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

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for clearing up that confusing situation. I am sure when hon. colleagues from all parties have an opportunity to check Hansard they will see that indeed my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester clearly stated that he wished to split his time with the distinguished member, as I understand he put it. We even have confirmation from the government side of the House. I would like to thank all colleagues from all parties in the House who are present for allowing that to happen and allowing me to say a few words on Bill C-35.

At the outset I ask what Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, does, just so that people watching in the real world, if anyone is watching the debate today, might be better able to understand it. Its purpose is to broaden the scope of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. It expands and further defines the privileges and immunities granted to international organizations. It defines the capacity of the RCMP to provide security for intergovernmental conferences which are held in Canada.

Very clearly, as is often the case with legislation presented in the House by the government, the opposition parties and indeed I think government members from time to time are torn because of conflict contained within legislation. Some of it is good. Some of it is not so good. In some cases some of it is bloody awful, I would suggest. That is the case here.

My colleague, our critic for foreign affairs, the member for Cumberland--Colchester, stood in the House and repeatedly spoke to Bill C-35, laying out our concerns and those parts of the bill that we support. Clearly we recognize there is a need to more clearly identify and clarify the role of the RCMP in providing security for these conferences which are increasingly held on Canadian soil.

He has also spoken on a number of occasions about what we perceive could be a problem in the future with extending the diplomatic immunity to other individuals and to a large extent to who knows whom. Very clearly he presented an amendment at committee that would have become part of the legislation and constricted the government or held the government more accountable as to who is accessing the immunity so that Canadians would know when someone was using this new loophole to circumvent the laws of Canada. I think that is of great concern.

The real irony is that it is simply quite unbelievable and in fact quite galling that the government on one hand would pass Bill C-35 through this place. Presumably it will be enacted into law once it passes through the Senate and receives royal assent. This will extend the immunity to who knows whom. We are not allowed to even know. It will not be put into law to force the government to always reveal the names and organizations accessing this immunity.

At the same time the government is very clearly moving with Bill C-36 to restrict the rights and civil liberties of Canadians. It is quite unbelievable why the government cannot see the contradiction in that.

On the issue of the closure of the debate after one day of debate the government tried to say there was more than one day of debate on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorist legislation. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100 amendments to that legislation were brought forward. Most of them were from the government. It came forward on Monday of this week and the government used time allocation to ram it through the House.

Given the seriousness of what has taken place this week in parliament on the one year anniversary of the last election when unfortunately the Liberal government was yet again elected with a majority government, basically we have the same situation as the past two parliaments with an elected dictatorship.

A fellow by the name of Andrew Coyne wrote a column in the National Post yesterday entitled “The Death of Parliament”. I want to read into the record some of his comments, given the seriousness of this situation. Referring to Bill C-36 he wrote:

--this is a much different bill than it was. The Commons justice committee adopted more than 100 amendments--themselves rammed through in the space of an evening. Ordinary members of parliament, unless they were around over the weekend, would barely have seen a copy of the committee's report. And any chance they might have had to propose amendments of their own expired with the Saturday evening deadline. Not that it matters, I suppose. They'd never have passed.

He continued:

Closure and party-line voting are objectionable at the best of times. But to apply these parliamentary tourniquets to legislation such as this--hasty in drafting but permanent in effect, with all manner of implications for the rights of citizens and all sorts of potential for abuse--is simply beyond belief.

Further in the column he wrote:

If ever there were a time in which the legislature ought to play a leading role in the making of law--to air concerns, suggest improvements, and shape a consensus--it is now. And if ever there were any doubt that parliament has ceased to play that role, there is no more. As a watchdog on the executive, as a guardian of the public purse, as a house of deliberation, it is, as the constitutional scholars say, a dead letter.

I wish I had the time to read the remainder of the column into the record because it is incredibly appropriate. On the front page of today's Ottawa Citizen there is an article by Susan Delacourt. In it she also points to the problems inherent in legislation that the government is intent on ramming through the House. She wrote in part:

--there's always a reason for this Liberal government to find parliament inconvenient. Closure is more of a parliamentary rule than an exception now. It's the opposition's fault. It's obstructionism. It's our international obligations. It's just the way things are.

The use of closure on this bill, though, is particularly galling. For six weeks the most senior ministers of the Prime Minister's government assured critics and even their own Liberal MPs that parliament would be a check on any excesses within Bill C-36.

Further in the column she continued:

“Trust-us justice,” the critics called it, and now, with the use of closure, their skepticism seems appropriate.

These are just two articles that have been printed in the last 24 hours about the use of closure and ramming through Bill C-36. As I said, the debate on Bill C-36 unfortunately is over. Although many of us would have liked to have continued the debate on Bill C-36 and on the amendments, some of which never got to be aired--

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals come up with an issue that is of great concern to Canadians, such as terrorism. Then they say they will pass a bill that will satisfy the concerns about terrorism, but they will bake in a whole lot of other things that will force members, both in the Liberal Party and opposition, to agree with it.

In order to achieve some of their goals, the Liberals take advantage of the great concern by Canadians. The goals are to concentrate power with the government. The Liberals give the power of more and more decisions to a smaller group of people on the government side and eliminate access to information and prevent members of parliament from having the information and tools to work with.

It is not only Bill C-35 and Bill C-36. It is many bills. The next one to come along will be Bill C-42 which is going to do exactly the same thing. Bill C-42 will restrict civil liberties. It will concentrate power in a very small circle on the government benches. It is exactly the same thing.

To answer the member's question, the excuse may be the concerns of Canadians but the real driving force is to concentrate power.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my colleague for Cumberland--Colchester, on which I would like him to elaborate.

The Liberals claim to be the defender of Canadian values. There has to be an absolute reason that the Liberal government is bringing in one of the most regressive pieces of legislation to hit the House of Commons in a long time. The Liberals did it with Bill C-36 and now they are doing it with what I call the son of Sam legislation, Bill C-35.

The hon. member is a learned and experienced parliamentarian. Why does he think the Liberals are doing this?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the very distinguished member for Prince George--Peace River.

I think this is the fourth time I have spoken to the bill and I did not think I had a lot to add, or at least that is what I thought when I made my notes. However, the more I hear of it and the more I put it into relevance with everything else that is going on around us, the more I see that the overall approach here is an attempt by the government to take over everything. It is an attempt to exclude parliamentarians, to prevent us from doing our jobs in any meaningful way and to concentrate the decision making process in a very small circle.

Bill C-35 amends the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act to expand immunity to a lot of people and a lot of foreigners who have never had it before. It involves a lot of changes in procedure. It was presented as a housekeeping bill but the more we get into it, the more we see how profound and important it is. It changes the way we do many things and is a contradiction in many ways to the parallel bill, Bill C-36, which was passed last night.

Bill C-36 restricts Canadians, imposes new laws, new punishments and restricts civil liberties, while Bill C-35 expands immunity against all of our laws to a group of people that is not even named or identified. The system is not even named or identified to my satisfaction. To me it is a contradiction that we are expanding immunity to these unknown people who are going to come to Canada, while for Canadians we are creating new laws with new restrictions and taking away civil rights from people in order to deal with terrorism.

It is a complicated issue. I know Canadians want us to deal with terrorism and that is why Bill C-36 was passed last night, but there are things in Bill C-36 that make many of us feel uncomfortable.

One thing that really stands out in Bill C-35, and I have spoken about it many times, is the simple reluctance by the government to report to parliament who makes claims under the new expanded immunity regulations. I do not understand why there is reluctance to put this into legislation.

The minister says he will report four times a year on who files claims against immunity but he will not put it into legislation. The only conclusion I can come to is he will not put it into legislation because he wants to be able to change it, or a subsequent minister to be able to change the rules, or whatever and deny parliament and Canadians access to this information. There is a contradiction because under Bill C-36 the government just put in an amendment to include annual reporting for certain aspects of it.

The parliamentary secretary says we cannot put everything into legislation on Bill C-35 but the government put it in Bill C-36. The arguments do not wash; they are contradictory and do not make sense. The government for some reason does not want annual reporting. It does not want parliament to know what is going on or what is happening under this new expanded regime of immunity.

Another argument that comes up even more now than before is the argument that we have to do this because it is part of the Vienna Convention and we have reciprocal agreements. I do not believe that all the countries we deal with, or even very many of them, have reciprocal agreements. There are probably only a very few countries that have reciprocal agreements that are as wide ranging and broad as this bill is in coverage for diplomats and visitors to foreign nations.

I have asked that question. I hope I will get an answer from the parliamentary secretary. I did not get a chance to ask her directly but she knows the question is out there. I would like to know exactly how many countries qualify for the Canadian expanded immunity and how many countries give us the same immunity. I want to know exactly which countries give exactly the same immunity. My feeling is it is not going to be very many.

There are two other aspects of the bill I wish to touch on. The catalyst that generated the bill was the Hughes report on the convention in Vancouver, but it does not follow the Hughes report.

There is nothing in the bill that prevents politicians from interfering with the actions of the RCMP. It identifies the RCMP as the responsible police force in any case where there are more than two countries' citizens involved or meetings that involve more than two countries. That is a good thing. It makes it a lot simpler and a lot quicker to determine who is responsible, but there is nothing in it that says politicians are restricted from interfering with the RCMP which was a very clear message in the Hughes report.

On one hand the government says it is following the Hughes report and on the other it does not when it is convenient for the government, and as long as the government can retain power. A key part of all the bills is that the government either retains power or acquires more power in an ever lessening circle of people.

The other question I have had over and over again is how we determine what people qualify for the expanded immunity. I am not at all satisfied with the answers. One foreign affairs official said that if we give diplomatic privileges and immunities for a meeting, then all participants that we let in for that meeting will get it.

What kind of a broad based blanket immunity is that? In the past we did it one on one. Every participant was examined. There was a file on every person who applied for diplomatic immunity. We knew what we were doing. In this case the officials are saying that if there is a meeting and it is decided it will be subject to diplomatic immunity, then everybody will get diplomatic immunity. I certainly disagree with that philosophy. I do not know who will make the final decision. I am not satisfied with who will make the decision on what meetings qualify but it sounds like they will try to include every meeting and every person who is even remotely involved with the meetings.

It was very disappointing to see some of the amendments that were moved not only by my party but other opposition parties, refused, turned down or defeated by the government. I do not understand why the government has a policy of blanket turndowns even though the amendments make sense, whether they are from my party or another party. The government just does it on principle. It turns them down even when they will help make the bill better for Canadians.

We will not be supporting the bill. Unfortunately at the start we thought we would be supporting it but it is clear that the government is intransigent on changes, amendments or even common sense proposals. It will not make the minor changes for which we and other parties have asked so we will be voting against the bill.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, these are the games that get played around here. I am pleased to rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-35. This is a bill that purports to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and to modernize the privileges and immunities regime. It is supposed to allow Canada to comply with its existing commitments under international treaties and to respond to recent developments in international law.

We are told its enactment would correct the deficiency in the existing statutory definition of international organization and provide the RCMP with primary responsibility to ensure security for the proper functioning of intergovernmental conferences. We are told this clear statutory authority would support security provisions taken by Canadian police in fulfilling the country's obligations to protect persons who have privileges and immunities under the act.

Before I get into the substance of my remarks I will comment a bit on the bill's diplomatic immunity provisions and the reference made by the member for the Alliance to the tragic incident of last January that involved Catherine MacLean and Catherine Doré.

I have never had a chance to speak in the House about this issue, but I consider myself a close personal friend of John Fryer who was the partner of Catherine MacLean. I worked with Philippe Doré who is the husband of Catherine Doré. What happened on that occasion was absolutely tragic. John Fryer and the children of Catherine MacLean know they have the full support, sympathy and understanding of myself and the members of the New Democratic Party caucus.

The fundamentals of Bill C-35 are not to protect the immorality, wrongdoing and drunken driving that happened in January last year. We ought to be primarily concerned about officials who come to Canada and receive diplomatic immunity, not about preventing protesters from getting close enough to make their case against them.

I will make reference specifically to what has happened since September 11. The government seems to be, as Naomi Klein pointed out in yesterday's Globe and Mail , ditching laws to avoid the messy street protests that started to occur in Canada in Vancouver in November 1997 and continued in Quebec City last year.

As Klein points out, civil libertarians and politicians have been duking it out over Bill C-36 since October 15. The justice minister who is responsible for the bill says the law is designed to target terrorists and terrorist groups. She insists it is not a crackdown on legitimate political activism and protest.

I welcome members to Bill C-35. It has been making its way through parliament while being downplayed by the parliamentary secretary as a housekeeping measure. On the surface all the bill does is expand the definition of an internationally protected person, those foreign dignitaries who are granted diplomatic immunity when they come to the country.

The concerns about protected persons tell only part of the story. The rest is revealed when Bill C-35 is cross referenced with several clauses in Bill C-36 that classify many actions taken against protected persons as terrorist activities. Together Bill C-35 and Bill C-36 form a one two punch that would knock out the right to protest outside international meetings that take place in Canada.

It would work like this. Bill C-35 defines internationally protected persons as “representatives of a foreign state that is a member of or participates in an international organization”. The principle is taken from the UN convention granting diplomatic immunity to politicians attending international conventions.

Members will recall that before the APEC conference in Vancouver the then Canadian foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy apologized to the prime minister of Indonesia for the campaign in Canada to portray Indonesia's brutal dictator, President Suharto, as a criminal. His picture appeared on a wanted poster.

Mr. Axworthy wrote at the time that it was outrageous and excessive and not the way Canadians behaved. He assured the Indonesian prime minister that General Suharto would not suffer the indignity of being in close proximity to any protest. The subsequent RCMP crackdown on peaceful dissent at APEC led to the Hughes report which we were discussing earlier today.

The excessive use of pepper spray and rubber bullets against protesters at the free trade agreement of the Americas meeting in Quebec City in April this year further demonstrated that the RCMP can treat Canadian protesters as criminals to protect foreign officials, even officials who preside over security forces that systematically arrest, torture and kill their own protesters back home.

Our concern is that Bill C-35 would help entrench some unjust contradictions into Canadian law. The Suhartos and Pinochets of the world would be more confident than ever when deciding whether to attend international events in Canada. Bill C-35 would allow them to feel totally secure during their visits because they would know two things. First, the law would exempt them from prosecution for their crimes. Second, it would mandate the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to protect them from protesters who oppose their regimes.

Because they control their domestic security and legal systems the world's state terrorists have immunity from their own country's laws. I am concerned Bill C-35 would extend that immunity to their visits to Canada.

Ironically Bill C-35 comes at a time when the government is publicly pushing Bill C-36. We passed it yesterday and it is now in the other place. It contains sweeping new powers that may threaten the civil liberties of innocent Canadians. While giving much attention to the upcoming anti-terrorism law it seems there have been far too few references in the media to Bill C-35 that will be used to offer protection to foreign state terrorists during official visits.

I asked the parliamentary secretary if she could give examples where reciprocity had been used. One of the explanations of the need for Bill C-35 was that we needed reciprocal arrangements with other countries. The parliamentary secretary said she was unable to provide examples at the moment but would send us some.

She will have difficulty doing so. There have been no incidents in the past where Canadians were unable to attend international conferences because we did not have a law such as the one being proposed today.

I will focus a little of my remaining time on clause 5 of the bill. My colleague from Burnaby--Douglas did a thorough review of the clause in an earlier presentation at second reading of the bill. Clause 5 is a new clause that would extend unprecedented sweeping powers to the RCMP with respect to security at international meetings in Canada.

The government has told us it is only codifying existing laws. If that is the case the question is obvious: Why do we need the statute at all if would not broaden the powers but simply codify existing powers?

The hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas pointed out that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade reviewed the bill as an extraordinary step. He said Canadians have a right to know how concerned all members at the committee including government members were about provisions of the legislation.

The report the committee submitted to the House stated that expert legal testimony it had heard:

--raised serious concerns about the adequacy and interpretive clarity of the existing language in Article 5, notably in regard to the provisions regarding the primary responsibility of the RCMP for taking measures, including the establishment of security perimeters, that are appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances--

The report also stated:

Whereas, notwithstanding the existing authority of peace officers under the common law, of the RCMP under the RCMP Act and under other statutory authority pertaining to the security of internationally protected persons, Article 5 will for the first time in statute give the RCMP explicit powers to establish security perimeters for certain conferences of an international nature;

Whereas these codified RCMP powers may affect the rights and privileges of Canadian citizens in relation to such conferences;

Whereas the testimony heard by the Committee strongly pointed towards the desirability of a broader review of the statutory authorities governing police powers in respect of future situations within Canada where security perimeters may be warranted;

The Committee urges the Government to take into account the legitimate concerns which have been expressed in regard to the drafting of Article 5 of the Bill.

As the member for Burnaby--Douglas pointed out at the time, this was a strong signal from the foreign affairs committee that clause 5 which is in many respects the heart of Bill C-35 is unacceptable.

A unanimous report from the committee said to look out because it had real reservations about the clause. The government should have listened to the committee and voted to change the bill by amending or preferably deleting the clause. Instead of doing that and sending the issue back to the House, government members stood and voted against their own colleagues on the foreign affairs committee who had voiced caution about the clause. That is a significant point.

I am concerned that the two bills taken together would give the RCMP more powers than it ever dreamed it could acquire. This could have a significant negative effect on the right of people to protest peacefully. We are on the verge of criminalizing dissent in Canada.

I will quote Alan Borovoy, a long time head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Mr. Borovoy pointed out:

--to be minimally effective, a demonstration must be able to create an atmosphere of political and social tension for those whose decisions it is trying to influence. While it is appropriate to keep protestors far enough away so that they cannot physically intimidate, they must be sufficiently close in order to politically castigate.

Bill C-35 would leave wide open the question of whether that would be the case. We in the NDP caucus are opposed to the bill. The citizens of Canada need to look at Bill C-35 and Bill C-36 together. The government says it is a relatively small housekeeping amendment and not terribly significant. The proof will be in the pudding next summer when protestors go to Kananaskis to protest the G-8. At that time we will see whether peaceful protestors are able to object to what is happening with globalization or whether the security perimeter around Kananaskis will make it impossible for protestors to have their voices heard as world leaders head into the summit. That will be the test.

I think the legislation, once it is passed, as it will be by the majority, will prove that dissent is very much circumscribed in the country. I also believe that civil libertarians and people of goodwill, many of whom believe we have a very good record on civil and human rights and the ability to speak out and protest peacefully, will see those rights diminished a great deal as a result of Bills C-36 and C-35.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, my question does not pertain to the principles of Bill C-35, but rather to the principles of access to information.

Why will the government not commit to a report to parliament? The government acknowledges that it is necessary, because the minister has said that he agrees to report on the people who apply to make use of a claim for immunity four times a year, but it will not put it in legislation. It seems to me that the minister is saying it is necessary and he will do it, but he wants to keep that flexibility so he can change his mind later on.

This kind of goes along with what is in Bill C-36, with restrictions to access to information. There seems to be a reluctance on behalf of the government to share information with parliament. All we are asking is if the government will provide a list of those people who claim immunity under these very significantly expanded immunity rules.

When I talk to Liberal members individually, they seem to agree that this is a good thing to do. Could the parliamentary secretary indicate if there has been a change of heart? Will the government add an annual report to parliament in the bill?

Committees of the House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 40th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the question of privilege raised on October 15 by the member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast concerning Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act.

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to this very same issue. The breach that has occurred here with respect to all parties in this House having an opportunity to speak to this very important bill leads me to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion that:

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, be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice with instructions to hear from the Information Commissioner and to make further amendments to the bill as the committee considers appropriate.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the House give its unanimous consent to enable the two opposition parties that have not yet had an opportunity to speak on Bill C-36 to do so within the reasonable amount of time that is allotted for such participation?

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

I thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, whether we have a sunset clause or not, it does not change the fact that a three year period for an in-depth study of the consequences of this bill is way too long. Of course, reports on the investigations and on the preventive arrests will be prepared yearly by the attorney general, the solicitor general and their provincial counterparts.

However, this does not add any guarantee that would lead us to believe that the government will set the record straight if some slip-ups occur along the way. There could be three years worth of blunders before the government looks into the matter again. There again, nothing guarantees that this review will be made at all, because it is far from unusual to see deadlines not being respected and acts not being reviewed on time. Extraordinary legislation introduced in exceptional circumstances necessarily requires a more stringent control that the one the minister is suggesting.

As for wiretapping, on October 24, Allan Borovoy, adviser to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said before the committee that CSIS already had all the necessary tools to conduct wiretaps.

Mr. Borovoy also mentioned, although this was not his final conclusion, that new powers would not be needed, and that, before infringing on civil liberties, we should demonstrate that this will result in a significant improvement of existing security. Given that, according to this advisor, this has not been demonstrated, one must wonder why the minister is allowing the defence minister to authorize electronic surveillance without prior judicial approval.

After alienating the right of parliament to decide the reinstatement of this legislation, by refusing a real sunset clause, the minister is also taking away from the courts the right to authorize the electronic surveillance of communications. The political and judicial branches have become one.

Now, a word on preventative arrests and increased powers. These provisions could very well jeopardize the delicate balance between security and freedom. Under this bill, an individual could be detained for 24 hours on the basis of mere suspicion, even if the words “reasonable grounds” are used in the same clause. But reasonable grounds and suspicions are clearly quite different.

As a matter of fact, legal literature recognizes that mere suspicion does not constitute sufficient grounds for action that has to be taken on the basis of reasonable grounds. Besides, the Barreau du Québec has stated that under constitutional law, these two concepts are contradictory. It even went as far as saying that the concept of suspicion would introduce a discretionary leeway which could lead to arbitrary arrests. Moreover, in her opening speech at the inaugural meeting of the committee, the Minister said:

I remind my hon. colleagues that there are instances where, in other free and democratic societies like the United Kingdom and, most likely, the United States, once they have passed their new legislation, detention will be allowed for a period of up to seven days.

We could also remind the minister that no later than this morning, in reference to this measure and others, such as communications intercept, the questioning of target groups and possible trials before a martial court, the headline on the front page of Le Devoir read “Is the United States to become a police state?”

At one time, Moscow was much safer than several North American cities but those were the days of communism, when security was based on a political tyranny which was promoting terror. Surveillance was everywhere and denouncement was a way to survive. Are we prepared to pay such a price? As Alain Gagnon would say, to ask the question is to answer it.

The attorney general could refer any person to a judge whether or not this person is directly or indirectly linked to a terrorist group or activity. In a way, this provision is like giving a fishing license to the authorities. The bar association was also critical of this provision, arguing that it interferes with the right to remain silent, when no charges have even been laid yet.

The least we can say is that Bill C-36 gives the police outrageous powers which would not be tolerated in more ordinary times. These provisions remain hard to justify, despite the present crisis. One may question the relevancy of such measures in light of two recent events which got our attention.

Here is the first case. In mid-October, the media reported the story of an individual named Abdellah Ouzghar. To give some background, Ouzghar had been convicted in absentia to five years in jail, last April, by the criminal court of Paris. The charges were, among others, being part of a crime syndicate for the purpose of planning a terrorist act. Furthermore, Interpol had already issued two international arrest warrants against Ouzghar, and the warrants mentioned his address in Hamilton.

Under the Extradition Act, the RCMP was to proceed with the temporary arrest of this individual so that France could then apply for his extradition. Yet, it took more than one year after the issue of the first arrest warrant and also six months after his conviction in France for the RCMP to finally arrest him on October 12 of last year.

Here is another example. In early November, the media reported another no less commonplace incident involving an individual named Liban Hussein. The RCMP has candidly admitted that it did not take any step to arrest this Ottawa resident, whose name was on the list of people and organizations actively involved in the financing of Osama bin Laden's terrorist activities. Finally, it was only after the individual gave himself up that the RCMP arrested him.

In both cases, we doubt very much that this flagrant carelessness on the part of the authorities, especially the RCMP, can be justified by legal constraints. In fact, the authorities have all the tools they need to act effectively, but they do not know how to use them. Is it carelessness or incompetence? Whatever. It is absolutely pointless to give more powers to people who do not know how to use the ones they already have.

As for the procedure for establishing the list of terrorist entities or the list used to deny or revoke charitable status, I commented on it at second reading of Bill C-16 as well as at second reading of Bill C-36 and, nothing having changed since, my comments will be the same. Therefore I refer members to my two previous speeches.

In conclusion, Bill C-36 is just one more step toward an abusive centralization of powers that used to be reserved to entities that were independent from the government. Moreover, what is more serious is that this power grab eliminates any notion of impartiality.

I can only conclude that, with Bill C-36, not only is the government seriously infringing our rights and freedoms, but it is taking advantage of a crisis situation to compromise the principle of the separation of powers.

The headline on the cover of the latest issue of the Journal du Barreau read “Anti-terrorist Bill C-36: Legitimate Goal, Bad Vehicle”. This title summarizes the position of the Bloc Quebecois very well, and this is why we will be voting against this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, to continue this debate at third reading, I will begin by saying that, even though the minister did not heed their recommendations, we do want thank the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during the last few weeks to enlighten us with their expertise.

At second reading, the Bloc Quebecois had decided to support Bill C-36 in principle, because it was and still is necessary to take measures that will enable us to fight terrorism effectively.

Like any opposition party acting responsibly, it is with optimism that we supported this government bill. However, while the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour of the spirit of this bill, it did express serious reservations regarding several of its provisions.

Among these reservations was, first of all, the absence of a sunset clause, as my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm just mentioned. This bill being a special measure that contains major irritants regarding various aspects, including preventive arrest and the powers conferred on the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Defence, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a sunset clause whereby all provisions of the bill would automatically have ceased to apply after three years, except those related to the implementation of international conventions.

In fact, in the Patriot Act and in the Loi sur la sécurité quotidienne, the United States and France adopted sunset clauses that repeal these acts in whole or in part after a period of three years. Moreover, the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Association des avocats criminalistes, the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, the Senate committee as well as ministers and Liberal members called for such a sunset clause.

But it seems that the American and French examples and the great support for our position were not good enough to sway the minister. Her minimal sunset clause deals with only two provisions in the legislation and it will apply not after three years, as we suggested, but after five. Even at that, it is not a real sunset clause, because it provides that a resolution passed by both houses will be enough to keep the legislation alive.

The government will not need to introduce a new bill and have it go through second reading, committee and third reading stages, the way it should be if this were a real sunset clause. In short, the minister's amendment does not really change the bill. It just shows the government's contempt for elected representatives by bypassing the parliamentary process.

In any case, whether we have a sunset clause or not, it does not change the fact that—

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-36 is most important, and to appreciate how important it is and understand the position taken by the Bloc Quebecois right for the start, a little background may be useful. Everybody knows that this bill stems from the terrorist attacks in the U.S. on September 11.

I listened to the remarks of Canadian Alliance members earlier, and I agree that they were the first to call for an anti-terrorism bill. I remember distinctly the answer of the justice minister at the time. She said “We have every tool we need in the criminal code to fight effectively against terrorism”.

Quite sincerely, I think she was right. The criminal code does provide a number of tools that can be used but criminal code provisions were not adequately enforced, as happens with many Canadian laws.

For several days, at least until the end of September or the beginning of October, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance—since there was the whole issue of money laundering and seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations—the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the solicitor general and the Minister of National Revenue all took turns telling us that we did not need legislation to fight terrorism in Canada.

That was the position of all government members. Then, all of a sudden, on October 15, the government introduced a bill to fight terrorism. This means that either the government had been misleading the House, or that it drafted an anti-terrorism act in 15 days. Either way, this is not good. The government should tell the truth to the House and if it decides to introduce a bill like this one, it should do so after very careful consideration and after taking the time necessary to draft it.

Let us suppose that the government acted in good faith and took 15 days to draft this bill. This is very worrisome because this legislation affects many individual and collective rights. This bill was drafted quickly. Public officials told the committee that, indeed, they had drafted the bill very quickly.

What was the position of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-36? We initially supported it at second reading. We had read it and knew that much work would be required to make it acceptable. However we wanted to make sure that this legislation would be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that witnesses could be heard and the bill improved. We agreed with the principle of the bill.

What was that principle? It was to have a tool to strengthen national security, if possible, but there had to be a balance between national security and individual and collective rights. This is what happened. The bill was reviewed in committee and we heard several witnesses, including experts in this field.

If I had more time I would read what some witnesses told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, including the Information Commissioner of Canada and the person responsible for privacy and document protection.

They told the justice minister, among other things, that she should not touch the whole part on certificates and that she should not, as she planned to do, deny individuals access to information contained in privacy files, since the enabling legislation, the current act, contains an entire section on national security.

The independent commissioners who administer the act are free to decide whether or not the documents may have an impact on national security. There is a mechanism to protect taxpayers, those who we want to protect with such legislation.

The national executive committee of the Canadian Auto Workers Union appeared before the committee. Some ministers even told the committee that a sunset clause was needed, because we were dealing with an extraordinary legislation and limits had to be set.

The president of the Quebec bar association, Francis Gervais, testified on behalf of the Barreau du Québec and told the committee that in terms of arrest without a mandate and the right to remain silent, the bill would affect the rights of some individuals arrested by the police. He said that the bill was going much too far, that the definition of terrorist activity should be tightened and that a sunset clause should be included in the bill. The Canadian Bar Association also testified before the committee.

At the same time that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was studying this issue, the Senate of Canada, the other place, was also considering it. It tabled a report in which it tells the government that it is going too far and that it should amend the definition of terrorist activity and include in the bill a real sunset clause, which would not apply to international conventions.

Has the minister of Justice, who said she would listen to the opposition, to what experts would have to say in committee, and to the comments of the other place, really been listening? I do not believe so. I think she did whatever she wanted, or rather, if she did listen to someone, it was only to her deputy ministers. She did not listen to the people who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Bloc Quebecois members took part in every single one of the committee meetings. We took copious notes and we listened to the witnesses. We played fair on this issue, we did not play politics, we did not keep any amendments under wraps for report stage. We put forward our 66 amendments in committee because we wanted to have the best possible legislation, which would strike a balance between national security and individual and collective rights.

As I said, we put forward 66 amendments. Every single one of them was defeated. It is not 66 amendments by the Bloc Quebecois that the members across the way rejected, but the amendments called for by witnesses. All those who appeared had very specific requests and these 66 amendments were an attempt to respond to them.

What were their concerns? The primary one, as I said before, and probably the most important, was that there should be a sunset clause in the bill. It is an exceptional bill for exceptional times. This is becoming a cliché or even a slogan, but it is true. We said and are still saying, because I believe it should have been done, that a sunset clause was needed, a real clause under which the act would cease to be in effect after three years. After three years, if the government still wanted to have these exceptional powers, it would have to start the legislative process all over again.

The minister has put forward a so-called sunset clause, but it is not a sunset clause. With a simple motion passed by the House of Commons and the Senate, this bill can be extended by as much as five years. This is not a sunset clause.

Since my allotted time is up, I conclude by saying that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, will vote against this bill at third reading. We will vote against Bill C-36.

We also say no to Bill C-42, its companion legislation. We will say no to this bill as it flies in the face of a great principle, the principle of democracy, for which we want to fight and will continue to fight here in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, since the subject matter of this debate is very important and two Bloc Quebecois members have followed the consideration of Bill C-36 in committee, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

They can be as upset as they want to be, but on Bill C-36, staying right on this point, it was the government House leader who stated:

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.

That is what the government House leader said: “Anyone who breaches that respect is guilty of an offence in my book”. The government House leader said “I believe the House leader for the Conservatives referred to this as privileged information”. Our House leader said “Actually it is more than that. It is secret in the very sense of government secrecy”.

If this is true, why did the committee conclude that no breach of privilege occurred? Why did the Liberal majority on the committee defeat two motions from the opposition that were designed to garner more information, including a motion to call as witnesses representatives of Deloitte & Touche?

When the opposition members on the committee learned that the PCO had the Deloitte & Touche report edited prior to its delivery to the committee, they moved a motion to see the unedited version and the Liberal majority defeated that motion. It is unbelievable.

I do not know how the committee will explain why it concluded that no breach of privilege had occurred when it tabled its report. If no breach had occurred, then what about the doctrine of ministerial responsibility? Who will take responsibility for the breach of secrecy? The Minister of Justice apologized for the leaking of information on Bill C-15. The government House leader has apologized to the House for the premature leaking of information on Bill C-36.

However, the contents of Bill C-42 were also leaked. Is the government expecting the House to accept another apology from another minister, if indeed that comes forward, just to move on to the next leak?

If the committee has already decided not to report that a breach of privilege has occurred, I hope the committee has the sense to address the principle of ministerial accountability.

I hope the committee follows its own advice from the Bill C-15 report, in which it concluded, then, that an apology, and this is what it said, would not be accepted if this were to happen again.

These were very disturbing elements of the whole development process of Bill C-36: leak the information ahead to get the government's own spin on it and then, when we try to respond to the spin, bring in closure and slam the door on debate. That is unacceptable.

The bill is not perfect. We have plainly identified that. I have also said throughout my speech that it is a start. As leader of the official opposition, I urge all my colleagues on this side of the House, especially those in the PC/DR coalition, to join with us and support the bill, imperfect as it is, even if we have to hold our noses at the process or at some aspects of the legislation. Canadians deserve some protection. Some is better than none.

To conclude, I would like to say again that I am disappointed in the way that the bill was conducted through the House. Canadians deserve better than this.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

There is nothing to call for order about. She took responsibility when she leaked the contents of Bill C-15. The committee charged her with contempt. That is a matter of fact. It is not a matter of order. It is a matter of disorder.

In its report on Bill C-15 the committee stated:

This incident highlights a concern shared by all members of the Committee: apparent departmental ignorance of or disrespect for the role of 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.

This is a severe indictment.

Then for some reason the committee decided to abandon its responsibilities in the incident related to Bill C-36, even though Deloitte & Touche, the firm hired to investigate the Bill C-36 leak, stated on page 11 of its report to the committee:

The disquieting aspect, however, is that a small portion of the article contains or alludes to information, which, at the time prior to the tabling of the bill itself, was classified secret and was subject to protection as a confidence of cabinet.

This would confirm what the government House leader stated during the debate on the question of privilege.