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

[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.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about Bill C-36, and I am honoured to speak to it tonight.

I believe the legislation in its present form is disturbing and unless some changes are made we in the New Democratic Party will not be able to live with it. We believe the bill has to be changed. It is currently anti-democratic. It fails the basic test of protecting our civil liberties from the state. We are a country with a proud tradition of fighting for democracy.

I came here today from a taping in a studio where I taped a message to our armed forces serving overseas. I represent many members of the armed forces in my community.

I find it ironic that we have thousands of people who have gone overseas to protect democracy and the values we care about, but right here we are looking at some pretty scary legislation which I think will jeopardize the things they are fighting for.

Last week, along with my leader, I met with women from the Muslim community in Halifax and Dartmouth and we heard their real fear of this bill. Many of them came to Canada because they believed that our democratic institutions would protect them from oppressionn but Bill C-36 makes them afraid to answer their doors. Once again it may be the police taking them away because of the ethnicity of their names.

I have also been with teachers opposed to the bill because of its attack on our civil liberties. I have met with immigrant service organizations that tell me of the fear of their clients.

The bill goes way too far, way too fast. I would like to talk about some of the specific concerns we have. I will start with the sunset clause.

One of the ideas touted by numerous witnesses was the idea of an American style sunset clause. This would have the effect of forcing the government to reintroduce, debate and amend the legislation for it to take effect for another period of time. A three year time limit affecting different aspects of the legislation was suggested by numerous witnesses.

The NDP proposed an amendment that would have addressed those concerns. However, the government had already decided that it would only include a watered down sunset clause by which the House and the Senate would vote after five years for a motion to extend the investigative hearing and preventative arrest sections, two of the more controversial measures in the bill. Though this is better than no clause at all, it is not a sunset clause in the true sense. Rather than having to introduce and re-examine legislation, this would simply require the government to tell its members and senators to vote an extension of that which currently exists in Bill C-36.

There is much more in Bill C-36 that should have been sunsetted and properly so. The definition of “terrorist activity” would have been a good candidate for sunsetting, as well as provisions extending powers of surveillance and wiretapping given to Canadian security agencies, along with new ministerial permits allowing the attorney general to exempt information from the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

The only significant amendment made to these final sections was to put a 15 year limit on the life of these certificates as well as to provide for a limited judicial oversight. Though this is a minor improvement, it in no way addresses our concerns about the power concentrated in the hands of the attorney general.

When it comes to the definition of terrorism in the bill, we have substantial concerns. Though we proposed amendments to improve this section, none were accepted and amendments recommended by witnesses, which would have gone a long way toward addressing our concerns, were also rejected. Our amendments would have included the words “extreme terror and intimidation” as motivations for terrorist offences, to make it clear that only acts with those motivations could be considered terrorist acts.

Second, we proposed the exclusion of threats to economic security in that section.

Third, we proposed removing the section that would include the disruption of essential services as a terrorist act.

Finally, we proposed that the government amend the same section to clarify that no acts involving peaceful, civil disobedience could be considered terrorist acts.

We also have concerns with the wiretapping and surveillance provisions. Provisions which, among other things, allow the communications security establishment to monitor communications in which Canadians are a party as well as allowing Canadian security agencies more latitude in seeking and using various surveillance tools are still part of the legislation, unamended and unsunsetted.

We have a great deal of concern about the issue of listed entities. Some important amendments have been put forward by members of the Conservative Party on the issue. We found the section around listed entities to be worrisome. A listed entity has its assets frozen and confiscated. Though there is an appeal mechanism for a listed entity, an appeal is only possible once an entity has already had its assets frozen. Numerous charitable and religious groups are very concerned about this section because the freezing would be tantamount to a death sentence.

In the media we have heard from members of the Somalian Canadian community who see the bill as an attempt to criminalize their attempts to support their parents, brothers and children in Somalia.

We proposed two amendments to this section but none was accepted. We also supported two amendments from the member for Calgary Centre. One would report the seizing of assets and one would reverse the legal onus around the listing of entities, which used to be called labelling of a terrorist group, so that there is some presumption of innocence.

The idea that the government suggests that a person is guilty without trial simply based on a secret accusation from the intelligence community is terrifying. The process allows CSIS to legalize witch hunts.

The Minister of Justice did not listen to the justice committee or to the witnesses who appeared before it. The amendments that were introduced did not adequately address our key concerns.

The definition of terrorist activity is overly broad in the bill. The sunset clause is limited in what it covers. It is incomplete in what it requires and amounts in the end to a 10 year sunset on two provisions of the bill.

Ministerial certificates are still part of the bill and the government has done nothing to address the concerns of charitable and cultural organizations, as well as business that could find themselves unfairly listed. The amendments are at best superficial.

We want to see amendments to the legislation that would make it absolutely clear that this new law cannot be used or abused against Canadians who participate in demonstrations, strikes or other customary forms of political or institutional dissent, or to create big loopholes in our privacy and freedom of information laws. The limited amendments from the government have left the door open for all of these things.

Why should the government be trusted with new powers, which it may use to distinguish between real terrorists and non-terrorists, if at the moment it cannot seem to distinguish between peaceful protesters and violent protesters? If the minister is concerned about the reputation that the government has developed, one would assume that she would make a much more diligent effort to try to clear up this very important issue.

About 10 days ago there were demonstrations less than a kilometre away from the House against the G20, the world bank and the international monetary fund. Television crews caught young protesters breaking windows and spray-painting public signs. This was after scenes of violence at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City and at the APEC conference in Vancouver.

Members should not get me wrong. I oppose vandalism, even of McDonald's, but I also oppose any law that would equate their actions with the evil events of September 11.

I am frankly suspicious of the government, and the tens of thousands of peaceful protesters are also suspicious of the increasing use of police force against demonstrations. The stubbornness of the government in refusing reasonable amendments in this historic legislation gives credence to the suspicions that we have.

I believe in a democratic Canada. I take the civil liberties given in our charter very seriously. I beg that we now take the time and make the effort to produce a piece of legislation that protects our security while defending our civil liberties in this anxious and difficult time.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in this debate from the perspective of my short experience as a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Even though this bill deals with internal security in Canada, I would like to express my views with that new experience in mind.

Witnesses from various countries and international associations who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and International Development told us how important and urgent it is that Canada intervene to uphold human rights in other countries.

We should acknowledge that, over the years, Canada has earned an excellent reputation because it advocated the protection of human rights and it has been, to use the Prime Minister's words, the best country in the world as far as the defence of human rights goes.

But, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the government has introduced a series of bills, including Bill C-36, dealing with judgments, arrests, and so on, in response to terrorist activities.

At the same time, the government has introduced Bill C-35, aimed at changing international conventions, and Bill C-42, on public transportation safety. We realize that the government reacted in a state of panic.

Although the importance of the terrorist actions of September 11 must not be diminished, including what occurred at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, actions that are unacceptable, we have reacted, because something had to be done. But it had to be done without losing sight of the balance to be maintained between safety and the right to individual freedoms.

Otherwise, as some members of my party have said before me, it would be an inappropriate reaction, playing into the hands of those who were responsible for the September 11 terrorist actions, that is, changing our democracy, our system of individual and group rights to suit the objectives of those rightly called terrorists.

This is not the intent. Safety may be increased and all measures improved, with new ones even being added, in order to increase security.

I personally have nothing against the fact that, for example, we spend more time in line-ups at the airports in order to get to our ridings, because I understand that to fight effectively against attacks like those carried out with planes on September 11, we must all accept that things take longer. I do not think many people in our country are against that.

We have all accepted measures, and there could be others, of course. But there is a limit. I am going to make a comparison. A bill was unanimously passed by MPs last spring against organized crime. There were a lot of deaths—I do not have the figures, but it seems to me there were over 160—which resulted from bikers' wars. Sometimes, it was a settling of accounts among criminals, but sometimes there were innocent victims too. The bill is still awaiting passage in the Senate. It must be following a fairly singular process, since, according to the government, there is some urgency.

There are therefore two processes, so that they are jostling each other at the doors, so to speak. So the bill was passed in a panic during the night.

My colleagues, the hon. members for Berthier—Montcalm, Châteauguay and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, spent the night proposing a series of amendments in reaction to the pile of amendments proposed by the government, and discussed very rapidly. The whole thing had to be passed within hours.

They proposed some 60 amendments themselves, close to 66, in keeping with the Bloc Quebecois’ objections and aimed at improving this bill. To us, these amendments were a way of being consistent with our vote on second reading, which addressed the principle of the bill and was aimed at improving the situation in order to adopt new measures so that there could be an effective battle against terrorism and at the same time protection of our rights and freedoms.

When one speaks of preventive arrests, these are based on presumptions and on information received, without much idea of where it will lead. Preventive arrests are going to be made only on that basis, without complete evidence, supposedly in the name of national security. This information may sometimes come from the information services of other countries without any decision on them being made by the information commissioner; instead it will be the Department of Justice, or one might almost say the Minister of Justice, because there is sometimes much differentiation.

Hon. members will realize that the definition of terrorism is not clear, even though an attempt was made by a colleague to clarify it. In our opinion, this is not enough. This is why we feel that Motion No. 1 is incomplete. We agree with the other three motions, which are in line with the amendments that the Bloc Quebecois proposed in committee, but that were rejected.

The democratic process is at stake. The government prides itself in being a model for democracies. It keeps making that comment at every opportunity, whether it is when making representations or sending a delegation abroad, and even within the country. The government is very concerned about how human rights are respected elsewhere, but here some parts of the legislation will not be governed by the 1982 charter of human rights, the Trudeau charter. And it wants us to pass this bill very rapidly, after hearing witnesses very quickly.

This is an extremely important bill, yet the provinces were not consulted and no consultations took place outside Ottawa. And the government is gagging us once again. It is telling us that it will use closure, because it is in a hurry to pass this bill as quickly as possible.

As the NDP member said earlier, generally speaking, when a bill has a major impact and includes several new measures, parliament takes all the time necessary to review it. Hon. members do not feel pressured, as is the case now, to do things as quickly as possible and to discuss the legislation as little as possible.

Yet, the government has the necessary tools, including the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which could broaden its consultation. But instead the government is resorting to closure. We must always go faster. It is this kind of pressure which, in the end, generates even more concern, as was pointed out by several organizations, including one in particular.

I went to the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development. Amnesty International is concerned. It feels that the definition of terrorism is not specific enough and that this puts at risk those who may openly express their opinions. We should at least have the support of an organization like Amnesty International.

I would still have a lot to say but I will conclude by congratulating once again my three colleagues who worked really hard to try to propose an acceptable position.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on the proposed amendments, which have been introduced by a number of members, to Bill C-36, the terrorism bill.

At the outset, the events on September 11 in New York City were absolutely terrible and of course we have to respond to terrorism around the world and the potential on our own country. However, this could have been done through the existing provisions of the criminal code.

The criminal code allows a great deal of flexibility for the RCMP, for CSIS and for police authorities to do what they have to do in terms of terrorism, along with some additional money to the RCMP and for security that I expect to come down in the budget on December 10 from the Minister of Finance. That would have been the route to go.

One thing that always concerns me, when we get into these kinds of situations, is that we have to watch out for what is an overreaction by government. Democracy itself is pretty fragile and we have to watch for an overreaction to events. We have seen this before. If we went back through history, we would see what happened to the Japanese Canadians in the second world war when there was an overreaction to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Japanese participation in World War II.

More recently in 1970, we had the invocation of the War Measures Act. I was one of the members of parliament in the House of Commons in 1970. Sixteen of us who voted against the invocation of the act. I remember those days very well. There was a great deal of fear, anger and concern for what might happen.

All of a sudden in the middle of the night the War Measures Act was invoked by the government of the day. There was a real trampling on civil liberties and civil rights by the police, particularly in the province of Quebec. I can remember the extra police precautions around this place. I remember our soldiers were on Parliament Hill. We were all caught up in this frenzy that there was an apprehended insurrection about to occur, which was the warning of the War Measures Act. After a bit of discussion in cabinet, it was invoked. No discussion took place in the House of Commons before it was invoked.

I remember very well the pressure that occurred when we had a vote and only 16 of us voted against the invocation of that Act.

In terms of the overreaction, I remember the then leader of the opposition, Robert Stanfield, a very honourable, decent and progressive man, said after he retired from this place that the biggest political regret that he had as a member of parliament perhaps in his whole political career was that he did not vote against the invocation of the War Measures Act at that time.

There was a real panic and a real mood of the moment. I remember the fear that people had in my riding and around the country because of the frenzy in the media at that time.

A few years after that, most people concluded that it was a tremendous overreaction by the government of the day to invoke the War Measures Act and that it did not have to be done. What had to be done could have been done under the criminal code and the provisions in the criminal code.

Once again we have a very similar situation with the terrible thing that happened in New York City on September 11. We have a minister bring in the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36, which in my opinion is an overreaction. It gives more than necessary powers to police authorities. It suspends for a longer period of time than is needed, civil liberties. There are sunset clauses on certain provisions of the bill but not on all of it. These things do not need to occur nor should they occur.

When I look at the list of witnesses who appeared before the justice committee hearings in the Centre Block, many of the changes they recommended are not part of the package that was tabled by the Minister of Justice.

Many of the amendments that are not part of those are in the package we are debating today. I encourage the government across the way to live up to the tradition of the Liberal party, historically at least, a party which was concerned about civil liberties, human rights and adequate protection of the individual living within the criminal code and having the balance in a free and democratic society. These are the things in which the Liberal party has historically believed.

It is ironic that we had the invocation of the War Measures Act by a Liberal prime minister, Pierre Trudeau. Now we have another Liberal Prime Minister, who was a justice minister in those days, bringing in the anti-terrorism bill. Both of these things have been done by Liberal Parties, not the Conservative Parties and not the Alliance Party.

It is with a great deal of concern that I encourage members across the way to accept some of these amendments. I know many members across the way are not happy with the bill of the Minister of Justice. There are at least two cabinet ministers who have spoken privately and expressed a great deal of concern about the bill. In our parliamentary system of cabinet solidarity that is a big no-no. I suspect many other ministers are concerned about this as well.

If we had a free vote in the House, I think we would have a radically different bill. I guess this is another reason why we need some parliamentary reform in this, so that members are more free to vote with their consciences or in accordance with what they think their constituents want or desire.

I hope before this debate is over that we will have a change of heart and that there will be some new amendments tabled by the government. Perhaps some members across the way will get up and speak against certain provisions of the bill and will ask some of the questions that I think need to be asked.

My prediction is that when we go down the road another five or ten years, many people on the Liberal side, who voted for the bill, will say, if not publicly at least privately, that they made a mistake, that the bill went too far, that the bill was not necessary and that we had adequate provisions in the criminal code. I believe we will have the same reaction to this as we had to the War Measures Act when the incidents of October 1970 became history.

I will close by saying we should withdraw the bill. It is not necessary. Democracy is a very fragile thing here or anywhere in the world. These kinds of bills are a threat to the democratic process. They are a threat to due process, and it is an overreaction. It is using a sledgehammer to crack open a peanut. I think the government will live to regret the day that it passed this bill into the history of our country and that it put whips on their backbenches to make sure that they all voted in unison for a bill that was totally, in my opinion, unnecessary because of the powers in the criminal code.

I hope that some government members who feel that way will get up and express their points of view. We will not change the rules of this place until that starts happening in a more systematic way.

A member who ran for speaker was concerned about some of the rigidities in our parliamentary system and how we were really handcuffed in our parliamentary in terms of a real freedom of speech and votes. We are perhaps the most handcuffed parliamentary system in the world when it comes to our freedom to vote.

Even in Britain, which is the mother of parliaments, the Tony Blair government is very popular, and the Margaret Thatcher government before that was very popular in its first term. In both those governments, bills that were introduced by those prime ministers were defeated when the backbenchers of their parties joined in unison with the opposition parties to bring the bills down. In those cases the government did not fall. The government continued on. There were no measures of confidence.

This should not be a measure of confidence. It is not a money bill and it is not a throne speech which is giving a vision of where the government wants to take the country. It is simply another bill in the path of the parliamentary journals. I hope some members will speak their minds and then vote according to their consciences or the wishes of their constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody understands that we are once again witnessing one of those appalling, unacceptable and undemocratic practices so typical of this government, which speaks out of both sides of the mouth, especially the government House leader.

Following in its authoritarian way, which has made people lose confidence in the institution of parliament in the first place, the government introduced a bill, Bill C-36, which we would have liked to support. We believe that the events of September 11 cannot go unpunished. The members for Berthier—Montcalm, Châteauguay and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert worked very hard in committee to move amendments that would have improved the bill.

What is it all about? This bill asks us to fight against terrorism without authorizing any recourse to the courts and the rule of law. That is the problem. I chose randomly and read four briefs containing an analysis of Bill C-36. Let us look closely at the threat now looming over this parliament.

Take, for example, Amnesty International. Is there an organization more concerned about human rights than Amnesty International? What did Amnesty International say to parliamentarians? What warning did it give to those who will have to make a decision on Bill C-36? In reference to the definition of terrorism, which is extremely broad and which involves both political and religious convictions, Amnesty International said:

We are concerned that the provisions may be too broad in scope and may include activities conducted in the full respect of the international standards that apply to human rights. In fact, the individuals that Amnesty International considers to be prisoners of conscience could very well be prosecuted under that definition.

This is serious. Earlier, the hon. member for Joliette, who is well known for his interest in the labour movement and, more globally, for social justice, reminded us that in a context similar to the one that existed in 1973-74, we could have found ourselves in an illegal situation.

I do not understand the glibness, the flippancy and in fact the contempt shown by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, considering that when he sat in the opposition, he, along with the current Minister of Canadian Heritage, swore that when his party would be in office, it would restore democracy, it would bring about a new way of doing things and it would respect the work done by parliamentary committees. I do not understand why, after receiving warning after warning, the government is coming up with such a broad definition of terrorism.

But what is even more serious, and I doubt the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell will sleep well this evening, is what information commissioner John Reid said. We find ourselves in a situation where some provisions of the bill may supersede the Access to Information Act.

This is very serious, because it means that the commissioner, who is in control, who is above everything, who should have the confidence of this parliament and ensure transparency and access to information regarding national defence and the Department of Justice, will not be able to fulfill his role.

Let us look at what he said on page 3 of his brief. In my opinion, this is the most important brief. Here is what he said:

It's my strong belief—

This is not the member for Joliette speaking, or the member for Châteauguay or the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, but the information commissioner in whom this government should have confidence. Well, what did he say? He said this:

It's my strong belief, based on a review of 18 years of experience under the act—experience during times of war and crisis, involving exchanges of highly sensitive information among allies—that our Access to Information Act poses no threat whatsoever to international relations, national defence, or the security of Canada.

This is what the information commissioner told the parliamentary committee, what he told members.

In spite of that, the bill contains a provision that says that, for security reasons dealing with national defence, international relations and justice, the Access to Information Act would not apply.

Indeed this is not the first time we see something like this. All opposition members know the kind of contempt this government has shown for the Access to Information Act. That act was revised as recently as a year and a half ago. The reality is that this government does not like debate. It is very authoritarian.

The government is made up of people who say one thing when they are in opposition but do exactly the opposite when they are in government. They are the ones who create this shroud of suspicion causing our fellow citizens to lose confidence in Parliament. I hope the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell will think about that.

I would now like to deal with another extremely important aspect of the bill. I am not as old and experienced as the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, but I am in my third mandate here. I say old in the parliamentary sense of the word, as we know the eternal youth of our colleague.

Let us recall Bill C-95, the first antigang act that was passed by this parliament. This legislation provides that the solicitor general must rise each year in the House and present a report on organized crime in Canada. We can debate it. We can discuss it.

We know the importance of organized crime. There are 36 criminal bikers gangs across Canada. They represent a very serious threat in big cities. For organized crime to succeed, we know that certain conditions must exist: the existence of communication lines, the existence of charters that protect individuals and, of course, the indication of wealth.

Why would it not have been possible, after one year of enforcing the legislation, which is recognized to be important in terms of its objective, to reevaluate the legislation, to assess the results achieved, to examine what worked and what did not work?

We are talking about three years. Why wait three years? Let us not forget that if the revision is general, only two provisions of the legislation are subject to the sunset clauses. We know that.

These points were extremely important for the Bloc Quebecois, but not just for the Bloc. For example, they were also important for the defence lawyers association or the Canadian Bar Association. I am asking the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell to think closely about these issues.

We are presented with legislation that will reduce human rights. Why then do we have a bill of rights that was introduced in this House by John Diefenbaker; why do we have a charter of rights and freedoms; why do we have a supreme court and why do we have judicial reviews, if the government ignores the legal guarantees that are contained in those provisions?

I am very disappointed with this government. We are all very disappointed with this government.

The list of terrorist organizations is another very disturbing provision. Imagine, the government will establish a yearly list of all terrorist organizations without any judicial control? Those who are given that status will have no access to disclosure of evidence, which means that they will automatically be considered as a terrorist organization.

In the current context, the government must recall this bill for the opposition to be able to play its role. The government must allow the Bloc Quebecois and all opposition parties to improve it substantially. This bill is the first step in the negation of all democratic liberties that we hold so dearly.

All the Bloc Quebecois members and all the opposition members will fight tooth and nail to make sure that this does not happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-36, 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right at the beginning of my speech, I would like to congratulate the hon. members for Berthier—Montcalm, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, as well as the hon. member for Châteauguay, for the work they have accomplished. They worked extremely hard to try to make Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, an adequate bill that responds both to security needs and to rights and freedoms needs.

We must remember that in attacking the two towers of the World Trade Center, fundamentalist terrorists—they are unfortunately of every creed and political stripe—attacked first and foremost freedom, democracy, justice and fairness.

The best way to show them that they were wrong, that they did not win and that they did not undermine our basic, societal principles, is indeed to make sure that we uphold these values that they are fighting against.

To do the opposite would be to say they are right, to let all fundamentalists throughout the world see that, in fact, so-called liberal societies are vulnerable to terrorism and terror and respond by seeking greater safety, but at the very expense of the values that they claim to be upholding.

In this sense, there is a very important societal debate surrounding Bill C-36. I am surprised and shocked to see how casually the Liberals are dealing with these fundamental issues.

While we look at Bill C-36, we must not forget that Bill C-35 is also on the table. This bill gives new powers to the RCMP, including the power to set up security perimeters without being accountable to anyone.

During question period today, the leader and the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois both asked very relevant questions regarding Bill C-42 and they only got sarcasm in return.

A certain madness is now affecting our friends opposite. At the Sub-Committee on Investment, of which I am a member, they made a proposal to try and solve the traffic problem at the Canada-U.S. border, because there is a traffic problem there, by imposing a mandatory identity card.

Just imagine the disproportion between a necessary debate, and I am not saying that I am against this idea, and the fact that we are using the excuse that we have to ease the movement of people between Canada and United States, to impose an identity card to all Canadians without further debate.

There is some sort of a drift in Bill C-35 and Bill C-42, and in general, in the government approach to security. It is also obvious in Bill C-36.

I have the feeling that we are sailing on the Titanic and that the Liberals are having a ball without realizing the iceberg they have created.

Bill C-36 destroys the balance between rights and freedoms and security. Meanwhile, they are having fun, as if nothing were the matter, refusing to hear what the witnesses said and refusing to accept what the opposition parties, particularly the Boloc Quebecois, have brought forward in committee, in a non-partisan fashion. I am glad to see that the Progressive Conservative Party/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition is bringing in a number of amendments to make some adjustments, but those amendments will likely not pass.

So, we are now witnessing some very worrisome indifference and nonchalance. The Liberals' haste in that regard is cause for concern, all the more so—we should not be naive—as there is a very strong temptation on the part of the Prime Minister and the government to take advantage of the legitimate concerns of Quebecers and Canadians in order to strenghten, in every respects the power that rests with the executive and with the police.

I want to remind the government that, of course, in the post-September 11 context, there is now major support from the Canadian population in particular, and to a lesser extent from Quebec, for the federal government to overcome that crisis.

I also remind this government that we saw the same kind of support during the gulf war. President Bush Sr. was on top of opinion polls after the gulf war. A year later, he lost the elections to Clinton. Why? Because he had not dealt with other issues of social justice and economic development. Let us recall how casually he dealt with the economic crisis of the early 1990s.

This government will continue to drift if it is not careful. Since I am not in favour of developing policy based on worst-case scenarios, I hope that the Liberal government will adjust Bill C-35, Bill C-36 and Bill C-42 and stop using the current climate to try transform us into state that is more totalitarian than democratic.

We will be voting against Bill C-36. I think that the previous speakers explained that this bill—with the inadequate, cosmetic amendments proposed by the minister—upsets the fair balance between security and freedom.

We supported the bill at second reading, because we support co-ordinated, special legislation to deal with the terrorist situation, as was the case with criminal biker gangs. Incidentally, we are anxious to see what the other place will do with the legislation.

We attempted to propose amendments in committee. The minister and the Liberals simply discarded the main amendments in an off-hand manner, except for one, as we mentioned, that was fairly obvious.

Once again, these were not amendments that we hatched out of the blue. They were developed after hearing the witnesses that appeared before the committee. This is the reason that we called for a sunset clause. Because we do not know where this bill will lead us. There needs to be a time limit to ensure that any problems that we have not been able to predict, despite all our good efforts, can be corrected.

Obviously we support maintaining all of the provisions in the bill dealing with international conventions. As for the rest, there would need to be another debate in three years' time. And the need for that debate still exists. All that the minster is proposing is a clause whereby only two provisions would be dropped after five years, that is preventive arrests and investigative hearings. It really is a complete farce.

Despite the fact that the bill comes up after three years, we still need to correct problems as they arise. Therefore, the annual review process is essential. What we are proposing is that different departments report. How will this work when they are acting as both judge and jury?

However, I want to focus on the definition of terrorist activity, particularly subsection 83.01( b ). I will give a fictitious example.

Suppose this is May 1, 1974. In September 1973, General Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected Allende government. Now, suppose that a group of students decided to peacefully occupy the Chilean consulate. If we go through all the clauses we have before us, we will see that this act corresponds perfectly to what is considered a terrorist act under the bill.

I will quote the subsection in question:

(a) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

Opposing the dictatorship of Pinochet in Chili, in 1973-1974—which lasted much too long—that is a political purpose.

...in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security...

That is not relevant.

...or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act...

What did these young people want to do? They wanted to make sure that the Chilean government would restore democracy in Chili. And this answers that.

Let us read a bit further. Clause ( e ) reads:

...causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private...

Of course, occupying a consulate can be considered serious interference with a foreign service.

Honestly, if you look at this bill, at this definition, because of they did in 1974, that group of students could be considered as terrorists under this bill.

However, it is not too late to bring in appropriate changes. By the way, I find it paradoxical, and I will conclude on that, that at the very same time that we are honouring Nelson Mandela by making him an honorary Canadian citizen, we want to pass a bill that would have made him a terrorist in the eyes of the Canadian government.

In dealing with terrorism, our main concern is unity. In the present context, the Liberal government is the one that has broken this unity and is forcing us to vote against Bill C-36. It is very disappointing.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my party believes we must have and is generally in support of the principles behind the legislation to fight terrorism, but we do have some major concerns. My leader and our justice critic have brought forth a number of amendments. These amendments should not only be addressed but adopted.

The government believes that the legislation is okay because the government thinks it will be used properly. It thinks that the solicitor general in place at the present time will always act correctly. I have to say that kind of thinking is dangerous, not only right now but for the future. Before the government enacts legislation the government MPs need to imagine what someone whose motives are not good could do under this legislation. That should be the test, because once the law is on the books anyone vested with these powers would be free to use them to the full extent.

Does the government not believe in oversight and in parliament? These are major concerns. It does not matter which party is in power. These are the concerns we would have no matter who is in power.

I stated that we are generally supportive of the principles behind this legislative response to fight terrorism, but we have also been made aware that in 1999 CSIS went to the government of the day, this government, and said it knew there were some terrorists in Canada. CSIS said it needed more money to hire more people to assist it in being able to find these terrorists and get them out of Canada. In fact, at that time the government, instead of giving more money to CSIS, cut its budget and it had to lay off people. That did not come up here. This is what we are saying. The government had the power but that did not come up for debate so that the rest of us here in the House of Commons could have an opportunity for input.

The bill attempts to achieve a balance between the measures needed to protect Canadians from acts of terrorism and the need to respect the civil liberties and human rights that Canadians cherish. We believe that a strong legislative response is necessary, as are the resources to allow our law enforcement community to be proactive in the important task of fighting terrorism.

That is why I say that right now we have to look at what the government has just done. The solicitor general has recently announced funding increases to the RCMP and CSIS. We are pleased that the government has done that, but considering that the government has been financially starving these groups for years prior to September 11, as I have stated, the recent funding will not even begin to address the additional responsibility for Canada's law enforcement agencies. The current reassignment of over 2,000 RCMP officers to duties outside their current postings highlights the personnel shortages. The government's decision to put RCMP in national parks and at borders is stretching security capacity to the breaking point.

Our understanding is that on December 10 there is a budget coming before the House. I pray every day that when that budget comes in it will be a budget that will give the RCMP, CSIS, our security forces and our country the dollars and cents that are needed, and our military forces as well. The military forces do not have the dollars and cents they need. I really fear for all of us in Canada because of what the government has done.

The government knows there is a need for the police to be able to immediately arrest someone they believe on reasonable grounds to be a terrorist threat, but many Canadians are concerned that the expanded powers of arrest and detention are in some instances open to government interference, as was highlighted by the APEC report presented by Mr. Justice Ted Hughes. Bill C-36 would enable police to arrest and detain an individual for up to 72 hours without any charges whatsoever. Not only could this type of police power be used to curtail the right of assembly and demonstration, but it is contrary to the thrust of the APEC report.

We have to get our priorities straight. I asked our security why Father Van Hee is down at the flame and not allowed to come near our doors here. Let me tell the House what I was told. They said that at this time they do not allow any protesters here. I said, “Protesters? He is down there reading the Bible each day. I hardly think he is a protester, and if all around the world we were all reading the Bible we would have peace”. They said that they had truly never thought of that.

One of the amendments that our leader has put forth, which amends clause 4, is as follows:

(1.2) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish the criteria to be used by the Solicitor General in making his recommendation to place an entity on the list under subsection (1).

(1.3) Before making the regulations referred to in subsection (1), the list of criteria, or any amendment thereto, must be tabled in the House of Commons and be debated within 10 sitting days after being tabled.

The governor in council would have the power to make a list of terrorist entities upon the recommendation of the solicitor general, not parliament. Some of that information about terrorist entities may come from foreign countries whose democratic values are considerably different than Canada's. There should be criteria that assist the solicitor general in assessing this information. For example, the human rights values of another country could be part of the criteria weighed in the consideration of a listing of an entity.

We believe that parliament should participate fully in the development of these criteria. We want to ensure that there is full debate in parliament. That is what we want: to bring forth debate. We want to make sure that there is protection in Canada. We want to make sure there is security. We want to make sure that our military and our men and women looking after our security have the tools to do the job, but we want to have our voices heard. We are not here just to be negative. That is not why we are here. We are here because of the security of our country. We want to make sure that what is brought forth here is something we have input into and something that is right for all Canadians.

Also, we have another motion that the leader has brought forth. It is an amendment to replace line 30 on page 17 with the following: “the applicant no longer be a listed entity”. In this section dealing with the listing of entities, the governor in council may establish a list of terrorist entities on the recommendation of the solicitor general. Someone who has been listed as a terrorist entity can apply to the solicitor general to have his or her name removed from the list. Currently the bill provides that if the solicitor general does not make a decision within 60 days, it is deemed that the solicitor general has decided to recommend that the applicant remain a listed entity.

However, many times we ask for information from the solicitor general and it takes longer than 60 days to get an answer. Good heavens, that happens with just about everybody on the government side.

The amendment that we have put forward would reverse the procedure. If the solicitor general has not made a decision within 60 days it would be deemed that he or she is recommending that the applicant come off the list, not remain on it. This would require the government to deal quickly with applications to ensure that people's lives and reputations are not being ruined if there is a mistake.

We want to make sure that Canada is safe. We want to make sure that our people are safe and feel safe in Canada. We look at our children and our grandchildren and we want to make sure that things are right here in Canada for them.

Therefore, in regard to the amendments that we, our justice critic and our leader, have put forward, we ask that the members of parliament on the government side and all of our colleagues on the opposition side look positively at them and make these amendments take place.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-36. I am disturbed that the government has introduced another piece of legislation that is well intentioned but poorly drafted, defined and implemented. Once again the government is ramming legislation through the House without respecting input from parliamentarians, particularly opposition parliamentarians and members of the justice committee.

We must ask ourselves why the government is introducing this legislation in the first place. It is to defend free society against terrorism, but how can the government crush debate to defend freedom? The fact that the government is crushing parliamentary debate ostensibly to defend freedom should raise questions.

It reminds me of the Woody Allen quote that fighting for peace is like making love for virginity, if I can bring a bit of levity to this sad situation. The government is demonstrating near toxic levels of hypocrisy by crushing debate to introduce legislation which will supposedly defend freedom.

The government has not earned the respect and trust of Canadians in these areas. We have seen APEC where the government used measures that went well beyond what was necessary to preserve peace. In defending the interests of foreign dictators the government quashed the democratic freedoms of young Canadians.

With the Shawinigan affair the government has taken every step it can to twist and manipulate the facts and defend the untenable. In every case the government has covered up and manipulated the process. It has even gone beyond cabinet and used the highly centralized power of the Prime Minister's Office to run roughshod over ordinary Canadians.

The government uses every power at its disposal to run over the powers not only of ordinary Canadians but of members of parliament. If the government is capable of ignoring the rights of members of parliament who are elected by ordinary Canadians we should think of what the government is capable of doing with a piece of legislation this powerful in terms of running roughshod over the rights of ordinary Canadians.

The New Democrats had legitimate concerns and would have had amendments to make at this stage. Instead the entire New Democratic Party was disqualified because it was participating in an annual party meeting in Winnipeg. It is a great day for democracy when the government introduces a piece of legislation to fight terrorism and defend freedom and it attacks one party more severely than the rest.

My colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP and the PC/DR have expressed reservations about the bill. Every opposition party has expressed reservations. We have heard backbenchers on the Liberal side express serious reservations.

I do not think anyone doubts that the government should be trying to introduce legislation to fight terrorism and ultimately defend free and democratic institutions. We all agree with that. We disagree with a government that in trying to fight for freedom is denying parliamentary input and compromising parliamentary representation in Canada.

The solicitor general has all the cards. He has all the power. He is not accountable to anyone in terms of who goes on the terrorist list. In response to questions today the solicitor general said he would review the list every two years as per the legislation. This means that people could face two years of persecution and have their whole lives destroyed because they were put on the list unfairly.

The solicitor general has said that he would not put somebody on the list without some reason and that he would not take it lightly. How can we trust a solicitor general who has not demonstrated accountability to parliament to be accountable to Canadians in general? He has said that an individual Canadian can appeal to the solicitor general directly. When individual members of parliament lack accessibility to changing legislation of this nature, how can we expect Canadians would have any success in convincing the solicitor general that they in fact should not be on the list? I doubt if the solicitor general would be any more accountable them than he is to this parliament. In fact he would probably be less accountable to ordinary Canadians who had the misfortune to find themselves on the list. Of course, that would be catastrophic.

I have expressed concerns about the legislation and about the way the government has once again run roughshod over parliament. It has, through its fancy footwork in introducing the legislation at a time when it can minimize legitimate input and amendment, not earned the trust of parliamentarians and of Canadians. In denying that input it has said that it does not care if anyone trusts it or not, that it will go ahead with this anyway. In fact it does not even want our input.

A government that does not actually respect parliament and parliamentary input, clearly does not respect Canadians and individual freedoms. I think it is absolutely unconscionable that the government is again moving forward with such important legislation without listening to ordinary Canadians and the parliamentarians who represent those Canadians here in the House and in the justice committee. I think it is a very sad day for democracy in Canada.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill.

We are debating four motions to amend which have been put forward today and which form the first group of amendments. The Bloc Quebecois will be opposing the first amendment because we feel that it has absolutely no impact on the importance of the debate. We are in favour of the other three amendments put forward.

It is important that Quebecers and Canadians understand just how responsible the Bloc Quebecois was in dealing with the anti-terrorism bill. From the outset, the Bloc Quebecois has been favourable to the bill, given the tremendous harm terrorists could cause our society, as they did in the United States.

Obviously, the Bloc Quebecois has shown an exemplary sense of responsibility, while continuing to seek a balance between national security and individual rights and freedoms. In this connection, those Quebecers listening need to have a clear understanding of how parliament operates.

First, the anti-terrorism bill was introduced with great haste by the government. Let us recall that when the minister presented the bill, she told us that it was urgent. The Prime Minister even said that, given the bill's length—186 pages—there were perhaps some shortcomings and that, because of the urgent situation, we must accept this and that we could make amendments in committee. Thus it was that the Bloc Quebecois supported the anti-terrorism bill at first reading, at which stage only the minister makes a statement, followed by the respective critics of each party.

Since the Prime Minister himself told us it was such an urgent bill, and a lengthy one, that shortcomings were inevitable, but could be remedied in committee, we went along with him.

That is why, at second reading stage—this is the procedure, and I am pointing out for the benefit of Quebecers and Canadians who are listening that there is a second reading and the bill is brought before the House—all members had the opportunity to speak before the bill went to committee.

Of course, groups and individuals who are truly concerned about such a bill have the opportunity to come before the committee and be heard. So 80 individuals, groups and organizations appeared before the committee as witnesses. Representatives from each political party and the various critics can ask questions of the witnesses. Amendments are tabled after the witnesses have testified before the committee.

The Bloc Quebecois tabled 66 amendments at committee stage through its critic, the member for Berthier—Montcalm. These amendments are very important because the Bloc Quebecois has always had the same responsible position, which is to strike the right balance between national security and defending individual rights and freedoms.

The objective had been stated very clearly by our party's critic as well as by our leader. There were three main issues, three very important points that the Bloc Quebecois wanted to defend.

First, we wanted a sunset clause. It is very simple. The clause proposed by the Bloc Quebecois applied to all clauses of the bill except those relating to the implementation of international conventions. In that regard, we were willing to agree that those clauses dealing with international conventions remain in effect until the expiration of such international conventions.

For all other clauses providing for special measures, we wanted to include a sunset clause under which those provisions that, in several cases, could jeopardize individual rights and freedoms would no longer be in effect after three years. We understood that there was a state of urgency that called for special measures. We were willing to accept that this special piece of legislation, of which the majority of clauses dealt with special measures, come into effect, but only for a period of three years, except for all clauses resulting from international conventions, which could have remained in effect until the expiration of such international conventions signed by the government.

In spite of all the questions asked in the House, in spite of the fact that the witnesses who appeared before the committee supported the Bloc Quebecois's position, that they supported our demand for a sunset clause, the government decided to do the opposite, and rejected all the Bloc's amendments.

We also asked that the act be reviewed, among other things. We called for “an annual review of the law by all parliamentarians”. We wanted to ensure that parliamentarians would be able to take part in the annual review of this act, of its sections that would not come from international conventions, and to intervene if the law enforcement people in Canada and in the provinces abused the system. We wanted to have the opportunity to make changes and to review the act every year.

We wanted that an independent commissioner be entrusted with overseeing enforcement, that a commissioner report be presented each year to the committee or to a standing committee of the House, which would examine it and make recommendations or propose changes, as the case may be. Most of these proposals were rejected by the government.

We also wanted a definition of terrorist activities that would exclude illegal demonstrations and strikes. We had amendments to move to that effect. Our preference would have been to remove a paragraph to eliminate all mention of work stoppage or protest so that those who want to demonstrate peacefully can still do it. Only a very weak amendment has been moved about this.

Only one of the 66 Bloc Quebecois amendments was adopted, the one adding the word cemetery in the clause on hate propaganda. This being an omnibus bill, it will also prevent certain types of hate propaganda, and this legislation could be used to control all demonstrations in cemeteries. This is the only amendment we put forward in committee which the government accepted.

In the legislative process, the committee had to report to the House today, and we are allowed to move amendments at report stage. That is why we have before us 12 amendments we are debating in four groups.

The Bloc Quebecois did not think it was worthwhile to present amendments at report stage simply because it moved all of them in committee. It is at that stage that major changes should have been made, but all our amendments have been rejected, except the one adding the word cemetery in the clause on hate propaganda.

In spite of the 80 witnesses heard in committee, in spite of the position adopted by the Bloc Quebecois, which was in favour of the bill at second reading stage, and even if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice had said that, the bill being urgent and very lengthy, it might contain some flaws but that these would be corrected at the clause by clause stage, of the 66 amendments we moved, only one was accepted. It added the word cemetery to the notion of hate messages.

Here is the question we should be asking. The report was tabled on Friday, but the House did not sit on Friday. The government had decided the House would not sit on Friday. However, amendments at the report stage could be tabled until Saturday afternoon.

That is why, in spite of the urgency of the situation, the exceptional nature of the case and the length of the bill, which contained some deficiencies as the minister and Prime Minister said when it was first introduced, we took the time required—because many days and even months have gone by since September 11, two months and some weeks in fact—and we are ready; however, we are now asking for an open debate, we want transparency.

I repeat that the first objective of the Bloc Quebecois was that we act responsibly. We are a responsible political party looking for a balance between national security and individual freedoms. If the bill remains as it stands now, if it is not modified, the Bloc will have to vote against all of its provisions because the bill will be contrary to our premise.