Bill C-24 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-36, known in short form as the anti-terrorism act. Bill C-36 was introduced in the House to provide needed enhancements to Canada's ability to address terrorism under the criminal code, to make related changes to other laws and to amend Canadian law to improve our ability to respond to discrimination and hatred.

The bill responds to the events of September 11 and the new face of terrorism that was revealed that day. While more than two months have passed since the events of that day, I am sure that none of us can forget the horror of the mass murder that took place.

Since that time this government and other governments around the world have taken significant and immediate steps to improve security. Also, through military and other efforts we have taken very significant steps toward dismantling the base of Osama bin Laden, a terrorist network in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless it would be very wrong to conclude that the threat of terrorism has disappeared, whether from al-Qaeda or from other potential terrorist organizations. We must remain vigilant as a country. Further, we must act in concert with other countries in the global effort against terrorism. It is recognized throughout the world that we need a long term approach to the problem.

The measures in Bill C-36 are a key part of Canada's long term plan to address terrorism. While as I have said the bill is responsive to the events of September 11, it would fill gaps in Canadian law that need to be filled regardless of the events of that day. September 11 has given us a great impetus to act without delay. It is important to emphasize, as the Minister of Justice has done, that these are not emergency measures but rather measures that would allow us to remain vigilant to an ongoing threat.

I will take a few moments to go over the major elements of Bill C-36. I then intend to review the changes accepted by the standing committee which have been reported back to the House.

I now turn to the major elements of the bill. Bill C-36 would implement the international convention on the suppression of financing of terrorism and the international convention on the suppression of terrorist bombings, the two remaining international conventions on terrorism that Canada has not yet implemented. The term terrorist activity is defined under this bill. The definition makes reference to offences that are set out in international conventions relevant to terrorism.

In addition, a general definition is provided referring to acts or omissions undertaken for political, religious or ideological purposes intended to intimidate the public or compel government to act and cause death, serious bodily harm or a number of other serious harms specifically set out in the definition.

The bill would provide for a list of terrorist groups and persons to be made by order of the federal cabinet on the recommendation of the Solicitor General of Canada. Under Bill C-36 comprehensive new terrorism offences under the criminal code would be created.

These include offences relating to participating in, facilitating or instructing terrorist activity and harbouring others who carry out terrorist activity. These offences would criminalize a full range of activities related to terrorism.

The bill would provide for limited and strictly safeguarded preventive arrest as a means of assisting law enforcement officers to disrupt the planning of terrorist attacks.

The bill would also provide for investigative hearings under the criminal code. These hearings, permitted under limited conditions, would be judicially supervised and would require the individual to give evidence to assist the investigations of terrorist offences. Such evidence could not be used against that individual and so protects a person's right to remain silent in his or her own criminal proceeding.

The bill would implement an aggressive sentencing and parole regime for terrorist offences including a maximum of life imprisonment for many offences as well as restricted parole eligibility.

Under Bill C-36 measures would be added to the criminal code on the financing of terrorism. Included within these measures are provisions on the seizure, restraint and forfeiture of terrorist property.

In addition, the bill would amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act. The mandate of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, Fintrac, under this act would be expanded to gather, analyze and disclose information on terrorist money laundering.

Also, as a way to assist in drying up the source of funds for terrorist groups and to prevent abuse of Canada's laws on charities, Bill C-36 would enact the charities registration security information act. This act would allow for the removal or denial of charitable status from organizations where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the organizations make their resources available to terrorists.

The focus of these measures is the prevention of terrorism. While our current laws allow us to charge and convict terrorists after they engage in terrorist acts we clearly must be able to do more. The measures in Bill C-36 would significantly enhance our ability to charge and convict those who are in the planning stages of terrorist attacks, to go after those who direct terrorist activity even before the activity occurs, to arrest and impose conditions on the release of persons where this is necessary to prevent terrorist activity, to dismantle the financial networks that support further terrorist activity and to incarcerate for a long period of time those found guilty of terrorism.

There are a number of other significant provisions in the bill. The bill would update and refine the Official Secrets Act to better address national security concerns. The bill would also amend the Canada Evidence Act to allow for enhanced protection of sensitive information during legal proceedings. I also highlight measures under Bill C-36 that are relevant to targeting discrimination and hatred within Canada.

Under the bill a new criminal code offence of damage committed against religious groups and their places of worship would be created. This new provision would send a strong signal that behaviour such as destroying or damaging a church, mosque or temple or interfering with religious activities is completely unacceptable in Canada.

As well the bill would provide a new power to order the deletion of hate propaganda made available to the public through computer systems such as the Internet. The Canadian Humans Rights Act would be amended under the bill to clarify that communication of hate messages using new technologies such as the Internet is a discriminatory practice.

It is now my intention to explain some of the amendments that were accepted by the standing committee and that have been reported back to the House. Under these amendments the major elements of the bill would remain. However the amendments would make a number of improvements and refinements to these elements.

Certain of the amendments would help to clarify aspects of the bill for which misunderstandings might otherwise have arisen. The changes would reflect the government's intent in the bill but would help to ensure that this intent is clearly understood and would be appropriately implemented. Other changes would help to provide additional oversight and control of certain of the provisions of the bill.

In addition to these amendments a number of technical corrections and refinements were made to Bill C-36. I do not intend to review these in detail.

In making these major and minor changes the standing committee listened to the concerns of parliamentarians as reflected in the report of the special Senate committee on Bill C-36, as reflected by comments made by members of the standing committee and as reflected by the debates in the House. The changes would also take into account comments made by numerous other Canadians whether in submissions before the parliamentary committees or elsewhere.

Of course not all the suggestions that were received were accepted by the standing committee. We are grateful nevertheless for the close attention that has been paid to the bill and the thought provoking and useful ideas that have been provided.

Let me begin with the definition of terrorist activity, which has received considerable attention during the examination of the bill. One of the provisions of the definition as originally put before the House excluded “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work” from the scope of the definition. Some have questioned whether because of the use of the word lawful activities of this type which include unlawful conduct such as assault, trespass and minor property damage might be interpreted as being terrorism.

This was never the government's intent. The fact that an activity is otherwise unlawful does not by itself mean that it amounts to terrorism. Quite the contrary. Therefore the committee has accepted an amendment removing the word lawful.

This would not have the effect of making protests lawful that are otherwise unlawful due to violations of other criminal laws. It would, however, clarify that this specific exclusion from the scope of the definition of terrorist activity applies whether or not the advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work is lawful.

While discussing the definition of terrorist activity I also wish to observe that certain words in the definition that have provoked some discussion were not amended by the committee. These are the words “political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” that refer to the motivations for terrorist activity under the definition.

These words have been retained in the definition as they are absolutely necessary to appropriately define and limit the scope of Bill C-36. It is important to emphasize that nothing in these words would target any particular cultural, religious or ethnic group or political or ideological cause. Rather, the words would help to distinguish terrorist activity from other forms of criminality that are intended to intimidate or compel people by the use of serious violence.

The committee nevertheless recognized that it was advisable to clarify the definition to provide with further certainty that the enforcement provisions in the bill are not to be interpreted or applied in a discriminatory manner or in a manner that could suppress democratic rights.

The committee considered and accepted an amendment that stipulates in this regard that the definition of terrorist activity would not apply to the expression of political, religious or ideological ideas that are not intended to cause the various forms of perverse and extreme harm set out in the definition.

Proper review and oversight of the powers provided under Bill C-36 would also help ensure that the powers are applied appropriately. Many such review and oversight mechanisms were already part of the bill when introduced. The government is committed to ensuring that the enhanced enforcement powers under the bill contribute to the safety and security of Canadians but do not undermine fundamental rights.

The standing committee listened to submissions that additional monitoring was necessary. However, further to these submissions, it accepted an amendment requiring an annual public report by the Attorney General of Canada, the Solicitor General of Canada and their counterparts in the provinces and territories.

This report would concern the powers of investigative hearings and of preventive arrest under Bill C-36. This information would provide an annual check on the use of these provisions and inform the parliamentary review which is to occur within three years.

Let me assure the House that a substantial amount of information is required to be reported. This information is analogous to information required to be reported on the interception of communications under the requirements currently established under the criminal code and analogous to information required to be reported with respect to the law enforcement justification under requirements that would be established by Bill C-24 regarding organized crime which the House approved.

I emphasize with respect to the investigative hearings and the preventive arrest that the provisions for an annual report are supplementary to the considerable checks and balances already provided with respect to each power. We have all seen reports and commentary to the effect that these provisions would allow uncontrolled and unprecedented powers that jeopardize the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

In response to these suggestions it is important to emphasize that both the investigative hearing and the preventive arrest in fact build upon powers already found in Canadian law. Both build upon these powers only for the special purpose of helping preserve Canada's safety and security against terrorist activity. Both are subject to very significant limits and controls and both are subject to direct judicial supervision. Further, both powers have been extensively reviewed to provide confidence that they comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Additional review and monitoring of the powers of investigative hearing and preventive arrest would be provided by making these provisions subject to a sunset clause. The standing committee has accepted an amendment under which each of these measures would be subject to the expiry provided for after five years. Parliament would be authorized to extend this expiry period on resolutions adopted by a majority of each chamber but no extension may exceed five years.

The best sunset clause would be the circumstances that occur where it is never necessary to use these provisions. It is important to note the committee did not accept a sunset clause for the whole of the bill. Such a clause would negate our ability to fulfill international obligations to address terrorism. Further, it would fail to recognize that the need to maintain vigilance against terrorism is a continuous one and that the measures in the bill are balanced, reasonable and subject to significant safeguards.

The power to issue certificates by the attorney general under the Canada Evidence Act, the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and other acts prohibit disclosure of sensitive information relating to national defence or security or received in confidence from a foreign entity.

The power to issue such certificates would be a vital addition to our ability to prevent the disclosure of information injurious to international relations, national defence or national security.

At the same time the standing committee agreed that the provisions could be better circumscribed and should be subject to review. For these reasons it accepted amendments under which the certificates would have a maximum lifespan of 15 years unless reissued. The certificates would be reviewable by a judge of the federal court. The certificates may only be issued after an order or decision for disclosure in a proceeding. The certificates would be published in The Canada Gazette .

These changes would substantially enhance the controls on certificates. I observe that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Mr. George Radwanski, sent a letter to the Minister of Justice stating that these amendments fully and effectively address the concerns he previously raised about this aspect of Bill C-36.

I want to speak briefly to a matter which was raised at committee hearings and which, it has been said, might relate to the privilege of the House and the Senate to send for persons, papers and records. As the House knows, the subpoena power of parliamentary houses has existed for over 300 years and is essential to their functions.

There are provisions in Bill C-36 which refer to “a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information” and related procedures in clauses 43 and 70 which would protect sensitive security information from public disclosure. It would not be the intention of the bill to alter the current status of parliament's subpoena powers and privileges. In fact similar provisions already exist in sections 37 and 39 of the Canada Evidence Act.

Having stated this for our parliamentary record so that the intention of the House is clear, an amendment was made to the bill under Motion No. 7 yesterday for the same purpose of clarifying our intention that parliament's privilege to send persons, papers and records not be affected by this legislation.

Canadians can be assured that the government is taking timely action against the threat of terrorism while at the same time ensuring that rights and freedoms are preserved.

Anti-terrorism Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing part here is that almost all the witnesses who appeared before the justice committee did so for absolutely nothing, because our justice minister, stubborn as usual, totally ignored the concerns of all these witnesses as well as their valuable and legitimate recommendations to improve the bill.

The minister has not only ignored their representations before the standing committee on justice, but she has also rejected out of hand the recommendations brought forward by the special Senate committee on Bill C-36.

For the information of our listeners, so that they can really understand how little the minister cared about the House and Senate committees and all Canadians, she stated this on October 18, in her introductory speech, at the first sitting of the standing committee on justice. I quote:

I also welcome consideration of possible refinements to the provisions you find in this bill. We must ensure that the bill is the most balanced and effective response possible.

And just before leaving the committee, at the end of the session, she added to this by stating:

On behalf of the solicitor general and myself, I also want to underscore how important it is for you to provide us with your best advice in some of these areas.

Therefore, it's going to be very important for you, in terms of the work you do, to help us make sure that we do have the most effective and fairest law. I know you will take up this challenge expeditiously and seriously

As for taking that challenge seriously, we have. Can the same be said of the minister? I am not so sure.

All of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois were based on the recommendations made by the large majority of the witnesses who came before the standing committee on justice, as well as those contained in the Senate report, of course.

Of all our amendments, just one was retained, but not in its original form. As for the other three opposition parties, their proposals suffered the same fate as ours. Considering that, the minister must take MPs for fools, when she makes a statement about being prepared to listen to us and benefit from the witnesses' expertise in order to improve her bill.

Besides, as regards promptness, again we can say mission accomplished. The bill we are debating is the most important one, in terms of curtailing rights and liberties, on the legislative agenda since the sad and famous War Measures Act of 1970.

According to projections, the legislative process should be completed before the Christmas recess. This shows how effective the government's steamroller is.

However, innocent people have become the victims of the biker war and, more generally, of organized crime in Quebec. Yet, Bill C-24, which deals with organized crime, is still waiting in the other place.

The situation is obviously urgent, but considering the impact of the measures considered, we had the right to expect something other than a slapdash legislative process.

Mark Fisher, a member of the Labour Party in the British parliament, said the following about the English anti-terrorist act, during the second reading stage last Monday. I quote:

When the House does something precipitous, it rarely acts wisely.

Referring to increased powers that the justice minister is giving to the officers of CSIS and to himself, the solicitor general simply said:

Canadians demand those measures.

We can question his sources of information, and I hope that it does not come from CSIS, because the facts are quite different.

I do not know if the solicitor general reads the electronic mail he receives, but if he is on the same mailing list as we are and nevertheless says a thing like that, there certainly must be someone in his office who is hiding information from him, because almost every message we have received expressed vigorous opposition to the provisions of Bill C-36.

Moreover, when a bill like this is called nonsense and act of treason, to quote only those two examples, there can be no doubt about the opposition of Canadian citizens to the state's interference with individual liberties.

I would now like to talk about the motions we have before us at report stage.

First, Motion No. 1 by the member for Lanark—Carleton proposes that the definition of terrorist activity be amended by eliminating any reference to political, religious or idealogical purposes. Members of the Bloc considered those references inappropriate and we certainly are ready to support Motion No. 1.

Motion No. 2 by the member for Calgary Centre would set out the criteria to be used by the solicitor general in recommending that an entity be placed on the list of terrorists. I think this is appropriate.

In the second paragraph of this motion, the member for Calgary Centre suggests that these criteria should be debated in the House before being adopted. We agree with that. However, I think that a vote should be held following this debate. I imagine that this is what the member for Calgary Centre wished, but I did not see it in the text of the motion.

As for Motion No. 3 by the same member, it would compel the solicitor general to give answers to the organizations listed. If he does not do so, with the present amendment, the organization will not have to pay to go before a federal court. There again, we consider that this motion is appropriate and that we will be in a position to support it.

As for Motion No. 4, I consider it superfluous since the right to a lawyer is already recognized. There is a paragraph added that reads as follows:

In any proceeding under this section, the presiding judge may appoint counsel to represent any person subject to the investigative hearing.

Notaries have a saying that if it is too strong, it won't break”. As far as I am concerned, this is the case here. We can obviously support it because it is already recognized.

These were my comments on the amendments before us.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague, I do take issue with the suggestion that section one of the charter of rights and freedoms is relevant in any way in this discussion. There simply is no infringement of other charter rights and freedoms that would invoke a consideration under section one.

These words regarding religious, political or ideological purposes are words of limitation. They are not designed to criminalize or single out people on the basis of their religion, political beliefs or ideologies. Rather, they must be read against the rest of the clause which speaks in terms of an intention to intimidate the public or a segment of the public.

My hon. colleague mentioned that these words do not seem to appear elsewhere. In fact they appear in the anti-terrorist legislation of the United Kingdom. These words must be read in conjunction with the intended consequences that must be present before exposure to criminal liability can exist, for example, causing death or serious bodily injury, endangering life, causing serious risk to the health or safety of the public, causing serious interference or disruption of an essential service, facility or system.

These words therefore should not be viewed as singling out any group on the basis of its beliefs. It is in fact this motivation by a system of thought, whether it is religious, ideological or political, that is perverted when combined with the elements of the offence that are described and provide a dangerous and extra potency beyond the normal range of crimes which the hon. member has mentioned.

For instance the hon. member mentioned biker gangs. He will recall that Bill C-24 which is now before the other place for consideration has similar provisions for facilitating, participating in or financing criminal organizations. This goes beyond that, beyond the venal or ordinary criminal behaviour, even if done in an organized fashion.

Subsection 1.1 was added to section 83.01 for greater certainty. This was done by government amendment at committee stage to make it clear that an expression of a political, religious or ideological thought, belief or opinion does not constitute a terrorist activity unless the other portions of the definition are satisfied. The effect of removing the words “political, religious or ideological purpose” is to transform a position that is designed to counter terrorism into one that is nearly indistinguishable from a general law enforcement provision. This sends the wrong message.

It is terrorists and not ordinary criminals, however venal, that we are targeting here. It weakens the constitutional justification for a measure that we regard as necessary to respond to an extraordinary threat.

Marc Alexandre Chartrand

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at this moment, a funeral is taking place in a church in my riding of Laval East for a 17 year old adolescent, another victim of Quebec's biker gangs.

In fact, Marc Alexandre was killed in cold blood on Friday night at the entrance to a downtown Montreal bar. Bikers affiliated with the Rock Machine wanted to enter the bar before everyone else and were refused entry by the doormen. One of the bikers, in a fit of rage, drew his gun and fired. Marc Alexandre was mortally wounded.

There are no words to describe the pain felt by his family as they come to grips with the loss of their loved one. He is another victim of the criminal bikers.

Bill C-24 passed third reading in parliament on June 13. The measures contained in this bill would help eliminate or reduce the number of gratuitous crimes committed by these undesirables in our society. It still requires the approval of the other place.

In closing, on behalf of all my colleagues, I offer my sincere condolences to the Chartrand family.

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-36 this evening. I add my voice to the many voices from all sides and corners of the House that have spoken of the importance of the bill which is meant to address incredibly foundational issues touching our democracy at this time.

I will talk a bit about the Canadian response, the challenge of facing terror in a democracy, the measured response the bill presents and the areas of review we will be entering into in the House and in committee.

The Canadian response to the evil of September 11 has been widespread and has unified us as a country although we have heard different expressions of how we should respond. I and my constituents in Vancouver Quadra join all Canadians in expressing our horror and deep felt sympathy for the families of the victims.

Our response, starting with the some 30,000 passengers diverted from American flights to Canada on September 11, has been extraordinary. That has been recognized across the United States and around the world. Canadians did not know at the time whether the planes harboured terrorists, had bombs on board or were a threat to Canada but we willingly opened our skies and airports to take those people in.

On September 14, 100,000 Canadians met on Parliament Hill to express their deep concern and sadness over the evil event. Within a day of the horror of September 11, ministers across a whole range of departments were working to add new resources and expedite and tighten up security measures to deal with the new reality.

In the House we have had more than 60 hours of debate on various aspects of the terror and our response to it. In all the debate there has been a common cause: to ensure we reach a proper balance in our democracy between security and freedom in the face of this type of terror. That is the challenge in front of us. It is a challenge Bill C-36 tries to address.

The balance is a delicate one. There can be no democracy without security. There can be no freedom without security. If we have only security we are imprisoned. There can be no security unless we have freedom, otherwise we have anarchy. This delicate balance must respect the reality of the times, and the times have changed for us all as the reality of September 11 has struck home.

It is the section 1 limits of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we must turn our attention to in Bill C-36. Our rights and freedoms are subject to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. We must always keep that limitation in mind as we measure our response.

Bill C-36 is complementary to a whole range of other initiatives and pieces of legislation. It would complement and add to the criminal code which covers the whole range of offences a terrorist might commit. However it specifically focuses on terrorism. It would supplement and build on the initiatives set out in Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation passed by the House in the spring.

Bill C-36 would add breadth, strength and definition to the provisions of the United Nations Act which allows us by regulation to implement United Nations security council resolutions. It would also build on the Immigration Act and give more definition to the provisions of Bill C-11 on immigration.

In terms of our international responsibilities and our responsibilities to our neighbours in the United States, Bill C-36 would allow us to ratify and implement the last two international conventions on terrorism: the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings and the international convention for the suppression of terrorist financing. This would bring us into the position of having ratified and implemented all 12 UN conventions on terrorism. That is immensely important.

It is also important that Bill C-36 would build on the hate propaganda provisions of the criminal code. It would make hate propaganda a crime and allow it to be deleted from public Internet sites.

Bill C-36 would build on the money laundering and proceeds of crime legislation we have in place to deal with criminal organizations. This legislation deals mainly with enterprise crime but could clearly be focused on terrorist organizations.

Bill C-36 is a measured response and an immensely important part of the democratic exercise we are involved in. Its balance is shown by a whole range of ministerial responsibilities. We would need the permission of the attorney general before initiating the investigative hearings, the preventive arrest provisions or the Canada Evidence Act certification which would allow the CSE to intercept communications which are targeted at foreign sources but enter Canadian airwaves.

The listing provision would need the recommendation of the solicitor general and the approval of cabinet. It would need to be reviewed every two years and could be challenged by the courts in judicial review.

As well, judicial oversight is woven into the whole bill. Investigative hearings reviewing the listing and preventive arrest provisions within 24 hours of being brought before a judge would provide effective judicial oversight.

Most important, the legislation comes out of the collective wisdom of the House as expressed over the last 30 days. There are issues that are still open for serious debate, and the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice have indicated their intention and desire that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights review these concerns in detail and provide further advice.

These will touch in particular on the important new provisions regarding preventive arrest, investigative hearings, the whole process of listing and delisting, parliamentary review, and the definition of terror. This is the first time terror has been defined and it is an immensely important centerpiece of the legislation.

It has been suggested in the House that some of the provisions, particularly the new ones, be made sunset clauses. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be considering ways in which the legislation can be properly tracked over the next short period of time to consider whether it is achieving its objective, whether there are unintended consequences or whether there should be amendments.

I am confident in supporting Bill C-36 that it responds to the common objective and common cause of every member of the House: to deal with the horror and evil of terrorism in our democracy in a way that finds the proper balance between security and freedom.

Privilege

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that, as the member for Berthier--Montcalm, I would support any act that seeks to improve national security, public security.

But we must not go overboard and let people use this bill, whose goals are good and laudable under the circumstances, distort its application and engage in abuse.

As I said this morning, we must not only look at Bill C-36. We must examine it, but with the existing criminal code, with the existing federal legislation. We must also look at it while keeping in mind the eventual implementation of Bill C-24, which is in the Senate and which is waiting for royal assent.

Let us not forget that Bill C-24, the anti-gang legislation, allows police officers to commit acts that would be considered illegal under any act passed by parliament.

When Bill C-24 was passed in the House, there was no anti-terrorism bill on the horizon. Now we have one. We must look at the bill in its entirety and understand that police officers have increased powers under the organized crime legislation and the anti-terrorism act. All this put together could lead to abuse.

This legislation should be reviewed every year and a three year cut-off date should be set. After three years, this act would become obsolete. It would no longer be in effect, unless parliament brought it back, debated it and passed it again.

Anti-terrorism Act

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that parliament has before it, as we often say, an exceedingly important bill. I really think it is the most important bill the House of Commons will pass. This bill responds to an event that occurred on September 11 and to much more than that as well. The bill, the way it is drafted at the moment, goes perhaps a bit too far.

Let me explain. If there is one thing we must make sure of it is that the House does not improvise in passing the bill, not with a bill like this one. We must take time to examine every angle of the bill. As many people as possible and the experts must be consulted in order to produce a law that meets our objective of fighting terrorism effectively.

The attacks on New York and Washington must certainly not change anything in the way we live and do things in Canada, but neither, given that the laws are passed here, must anything be changed in Quebec's approach either. To succeed in getting us to change and alter our practices would be the supreme victory for the terrorists. They would know we are afraid and would change the way we live and deprive our fellow citizens of their freedoms in exchange for security on paper.

In our reactions and attitudes we must look primarily for balance between heightened security measures and the need to keep freedom in the central and vital space it occupies in our society. We must protect ourselves, but we must also be aware of the fact that liberty will always be fragile whatever we do and whatever legislation we may pass in this House so long as there are men and women prepared to die for a cause and through hatred. No legislation will be able to stop them.

We can, however, have legislation that will enable us to prevent attacks such as the those that have recently taken place. We can have a bill that will help us gather information on terrorists, on the people we really want to target with such a piece of legislation, but caution is required.

We must not have just any old law to stop such people. Legislation is needed, but not at the expense of our collective and individual rights and freedoms. Sacrificing our freedom would in fact be capitulation, because freedom is, more than anything else, what defines life in a democracy. The choices we will be making are not, therefore, only choices for security, they are choices for society. Such choices, informed choices, cannot be made overnight. A sense of balance must inform our analysis of Bill C-36.

At the present time, looked at as a whole I believe the bill's purpose is laudable. The bill as a whole will be applied in conjunction with other existing Canadian statutes. The criminal code will continue to apply, as will the anti-gang legislation. Hon. members will recall that Bill C-24, now in the other place awaiting royal assent, enables police officers to commit illegal acts.

With the anti-gang legislation and this bill, Bill C-36, which amends over 20 Canadian statutes and a series of regulations, the powers of the police force appear out of balance with the liberties we enjoy.

I know it is not mentioned in the bill, but at some point the police, thanks to the anti-gang legislation, will be able to commit illegal acts under the law and perhaps break it. This was certainly not the government's aim, but we must not lose sight of the fact that these two laws apply concurrently. Neither blocks the other.

By allowing a police officer to act illegally under Bill C-24, we cannot be sure he will not use this part of the act to do things that are illegal under Bill C-36. Yet he would be justified in doing so for purposes of national security. Is this just rhetoric on my part? I hope so.

I do not think it is rhetoric to say that because it is important to watch what is going on and to try to produce the best legislation. I think this is what the people of Canada and Quebec expect of us.

A look at the federal government's anti-terrorism plan and its objectives reveals four major objectives. There is no reason to oppose them. Perhaps the way it goes about achieving them in the legislation gives us the right, in a country like ours, to question them.

The first objective is to prevent terrorists from entering Canada and to protect Canadians against acts of terrorism. I have no problem with this objective. I would certainly not defend the terrorists or say that their rights were protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was saying on the subject of gangsterism and organized crime, that it is not true the charter exists to protect them. I say the same thing about terrorists. However, the rights and freedoms honest people enjoy at the moment must not be denied them.

The second objective involves providing the tools to identify terrorists, bring them to justice, sentence them and punish them. This needs no explanation and there is no doubt that we support this objective.

The third objective is to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being taken hostage by terrorists, which would have repercussions on the Canadian economy. That is obvious. Moreover, this is not the first time the Bloc Quebecois has questioned the work being done by customs officials on the borders of Canada and Quebec.

As far as money laundering is concerned, for at least five or six years now the Bloc Quebecois has been saying over and over that the borders between Canada and the United States are as full of holes as a sieve and that Canada enjoys the wonderful international reputation of being a country where money laundering is easy and where there may be the least monitoring of this.

I know that this is being corrected. I know that we have not been a voice crying out unheard in the wilderness for those five or six years. I know that the government has amended some laws in response to overtures by the Bloc Quebecois. I know that as far as Bill C-36 is concerned the criminal code is also being amended, with a far more specific objective: terrorist groups. This is a good thing.

I do not, however, think that the wake up call of the events of September 11 was necessary for this to happen. Actions could have been taken back when we started talking about the situation, back when we began to address the problem represented by Canadian customs and the Canada-U.S. border.

The final objective is to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and address the root causes of their hatred.

We can see that these are four praiseworthy objectives. On that basis one could not be opposed to a bill to implement provisions to attain those objectives.

However, the questions that arise have to do with the text we have before us. The bill is more than 170 pages in length and contains dozens, even hundreds, of amended sections and expanded definitions regarding the threat to national security among other things. There are increased powers conferred to some members of the cabinet. The Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of National Defence would all have increased powers when it comes to electronic surveillance, for example. They would be able to decide if an individual will be monitored. It is the minister who would be responsible for the final decision. Have they gone too far? That is a tough question.

Are we asking enough tough questions? I hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I emphasize the words human rights, will do just that in a calm manner with all the time it needs and that this bill will be carefully examined.

If Canada had pursued these four objectives by ratifying international treaties that it has already signed, by making them law, then in all probability I would not be standing here right now giving a 20 minute speech on this subject. In order to attain its four objectives, the government included two conventions in this bill.

The first one is the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. It freezes terrorists' assets by preventing the use of assets belonging to a person who is involved in terrorist activities and in preventing the provision of property and financial or other related services to terrorists. These measures enable a Federal Court judge to order the freezing or seizure of property used to support terrorist activities.

This is the convention that had been signed but never had force of law in Canada. This convention is included in Bill C-36.

In order to achieve the objectives I outlined earlier, there is no problem with this approach and I applaud the government on this. Indeed, the government should have done this before September 11. This was its responsibility. It failed when it came to implementing the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

Frankly, I imagine that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service knew before September 11 that there were people raising funds for terrorism in Canada. I certainly hope it knew. If it did not, I have my doubts about the effectiveness of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. If it did, why was it waiting to tell somebody? If it did pass the information along, why did the solicitor general or the Minister of Justice do nothing when a convention had been signed to that effect? There is a problem somewhere.

The other convention is the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings. This convention contains provisions on the targeting of places of public use, government facilities, infrastructure and transportation systems for attacks using explosives or other lethal devices, including chemical or biological agents.

Here again, I hope that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was on some sort of trail in Canada while groups were on Canadian soil and had certain similar objectives. It is perhaps not as clear as in the first convention, but I hope that CSIS, with the millions of dollars, close to a billion, which it regularly receives to manage its affairs, had a good idea of what was going on.

These two conventions are therefore implemented by Bill C-36. Once again we have no problem with this.

There is one point about which we have some legitimate concerns and I think that anyone interested in individual and collective rights and freedoms must share those concerns.

A large number of sections in the criminal code are amended and many new ones are added to deal with terrorism.

I invite hon. members to read the definition of terrorist activity; it is not a simple definition. It refers to ten conventions that Canada signed and implemented over the years. It is a definition that makes reference to other sections, to international conventions, to a large number of possibilities.

Terrorism as such is not defined, just like the federal government refused to define the notion of criminal activity--

[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.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, this is a debate we had in the context of Bill C-24 on organized crime. I believe that the approach in the anti-terrorism legislation is much more effective. Membership is sometimes hard to prove, but what we have done in this legislation is criminalize a range of actions, including participation, contribution, facilitation, harbouring and concealing. We believe this legislation will be more expansive and more effective.

Terrorism

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we are going to propose amendments in order to attain the goal the hon. member has referred to.

I must also state, however, that with Bill C-24, which is before the Senate at this time, the possibility exists to do exactly the same thing with the proceeds of crime and also to promulgate and implement in Canada declarations from other countries in the world without the process taking place here in Canada.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, before getting to the main thrust of my speech, I would like to take a mere 30 seconds to extend my best wishes to our new whip here in the House, the hon. member for Témiscamingue, and his great team.

We all know about his promotion, and I am sure my enthusiasm is shared by others, knowing that he will acquit himself of his duties with a combination of two facets of his personality, good old-fashioned authoritarianism and unceasing generosity.

It is, however, somewhat incredible that we are faced here with a bill that is so unpalatable, so inconsistent, so unacceptably flawed as far as its definitions go, such an incoherent mishmash.

Madam Speaker, I was elected when you were, in 1993, although I am your junior by a few years, and I would never have believed at that time that I would one day end up in this House being forced to speak to a bill as inconsistent as this one.

How can people claim to be part of a properly functioning system if they are in government and expect legislators to properly acquit themselves, with due care and professional conscience, of their task of examining legislation, and yet come up with a bill that is totally impossible to grasp?

We would have understood had the government chosen to deal with such an important issue as animal cruelty. Of course, there is a new school of thought, of which we are aware because people make representations to us as their elected representatives. We know that the issue of animal cruelty requires a tightening of existing legislative provisions, including those contained in the criminal code.

We would have understood had the government chosen to validate its bill. Contrary to my colleagues, I am not one of those who will not get to the bottom of the issue. I would have been extremely happy to do my job as a parliamentarian, to listen to what people in our communities had to say on this issue of animal cruelty and to do whatever I could to ensure we have the best legislation possible.

But it is not what this is about. The same bill deals with the offence of disarming a police officer, the Firearms Registration Act, and the process for reviewing allegations of miscarriage of justice.

Could anyone give me an explanation? I would ask my colleagues in the government majority, who have become cruelly silent in this debate, to tell me how all this was presented to them in caucus. Can anybody on the government side tell us what the connection is between the process for reviewing allegations of miscarriage of justice, gun control--members will notice that my colleagues are constantly urging me on, which gives me the impression that I am really giving my best--animal cruelty, imposing harsher penalties, disarming a police officer, and the Firearms Act?

Nobody can. I hope that during the period of questions and comments, someone on the government side will rise, and on the pretext of asking me a question, answer this one.

Let us make no mistake, the member for Berthier--Montcalm, whom you hold in high esteem, as do I, rose in this House and made it clear that we support certain provisions without reservation.

For example, there is the whole matter--an important one--of the sexual exploitation of children in a way that did not exist when we were children, but that has taken on massive importance in the past ten years, and more specifically in the past five. I refer to the Internet.

These are important provisions, which must be included in the criminal code and require us, as parliamentarians, to hold a proper debate. But, for heaven's sake, how can they ask us to vote on this sort of indigestible mishmash of a bill?

I cannot imagine that. There are responsible drafters at the Department of Justice. There are people who no doubt said to the government “It is really not very reasonable to combine a variety of problems that have nothing to do with one another in a single bill”.

If, for those who have just joined us, we had to summarize the bill, I would say there are eight major focuses.

As I have just mentioned, there are references to the establishment of new offences in order to protect children from sexual exploitation, including that which involves the Internet.

The member for Berthier--Montcalm will shake his head to correct me if I am wrong, since his legal knowledge is well known, but I think this arises from a court decision. Does it not arise from a decision by the BC supreme court? The member is nodding, so I guess I am not mistaken.

The second focus of the bill consists of increasing the maximum penalty for criminal harassment. This is an important provision.

With the third point, things start to drift a bit. In fact, if the philosopher Pascal were here, he would say of this bill that the centre is everywhere and the periphery nowhere to be seen. The third focus of this bill makes home invasions an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

So, we have gone from cruelty to animals, to child pornography, to sexual harassment, to home invasions. It is hard to find a common thread in such a hodgepodge.

Fourth, the bill proposes a new offence, that of disarming, or attempting to disarm, a peace officer. This is an important provision. Every year, law enforcement officers attend an awareness day on Parliament Hill. For several years now, I have been meeting with them, as have a number of my colleagues, and I therefore know that this was one of the things they were asking for. Should this be included in a bill like the one before us? I have my doubts.

The fifth focus of the bill is to increase the penalties for cruelty to animals. Say again—just when you think you've heard everything—I must point out how vague this bill is and how open to criticism the definitions are.

The proposed definition for “animal”—obviously the question arises and we must be clear—is as follows:

“animal” means a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

The question that arises is whether a farmer who deliberately poisons a rat will be charged under clause 15 of the bill. There is no immediate answer to this question on the strength of the proposed definitions.

Let me be clear. There are several important provisions in the bill which we support, but the debate we have been invited to take part in today has to do with the amendment moved by the Canadian Alliance members regarding the need to divide the bill.

The hon. member for Berthier--Montcalm told me earlier, and he knows these issues well, that this bill could easily be split into three different bills. Based on the various provisions, there could have been three bills that could have followed the course of parliamentary process that we are all familiar with: tabling of the bill, second reading, referral to a committee, third reading, debate and referral to the other place.

Again, I hope that someone from the government side will stand up and explain to us what the rush is to pass such a patchwork of measures in this omnibus bill. We need to give the government a serious warning. We have had it with this idea of tabling omnibus legislation which leads to a certain amount of confusion. We rush them through and, in the end, this creates, again, inconsistency.

We were not elected to the House to be confused. I think we need to recall what the philosopher Boileau said “What is conceived well is expressed clearly, and the words to say it arrive with ease”.

But that is not how it starts, it starts as follows:

Clarity of thought for some Remains a goal not often won As through a cloud there comes no sun

I must say in all friendship to the Minister of Justice this day has definitely not come in her case, because her mind is fogged by thick clouds. Indeed, it takes some nerve to dare introduce Bill C-15, an omnibus bill governed by eight different principles dealing with eight different issues that have nothing to do with one another, except for the fact, of course, that they are all included in the criminal code.

The best thing that could happen would be to see the pages go around the House and pick up the copies of this bill, and the Minister of Justice go back to the drawing board and table, as the hon. member for Berthier--Montcalm rightly pointed out, two or three bills. Then I can assure hon. members that we would make a contribution to the review of this bill, in a serious and reasonable fashion and with the good faith that has always characterized the Bloc Quebecois.

Far from me the idea of downplaying the issues of animal cruelty, sexual harassment or child pornography on the Internet which, as we know, was ruled on by the court.

We should not be proud of what is going on today. Not only is there no reason to be proud, but it is an ugly thing to want to use one's majority to confound the opposition. I should point out that this is our third mandate here and we have seen quite a few of these malicious attempts.

If I could make a wish it would be that both sides, the government and the opposition, would put an end to this practice of introducing omnibus bills and instead take the time required to table bills dealing with very definite issues.

When the issues are very specific, it is easy for us legislators to understand the government's objectives. Let us do our work properly in the House, in committee and at third reading. Is this not what the voters who mandated us here expect? Is this not a legitimate expectation on the part of our fellow citizens? Unfortunately, as I said, this is not what is going on today.

We must ask our fellow citizens what attitude they wish us to adopt. The terrible thing about the situation we are in today—the member for Berthier--Montcalm admitted this just now—is that we lose either way. For instance, we want very clear restrictions on child pornography on the Internet; we hope that the legislation will included tougher provisions in the criminal code.

We can go along with one very particular dimension of Bill C-15. But how can we ignore our desire to hold a real debate on the issue of child pornography when at the same time there are provisions regarding the mechanisms for review of judicial errors? The issue of judicial errors is not an insignificant one. The member for Repentigny himself introduced a private member's bill on this issue.

Let us remember that there have been a number of judicial errors. People have been locked away for 15, 20, 25 years in jail on the strength of facts that turned out not to be accurate. We have some only too concrete examples of people whose lives were ruined because justice made a mistake.

Furthermore, if I may approach this with my customary frankness, the Marshall Commission was created to look into this problem.

The Marshall Commission recommended that when it was a question of reviewing judicial errors and deciding on corrective action, it should be possible to operate with complete freedom from any sort of political interference and that there should be an independent body which would ensure a fair and equitable review, guided by the principles of basic justice and of natural justice.

My understanding of the bill before us is that this is not the direction in which the government is urging us to go, because this decision will lie with the Minister of Justice. Once again, this is not personal. We are not saying that the Minister of Justice is incapable of making good decisions. We are saying “Why not go along with a trend we are seeing in public administration, which is to separate the legislative arm from the executive arm so that the people making the decisions are independent, free from any political interference?”

As we can well realize, we have before us someone who is sad. Unfortunately, I believe we will be extremely aggressive in this instance, as a group of parliamentarians, and will do our best in order to gain an end: the breaking up of this bill. I do not think that is anything unreasonable.

I can see my colleagues in the government majority, and they will agree with me that everyone stands to gain from having clear ideas when involved in politics, that everyone gains if we all understand what we are voting on.

There is one important point to be raised. Does Bill C-15 have to be the government's priority? In my riding, four bars have been blown up, so far. The biker gang wars are on again in Montreal, although some people may be under the illusion that things had calmed down. That is not so. Bars are being blown up. It started in Saint-Henri, and now it has spread to Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. The member for Berthier—Montcalm and myself, along with our colleague, the critic for the solicitor general, have worked very, very hard in parliamentary committee to improve Bill C-95, which has now become Bill C-24.

The bill is not perfect, as we know. At least the offences have been described better. Aggravating circumstances have been added. The definitions are better, so that some people who were not covered in the past now are. With Bill C-24, people at any place in the legal system will be better protected.

We would have liked to have seen the process take a better course than this. There were many other priorities for the government than to bring Bill C-15 before us.

I will make a short digression into the area of health, which is my primary area of responsibility after all. The hon. member for Drummond, who is no hothead, not one to get carried out or to lack judgment—in fact her judgment is very sound when she addressed these issues—made a comment in connection with the bill proposed by the government on the new technologies of assisted reproduction that it has a constant tendency to resort to omnibus bills. It was were not able to immediately propose to us a bill that would have banned cloning for reproductive purposes, as well as for therapeutic purposes.

The opposition has worked hard to help with a problem and a bill like this one. I repeat, why do we have such an ill-conceived bill, one that is likely to implode because of all the contradictions it contains? We could have had a debate on reproductive technologies, because—let us not forget—there is a legal void at the moment.

It is not unthinkable that a researcher in Italy, Germany, France or anywhere else in the world could arrive in Canada and start playing around with human embryos and end up in a situation where genetic engineering could lead to cloning. Our hands would be totally tied.

As we saw this summer, there is a legal void, because there is nothing in the criminal code to allow the crown to take action on this basis. This is something we could have done.

In closing, I would say the best thing we could do would be to decide to split the bill. The government should act on this request. Once the bill is split, the government could count on the opposition to do its usual responsible and thorough work.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of the previous speaker. Indeed, the first part of it concerned the conduct of the Liberal government. We have to acknowledge that the Canadian Alliance member was right.

We do have a strange government. It says one thing and does another. It tells the people one thing but, in practice, does something else. We could give many examples of this.

I will give an example similar to the one the member gave, and it concerns organized crime. This is a very important matter. Everyone has debated it here in the House. We quickly passed the bill in June in order to implement it as quickly as possible. Bill C-24 is before the other House as is another very important bill, Bill C-7, the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Liberal government says that public safety is important and that it wants to do its utmost to, in addition to having anti-gang legislation, amend the anti-gang legislation, which has not yet been passed in the Senate, and add amendments in order to fight terrorism. Well, we might have thought the government would instruct the other House to have Bill C-24 examined as quickly as possible in order to be put into effect. Well no, it did not.

The Liberal government instructed the Senate not to pass as quickly as possible the anti-gang legislation, the legislation to fight organized crime, not to make amendments to cover terrorism, as the Prime Minister has been saying since the start of the conflict; no, the government instructed the other House to pass Bill C-7. Declaring war against young offenders will certainly settle the affairs of the world. This is an example of the sort of speech the government makes here for public ears. But, the reality of the matter is something else again.

The Canadian Alliance member is right: we should be discussing something other than a bill as complicated and controversial as Bill C-15. If hon. members took a good look at this legislation, they would agree that it is inconsistent. We cannot deal with and put on the same footing—after all, we are amending the criminal code—the protection of children, the vulnerability of childhood, and the protection of animals. This does not make any sense.

We could pass very quickly all the provisions that have to do with the protection of children, such as Internet games and issues. We could also adopt very quickly provisions dealing with penalties as they relate to harassment. We could adopt them today if the government was willing to co-operate by simply splitting the bill.

There are controversial clauses, such as those on animal cruelty. I can understand the hon. member from western Canada whose constituents are very concerned with this bill, because back home in Quebec, we also have farmers, people who work with animals, hunters, fishers, research laboratories and universities that are concerned. Instead of discussing a bill that no one wants or that is largely controversial, we could have talked about the preparation of the strikes that the United States are about to make. We could have talked about how to help small and medium size businesses, companies, and how to improve our border services. We could have talked about the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, about public safety. But no, we are not talking about these issues.

Could the Canadian Alliance member tell us which parts of the bill we could quickly adopt because they are not being challenged by his party, and could he point out those that are more controversial and require a more indepth review? Could we split this bill in two?

We could adopt one part quickly and take more time to properly review the other part.

Terrorism

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that the government not only will take steps but has taken steps.

My colleague, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, has already ensured that regulations are in place to seize and restrain any assets that are directly or indirectly involved with bin Laden and any of his associates.

We have criminal code provisions expanded by Bill C-24 that deal with seizure and forfeiture of assets in certain circumstances. We will be working with our allies to ensure that we have all the laws in place necessary to strip terrorist organizations of their lifeblood, which is their money.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I would now like to deal with the point of order raised on June 12, 2001, by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough relating to the use of the provisions of Standing Order 56.1. The hon. member stated in his argument that an abuse of process had occurred which was “tantamount to a breach of the rules and the intention and interpretation thereof” when, earlier that day, the government used Standing Order 56.1 to move a motion to which unanimous consent had been previously denied. The motion in question concerned the disposition of business for the final two sitting days prior to the summer adjournment, including the voting method to be followed on the last supply day of the period ending June 23, 2001.

I would like to thank the hon. the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their contributions on this matter.

At that time I ruled that the terms of the motion would stand, having been adopted by the House some eight hours before the hon. member raised his point of order. However, I also indicated my intention to return to the House in the fall with a statement on the use of Standing Order 56.1 and I am now ready to address the House on this matter. House of Commons Procedure and Practice , at page 571, describes Standing Order 56. 1 as follows:

If, at any time during a sitting of the House, unanimous consent is denied for the presentation of a “routine motion”, a minister may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker put the motion. For that purpose, a “routine motion” refers to motions which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishment of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment. The motion, which is neither debatable nor amendable, is immediately put to the House by the Speaker. If 25 Members or more oppose the motion, it is deemed withdrawn; otherwise, it is adopted.

Standing Order 56.1 was adopted by the House in April 1991. At the time of its adoption concerns were raised about the implications of a rule that provides a mechanism for overriding the very unanimity of the unanimous consent mechanism that the House often uses to expedite its business. Speaker Fraser ruled on April 9, 1991, at page 19236 of the Debates :

However, this “over-ride” provision can operate, as the Chair understands it, only with respect to a certain very limited range of motions offered at a specific time in our daily agenda by a minister of the Crown...Based on the fact that we have similar procedures existing with respect to other types of motions and given the very limited application of the new proposal, the Chair cannot accede to the request...that paragraph 20 of the motion respecting the Standing Order amendments be ruled out of order.

It should be emphasized that at the time of its adoption it was envisioned that the standing order would be used for only so-called routine motions as defined in Standing Order 56.1(1)( b ).

Now let us examine how the rule has been used since its adoption 10 years ago. The government sought to use Standing Order 56.1 in 17 cases and failed in two instances.

Between 1991 and 1995 it was used six times to authorize committee travel. This falls squarely within the terms of the standing order. From 1995 to 1997 it was used on the following four occasions to arrange the sittings of the House: in March 1995 and April 1997, to suspend the sitting of the House for the sole purpose of a royal assent ceremony; in March 1995, to enable the House to sit over the weekend to consider government orders Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services, a bill already under time allocation; and in June 1995, to extend the sitting to consider government business beyond the extension already provided for under Standing Order 27(1).

Here again, these four examples illustrate the intended use of Standing Order 56.1 for routine purposes, that is, to enable the House to fix the times of its meetings or adjournments and to arrange its proceedings.

From 1997 there are signs of a disturbing trend in which Standing Order 56.1 was used, or attempted to be used, for the adoption of motions less readily identified or defined as routine. Let us review specific examples of this trend.

On December 1, 1997 the standing order was used for the first time to dispose of back to work legislation at all stages, Bill C-24, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. In March 1999 the government attempted to use Standing Order 56.1 for back to work legislation on Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services. This attempt failed, as did a second attempt three days later. Eventually the legislation was dealt with under a special order after the government moved the same motion which it had placed on the order paper under government orders.

In June 1998, the government attempted to use Standing Order 56.1 to rescind a decision previously taken by the House concerning Standing Orders 57 and 78(3). The undertaking failed and members raised objections to this attempted use of the standing order. They argued that rescinding a unanimous decision of the House was not a routine motion and, as such, should not be permitted under this standing order. The Speaker allowed it, although he expressed misgivings, and he urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of Standing Order 56.1.

Far less problematic are the two occasions where Standing Order 56.1 was used to enable the House to schedule take note debates, in both cases providing for the House to sit beyond its normal hours: in February 1998 to debate Canada's participation in a possible military action in the Middle East, the gulf war; and in April 1999 to consider the situation in Kosovo. So long as we continue to respect the distinction between emergency debates under Standing Order 52 and take note debates, using Standing Order 56.1 for scheduling purposes does not appear to violate the spirit of the standing orders.

The government again used Standing Order 56.1 in June 2001 to dispose of all stages of Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act.

Finally, on June 12, 2001, the government, under Standing Order 56.1, moved a motion to dispose of business over the following two sitting days. In this instance the motion provided for the disposition of third reading of Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, and Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and to dispose of Government Business No. 7, the summer adjournment motion.

In addition the motion provided that once a recorded division had been taken on the main estimates, all subsequent motions to concur in any vote or votes on the main estimates shall be deemed moved and seconded and the question deemed put and agreed to on division. The effect of this was that there was a single recorded division on the first of 190 opposed items standing on the order paper and the remainder were deemed agreed to on division.

At this point I would like to draw to members' attention the following reference at pages 571-2 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice :

On April 9, 1991, Speaker Fraser, while pointing out that the range of motions to which the proposed procedure would apply was very limited, also suggested that the new Standing Order was to be understood as another procedurally acceptable mechanism for limiting debate: "There are certain similarities also between the proposal and existing Standing Order 78 respecting time allocation in that both use a ladder-like type of approach depending upon the extent of agreement forthcoming to securing the right to propose the motion".

I would advise hon. members to be very cautious in their reading of this passage. In his ruling, Speaker Fraser drew a parallel between Standing Order 56.1, which requires a prior attempt to gain unanimous consent, and Standing Order 78, the time allocation rule, which requires notice or prior consultation. It seems doubtful to me, having read the ruling in its entirety, that Speaker Fraser really meant to suggest that Standing Order 56.1 was to be understood as another procedurally acceptable mechanism for limiting debate.

The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House. It was not intended to be used for the disposition of a bill at various stages, certainly not for bills that fall outside the range of those already contemplated in the standing order when “urgent or extraordinary occasions” arise. Standing Order 71 provides in such cases that a bill may be dealt with at more than one stage in a single day.

Likewise, a motion seeking to reverse a unanimous decision of the House is a serious undertaking and should in no way be viewed as a routine motion. It was never envisaged that Standing Order 56.1 would be used to override decisions that the House had taken by unanimous consent.

In the most recent use of Standing Order 56.1, a motion was adopted which provided for a recorded division on the first opposed item in the main estimates. However, all subsequent opposed items were then deemed moved and carried. The effect of the motion adopted pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 was to predetermine the results of all the votes following the first recorded division. It is clear to the Chair that this application of the standing order goes well beyond the original intent, that is, for the presentation of routine motions as defined in Standing Order 56.1.(1)( b ).

The standing order has never been used as a substitute for decisions which the House ought itself to make on substantive matters. In addition, if the House from time to time should agree by way of proceeding by unanimous consent as, for example, on the application of votes, one cannot assume that such agreements would automatically fall into the category of routine matters as defined in Standing Order 56.1.

As I previously indicated, I allowed the motion adopted on June 12, 2001, to go ahead because there were no objections raised at the time it was moved. By the time hon. members expressed concern to the Chair some eight hours later, the Chair saw no alternative but to proceed with the terms of the motion. However, to speak frankly, had the objection been raised in good time, I would have been inclined to rule the motion out of order. This situation serves again to remind members of the importance of raising matters of a procedural nature in a timely fashion.

In the three years since my predecessor urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of Standing Order 56.1, we have seen further evidence of a trend away from the original intent of this rule. This would seem all the more reason for the committee to consider the standing order at the earliest opportunity.

In the meantime, based on close examination of past precedents and the most recent use of Standing Order 56.1 as a tool to bypass the decision making functions of the House, I must advise the House that the motion adopted on June 12, 2001, will not be regarded as a precedent. I would urge all hon. members to be vigilant about the use of this mechanism for the Chair certainly intends to be watchful.

I want to thank all hon. members who intervened to raise this point before the House at this time.

Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, one week ago today individuals gathered around television sets across the country and around the world to watch the unfolding of unspeakable horror. We drew a collective breath knowing that the world was an altered place. I share with all Canadians sorrow for the families directly touched by the attacks.

My compassion and my prayers go first of all to those who have been directly affected by these acts of terrorism.

As well, I share with many a sense of loss for the world we took for granted before last Tuesday. Concern for national security, for freedom and for peace are now foremost in our minds.

In the days since and the days to come our thoughts will move between sorrow, despair, anger and worry. I sincerely hope that from all this we will be able to build, in partnership with other nations, a stronger world community. We must take further steps to fight terrorism so that those who commit these crimes understand that we will not be paralyzed by their acts of aggression.

Responding to this tragedy is a worldwide challenge and the government is prepared to do its part in meeting it. The safety and protection of all people is of the highest priority to the government.

As Canada's Attorney General and Minister of Justice, I pledge to lend my full co-operation to the attorney general of the United States, my colleague John Ashcroft, and to provide the support necessary to further the efforts of the world community to confront terrorism.

Like the United States, we too share a commitment to freedom and the rule of law and are committed to overcome the efforts of terrorists to weaken these pillars of democracy.

To date Canada has been reasonably secure from terrorist incidents within its borders, but we have not been immune. It is important that we have effective tools in place to keep Canada free of terrorists and that we have mechanisms for co-operating with our closest neighbour, the United States, and the larger international community.

Accordingly, Canada has always worked with the United States and the international community to develop international agreements and conventions, as well as developing its own domestic anti-terrorist legislation.

At the international level Canada has a long history of working in concert with the international community to pursue initiatives that reduce the threat posed by international terrorists. Canada has signed all 12 UN counterterrorist agreements. Ten of these have already been ratified, including those that target unlawful acts committed on aircraft, unlawful acts of violence at airports serving civil aviation, actions threatening civil aviation and the unlawful seizure of aircraft.

We are currently completing the ratification process of the remaining two agreements, the convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings and the international convention for the suppression of financing of terrorism.

The convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings covers new offences relating to the targeting of public places, transportation systems, government or infrastructure facilities with explosives or other lethal devices. It will require states that have ratified the convention to criminalize these offences when committed outside their borders and prosecute or extradite offenders found within their borders.

The international convention for the suppression of financing of terrorism is intended to cut terrorists off from the financial support that permits them to continue to operate. The convention requires state parties to make it a crime for a person to provide or collect funds with the knowledge that they might be used in terrorist activity.

Our signature on these conventions is a commitment by Canada to move forward to their ratification. I anticipate bringing implementing legislation before parliament that will allow us to prosecute these offences in Canada.

In addition to participating in the development of international protections against terrorism Canada has undertaken several bilateral commitments with the United States.

These include the Canada-U.S. cross-border crime forum which furthers co-operation and information sharing between Canada and the United States in the fight against transnational crime; the U.S.-Canadian Consultative Group on Counterterrorism which furthers collaboration between agencies and departments of both governments that are involved in the fight against terrorism; and the Canada-U.S. mutual legal assistance treaty and the Canada-U.S.A. extradition treaty which facilitate our ability to work together to fight terrorism.

There are also several domestic laws under my jurisdiction that are relevant to our counterterrorist policies. Hijacking, murder and other acts of violence can be prosecuted under the criminal code. As well, the criminal code has been amended to give Canadian courts the jurisdiction to try terrorist crimes committed abroad to ensure that terrorists are denied sanctuary and brought to justice after the commission of a terrorist crime.

The criminal code already provides powers to law enforcement officers to assist them in protecting and keeping the peace. I have also introduced organized crime legislation, Bill C-24, which is now in the Senate. Provisions in the bill would allow designated law enforcement officers investigating terrorist activity to undertake certain activities that would otherwise be illegal. The measures have been carefully crafted to protect us against and prevent organized crime while at the same time maintaining law enforcement accountability.

Rapidly evolving technologies are being used to shield unlawful activities including terrorism. Although current provisions of the criminal code provide grounds to lawfully intercept communications and to search and seize information in computer systems, new and constantly changing technologies challenge our capacity to do so. We are working to develop better methods to counter the use of information technologies that facilitate and assist terrorist activity.

In addition to these criminal code protections it is my intention to propose amendments to the Official Secrets Act. These will address intelligence gathering activities by foreign states and terrorist groups that could threaten Canada's essential infrastructures.

As well, I am planning to propose amendments to the Canada Evidence Act to better govern the use and protection of information that would be injurious to national security were it disclosed. These amendments would also protect information given to us in confidence by our allies.

As we search for effective means of security, privacy issues will be important. My department has been reviewing the privacy regime in Canada and in the course of this work the balance between the privacy and safety of Canadians will be a key consideration.

The enormity of last Tuesday's tragedy provokes extreme emotions in all of us. We cannot let terrorism and the fear of future terrorist acts justify casting aside the values upon which our great country has been built and from which it derives so much of its strength and richness, democracy, freedom of belief, freedom of political opinion, justice and equality.

As we respond to last Tuesday's attack and as we take measures to ensure our safety and keep Canada free from terrorists we must remember not to blame. As the Prime Minister said, we must remember that we are in a struggle against terrorism, not against any one community or faith. We must reaffirm Canada's fundamental values, the equality of every race, every colour, every religion and every ethnic origin.

Canada's strength lies in its ability to accept difference and to recognize our common humanity. Let us continue to nurture our respect for justice and respect for diversity. We have always governed ourselves by the rule of law, abiding by its even-handed guidance even in the face of brutal actions that belie all that civil society stands for. We must continue to do so.

The rule of law reflected in the laws and conventions I have referred to today is a fundamental part of the framework that will bring the perpetrators of terrorism to justice and preserve the values for which we all stand.

I should have mentioned at the beginning that I am splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada.