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

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I take note of the apologies of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons but, again, it is not the first time that this has happened. Perhaps this is not exactly what happened with Bill C-15, but it did occur with this bill.

I can also think of the Young Offenders Act. This is often forgotten, but the media had been informed. Large parts of the young offenders legislation were published in the newspapers before the opposition had even dealt with it.

Today, it is Bill C-36. It is as if whenever a bill could generate controversy, an attempt is made to inform or provide information during the weekend, when members are in their ridings. The result is that the newspapers make mention of the major points of these bills and the public begins to form an opinion on an issue before parliamentarians deal with this issue.

I know that the House leader is sincere. I take note of his remarks and apologies, but this is not enough.

Will the House leader ensure that there are clear rules for his ministers, for cabinet, to prevent such leaks, so that the media do not get information before the members of this House have had an opportunity to deal with it?

This is the first thing that the House leader should do. Will there be clear rules to ensure that this never happens again? Second, who is the smart aleck who gave that information, it is not the secretary who typed this, but someone who had access to privileged information? Will that person be disciplined for what he or she has done? This is a serious attack on the work of parliamentarians. The public official who did this has no respect for the work of parliamentarians in this House.

I would like the House leader to rise and to tell us very clearly what he intends to do to find the guilty party and provide all cabinet members with very clear rules so that this never happens again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the things that the hon. member has just said. I do not agree with all of them, and I will discuss some of the differences between this issue and that of Bill C-15. However I agree with many of the underlying themes and I would invite the hon. member to allow me to explain.

There were administrative errors made with Bill C-15. I will not say that there were no errors in judgment made by whoever committed the act of deliberately or negligently giving information to the media before the House. Whoever did this did not have my approval or the approval of any minister on this side of the House. What was done was wrong.

The difference between this and Bill C-15 is the following. People with good intentions saw fit to provide a briefing to the media while neglecting to make the same offer to members of parliament and, even worse, gave the information under embargo without taking the precaution of having a lock up so that members of the media could leave the environment in which the briefing had been given.

They then proceeded to breach the embargo which had been made available to them and proceeded to interview members of parliament who had not received the information. That is a very big difference. This does not take away from the gravity of what the hon. member has just said, but it is not analogous to the other situation.

Measures were put in place since Bill C-15. The hon. member has correctly referred to the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I congratulate the committee and all its members for their work.

Measures were taken and a cabinet directive was issued. Summaries of the cabinet directive were made public. It gave instructions to public servants and others that when briefings were given to the media they had to be given in a lock up environment and in virtually all cases they had to be made available to members of parliament.

This morning I personally organized a briefing for members of parliament. Therefore I know it was held. As is the case, members of parliament were permitted to leave the briefing before the introduction of the bill. However staff members could not leave. They were in lock up until the introduction of the bill. On that issue I personally took all precautionary measures available to me.

Last Friday afternoon I received a copy of Bill C-36. As is my role as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, I do what is known as a review of the bill. I took precautions then and earlier with the minister and all of her staff to ensure that the bill was not in any way given to the media or otherwise. I was given that assurance by everyone I spoke to.

On Saturday I saw extracts from the bill in the media. They were not all factually correct but enough of them were that it caused me to be as concerned as the hon. member when raising this question in the House.

I cannot say much more other than to apologize on behalf of whoever is guilty of this. I use the word guilty because that is what comes to mind, given the respect that I have for this institution. Anyone who breaches that respect is guilty of an offence in my book. The problem is that we do not know who it is.

Notwithstanding what occurred I take this opportunity to congratulate all House leaders, regardless of the offence which occurred, for the courtesies that were given to me, to the Minister of Justice and to the government this morning for the purpose of the introduction of the bill. The gesture was even more courteous, given what occurred presumably between Friday and Saturday. I am afraid I have no other remedy than another apology on behalf of whoever the culprit is that committed this.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to Bill C-36 which was tabled earlier today. Bill C-36 was drafted to address security issues facing Canadians as a result of the attack on the United States on September 11. It is particularly unfortunate that the security of the very bill designed to protect the security of Canadians has been breached.

On the weekend the National Post reported the contents of Bill C-36 and indicated that it was briefed by officials from the Department of Justice. The article published on October 13 entitled “New Bill to Pin Down Terrorism” described the bill in detail and quoted officials from the department. For example, the article declared:

One official described the list of terrorist groups as an “evergreen document that can be updated fairly regularly” with names being added or deleted as circumstances change.

This official is quoted extensively throughout the article. I do not know of any member of the opposition who has been given this type of briefing prior to today. Two of my members who were at the briefing said they could have got all they wanted out of the National Post .

Even if a member had received such a briefing, I draw attention to the case of Bill C-15. As you are aware, the Minister of Justice and her department have been down this road before. As you are also aware in the case of Bill C-15, the House was very lenient toward the minister considering the severity of this type of disrespect for the role of the House of Commons and its members.

On March 15 the Speaker ruled on the question of privilege of the member for Provencher regarding an incident whereby the media were briefed before members of parliament on Bill C-15. The Speaker indicated there were two important issues in the case: the matter of the embargoed briefing to the media and the issue of the access of members to information required to fulfill their duties. In your ruling you said:

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. 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 rule 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 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, although denied to members, 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 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 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 say:

--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.

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.

With respect to Bill C-36 it is clear that members of the media were told of the contents of the bill on the weekend ahead of members and before its introduction in the House.

It is also clear that no effective measures to secure the rights of the House and its members were put in place. Like Bill C-15, the minister and her officials have shown contempt for the House. If you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Anti-terrorism Act

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

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

International Actions Against Terrorism

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Chairman, this past week members of parliament had an opportunity to work in their constituency offices and had an opportunity to have the input of their constituents, in addition to other communications. I think all members have received literally hundreds of communications about many of the issues that face us, and this process will continue.

Canadians should be comforted to know that the House has had probably close to 50 hours of debate since this terrorism attack first seized the world. Also committees have been working very extensively. The transport committee had the Minister of Transport before it. The finance committee had the Minister of Foreign Affairs before it. As well, he was before the foreign affairs committee with his officials. We had the defence minister before the defence committee, again with his officials.

Committees had the opportunity to have accessible to them all the information so that members of parliament would have all the tools necessary to keep themselves apprised of what was going on.

I am comforted by the fact that members have had an opportunity to speak and to inform themselves of the facts as they evolve.

I took the opportunity to look into a bit of background of the country of Afghanistan. Obviously, it is the focus of much of the discussion that is going on. I was fascinated by the facts.

Afghanistan is a country of some 25 million people, 42% of whom are under 25 years of age. It is a very young country. It is about the size of the province of Ontario. It has a birthrate of about 4.2 children per family, compared to Canada's 1.6 per family currently.

The life expectancy of an Afghan citizen is about 45 years of age, compared to a range of 76 to 82 years of age in Canada. A citizen in Afghanistan does not live very long.

Only about 10% of the land in Afghanistan is arable. It means they have very little ability to be able to grow food to feed themselves. Until recently, Afghanistan was the world's largest producer of opium and the proceeds obviously from the illicit drugs, and apparently they still have vast hordes of inventory of the poppies, have not gone to the people; they have gone for terrorism. That is one of the reasons that I am sure that the coalition of NATO allies first went after the money.

Tonight we are talking about the initiatives we have taken to address terrorism. It is important to know that the process to freeze and seize assets and to put the resources available to the terrorists out of their hands to the greatest extent possible, continues around the world with coalition allies.

One can imagine that it was a very difficult decision for the Prime Minister to make, in consultation with our NATO allies and also with parliament, through the communications which constantly go on here formally and informally, on a very special problem.

Last week, Mr. and Mrs. Alton in my constituency came to speak to me about peaceful and diplomatic approaches toward resolving this. It is fair to say that my constituents in Mississauga, and I suspect all Canadians, would much prefer peaceful and diplomatic solutions to very serious problems.

I wonder whether it is possible to imagine peaceful solutions to problems we had, for instance, with Iraq, with the gulf war and with Saddam Hussein. I wonder if peaceful solutions would have been an effective approach to the former Yugoslavian Kosovo and Slobodan Milosevic. I wonder now whether peaceful solutions would be appropriate with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

It is always appropriate to try. I believe that the governments of the coalition countries have decided that peaceful solutions will not protect and defend the rights and the freedoms that democracies enjoy around the world.

In making the decision to engage our military in the coalition forces, the Prime Minister announced an operation entitled Operation Apollo deploying over 2000 courageous men and women. I believe, based on the vote that we had earlier on an opposition day motion, that the House concurs on our support for our military. It is very important that we reaffirm our commitment to our men and women who are representing our country's interests.

At the same time, along with the hardware and other personnel, is the humanitarian side. As I mentioned earlier, Afghanistan is a poor country. It means that responsible countries have to understand that there are some three million refugees over there and probably another million people who are displaced. A lot of people are suffering. It is a poor country to start with.

What is going on right now, even though it is strategic in terms of dealing with military, communications and other targets, does affect innocent citizens, and that is regrettable.

However, what would happen if we were not to take action? The people who make those decisions today, on behalf of democracies around the world, have to make tough decisions. I believe that the House has shown its clear support for the military support we have given to the coalition.

The government also today tabled Bill C-36, an anti-terrorism act. This is yet another initiative on behalf of Canada.

I understand that in the United States both congress and the senate have passed legislation, in their respective bodies, on anti-terrorism activities. I understand that next week they will be meshing those because right now they do not fit together very neatly, but they will have to hammer that out before that law is established.

That raises an interesting question. Under this legislation, it will be a crime to participate in terrorist activities. It will also be a crime to finance terrorism. The legislation will fully and effectively implement the UN convention on terrorist financing, et cetera.

During a press conference on terrorism, the justice minister stated:

The measures we are introducing strike the right balance between civil liberties and national security, and signal our resolve to ensure that Canadians will not be paralyzed by acts of terrorism.

I believe the intent is clear. I am assured by the minister that every effort has been taken to provide that appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and the need for us to have security. I think we all are aware of the aspect that without security we have no sovereignty. I believe that security is very important, but at the same time it is important to care for the protection of individual rights and freedoms.

If our anti-terrorism legislation is not comparable to the terrorism legislation in other jurisdictions, then maybe Canada would deserve a title of being a haven for terrorists. It is important that we, as parliamentarians, do our utmost to ensure that Canada has comparable legislation.

Let me conclude by repeating what the Prime Minister said earlier in the House when he led off this debate. I thought it was a very important commitment and a very strong signal of Canada's resolve.

The Prime Minister stated that:

we must never forget that the ultimate goal of terrorists was not to capture us by the force of arms but by the force of terror. He said that they did not want to occupy Canada rather they wanted to shut Canada down. He went on to say that the government, the House and the nation would not let them.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I consider it an honour to be able to participate in this take note debate as well, with my colleagues from all parties.

I want to begin by once again offering my condolences to the people of the United States for the terrible incident that occurred on September 11, and I do that on behalf of the people of Dewdney--Alouette.

Some people often ask me where Dewdney--Alouette is or what province Iam. It is a riding in British Columbia just outside Vancouver which encompasses mainly the cities of Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Mission, Agassiz and Harrison Hot Springs. I have received a number of phone calls, e-mails and letters from people wishing to pass on their condolences to our good friends and neighbours in the United States. Therefore, I do that at the beginning.

I would also like to acknowledge something that does not happen too often in the House, and it happened earlier this evening. We passed an opposition supply day motion brought forward by members of the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative coalition. It was supported by almost all members of the House.

I would like to read the opposition motion brought forward by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, the leader of our coalition, into the record one last time. It states:

That this House reaffirm its condemnation of the terrorist attacks against our NATO ally, the United States of America, on September 11, 2001, and affirm its support for Canada's courageous men and women in the Canadian Forces who are responding to defend freedom and democracy in the international military coalition against terrorism; and

That this House order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to sit jointly to hold frequent meetings with ministers and officials of the government and the military.

That was a positive step and I think we demonstrated through our actions that we are able to come together in a non-partisan way to take a small step to show that we can work together in this place. I was encouraged by that.

I would also like to refer to a couple of comments made by the Prime Minister earlier in debate here in the House. I commend the Prime Minister for speaking in the House and for his presence during all the speeches of the leaders of the opposition parties. He said that we have no quarrel with Islam or with the people of Afghanistan, and I agree with him. He went on to say that our quarrel is against terrorists and those who would commit the acts of violence and horror that we witnessed on September 11.

The action of those terrorists was wrong, immoral and evil to the core. I do not think there is much debate about that.

I would like to frame the rest of my comments in the form of some questions that I would have for the government. I would also like to commend the government for bringing forward Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, which was introduced in the House today.

I am one who will often say to the government when it does something positive and comes up with a good idea, congratulations. It is my hope we will do more of that and that in turn the government members can support good ideas from the opposition benches.

A question I have for the immigration minister is this. What does the immigration minister plan to do to stop the flow of potential terrorists during the lag time before the maple leaf card comes on line in June and the months before it is fully implemented? How would this measure specifically deter terrorists from coming to Canada? I applaud her for the action. I have some follow up questions for her on that.

I have a question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister. Why have the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister rejected out of hand the notion of an integrated security perimeter? It has been raised by others. Why are we not willing to consider, as a possibility, integrating our security perimeter with our friends from the United States? It raises implications for international trade, the movement of goods and people from our country to the United States and back the other way.

I also have a question for the Minister of Transport. Why would the minister reject the suggestion brought forward by our coalition and other members of the House to employ air marshals on domestic flights in Canada? We know that he has agreed to do so on flights which originate in Canada and go to Reagan National Airport in Washington because it is required that air marshals be on all flights that arrive at that destination.

I know the issue of intermittent reinforcement is the most powerful kind of reinforcement there is. Whether positive or negative, when individuals are unaware of when they will be rewarded or punished for an act, they are more likely to continue in a positive vein. In other words, if terrorists are on domestic flights and they know there are no air marshals on that flight, it will not be a deterrent. If they are aware there are air marshals, then they must consider that before taking action.

The idea of air marshals is a worthwhile notion to explore and the Minister of Transport should look seriously at that.

Why does the government and the Prime Minister reject the suggestion to bring leaders of opposition parties into the Privy Council to break down partisan walls and show real leadership? This was done by the Conservative government during the gulf war and it would be a good thing to do now.

Why does the Prime Minister reject the suggestion to give regular briefings in the House on important developments with regard to Canada's role in fighting terrorism? This has been done in the United States. Even after a security breach and concerns from the president, the practice continued because members of congress guaranteed to, in essence, to police themselves and make sure that the confidentiality of the information would not be breached.

When people are brought into confidence and they are trusted, their confidence and trust increases as well. I would put forward that if the government showed that kind of leadership there would be goodwill from all members of the House to participate in that. Would there be a risk for the government? Yes, there would be but at the same time the benefits would outweigh the risks in bringing along members from all parties into the discussion and by extension, the constituents they represent across the country.

Why do Canadians have to find out about commitments made by the government at party fundraisers or on CNN's Larry King Live ? That has happened a few times. Again, I point to the fact that the Prime Minister spoke in the House this evening. I appreciated that. This is a better place to bring forward information on the war on terrorism than at a party fundraiser or on an American news broadcast.

Why did the Prime Minister commit 2,000 of our military personnel to the war on terrorism without recalling parliament, where he would have received overwhelming support from all parties in a non-partisan display of unity? I support the commitment the government made. Our coalition supports that commitment. I would assert that the Prime Minister would have had overwhelming support, built trust and broken down walls in doing that. We could have shown by our actions that that would have been a good thing to do.

I appreciate the opportunity to raise these questions. I look forward to answers in days to come from the government.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to know why we have spent one day on the amended motion. One really only has to see the content of Bill C-15, and one will immediately realize that something is not right.

Without going into the details about each of the elements, since they have already been discussed at length today, upon reading the omnibus bill, one will see that it creates a new offence to protect children against sexual exploitation, notably sexual exploitation through games or the use of the Internet.

The bill increases the maximum sentence in cases of criminal harassment. It makes home invasion an aggravating factor in sentencing. It creates an offence of disarming, or attempting to disarm, a peace officer. It increases the penalties for offences related to cruelty to animals. New definitions are provided on this subject.

The bill codifies and clarifies the application process for ministerial review in cases of alleged miscarriage of justice. The bill confers certain powers to the minister. It reforms criminal procedure and modernizes it with respect to aspects related to preliminary inquiry procedures, disclosure of evidence, and case management and preliminary inquiries.

The bill sets out regulations for electronic documents and remote appearances. It outlines a complete system for pleas, private prosecutions, alternate juror selection, restrictions on the use of agents and it amends the Firearms Act using certain criminal code provisions.

Once we have seen that, we are entitled to move to the next question: is it unreasonable for the opposition to call for the Liberals to break up this bill? Is it unreasonable?

This is not just a question that involves the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative Party or the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative coalition. It is not a question that concerns a single political party. It is a matter of simple common sense. It is a matter of simple opposition common sense, some might say, because opposition members are the only ones who think this way.

What I have learned from the eloquent speech by the government House leader is that, when he was in opposition, he called for exactly the same thing from the Progressive Conservative government of the day, that is not to present omnibus bills like Bill C-15 we have before us at this time, so that the opposition, as well as the government MPs, might to do their jobs properly.

Today, is it unreasonable to ask the government to split this bill? Why would it not be made into three separate bills, because there really are three categories? Not three categories of offence, but three categories of functioning for the House to get its job done properly.

We have the category on which everyone agrees: child protection, increased sentences for sexual harassment, and a reform and modernization of the justice system to speed up trials. Everyone agrees on that. Why does the government not introduce a bill that includes these three? If that was what we had before us in the House today we would have passed it right away and it would be a fait accompli.

The second category, perhaps, is one on which the House is not unanimous, but we have heard talk of it, we have already discussed it, either in the House or private members bills, or on the Standing Committee on Justice, or in briefs from the Canadian Police Association or from lobbyists.

These issues are home invasions, which are an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. The bill also creates an offence of disarming, or attempting to disarm, a peace officer. Then there is the review process following a miscarriage of justice.

This is another category, not that we fully support everything that is included in that category, particularly as regards miscarriage of justice. I find it unacceptable that the Minister of Justice, in her great wisdom, can decide whether or not to compensate. This issue could have been dealt with quickly since we had already discussed it. This is the second category. Another bill would have been needed. We would have fully co-operated, since everyone knows the issues here. We know where we are headed. We are either for it or against it, but we know where we are headed and we know where we stand.

The last category is the one with a capital “P” for problematic, since it is the whole issue of firearms. Is there a more problematic issue right now than the registration of firearms? The Bloc Quebecois supported the principle of gun registration.

If we look at what is currently being done in the area of registration, I think we should be very careful with any amendment to this legislation, because it is not an easy thing to do. Let us be clear. Currently, there are over 100,000 firearms owners in Quebec who have problems with the Firearms Act, particularly as regards the procurement of ammunition.

We do not question the principle. We simply want to point out that this is a sensitive and complex issue. We do not want to mix this with the protection of children. Are we clear on this?

The other part deals with cruelty to animals. We support the principle that we must modernize the criminal code, which dates back a long, long time, as regards the issue of animal cruelty. We support the principle, but is it normal to include such a broad definition? Is it normal to tell a fisherman that he must make sure that his catches are indeed dead? He is being told that if he puts a fish in his boat when it is still alive, this amounts to cruelty to a vertebrate, since the fish is a vertebrate.

This is an important issue. We could easily have split Bill C-15 in three different parts to speed up its passage.

Why are we making such a request? Simply because we want the House to be able to make an informed decision when the time comes to vote on these important provisions of the criminal code.

First, the House must have all the information it needs to decide if it wants to pass this bill or not. This information will help members to do their job properly. When I say that, I mean that they must study the bill carefully and try not to forget anything.

Let us imagine for a moment that Bill C-15 is not split and that it goes to the justice committee as it is now. In the same day, the committee will hear hunters and fishers, psychologists who will talk about the protection of children, computer experts and police officers.

I know that Liberal members often play musical chairs in these committees. Three quarters of them do not follow the same committee regularly. What would they do in the clause by clause study other than say yes to everything, as the Minister of Justice would tell them to do? Is that the Liberal government's idea of enhancing the role of members of parliament? I do not think so.

I could go on for hours about this bill and explain how the government is going about it the wrong way. However since I have only a few minutes or a few seconds left, I would like to correct a statement made by the Liberal government. It said this morning that when it introduced this omnibus bill in June 2000, the opposition did not react.

I would invite the members opposite to examine Bill C-36 introduced in the 36th parliament and they will see that the whole issue of cruelty to animals was not included in that bill.