.

However, let me give the House an example of what I discovered. I discovered, for example, a very large and well known charity that engages in overseas community project development which was receiving millions of dollars a year from the Canadian government to further these developments in third world countries abroad. When I attempted to get from the charity the names of these organizations, I could get brochures and beautiful pictures and all those kinds of thing, but the charity was never able to supply me with the names of the organizations, the addresses or the telephone numbers. In this particular case it was in India where it was actually operating. The irony was that in this particular instance the Canadian International Development Agency actually sent a team abroad to look at this particular development. They looked at it and made a report but two years later, even though it was still receiving money, there was no trace of it. We have to ask ourselves what this charity was doing with the money that it was actually receiving from the Government of Canada?

In another instance I found a charity that was not an ethnic charity at all. It was engaged in a certain activity abroad that was regarded in the public interest. I will not say what that activity was but it involved officials from the charity leaving Canada and going to various countries, generally in the Middle East. An audit was done on that charity by CIDA and it was found that the charity officials were carrying tens of thousands of dollars in cash by airplane to the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I just leave it to your imagination what an organization, what individuals would possibly be doing bringing cash into the Middle East when I would point out to you that the Middle East is not the end of the world. It is possible to have proper electronic transfers of money to this part of the world so you have to ask yourself what is going on.

The numbers of instances of this kind of thing are, I am sorry to say, legion. I do not like to suggest even for a moment that all charities are engaged in this kind of thing but the reality is that we as a country, indeed we as a federal government, have failed absolutely in our responsibility to Canadians and our responsibility to ethnic Canadians, those people who have settled in Canada and taken out Canadian citizenship or just settled in Canada. Our responsibility to them is to guarantee that they are not subject to pressure from their homelands to finance conflicts that still exist in their homelands. This is not just a question about whether money is being raised in this country to finance terrorism abroad, it is a question of whether money is being raised in this country to finance the ethnic conflicts in the various homelands.

I have made many representations to government on this. About two years ago it did appear that cabinet was prepared to look at the not for profit sector and bring in some legislation and some rules that particularly pertain to the transparency in their financial dealings. I regret to say that because of, I think, a very strong lobby from the very large charitable organizations and the charity leadership in this country, the government backed off. I think the argument was that the charity industry, even though it is a very large industry, was not willing to accept the red tape that comes from keeping good financial books.

I should say in passing that under Canadian legislation a charity, no matter how large or how small, does not require a proper auditor to do its books. Basically anyone can do the books of a charity. The only reporting a charity is required to do is a financial information return to Revenue Canada. There is no law on the books that even requires the charity to fill out the lines.

The official opposition raised the point that the legislation that was introduced, Bill C-16, was designed to lift the charitable registration status of organizations that are suspected by the security services of raising money for illegal activities abroad. What I must point out is that this falls completely short of actually solving the problem or even coming close to answering the problem.

The reality is that because of the Access to Information Act we cannot see even the non-profit organizations' financial statements to government. In other words, the world police organizations have recognized that because of Canada's open or lack of legislation with respect to charities, we are the most backward of all nations with respect to legislation on charities. Because of that, we are a favoured nation for raising funds, not only for terrorism but for ethnic conflicts and, I fear, even for organized crime.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is also with a heavy heart that I address the House today. As many of my colleagues have already said, it is difficult to put into words the immense sorrow that has been caused due to the terrorist attacks carried out on the United States one week ago.

I wish to express my deepest condolences on behalf of myself, my family and the constituents of Surrey North to all the victims and their families and indeed to all the people of the United States.

At about 6:30 last Tuesday morning the phone rang at my home in Surrey, British Columbia. My wife answered it and it was my daughter calling from Vancouver. She had just turned on her radio and heard something about an aircraft crashing into the World Trade Center in New York.

I turned on the TV and sat there stunned at what I was seeing, columns of thick black smoke billowing from those two monoliths. Then came the video replays of the second aircraft smashing into the south tower.

Those of us who commute from the west coast do so on Boeing 767s more often than not. When I boarded flight 1138 on Sunday morning I realized that I would never look at a 767 in quite the same way again.

As the live coverage continued the north tower collapsed. I thought about the people trapped in that terrifying death plunge. My stomach knotted and I went numb.

There is only one time in my life that I can recall feeling what I was feeling during that brief moment which seemed like an eternity. That was nine years ago one month from today in a hospital emergency room when we were told that they were unable to resuscitate our son who had been stabbed. I never thought I could feel like that again, but that moment last Tuesday brought me as close as I ever want to get.

At some point during the following few minutes I came to another frightening realization. I had been so caught up in watching events unfold on television that I completely lost sight of the fact that my sister worked in Manhattan. About a very anxious hour later, just as I was leaving home for my office, the phone rang again. Thankfully it was my niece in Toronto calling to say that her mother, my sister, had managed to get a call out to let everybody know that she was all right.

I spoke with my sister on Tuesday evening. Her office is about a half hour's walk from ground zero. I spoke with her again the night before last and she told me that a relative of one of her co-workers was missing in the rubble. I went to the office and I suspect like most Canadians I was glued to the television for the rest of the day.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. The loss felt is very deep and personal to each and every one of us. Included among the casualties are several Canadians. As an elected member of parliament I offer my sincere condolences to those Canadian families directly affected by this senseless act of war.

I express my gratitude and pay tribute to the thousands of Canadians who have offered their help in the wake of the tragedy, from those who have given blood, to the rescue workers, doctors, nurses and emergency personnel that have aided in the rescue effort.

I want to mention members of the Vancouver urban search and rescue team. They finally received authorization to deploy to New York and were ready to go. My understanding is that there were two Canadian Forces C-130s in the air on the way to pick them up when for whatever reason U.S. authorities changed their minds and told them that they were not required. When I spoke with one of the team members I could sense the frustration and disappointment of not being able to go and help.

What is most troubling to me is that these were not simply acts of terrorism carried out against an individual nation. The attacks on the United States last week were an open declaration of war on all democracies worldwide. I would like to take a moment in the House, a symbol of Canadian freedom and democracy, to add my support to the government in taking resolute action against terrorism.

I take this opportunity to call on the Government of Canada and all Canadians to take action and lend whatever support and resources are necessary to eradicate terrorism and those who would threaten our free and democratic way of life.

As Canada's elected representatives we must ask many painful questions, not for political purposes but to ensure that everything is done to prevent such horrific tragedies as we have seen recently in the United States.

We must do this to send a signal around the world that Canadians are protectors of peace, freedom and democracy and that we will join the free world to help in relentlessly hunting down those who so viciously and in a cowardly way attack those foundations of the free world.

Some of the questions we need to ask are these. What will we need to do provide greater security at our borders and airports? How can we change our laws to prevent foreign terrorists from entering and living in Canada or using it as a fundraising centre? How much capacity do we have to offer Canadian military assistance to the United States and our NATO allies in forming an international coalition against terrorism and its sponsors?

At a very minimum I would urge the government to bring in long delayed anti-terrorism legislation in a manner that reflects the seriousness of the current situation.

A few years ago, a constituent of mine, Mr. Tara Singh Hayer, a respected Sikh newspaper publisher, was murdered in his driveway. A few years before that he had been shot at and was paralyzed. The most recent crime, his murder, remains unsolved, but extremists are implicated.

His daughter Rupinder spearheaded a 12,000 name petition in the Indo-Canadian community, calling on the government to tighten immigration laws and hunt down and deport terrorists hiding in Canada. To date nothing has been done.

Last year members of the Sri Lankan community in my constituency visited me. They were extremely critical of Bill C-16 in that it does not go anywhere near far enough to curb terrorism. They want support of terrorism to be made a crime. I have also had individuals from the Indo-Canadian community in my office who were extremely critical of Canada's immigration and refugee policies. These are members of the immigrant community themselves.

I am also compelled to speak of the need to stay united and focused against the enemy, those people who threaten our way of life through acts of terrorism.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

I feel it is necessary to remind all Canadians of the charter because at times like this some, and I repeat, some find it easy to feel anger against certain elements of our population. Let us not forget the lessons of the past when Japanese Canadians were detained and denied the freedoms outlined in the charter even though thousands of Canadians died during World War II to ensure that freedom and democracy could exist and that the charter could indeed be written and exercised in Canada.

This is why I am encouraging all Canadians to come together as a nation no matter what faith or religion they come from. We are Canadians first.

The reports of Muslim Canadians being harassed and made the targets of hate makes me sick. It is hard to believe that anyone could attribute the acts of barbarism carried out in the United States to any one particular faith. The perpetrators of these crimes are simply evil people who hide behind their religion as an excuse to perpetuate their evil.

To say the Muslim faith is responsible would be like saying that because Timothy McVeigh was a Christian all Christians were responsible for the bombing in Oklahoma City. I hope that all Canadians and people of the free world can appreciate this point and find tolerance in their hearts to work together. We must work together in order to eradicate our true enemy, those people who use terrorist tactics to take away our fundamental rights and freedoms.

In conclusion I can only reiterate the sentiment that has been expressed over and over: that speaking as one who understands the violent loss of a loved one, my thoughts and prayers are first and foremost with the victims and the families of these horrendous acts; that our resolve to wipe out terrorism has never been stronger; and finally, that as a strong nation united with our allies that uphold the cherished principles of freedom, democracy and justice, we can and will prevail against any evil that may try to take away from us our way of life.

Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very moved by the comments of the member from the Canadian Alliance. She made some very good ones. I was very interested in listening to all the speeches, but I have to express myself and offer my comments as well.

I have listened to this entire debate while following what has been going on in the United States of America. When this barbaric act unfolded it was not republicans versus democrats. It was not a political issue. As much as I am encouraged and moved by some of the stories I am hearing, I certainly do not want to see it politicized.

I will explain what I am referring to. The member made a comment that nothing was being done. That is unfair because Canada did sign the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. Bill C-16 exists and we owe it to Canadians to make clear at least that Bill C-16 addresses that issue directly.

It is also very important to indicate that $1.5 billion in additional moneys was added. I am reaching out to the members of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party, urging them that we do not politicize this system but that we put our heads together and move forward on it.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby--Douglas did not really ask me a question but he did make a comment or two. He expressed concerns that I share.

Here again, the nature of the motion before us is to adopt in principle the legislation in the U.K. about which there are obviously many concerns without the committee having the opportunity to study it. There may be merit to some aspects of that legislation but there are obviously very real concerns about that legislation.

One of the things that concerns us throughout this debate, and not only on this issue but on the debate on Bill C-16 and others is, what is a terrorist? We know that there are people who have been regarded as terrorists by their national governments but have not been regarded as terrorists by the international community.

In anything that we do, there is a strong need to indicate the need for a definition of terrorism that does not include people like Nelson Mandela and others who may be engaged in legitimate forms of struggle against racism and oppression. That need certainly does not manifest itself in the rhetoric or the analysis of our colleagues in the Alliance.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate we are holding today in response to the official opposition motion obviously has an impact on everyone because for one week now Americans, as well as Canadians and Quebecers, have been directly affected. They have realized that we are no longer invulnerable. It is therefore important to take part in this debate in order to establish our values.

I will begin by reiterating what the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said on the day of the attack. His statement encompasses values we hold dear:

The Bloc Quebecois considers that this barbaric act is directed not just against the United States, but against all nations. If those responsible for these horrific deeds believe that they are furthering any sort of cause, they should know that they have achieved the opposite, that they have failed, and that their cause will remain forever stained by the blood of the victims. The Bloc Quebecois will support unconditionally any initiative by the Canadian government to provide assistance to the United States and to the American people, whether for humanitarian purposes or in order to track down the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Any discussion of terrorism has to be about trying to find those responsible for deeds such as those we witnessed on September 11. But, this is no small matter. What is terrorism? Who is a terrorist? When may one be considered a terrorist? All these questions and what we think are the answers must of course be included in a bill, whose purpose will be to prevent terrorism and foil tragic deeds because they threaten the balance and democracy which it has been our privilege to enjoy and which we wish for all of humanity.

When we look at the reality of terrorism between 1981 and 2000, we note that internationally, it reached a peak in 1987. The question which arises is this: Will 2001 be a repeat? In the past five years, there has been an increase in the number of instances of terrorist activity in Asia and in Latin America. Everywhere else, such activity has decreased. Does 2001 signal a significant return to earlier levels?

It is therefore important that Canada take into consideration the fourth recommendation of the UN security council. This recommendation was drafted shortly after the events which concern us and provides that:

Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999.

Today's debate is in keeping with this logic. As terrorism has neither nationality, border nor respect for human rights, the measures that nations such as ours may take must consider needs and the major international agreements aimed at protecting individual and human rights.

Bill C-16 is currently being considered in committee. It falls within the context of anti-terrorist legislation. We fully expect that Bill C-16 will come back before the House. One of the elements of the motion of the official opposition refers to a total ban on fundraising activities. It is clear that Bill C-16 has a long way to go to totally ban fundraising activities.

So we must look at the problem.

There is a recent international agreement on the elimination of funding for terrorism. Canada has yet to ratify it. It might be useful, if not essential, for Canada to continue to give thought to this. I do not doubt that today's debate will contribute to advancing discussions on this matter, among others.

Before continuing, I would like to recall here the values Canada considers important. I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister yesterday reminding Canadians and Quebecers, along with the international community as a whole, that Canada will not back down in matters of human rights.

The day terrorist groups succeed in making a country like Canada back down with respect to human rights will be the day Canada takes an enormous step backwards, in my opinion. Because of this, it is vital to reaffirm the desire of all citizens of Canada and Quebec, and this desire must be affirmed by parliament, to honour international agreements, including the Geneva convention on refugees and the Geneva convention on torture.

In this spirit, I am sure that the House fully understands the meaning of the amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, that the words “the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are capital offences” be struck from the main motion.

We are all aware that since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, the supreme court, in good conscience, rules on what is fair and in compliance with the charter of rights. The ruling handed down in the Burns case, just a few months ago, was very clear on this subject. This is therefore something to which we are fundamentally opposed.

We regret that the rigidity of some parliamentarians did not allow for this whole debate on terrorism, on ways to counteract terrorism and to come up with legislation to this effect that would be useful, not perfect, but useful, and all related aspects of terrorism to be fully examined in committee.

What is good and extremely motivating about committee work is that we can, in good faith, discuss important issues, and terrorism is indeed an important issue.

In this spirit, I would like to ask, for the second time, that the House give its unanimous consent to refer this debate on terrorism and the prevention of terrorism to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In view of the profound values we all share here, I believe, I hope that the House will give its unanimous consent, in the name of justice.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will share my time with the member for Laval Centre, our party's citizenship and immigration critic.

It is therefore with sadness that I rise to speak today in this debate on terrorism, following the attacks against the American nation and against the entire system of western values.

I will not go back over the adjectives that might be used to describe such acts. They have almost all been used and, in any case, there are no words powerful enough to express my utter repugnance at actions that are beyond my comprehension in a land of democracy and freedom.

When we realize just how shaken the U.S. was last Tuesday as a world power in defence and national security, it makes us stop and think about Canada's ability to fight terrorism effectively with the means currently at its disposal.

First off, our borders have holes in them. Doubtless, the length of the country does not help border control. However, Canada's policy of openness to refugees and its very minimal control over the movements of individuals make them even less secure.

With questions such as “Where have you come from? How long have you been gone? and What are you bringing back?”, customs officials are clearly far more concerned with the movement of alcohol and cigarettes than with identifying criminals and terrorists.

At the moment, the main concern of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is to keep tabs on the extra mickey that slips across the border, costing the government a few dollars in lost taxes.

The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency must change its strategy and focus first and foremost on increasing surveillance on nationals from countries known to be particularly tolerant of terrorism.

In addition, this does not mean doing ill-timed searches. Discretion is the watchword. In other terms, controls must be tightened, but we must avoid becoming xenophobic and paranoid.

Moreover, as the president of CP said on Friday in Calgary:

For the United States to keep an open border with us, it must have confidence in our ability to maintain the security of our borders.

I would draw your attention, as well, to certain passages in the annual report of CSIS for the year 2000, which caught my attention particularly. The report provides at page 7 that, and I quote:

Canada belongs to international institutions and bodies, participates in peacekeeping missions and hosts major international events, all of which are potential targets for terrorists.

Further on, the report states:

—Canadians, now more than ever, are potential victims and Canada a potential venue for terrorist attacks.

Both of these excerpts are of particular interest, for different reasons, if only when one considers the fact that the next G-8 summit will take place from June 26 to 28, 2002, in Kananaskis, Alberta. Clearly it is imperative that we act and provide for means to ensure the protection of both participants and residents during this summit.

This threat is real and cannot be taken lightly. We know that there are terrorist groups planning certain terrorist acts from Canada, and the fact that they are already here makes it that much easier for them to take action.

Pages 7 and 8 of the report read:

Individuals with links to international terrorist groups use Canada primarily as a base from which to orchestrate terrorist activities abroad.

It is not hard to guess why terrorist groups choose to live in Canada to plan their acts. The reason is quite simple. There is no anti-terrorist legislation in Canada. They know that as long as they are on Canadian soil they can act with impunity.

A good example of this is the case of Ahmed Ressam, who organized an attack on the Los Angeles airport while living in Canada without ever being inconvenienced by Canadian authorities. As a matter of fact, Ressam only started having problems when he reached American soil.

Not only has the Government of Canada demonstrated that it is unable to protect its citizens and its territory, but Canada was also severely criticized by U.S. authorities, who stated that we constituted a threat to their national security.

This is not surprising, when one considers that the only coercive measure relating to terrorism currently in effect in Canada is the deportation of foreign nationals connected to terrorist activities under the Immigration Act.

Moreover, this measure raises another problem. In the Suresh case, which the Supreme Court of Canada heard this past May 22, but on which it has not yet brought down its decision, the court is confronted with the following dilemma. Suresh being suspected of fundraising for a Sri Lankan terrorist group, the preservation of national security would require him to be deported to his country of origin.

However, since he has made a refugee claim involving fear of torture, returning a refugee in danger of mistreatment to his country would be contrary to all of the principles of human rights defended by the United Nations.

When the supreme court reaches its decision, it will have to decide whether to move us down to the lowest United Nations ranking as far as the protection of human rights is concerned, or to send the message that Canada constitutes a refuge for all the undesirables of the world.

With anti-terrorist legislation such as that passed in the United Kingdom—this is just an example—or with a criminal code that deals with terrorist activities, such as the one adopted in France, Suresh could have been punished in Canada. This would have been done in the respect of human rights, while also indicating to terrorists that we are not a haven for them.

With such examples, the Bloc Quebecois feels perfectly right in asking the federal government to introduce anti-terrorist legislation that would, of course, respect our fundamental values. Moreover, contrary to what some believe, a more aggressive fight against terrorism does not mean that rights and freedoms would necessarily be affected. For example, the fact that we have a criminal code and that we fight crime does not make Canada a police state.

Of course, when we talk about acts that have teeth and mete out appropriate punishment, we are not talking about something as meaningless, from both a practical and legal point of view, as Bill C-16. It might be useful to remind hon. members that this bill, the object of which is to prevent the funding from Canada of terrorist groups, simply seeks to strip charities taking part in the funding of terrorist activities of their status as registered charities.

When we are confronted with people who, in order to promote an ideology, take pride in sacrificing their own lives by taking thousands of innocent lives, can we seriously believe that the mere fact of preventing an organization from issuing tax receipts can be effective in the fight against terrorism? Once again, the government is much more concerned about tax issues than about safety issues.

Since I have very little time left, I will simply say that the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree with the Alliance motion, because in its current wording that motion does not respect the fundamental values advocated by the Bloc Quebecois, which is opposed to the death penalty.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to provide the House with further perspective on the kinds of investments Canada has made and will continue to make with its many partners to combat terrorism.

The motion before us today poses some good questions. I would agree it is fitting that the House take a very careful and close look at the reality of terrorism today. We need a serious and indepth discussion about what more can be done to make sure we are doing all that we can to protect Canadians and Canadian interests from terrorists.

What more can be done to ensure that Canada stands with its friend and neighbour, the United States of America, in this fight? What more can be done to encourage the creation of an international net so tight that no terrorist can escape?

In this new millennium the world community is witnessing great turmoil including the increasing use of violence for political and ideological purposes. As a government and a nation we understand that our domestic safety and well-being are very much tied to global security. Our situation is shared by all western democracies. Our wealth, values, institutions, rights and freedoms make us an attractive venue for terrorist support activities.

Today we are not alone in our resolve to redouble our efforts to take the kind of action that will preserve our way of life: the values, beliefs, hopes and dreams of free and civilized people wherever they live. Our shared commitment remains to strengthen co-operation and action at the domestic and international levels, and to better anticipate, defend against and defeat terrorist threats.

Together through our solidarity we will prevail in the war against terrorism. We will prevail because we have in place the institutions, the expertise and the strong international working relationships we will need to continue to muster in the days, weeks and months to come.

As the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, we have the patience and resolve to deal effectively with the threat of terrorism through a measured and sustained response. Let us make no mistake. We will prevail.

We know Canadians are up to the task. We have seen this so profoundly in the last week through the acts of compassion of ordinary Canadians across this great country of ours, in the words of unity and support from all Canada's leaders, and in the continuing work of Canadian men and women whose jobs are devoted to upholding public safety and security.

Canada's national security structure has many components involving many departments, agencies and levels of government, each with a critical partnership role to play.

Federal efforts to counter terrorism draw on the resources of the portfolio of the Solicitor General of Canada through the national security directorate, the expertise and advice of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the broader federal counterterrorist community.

Some of the key partners within this group include the departments of foreign affairs and international trade, justice, citizenship and immigration, national defence, health, transport, and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

It is the Department of the Solicitor General that is responsible for the national counterterrorism plan which is practised through operational exercises conducted as part of the ongoing readiness program managed by that department. Through its emphasis on co-operation and co-operative action to ensure readiness to new and emerging threats, the operational readiness program is an important tool for creating broad based understanding and engagement in our national counterterrorism arrangements, and for ensuring they are as effective as they possibly can be.

In practical terms this means working at the local level with police, firefighters and emergency health services, and at the international level with our allies through exchanging intelligence and tactical information to improve our domestic preparedness and response capability.

The Government of Canada continues to develop and implement a range of tough new measures that will make it more difficult for terrorists to use Canada as a base for terrorist activities.

Among the investments in Canada's ability to combat terrorism is important proposed legislation known as Bill C-16, which contains a broadly based and integral part aimed at the suppression of terrorism. The bill proposes measures to deny charitable status to those groups that might seek to abuse Canada's charities registration system by collecting funds to support terrorist organizations and their activities around the world.

Implementing these measures will allow Canada to fulfill its commitments toward implementing an international convention aimed at cutting off sources of funding in support of terrorist activities.

Earlier this year the federal government established the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness. This was done to develop and implement a comprehensive approach to protecting Canada's critical infrastructure in both its physical and cyber dimensions regardless of the source of threats and vulnerabilities. This new entity will play an important ongoing role in Canada's national security network and will be an important partner in international efforts.

Just last year the federal government allocated $1.5 billion to the RCMP, CSIS, CIC, and other Canadian security and safety partners to ensure that they continue to have the tools required to do their jobs effectively.

Let me now turn to collaborative partnerships with the United States of America. Canada is committed to taking a leadership role in strengthening international co-operation aimed at preventing terrorist acts. This is most clearly reflected in the strong alliance between Canada and the United States in the fight against international terrorism.

RCMP, CSIS, local police, customs, immigration and transport officials work daily, hourly and by the minute with their American counterparts each and every day around the clock. They are dedicated to ensuring the safety and security of all our citizens.

Joint investigations and operations and the sharing of information and intelligence characterize the unique and strongly collaborative relationship between our two great countries. These activities are firmly rooted in continued dialogue and co-ordinated action at the policy and operational levels by national law enforcement, intelligence, security, customs and immigration agencies.

Canada and the United States have and will continue to have a long record of successful collaboration in combating terrorism and transnational crime.

There are a number of practical examples of partnership initiatives that have contributed to the success: for example, the shared border accord which encourages the flow of people and goods across the border while protecting the health and safety of Canadians and Americans alike and, for example, the cross-border crime forum, an achievement unique in the world for its success in furthering co-operation and information sharing between our two countries in the fight against transnational crime and other emerging cross-border security issues.

In his visit to Canada this past summer to take part in this annual event, American Attorney General John Ashcroft underlined his country's gratitude for the continuing collaboration of the Canadian authorities in the fight against terrorism.

The bilateral consultative group on countererrorism also brings together agencies and departments in both governments engaged in the fight against terrorism to enhance collaboration, co-operation and information sharing.

The Government of Canada has pledged its complete co-operation with the United States and other international authorities in finding those responsible for these horrific attacks and strengthening international security co-operation to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again.

This is a complex, far reaching investigation that reaches into virtually every corner of the globe. At all levels Canadian officials are following up with their American and international counterparts to repeat the Prime Minister's sincere offer with respect to assistance and a pledge for complete co-operation with authorities investigating these unspeakable crimes.

Canadians can rest assured that in all we do and in all we will do in the days and weeks to come, we will continue to keep in mind our ultimate priority to ensure the safety and security of the Canadian public.

At this point I would like to seek unanimous consent to withdraw the motion as stated and replace it with a motion that the House mandate the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights to study the matter of anti-terrorism legislation and report to the House no later than February 12, 2002.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday this House presented a united front. All MPs deplored the terrible attacks against innocent victims that took place a week ago.

We were united in our grief. We were united in our compassion. We were united in our desire to solve the problem. Now, however, we must move from those emotions that united us to concrete policies that will help us to move on.

We will still be united as far as some of those solutions are concerned, but others will find us less so.

One thing in which there was unanimity was that the events of September 11 have changed the world and now we must ask the tough question of how these tragic events must change our laws and our policies.

The acts that launched this debate were committed in the United States. The perpetrators may have come from many countries in the Middle East and Europe and their deeds may yet lead to Canadian forces fighting overseas, but the war against terrorism begins here at home in Canada.

After last week, even a country like Canada, which is used to thinking of itself as a peaceful and non-violent country, finds itself at risk. Of course, we are not immune. We did have the tragic Air India bombing which killed 329 people. That originated in Canada. Thankfully we have not often seen lethal acts of terrorism on our soil.

However other countries have not been so fortunate. They have had the bitter experience of dealing with terrorism and have been forced to modernize their laws to deal with these threats. Two countries with very similar democratic values to our own, the United Kingdom and the United States, have already brought in comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation. While the events of last week show strong laws alone will not in all cases stop determined terrorists, they can at least give to police, prosecutors, border security and others the tools they need to fight terrorists and terrorism. We must examine and learn from the experience of our British and American allies and see where their legislation could possibly be a model for our own.

In 1996 in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, the United States did bring in comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation in the form of the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act which was signed by President Clinton.

In Canada the interdepartmental intelligence policy group reviewed the U.S. legislation in 1997 and made a conclusion saying that the need for such a scheme could not be established.

In 2000 the United Kingdom, which already had strong anti-terrorism legislation on the books at that time to deal with the threat of the IRA, brought in new sweeping anti-terrorism legislation to deal with international terrorism that could possibly be operating within the U.K.

The official opposition has pointed to the British terrorism act of 2000 as an example of the kind of effective legislation that Canada should look at, but so far the government has not chosen to emulate the example of our British friends and our allies. The U.S. and the U.K. governments under the Clinton Democrats and Tony Blair's Labour Party felt that it was possible to bring in comprehensive terrorism legislation without endangering the democratic values that are important to us.

We believe that Canada can do no less. We want to support our Prime Minister and the government in terms of this type of legislation and approach. This is not about posturing politically. This is about being able to stand tall together and protect our citizens and answer their concerns and their cry for security. This is one of a number of areas. Security of markets is something we will also be pursuing but we need to look at this in terms of security of the person and the people of Canada.

Therefore it must contain a comprehensive definition of terrorism. We need a way to distinguish between genuine acts of terrorism, whether committed at home or abroad, from political protest and dissent. Those are two very clearly different things. While the CSIS act does not have a definition of terrorism, we do need a comprehensive definition of terrorism and specific charges associated with it in the Criminal Code of Canada.

Second, effective anti-terrorism legislation must name and outlaw specific terror groups. Both the U.S. and the U.K. legislation do this. It also must take steps to not just outlaw the organizations but to ban fundraising or other support activities. It is not enough just to take away the charitable status, we must ban fundraising for these activities. The government so far has avoided this approach of naming and banning specific terrorist organizations and their front groups. I believe it is the will and the hope of the government to do that. I am optimistic.

In reply to questions from the official opposition on fundraising activities of various groups, we did not always receive favourable responses. We even had a response that CSIS does not provide a list of terrorist organizations and it does not provide a list of people or other organizations that it is targeting. Clearly that needs to change. The solicitor general has implied that the strength of Canadian law and policy is to not name those groups. In fact I think we would all agree now that it is a weakness.

The U.K. and the U.S. legislation provide specific lists of terror groups and outlaws their activities. We must do the same.

In 1998 CSIS stated that some 50 international terrorist groups were operating in Canada and that the names included some of the most deadly enemies of peace and democracy in the world today.

Some of the groups that were banned by the British terrorism act of 2000 and are known to have operated and do operate in Canada, according to CSIS documents, are the Babbar Khalsa, the International Sikh Youth Federation, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil , Hisbullah, Hamas, the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Irish Republican Army.

The Kelly report, a recent report from the Senate special committee, stated in 1999 that “Canada is a primary venue of opportunity to support, plan, or mount terrorist attacks”. Contrary to what some people wishfully think, what happened in New York can happen here, perhaps even worse. Attacks like the New York attack could be planned and orchestrated from Canadian soil by groups attempting to take advantage of the weaknesses of our legislation.

Canada signed the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 1999. We need to do more. We need to take extra steps in that regard.

Bill C-16, which is before parliament, would make it possible to strip of their not for profit status certain groups that are financing terrorism. This is, of course, a good start, but we are still very far from true anti-terrorism legislation that would ban fundraising in support of terrorism in Canada and would eliminate the presence of such groups within this country.

Anti-terrorism legislation should not simply ban terrorist fundraising but all kinds of support activities. That would include training activities, recruiting, propaganda or communications. Terrorist groups should not be permitted to use Canadian Internet web servers to promote their cause or communicate through their supporters.

The British legislation calls and creates new crimes for members of terrorist groups. We need to look at these areas.

We must also change our laws regarding the extradition of suspected terrorists. Terrorism is a world without borders. We cannot let Canada become a safe haven for those who would rely on the humanitarian compassion of Canadian laws and yet avoid justice in their own countries or the countries where they have committed crimes.

If a government like the United States seeks people accused of terrorism in Canada we must be convinced that there is reasonable evidence. This is a very important point and I know some of our colleagues in the House have some sensitivity on this. If there is reasonable evidence, we should turn terrorists over regardless of the fact that they may face a penalty in that country, for instance in the United States, that would not apply here. That move would require a change in Canadian law to send a signal to terrorists that they cannot take advantage of Canada to avoid facing justice for their crimes.

One can only imagine the outrage if one of the perpetrators of the acts in New York and Washington, perhaps even the criminal mastermind who so carefully co-ordinated the flight schedules of the terrorists, found his way to Canada and we found ourselves unable to extradite such a person to the United States to face justice. Canadian law must address this possibility now because Canadian citizens will demand it.

These are only some of the areas that we must address. Over the weeks ahead the official opposition will continue to ask for the kinds of changes that we feel are necessary to restore confidence to our citizens, confidence in safety and security, confidence in the markets and confidence that we continue to grow both socially and economically. However the one thing we cannot afford is complacency. As Edmund Burke famously said “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”.

Changing laws alone will not stop terrorism. We are legislators and drafting and changing laws is what we do. Let it not be said after the next horrific terrorist incident that it happened because the good men and good women of the House chose to do nothing.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would propose an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended

a) by replacing the words “to introduce” with the words “to send to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights no later than November 1, 2001 draft” and

b) by adding after the last line “and that the committee report back to the House no later than February 12, 2002”.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

moved:

That this House call upon the government to introduce anti-terrorism legislation similar in principle to the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act, 2000, and that such legislation provide for:

the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada;

a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism, and provisions for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations;

the immediate ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism;

the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or inciting terrorist acts abroad from Canada;

the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are capital offences; and

the detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to notify you that I will be splitting my time with my leader, the leader of the official opposition.

“It's the end of the age of complacency”. That was a headline in the National Post yesterday. Under this heading we read:

Security will become the dominant policy agenda in Canada for the foreseeable future...If there are new resources to be had, the security side of government will be able to lay claim to them a lot better, a lot faster and a lot quicker than other sectors.

I will believe that when I see it. Unfortunately I am not confident that we will maintain the heightened vigilance enacted following the horrific events of September 11. I know that those concerns are also shared by the former commissioner of our Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Norman Inkster.

During a recent interview, Mr. Inkster said:

My concern is, just as has occurred in the past, we get a knee-jerk reaction and tighten everything up and a few months or a year from now we are back to where we were. Then we open the door to these kinds of people perpetrating similar events in the future. If we are serious about security--and we ought to be--then let's decide the appropriate level, let's fund it accordingly and let's maintain it. Our biggest risk is complacency.

I am afraid that despite the mortal threat we and other democratic nations face, Canada will eventually grow lax, especially if bin Laden, the United States' prime suspect, bides his time.

As Andrew Coyne of the Post writes:

--the enemy we face presents a unique combination: of enormous ambition, extraordinary capacity, and fanatical determination, such that he is willing to kill himself as well as others...If he is truly fiendish, he may do nothing for a time, until we grow lax, or tired, or bored, and forget what all the fuss was about. Then he will strike again.

Our response to the tragic events in the United States cannot be limited to avenging this one atrocity. We cannot simply launch a quick retaliatory strike against the immediate culprits. Canada must, as President Bush has promised Americans, launch a massive and sustained campaign against international terrorism in general. However, as pointed out numerous times in the House yesterday, our security and intelligence agencies, like our national defence forces, have been starved for so long that the Canadian public is not confident that we have the capacity to fight such a sustained war.

We are not confident that our present laws allow for apprehension and retention of terrorists and their associates. Therefore, today the Canadian Alliance asks the Government of Canada to immediately consider the question of anti-terrorism legislation.

I would like to point out that this request was not born solely out of last week's events. We on this side of the House have been urging the Liberal government for some time to get tough with organized criminals, to eradicate senseless acts of violence, to effectively close the doors to undesirable migrants who so readily and easily take advantage of our generosity, and also to make aiding and abetting terrorists an offence.

Before I proceed, I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues that I mean no disrespect or animosity toward any of the many of the legitimate and trustworthy immigrants making Canada their home. We know that the vast majority of these people are law abiding citizens who have and will continue to contribute to the economic well-being of our nation as well as the cultural mosaic of the country. I refer only to those individuals who seek Canada as a stage, a stage to wage war against the United States and other nations.

On April 30 during the second reading of Bill C-16 I stood in the House and said:

If curbing the operation of terrorist front groups truly was the goal, we could emulate Great Britain's terrorism act 2000, which empowers cabinet to ban from its country any organization that it believes is involved in terrorist activities. The law proscribes any group if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; if it prepares for terrorism; if it promotes or encourages terrorism; or if it is otherwise concerned in terrorism either in the United Kingdom or abroad.

I asked the government a number of months ago to introduce and enact legislation that would make it hard for terrorists and their supporters to get here and stay here, and furthermore to make it impossible for terrorist supporters to raise money while here. I also asked that for those caught supporting terrorist activities in any way, shape or form, here or abroad, criminal charges with severe penalties be handed down.

The solicitor general rejected such recommendations. He did so despite knowing from intelligence sources that terrorist groups from around the world were and are extremely active in Canada, raising funds for bomb plots or other violent activities.

As stated earlier, we are formally asking that the government immediately consider the question of anti-terrorism legislation similar in principle to the United Kingdom's terrorism act 2000. That legislation provides for the following: first, the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada; second, a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism and provisions for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations; third, the immediate ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism; fourth, the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist activities in Canada or inciting terrorist activities abroad; fifth, the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are capital offences; sixth, the detention and deportation to their country of origin of people illegally in Canada or who are failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations.

As lead critic for the official opposition, I am asking the solicitor general to effectively equip, adequately fund and sufficiently empower CSIS and the RCMP. We must ensure that our first lines of defence against terrorism can do their job, including all emerging threats. What types of threats? There is perhaps the threat of anthrax, the threat of a potentially deadly biological weapon for terrorists, which could decimate the population of any metropolitan area. Yet despite general security warnings in 1998 regarding the possibility of anthrax being brought into this country, the government has done nothing to prepare us against a potential attack.

As recommended by an expert from John Hopkins University, we should be stockpiling drugs and vaccines and developing and distributing rapid tests for agents and we should come up with effective ways of isolating infected people.

On September 11, the world received a huge wake up call, one so powerful that this government had no choice but to react. There have been other times. There have been other attempts to provide wake up calls. CSIS has tried in the past to wake a slumbering government, but the government has reached out and hit the snooze button.

CSIS tried to warn the government and provide a wake up call in regard to the growing threat of terrorism, the more sophisticated acts of terrorism; however, the government hit the snooze button. CSIS tried to wake up the government in regard to its caseload, how it did not have enough resources and how it has to risk manage the threats, but the government hit the snooze button.

The Canadian Alliance has tried to wake a slumbering government in regard to bills, criminal acts and terrorism. In disdain the government has reached out and hit the snooze button.

The RCMP tried to provide a wake up call when they said 8,000 Tamil tigers were living and training in Toronto. The government reached out and hit the snooze button, except of course for our finance minister who happened to be out for lunch with them at the time.

The RCMP also complained about the crippling effects of few dollars and limited resources, but the government hit the snooze button.

I will concede that this government is now awake, but the question remains, will the government remain awake or will it roll over and go back to sleep?

Is this really the end of the age of complacency? Time will tell.

Attack on the United States

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will let the record speak for itself.

On behalf of the people of Provencher, I want to offer our condolences and prayers to the victims and their families and to the thousands of ordinary people who have been affected by this terrible tragedy, including the many thousands upon thousands of frontline workers and volunteers.

I am very encouraged that the Prime Minister has affirmed that Canada will stand together with the United States, our neighbour, our friend and our ally at this time of crisis, and that we will support and assist the American people in every possible way.

Let us be firm in our resolve to deal effectively with these outlaws and criminals. Let not the suggestion come from this House that the Americans are somehow to blame for the terrible tragedy of September 11.

There will in the days, weeks and months to come be heightened security and talk of war. There will also be questions asking what can be done to prevent it from happening again, as we are starting to ask today.

I want to state at the onset that the concerns I raise are in fact raised in a spirit of co-operation and with a view to resolving this grave crisis so that we too can say at some date in the future that our efforts here were not in vain.

CSIS has been clear in respect of the threat of terrorism. In June 2000 its report said that terrorism in the years ahead was expected to become more violent, indiscriminant and unpredictable than in recent years.

In 1998 CSIS reports indicated that there may have been as many as 50 international terrorist organizations operating in Canada. Although the United States and the United Kingdom now have strict laws banning terrorist fundraising and other terrorist activity, Canada has failed to respond with appropriate legislation.

Through that lack of action, Canada has encouraged conditions that facilitate international terrorism. If we want to find root causes of terrorism, inaction on the part of democratic nations to respond to terrorism breeds more terrorism. The federal government must be firm and take steps to introduce specific and effective legislation as our British and American allies have done, legislation that would suppress Canadian terrorist networks that raise money to finance political violence around the world.

It is a thin excuse to say that the Americans had the legislation but it did not stop the attack. There may well be issues of resources or implementation, but at least the Americans have the framework to defend their nation. Canadians to date do not have the benefit of that legislation and even if we had the benefit of the legislation we do not have the resources and manpower committed to enforcing such a framework.

Many today have talked about the United Kingdom terrorism act of 2000 that came into force about half a year ago. The comprehensive measures included in the act, includes an extensive definition of terrorism. It includes new powers to seize suspected terrorist cash at borders, a new offence of inciting terrorist acts abroad from within the United Kingdom, specific offences related to training for terrorist activities and a number of other provisions.

As well, the Americans have taken firm legislative steps to deal with terrorism. They have the framework in place. We need to do exactly the same thing. The Americans and the British have recognized the serious problem the international community is facing and they are initiating their own solutions while unfortunately Canada sits on the sidelines.

Although Canada participated in the development of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel signed in 1994, the International convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings signed in 1997 and the International convention on the suppression of terrorist financing signed in 1999, Canada has yet to develop new legislation to permit it to give effect to these conventions and to ratify them. It is a failure that offers hope to international terrorism. The reason they have not been ratified is that Canada simply lacks the necessary legislation to implement these conventions.

Canada is obliged, pursuant to the suppression of terrorist financing convention, to make it a criminal offence to raise funds for terrorists. Bill C-16, the charities registration act, introduced last spring was the government's attempt to address this issue. However, does anyone believe that this response will do anything to stop terrorist groups from fundraising? Does the revocation of one's charitable status deter terrorists who are prepared to fly a modern jet into the side of a skyscraper? Is the revocation of their charitable number going to stop them? That is the legislative response of the government to date.

Extradition laws have also become a major security concern for Canadians since the decision of the supreme court on February 15, 2001. We all know the facts of that case involving a brutal triple murder by two Canadians of three Americans in Washington State. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the these murderers could not be returned to the United States unless the justice minister sought assurances that the death penalty could not apply to them.

The justice minister's own lawyers two days after arguing a refugee case, referred to the Burns and Rafay supreme court decision and said “strike down that law and you will create a safe haven in Canada for violent criminals”. Yet the Minister of Justice stood up on two occasions and indicated that I had misrepresented a judgment. Her own lawyers said one thing to the supreme court, the Minister of Justice said another to the House.

The Department of Justice has not said what it will do to stop potential murderers and of course international terrorists from coming to Canada.

If the criminals involved in the New York City and Washington attack on the U.S. made their way to Canada to avoid prosecution, the supreme court decision would prohibit the Canadian government from extraditing them on the grounds that according to the charter of the supreme court it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. What effect does this have on the legal system? What effect does this have on military concerns and what does it have on diplomatic issues?

These are the issues that we need to grapple with and resolve.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this solemn occasion to contribute to this historic debate. I would like to start by expressing my sincere condolences to those thousands of victims and their families whose lives are forever changed as a result of the horrific and cowardly acts of terror.

The victims are from all races and creeds. They were all innocently going about their daily lives when the terrorists struck. I offer these condolences on behalf of the people of Edmonton--Strathcona whom I have the privilege of representing in the House of Commons.

As the only Muslim elected to parliament in Canada, I want to extend my condolences on behalf of the Canadian Muslim community. I feel a responsibility to clarify to the Canadian people what the religion of Islam is about. There are some Canadians who believe that the acts carried out by the terrorists were sanctioned or dictated by Islamic law. In reality these were criminal acts of political terrorism by cowardly extremists in direct contravention of Islamic law.

The term Islam means peace. Muslims around the world believe that peace and tolerance are the very essence of faith. The terrorists who attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center have violated the Holy Koran and Islamic values.

A common Muslim greeting, as-Salam-u-Alaikum , means may peace be upon you. The word jihad simply means that each individual must strive to be the best he or she can be.

For example, Muslims are in an internal struggle to prevent themselves from committing bad deeds. Jihad does not mean a physical holy war against other human beings as has been frequently said in the media. Therefore committing violent acts against the innocent is not part of jihad but rather is a sin against the Holy Koran. There is no mention in the Holy Koran about committing violent acts against non-Muslims.

Media reports have identified the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to be Islamic. However their motives were not in keeping with Islam. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, but his attack on the U.S. government buildings in Oklahoma City was not motivated by Christian beliefs. Deranged people carried out all these deplorable political acts of terrorism.

In Muslim mosques across Canada and other countries prayers have been held for the victims of the September 11 terrorist attack. Muslim groups across Canada such as the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and Muslims Against Terrorism have condemned the attack because it goes against our values of peace and harmony.

I implore all Canadians to unite in this time of crisis and fortify our strength of diversity. We are a multicultural nation, the envy of the world, and as such we must collectively fight terrorism by working together to protect our freedom.

Most of us in the House travelled from different parts of the country to get here. In the airports we witnessed a sense of uneasiness and vulnerability on the faces of those travelling with us. Canadians are looking to us, their elected leaders, for a response to the acts of atrocity. We need legislation to tighten up the loopholes that have aided the cause of terrorism on Canadian soil.

I am not here today to point fingers and lay blame. I believe that we must follow the example of our American neighbours and put aside partisan differences to address the immediate security needs of Canadians. The government opposite must address the deficiencies present in its national security policy. To do so is not admitting culpability but rather accepting the responsibility of protecting the lives and livelihood of Canadians.

Canadians watched in horror as the terrorist attacks were carried out on the United States. It struck at the heart of our sense of morality and freedom. However what amplified the horror was the possibility that some of these evil men had travelled through Canada on their journey.

This news is not surprising, given the numerous reports highlighting the presence of terrorist organizations in Canada and the ease with which they abuse our humanitarian initiatives to settle refugees. The Prime Minister's face saving response last week that there is no need to revisit our security policies was unacceptable.

As a newly appointed critic for Canada Customs and Revenue Agency I will address the role of Revenue Canada in the fight against terrorism. We are a trading nation. As a result of NAFTA over $1 billion a day crosses the U.S.-Canada border. This activity has fuelled our economy, sustained job growth and allowed Canadian families to prosper.

National revenues required to fund tax cuts, health care, education spending and debt reduction are contingent upon our trading relationship with the United States.

In what seemed to be a veiled message to Canada, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell stated last week:

--some nations need to be more vigilant against terrorism at their borders if they want their relationship with the U.S. to remain the same. For those nations thatwe believe can do a better job of policing their borders, of going after this kind of activity, we're going to work with them. We're gonna make it clear to them that this will be a standard against which they're measured with respect to their relationship with the United States--

One measure available to the U.S. is to implement section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. This initiative implements mandatory entrance and exit checks at the U.S. border crossings. In effect, all foreign nationals, including Canadians, would be required to register when entering and exiting the United States.

The U.S. has postponed implementing section 110 until adequate technology can be developed to expedite this process with minimal delays. This week commercial traffic attempting to enter the United States from border crossings in the Niagara region are experiencing 9 to 12 hour waits. These extreme measures may become the norm if the government does not take action to rectify our border security.

There was much ado this summer about an open border with the United States. This concept was being entertained by a desire on the part of the U.S. and Canadian industry to minimize the encumbrance of border security in order to maximize the efficiency of moving people, products and capital across our border. Yet from a national security perspective, we must ensure that those people, products and capital entering Canada are not economic, medical or criminal risks.

The growing success of the NAFTA relationship in conjunction with the emergence of e-commerce and the growing needs of just in time manufacturing have put increased pressure on our border crossings.

The Canada-United States accord on our shared border was signed in 1995. Its goal had four key points: to promote international trade, to streamline processes for legitimate travellers and commercial goods, to provide enhanced protection against drug smuggling and the illegal entrance of people, and to reduce costs for both governments.

One response to this accord is Bill S-23 which is about to be introduced in this House. Bill S-23 includes many electronic systems used to expedite and track cross border commercial traffic. I believe these initiatives can only be entertained once the integrity of our borders is ascertained.

Bringing to light the inadequacies of Canada's national security is a wake-up call in the midst of a nightmare unfolding on the east coast of the United States. Canadians may not be aware of our porous borders; however every terrorist organization, drug cartel and organized crime operation in the world is fully aware of these deficiencies and have been exploiting them for years. Canada's porous border is by no means a reflection of the men and women who serve as customs officers. It is the reality of naive and irresponsible government policy. A philosophical shift in Liberal policy is required.

In 1994 Bill C-7 moved customs from a security mandate to the Department of National Revenue. Its prime objective is to recover tax and duty revenue for the crown. We must give our customs officers the tools, resources and the mandate required to protect our borders from those who are intent on destruction. If Canada is not willing to increase its standard of national security, the United States will not be willing to jeopardize the safety and security of the American people by continuing an undefended border with Canada. Such a decision will have an incredible impact on our economy.

I believe that Canada must take the lead in implementing a continental security agreement among NAFTA partners, particularly with the United States. This must include shared intelligence, including exit and entrance data and criminal profiling. Such an agreement is not an erosion of our cultural identity or our national sovereignty, as some would have us believe. It would serve to protect our trading and diplomatic relationship with the U.S. thereby serving to stabilize our economy and protect our citizens.

The federal government must first of all admit that there is a problem of terrorist activity in Canada and resolve to work with the United States in a legitimate partnership to secure our borders and protect our citizens and economies from future attack. The government's only response to terrorism thus far has been Bill C-16 which states that those Canadian charities found to be financially aiding terrorist organizations will be stripped of their charitable status. This is a baby step in the marathon fight to eradicate terrorism. Canadians expect much broader and tougher legislation to follow.

In closing, I would like to repeat my appeal to Canadians to unite during this time of crisis and embrace the strength of our diversity. Our Islamic neighbours are bearing a double burden. Not only are we grieving over the horrendous loss of life, we are bearing the burden of misplaced blame upon our community.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we are only six days from the morning of September 11, 2001, a new date which we all know will live on in infamy. On that day, in a few harrowing hours, the world was changed forever.

None of us will ever forget where we were in the moments we first heard that planes had struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but for many people, including hundreds of Canadians, that awful moment will never end. There will always be a missing daughter or son, husband or wife, or mother or father who will never return.

It is to the victims of these barbaric acts, to their families and to their loved ones that our hearts, our minds and our prayers must go first. We must let these families know, those who have suffered these losses, that we are with them, that this parliament is with them and that Canada is with them.

Last week's horrific attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania have shocked everyone in the civilized world. These mass hijackings and suicide attacks were more than a crime; they were barbaric acts of war. They were aimed straight at the heart of our society. I say society because these attacks were not aimed just at New York or even just at the United States. They were aimed at everyone in the world who believes in democracy and freedom. They were aimed at everything we hold dear here in Canada also.

Our first thoughts must turn to those who were lost in this horrific attack and to their grieving families: the passengers and crew of those airplanes, the men and women working in the office towers, the pedestrians below those towers, and the brave firefighters and police who rushed in only to be killed themselves. Our thoughts are with these brave souls. They died because they lived in freedom and freedom was targeted for attack.

The very next day following the awful attacks in New York, the people of New York, hurting and feeling great pain, returned to their jobs. Many opened their shops, some of which were covered in ashes, and with their hearts aching but their heads held high they said to a watching world “We are bruised but we will not be broken”.

Let us join them in that spirit to do what must be done to stop the forces of terror and tyranny and to keep open the doors of freedom and peace.

Our hearts go out to all our brave neighbours in the United States, that great beacon of hope and freedom to the world, our greatest ally and our closest friend. When Canada has needed it in the past the United States has been there for us. When the world has needed it, the United States has been there. Along with Canadians, the brave men and women of the United States crossed the Atlantic and Pacific in the second world war and stopped tyranny. Their determined valour was exceeded only by their friendship in the peace that followed.

Now is the time for Canada and Canadians to stand by our great friends and great allies as never before.

I want to thank the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister for their words of solidarity toward the United States. During this crisis it is important that MPs from all parties put forward a united front. I will do that. Others will do that.

Today I know that every member of parliament from every party would call himself or herself a Canadian, an ally, a friend, not just a member of a particular party.

The Prime Minister has my full support as we stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States.

I would also like to pay tribute to the thousands of Canadians, from RCMP officers and customs agents to airport personnel, firefighters, doctors, nurses, and citizens who donated blood, who responded with such compassion and concern in this crisis. They have shown that Canadians will stand with the United States, our greatest friend and ally, in its hour of need.

On behalf of Canadians, the Prime Minister called for a national day of mourning last Friday. We deeply appreciated that opportunity to express our sorrow and show our unshakeable support for our American neighbours and for Canadians who suffered loss. In a great show of Canadian solidarity and support on Parliament Hill last Friday and in similar ceremonies across the country, Canadians sent that message. The only element missing from that ceremony was the acknowledgment, in this time of sorrow and heartbreak, of our Creator, because in the days ahead it is only with divine wisdom, grace and understanding that we shall overcome.

As we join with the people of the United States and especially with the families of the victims to remember the dead, let us now dedicate ourselves to protecting the living. The events of September 11 were not merely tragic, like a train wreck or an earthquake. They were evil, as the Prime Minister has said. We must make sure that this kind of evil shall not prevail.

President Bush has rightly called this struggle the first war of the 21st century. Make no mistake. The war on terrorism is not merely the moral equivalent of war, like a war on drugs or a war on poverty. This is a genuine war, which can only be won, as Sir Winston Churchill said of another long struggle, with blood, toil, tears and sweat. Canada, in invoking article 5 of the NATO charter, has joined with our allies in declaring that this attack on the United States is an attack on ourselves, the first such declaration in the 50 year history of NATO.

This is not just an American struggle, for the terrorist war is aimed not only at America nor is it being fought only in America. It is being fought throughout the world, including here in Canada. The suicide bombing of the World Trade Center is an attack on Canada as well. Terrorists have declared war on the entire free world and the entire free world must declare war on terrorism.

This is a war not with ghosts but with real people. Osama bin Laden has been publicly identified as the prime suspect behind these murderous acts. He has been sheltered, if not aided and abetted, and time will tell on that question, by the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. The free world must tell all states that no matter what their ideology, supporting or condoning terror against civilians will never, ever be tolerated.

However, while bin Laden's al-Qaeda movement or other radical groups from the Middle East may be guilty of these infamous acts, we know that the overwhelming majority of Arabs and Muslims here in Canada and around the world deplore and abhor these attacks as strongly as we do.

I have discussed this matter with my colleague, the member of parliament for Edmonton--Strathcona, whom I believe is the only Muslim member of the House. He has told me of the sensitivity of this issue in Canada's Muslim community at this difficult time. The true meaning of Islam is surrender to God. The religion of Salaam, or peace, is diametrically opposed to these kinds of evil acts. The Islamic beliefs in peace and brotherhood are among the elements which make our Canadian communities strong and caring places in which to live. At this hour of darkness, let us reach out in a special way to our peaceful Arab and Muslim friends and neighbours here in Canada and let us reject any backlash against the innocent even as we strive to bring the guilty to justice.

The true teachings of Islam are diametrically opposed to the terrorists' interpretations of them. I am therefore calling upon the public to reach out to our Arab and Muslim friends here in Canada and to reject all forms of discrimination toward innocent individuals.

Let us not allow the barbarism of a few extremists to taint an entire community or religion. There must indeed be justice, but only for those who are guilty.

Canadians do not dwell often on thoughts of war. We are thankful for having enjoyed a long season of peace. When we consider our role in the world, we are more likely to think of Canadians keeping peace than waging war.

Some in this country have already begun to say that talk of war is overblown and irresponsible and that we must instead address the root causes of terrorism. This is true. Root causes must be addressed, but it is sheer folly, let there be no mistake, when we say that the root cause of terrorism is the terrorists themselves. The hatred that moves them to massacre the innocent can never be negotiated with or reasoned with.

It is not a matter of shades of grey when it comes to these barbarous acts of evil. It is set in black and white. This is not a time for moral ambiguity. It is a moment of moral clarity. As Canadians, as subjects of this peaceable land, we did not seek this conflict, but however much we might tell ourselves that we are not targets, that we really are not involved and that this is not our war, the reality is that we cannot avoid it. As I said last week, there are no rearguard positions in the struggle against terrorism, only front lines. Canada is on the front line whether we want to be there or not. In the words of Prime Minister Blair:

People of all faiths and all democratic political persuasions have a common cause: to identify this machine of terror and dismantle it as swiftly as possible.

In the past when summoned to action in World War I when we were a nation of only some eight million people, 625,000 soldiers went into action from Canada. In World War II we again made a huge effort, especially in relation to the size of our population. As well, in Korea and in the gulf, Canada proved itself ready. We joined with our allies and did our share, sometimes at great cost.

Now it is no different. The war on terrorism will require real sacrifices and new priorities. Now we must face the difficult question of whether Canada is ready to face this new struggle. Canada is a free and democratic society. It is precisely because we are a free and democratic society with values and desires to protect our way of life that we cannot avoid the awful responsibility of joining the war on terrorism.

The form of democracy we are privileged to enjoy is the Westminster parliamentary system. In our historic form of democratic government it falls to the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to ask difficult and at times painful questions and to pose alternatives as to what the government should do.

In my address today and in the speeches from Alliance and other opposition members of parliament, we will pose important questions as to whether Canada is sufficiently prepared to face this challenge that has been thrust upon us. For several years the official opposition has consistently raised issues of border security, the integrity of our refugee identification system and the need for more resources for military, security and intelligence purposes. We have drawn attention to terrorist activity within Canada. In our view the government unfortunately has not always responded as fully as it should have to these concerns, but the world has changed since September 11, 2001, and what was an important if sometimes overlooked concern before September 11 has now become an absolute moral imperative since September 11.

Addressing these issues of national security must now become the single highest priority of the Parliament and the Government of Canada.

Today, the official opposition does not wish to rehash the past, to dredge up past mistakes by the government; instead we wish to propose concrete and constructive solutions for the future.

The official opposition does not want to fix blame. We want to fix the problem.

Today I would like to propose three important changes that would better equip the Canadian government to engage in its battle against terrorism.

First, we must equip ourselves with anti-terrorist legislation.

Second, we must ensure that we have secure borders and airports, by protecting ourselves against professional terrorists.

Third, we must provide our army, police and security intelligence service with the needed resources to engage in this battle as well as a clear mandate.

If Canada was inadequately prepared in some of these areas before September 11, the question before us now is how to respond adequately, now that we know we cannot avoid this fight.

In 1996, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, the United States brought in comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation in the form of the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act signed by President Clinton. In Canada the interdepartmental intelligence policy group reviewed the U.S. legislation but concluded “that the need for such a scheme or its potential effectiveness could not be established”.

In 2000 the United Kingdom, which already had strong anti-terrorism legislation on its books to deal with the threat of the IRA, brought in new sweeping anti-terrorism legislation to deal with international terrorism operating within the U.K.

The official opposition has pointed to the British terrorism act 2000 as an example of the kind of effective legislation that we feel Canada needs to deal with the threat of terrorist groups operating within our borders.

Both the U.S. anti-terrorism act of 1996 and the British anti-terrorism act of 2000 took concrete steps to name and outlaw specific terrorist organizations operating within those countries and to ban any fundraising or other support activities on their behalf.

Yet in Canada the government has avoided the approach of naming and banning specific terrorist organizations and their front groups. This is a step that no longer can be put off.

Canada is a signatory to and indeed helped to draft the 1999 United Nations international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism, which calls for a complete ban on all forms of fundraising for terrorist organizations. Unfortunately Canada has not ratified this convention and has not yet tabled legislation to give it force and effect.

Bill C-16 which allows the government to strip charitable status from groups raising funds for terrorism is a first tentative step, but it falls short of an outright ban on terrorist fundraising.

Bill C-16, which is being debated in this parliament, would make it possible for certain groups financing terrorism to be stripped of their not for profit organization status.

This is a step in the right direction, but we are still a long way from having true anti-terrorist legislation that would ban the financing of terrorism in Canada and eliminate such groups from this country.

We know that terrorist groups such as Babbar Khalsa, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Irish Republican Army have all raised large amounts of money in Canada and continue to do so. Indeed in 1998 CSIS reported that there were some 50 terrorist groups operating in Canada. In testimony that year before a Senate committee, CSIS Director Ward Elcock said:

As only a partial list, individuals and groups here have had direct or indirect association with: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, suicide bombings in Israel, assassinations in India, the murder of tourists in Egypt, the Al Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia and the bombing campaign of the Provisional IRA.

He went on to say that we cannot become, through inaction or otherwise, what might be called an unofficial state sponsor of terrorism. We cannot allow that to happen.

Giving the solicitor general and the CCRA the power to strip charitable status from these organizations and their front groups is not good enough. Governments must name these groups, define them, publicly outlaw them and ban all fundraising on their behalf.

The government should have the power to freeze and seize the assets of terrorist organizations and their front groups. We look forward to more input in this particular area of legislation and we look forward to the government response in this particular area. We must deal with this issue.

The second broad area I will address is the security of our borders and airports and how we can better screen people arriving in Canada to prevent possible terrorists from reaching Canada in the first place.

The security of Canada's borders and airports is a vital national and international security issue, but it is also a vital economic issue. Canada relies on a billion dollar a day flow of trade to and from the United States as a linchpin of our economy. Last week's airport and border shutdowns and delays will likely cost our economy tens of millions of dollars.

The fact that our two countries share the world's largest undefended border is not a right but a privilege. If we expect to maintain the kind of access to the United States and it to us that we have enjoyed in the past, we must now take steps to show our American neighbours that we are every bit as concerned as they are about maintaining security and preventing terrorism and organized crime.

We remember the threat posed to the Canadian economy by the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act passed by the U.S. Congress in 1997. It was only significant and hard lobbying by the Canadian embassy and others that won changes to the legislation to exempt the Canadian-U.S. border. Will that be the case after September 11, 2001? We must work in this regard with all diligence.

What kind of measures may be necessary to ensure security at our points of entry? Our critics in that area have been working diligently with security forces and others to help identify the things that must be done. We will consider the various ideas being brought forward and suggested, whether it is increased implementation of electronic passport screening or the idea of air marshals and other steps that must be taken to grant security on our airlines.

At our land borders Canada customs officers should be issued the right training and equipment to deal with the increased security that will be required there. Our critics in that area will bring forward specific items related to those areas.

There is no question that these steps and others will cost more money. The United States Congress has already authorized $40 billion in spending as simply a first instalment on clean up measures and anti-terrorist activities.

The official opposition will support new spending in these areas, even if it means going beyond certain current spending plans, as long as we are assured that other spending in low and falling priority areas is carefully pruned.

Most of these changes can be done through a reallocation of resources and an attack on wasteful spending. This type of scrutiny is difficult with a government which has refused to table a full budget, but that will be the subject of another day. We are focused on these issues. We are focused on solutions.

We also must look at tougher screening systems being put in place to keep people who pose security risks to Canadians and others from entering the country in the first place. For those currently in the refugee identification system who have not yet received landed status or citizenship we need better tracking to make sure we are able to locate possible security risks. To do that rapidly this should be an immediate priority. We need the resources and the will to do that.

We are known as a country which welcomes with open arms refugees who are seeking freedom and democracy. Unfortunately we are also known somewhat to be soft in not identifying and dealing rapidly with those who are a risk. Refugee claimants who break the law or people who enter this country illegally, especially where there are concerns about security risks, should be immediately detained or deported, not simply asked to check in at an Immigration Canada office once or twice or month.

We must take the proper steps in this regard. We need to do this and we need to do it with all diligence.

Bill C-11 which is currently before the House does not address many of these concerns. It represents in some ways a step backward from the previous Bill C-31 which died on the order paper before the last election. Bill C-11 should be amended to include broader measures to ensure the security and integrity of our refugee system and should be returned to the House.

As U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has pointed out, the war against terrorism in which we are now engaged will be unlike other wars. The enemy is both at home and abroad. They do not take openly to the battlefield but hide in shadows. While this effort may involve conventional warfare against states who harbour or sponsor terrorist cells, we must recognize, as has been identified, that they are also present inside Canada and the United States.

Fighting the multi-headed monster of terrorism means attacking all its operations and doing it simultaneously. We will address in detail the area and concerns of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service which has lost 28% of its personnel in the last decade. We will address the areas of the RCMP and its situations related to lost resources. Of course the largest infusion of resources will have to go to the beleaguered Canadian armed forces.

Over the last year the Canadian forces has declined from 90,000 to 55,000 personnel and is on track for further declines. This is a dereliction of our duty. We must support our armed forces and send that message to our NATO partners around the world.

Last week NATO invoked article 5 for the first time in its history. President Bush made it clear that he is building an international coalition to combat not only terrorist cells but their state sponsors. We must work with and be part of that coalition. Unfortunately the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has resorted to belligerent rhetoric about its support for Osama bin Laden rather than co-operating with the United States. The prospect of a conventional military campaign is not remote.

If and when the need arises for military action, the United States and NATO will expect Canada to provide a commitment. We must be willing and prepared to provide it. It is for this reason that I am asking the Prime Minister to be crystal clear regarding our commitment to the United States and NATO up to and including, if necessary, military involvement within our capacity to do so.

NATO is perhaps the most successful military and political alliance in history. Its decisions on military action are made with both care and deliberation. We are obliged to be part of that. Now more than ever Canada's voice and vote of commitment needs to be heard in the clearest of terms, both in the camps of our friends and the hidden dens of our enemies.

This weekend we have heard the menacing threats. We have heard warnings against freedom loving nations not to assist the United States in any military action. Our government must be clear. It is not the time to give any signal to the barbaric enemies of freedom and democracy that we will do anything less than stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends, the Americans and our NATO partners, in the face of this insidious threat.

This is not a time for half measures. It is not a time to bring forward previously announced initiatives and relabel them as anti-terrorist measures. There are some positive elements in current proposals like Bill C-16 and Bill C-11, but they do not go far enough. We must carry them forward. We must do everything that is within our power and will to do.

We will continue to bring forward constructive criticisms and suggestions. They will be put forward in a spirit of unity and solidarity with the Prime Minister and his cabinet as we enter this first war of the new century.

I hope the Prime Minister will accept these constructive criticisms and suggestions in the spirit in which they are given: for the furtherance of our common goal to defeat terrorism at home and abroad.

Over the next few weeks there will be times to discuss and debate whether we are moving fast enough or far enough in certain areas. There will be times to debate whether Canada could have or should have been more prepared. However today is a day to show unity and resolve.

We show unity in standing with our American neighbours, especially the families of the victims of these horrible attacks. We show unity in mourning our own Canadian dead. We show resolve in facing the enemy of international terrorism and announcing that terror in all its forms will not be allowed to stand.

Last week the world saw the face of evil. However good may yet be able to arise out of the evil if the citizens of the free countries of the world rise as one, say that this evil shall not stand, and work together to eliminate it from the earth.

In closing, I would like to say that I am proud to join with the government in supporting this motion. I trust it will be first of many actions we will take together as parliamentarians and as Canadians, united in this war against terrorism.

In these next days and weeks may God grant wisdom to our Prime Minister and to this parliament. God save our Queen. God keep our land glorious and free.

Petitions

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House. One is from dozens of Winnipegers who are concerned about Bill C-16, the charities registration act, which they feel violates fundamental freedoms and makes a fair and transparent trial impossible.

The petitioners call upon parliament to make certain and significant changes to the bill before it is passed.

Charities Registration (Security Information) Act

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 26, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the referral to committee before second reading of Bill C-16.

Business Of The House

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations with respect to an order passed earlier today. I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following amendment. I move:

That the order with regard to Bill C-16, made earlier this day, be amended to read as follows:

That the motion to refer Bill C-16 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be amended to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Finance.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there is agreement among the leaders of all the parties in the House on the following motion. I move:

That Bill C-16, an act respecting the registration of charities and security information and to amend the Income Tax Act, be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Charities Registration (Security Information) Act

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-16, an act respecting the registration of charities and security information and the Income Tax Act.

The purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism to strip organizations of their charitable status if they are caught fundraising for terrorist groups.

We believe that the bill would have minimal impact on stemming terrorism in Canada. Effectively, the legislation says that it is all right to sponsor terrorism, it is all right to financially raise support for terrorists, but a person cannot get a tax deduction for doing so.

Effective legislation, legislation Canadian Alliance could wholeheartedly support, would make it a criminal offence to raise and provide funds to support a terrorist organization. This type of legislation already exists in the United States and the United Kingdom.

If curbing the operation of terrorist front groups truly was the goal, we could emulate Great Britain's terrorism act 2000, which empowers cabinet to ban from its country any organization that it believes is involved in terrorist activities. The law proscribes any group if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism: if it prepares for terrorism; if it promotes or encourages terrorism; or if it is otherwise concerned in terrorism either in the United Kingdom or abroad.

The British government publicly identified 21 groups that were associated with terrorism. Among the groups were the likes of Babbar Khalsa, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Abu Nidal Organization and the Kurdistan Workers Party.

The United States tried to get at terrorist fundraising through the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996. Section 302 of the act authorizes the secretary of state to designate as foreign terrorist organizations any group that meets specific criteria. The act makes it an offence to knowingly provide or conspire to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. In 1999 there were 28 foreign terrorist organizations that were listed.

A 1998 CSIS report said that there were as many as 50 international terrorist organizations active in Canada, often using the country as a banking centre. The report said that liberal immigration laws, relatively open borders, freedom of movement, advanced communication systems and the proximity to the United States made Canada inviting for terrorists.

In January 1999 an influential Senate committee, headed by Senator William Kelly, spent months hearing closed door testimonies from almost 100 members of the security and intelligence community. The reports of the special Senate committee on security and intelligence stated very clearly that Canada remained a venue of opportunity for terrorist groups. It remained a place where they could raise funds, purchase arms and conduct other activities to support their organizations and their terrorist activities elsewhere. Most of the major international terrorist organizations already have a presence in Canada

The report made 33 recommendations which unfortunately the Liberal government failed to embrace. The most important recommendation was for a new criminal penalty to combat cyber attacks on vital computer systems by hackers and other electronic saboteurs. It also called for powers to battle terrorist fundraising, more money for intelligence agencies and measures to better track possible extremists who made their way or who came into Canada.

The senators determined that technological advances available to terrorists and spies, from cash debit cards to sophisticated satellites, posed the most serious challenge to Canadian authorities. The committee confirmed that several groups with terrorist affiliations raised money in Canada, often through philanthropic organizations registered as charities under the Federal Income Tax Act. The Senate committee said:

Such status enhances the credibility of such groups and, ironically, creates the situation where Canadian taxpayers end up subsidizing their activities.

The Senate committee also found that the operating funds for federal agencies with a security or intelligence role fell to $333 million in 1997-98, down from $467 million in 1989-90, a trend that it suggests and that it would argue must be reversed to keep Canada from falling behind.

The year 2000 budget for the United States security and intelligence sector was increased by approximately $2 billion. The amount of the United States increase alone was more than four times the total amount budgeted for Canada's security and intelligence community.

One of the committee's recommendations pertained to a legal migration into Canada, primarily through our refugee determination system.

First, it is a means by which terrorists may circumvent our vetting process abroad and enter Canada in search for a temporary or for a permanent haven. Once here they may conduct fundraising activities or other activities. In a very few cases they also organize acts of violence.

Second, large volumes of illegal migrants may ultimately provide the stream in which a few terrorists gain entry into the United States by circumventing Canadian and United States border controls, since Canada has no exit controls. No exit controls mean that it is impossible to calculate how many people remain in Canada illegally, how many slip into the United States, how many return to their country of origin or how many go elsewhere.

As of October 23, 1998 there were 6,110 warrants for removal issued against persons deemed to have abandoned or withdrawn their refugee claims. Of these, 640 warrants were executed and the persons removed from Canada; 240 warrants were cancelled; and there was no action on the remaining 5,272 warrants. It is quite obvious that this is a very serious problem.

On Friday last week a news article in the National Post reported that RCMP officers testified at an immigration hearing that as many as 8,000 Tamil guerrillas with military weapon training were now living in the Toronto area after fleeing a civil war in Sri Lanka.

In reference to the Tamil guerrillas, I would like to conclude today by quoting the April 27 National Post article which said:

Sergeant Fred Bowen said most were “in the retired category” but a few remain active and all had undergone some form of military training provided either by India's military intelligence agency or the Tamil Tigers rebel army.

Sergeant Bowen's estimate of the number of guerrillas who have slipped into Canada during this influx matches a Toronto police figure and may explain how the small rebel force manages to raise, according to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, $2 million a year in Canada to finance its war effort.

Sergeant Bowen testified that aside from the former guerrilla fighters there are 12 to 15 active members of the Tigers who are on call to commit crimes for the insurgent force in Toronto, as well as 1,000 Tamil gang members, about a third of them supporters of the rebels.

He said there had been 65 shootings in the Toronto Tamil community since September, 2000...“The vast majority of the community is not involved. They are being victimized, they are being extorted.

The gangs are doing anything for money: home invasions and passport theft; drug dealing; crimes of opportunity; frauds; counterfeiting; credit card frauds; attempted murder; kidnappings; extortions.”

I cannot support this ineffective legislation in its present form, therefore I call upon the government to introduce and enact legislation that would make it hard for terrorists and their supporters to get here, stay here and that would make it impossible for them to raise money while they here. If they were caught in any way, shape or form supporting terrorist activities here or abroad, criminal charges with a very severe penalty would be handed down.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to send Bill C-16 to committee before second reading.

The legislation is the Liberal government's feeble attempt to prevent terrorist groups from obtaining charitable tax status. The solicitor general has tabled a grandiose scheme to try to prevent undesirables from setting up shop in Canada to raise money to overthrow a foreign government or for oppressive violent activities.

Money is often raised by force, with the threat of personal injury or death. We know that approximately 26 groups have charitable tax free status in our country thanks to the weak Liberal government that lacks vision and backbone. It is trying to pass some kind of multi-step program to slowly revoke the bogus charitable status of terrorist groups operating in Canada.

I will briefly describe the multi-step process set out in the bill that would lead to the denial of charitable status. First, the RCMP and CSIS would inform the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of National Revenue of an organization's suspected provision of resources to a terrorist group. If the ministers conclude that the organization makes or would make resources available for terrorism, these ministers would then sign a certificate to that effect.

Once the certificate is signed, the organization would be notified and the certificate would be referred to a federal court judge. The judge would review the intelligence reports in private and would provide a summary to the organization. If the judge upholds the certificate the organization would lose its charitable status for three years, subject to a review if there has been a change in material circumstances to the organization. Finally there would be no appeal of the judge's decision. That is the good news.

The impact of the bill is unlikely to be major. The process is sufficiently complicated that the first designation will probably not be made until years have lapsed. Provisions for in camera hearings are necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods. There are no such provisions in the bill.

Canada is obligated, pursuant to a United Nations convention, to make it a criminal offence to raise funds for terrorists. However the government is not serious about fighting crime or preventing terrorists from using bogus charitable status to raise taxpayer dollars to finance their schemes.

Recently I met with representatives from the Canadian Association for a United Sri Lanka. We discussed the United Nations international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. The individuals I met pointed out that while many countries are expected to support the convention, at least 22 countries must ratify it before it can come into effect. So far only two countries have ratified it and I hope more will do so.

In the bill the government is doing nothing to stop criminals or terrorists from raising funds in Canada for terrorist activities. About a year ago two cabinet ministers attended a fundraiser in support of the Tamil Tigers in contravention of warnings from the U.S. state department, the high commission in Sri Lanka, CSIS and the RCMP. This demonstrated the Canadian government's lack of seriousness about fighting terrorism. It is only interested in doing what is politically expedient.

Canadian taxpayers are assisting the funding of terrorist activities because the money raised by these bogus charitable status organizations is subsidized by the taxpayer. Even if the tax status were removed, however, would the government stop these organizations from raising funds in Canada? I do not think so. There is nothing about that in the bill. It is a violation of the UN convention.

Let us look at the activities of the finance minister and the international development minister. They attended a questionable fundraising event. Article 2, section 5 of the United Nations international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism says:

Any person also commits an offence if that person:

(a) Participates in an offence...

(b) Organizes or directs others to commit an offence...

(c) Contributes to the commission of one or more offences...

The two cabinet ministers could be charged under this section of the UN convention.

The shameful case of Ahmed Ressam should set off alarm bells and signify to the government how weak and ineffective it is at fighting terrorism. This was a textbook case of a terrorist who was arrested crossing the border from Canada to the United States on December 14, 1999. Ressam had plans, the ability and the material to commit a bombing in the United States.

The details of this man's life for the previous five years have come out at his trial in the U.S. where he was convicted on all nine indictments against him. The case reads like an indictment of the Liberal government. Canada has no laws against terrorism thanks to a weak Liberal government which lacks vision, a backbone and the political will to combat terrorism.

Ressam, like other terrorists, took advantage of our lax refugee and immigration system. He arrived in Montreal in 1994 and claimed refugee status at the airport, describing himself as a suspected Islamic terrorist. He was fingerprinted, and guess what? He was set free.

He collected welfare for most of the five years. He was not deported after he was arrested for theft. Later he was arrested for pickpocketing elderly women and set free again. He was arrested for stealing luggage and set free again.

He failed to show up at his refugee hearing in 1995 and the refugee board concluded that he had abandoned his claim. Rather than deporting him at that stage, the board allowed him to appeal that decision in 1996 and he was set free again.

He then changed his identity and got a Canadian passport. Let us imagine a terrorist getting a Canadian passport. Then he got a social insurance card and a Quebec driver's licence and began to travel the world, pursuing terrorist training outside Canada that included an association with Bin Laden.

In 1999 French government representatives tried to get into Canada to interview Ressam but was not allowed in until October. After October they immediately got the goods on the guy by searching his apartment in Montreal, although Ressam was nowhere to be found.

Finally he showed up. He showed up trying to get into the U.S. in December and was arrested. The world is disappointed in Canada. What would have happened if Ressam had been arrested in Canada? He would have received a maximum of ten years, of which only two would be spent in jail. Having been convicted in the U.S. he will now spend one hundred years in jail.

In conclusion, after years of the Reform Party and now the Canadian Alliance fighting for tougher laws to combat gangs, criminal activities and terrorist organizations, the Liberal government has finally introduced some of the legislation we have been calling for. However the weak Liberal government that lacks the political will to get tough on crime, particularly organized crime and terrorism, has only done so under pressure from the opposition, the United Nations, the public, the RCMP and CSIS.

Combating organized crime and terrorism was part of the Alliance justice platform. However the bill is a feeble attempt by the government to address the issue. It will be ineffective and lengthy and will lead nowhere. It is not enough. It is not the giant step that is needed. We will therefore be opposing the legislation.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address Bill C-16, which I am introducing jointly with my colleague the solicitor general.

Charities play a critical role in the achievement of goals, both here and abroad, that Canadians deem important. Charities provide humanitarian assistance in times of crisis. They promote the building of civil society in developing countries. They provide help to the needy and they work to respond to social concerns and problems.

To recognize this and to encourage Canadians to support charitable activities, the Income Tax Act grants significant tax privileges to charities. Charities are accountable for how they use donations. They hold the public trust and they depend on public confidence.

The bill provides the legal means to deal with any suspected abuse of charitable status by terrorist supporters who try to use charities to disguise their activities.

This bill will also guarantee that tax privileges granted to registered charities are provided only to organizations that engage in charitable activities under the Income Tax Act. Above all, it will guarantee to Canadians that their donations to registered charities in Canada will be used for legitimate purposes.

As members know, the tax incentive related to gifts to charities is administered under the charities registration process. These legislative provisions and the registration process administered by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency are evidence of the clear intention of parliament to support, through the tax system, activities conducted for charitable purposes under Canadian legislation.

In Canada, as in other common law jurisdictions, the courts have been very clear that the pursuit of political objectives falls outside the legal bounds of charity. Any organization that operates in whole or in part to support political aims and objectives would not be eligible to receive charitable status for income tax purposes.

The use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve a political aim, regardless of the cause concerned, cannot be reconciled with the legal concept of charity. The bill before us today addresses very serious international concerns about terrorist activities.

Canada as a nation and Canadians individually do not and cannot tolerate terrorist activities. In order to maintain public trust in the treatment of charitable organizations, the government must ensure that the tax privileges available to such organizations do not benefit any organizations using violence to attain their goals.

Certain organizations which condone acts of terrorism are also involved in humanitarian assistance and community development programs. They may therefore attempt to make a distinction between that part of the organization which engages in terrorism and that part which provides humanitarian services.

This bill makes it impossible to sanitize a terrorist organization merely by keeping humanitarian activities separate from terrorist activities on the organization chart. It is naive to think that the purpose of these groups' assistance activities can be kept separate from their use of violence to attain their political goals, unless the intention is to deceive.

This bill makes it clear that Canada will not tolerate the abuse of our democratic system and institutions to promote and fund terrorism. We will not allow terrorists to obtain charity status by concealing their terrorist operations behind charitable activities.

Canada is not the only country to take steps to prevent terrorist organizations from passing themselves off as legitimate charities. In July 1996 all of the G-8 countries made a commitment “to take steps to prevent or counteract, through appropriate domestic measures, the financing of terrorists and terrorist organizations, whether such financing is direct or indirect through organizations which also have or claim to have charitable, social or cultural goals”.

The legislation is part of Canada's response to this international concern. It is not the total solution. It addresses only the issue of tax incentives that are being provided to organizations whose activities are not consistent with the concept of charity.

Such provisions do however indicate a step in the right direction. As confirmed by the report presented in 1999 by the special senate committee on security and intelligence, taxation measures applicable to charitable organizations are exposed to the possibility of abuse.

The committee pointed out that a variety of groups with terrorist affiliations are carrying out fundraising activities in Canada and that benevolent or philanthropic organizations often serve as fronts for fundraising.

The report specifically points out that such groups use the status of registered charity under the Income Tax Act to enhance their credibility. It also suggests that Canadian taxpayers may be unwittingly supporting violent political actions by these groups through donations they believed were going to provide humanitarian aid.

This is unacceptable. Canadians have every right to expect that registered charities are charitable as the term is understood by the law. We have a clear onus to ensure the integrity of the system and to take whatever steps are necessary to see that the legislative framework for the system guards against abuse.

This is what the bill does. It protects the registration of charities by providing recourse to secret information, to security information, relevant to the determination of a charity's right to receive donations providing tax relief. To this end, it in fact creates a parallel appeal process.

The automatic judicial review process will be used only when the solicitor general and the national revenue minister take steps to revoke or refuse a registration on the grounds that donations are being used to support acts of terrorism.

The proposed process will make it possible to consider all information relevant to national security in determining the status of the charity, while protecting from inappropriate disclosure delicate information on national security. The rules currently in effect requiring full public disclosure will continue to apply in all other appeals.

This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to building Canadians' trust in the voluntary sector and in the integrity of our tax administration. This is a step that should be welcomed by all concerned about our charity registration system.

To close, we cannot and will not neglect our responsibility to all Canadians to ensure tax measures relating to charitable organizations are respected and may be controlled.

This is the very foundation of public trust in tax measures applying to charities. This trust is fragile and must be protected. The bill realizes this objective.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I as well am pleased to have an opportunity to put a few remarks on the record with respect to Bill C-16, which is a very important piece of legislation dealing with charitable organizations and regulations that relate to fundraising activities in Canada. I could not agree more with my hon. colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona that the process in which we are pursuing this matter is a very important part of the debate.

The Westray issue in particular is something of great interest to me as this tragedy occurred in Plymouth, Nova Scotia in the constituency of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. There was an unusual coming together of members of parliament on that issue of workplace safety and the broader implications that exist for those who can be injured in the workplace. We saw this past weekend recognition in a day of memorial, a day of remembering those who died in the workplace. We should be renewing our efforts in that regard as well.

To speak specifically to this issue, this is a piece of legislation that puts in place a judicial process by which the government would be able to deny charitable status to any group found to be supporting terrorist activity. Much of this, I suggest, will have to be fleshed out in terms of the organizational definition and the definition of terrorist activities, yet it is certainly a step in the right direction. It is a positive initiative which the Progressive Conservative Party will support in this initial stage.

This legislation is long overdue. The Conservative Party has been very consistent in calling upon the government to act in this direction to curtail terrorist activity in Canada. We qualify this support, realizing once again that the government tried to initially deal with this problem through avoidance. Since that did not work it has been literally shamed into bringing forward this legislation, which sadly does not go quite far enough. It is a typical legislative half measure. The support of our party therefore will hinge on our ability to bring forward amendments and to delve into greater detail at the committee level.

It is important that we send a message of deterrence and a message that rings throughout the country that this type of terrorist activity funding and enhancing of terrorist causes will not be perpetrated in Canada and will not be tolerated by government or by law enforcement communities. Other western countries have enacted similar legislation so Canada is following the leader in a sense. It is certainly important that ethnic Canadians are not coerced unknowingly into becoming charitable fronts for terrorist fundraising activities.

Canadians are a magnanimous people by nature. I know that in your part of the world in Kingston, Mr. Speaker, that could not be more true. Canadians generally want to give. They want to reach out and help. My colleague from Cumberland—Colchester raised the issue today of the need to do more to help other countries and to do more for the African AIDS epidemic where so many millions of people are suffering from this horrible disease.

Meanwhile we need to have some safeguards to ensure that these causes are genuine and that these fundraising activities are those in which the most amount of aid and assistance will actually be obtained by those groups. We need to ensure that in our effort to combat terrorism, legislation does not unfairly target legitimate, peaceful, law abiding fundraising groups, especially those fundraising groups of different ethnic backgrounds that engage in very valuable fundraising activities or initiatives for the betterment of their communities.

I am hopeful that we will be able to produce legislation that will improve public safety for the country and meet this balance that is required while not trampling on the rights of those who are in some instances very vulnerable citizens in this country and are making very legitimate efforts to try to assist those from their originating countries in their plight.

Bill C-16 sets up a process by which organizations supporting terrorist activities could be denied or lose their charitable status. If the solicitor general and the minister of revenue, after reviewing security and criminal intelligence reports, have reasonable grounds to believe that an organization makes or will make resources available to terrorism, they both would be required to sign a certificate. The organization would then be given notice of this certificate and the matter would be referred automatically to the federal court for a judicial review. The applicant would have the opportunity to apply to the federal court to have its identity protected and a judicial process would then occur.

The federal court could and would provide the applicant with an opportunity to introduce evidence, call witnesses and cross-examine in a public forum. This is a very important process in getting to the root of the allegation if the group is suspected of being involved in terrorist activity and fundraising.

This process would allow for the review and the classification in camera, and the judge would then provide the organization with a summary of the classified information produced. The summary would contain sufficient information to allow the organization to respond but would also exclude information that the judge has determined would be injurious to national security and the safety of persons. There is a fairly indepth and comprehensive process there to protect the rights of those involved. Confidentiality is often very critical in the integrity of the process, but to be very blunt, it is often a matter of life and death. These terrorist groups are very ruthless in their activities, and the repercussions and the revenge factor are certainly real.

If confirmed, the certificate would then be valid for three years and the judge's decision would be final and not available for or subject to appeal. However there is a provision for review if there is a change in the material circumstances of the organization.

All of this is to say that Bill C-16 provides a very good starting point. However some of this process is going to have to be worked through and more detail put in place.

Terrorists often look outside their borders. That is clear. Canada, because of the financial and material resources that exist here, is very much a target of terrorist organizations. Over the past number of years the approach to terrorism, I would strongly suggest, has been inadequate and has allowed, to a large extent, terrorist fundraising activities to thrive and to flourish in Canada. The regrettable result is that terrorist organizations have been able to exert their influence over and even infiltrate some very legitimate operating Canadian organizations that already have charitable status.

Recently we have seen concern raised over the charitable organization known as the Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils, FACT, which has been identified by federal lawyers as a front for the known terrorist organization, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Justice department lawyers have said that the Tamil Tigers engaged in torture, mistreatment of prisoners, summary executions, ethnic cleansing of Muslims and kidnapping and forcible conscription of children, all absolutely abhorrent activities. I am sure that some who may have contributed to this organization would be appalled to think that their money went to that organization for those purposes.

We have seen similar fundraising activities that play upon the emotions and the passions of Irish Canadians. For many years in this country we have seen Irish Republican Army activists who have tried to raise money for what turned out to be explosives or weaponry that was used to perpetrate their cause. That cause is thankfully now through due to the peace process and to negotiations in Northern Ireland and is moving in a very positive direction.

It needs to be stated that Canadian Tamils have made valuable contributions to the country. The fact that the particular organization is one of several political and benevolent front organizations that support a terrorist organization has resulted in a great deal of controversy in the House of Commons. It demonstrated the reach of such terrorist organizations into what seemed to be a well intentioned charitable group. It is also a reminder to Canadians of the care that must be taken and the background checks that must be made before any well intentioned person decides to aid in an effort of a charitable group.

Donations to a charity qualify for tax credits which reduce federal taxes by 17% for the first $200 of eligible donations and 29% of the balance to a limit of 75% of income. Such donations also reduce provincial taxes.

The legislation is positive in its direction. The difficulty is that police often have trouble making the connection between a charitable organization and the terrorist front that is being used for that purpose. Fundraising fronts usually take care to commit no crime in this country and police can currently only lay charges of conspiracy if a direct connection can be established.

There is much work to be done in this area. The United Nations General Assembly adopted the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism, but Bill C-16 falls somewhat short of Canada's obligations under that convention. Other countries such as the United States and Great Britain make it completely illegal to provide material support or resources for any group that the government has found to be a terrorist organization.

Canada can learn from the example of other countries. We have an opportunity to improve the legislation and we hope that we would have the opportunity to do that in the justice committee. There may be some need to refer the bill to another committee, but wherever it goes we would be looking to improve it.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly to the referral of Bill C-16 to committee. It is a procedure that is not used all that often.

Bill C-16 is a bill which is well suited to this kind of examination in committee before second reading so that no parties in the House, and particularly the government, find themselves committed to any particular position on the bill. It leaves the way open for members on the committee to explore all the various concerns that a great many people have expressed about the bill.

Having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General, it seemed to me that he made a speech that was more appropriate for a traditional second reading debate in which he vigorously defended the bill and the government's position on the bill. That is not what should be happening now. The bill is going to committee before second reading presumably because the government has some sense that there are things which need to be looked at before any final commitment on the part of the government is made to the passage of the bill.

There would be an opportunity for people to come forward, as they have been doing through correspondence to various members of parliament, particularly those associated with this file, and express their concerns on the record before the committee.

Another bill which may be suited to this kind of process would be a bill that the government could bring forward having to do with workplace safety and changes to the criminal code with respect to the charging of companies or individuals of companies responsible for the death of workers on the job through corporate negligence.

I am referring to a bill that existed in the last parliament that was sometimes called the Westray bill. Our party was pushing that bill in the last parliament, particularly our leader, the hon. member for Halifax. We were urging the government to act on that particular issue.

It would seem to me if the Minister of Justice, as she has said to me, wants to hear from more Canadians, if she is not prepared to act on the Westray file at this moment, that bringing forward a piece of legislation and referring it to committee before second reading so that more people could be heard on that particular subject would be a good idea.

I make no apologies for using the opportunity when we are employing that process with respect to Bill C-16 to say that there are other issues which are equally important and which I think the government should act on by using this particular process. One of them could certainly be acting on the Westray file, that is to say, changing the criminal code in such a way that the kind of activity that led to that particular tragedy would be the kind of activity that could be gone after much more efficiently than it can be gone after now.

With respect to Bill C-16, there is no need to speak at great length about the bill. We want to see it go to committee. I would say that the government should be open, as I think I already know it is, as to whether or not it finally should go to the justice and human rights committee because the justice and human rights committee is a very busy committee. We have Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act, Bill C-15, the omnibus amendments to the criminal code and the organized crime bill, and there will be more. I would hope the government would consider whether or not at some point, perhaps in discussion with House leaders, if we could agree to send this bill for this kind of an examination to some other committee, a committee that can do it sooner. It is not because we do not want to do it in the justice committee, but perhaps we could agree to send it to some other committee whose calendar of work would permit it to do this earlier.

Surely all Canadians would agree that if this is a problem that needs to be addressed then it should be addressed sooner rather than later. I put it on the record that we should look at perhaps where we might refer this bill for this kind of study. We could always change it by unanimous consent.

A number of groups have already expressed concern about the bill, but I will say briefly that we in the NDP support the principle of the bill, which is that taxpayers should not be funding, surreptitiously or innocently by virtue of deception any particular organization or terrorism activity either here or in any other country.

If my understanding of the bill is correct, I think what the government has in mind here is terrorism abroad. When I listened to the Alliance spokesperson complain that the bill does not fight terrorism in the many ways that he thinks it should, he may be right that there are other things the government could be doing to fight terrorism, but the bill is directed toward amendments that need to be made to the charities act.

In fairness to the government, we could say that it should be doing this, that and the other thing, and that all may be true, but the bill itself, it seems to me, zeros in on a particular problem and that is, how can we prevent the Canadian taxpayer from subsidizing terrorism through the charities act? How can we do that in a way that does not interfere with the legitimate activities of a great many charities which may in fact be configured in relationship, not necessarily to another country or to a cause in another country, but configured culturally or ethnically in a way that leaves them open to that suspicion or may in fact, depending on what is actually the case, leave them open to being used in that particular way?

Many of the groups that would fall into that category have a legitimate concern, I think, that they not be dragged through a process in which, even if at the end of that process they are found to be innocent, they would nevertheless have expended a great deal of time, energy and perhaps reputation in defending themselves against that charge. How can we balance that concern with the very real concern that some organizations may actually be or may be tempted to be or may in the past have been or may in the future act in such a way that the moneys which Canadians give to them, which are tax deductible, are used in some way or another for terrorism?

I will end by saying that one of the things we need to keep in mind while trying to find this balance is that we also need to do a lot more critical thinking about what constitutes terrorism, particularly when we are talking about terrorism abroad, which is mostly the kind of terrorism we are talking about. It is sometimes a very political matter what is defined as terrorism, which is obviously unacceptable, and what is defined as resistance or legitimate rebellion or whatever.

One is reminded of a time in the House when one left oneself open to very severe criticism if one spoke in any sort of supportive way of the African National Congress and the anti-apartheid movement. Yet there were acts of violence associated with the anti-apartheid movement and the African National Congress within South Africa. Would that have meant in the context of this bill that anti-apartheid groups in Canada who were raising money for the cause of anti-apartheid in South Africa could have been dragged through the process that this bill lays out?

I ask that question because it is a legitimate concern. The task of the committee will be to address that concern while at the same time respecting the principle of the bill that Canadian taxpayers should not be funding terrorism.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill respecting the registration of charities and security information and to amend the Income Tax Act seeks to counter activities in support of terrorism as provided under the convention on the financing of terrorism which was approved by the United Nations.

Through its bill, the government wants to counter terrorism by preventing supporters of terrorism from engaging in fundraising or the transfer of money and materiel abroad.

The bill seeks to deny support to terrorist activities and to protect the integrity of the charity registration process through the fair and transparent use, to the extent that it is possible, of confidential information that could jeopardize national and human security.

Concretely, this bill seeks to prevent organizations that are related to terrorist groups from obtaining the status of charities. This should help reduce the funding of terrorist activities. The legislation would, among other things, facilitate the use of confidential information to determine the eligibility for registration as a charity or to revoke the registration of a registered charity.

It is interesting to note that the minister does not define what he means by "terrorism" even though the purpose of the bill is precisely to counter the funding of organizations that engage in such activities. Such an omission can of course lead to a broad or liberal interpretation of the term. This means that in a highly politicized context there is always a potential risk of abuse.

In that perspective, we have no guarantee that the criteria used for interpretation purposes will allow us to distinguish between the funding of legitimate activities, such as political protest, and that of violent activities. The word "terrorism" must be thoroughly defined.

As for the judicial review of the certificate, while the procedure is relatively simple, it does raise some concerns. First, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will inform the solicitor general and the Minister of National Revenue that it has come to the conclusion that an organization is fundraising to finance terrorist activities.

On the basis of that notice the ministers can then start procedures to prevent that organization from getting the status of charity or to revoke its registration.

Given that this process is set in motion by an administrative notice to the political arm, which then issues a certificate, we feel that this approach is flawed by the absence of any possibility of judicial control.

As a result, the impossibility of filing an appeal places any organization faced with such a procedure at the mercy of errors or political and judicial administrative abuses which might arise from excessive alarmism. Knowing that CSIS practices are not above reproach, we are concerned.

In addition, there is the absence of control mentioned earlier. What reasons could the organization give for purposes of control or appeal, when it is not entitled to know the information giving rise to the certificate?

But there is no objection to giving it information which does not pose a threat to national security. In other words, it will be given information which is not really relevant because the denial or revocation of charitable status will be based on information which could pose a threat to national security.

Finally, the only procedural guarantee the organization is allowed is the audi alteram partem rule. But one might wonder just how useful that is since the organization will not have access to the facts and the reasons for the certificate being issued.

The section on evidence raises equally important concerns. First, under a procedure provided for in the bill a judge will be able to allow evidence regardless of its admissibility.

By disregarding specific rules of evidence the government is ignoring the contradictory nature of our judicial system. The bill would institute an inquisitional procedure which is unacceptable in a free and democratic society.

As we have only ten or so minutes each, I will skip over a few of my remarks and go to the heart of the issue.

We wonder how anyone could possibly think an accused would have the impression that justice had been done. For that to be the case, there would at least have to be the appearance of justice. The whole thing is hard to verify, when the evidence is revealed in camera, in the absence of the principal parties. It can be said therefore that in the case before us the procedure stands out because of its almost total lack of transparency.

The organization mentioned in a certificate will be able to apply for a review by showing that a material change has occurred in circumstances since the determination. This is an interesting possibility since the organization is permitted to mend its ways.

However, if we consider the problems raised previously it seems to me uncertain that an organization can prove this. In order to prove reform, a party must know the allegations against it.

Once the ministers have given their decision, the organization will have all the time in the world to apply to the federal court to review the decision. Once again this possibility appears to accord certain procedural guarantees.

Unfortunately, this is not entirely the case. In fact, the ministers do not seem to have to give reasons for the decision that is to be reviewed. In addition, the federal court will review the decision only if it was given under subclause 10(5)( b ) of the bill, that is, if the circumstances have changed but the certificate continues to have effect.

This implies therefore that when the ministers conclude that the situation has not changed materially, the federal court does not have real review power. In such a case it can only quash the decision on the grounds that the circumstances have materially changed and return the file to the ministers for another determination. In this way, there is no real control because the file goes back to those who made the original determination.

The aim of this bill is most worthy, but the means to achieving it are dubious. At the moment, as it is written it snags on too many principles of justice to be passed in its present form. The committee will have to improve it significantly, otherwise, it would set a dangerous precedent in terms of the violation of procedural guarantees.

Some will say that charities may be a disguise for terrorist organizations. Even if they are right, I do not believe the right thing is being targeted. It is somewhat absurd to think that the supporters of terrorist organizations want to take advantage of tax credits.

One may even wonder to what extent this bill is not a roundabout way of enabling the minister to control taxation. It must be kept in mind that terrorism is not financed exclusively through charitable organizations. Although the government is attempting to show that it is taking concrete actions against terrorism, with this bill it is opting for facility rather than really attacking the source of the problem.

In actual fact, all it is doing is making sure that tax receipts cannot be issued for financing terrorist activities.

I agree is a very real phenomenon and we must help fight it. On the other hand, do we need to recreate psychoses such as there were in the era of fear of the communist threat, or worse still, go back to the era of the Inquisition and its search for heretics? I think not.

I believe it would be far more effective for the criminal code to properly address the financing of criminal activities for this would focus directly on those involved in such acts.

In short, to conclude, Bill C-16 could be summarized as follows: suspicion, discretionary power, enigmatic proof, and lack of control.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-16 which is an act designed to allow the government to use and protect classified security, criminal intelligence and information in denying or revoking the charitable status of an organization with terrorist affiliations.

Bill C-16 balances the government's need to protect classified information against the basic requirement to ensure fairness and transparency in assessing the status of registered charities or applicants for charitable status.

The objective is to prevent the abuse of the charity registration system now and in the future by those few organizations that would provide support to terrorism.

I would like to share with members a quick overview of the pressing challenges we as a government face, and indeed all Canadians, that makes this bill so essential in contributing to Canada's effort to combat terrorism and just as important to preserve the integrity of Canada's registered charities system, one of the country's greatest social strengths.

I would also like to briefly discuss the process by which Bill C-16 was developed, how it will work, its importance and benefit to Canadian society and public safety and how it integrates with broader efforts devoted to international security.

Bill C-16 responds directly to the 1999 report of the special Senate committee on security and intelligence which observed that groups with terrorist affiliations conduct fundraising activities in Canada often using benevolent or philanthropic organizations as fronts.

One of the report's key recommendations called for the Income Tax Act to be amended to allow Revenue Canada, as it was called then, to deny charitable registration to any group on the basis of a certificate from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service stating that the group constitutes a threat to the security of Canada.

We have also been listening to Canadians. We know that they look to the federal government in many ways, and in this way as well, to take a leadership role in remaining vigilant and ready to act to prevent terrorist activities from taking place in Canada.

We also know that Canadians want us to take any action that is appropriate and necessary to protect basic and core Canadian values. The legislation would help us address concerns expressed over the past few years by various ethnic groups, by the voluntary sector and by the Canadian public in general. The integrity and essential contributions of charitable organizations must be protected and maintained.

Canadians need to be assured that if they are approached to support a charitable organization, they can be confident that it is a bona fide organization.

The legislation allows the government to respond to threats to the public safety and national security of Canada and to other states stemming from front groups using charitable status to cloak in the blanket of legitimacy their activities in support of terrorism. We all know that terrorism is a global problem that ignores borders. That is why Canada is and must be committed to working globally to fight it. For this reason, Canada works in a wide range of international fora to encourage both the collective condemnation of terrorism and effective, practical action against it.

Over the last number of years a series of G-8 communiques and declarations and United Nations conventions and resolutions have addressed the issue of terrorism and more specifically the financing of terrorism. These international statements and agreements depend on action by Canada and other partner countries to give them life.

Starting in 1995 with the Ottawa ministerial declaration on countering terrorism, G-8 countries agreed to: share intelligence and technical knowledge; share information on terrorist organizations and terrorist incidents; share expertise on the protection of public buildings; and improve procedures for tracing and tracking suspected terrorists. At the same time they agreed to pursue measures aimed at depriving terrorists of their sources of funding.

In February of last year Canada was one of the first countries, and we should be proud of this, to sign the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. Canada has been a vigorous advocate in this area.

Terrorism is not new to the modern world. What is new is the magnitude of the terrorist activities undertaken by groups to further their goals through indiscriminate violence and destruction. The tools of terrorism cost money. Many terrorist organizations have devised unscrupulous methods of finding the money they need. This bill will put a stop to one of those methods, that being the use of charitable tax receipts to help support the use of violence in pursuit of a political objective.

Canadians want a charity system that can be trusted and is not open to abuse. They want a system and legislation that strikes a balance between the need for transparency and the need to deal firmly and effectively with those who would seek to abuse the system.

The bill therefore carries a dual mandate, closing the back door through which organizations supporting terrorist groups are subsidized by Canadian taxpayers, while at the same time ensuring that the standards of procedural fairness enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are met.

There is currently a judicial process in place to review applications for charitable status or to revoke charitable status for those organizations that do not meet the requirements of the Income Tax Act. The classified information is not used in the current process since disclosure of such information would damage national security. A special legislative regime is needed to allow this information to be used, and that is precisely what the bill provides.

The process outlined in this bill is based on the immigration act and has withstood scrutiny by the courts. A certificate based on security and criminal intelligence information is issued by the Minister of National Revenue and the Solicitor General of Canada. Both ministers review the information separately and independently. The certificate is then reviewed by a judge of the Federal Court of Canada who in turn determines if the certificate issued by the ministers is reasonable or should be quashed. Sensitive intelligence information is reviewed by the judge and a summary of that information is provided to the applicant for charitable status or the registered charity, as the case may be.

The organization is entitled to legal counsel and to a hearing at which evidence may be presented. It is only after the certificate has been confirmed by a judge that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency would deny or revoke charitable status.

The certificate is valid for a period of three years. However it can be cancelled within that three year period if the organization presents new information which supports a conclusion that its resources are no longer being used to support terrorism.

The Speech From the Throne confirmed the government's intentions and commitment to further provide the necessary tools to fight terrorism. The bill is one of the tools the Government of Canada requires to wage the battle effectively. Canada is a country built on diversity. Our strength is based on diversity. In order for Canada to continue to grow and flourish it is important that our diverse nature be recognized and accepted.

The bill reinforces a clear message of the government that the use of violence to perpetuate conflicts is inconsistent with the values of a tolerant multicultural society which is Canada.

Some will say the bill does not go far enough. They will say we need to do more to combat terrorist fundraising in Canada. Let me say on behalf of the government that clearly there we agree. That is why Canada was one of the first countries to sign the UN convention last year. Our commitment is clear. We will fulfill our international obligations and will do so in accordance with Canadian values.

The bill is an important and necessary step. That is why we are here to debate it today. This small but necessary step in our fight against terrorism and the support of terrorism through fundraising is very important.

I hope we can look forward to the support of all parties on this very important piece of legislation. After all it is what Canada is all about.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, for the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That Bill C-16, an act respecting the registration of charities and security information and to amend the Income Tax Act, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Bill C-16. On the Order: Government Orders)

March 15, 2001—The Solicitor General of Canada—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of Bill C-16, an act respecting the registration of charities and security information and to amend the Income Tax Act.

Petitions

[Yolande Thibeault, Liberal, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to table in the House a petition signed by 42 constituents of my riding of Saint-Lambert.

They ask the government to bring in amendments to Bill C-16, the charities registration act. They suggest that the bill violates fundamental freedoms and would like to see legislative safeguards added to ensure that it does not disproportionately target ethnic or religious groups.

Business Of The House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe you would find consent for that if a recorded division is requested Monday, April 30 on a motion to refer Bill C-16 to committee before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1) it shall be deemed deferred until the end of government orders on Tuesday, May 1.

Discussions have also taken place among all parties and there is agreement pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) to further defer the recorded divisions requested earlier today on third reading of Bill C-9 and third reading of Bill C-3 from Monday, April 30 until the end of government orders on Tuesday, May 1.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the opposition House leader on his appointment and to extend as well similar words of congratulation both to his seatmate, the new chief whip, and the other officials of his caucus.

This afternoon we will continue debate on the second reading of Bill C-6, the water export bill. I intend to seek adjournment of the debate after the speech from our colleague from the Bloc Quebecois on this matter.

If there is any time, we will commence the second reading of Bill C-25, the farm credit amendments bill. It would be my intention as well to adjourn the debate after the lead off speech from either the government minister or parliamentary secretary, as the case may be. We would then propose to move immediately to private members' business this afternoon.

Friday we will debate second reading of Bill C-26, the tobacco tax legislation.

On Monday we will return to Bill C-6, which will not be completed this afternoon. We will then continue with Bill C-25 for the same reason, and then, if necessary, to Bill C-26, the tobacco tax legislation, if we do not complete it tomorrow. If we have any time left, it will be spent on Bill C-10, the marine parks bill, as I previously indicated to my colleagues at the House leaders meeting earlier this week. In the afternoon we will debate Bill C-16, the charities bill. I wish to give notice pursuant to Standing Order 73(1) that the government will propose that this bill will be referred to committee before second reading. This should, in essence, take roughly the time between 3.00 p.m. and the adjournment later in the afternoon.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day. In the evening it is my intention to seek the usual co-operation to hold the second of the take note debates on the modernization of House rules. It would be pursuant to consultation with others. My intention is to see if we want to have this debate using the forum we used very successfully earlier this week, but, as I said, I intend to consult with other House leaders on that.

On Wednesday I would propose that we continue with any unfinished business from the previous days, adding thereto Bill S-16 which was introduced in the House earlier this day. Should we be ready to do so, and should time permit, I would then commence the report stage and third reading of Bill C-22, the income tax amendments bill.

Charities Registration (Security Information) Act

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-16, an act respecting the registration of charities and security information and to amend the Income Tax Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)