Bill C-36 (Historical)

Anti-terrorism Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism

Anti-terrorism Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take this opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-36 and Group No. 2 of the amendments that were put forward.

I would like to preface my remarks by voicing my concern as well. Since I have been a member of parliament in the House of Commons, closure has become the norm rather than the exception. Every single time we get a contentious piece of legislation the fact that the government moves so quickly to stifle and limit debate has become, since I have been in this political life, the norm rather than the exception. I condemn that in the most forceful way possible.

We are happy to be able to support the amendments in this group of motions. We believe that the opposition parties were unanimous in their condemnation of Bill C-36 and unanimous in the thoughtful presentation of meaningful amendments. There was a sincere spirit of co-operation in our efforts to make Bill C-36 a more enforceable and more meaningful piece of legislation, to make it something that would in fact have the desired results and still not compromise those things that Canadians feel very strongly about.

We are comfortable that the motions in this group of amendments would have improved the bill, but we are critical of the Minister of Justice, who gave every indication that she would in fact entertain meaningful amendments. In virtually every press conference or public comment she gave she was trying to give the impression to the Canadian public that she would entertain meaningful amendments if they were presented in the proper spirit of improving the bill. Yet what we saw ultimately was absolutely no flexibility on the real substance of the bill. I can point to the most obvious and glaring issue, which is the idea of the sunset clause.

Virtually every presenter that came before the committee demanded that there be a sunset clause provision in the bill in order to assure Canadians that the move to trivialize or minimize their civil rights would not be a permanent thing in the country, that the bill was meant to deal with an emergency that was a real and present danger, and that Canadians wanted to feel secure in their own country but not at the cost of giving up civil liberties. The sunset clause is the most glaring example of the intransigence on the part of the Liberal Party, the ruling party, in listening to the concerns brought before the committee.

There is not a sunset clause in any meaningful definition, as we understand it. The member for Winnipeg--Transcona said it is a sunset clause like June in the Yukon. That is about as sunsetting as it gets. It might reach dusk, but it certainly is not what we understand to be a sunset clause.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to parliamentary oversight of the operation of the legislation. Ample opportunity for parliamentary oversight and other forms of oversight is built into Bill C-36.

The vast majority of Canadians expect the government to act to protect their safety and security. Canadians have participated in the debate. They have watched the debate. All of us in our individual ridings have heard from Canadians. It is now time to act.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. It is too bad the hon. member could not have been present last Wednesday morning at our caucus where there was complete support for Bill C-36 and the amendments that were made.

The purpose of time allocation is to ensure that the government discharges its obligation in relation to the safety and security of Canadians. There has been much debate. It is now time for action.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that he would deprive, for example, accused persons and their counsel the right, if they wish to take that right, to challenge a section of any federal or provincial law that is germane to the cause at issue. I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that somehow he wants to restrict the right of Canadians to challenge the constitutionality of legislation, be it Bill C-36 or any other legislation.

We have reviewed the legislation in detail. It has gone through the most intense scrutiny in terms of whether or not it is consistent with the charter of rights and freedoms. We believe that this law is consistent.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have standing committees of the House of Commons and the Senate. Those committees represent in part the essence of the strength of our parliamentary democracy. Committee members spend hours talking and studying among themselves as well as hearing from witnesses.

The reality is that Bill C-36 includes many aspects of parliamentary oversight, be it in parliamentary committees such as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights or the Senate committee, the privacy commissioner or access commissioner, the federal court or provincial courts or by calling ministers under the legislation. Our obligation is to report on an annual basis. It is the right of committees to call those ministers before them and to question those ministers in detail.

However, at the end of the day parliamentary oversight is provided by the men and women who sit on the floor of the House and who sit on standing committees where ministers could be called to defend that which they have done.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister well knows, the reality is that since the bill was amended some hundred times in minor ways by the government there has been less than one day's debate on the amended final bill.

Moreover, the minister knows that through a parliamentary trick that held documents back from members of parliament who were out of town it was not possible over the weekend for more than a handful of members in the opposition to present amendments to this very serious bill. She would also know that the Senate reported explicitly:

The bill provides for a parliamentary review of the operation of the act within three years. The Senate would want to satisfy itself that any review is rigorous and sufficient. It will be important for parliament and Canadians at large to be kept informed about the way in which the powers in Bill C-36 are used.

This was ignored entirely by the government as it ignored most of the recommendations of the Senate.

My question is specifically about a parliamentary oversight provision. We all know that the world changed on September 11 and that there needs to be a response to terror. One of the ways in which that change has to be reflected is to ensure that members of the House of Commons, whose responsibility it is to report to the people of the country, have some opportunity to know that a minister is not--

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there has been an exceptional amount of debate, both in the House at second reading and at committee, in relation to the legislation. As my parliamentary secretary reminds me, there were even emergency debates following the tragic events of September 11.

Committee members obviously had the opportunity for some days to reflect upon amendments that they would propose and that we have proposed. It was a week ago that I was at committee proposing amendments that the government put forward to improve the legislation, all of which in some part were based upon what we heard before committee.

Now is the time to move forward. Canadians expect their government to act to ensure their security and safety. Our allies around the world are moving and it would be irresponsible for us, as a government, not to move. A government's primary obligation is first and foremost to ensure the safety and security of its people.

What we are doing in Bill C-36, and subsequently in Bill C-42, is putting in place the legal and operational infrastructure necessary to provide Canadians with that degree of safety and security that permits them to get on with their lives.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the hon. member's point in relation to time, let me just remind the hon. member and everyone here that Bill C-36 has had extensive debate in the House of Commons. We had almost 13 hours of debate over a three day period on October 16, 17 and 18, at second reading, including an extension of hours on October 16.

The House committee on justice and human rights as well as the special Senate committee on Bill C-36 have thoroughly studied the bill. The House committee heard from over 60 witnesses over a three week period. I think this kind of intensive study by committee is something quite unusual. The special Senate committee also put in place a procedure, a pre-study plan, to ensure that the House committee, the government and I could be informed of the issues in and around the legislation.

Report stage began yesterday. There were over five hours of debate. Unfortunately, when it became clear to the government House leader that opposition members would not co-operate in the expeditious passage of this legislation after this extensive consideration, the government House leader moved time allocation.

We have heard especially from the official opposition. I could quote the hon. member for Provencher, who said the following on October 16 “After years of inaction and denial the light finally went on over there”.

We are acting to protect the safety and security of Canadians. It is too bad that the opposition could not act with us--

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. First, as a result of our questions in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we have learned that there is no indication at the present time that Canada could be a terrorist target. This is one thing that must not be lost sight of.

Also, a scant 72 hours after Bill C-36 was tabled, in this very place I questioned the Minister of Justice on certain provisions of the criminal code. She answered that the criminal code contained everything necessary to fight organized crime effectively. I remember very well that she even ridiculed the Canadian Alliance's desire for anti-terrorism legislation.

Suddenly, we learn that the Minister of Justice has hurriedly drafted a bill. It is tabled, then rushed through committee. Witnesses told us that they did not even have 48 hours to prepare, to properly study the bill.

Then the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights sat until three in the morning to study it clause by clause and push it through. The minister tabled amendments on the spot, out of the blue one might say, ones the Liberals had not even seen and which they blindly passed.

Today, they are putting a gag on us at the report stage, the 72nd one this government has imposed.

My question is a simple one: given the exceptional nature of this bill, given that individual and collective rights and freedoms are being wiped off the map by the Liberals, regardless of the minister's claimed desire to hear what the taxpayers had to say—which she obviously did not do, nor did she heed the Senate—where is the urgency to once again rush things and not at least listen to what the people's elected representatives have to say on a bill such as this?

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I wish to inform the House of the result of the inquiries I made further to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough earlier today.

The hon. member drew the attention of the House to the fact that the evidence of meeting No. 50 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had been posted at the committee's Internet site before the evidence of earlier meetings. The suggestion was made that in this way an undue advantage was given to the testimony of the hon. Minister of Justice and hence to the government's advocacy of Bill C-36.

I have learned that Meeting No. 50 of the justice and human rights committee deals only with the clause by clause consideration of Bill C-36. It is standard procedure in the committee's directorate to give precedence to clause by clause meetings over those at which testimony is heard. This is done to assist all hon. members in their deliberations on the bill at report stage.

No outside request was made with respect to the order in which the evidence for this committee is being processed and there has been no deviation from the usual practice.

I would also like to point out that the evidence of Meeting No. 50 does not contain any testimony of the hon. Minister of Justice. She appeared at Meeting No. 49 earlier the same day and the evidence of that meeting, along with that of earlier meetings, is being processed in the usual manner.

Hon. members may therefore be assured that there has been no improper influence or preferential treatment with regard to the evidence of the justice committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise following the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I do not know whether I should draw a picture or explain to him the difference between a real sunset clause and what the minister calls a sunset clause in Bill C-36.

Either the member across the way knows full well that he is misinforming the House as to what a sunset clause is or he has completely misunderstood the bulk of the evidence we heard at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

What the minister added to Bill C-36 is a misinterpretation of what a sunset clause is. Every expert, every specialist in this field, anyone who has studied the issue is saying loud and clear that the clause the minister calls a sunset clause is not a sunset clause.

What is a sunset clause? Obviously the member does not seem to understand it. I am going to explain it to him and then if he has not understood yet I will draw a picture in three colours. This applies to the minister too.

A sunset clause is a clause that states that the bill or certain provisions will no longer be in effect after a given date. For instance, if one chooses the same date as the minister, one would say that some provisions or the bill, with the exception of such and such a provision, will cease to be in force on December 31, 2006.

Sure, it is five years. We wanted three years; five years is too long. It is only to use the same example as the minister, the same date as the minister. It is a sunset clause. On the day after December 31, 2006, Bill C-36 would cease to exist. Then, if the government wants to re-enact the extraordinary powers it has grabbed, the legislative process would start all over again.

What is a legislative process? Maybe the member, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, still does not know what it is. It starts with the introduction and first reading of a bill. Then, there is second reading. After second reading, if the bill is passed by the House, it is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee reviews the issue, hears witnesses, makes recommendations and proposes amendments to the bill. They are either passed or defeated in committee.

If it is adopted in committee, the bill comes back to the House for consideration at the report stage. There is a vote. Then we go on to third reading. There is another vote. The bill is sent to the other House and the legislative process starts over again. That is a real sunset clause.

The minister told us: “Work adequately and seriously in committee. I will listen to you. What you ask is important. What the other House will do is important. What people will say before the committee is important to me”. What the minister tabled as an amendment in answer to what was said in committee, no one had asked such a frivolous thing in committee, not even in the Senate. Because it is not a sunset clause, it is trivial.

Paragraph 83.32 says that 15 days after December 31, 2006, the government will have 15 days to adopt a motion, without parliament and the members of this House being able to make any amendments.

And with a simple motion, a simple resolution adopted simultaneously by this and the other house, the bill, or more exactly the act, because in five years it will be an act of parliament, the legislation will be extended without the members of this house, the elected members—and in five years, we will probably have seen another election; we will have new elected representatives who will have to justify their actions before their constituents—being able to add a word to this act, being able to modify it. Its application will be extended.

It is not a sunset clause. If there is the least bit of honesty in the front rows, they we will stop saying that paragraph 83.32 is a sunset clause. It is not true.

The justice committee members who are here this afternoon and listening to me know very well that nobody asked for such a clause.

As the member opposite said in his remarks, you will there is the whole issue of review. That review is just some more window dressing. It will be done three years from now. It is reassuring to see that every year a report will be tabled by the Attorney General of Canada and by the attorney general of each province. They will be reporting on their own administration of the act and on the powers they have assumed.

Does anyone know where that report will go? It will go gather dust on the shelves of parliament. Those shelves are full of reports that are worth no more than the paper they are written on.

Is that what we will have to make people feel secure? Who asked for that in committee? I was not absent very often, and in my absence, the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert was there and later on we would exchange our information. Nobody asked for such a trinket. It is only as a joke that one might imagine such things. All that is to cover up, to grab powers and go on a power trip, as they are doing opposite.

This is a cause for concern because it will be a precedent in criminal law. When we amend the criminal code, this legislation will still be there. They will say: “This has already been done in Bill C-36 in exceptional circumstances, so maybe we could do it again with this principle of law or this criminal code amendment”. Where will it end?

The best proof that this is dangerous and that we can wonder how far this government can go is that—as if Bill C-36 were not enough—last week, Thursday to be precise, they introduced Bill C-42, another bill granting exceptional powers to certain ministers. It is another piece of legislation where the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is ignored. A state of emergency can be declared, and the motion is not examined for conformity to the enabling legislation and the charter of rights.

Do not tell me the charter will apply and that the courts will review this. It can take 30 to 60 days. That is not nearly enough to go before the courts and make sure any given measure is in keeping with the charter of rights and freedoms.

I cannot understand how members opposite, who can see what the ministers are doing, can say nothing. I know some who consider themselves to be champions of individual and collective rights. It is time they said where they stand.

It is not funny, but if we look at the amendments, for example Motion no. 6, we have to ask ourselves: Is the proposed amendment any better than Bill C-36? Just imagine. We are not wondering if this is the right amendment that will allow us to reach the desired balance between individual and collective rights and national security. We are not asking ourselves that question any more.

We can choose between a 35 tonne steam roller and a 25 tonne one. That is the choice we have.

In Motion No. 6, part 2 on the Official Secrets Act, the amendment deals with information that a person can hold and that would be subject to secrecy for life or for a period of 15 years. Will we put this information on hold for 15 years or for life? This is the choice we have today. Of course 15 years is better than life, but it would be even better if we did not have to wait 15 years. We are entitled to know what is going on. We are entitled to this information.

When we vote on an amendment, what we choose in fact is the one that is less offensive.

Across the floor no one rises to speak. In the corridors, when they talk to journalists, one or two members may blurt out that this bill does not make sense. They will say “This bill goes against individual and collective rights. I am a great champion of these rights and I will do my utmost to convince my caucus”. But what really happened? The government rammed 91 amendments through this House to strengthen some of the powers that it gave itself.

This is so true that it had to resort to a complicated scheme in the part dealing with the Access to Information Act. In order not to deprive the Minister of Justice of the power to issue certificates, they delegated that power to a judge of the federal court of appeal through a complicated process. It would have been so simple to delete clauses 87, 103 and 104 and go back to the enabling legislation, to the existing act, which is working well. Who says so? It is not the opposition, but the information commissioner and also the privacy commissioner. Is it so difficult for members opposite to understand that it is not necessary that ministers get involved in this for reasons of national security?

We agree with this motion which proposes to set a 15 year time limit but this is not ideal. Ideally the government should understand the situation and withdraw its bill.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-36, in Clause 29, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 62 the following:

“In no case shall a person be bound to secrecy for a period exceeding fifteen years, unless otherwise indicated by the deputy head.”

Mr. Speaker, the amendment would alter the definition of persons permanently bound to secrecy in the act. In Bill C-36 which is currently returning to the House from committee the definition of persons permanently bound to secrecy is long but includes a whole series of people. The definition is automatic. The binding to secrecy is automatic for anyone in those categories.

The purpose of the amendment is to allow the discretion to be reversed. A person would be bound to secrecy permanently if designated by the deputy head of the relevant department but not otherwise. The point of this is to deal with the almost obsessive secrecy that permeates this piece of legislation.

The dangers writ large in the attitude the government has taken toward secrecy in Bill C-36 were summarized by the remarks in the House of the member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot. He said:

Section 87 enables the government to withhold information pertaining to security issues forever...That is the excuse that has been used by dictatorships throughout history and around the world.

That is the danger writ large. The danger writ small, if one likes, in relation to the clause was summarized most eloquently by Edward Greenspon in an article published in the November 17 edition of the Globe and Mail . I will read quite an extensive quote from the article to illustrate exactly what the concern is. He wrote:

Commentators have been rightly critical of the provisions giving the minister an unfettered blanket exception from the Access to Information Act. Ms. McLellan has indicated a willingness to amend her bill to include a Federal Court review, but that represents too drawn out a process to serve as an effective instrument of oversight.

Then there are the little noted sections of her bill that replace the old Official Secrets Act with the new Security of Information Act. The changeover unduly constrains the release of information by whistle blowers, and permits the Orwellian designation of certain government officials as “persons permanently bound by secrecy.” That means they must take their secrets to the grave.

He continues:

Ms. McLellan should take note of a comment made by University of Toronto security expert Wesley Wark at a recent symposium on her bill. “In the war on terrorism, the public will need to be told more rather than less about the actions and capabilities of Canadian security and intelligence institutions.”

There are of course good reasons some people should be bound to secrecy for an extensive period of time, say for 15 years as I propose in the amendment. There are certain cases in which a permanent lifelong ban on release of information may be appropriate. However those instances ought to be the exception and be granted on a case by case basis rather than being automatic.

Automatic secrecy provides a convenient veil behind which any number of restrictions can be hidden. When facts are hidden behind a veil there is a temptation to extend secrecy to things that have nothing to do with terrorism or national security. This would essentially gut the entire openness in government movement that has slowly built up strength over the past 20 years. It would be a real shame to see that destroyed. This is what the amendment hopes to prevent.

The amendment I have proposed would change the way deputy heads of security agencies such as CSIS, the RCMP or the Communications Security Establishment may designate employees by limiting secrecy to 15 years except when the deputy head specifically makes a change to the contrary. This would curb the absolute muzzling powers that are placed on the whistle blowing capacities of employees to expose gross excess, corruption or other misuses of power.

The 15 year limit was chosen for two reasons. First, it is consistent with the time limit on ministerial secrecy certificates. I have reservations about ministerial secrecy certificates. However the government saw fit to use 15 years so in the spirit of consistency and logic I am proposing 15 years.

Second, 15 years is the length of time after which most security information would be obsolete anyway. There are possible exceptions but most security information would be rendered obsolete.

There are exceptions. Let us imagine going back in time to the forties where one might have wanted to make exemptions of longer than 15 years for nuclear secrets. Those kinds of exemptions can be built in on a case by case basis by the people who know best. Let us give them the authority to go that way but let us not give them a blanket exemption.

The time allocation that has been put in place may make it difficult to address other aspects of the bill later. I have an amendment coming up with regard to a sunset clause. I will address the issue now because I might not have a chance to do so later.

I was an early advocate of a sunset clause. The government resisted initially. I think this was based largely on the fact that the Prime Minister had offered an ad lib comment off the cuff in Shanghai and did not want anyone to show him up. Whatever the reason, the government has been reticent about putting sunset clauses in place. That is a grave error. The partial sunset clause it put in place is inadequate.

There are aspects of the bill that are good. The sunset clause on preventive arrest that would permit ongoing investigations to be grandfathered or exempted from the sunset clause is a good idea. Where the government has put in the sunset clause it is a welcome change. However the sunset clause should be extended not to the UN conventions we are entrenching but to other aspects of the bill that would greatly reduce the traditional civil liberties of Canadians.

We need to confront an interesting question. We were talking about a three year review of the bill that would take place between now and the next election. Why are we are now talking about a five year sunset clause? I fail to see why three years made sense when the bill was introduced but now five years is appropriate, unless the review was something that could be swept under the rug as prior reviews have been.

There is a long history of reviews that have been dealt with so expeditiously that members of the committees meant to be reviewing were unaware of them. The review of the Referendum Act that supposedly took place in 1995 was so brief that members of the committee were unaware of it.

I was on the committee and I asked the chief electoral officer about the review. He said it came up as an item of business with no advance notice or discussion. It was meaningless.

As long as that was the case the government was willing to have a three year review. Now that we are talking about something genuine, a real limitation on the government and a real review which would involve any embarrassing oversteps brought to the public's view, the government wants it to be after the next election.

Members of the House ought not vote in favour of suspending civil liberties until such time as it is electorally convenient for the Prime Minister to reintroduce those civil liberties. It is a shame. It is a strong reason to vote against the bill as a whole but certainly to vote in favour of any amendment that would extend the sunset clause.

[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.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act.

Even if the media are saying the Minister of Justice made numerous concessions about the provisions now included in the bill, in fact she approved only minimal changes that will barely satisfy the New Democratic Party and some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. The minister has been saying over and over to committee members that, given the importance of this bill and the speed with which it was prepared, she is open to the idea of amendments to the bill and will gladly entertain suggestions from the members.

However, we are not satisfied with the way government treated committee members and particularly opposition members. The committee finished its proceedings and, one week later, even if the committee had not had time to table a report to present its conclusions or make some recommendations, in one day only, the minister submitted 100 amendments, none of which, including the more important ones, acknowledged any of our concerns.

Those amendments and some other unimportant opposition amendments were carried in a marathon sitting. That sitting clearly proved that members of the government are not willing to consider the serious and well thought out proposals of the opposition.

Furthermore, one of the most serious problems with the government position is that it keeps saying that the bill only targets those who engage in terrorist activities against society and that it results from the emergency created by the events of September 11.

Yesterday, the committee was informed that this bill would become an important part of the criminal code and that including the words terror and extreme fear in the definition of terrorist activity would raise the bar too high and possibly complicate the legal fight against those crimes.

We had asked that the bill include a sunset clause. One of the ideas suggested by many witnesses was an American style sunset clause. This would have had the effect of forcing the government to introduce, debate and amend the bill so that it could remain in force for another period of time.

A three year limit on different aspects of the bill has been suggested by many witnesses. One of the concerns raised by the government is that there are some aspects of the bill that would allow Canada to be consistent with various UN conventions on terrorism.

The New Democratic Party moved an amendment that would deal with these concerns. However, the government had already decided that it would not agree to a diluted version of the sunset clause.

In five years, the House and the Senate would vote on a motion to extend the duration of the clauses on investigation and preventive arrest, two of the most controversial measures in the bill. Even though this is better than no clause at all, it is hardly a sunset clause.

Instead of having to introduce and examine the bill once again, the government would only have to ask its hon. members and senators to agree to an extension of the existing provisions of Bill C-36.

In examining this clause, I am reminded of the member for Winnipeg--Transcona who used the example of fishing this morning. He was fishing in northern Canada; at two o'clock in the morning, he was fishing on one of the lakes, and the sun was setting, but it did not set completely, and it started to rise again. This is what the government is trying to do with Bill C-36. In five years' time, the bill will apply again for ten years.

This clause makes me think of the base in Chatham, where army planes made what we called touch and go landings. Planes would hit the airport runway and take off immediately. They did not stop. We saw it all the time. This is what is going to happen with this bill.

It is too bad that the government is not proposing a bill that will be not only reviewed, but that will come before the House of Commons again for another debate. It is cause for concern. Members, and all Canadians I think, must know by now that I was a labour representative for several years.

We have often seen people protest in the streets for their rights. Sometimes, things get out of hand. Is this legal? Is it really criminal? Could demonstrating put people's rights at risk? Will the right people be arrested? On occasion, when under pressure, a person may get carried away but that does not make that person a terrorist.

We are planning to give police more authority. It is not that I do not trust our police forces but sometimes things get out of hand. For example, we cannot forget what happened in Vancouver when there were protests during the APEC summit.

We saw pictures on television of young people who were sitting on the road, being asked to leave. I remember the police officer with his pepper spray. We saw it. He did not even give the young people a chance to leave. This is what is going to happen. Remember what happened in Quebec City. I am not ashamed to say it. Everyone knows it, we were there to protest at the Summit of the Americas.

We have the right to do that. It is in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have the right to demonstrate peacefully. Because a young person might sometimes do something that is not correct, is that reason enough to call him a terrorist? Is that what we want? Is that the kind of country we want?

We are against terrorism and we are asking for legislation to stop it. However, the government should not come up with legislation that we will have to live with for a lifetime.

Even though we brought forward important amendments with a view to improving that clause, amendments that witnesses had recommended and that would have gone a long way in addressing our concerns about Bill C-36, the government brought forward an amendment removing the word lawful from the exception dealing with dissent or protest. This was the least of the demands for amending that clause.

Our amendments would have included the words “extreme terror and intimidation” as motivation for terrorist crimes in order to make it clear that only criminal acts with such motivation could be viewed as terrorist activity.

Second, we suggested excluding threats to economic security from the same clause.

Third, we suggested removing the provision by which the disruption of essential services would be made a terrorist activity.

Last, we asked the government to amend the same clause to clarify that no activity qualified as peaceful civil disobedience would be considered to be a terrorist activity.

These amendments were all rejected. There is no sunset clause for this provision. Once the legislation has been passed, the definition of terrorist activity will become a permanent part of the Criminal Code of Canada. The NDP voted against this clause.

The provisions allowing the Communications Security Establishment, CSE, to monitor communications between Canadians and giving Canadian security agencies greater leeway in searches and the use of different surveillance tools are still in the legislation. They have not been amended and are not subject to a sunset clause. The NDP proposed a very precise amendment pertaining to these clauses that would force the CSE to obtain a warrant in order to be able to control and monitor communications between Canadians.

We are pre-occupied by the clause concerning the entities that would be on the list. This clause allows the government to make a list of groups. Until yesterday these entities were called terrorists groups but they are now called entities listed for the purposes of anti-terrorist measures.

For these reasons, the NDP cannot support a bill that would deprive Canadians of their liberties. The NDP will not support the justice minister's legislation because it will not help Canadians.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, before I start my speech on Bill C-36 and on the proposed amendments, I will give a little reminder to the Liberal government, which just invoked closure for the 72nd time since 1993.

I remind it that, when the Liberals were in the opposition, they—among others, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, as leader of the rat pack—denounced the Conservative government for being undemocratic, because, according to him and after some checking, 9.4% of parliamentary business was done after closure had been imposed.

Since the Liberals took office, that figure is more than 17.4%, that is almost double. It is disturbing to see a government practically double the number of times it invokes closure to deal with bills in the House of Commons.

Today, this is the 72nd time since 1993. If they wanted to be consistent, they too could declare themselves undemocratic, having doubled the number of times closure was invoked by the Conservatives when they were in office.

This being said, I would like to join my colleagues who congratulated the hon. members for Berthier—Montcalm, forSaint-Bruno—Saint-Hubertand for Châteauguay for their excellent work, especially in circumstances that parliamentarians should not be in, that is, dramatic and atrocious.

Indeed, the government gave parliamentarians, with only a few minutes' notice, about 100 pages of amendments. The pagination is deficient and parliamentarians were told to do their job. These parliamentarians are then asked to be careful and on the look-out.

While the committee was sitting, the government replaced the majority members, because they only had to vote, but it had on the committee some people who were really interested and who wanted to examine the amendments until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. Then it said “Let us bulldoze all this and have these amendments agreed to, because even if the opposition parties move some amendments, we will vote against them.”

I believe this is what is feeding the irony the people listening to us have shown too often toward parliamentarians.

Members, as well as those who are watching us, will understand that, unfortunately, after voting in favour of the principle of Bill C-36 at second reading, the Bloc Quebecois will have to vote against this anti-terrorism bill at third reading because the government refused to listen to reason and to understand our reasonable motives for wanting this bill amended to strike the right balance between security and freedom.

I will try to explain clearly to the House and to Canadians why we will be opposing this bill and what amendments we brought forward, because we sincerely wanted to support this anti-terrorism bill for all the reasons stated previously.

Our opposition to this bill is based on six reasons. I will state them first and then explain them. The first reason we will oppose Bill C-36 is the sunset clause, which we asked for from the very beginning. There is a sort of sunset clause in the bill, but it is incomplete. So this is the first reason we must oppose this bill.

The second reason deals with reviewing the legislation.

The third reason concerns the definition of the expression terrorist activity.

The fourth reason deals with the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The fifth and penultimate reason concerns the security of telecommunications or electronic surveillance.

The last reason, which is just as important—because I did not list them by order of importance—is the list of terrorists and of charitable organizations.

With regard to the sunset clause, I will quote from people who are not members of the Bloc Quebecois to demonstrate that witnesses who appeared before the committee were also apprehensive about the sunset clause or lack thereof. This goes to show that members of the Bloc Quebecois or opposition members are not always the only ones to oppose government policies.

Here is what two witnesses said before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The first comment comes from the executive board of the Canadian Automobile Workers, from its president Buzz Hargrove. He said:

It is obvious that there are areas which seriously infringe on public freedoms, which are the foundation of a democracy.

He went on to say:

Canadians must be able to express their opinions on a piece of legislation as fundamental as this, legislation which will change their daily lives.

Another witness, and not the least, who appeared before the committee was this government's Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We will see if he is as consistent with himself. If he is not consistent with this government, or with his caucus, we will see if he is consistent in his own thinking. He said:

I think that, as a government we should be open to a sunset clause. It would then be up to the government to prove that these measures are important. Whether for a period of three years or whatever, I am in favour of a sunset clause.

His colleague, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, supported him.

Even with the slight amendment on the sunset clause, on two aspects of Bill C-36, we are opposed to the absence of a sunset clause for the bill as a whole, such as other countries have, and we explained this.

With respect to a review of the legislation, we proposed that there be an annual process. We called for a report on a variety of aspects of the bill to be prepared by an independent commissioner and studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

To all intents and purposes, after we have called for an annual review by parliamentarians and an independent commissioner, the government has proposed that the reports cover only two aspects of the bill: investigative hearings and preventive arrests. It is therefore proposing that a report be presented to parliament. After the report is presented and adopted, there would not be a real review process, which is very important, as everyone agrees.

As for the definition of terrorist activity, we explained this at length, but it is important to recall that our amendment would have meant that demonstrations and illegal strikes would not be considered terrorist activities. There was an illegal strike in Quebec last week. Everyone would agree that this was not a terrorist activity. Even the former president of the CEQ would agree that, while it was an illegal strike, it was not a terrorist activity.

Even though the definition has been amended, we believe that some protest groups—this was brought up by editorial writers and experts—could still fall under what is called terrorist activity. This definition, while amended, does not meet the expectations of the public or the Bloc Quebecois.

As far as the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act are concerned , I will give the floor to the primary stakeholders, John Reid and George Radwanski, who are responsible for their implementation. They clearly stated that they did not appreciate the fact that the minister would have the power to issue orders preventing the communication of information, when it is normally up to them to decide wether or not information can be communicated for defence or national security reasons, their decision being subject to review by the federal court.

Again, these are the two primary stakeholders who are voicing their concern about the amendments to the Access to Information Act.

As far as the Communications Security Establishment and wiretapping are concerned, we have put forward amendments requiring that the defence minister seek the court's authorization before approving wiretapping by the Communication Security Establishment. The minister did not see fit to amend the bill in this way, thus giving free reign to the defence minister, which in our opinion would set a dangerous precedent.

In conclusion, regarding the sixth and last point, the listing of terrorists, we have put forward amendments so that organizations not be listed or lose their charitable status without being made aware of the evidence against them.

It would be quite normal for those listed as terrorists by the Minister of Justice or the government to at least know on what basis they are being accused.

I believe my colleagues before me explained it very well in their speeches, and I tried to explain clearly the six points on which we are still in disagreement. Again, we might be overly optimistic, but we do hope that the government will listen, otherwise we will have to vote against the anti-terrorism bill.