This bill is from the 37th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2002.
Anne McLellan Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-36s:
Public Safety ActOral Question Period
November 26th, 2001 / 2:25 p.m.
Progressive Conservative
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, last week's anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36, empowers the government to hide information.
This week's anti-terrorism bill, C-42, allows ministers to issue all manner of orders in all manner of circumstances. In other words, a minister acting alone can make decisions that might be prejudicial to individuals without having to notify them, or even having to offer explanations.
How can the government justify such a flagrant abuse of power?
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is now my turn, on behalf of the team of members of the Bloc Quebecois, to rise and speak to Bill C-36, a bill that has made us work so very hard.
First I would like to address the comments made in the House by a colleague from the New Democratic Party, comments in the form of a reproach for having voted in support of this bill at second reading. Despite our serious concerns, we voted for the bill at second reading because we thought that it was wise, given the events of September 11, that the legislation be reviewed. However, we immediately established that it was important and necessary to have a balance between the quest for sufficient security for citizens, and the protection of rights and freedoms. We worked very hard on this. Our critic, the member for Berthier--Montcalm, submitted 66 amendments. These were defended not only by him, but on a number of occasions by many different witnesses.
However, we had no choice but to conclude that the minister did not listen very well, since she only kept one of those 66 amendments. We certainly do not regret having taken the time to do this exercise, because we worked in good faith to improve a bill that greatly needed to be improved. But the more time passes, the more this good faith is being put to the test. This is not the time to discuss this issue, but I want to stress the fact that we are greatly concerned by Bill C-42.
The purpose of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, was to establish special measures to deal with a special situation. This is why, apart from the fact that Canada is finally prepared to ratify international conventions on terrorism—as mentioned in the bill—this legislation had to have a time limit.
I have seen the proposed French legislation. As regards anti-terrorism measures, it provides that such measures will begin and end at specific dates. We wanted this review, which is resulting in stricter measures because of an exceptional situation, to be recognized as exceptional and therefore to include a time limit.
Unfortunately, what the government is proposing is very far from that. The minister accepted only two provisions that would be governed by a sunset clause, although not a real one. There would be a vote to renew the act. The bill will not lapse: there will simply be a review by the House.
We have before us amendments to improve clause 4 of the bill. While we support these amendments, and I will say why if I have enough time, they will not eliminate the excessive nature of this legislation and the imbalance between people's rights and freedoms and security. It is because of this imbalance in favour of security, at the expense of people's rights and freedoms that, unfortunately, we will vote against the bill at third reading.
Despite the amendments presented by the minister and the ones before us, with which we agree, clause 4 remains a major concern.
It is distressing and perturbing for someone who, like me, lived through the 1970s in Quebec. It is hard not to remember.
Motion No. 1 by the member for Lanark—Carleton does not go far enough to remove the despicable paragraph 83.01(1)( b ). It reads, and I quote:
(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada—
There is no indication what act is committed and to what end, but the word for is used. Does this really indicate there are reasons for this and that in such a case these acts would be acceptable? This is very disturbing. Or it is really a matter of the substance, but that is not the aim of the bill?
As time is moving on, I will say we support Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which are aimed in the right direction. Not only do they set out a series of criteria for the solicitor general on listing an entity, but they enable those concerned to know there will be criteria.
Motion No. 3 is useful. The solicitor general should take his time. If he exceeds the time allotted, the person will remain a listed entity. With this amendment, he is being asked to act quickly. If he does not, the person will no longer be a listed entity.
Finally, Motion No. 4 ensures that any person needing to defend himself or herself will be entitled, even without asking for one, to counsel.
We want these measures passed and the bill improved somewhat. It is with great fear that we realize the government is heading toward getting it passed.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak at report stage of Bill C-36 and to deal with the amendments that are before us.
I want to acknowledge the tremendous work done by the NDP member for Winnipeg--Transcona, both in the House and at the justice committee, on behalf of the NDP. He has very clearly articulated the grave reservations many Canadians have about the bill. I want to acknowledge his work at committee in putting forward suggestions for amendments. Unfortunately they have not been accepted and I think that is deeply regrettable.
As the member of parliament representing Vancouver East, where there are many organizations involved in international solidarity work and in anti-globalization and peace and justice work, I have never received so much e-mail and so many letters, faxes and phone calls as I have on this bill. I have never received so much feedback from people, feedback on their fundamental concerns about where the bill will take Canadian society. I really appreciate the fact that people have taken the time to analyze what is in the bill and to think about it in a very thoughtful and reflective way, not just as it applies today but as it will apply five years from now or even further down the road.
The response I have had from people in east Vancouver, Vancouver in general and indeed right across the country is that they are very fearful. They are fearful that the federal government has embarked on a very narrow agenda that has focused so much emphasis on security measures, really symbolized by what the bill represents, that the bill would fundamentally undermine and forever change the character of what we believe our Canadian democracy to be.
I have attended numerous peace rallies, forums and demonstrations in Vancouver where people have come together because they are so concerned about the impact of the bill. The Group No. 1 amendments before us today are supported by our caucus because they are attempts by all opposition parties to bring forward some suggestions and amendments that will mitigate some of the really offensive pieces of this legislation. We in the NDP will be supporting those amendments when they come up for a vote. As the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona said earlier, however, even with those amendments we are still fundamentally opposed to Bill C-36.
When the debate first started a number of weeks ago, I remember the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice saying that they wanted to hear from Canadians and have a genuine debate. I really wonder whether that has taken place. I know that many witnesses appeared before committee who were almost unanimous in their appeal to the government to bring in meaningful sunset clauses and to bring in a definition that would clearly narrow the definition of a terrorist activity. I feel that the response from the government has really been quite pathetic and quite alarming in that it seems the government has refused to hear legitimate concerns, whether they are from the Canadian Bar Association, the civil liberties association or from organizations that could be caught in the net and listed as entities and possibly have their assets and so on frozen. The government has not provided a response in terms of listening to those concerns and as a result amending this legislation.
I do want to speak to one other concern. Today I attended a very important photographic session at the National Arts Centre down the street. It was put together in recognition of national child poverty day. It consists of a series of photographs put together by photojournalists from leading newspapers and magazines in Canada in order to give a face to poverty in our country.
I bring this up because to me this provides the kind of contrast and debate in which we really need to be involved. On the one hand we have Bill C-36 and some amendments before us that may slightly mitigate the very drastic measures in the bill.
There is a great fear from a lot of the groups that I have spoken with across the country that we cannot bring about security at the point of a gun. We cannot bring about security through cluster bombs. We cannot bring about security in the long term through a bill such as this. Real security, common security, comes about by dealing with our global environment, our geopolitical environment, in a way that does remove the economic and social conditions that lead people into a space where they feel hopeless about their future. This was really brought home to me today in looking at these photographs of Canadian children who basically face a life where there is not much hope and there is not a sense of a future that has good opportunity.
I know there is great concern that the bill and what will flow from it in terms of the upcoming budget is something that will detract from dealing with pressing social issues in Canada, so theoretically and in fact in a very strong legislative way we will have acted upon what are for sure people's legitimate security concerns about the world that they live in. However, I think there is a great danger that in doing that and in focusing so much energy and resources on that agenda, we will have completely lost sight of and again turned a deaf ear to the other kinds of security issues that face us in terms of social inequality, in terms of a lack of housing and what happens to kids who grow up in poverty. That was something that became very clear to me today as I looked at those photographs.
Like many people, I have watched the debate at the justice committee hearings on Bill C-36. We have had many debates in the House about the need to have amendments, particularly the sunset clause. I feel really disappointed and I wish that there had been a different response from the government in terms of the Minister of Justice coming forward with more significant amendments. The most basic one would have been a real sunset clause, because I think one of the concerns a lot of people have is that the legislation, even with the so-called sunset clause, will in effect be with us for a decade.
We have to examine the legislation under a microscope that looks at the balance of civil rights versus security. It has to be a microscope that looks at the bill in terms of the resources that will be required now to implement the bill. We need to have a proper accounting about whether or not we have moved in a direction that is taking us toward a society in which all of our liberties are being infringed upon, in which people can be targeted, organizations can be targeted, people can be wiretapped, people can be compelled to give evidence and people can be defined as possibly engaging in terrorist activities when they are basically exercising their democratic rights.
Having come to this point now in the House where we are dealing with the amendments, I want to say that I and other members of the New Democratic Party cannot support the bill. We do support the amendments before us today because they are just small measures that try to improve the bill, but fundamentally this is a bad piece of legislation. Fundamentally, this is a piece of legislation that many people see as the thin edge of the wedge. It will move us into a society where, while we say in the name of democracy we bring this forward, we are at the same time undermining our democratic institutions and our democratic principles.
I would certainly urge members of the House to support these amendments as far as they go, but at the end of the day I believe we have to oppose the bill.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this important debate on the motions in Group No. 1.
The events of September 11 have, as has been said many times, created an exceptional situation requiring an exceptional response. That exceptional response is the legislation we are looking at today.
In this House, only the NDP had not realized, or at least not officially as their party position, that international geopolitics had changed.
As the result of numerous questions on our part, particularly by the hon. member for Berthier--Montcalm, whose exceptional efforts in connection with Bill C-36 I must commend, the Minister of Justice kept repeating “We are open to changes in the bill. We are going to hear the witnesses in committee. Our minds are not closed. We shall see how things develop”.
The Bloc Quebecois said “OK, we will play along”. We heard the witnesses, we questioned them, we spoke with them. The outcome of all this feverish exchange of ideas was our tabling of 66 amendments in committee. Still believing that we were playing along, and that the Liberal government was too, we proposed these amendments in good faith.
But the minister rejected them all, except for one. This should have been an indication—but we are getting used to this—of the Liberals' idea of the work of parliamentarians, which is “Do not worry. We the Liberal government are the embodiment of truth. We know what is best and to heck with what witnesses said”.
This is very unfortunate, because Bill C-36 changes the balance between security and individual freedoms. Whenever we change that balance, we must do so carefully and thoughtfully. Unfortunately, it seems that the Liberal government was content with its own way of seeing things and not open to other people's views.
Let us now turn to the various motions before us. Motion No. 1, presented by the Canadian Alliance member, does not change things very much. There are still problems with the very broad definition of the expression terrorist activity.
We agree with the second motion dealing with transparency and we will support it. We will also support Motion No. 3 dealing with having one's name on the list as a person or organization.
I want to go back to Motion No. 2 on transparency, because it is essential. The various amendments that the Bloc Quebecois presented in committee were intended, in part, to give greater transparency to the bill, to the government's activities.
Again, we must be very careful when we attempt to change the balance between individual rights and security. We must take every possible measure to ensure greater transparency, so that all Quebecers and Canadians will know what to expect, particularly since this bill is a fundamental philosophical change in the Canadian legislation. Therefore, we support Motion No. 2.
As for Motion No. 3, as I was saying earlier, it is very serious business to be on a list of individuals or organizations that promote terrorism. Asking the minister to make a quick decision as to whether a person or organization is to be deleted from this list is the least of our worries. If the minister is not able to do so within 60 days, it seems to me that, based on our legal philosophy of presumed innocence, it is obvious that the name of the individual or organization would have to be deleted if there were no ministerial decision within those 60 days.
As for Motion No. 4, the Bloc Quebecois moved numerous amendments in committee to ensure that the right to counsel, one of the fundamental elements of our legal system in Quebec and in Canada, was respected and, more than that, guaranteed. Once again, let me repeat, the government decided to spurn all amendments by the Bloc Quebecois, including the ones on this.
We are therefore going to be supporting the motion by the right honourable leader of the Conservative Party to ensure that the right to counsel is respected. I know that the right hon. leader of the Conservative Party has far more experience than I.
I do not, however, have any doubts as to the desire of this government to vote against these amendments, even the ones that make sense and should be adopted. The Liberal government has decided it knows more than everyone else and so it is thumbing its nose, not just at the opinions of parliamentarians, whether this involves the amendment by the Alliance members, those by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition, or those by the Bloc Quebecois, but also at the proposals made by the various witnesses in committee.
For this reason, I believe this whole thing is going to give our institution even more of a black eye as far as public opinion is concerned. The expert witnesses were not heeded, those wonderful people who came before committee to present their views and who deserved to be listened to.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and I was struck by the strong language that he used. He described Bill C-36 as an assault on civil liberties. He compared it to the War Measures Act. He said it was an assault on civil liberty comparable to the War Measures Act which must be stopped.
I say this only because I encourage the leader of the Conservative Party, if that is his view of the bill and assuming his amendments do not pass, to join with the NDP in opposing Bill C-36 and perhaps members of the Bloc Quebecois because they seem to be changing their minds as well with respect to how they voted on second reading of the bill.
I know the leader of the Conservative Party was not here when the War Measures Act was introduced in the House. I believe he was elected in 1972. However his party was here at the time and so perhaps collectively they could learn from history and not want to be in the position they are in now of looking back on the War Measures Act in a critical way and presumably regretting that they supported it at the time.
Instead of repeating the mistake and voting for the bill and 20 years from now hearing some future leader of the Conservative Party, because I think the Conservative Party will outlast the various machinations going on here, reflect on the passage of Bill C-36 in 2001 and speak with regret about the position that was taken, let us have the vote on third reading reflect the language of the leader of the Conservative Party that the bill is an assault on civil liberties comparable to the War Measures Act, his language not mine, and something which must be stopped.
With respect to the amendments we are discussing and in an attempt to be more specifically relevant to what we have before us, we support the amendments moved by the hon. member from the Alliance and the leader of the Conservative Party.
We had concerns of our own which we expressed in committee about the definition of terrorist activity and the clause the hon. member from the Alliance seeks to eliminate. We voted with the Alliance in committee to try to remove that aspect of the definition of terrorist activity.
We expressed other concerns in terms of amendments and in terms of voting against the whole of clause 4 which sets out the definition of terrorist activity because we share the concerns of the Bloc and others that the definition of terrorist activity is too broad and may well include legitimate dissent despite the exemptions built into the definition.
We shared concerns about the listing of entities and concerns similar to those expressed by the leader of the Conservative Party. That is why we moved amendments in committee having to do with listed entities.
Finally, although it comes a bit later, one of the reasons we were concerned about the definition of terrorist activity is that we could see the government was not going to sunset that aspect of the bill. The government did sunset, to the extent that we can call it a sunset, the clauses having to do with preventive arrest and investigative hearings.
I do not know if members were in northern Canada toward the end of June, perhaps on a canoe trip or fishing. One can go canoeing or fish until 1.30 or 2 a.m. The sun never sets. The fishing trip I went on near Yellowknife in the 1980s reminds me of the Liberals' sunset clause. The sun never really goes down under the horizon. It just dips a little and then picks right up again. That is what we have in this bill.
We do not really have a sunset clause. The sun would never really go down. The government would not have to reintroduce the legislation. It would not have to consider whether or not the legislation was adequate or amend or change it in any way. It would just ram a motion through both houses of parliament, extend it for another five years and perhaps another five years after that. It is for that reason we find the sunsetting provisions in the bill to be both a misnomer and inadequate.
As far as the grouping of amendments we have before us which were moved by an Alliance member and the leader of the Conservative Party, we support them. They are in keeping with what we supported in committee.
Anti-terrorism ActGovernment Orders
November 26th, 2001 / 12:50 p.m.
Progressive Conservative
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, we tried to approach the matter moved by the member for Lanark--Carleton in a different way and were unsuccessful in committee. We would be pleased to support the motion he introduced.
Without wishing to reflect upon decisions that were taken earlier in the House, we should all recognize that the debate on which we are now embarked is much less than extensive the debate to which the people of Canada have a right. The government played games over the weekend. It played games with the rules of parliament. It might be within the rules of the game, and that is a matter that is decided by the Speaker. However to play fast and loose with an issue that is of such fundamental importance, not only to our protection against terrorism but to the protection of our basic rights, is simply unacceptable.
If one raises a question as to why the House of Commons and our political institutions fall into decline, it is because of this kind of sneak attack on a weekend, when some parties of the House of Commons were unable to be here and when there was no opportunity to look at the testimony given deliberately by serious groups across the country. An action like that calls the House of Commons into very deep disrepute.
Having said that and understanding the extraordinarily difficult conditions under which the committee worked, I want to congratulate my colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and others for their work in the committee. People worked all night under artificial deadlines with inadequate information.
No one in the House disputes the need to deal with terrorism. What we are worried about is not the fight against terrorism, but rather the assault upon the civil rights of Canadians across the country. This is an entirely unnecessary assault to the conduct of an effective fight against terrorism. We can fight terrorism and maintain civil rights at the same time. The government has chosen not to do that and it is on that flagrant disregard for the civil rights of ordinary individuals that it will be judged in time to come. This is a very serious risk and an absolutely unnecessary risk that it is undertaking.
I will not comment on earlier decisions. The Senate has looked at this matter clearly. It has talked about the importance of an oversight committee. Amendments were sought to be introduced here which have were ruled out.
It is a travesty of democracy that this House is not in a position to consider means by which there can be a judgment cast by someone other than ministers themselves as to whether the intrusions that they propose into the ordinary rights of ordinary people are acceptable intrusions. That is the whole logic of the oversight provision recommended unanimously by the other place but not allowed here for debate and voted down by the government in committee. Again, that is a travesty. It reminds me of nothing more than the War Measures Act which was introduced and maintained with the very same arguments by an earlier Liberal government. This is a serious threat to democracy and to the rights of Canadians and it is something that must be stopped.
Let me come to the three motions that are standing in my name. I appreciate having them seconded by my colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. Motion No. 2 states:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 17 the following:
(1.2) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish the criteria to be used by the solicitor general in making the recommendation to place an entity on the list referred to in subsection (1).
(1.3) Before making the regulations referred to in subsection (1.2), 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.
This is necessary is because the bill continues the very dangerous practice of locating in the hands of a minister of the crown quite extraordinary power over the ordinary lives of ordinary people in the country without any means for parliament or others to get at that power. The governor in council, this is to say the solicitor general in this case, is given the power to make a list of terrorist entities upon the recommendation of the solicitor general. Some of that information about terrorist entities, as alleged in committee and was adduced in committee, may come from foreign governments. Which foreign governments? I know something about that because I had the privilege of serving as foreign minister of the country for some time.
We gather information from a wide source. We gather information from China, Saudi Arabia and countries whose judgment of civil rights and democracy is very different from our own.
When the Solicitor General of Canada makes a recommendation to his colleagues that is based on foreign information and that will have the consequences this recommendation will have, there needs to be guidance and control as to the source of the foreign information and the context in which it should be judged.
Criteria should be developed which assist the solicitor general in assessing the information. For example, the human rights values of another country could be part of the criteria weighed in considering the listing of such an entity.
We cannot act blindly on issues of this kind. We cannot act secretly. We believe parliament should participate fully in the development of these criteria and we want to ensure there is a full debate in parliament.
I have listened to the amendment proposed by the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois, and believe it to be acceptable to us as a reinforcement of what I have just indicated to parliament.
Motion No. 3 states:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 17 with the following:
the applicant no longer be a listed entity.
This would reverse the onus. It would make the solicitor general back up his claim that someone or some entity is a terrorist. In the 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 he has decided to recommend that the applicant remain a listed entity.
The amendment would reverse the procedure. It would force the solicitor general to prove the reason he had listed such an entity. If the solicitor general has not made a decision within 60 days it would be deemed that he was recommending the applicant come off the list.
This would require the government to deal quickly with applications and not let them languish forever while someone's reputation is in tatters or in doubt across the country. It would require the Government of Canada, which is taking the names of ordinary citizens or entities in vain, to put up the proof and not get by through delaying. It would require quick action with applications to ensure people's lives and reputations are not ruined if there is a mistake.
We all know that one of the real safeguards of our judicial system is a provision to take account of mistakes if they are made. While there is a provision for mistaken identity in clause 83.07 of the bill the amendment would provide a vehicle for someone to come off the list for reasons other than mistaken identity.
The listing of a terrorist entity is serious. The government must be certain the grounds for the listing are solid. This would ensure due diligence before the listing is made. Motion No. 4 states:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 35 the following:
“(11.1) In any proceeding under this section, the presiding judge may appoint counsel to represent any person subject to the investigative hearing.”
The investigative hearing process provides considerable and immense power to the authorities. The amendment would ensure legal representation for anyone who appears before a judge in one of those hearings. It would allow the presiding judge the discretion to appoint counsel. It would not require the judge to appoint counsel, something which has been raised as a concern given the strain on legal aid systems in Canada.
It is important that there is a balance in the powers of this section. Allowing the court the ability to appoint counsel is one way to achieve that balance.
It is one thing to have rights. It is another thing to be too poor to do anything about them. If anyone in the House or any one of our constituents who is not rich, who is not Conrad Black or who is not related to the Desmarais family is listed they have rights. However if they cannot afford counsel to protect them the rights can fall into disuse. Surely that is what a parliament interested in civil rights would like to protect against.
There is another aspect to this. Once people are designated terrorists or terrorist entities their assets are frozen. Even if they had money before they would not have money so long as the list existed. The only way they would have an opportunity to have their rights defended would be to have the rights set out and have a companion in the power of the judge to indicate they have a right to counsel.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, in connection with Bill C-36, we in the Bloc Quebecois have always said that a balance had to be sought between national security and individual and collective rights.
At the committee stage, we introduced exactly 66 amendments for the purpose of attaining that balance. These were suggestions from a large majority of the witnesses we heard.
It would appear, judging from the evidence, that the minister did not get the feedback she sought, but we in the Bloc Quebecois sought it out and tabled amendments accordingly. I would remind hon. members that, on second reading in this very House, the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour of the principle of Bill C-36, the necessity of having national security legislation to combat terrorism if not to implement international conventions.
Given the events in committee, we are probably going to be voting against the bill in third reading.
We are now at the report stage. Hon. members are no doubt wondering why the Bloc Quebecois has not introduced any amendments. It is quite simply because, given the way the government treats parliamentarians in this matter, like many others—but it is more obvious here—whether or not we propose amendments is of no importance because the government would just reject them anyway. With the few amendments we do have before us, we shall just see which ones the government is going to entertain.
The first group we are looking at comprises Motions Nos. 1 through 4. The purpose of Motion No. 1 is to modify the definition of terrorist activity. In my opinion, it does not change much. We did, however, hear some witnesses who wanted to see division (A) simply removed, so as to avoid having any pointless delineation. It reads as follows:
(A) in whole or in part for political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause,
In my opinion, whether this stays or goes makes little difference, because the rest of the paragraph is sufficiently explicit on what we want to address as terrorist activities. The problem lies in the area we wanted to address, and those are the amendments the government has rejected.
On the whole issue of intimidation, this vocabulary should have been removed, since this is about terrorism, and not intimidation. The clause should have been amended accordingly, given that it is one of the main clauses that will be implemented.
As regards economic terrorism, I believe a number of witnesses who appeared told us that this did not exist, since material acts are committed as such, and that we want to define them as terrorist acts. As for the economic aspect, this is the consequence of an act that was perpetrated.
As for the rest of the definition, I will certainly have more time to discuss it at third reading, but there were some fears expressed regarding certain demonstrations, and whether or not they would be considered illegal. Some of these fears have been allayed by removing the word “lawful”.
However, protestors, such as those present at the Quebec City summit, are still included in the definition of “terrorist activity”, when this is not the case. Protestors commit mischief—and I do not condone this—when they break windows and become violent as was the case in Quebec City, and even here in Ottawa last weekend, but they are not terrorists, in the sense of those we are really trying to target with this bill. The definition should have been narrowed even more.
The government refused to do so in committee. Clearly, the amendment being proposed this morning is not going to solve this problem. Once again, the government seems to be saying “I hold the truth; follow me and do not ask any questions”. When they say this to opposition members, it just might be described as politics.
The numerous witnesses who appeared before the committee, some 60, 70 or 80 of them, and a number of groups, told us that this was too broad. The government is telling us to shut up and follow along because it knows what it is doing. I find the government's conduct an affront to democracy.
The second motion, which is part of the first group, seeks to increase transparency in a very important section on terrorist entities. Here again, we put forward a series of amendments in committee. The House will agree that, given parliamentary rules, we could not put these amendments forward again at report stage.
The purpose of our amendments was greater transparency. Motion No. 2 is another such transparency seeking amendment, which would insert certain procedures in section 83.05. This motion says, and I quote:
(1.2) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish the criteria to be used by the Solicitor General in making the recommendation to place an entity on the list referred to in subsection (1).
Clearly, these are procedures for deciding whether or not to include individuals on the list of entities, to determine whether a group is a terrorist group or not.
It also says:
(1.3) Before making the regulations referred to in subsection (1.2), 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.
Obviously, we can only support such an amendment. Since what we were looking for in committee was transparency, or more transparency, and this amendment has the same objective, it is easy to support. We have no problem with it.
This group also includes Motion No. 3. This motion, as well, is intended to achieve greater transparency, but also to simplify matters for those dealing with a government decision as to whether or not they are on the list of terrorist entities. As Bill C-36 now stands, the government says that if the solicitor general does not make a decision within 60 days after receipt of the application, he is deemed to have decided to recommend that the applicant remain a listed entity.
That means that, if the solicitor general drags his feet and it takes over 60 days, the individual or group on the terrorist list will remain there. In the case of the amendment proposed, it should be the opposite. If the solicitor general fails to reach a decision within 60 days, in order to give the advantage to an individual or a group whose name is on a terrorist list, when it should not be there, since the minister is dragging his feet, “he is deemed to have decided to recommend that the applicant not remain a listed entity”.
This means that, if the minister does not act in time, that is within the 60 days, the name of the individual is deleted as a listed entity. This too, in my opinion, is an amendment that introduces transparency, or at least helps constituents find their way in very complex legislation. The government is helping them obtain justice.
The fourth amendment is in the same vein as two I moved in committee. It concerns the right to counsel. In a number of places, the rights of the individual are infringed upon and the individual is really not given the right to counsel.
I know that the general principle must remain, according to what the officials, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada have to say. But I would like it set out in black and white in the bill that the right to counsel is sacrosanct. When the bill was being considered in committee, the government voted against the amendments I moved.
This morning, an amendment to clause 4 was moved, and I quote:
(11.1) In any proceeding under this section, the presiding judge may appoint counsel to represent any person subject to the investigative hearing.
This is another amendment in the same vein and having the same objective as those I moved, which the Bloc moved in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Accordingly, we will support Motion No. 4.
It seems my time to speak is over, but I will have the opportunity to return to other clauses during the day.
Anti-terrorism ActGovernment Orders
November 26th, 2001 / 12:25 p.m.
Progressive Conservative
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-36, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 17 the following:
“(1.2) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish the criteria to be used by the Solicitor General in making the recommendation to place an entity on the list referred to in subsection (1).
(1.3) Before making the regulations referred to in subsection (1.2), 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.”
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-36, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 17 with the following:
“the applicant no longer be a listed entity.”
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-36, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 35 the following:
“(11.1) In any proceeding under this section, the presiding judge may appoint counsel to represent any person subject to the investigative hearing.”
Scott Reid Canadian Alliance Lanark—Carleton, ON
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-36, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 46 on page 13 and lines 1 to 4 on page 14 with the following:
“(i) that is committed, in whole or in part with the”
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would greatly appreciate it if the Chair were to rule immediately. A decision cannot be left until later, since we are about to begin discussing the issue.
What I mean to say, is that you must decide as to whether or not the point raised by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party is acceptable or not. I think that he has raised some very good points.
However, we must look at the entire context of this bill. Everything has been done very quickly. Since it was not done in committee, we must take the time to think about the amendments proposed for Bill C-36.
It is not true that the bill was considered properly. When one studies a bill clause by clause for eleven hours in a row, with no opportunity pause and reflect on the amendments that the government is moving, thereby being forced to react immediately, that is hardly what I would describe as proper consideration.
Furthermore, the government is proceeding without providing us with a reprint of the bill with the government's amendments. Let me remind the House that the government proposed 91 amendments. This is no mean feat, in a bill.
It is all well and good to tell us that we have until Saturday to submit amendments, but quite frankly, that is a joke. Earlier, there was a request made to suspend the sitting for ten minutes.
Mr. Speaker, if you need time to think about this issue before we begin debate, in order for the debate to truly be a proper one, please take ten minutes to consider the arguments or review what was said before you arrived, in order to rule properly and in order that the debate begin on the right note.
In closing, I would like to say that this bill is important, and our goal here is to establish a balance between national security and individual and collective rights. I fear that if we proceed at the current speed, in the drafting stage, as the government said, and in consideration by the committee, and with amendments being proposed on a weekend, and now today moving on to report stage, that we will never strike this balance. There are mistakes being made right now.
Mr. Speaker, I invite you to rule, examine the matter as you always do, and decide whether or not the member's point of order is valid and whether or not we should do this before moving on to report stage of this bill.
Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business
November 26th, 2001 / 11:55 a.m.
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario
Liberal
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute a few words toward this and hopefully the Speaker will see things having heard both sides when he rules on this.
First, I profoundly disagree with the hon. member. It seems like the plea he is making is not one in which the issue is out of order but one in which he is asking the government to delay the bill, which is not the same thing.
I had no warning of his remarks, not that he had to warn me. I know that, but he was aware of the fact I was here and I would have wished to have known that he was to make the remarks so I could respond to them fully. His remarks were largely directed at me, as Mr. Speaker will know.
First he said the contents of Bill C-36 were not publicly known. That of course borders on the ridiculous. We all know that the bill has been in the public domain for several weeks. Actually all parties in the House, including the hon. member, contributed to the greater publication of the bill initially by giving the consents required, for which I thank them, but that is not the same as saying that it is not available publicly. He referred to the committee's work.
Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business
November 26th, 2001 / 11:45 a.m.
Progressive Conservative
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today dealing with the report stage of Bill C-36, which is the first item on the order of business that will be called today. I want to ask the assistance of the Speaker in a difficulty that faces members of the House, particularly pursuant to Standing Order 40(2), which reads as follows:
Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.
This appears to be an absolute right for the government but the House is facing an extraordinary situation, which I want to suggest might cause the government House leader to alter his plans for today to go on with this bill. I will try to be brief.
The Speaker will recall that on Thursday afternoon I raised a number of difficulties that resulted from the government's decision to call report stage of Bill C-36 today. This resulted in the House passing two extraordinary orders to extend time deadlines for the filing of report stage amendments, the final deadline being 6 o'clock Saturday evening. I want to state that the deadline resulted in a number of House employees having their weekend plans disrupted. I want to thank those people and their families for putting up with the disruption that the government caused in its haste to bring forward this bill today.
One copy of Bill C-36, one copy, was available to myself as House leader of the coalition at 2.45 on Friday afternoon. The normal deadline that would have been in place had I not objected on Thursday would have been 2 p.m. on Friday. The bill showing the committee amendments, over 100 in number, was not posted on the House website until later that afternoon.
Let us be clear. The government decided to call Bill C-36 today without ensuring that amended copies of the bill would be made available to all members of the House before the normal deadline for filing report stage notices of proposed amendments. Those on the committee are at a distinct advantage. Not all members of parliament, including leaders in the opposition, could access the amended bill.
The responsibility for this must rest with the government. It is the government House leader who decides the business that he will call and when he will call it. I suspect that there are many members of parliament who very much would have liked an opportunity to participate fully in this process.
The justice committee heard about 100 witnesses on the contents of the bill and made more than 100 amendments. This is a highly important bill, which has had a number of significant amendments. The testimony of only half of those witnesses has been published. Half of the evidence has not been published, including the minister's own testimony wherein she outlines the important changes.
Our constituents have not been able to assess or even access the evidence that was adduced by the standing committee. Therefore they have been denied the ability to be active and informed participants in this democratic process.
There is an important lack of transparency in what we are seeing here and what we are being asked to do. The House is being asked to decide the content of Bill C-36 before the Canadian people have even been able to read the evidence of such important witnesses as representatives of the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Islamic Congress, the Canadian Arab Federation, the World Sikh Organization or the Canadian Council of Churches.
Nor is there a public transcript of the evidence of the Hon. Warren Allmand, PC, OC, Q.C., president of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development and a former solicitor general. One would think that the government would be willing to have Canadians access Mr. Allmand's testimony before it finalizes the language of Bill C-36.
Canadians are not able to access the testimony of Muslim lawyers. Nor can they see the testimony of the executive director of the national organization of immigrant and visible minority women in Canada. Nor can Canadians see the testimony of the representatives of the Canadian Police Association or the Criminal Lawyers' Association or the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
The evidence of over 50 witnesses who appeared before the committee on Bill C-36 is unavailable to Canadians. Those Canadians who made the effort to make representations to the justice committee have had in effect been told that their evidence does not matter. The government House leader wants the House of Commons to vote on Bill C-36 and its amendments before the community has had the opportunity to know what important organizations and individuals told the committee.
Access to and possible contact with members of parliament after the bill has been amended has been denied. Nor are Canadians to have access to what the Minister of Justice told the committee about the amendments that have been made to the bill. That too is unavailable. Our constituents are being kept in the dark on this issue. The minister's words are to remain secret from the population until after the bill has been passed with amendments and it has not been the practice of the Minister of Justice, I suggest, to listen to debate in the House.
As the member for Winnipeg--Transcona stated, the minister came before the committee not to listen but to lecture. I reiterate that these amendments were supposed to provide comfort. They were supposed to give reassurance and to reinforce concerns about the bill.
So far I have been speaking about the verbal testimony of witnesses, but there is a greater secrecy that exists with respect to the 50th meeting of the justice committee, a meeting, I might add, that concluded at close to 3 a.m. on Wednesday.
Not only is there no public transcript of the debate that occurred, but until late afternoon on Sunday the minutes showing all amendments proposed and defeated were unavailable to Canadians who might be interested in making representations to their local members, long after the deadline for filing notice of new amendments.
This denies members of the opposition, particularly those members like my colleague from Dewdney--Alouette and others who were not present at the justice committee, the ability to make a considered decision as to whether they in fact would like to file amendments as well.
The House is being asked to legislate in secrecy. There is no public transparency of the deliberations of the standing committee. Canadian citizens and residents whose liberty and security are very much the subject of this legislation have been denied the ability to influence, to be fully informed and to interact on this bill. Members of the House, because the government is proceeding with the bill, are being asked to do so blindly, before the public record is complete.
I ask the government to consider delaying the report stage until Canadians have had the opportunity to view the record of the justice committee. To shut Canadians out of the process in this way does not serve Canadians properly. In fact it is a disservice to our participatory democracy. I respectfully ask the government to delay the bill until the public record is complete. If we are to have full access then this important testimony must be available not only to all members of the House but to Canadians generally.
Business of the HouseOral Question Period
November 22nd, 2001 / 3:40 p.m.
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario
Liberal
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A little while ago, I attempted to rise to offer a relieving measure to the House in relation to Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation. I realize that some of us have worked very hard and are tired. I intend to try again with this measure to see whether it will be helpful to the House.
I am told from informal conversations with the table officers that if the House were to unanimously agree to extend the time, provided it is reasonable and table officers and Mr. Speaker can carefully review report stage amendments, that we could alter the time of 2 p.m. tomorrow in order to assist hon. members. I have had no opportunity to consult other parties, but in order to be helpful to the House, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion. I move:
That the normal hour for filing report stage amendments be extended from 2 p.m. November 23 to 2 p.m. November 24.
This will give members more time, until Saturday, and hopefully this will accommodate them. I know everyone has worked hard and hopefully this will be--
James Moore Canadian Alliance Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to Bill C-42, a bill that was tabled earlier today and debated during question period.
Like Bill C-36, Bill C-42 was drafted to address the security issues facing Canadians as a result of the attack on the United States on September 11. Once again the security of the very bills designed to protect the security of Canadians has been breached. The government indicated that the bill was not ready to be tabled in the House yesterday, yet its contents were leaked to the media.
There was an article in the Globe and Mail by Steven Chase and Campbell Clark which reports “the legislation will include stopgap immigration enforcement measures similar to ones contained in immigration Bill C-11, that will not be in effect until late spring 2002, government sources said”. The article goes on with details of the bill, quoting government sources.
This is also within the context of the fact that yesterday in question period we asked substantive questions of the government about the contents of the security bill. The government said it could not answer the questions and that it was going to be tabled tomorrow. At the same time that it was not answering our questions, it was answering questions from the Globe and Mail on the phone to meet its four o'clock deadline.
As with the cases of Bill C-15 and Bill C-36, the media received an extensive briefing before members were and before the bill was tabled. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and her department were held in contempt of the House for leaking the contents of Bill C-15. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is presently looking into the leak of Bill C-36. The deputy clerk of the privy council appeared before the committee this morning and reported on his investigation into the Bill C-36 case.
In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-15 you stated:
In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence.
Not the Globe and Mail , the House.
The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent role which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.
To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to the media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.
In this case it is clear that information concerning legislation...was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House.
I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.
This matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee concluded:
The committee believes that the protocol of the Department of Justice whereby no briefings or briefing material should be provided with respect to a bill on notice until its introduction in the House of Commons should be adopted as a standard policy by all government departments. We believe that such a policy is respectful of the House of Commons and its members. It recognizes the legislative role of parliament, and is consistent with parliamentary privilege and the conventions of parliament.
The committee noted that the adoption of such a policy should not be viewed as preventing the provisions of courtesy copies of government bills on a confidential basis to opposition critics shortly before their introduction. The committee went on to state:
This incident highlights a concern shared by all members of the Committee: apparent departmental ignorance of or disrespect for the role of the House of Commons and its members. Even if the result is unintended, the House should not tolerate such ignorance within the government administration to undermine the perception of parliament's constitutional role in legislating. The rights of the House and its Members in this role are central to our constitutional and democratic government.
Finally, the committee heeded this warning:
Failure to adopt appropriate measures could lead to a reoccurrence of this problem, in which case the House would have to consider using its power in a more severe way.... The acceptance of an apology will not necessarily be considered a sufficient response.
Despite this warning, the government proceeded to leak the contents of Bill C-36 and yesterday it leaked the contents of Bill C-42.
On the privy council website it describes ministerial responsibility as:
Ministerial responsibility is a fundamental principle of the constitution.... This responsibility is honed by the ever present possibility that in particular circumstances ministers may be embarrassed, suffer loss of prestige weakening themselves and the government, jeopardize their standing with their colleagues and hence their political future, or even be forced to submit to public enquiry possibly resulting in censure and loss of office as a result of the way in which their power has been used.
We have already embarrassed the government with the Bill C-36 and Bill C-15 cases.
We have had a public inquiry through the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We have had a minister censured and charged with contempt. The only thing left to do is to call for the minister's resignation.
It is time for action, not more studies and not more warnings. The minister should take responsibility for this action. Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to that effect.
Points of OrderOral Question Period
November 22nd, 2001 / 3:25 p.m.
Progressive Conservative
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that ruling and direction. I certainly commend you and your staff for the usual competence and wizardry in the procedure of this place.
I wish to continue with this issue regarding the availability of the transcripts of the justice committee. As of just moments ago, when checking the record which the hon. government House leader referred to as available on the Internet and available at blues, it shows quite clearly in a print off that there are no transcripts available as of November 1. That is three weeks and that is very important evidence.
The point is not that it is available to me as a member of the justice committee. It is that it is not available to other members who are not members of the committee who may wish to file amendments.
As well, it is now 3.30 p.m. and we still do not have a copy of Bill C-36 as amended. This is something of great concern, I would suggest, to all members who wish to ensure that Bill C-36 is properly dealt with and properly amended before it passes into law.