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

[Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère, Director General, Traveller Program Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Similar to the other witnesses, I would like to begin my remarks by outlining the role and responsibilities of the Canada Border Services Agency under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, or PCMLTFA for short.

As you are aware, the act was introduced to remedy shortcomings in Canada's anti-money laundering legislation. It put in place specific measures to combat money laundering, including the requirement to report to FINTRAC cross-border movements of currency and monetary instruments equal to or greater than the prescribed amounts. The scope of the act was later extended, in 2001, to include new measures under Bill C-36.

The CBSA is responsible for the administration and enforcement of part 2 of the act, which requires every person or entity to report to a CBSA officer the importation or exportation of currency and monetary instruments valued at $10,000 Canadian or greater. These reporting requirements encompass all inbound and outbound modes of travel, including air, highway, postal, and marine, in both the traveller and commercial processing streams.

The agency has a two-pronged mandate. The first one is to facilitate the voluntary compliance of currency and monetary instruments reporting. The second one is to identify and carry out enforcement on potential money laundering or terrorist financing-related funds at border crossings.

The CBSA collects cross-border currency reports on behalf of FINTRAC from travellers and commercial entities based on reporting that occurs at all ports of entry. Officers may help travellers and businesses comply with the reporting requirements of the act and the associated regulations. The completed reports are sent to FINTRAC.

The CBSA also has the authority to search and seize non-reported currency and monetary instruments greater than $10,000 Canadian or equivalent. We continue to seize a significant amount of suspect currency and monetary instruments from travellers and entities. Information related to currency seizures is also transmitted to FINTRAC, which is responsible for the analysis of the reports.

The act also requires the CBSA to disclose information to the appropriate police force, usually the RCMP, when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the seizure information would be relevant to investigating or prosecuting a money laundering or terrorist financing offence. In situations where the CBSA has seized currency under the PCMLTFA, but it is deemed required for use in criminal proceedings, custody of the evidence is transferred from the CBSA to the RCMP. When the seized funds are no longer required for the criminal process, the currency or monetary instruments are returned to the CBSA to be remitted to the Receiver General of Canada.

However, in most cases, where seized currency is not suspected to be from the proceeds of crime or financing for terrorist activities, the currency is returned to the person from whom it was seized once the penalty is paid. Penalties range from $250 to $5,000. All seizures are subject to appeal to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and, ultimately, to the Federal Court of Canada.

The CBSA employs a range of detection tools to find currency. We use X-ray mobile units; fibrescopes, or flexible cameras; density meters; and detector dogs. We also have at our disposal a wide range of other technologies and training to assist in the non-intrusive examination of travellers at the border. Since the start of the cross-border currency reporting program in 2003, we've made about a half-million import and export reports that have been received by the CBSA and then forwarded to FINTRAC. Enforcement of the legislation by the agency to date has resulted in over 26,000 enforcement actions involving more than $530 million.

In closing Mr. Chair, we believe that the implementation of the cross-border currency program has successfully contributed to the international fight against transborder crime, specifically money laundering and terrorist financing. As a direct result of the program, more than $80 million in suspect proceeds of crime were forfeited and thus taken out of circulation.

I would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I want to talk to you about why I think this motion is important and why I think the members of the committee should support it.

Let me start by going back to what the Speaker indicated in his ruling that there was a prima facie case of privilege. When he made his ruling in April he was responding to a matter of privilege that had been raised on April 14 in response to the leak of the story on April 12 to Laura Stone at The Globe and Mail. The Speaker made a point of indicating that the issue of “provenance”—that's the term he used—meaning where the leak came from, finding the source of the leak, ought to be the focus of our investigation, not what we are now focusing upon.

About halfway through his remarks he said, dealing with an earlier case, that “no doubt existed as to the provenance of the leak”, referring to a previous leak that had occurred back in 2010. He's emphasizing that the source of the leak is of key importance. Looking back at previous Speakers' rulings, I find that in dealing with a similar situation back in 2001, Speaker Milliken also emphasized the importance of seeking out the provenance, the source, of the leak. Once again, this was at that time a piece of legislation, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act.

Mr. Chair, you were in the House when that arose, as I was.

It was a matter of equal importance from the point of view of Canadians at that time to the stature that Bill C-14 has in the public consciousness today. Some of the content was leaked. The member for Winnipeg—Transcona, at that time it would have been Bill Blaikie, argued that the Speaker ought to investigate.

The Speaker, while he appreciated this input, corrected Mr. Blaikie in the following words:

The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona in his remarks tried to assist the Chair by suggesting that it was for the Chair to investigate the matter and come up with the name of the culprit and so on. I respect his opinion of course in all matters, but in this matter I think his view is perhaps wrong. There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.... Accordingly, in my view this is a matter which ought to be sent to the committee.

Of course, he then went on to rule that a prima facie case of privilege having been found, the matter should be further investigated by the procedure and House affairs committee, by this committee.

The point to be emphasized is there is a body that is ideally suited—I wish he had not used the phrase “commit active inquisition” because, clearly, our goal is not to be the Spanish Inquisition—to inquire, to engage in matters that require further inquiry.

We are the body that does inquiries. Doing inquiries for the purpose of discovering the source of leaks is what we do when leaks of legislation have occurred. To further emphasize how important this was, I am once again turning back to Bill C-36. I wonder if I could also draw the attention of members of this committee to the words spoken by Don Boudria, who at the time was the Liberal House leader. To be clear, the Liberals were in government, he was the House leader, legislation of his government had been leaked out.

He made the following comment prior to the Speaker making his ruling. He said, with respect to Bill C-36, that:

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

—he's referring to some other member who'd raised the matter—

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.

So here we have the government House leader, who has just seen a leak occur on his watch, making it very clear that he thinks it's appropriate to determine the identity of the individual.

That's the first point to be made. It is our job to find the individual. It is our job to find the individual because the privileges of the House have been breached. It is not part of that investigation to try to predetermine whether or not the leak was deliberate or unintentional. I have my own views on that subject. I've shared them with the committee in the past. This looks far too much like the kind of information that I would have included in a deliberate leak had I been in the business of deliberately leaking information. That is to say, it very neatly shaped the story that came out of the media. The focus was on the bill not going far enough as opposed to the bill going too far. That is the kind of thing one does when one is trying to engage in leaking for the purpose of redirecting conversation and shaping public discourse.

That being said, that does not, as yet, point us in any particular direction. We do know, based on the testimony we heard from one witness, the Minister of Justice, that she has firmly and absolutely.... In response to my question, when I simply asked her, “Are you the source of the leak?”, she said no. We take her at her word. I take her at her word; I thought the rest of her testimony actually indicated very clearly.... I should be careful what I say here; it indicated to me, in a way that satisfied me, in my subjective judgment.... That's a bit different from being clear, but it was subjectively satisfying to me that she was not the source of the leak.

Indeed, I think her willingness to appear here, at a time when she really is arguably the busiest person in Canada, indicated to me that she was anxious to clear her name and make a point—i.e., that whoever else is the source of this, I am not, and I don't have information as to who is; that is to say, it was not leaked by somebody else with my sign-off, active or passive.

I accept that, but that doesn't mean that the acceptance, active or passive, of other individuals was not involved. Indeed, that is the likeliest scenario. I think when we see a reluctance to allow anybody else to come forward, or indeed to explore which individuals might be responsible, be they officials or be they elected people, it indicates a desire to prevent the truth from being found.

Why would that be, Mr. Chair? Most obviously—indeed, it's the only plausible explanation I can have—it was a deliberate leak. Moreover, a search for the truth revealed that it was not a leak that can be pinned on some low-level individual. No low-level individual can be thrown under the bus and thereby end the story. When we can't find some enlisted soldier to use as a sacrificial lamb when one of the generals is implicated, we start stonewalling. That's what this looks like to me.

Now, I want to come back to a point that Mr. Chan had been making. Mr. Chan said that, well, the text of the bill was not actually leaked, that what we had instead was negative information, information about what wasn't in the bill. Therefore, previous rulings where we talk about the text ought not to be treated as being as important.

Just to be clear about this, I'm returning now to a ruling that Speaker Milliken gave on October 4, 2010. If one turns to page 4711 of the House of Commons Debates—I know we all have our copies with us right now—you'll be able to read Speaker Milliken having said: “It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider”.

I think Mr. Chan is arguing that this convention should be understood very narrowly. As long as I don't use the words in the text when I'm making my leak, if I am, say, a minister of the crown or a communications person for one of the ministers of the crown, then no real breach has occurred because under this narrow and technical construction, the actual text is still seen first in the House. If I use words that are somewhat different or if I don't have them in the correct order, as they were in the bill, then I haven't leaked the text of the bill.

This narrow and technical construction, Mr. Chairman, of course is incorrect. The law can sometimes be interpreted narrowly and technically. That is not the interpretive doctrine that the Supreme Court currently, typically, uses, either for constitutional or ordinary textual interpretation, but it has been a respectable doctrine of interpretation in the past, in certain situations where the overbroad reading of the statute could result in an act of injustice.

I'm going to loop back here for a second, so you can see the point of the distinction I'm driving at. In one famous case from the 18th century that is cited in Blackstone, Parliament passed a law indicating that the death penalty was to be applied for any rustling or theft of cattle.

In the language of the 18th century—the English language evolved, of course, as did the French language and other languages—the word “cattle” sometimes was taken in the sense that we would use it today to mean cows, bovines, but “cattle” was also meant sometimes as a term for all livestock. Faced with the situation of an individual who had stolen or poached some other animal—I think sheep, but I'm not sure—the court chose to give a narrow and technical construction to the word “cattle” and said it interpreted the word “cattle” as narrowly as it could, to mean only cows. This was a sheep. This individual would not hang.

I'm not sure what happened to that individual. They probably got transported to Australia or something lesser, but nonetheless it was perhaps not desirable.

Then Parliament passed a new law saying in this act, the word “cattle” meant all livestock, thereby making it clear that they wanted people who poached anything to be hanged.

That general practice of using narrow and technical construction for criminal law, although it has been eroded to some degree in recent decades, remains a way of dealing with situations where the law could wind up causing acts of injustice were it interpreted by using the opposite practice, which is known sometimes as “large and liberal” construction—“construction” means “interpretation”, by the way. The term the Supreme Court likes to use, “purposive” construction, that is to say we interpret this, whatever the words are, to bring fulfillment to the action that was intended.

That's the law. We're dealing here with a convention or practice. There is no such thing as a narrow construction of a convention or practice. It's all about intention. There is no looking at the letter of a convention and ignoring its spirit. It is all spirit. And interpreting the spirit of the law, or a practice or convention, inevitably means giving it a broad construction.

This gets expressed in a number of ways in House of Commons debates, particularly in rulings of the Speaker. The Speaker points out, for example, that you cannot do by the back door that which you cannot do by the front door. In the same way, if I want to address a question to the Prime Minister, I have to refer to him as “the Prime Minister”, not as “Prime Minister Trudeau” or “Mr. Trudeau”. I can call him “my honourable colleague”, “the right honourable gentleman”, and so on, as long as I don't use his name. That's the direct rule. But I can't get around it. I can't enter through the back door by saying, “Today's Globe and Mail says that Prime Minister Trudeau...”, saying that I'm quoting somebody else, so it's not me; it's them. I've tried to come through the back door when the front door was shut. I have tried to find a way of interpreting a practice narrowly, when it ought to be interpreted broadly.

All right. So now you can see the point I'm getting at. We have a practice, a convention, relating to the text not being leaked. It is a well-established practice. It applies to words that don't actually contain chunks of the text, but that have the same effect. I wanted to make that point very clearly, but I would actually go further. In regard to this talk of negative versus positive information coming out, unless the entire text of the relevant sections of Bill C-14 had been released to Laura Stone, it would have been impossible to summarize that which was being left out of the legislation, if you follow. This is all about, “Here's what the government won't be doing. Here's why people who feel very strongly that the legislation should go further ought to be upset. Here's why people who feel the legislation ought not go as far as the parliamentary committee had recommended ought to feel that the government is responding to their concerns”, which after all, is the entire communications exercise of the leak.

That can only be accomplished by indicating that which was absent from the bill. As I pointed out to the minister when she was here—and she made the same point about only negative information being contained—that actually was a greater disclosure of information. I can know only part of the government's plans and leak that positive information about what's in the bill. I could be someone who was only privy to one part of the legislation. But in order to say this or that is actually absent from the bill, I must be familiar with the entire bill, the whole of the bill.

I would make the suggestion to you that only relatively senior individuals in the government, be they people who are actually elected officials or people who serve those officials in a staff capacity, would have had access to all of this information. We haven't ascertained who those people are. It is not an infinite list. It is a finite list. It is a list the government could provide us with if we passed this motion. This is information the government would have to provide us with. And that, I suspect, is the real reason—although one should never attribute motives in this business—that the Liberal members of this committee have been instructed to try to ensure that this motion does not pass. Their goal is, of course, to make sure that the “guilty” parties—to use the term that Don Boudria, Liberal House leader, used 15 years ago—are not found.

That, of course, leaves them at liberty to do the same darned thing all over again. If the approach is going to be that when these matters come before this committee, this committee then kills them quietly, then this committee effectively ensures that contempt of Parliament can happen, and those who engage in that contempt get away scot-free.

Once that pattern has been established, once it is clear that there is no punishment for acting in contempt of Parliament in this particular manner, then they can do it all over again the next time it serves their communications goals to act in contempt of Parliament and release information in this manner or in some similar manner. That's a very worrying thing.

Mr. Chair, I now want to turn to the question of whether this was a deliberate versus an accidental leak. As you know, I've already editorialized to some degree on this. I thought I would explore in a bit more detail why this is important, and the point I'm about to make emphasizes the importance of passing this motion.

I've pointed out that the very fact that the Liberals would like to shut this down suggests that it's someone higher up. It also suggests deliberate intent. After all, if it was an accident, we would be able to determine what the accident was and we could ensure that hole was plugged. Someone could say, “Mea culpa, I'm upset”.

They might say something similar to what Don Boudria said. Let me go back and give you a bit more of what Don Boudria said in 2001, because it is striking. He admits that he is not in complete control of what's going on and is frustrated by that fact. So on October 15, 2001 Don Boudria said, and I quote:

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.

This is the part I quoted from before, but I want you to go back and look at what was said by the House leader at the time explaining how it works.

Is his role as leader of the government in the House of Commons, he does what is known as a review of the bill. At some point before it is released to the House of Commons, not way in advance, he gets to see a copy of the bill and, as is the case with Bill C-14, you're dealing with a piece of legislation that is both high profile and also urgent. It has been pulled together in a hurry.

He sees it a few days before it is released. Part of his job, which he stresses, is to make sure that nothing has been given to the media by the minister or any of her staff. The minister he's referring to is the then Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, and, of course, her staff, and he was given assurances. The House leader was then and is now in possession of the assurances of individuals that they did not leak it. Unless, of course, somebody said they did leak it.

There are several possibilities here. Either, one, the House leader Dominic LeBlanc was given assurances from everybody that no leak had occurred, and one of them lied to him; or two, he was informed by one of them, but the others wouldn't have known that in fact a leak was going to happen or had already happened—it was in the works, and so he was part of it—or three, he and his office were themselves a part of the strategy to leak the information.

I don't know which of those three scenarios is correct. I do accept vis-à-vis the Minister of Justice and her officials, unless they are working behind her back, which I suspect is not the case, that they are not the source of things. But someone is the source of things because the leak exists; the leak was there in The Globe and Mail on April 12. It was a deliberate leak, unless some kind of scenario exists that I'm having trouble imagining, and the House leader is very likely to have known about it.

The House leader should be before this committee to clarify that and, just as we did with the Minister of Justice, we would take him at his word if he says he knew nothing. We would not say, “Minister, you're lying”. We all understand that, if he were lying, that would be itself a contempt of Parliament, and the kind of contempt of Parliament that ends a career if it's ever demonstrated to be the case.

The justice minister's awareness of the severity of deliberately and overtly lying to a committee of Parliament is one of the reasons I take comfort in her words. I take very seriously her words, because she is, as we all can see, a very intelligent person who is not going to do something that stupidly self-destructive.

He should be here. He will be on the distribution list, for sure. He should be here testifying before this committee. He could go further, I believe, than any other person in bringing clarity to where and when this deliberate leak was planned, who was involved in it, and what their strategy was. I guarantee that sunlight—and they say that sunlight is the best disinfectant—will bring an end to future leaks of this sort because no one will want to go through that again. That is the reason we want to have him and other people on the list here, or at any rate to know who they are so we can figure which of those individuals should come here.

Let me make one last point about the desire of the Liberal committee members, or the Liberal whip, to vote down this motion which is critical to actually determining the provenance of this leak. As we've found with the recent matter of privilege on the Prime Minister's physical contact with the member for Berthier-Maskinongé, the committee is in a position to make a ruling and to report back to the House on contempt of Parliament, whether we believe it happened or not, and, if so, how—that is, the details—and perhaps recommendations as to how to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

We also have the ability to just say that no report is necessary. This was actually new information to me as of that meeting, and the record of my interaction with Mr. Christopherson in which I tried to determine what course of action we should have, and of my interaction with the clerk in which I tried to find out the rules in this matter, are a matter of public record.

The option of determining that there's nothing here to see not merely ends the possibility of reporting back to the House, but the possibility of dissenting opinions. It ends any investigation. As such, I would make the suggestion that it has the practical effect of giving licence, of saying to the government, “You got away with it. There was an insignificant little hearing, which produced no result and then got shut down through the simple act of the government exercising its majority to reject any new motions to bring forward witnesses.” That's all the punishment there is, so they may be able to get away with this.

I mean, the idea that a convention or practice is permanent and that it can never be eroded is incorrect. Normally the idea that conventions, whether constitutional conventions—and that's my area of specialization—usages, practices that exist in the House, are permanent and lock themselves in is actually not guaranteed. Normally, they do. Normally a convention or practice is an act of self-restraint that is not actually written down in the rules but is accepted as a norm of behaviour and is sanctioned by the overriding body, demonstrating its disapprobation. Normally these things become stricter and stronger with time. If you look at our day compared with 50 years ago, 50 years ago compared with a century ago, and a century ago compared with two centuries ago, you'll find that the conventions are becoming, on the whole, stronger.

These conventions impose restraints upon all of us to abide by the norms of civilized behaviour—or the norms of “respectful” behaviour perhaps is the right term to use—that cause us to restrain ourselves in ways that are not written down in the rules. Those norms become stronger with time, on the whole, but they can go in reverse. One of the roles of this committee ought to be to try and ensure they do not go in reverse and that we do not find ourselves chipping away at, or eroding, a convention, so that something that was not considered respectful behaviour or acceptable behaviour in the past comes to be tolerated in the present.

I would submit that if we're looking on the grand scale of things, then this erosion of self-restraint is one of the things we see happening, for example, in wartime. They always say “truth is the first victim in any war”. The need to shut down openness for strategic reasons becomes one of the victims of war even in the best and most civilized countries, and even when we are fighting for the most just of causes, as we were in the Second World War. In the midst of that war we did things that we are not proud of and that we now recognize were wrong. While I do not make an analogy here, the purpose of the analogy is simply to point out how conventions can erode. I do note that the way in which we acted toward one subgroup in our population at that time was unacceptable.

One could point to other conventions, perhaps at a more benign level, but let me make a clear example here of a constitutional convention in the United States. It was initiated by George Washington, and it developed over the decades, that no president ought to serve more than two terms in office. That was the convention that was respected by every president up to Franklin Roosevelt, who in 1940 ran for a third term because there was a crisis in the nation with an impending war. The United States was still not out of the Great Depression. Nobody thinks that Franklin Roosevelt was not a great man, but after he passed away, a decision was made and concurred with by two-thirds of the members of each of the two houses of Congress, as well as by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, that in the future no person should be able to serve as president for more than two terms, and that was put into their Constitution.

There was a minor exception made for someone who had served less than half of a previous term of a previous president. Such an individual could serve two terms plus that half term, and Lyndon Johnson considered taking advantage of that in 1968 before announcing that he would not be contesting the 1968 presidential election.

The point I'm making is that conventions can be rolled back, and that what is true with a constitutional convention is also true with a parliamentary practice.

I think what we are seeing here is an attempt on the part of the government to roll back a practice and to say that a practice that has always been understood and interpreted robustly ought to be—“ought” is the wrong term, because it implies they think this is of value—or they can get away with, if they do the right things, restricting or narrowing a practice that is respectful of the House. They can say, “As long as it's not the text, it's okay, we can get away with it”, or that, “If we get caught, then we'll just take this to committee, and we'll kill it quietly.”

We have been given the task of looking for the “guilty” party, in Don Boudria's words, and seeking out the provenance, in Speaker Milliken and Speaker Regan's words, of the leak. Their words, the Liberal's words and Mr. Chan's words, are that this isn't necessary. The Speaker says it's necessary, or recommends it to us, but they say it's not necessary. Past practice has been to take this very seriously, but meh, they say it's not necessary because of a technical argument that there was no revelation of the actual text, even though, clearly, the leak is of a greater scope than if the text had actually been leaked.

Maybe they're right. Maybe they can get away with this. That's how it happens. People drop their guard, either because they feel it's an emergency, for example, in a time of war, or as with the Anti-terrorism Act, in a time of national crisis.

Returning to that bill, Mr. Chair, I voted against that bill. I voted against it because I held a constituency referendum, similar to the one I held on Bill C-14, and the majority of my constituents said to vote against it. They told me to vote against it because it lacked a sunset clause.

We said in a time of crisis that we were willing to suspend some of our traditional civil liberties in the pursuit of terrorists, in the pursuit of those who are willing to do the kind of horrible thing that was done on September 11 and that, in another way, with another weapon, was done just last weekend in Orlando and has been done a thousand different times, a thousand different ways, in the intervening decade and a half. My goodness, those of us who lived through September 11 and those who are living through all of the subsequent horrors visited upon us—whether in London with the subway bombings, or in Paris with the nightclub attack, or in Orlando with this recent outrage against humanity, or any of the others that have slipped my mind because there are so many—can be sympathetic to that goal of saying that we have bigger fish to fry and we can set aside some of these safeguards we have put in place.

But even then, in rural, conservative, law-and-order Lanark County, a majority of people thought it was too much of a price to pay. So they instructed me to vote against that.

I voted not only against the government but also against my party. Four of us from the old Canadian Alliance broke party ranks and voted against it, along with the NDP caucus who also voted against it. I thought that was important.

There is no similar crisis driving this particular breach of the practices of the House. Don't misunderstand me. There actually was a looming deadline—now passed—on June 6, that if we did not have a new piece of legislation in place, the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code would cease to be in force and effect, and so there was an urgent deadline in that sense.

The urgent deadline having passed, we are not actually faced with the prospect of physicians euthanizing people in the streets, which some fearmongers seemed to be afraid was going to happen. But that wasn't what this leak was about. This leak wasn't about somehow assisting the government to deal with that impending crisis, real or artificial.

This was about trying to shape the debate. This was about manipulating public opinion. This was about manipulating the thoughts in peoples' heads. This was about misdirection. This was about the abuse of public discourse. This was about someone saying that he or she has a whole package of information and is going to selectively put out part of that information, going to put it out in a way so that nobody can confirm the truth or accuracy of it, going to put it out in a newspaper with national reach, going to put out this leak in a way that will get picked up by all media, going to shape this debate.

This is not information. This is misinformation. Although virtually every word in this is true, this is about misinformation.

It is striking to me, Mr. Chair, and it should be striking to any objective observer, that one of the minister's defences—and this should not be taken as being terribly serious—was that, after all, part of the leak is inaccurate. It's not correct, so that's okay as a defence. Now, I think you know my response to that. My response to that is that it would almost certainly have been a verbal leak. Laura Stone would have received an email or a phone call saying let's get together. I assume they either met somewhere or had a conversation over the phone with Laura Stone then taking notes, but she was not left with a copy of the legislation, and nobody wrote down or took dictation.

The likeliest explanation is that Laura Stone...and I could be wrong, because maybe she was and is an expert on the details of the ins and outs of assisted suicide, but even if she were, she very likely just made a slight wording error. But a minor correction to the wording makes this correct in every detail.

That is what happened, and it is most regrettable that we are being told that this is not important, that this is something we should just drop. Also, to be clear, this is something we can expect to recur in the future.

Turning now to the great poet, T.S. Elliot, do you remember he talks about how freedom dies when civilization dies, not with a bang, but with a whimper? It's a thousand little whimpers, our failing to respond vigorously. Our failing to try to keep committee meetings going when we're faced with the stone wall we see across the way here, that would be one of the whimpers. That is the reason, Mr. Chair, that we are attempting to exercise the only weapon we have on this side of the aisle, which is public opinion to try to draw attention by dragging out this debate to the fact that debate is about to be shut down; to the fact that open inquiry is about to be shut down; to the fact that silence is about to reign on how one deals with contempt of Parliament.

No one doubts that a contempt of Parliament took place. The question now is whether it's worthwhile taking the valuable time of this committee, or whatever the argument is, to look at this contempt. Matters of privilege are in fact the primary matter this committee looks at. Sometimes they're of a technical nature, sometimes they are not, but they're the primary matter and they take priority. That is a practice long established with us and written into our rules. It is done because we understand that the erosion of these privileges, a little bit at a time, and sometimes by someone who has a very high rating in the public opinion polls at that moment, nevertheless results in the stripping away of those norms of respectful behaviour that are the basis on which our success as an institution is founded.

The way you will have to deal with this in the long run, if the government gets away with this, is that at some point in the future you will have to take your norm of appropriate behaviour and write it into the rules. It's a hard thing to do because once you switch something from being a norm to being the black letter of the rules, it becomes highly mechanistic—a matter that we are all aware of—and something that we're dealing with consensually in the MP code of conduct with regard to issues like gifts and so on. An attempt was made there to put something into a formalized code. The need to be punctilious in our respect for every detail of that code has created its own set of problems. But that is how you deal with it when you can no longer rely on the usages, the conventions, and the practices to provide guidance.

I didn't want to take up all the committee's time. I merely wanted to lay out the arguments. I thought it would be best to be as fulsome as possible.

Perhaps with that, Mr. Chair, I can terminate my remarks. I look forward to the contributions others may have to this discussion.

Thank you.

[Andre Barnes]

Yes. Precisely.

Two similar questions of privilege arose, both of them in 2001: one in the spring of 2001, one in the fall of 2001. I can give a brief summary of the matters, the rulings, and how the committee dealt with those particular cases of privilege.

In spring of 2001 the member from Provencher rose on a question of privilege regarding a departmental briefing on a justice bill. The department was going to give a confidential briefing to members of the press only, which is contrary to the practice of members being invited to these lock-ups. The bill had not been introduced at the time but was on notice. The other issue was that the lock-up that was supposed to occur did not occur, and that members of the media left the confidential lock-up and began phoning the member from Provencher to ask him about his opinion on a bill that he had not been briefed on and had not seen.

The Speaker ruled that this was a prima facie contempt of the House, and stated that once a bill is placed on notice, confidentiality about its contents was necessary—as I spoke about before—because of the pre-eminent role “which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation”. The Speaker further stated that, “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”.

That matter was referred to a predecessor version of procedure and House affairs. The committee held four meetings on the matter. For witnesses, the committee heard from the member who raised the question of privilege, the minister who sponsored the bill, and departmental officials about departmental policies regarding pre-introduction of bills. The committee also heard from the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk of the House regarding the House's processes for government bills prior to introduction, and it heard from a representative of PCO concerning policies regarding the preparation and introduction of government bills.

The committee did report back to the House on the matter. The report concluded that a breach of privilege had occurred, but did not recommend any sanctions because the minister had apologized for the incident and had taken corrective actions. The committee did have one main recommendation, and that was that all government departments follow the lead of the Department of Justice and adopt a standard policy that no briefings or briefing materials be provided with respect to a bill on notice until it is introduced in the House, with the notable exception of the lock-down held for the budget and other major parliamentary announcements. The committee also requested that by the fall, the Privy Council Office table, through a minister, revised guidelines on dealing with bills prior to their introduction.

That is the case that occurred in the spring.

There was later a case in the fall, which was fairly similar to the one that occurred recently. Notice was given for Bill C-36, an anti-terrorism act. Notice was given on Friday. The bill was introduced on Monday. On Saturday, an article that mentioned the contents of the bill appeared in the National Post. The Speaker ruled that this, again, constituted a prima facie breach of privilege of the House, and noted that this was very similar to the incident that had occurred in the spring.

Again the matter was referred to this committee. For witnesses, the committee heard from the member who raised the question of privilege, the minister sponsoring the bill, departmental officials about the preparation of the bill, and representatives from the Privy Council Office concerning the process and policies regarding the preparation and introduction of government bills and security reviews of information leaks. In the report, the committee concluded that, based on the available evidence, it could not find that a contempt had been committed.

The PCO hired Deloitte &Touche to do a study to find out who had committed the leak, and they interviewed some several hundred staff members to find out who had, in fact, spoken with reporters. Nine admitted to speaking to reporters but indicated that they had not divulged any confidential material to the reporters.

The report did note that the official from the Privy Council Office had indicated that for the most part the details that were divulged in the National Post article were public information, with the exception of a few bits of information.

When the committee decided that no contempt had occurred, the members of the opposition did add a dissenting opinion to the report, and the basis of it was those few pieces of information that could potentially have been confidential, but there was no way to know, and the staff at the department at the time had said that they had not divulged any confidential information. They concluded that it might have been journalistic speculation that allowed the journalist to come up with those few missing pieces of information.

Those are the two most relevant cases of privilege similar to the one that was ruled on most recently.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the debate yesterday and today and one speech in particular caught my ear, and that was the debate brought forward by my colleague, the member for York South—Weston. He had a really good story in his speech and I want to pick up on that.

My colleague for York South—Weston was talking a lot about the recognizance with conditions, or preventative arrest powers. This provision is really problematic. We know now that it is even more problematic than we thought because of some things that happened at committee when this section was being explored.

On recognizance with conditions, or preventative arrest, we have section 83.3 of the Criminal Code. However, Bill S-7 tries to prevent terrorist acts, which is a laudable goal, but the question is: Would that section of the act actually meet that goal?

The bill would allow for someone to be arrested because the police believe the arrest necessary to prevent a terrorist attack, which makes good sense to me. However, we had some problems with the way this section was worded because it could be read to mean that someone could be arrested who is not actually a suspect. Perhaps we do not believe that the person is going to carry out the terrorist attack but might know someone who is going to carry out the terrorist attack. It is written in an overly broad way.

The NDP raised this at committee only to hear from the government side that in fact that was the intention. It is not just there to sort of scoop up the person who is actually the suspect but it is to scoop up other people as well, which is way too broad. It is far too broad and that should not be the intention of any anti-terrorist legislation. I do not think it strikes a balance when we look at what our fundamental rights are.

However, the reason I liked the speech of my colleague for York South—Weston is that he used an example of someone in our community, and I will do something similar.

My home town is Kirkland Lake, Ontario and I represent the riding of Halifax. If there was someone in Halifax, originally from Kirkland Lake, whom the authorities suspect may commit a terrorist act, the authorities could go to Kirkland Lake and arrest the suspect's mom. They could say, “This is your kid and we want to interrogate you”. People can actually be interrogated under this bill. Therefore, mom could be arrested in Kirkland Lake, Ontario. She may or may not know anything about what is going on down in Halifax with her daughter, for example.

Furthermore, arrest is serious. My colleague for Winnipeg North was talking about wiretapping, which is also a serious breach of rights. However, that is different than arrest. It is different than arresting someone, putting them in jail, and hauling them before a judge.

So mom is arrested, interrogated, and asked what is going on. She appears before a judge, and the judge can set conditions, which is the recognizance with conditions. The judge can set conditions on her release, and the conditions might be that she cannot have a firearm.

Where I grew up, there were a lot of firearms in my house. We are a family that hunts and that was how we made ends meet when I was growing up. We could not tell my mom or step-dad that they could not do that. We very truly relied on that meat, especially in the winter months.

If mom says no, she is not willing to give up her firearms, she could be put in jail, which is beyond the pale. Surely to goodness that is not the intent here. For example, we are not looking to put my mom in Kirkland Lake, Ontario, in jail for something that she may or may not even have any knowledge of. Therefore, the idea of preventative detention really does go beyond the pale. I do not think it is something we should be supporting.

It does not strike that balance in combatting terrorism along with supporting our fundamental rights, freedoms, and liberties. I do not think it can be supported by saying that we might need this, that exceptional times call for exceptional measures. If we look back, this provision has never been used.

I want to talk a little about that, and about this idea of the sunset clause. When this bill was first introduced in its very first form to make the changes to the Criminal Code, the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001, it was Bill C-36. I will never forget that number. I was a first-year law student. September 2001, when I started law school, is when we saw the terrorist attacks in New York. I watched them happen from the student lounge on my way to property law.

This bill was introduced as a response to that, to make sure of lots of things, including to make sure we were up to international standards when it came to anti-terrorism law. As a first-year law student, I did not have very much experience doing legal analysis. A lot of what was happening around Bill C-36 was beyond me, but I was really concerned with it.

My fellow students were as well. We talked about it in the criminal law class. We talked about it ad nauseam with our professor. We had guest speakers come in and discuss it. I was a member of SALSA, the Social Activist Law Student Association. We organized a panel discussion, sort of breaking down Bill C-36, what it could mean, what might violate the charter and what might not, and how this worked within the greater context of what we are trying to achieve here, that balance of our rights and our safety.

There was a lot of unease around a number of provisions. Different experts were coming forward and saying that they were not sure if it struck a balance and that they could not really predict what was going to happen in the future. This was an attack that we were unprepared for, and we did not know how to respond. It was hard to know if these measures went too far or not.

It felt like the measures went too far, but the saving grace, I remember, was the fact that there were these sunset clauses. If a jurist, an expert, a law professor, whoever was there, had a level of discomfort about these provisions, he or she said, “at least there is a sunset provision”.

The sunset clause sort of lays out when a provision in legislation or a contract will expire, and usually the terms by which it will expire. It is kind of like an expiry date. After three years or five years we actually have to revisit this piece and decide whether or not it is working, whether or not it has struck that balance. Sunset clauses are often used for controversial subjects, where we need to think about how the world is changing, and how legislation is changing to adapt to that changing world. They can be really useful.

On the question of balance, maybe Bill C-36 was a bit of a cop-out. Maybe people were too afraid to say no to some of these provisions. I do not know. I was not there. I was not particularly skilled at legal analysis at that point. However, that sunset provision existed for a reason.

We go back to looking at why we are here today, and we are here because of those sunset provisions. We have to look at these clauses again and again. We have to make that assessment about whether or not we should continue them, whether or not they have outlived their purpose, whether or not they have in fact crossed the line and gone too far.

I would argue that they have crossed the line and gone too far in something like the section on recognizance conditions. Why? Because it violates our rights, our fundamental rights, our liberties, and it has never been used. I could maybe see if we had the big success case of why this has been so important, why it has worked, or if the Conservatives could demonstrate to us that this is a violation of our fundamental freedoms but it is in some way balanced out because it has worked in some way. It has not.

These provisions have not even been used. What we are doing is we are opening that door. We are wedging it open, and we are allowing more infringement of the state on our lives, heading down towards that police state where the police have these incredible powers of saying, “Okay, mom, in Kirkland Lake, Ontario, we are going to put you in jail. We are going to put you before a judge, and you have to hand over all your firearms.”

That balance has not been struck here and we do need to vote against this legislation without making these changes.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7 is the latest chapter in a long saga that began in the wake of September 11 and led to a number of legislative measures. Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act passed in 2001, was the first salvo launched following the horrific events in New York which still strike fear in people today.

Obviously, the legislation was brought in not only to respond to this threat and to protect Canadians, but also to meet our international obligations, as dictated at high levels, to the UN.

Some of the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act amended existing pieces of legislation such as the Criminal Code, the Access to Information Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorism Financing Act.

Other more significant changes were brought in, notably unprecedented changes to Canadian law. Those who were serving in the House at the time of the 2001 attacks perhaps can attest to the fact that this legislation was passed hastily and without due consideration.

Facing the unknown and a climate of dread, Parliament responded in a strong-armed, reflexive manner. There is a reason therefore why these provisions, crafted in the urgency of the moment, were subject to sunset clauses.

These so-called sunset clauses ensured that the more controversial measures would simply be temporary. That was for the better. The provisions in question pertained to preventive arrest and investigative hearings.

Had the desire arose to extend the life of these provisions, had they been deemed useful or relevant or had it been acknowledged that they had prevented an otherwise inevitable catastrophe from occurring, there would have been an opportunity to maintain them and make them permanent.

To do so would have required a resolution by both Houses of Parliament. A resolution was in fact tabled and rejected. Parliamentarians in their wisdom found that there was no valid reason to extend the life of these provisions.

Both Houses did their homework as far as these measures were concerned. Each one examined the most sensitive provisions of the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act. In October 2006, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security reviewed the legislation, most notably the investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions provisions. The other place produced an aptly named report entitled “Fundamental Justice in Extraordinary Times”.

Despite this flurry of activity, these questionable, freedom-destroying and fortunately temporary provisions expired as originally scheduled in 2007.

Since then, several attempts have been made to resurrect this long-settled debate: Bill S-3 in 2008, Bill C-19 in 2009 and Bill C-17 in 2010.

Each time, the same conclusion has been reached: the state currently has all the tools it needs to combat terrorism.

There was no reason to bring in these measures, even in 2001, and there is no reason to re-introduce them today.

The measures being debated today are not harmless. Among other things, Bill S-7 would re-introduce into Canadian law the phenomenon of investigative hearings that allow a peace officer to apply to a provincial court judge for an order to compel individuals to appear before a judge if they are suspected of having information concerning future terrorist acts. The provision would compel the individual to attend hearings and to answer investigators’ questions.

Another important measure that is being brought hastily before the House is the recognizance with conditions provision which includes preventive detention. It would give a peace officer the authority to arrest an individual without a warrant if he believes such action is necessary to prevent a terrorist act. The individual in question is subsequently brought before a judge, as soon as feasible, according to the wording of the bill, and may be imposed certain conditions, or may even be committed to prison for a term not exceeding 12 months.

From a human rights standpoint, these provisions are very restrictive. One could also argue that they are cause for great concern and that careful consideration should be given to the balance that must be struck between the real advantage they provide in terms of public safety and the cost to citizens, which undeniably in this instance is restrictions on a person’s fundamental rights. Admittedly, at issue are the rights of the individuals primarily concerned, but ultimately the rights of all citizens are affected as well.

Dramatist Henry Becque wrote that freedom and health have much in common and that we only appreciate their value when they are lost to us.

I am greatly concerned about the timing of today’s debate, about the fact that the government has chosen to move it up in light of what has happened. As noted earlier, the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act was passed hastily and this is not how debates on national legislation should unfold.

Today it would seem that an attempt is being made to recreate the same climate of fear and panic in order to hastily push through a bill that has serious implications for people’s freedoms.

It goes without saying that the people in my riding, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, want to live in safety. However, they also believe very strongly in the rights that belong to every individual. Many of them are going to wonder whether this is the right time to be debating the measures in Bill S-7, when people are recovering from the horrific, cruel and gratuitous attacks that took place last week at the Boston marathon.

We do not need any added emotion for debating this bill. What we need is some distance, some reflection, and some calm and considered thought.

To me, there is nothing wise about the government precipitating this debate. I stress the word “wise”.

Is it really wise, the day after attacks like that, and with what we have in the news here in Canada, to be rewriting our laws and redefining our fundamental freedoms?

Perhaps it is the usual opportunism we see from this government, in its typical crudeness and poor taste.

We on this side firmly believe that this bill is contrary to the fundamental values of Canadians and the values on which our judicial system is built.

The unambiguous and unvarnished goal of these measures is to limit the civil liberties and fundamental rights of Canadians.

Those rights include basic elements of our judicial system that we take for granted: the right to remain silent, the right to a fair trial and the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The principles of our law, whose origin lies in centuries-old customs and legal traditions, lay out individual rights that are unwavering.

While the draft we are presented with today includes a few sops that are supposed to reassure us, because they are in the form of additional protections, these proposals are very unconvincing overall.

We also oppose these measures simply on their track record: these methods are ineffective in principle.

Ultimately, we firmly believe the Criminal Code is an entirely satisfactory tool for investigating these suspicious people who engage in shady plans or whose goal is to threaten the public. Those are crimes and that is what the Criminal Code is intended for.

In fact, the provisions drawn up in 2001, which had a “sunset clause” that took effect in 2007, were never used. Those measures made people uncomfortable from the outset, in 2001, because they were inimical to liberty.

In 2010, a former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Reid Morden, said, on the question of the two measures I referred to earlier:

...I confess I never thought that they should have been introduced in the first place...

He raised the idea that these provisions had slipped into the act almost by mistake.

...and that they slipped in, in the kind of scrambling around that the government did after 9/11...It seemed to me that it turned our judicial system somewhat on its head.

He then stressed that law enforcement agencies already have the powers they need to do their job. They do not need additional powers. He concluded by saying:

I guess l'm sorry to hear that the government has decided to reintroduce them.

It appears that these measures caused misgivings among the forces of law and order, who wisely decided not to use these powers in their investigations.

Can someone really explain why these measures would be useful today, when they were not useful in the months following September 11, and that even the people who could have enforced them did not want to?

Finally, when some rights are under threat, all rights are under threat. Under the provisions of this bill, there is not much to ensure that citizens or anyone will not be falsely accused in the future for activities that have nothing to do with terrorism. Some activities may be considered subversive or dissident—slippery words that can be applied to peaceful activities in a democratic context.

Those who defend fundamental human rights are speaking up from all sides, telling us that these measures are unnecessary and that the price to be paid will be paid in civil rights, which is not a fair exchange for the proposed benefits. These measures are unwanted and unnecessary.

We saw this a few years ago when threats of spectacular terrorist attacks were foiled. We saw it again yesterday, when the admirable public safety professionals arrested two suspects who, it appears, wanted to disrupt the lives of ordinary people and do them unimaginable harm.

At this moment in time when terrorism has become part of current events, it is essential that we resist. We must resist terrorism in order to protect ourselves, prepare ourselves and defend ourselves. We must make our trains, airports, public spaces and gathering places safe and secure.

It is also essential that we, as a society, as communities and individuals, refuse to be terrorized by terrorism, and refuse to be manipulated or to change our behaviour and lifestyles. That is precisely what we should not do.

We must not be terrified by terrorism. To stand up to terrorism is to ensure that democracy and individual liberties for everyone in our country are never threatened by such people and their violence.

Since I have only a few seconds left, I just wish to express my astonishment at the Liberal Party's inconsistency. In 2001, the Liberals adopted the sunset clauses, but today they are not proposing any amendments of the sort. I cannot explain that.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that we were all outraged and shocked by the events that happened in Boston, and we offer our heartfelt sympathy to the families.

In our democratic societies, we cannot tolerate the use of violence for political ends, whatever they may be, and we strongly condemn it.

After the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the American and Canadian governments panicked and decided to put a set of measures in place quickly to enhance the fight against terrorism. One of those measures was Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act. Some clauses in that act were enacted temporarily—they were applied for an initial five-year period to see whether they were necessary and effective. Today we are seeing an attempt, in Bill S-7, to incorporate those clauses into the act on a permanent basis.

When I read the brief on Bill S-7 by Denis Barrette of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, I was struck by his comments on preventive detention. That term brings back painful memories of the October crisis of 1970. In Quebec, we have experienced terrorism. I remember the military barracks that were blown up. I remember the death of a sergeant, the bomb at the Montreal Stock Exchange and bombs in mailboxes. The governments of the day decided to suspend civil liberties and, rightly or wrongly, to invoke the War Measures Act. I was young at the time. I was 14 years old and going to high school.

In my neighbourhood of bungalows, we watched as 40 soldiers, armed to the teeth, got out of their vehicles. They went around to the houses knocking on doors to talk to us about things we knew nothing about. They asked us whether we knew people connected with the Front de libération du Québec. They had composite drawings. At that time, we did not have the photographs and all the digital equipment we have today. The soldiers showed us composite drawings of bearded men with long hair who might have looked like our neighbours. They asked us whether we knew those people or had seen them. They went to the home of my neighbour, who had a beard and long hair, and they took him away. He looked like the person in the composite drawing. Did he have connections with the FLQ? No one knew. The people in my neighbourhood knew the guy because he worked in a café. Young people went there and I imagine they may have smoked some substances that were illegal at the time, but to our knowledge he was not a terrorist, and it turns out that in fact he was not one.

When the War Measures Act was declared, the authorities carried out 36,000 searches without warrant and arrested 457 people. They called that "preventive arrest". That is just what we find in the bill before us now. When a government panics, it makes preventive arrests. When I read in the notes that preventive arrests would be possible, I decided that we must maintain our current laws, because the police have enough laws at their disposal. Yesterday we saw the arrest of two suspected terrorists, Jaser and Esseghaier. There was no need to make preventive arrests, take people into police custody and interrogate them, wait for their responses and put them in prison if they did not live up to police expectations. We went through such a period of preventive arrests in Quebec and where did it get us?

How many of the 457 people who were “preventively” arrested were charged with belonging to a terrorist movement? One may well ask. The Keable commission investigated. There were some answers. There was the MacDonald commission, which was blocked by the Supreme Court of Canada, because provincial commissions are not entitled to investigate the activities of the RCMP.

Some day, perhaps, when all the documents have been made public, we will know all the facts about this dark period in Canadian history and Quebec history. For now, we know that the suppression of civil liberties during that time was unjustified and produced nothing. Many people still claim even today that when the War Measures Act was declared, the police already knew where the kidnappers of James Cross and Pierre Laporte were. That is our basis for holding on to the laws that make it impossible for someone to be arrested without knowing why, that ensure that anyone arrested has the right to remain silent and be represented by counsel, and that ensure that the force of the state should never be used to compel individuals to testify against themselves.

In conclusion, I will read from the statement made by Mr. Barrette when he appeared at the committee I mentioned earlier. I will read it completely, for the people watching us and for those who still believe it is necessary to maintain civil liberties despite increasing terrorism. In fact, terrorism sometimes makes us forget our fundamental principles that make us want to live in a free and democratic society. Terrorism has achieved its goal when it succeeds in limiting our civil liberties, because that is its goal.

The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and the Ligue des droits et libertés believe the provisions relating to investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions to be both dangerous and misleading.

Parliamentary debate of this matter ought to be based on a rational and informed review of the Anti-terrorism Act, a piece of legislation that was rushed through Parliament after the events of September 11, 2001 in a climate of fear and in response to considerable pressure from the United States.

Today, what is the real, objective need for these two provisions? From the time they were adopted in 2001 until they were terminated in 2007, the only time they were used was in connection with the Air India affair, which as we know, resulted in an unfortunate fiasco. In 2007 and now, police have been able to investigate and block terrorist plots without using the provisions being discussed. That is clear. It is possible to prevent terrorist attacks using the legal tools we already have. There is no need to further limit individual and collective rights.

Moreover, since 2001, 10 years ago, of all the investigations leading to charges or convictions, none has required the use of these extraordinary powers, including the case of the Toronto 18, a more recent case involving four people from the Toronto area, and even yesterday, the case involving the two people who planned to derail a VIA Rail train. We know that these provisions could be used in a way we consider abusive. I am thinking of the Air India case. We believe that Canadians will be better served and protected if the ordinary provisions of the Criminal Code are used, rather than these unnecessary provisions.

Reliance on arbitrary powers and a lower standard of evidence can never replace good, effective police work. That goes without saying.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the matter of Bill S-7, legislation that proposes a number of amendments to Canada's anti-terrorism regime, including provisions respecting the re-enactment of preventive arrests and investigative hearings. As members will know, these provisions expired in 2007 and have, on numerous occasions, been the subject of my remarks in the House and in writings of mine over the years, dating back to the tabling of the original Anti-terrorism Act, Bill C-36 in 2001.

It perhaps goes without saying that this debate began in the period following the horrific events of 9/11, which was characterized at the time as a period when the whole world was changed. Back then the Liberal government of the day introduced provisions for preventive arrests and investigative hearings as components of the larger Anti-terrorism Act. Soon after Bill C-36 in the House in its original form was tabled, I rose in the House and expressed some 10 civil libertarian concerns with respect to that projected draft of the Anti-terrorism Act, including the provisions relating to preventive detention and investigative hearings. I elaborated on these matters in a series of articles and recommended that the provisions be sunsetted after three years, later extended to five years, pending comprehensive parliamentary review, and the government agreed. With that as well as the majority of my other concerns being addressed, some eight out of the ten, I ended up supporting the legislation.

Regrettably, by 2007, when the provisions were scheduled to sunset pending a parliamentary motion to extend them, the House and special Senate committees had not yet completed their studies of the Anti-terrorism Act due to repeated delays including the dissolution of Parliament in 2004 and 2006. Nevertheless, the Conservative government went ahead with proposing the extension of the provisions without taking the views of these parliamentary committees into account, leaving House members with little insight into the experience of the provisions in effect. The result was a highly politicized and partisan debate, rife with what I could only describe at the time as bumper-sticker slogans and smears instead of a debate on the merits of the policy, a policy with which reasonable people can and do reasonably disagree. Indeed, I regretted the references made by ministers of the Crown at the time that somehow our party was soft on terrorism for simply wanting to debate these provisions, especially considering that it was a Liberal government that introduced the Anti-terrorism Act in the first place.

With Bill S-7 now stipulating that preventive arrest and investigative hearings be once again subject to a five-year sunset clause, I offer my support today with the expectation that if enacted, parliamentary committees will be given the opportunity and resources necessary to undertake full review of the provisions in question during the next trial period and well in advance of any debate to extend it once again. Indeed, any decision made by Parliament that affects the security and rights of all Canadians must be reasoned, thoughtful, evidence-based and not rushed as a matter of political expediency.

The critical issue here is one of principled balance. We must, on the one hand, seek to combat terrorism and keep Canadians safe from terrorist threats and attacks, while at the same time protecting our individual freedoms as enshrined in the charter. These are not, however, mutually exclusive objectives. Indeed, an appropriate and effective anti-terrorism strategy must view security and rights not as concepts in conflict, not as a zero sum game, but as values that are inextricably linked.

Let me articulate a number of basic principles in this regard. First, terrorism itself must be seen as being, in effect, an assault on the security of a democracy like Canada and an assault on our fundamental rights such as the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Accordingly, anti-terrorism law and policy may be said to constitute the promotion and protection of the security of democracy and fundamental human rights in the most profound sense. At the same time, however, the implementation and enforcement of such anti-terrorism law must always comport with the rule of law, must always adhere to the principles of the charter. Torture, for example, must never be allowed to be used and must always comport as well with our international legal obligations.

The second and related principle is that we are not simply talking here about a domestic criminal justice model. We are talking about is an international criminal justice model. We are not talking, as the courts and others have said, of the ordinary criminal. We are talking about the transnational terrorist threat.

This brings me to a third principle, which the Supreme Court has itself enunciated, namely the contextual principle; that we cannot view these issues in the abstract but we must view them in terms of the realities as they have unfolded in this regard. Also, we must appreciate that Canadian anti-terrorism law is inextricably bound with the international criminal justice system and the invocation and application of international law treaties, the invocation of general principles of law recognized by the community of nations. For example, section 11(g) of the charter on this point says that retroactivity shall not avail when the crimes are those that run afoul of “the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations”. Therefore, in this regard, it recognizes that the international criminal justice model departs sometimes from the domestic model.

UN Security mandates must also be taken into account, bilateral and multilateral agreements and so forth. In particular, Security Council resolution 1373, enacted following 9/11, mandates that all states take “additional measures to prevent and suppress, in their territories through all lawful means, the financing and preparation of any acts of terrorism”. These standards must be met by our anti-terrorism legislation, if for no other reason than that we cannot have the appropriate or factual understanding of the dynamics involved in our domestic counterterrorism measures if we view them in a vacuum, if we view them as abstracted from the global circumstances and precedents or if we view them, as the Supreme Court has said, out of context without resort to an appreciation of the contextual principle.

However, beyond the abstract in that regard, let us be clear. The threat of transnational terrorism is real and Canada is not unaffected by it, as the recent events, whether they be in Boston or the aborted terrorist attack now in Canada, indicate. Indeed, Canadians have been implicated in terrorist attacks abroad as recently as last month in Algeria, last year in Bulgaria and just two days ago with regard to an arrest in Bulgaria. This is precisely why Bill S-7 also makes it a crime to leave or attempt to leave Canada to participate in terrorist activities. Moreover, Canadians have been killed in terrorist attacks, tragically in the case of 9/11 but also thereafter.

Accordingly, our commitment to civil liberties must always be consistent with regard to the protection of human rights as a whole, and we must take the necessary concrete and decisive actions to prevent terrorist attacks. In the words of two former Supreme Court justices, the Hon. Frank Iacobucci and the Hon. Louise Arbour, who also spent several years as the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, the Constitution is not a suicide pact and “[t]he challenge for democracies in the battle against terrorism is not whether to respond, but rather how to do so”.

Preventive arrests and investigative hearings can be effective, limited and lawful counterterrorism measures. Indeed, the Supreme Court, in the matter of investigative hearings has held them to be constitutional, stating that they do not violate an individual's charter rights against self-incrimination, as evidence derived from such hearings cannot be used against the person except in perjury prosecutions. Moreover, the provisions are not otherwise unknown in Canadian law, and similar provisions already exist in the Coroners Act and the Inquiries Act, and I can go on.

In the matter of preventive arrests, these too are not a new invocation of principle and policy. Preventive arrests are effectively the invocation of a peace bond process set forth in section 810 of the Criminal Code, which has been used to protect against criminal violence such as domestic violence, sexual violence and organized crime, and now extends them to suspected terrorist activities.

In addition, preventive arrests and investigative hearings as set forth in Bill S-7 seek to respect Canadians' individual and collective rights through safeguards and principles of transparency. In this regard, it is important to appreciate that there are three safeguards in the bill, and I was involved with respect to the initiation of these safeguards. Reference has been made to the safeguards, and we must appreciate that there is an executive requirement for the consent of the Attorney General and therefore objective oversight in that regard. With parliamentary oversight and the requirements for annual reports from both federal ministers concerned and with Bill S-7, they must not only detail how often the provisions are used, but also make a case for why they should be extended.

Furthermore, there is judicial oversight with respect to investigative hearings, and in the event of an arrest, the individual must be brought before a judge, typically within 24 hours, contrasting with the situation that is in the United States or with the situation in the United Kingdom and the like.

Notwithstanding these safeguards, I understand why some members, maybe even from all parties, remain uncomfortable with the proposed measures. They are indeed extraordinary provisions, though extraordinary provisions to combat extraordinary threats.

I do not, however, share the view offered by some in the House that because the provisions, and we heard this again in debate, were seldom used, in effect they are somehow unnecessary now. In fact, their lack of use can equally demonstrate that they are not abused, that they are truly measures of last—

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the issues raised by Bill S-7. However, I would first like to offer my condolences to the families of the Boston Marathon victims and express my support for this extraordinarily resilient community.

Terrorism is a horrible thing, and we need a responsible approach to combat it without losing what defines us as a society. When Osama bin Laden launched the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, he said that he wanted the North American way of life to disappear forever.

Since those attacks, Western countries have lost a little bit of their candour, and we have had to face our own limitations. At the centre of the lifestyle we share with our American neighbours is the rule of law and the civil liberties enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These social markers are at the heart of Canadian identity, and we must protect them as our most precious treasure, because if we willingly abandon our fundamental rights, then what is the point of combatting terrorism?

This is the main question behind my opposition to Bill S-7. In my opinion, this bill is ineffective and pointless in the fight against terrorism and it directly threatens my constituents' freedom.

We all know that Bill C-36 was rushed through in 2001 following the attacks on New York, which made a deep impression on our minds. Who does not remember those events, even 12 years later? Yet very few people remember Bill C-42, which allowed the government to declare temporary military zones in which fundamental freedoms were suspended. This millennium opened with a new interpretation of our most fundamental freedoms.

Why this aside when talking about Bill S-7? It is simply to show the House the risks of passing a bill such as this one in a time of emotional distress.

What happened in Boston has had an effect on all of us, but if Bill S-7 was so urgent, why did the Conservatives wait until now to introduce it? If I did not trust in the good faith of the members opposite, I would be tempted to say that they are trying to use this tragedy to conclude the debate on Bill S-7 so that they never have to hear about freedom of expression within their own caucus again.

Among other things, Bill S-7 would reinstate sunset provisions contained in Bill C-36, which expired in 2011. That is the case for recognizance powers, which the government is trying to put back on the table for no apparent reason. Other provisions, such as investigative hearings, are cause for concern.

The fact that these provisions were not applied between 2001 and 2007 does not seem to be of great concern to this government. Moreover, with respect to recognizance powers, the Conservatives insisted at report stage that this provision apply to individuals who are not suspected of conducting terrorist activities.

In summary, with Bill C-36, we introduced the idea of preventive detention and provisional judgments grounded in mere suspicion. Is there anyone here who wants to be the object of such suspicion? Bill S-7 goes even further. It reintroduces a sunset clause for an obvious purpose and, moreover, it tries to apply the provision to people who are not even suspected of being terrorists. It is not a mistake: the broad scope of the provision is intentional.

What are we doing? Are we going to put people in jail on the grounds of a suspected suspicion? I am sorry, but that is not the democracy in which I want my grandchildren to grow up. Suspending an individual's freedom because of a suspicion is very arbitrary. No longer requiring this suspicion would be utter madness. Furthermore, this provision could result in 12 months of preventive detention, 12 months of imprisonment without a conviction. What has happened to Canada?

The reading of Bill S-7 raises questions for me that I must ask. If the government wants to extend an anti-terrorist provision not only to terrorists, but also to those suspected of terrorism and, basically, everyone in general, where is this all leading to?

Anti-terrorism legislation like this is not worthy of a state governed by the rule of law. It is not actually used anyway, and our Criminal Code has up to now proved to be adequate for tracking down terrorists. With this type of legislation, we are opening the door to broader applications, which we are already seeing in Bill S-7.

Earlier, I was talking about Bill C-36 and Bill C-42. They have not been useful in protecting Canada from terrorism. The behaviour of our forces of law and order deteriorated as a result.

If memory serves, Bill C-42 was used when the government declared the community of Kananaskis to be under military jurisdiction for a G8 economic meeting in 2002. Who were the terrorists? Al-Qaeda, or the global justice movement? Bill C-36 may not have been able to defend the country, but it sure got the authorities all worked up in 2010 during the notorious “Torontonamo”, when the city centre was locked down and $1 billion was spent on security for a simple G8 meeting on the economy. The result was 1,000 Canadians imprisoned and convicted with no evidence, and civil liberties taken away, first inside the security perimeter, then around it, and finally all over the city.

If the authorities feel that they can act like that at a simple demonstration about the economy, what will they do in other situations? I firmly believe that anti-terrorist laws give quite the wrong message to our forces of law and order. “Torontonamo” was strongly criticized in official government reports, but the harm was done. How many other accidents like that are we going to have to deal with before we realize that anti-terrorist legislation can become “anti-Canadian” legislation?

If the Conservative government really wanted to improve security in Canada, why did it cut the budget of our border intelligence unit by half? Why did it end a program designed to recruit more police officers in our communities, and why did it abolish the position of Inspector General of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service?

Furthermore, the NDP proposed a number of amendments that would have made Bill S-7, if not satisfactory, at least tolerable. But the Conservatives rejected all of our amendments. So we have to learn to live with investigative hearings, a technique worthy of medieval witch hunts, that could well pervert our justice system. Rather than confronting the potential threats hanging over our country, the Conservatives seem to be more interested in using them to significantly change the nature of justice in this country.

In my opinion, Bill S-7 is poorly designed and does not add anything substantial to the Criminal Code, other than the potential for misuse and abuse that we will all regret one day. Bill S-7 should be examined much more carefully before it is passed, since the issues this bill raises are much too important to be left to the whim of the government in power.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today in the House to speak against Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. The genealogy of Bill S-7 takes us back to Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, which was tabled by the Liberal government in 2001. The original intent of the Anti-terrorism Act was to provide the Canadian legislative response to the events of September 11, 2001, 9/11 as we now know it.

There is no question that day should not and indeed cannot be forgotten. The images of passenger planes flying into those iconic towers repeat themselves over and over again in news, television and film, and undoubtedly in the mind as the memories of the many who were personally impacted by that act of terror.

I note with sadness that my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and his partner have such memories to bear.

As these images repeat themselves, we witness the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocents, including 24 Canadians over and over again. That day we awoke to a new kind of threat and a new level of threat. Most importantly, we awoke to a new and profound sense of vulnerability, so we responded.

Several provisions of Bill C-36 became permanently enshrined in other legislation such as the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act, the Criminal Code and the Access to Information Act. However, several parts of the Anti-terrorism Act had sunset clauses expiring in February 2007. These provisions concerned investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions or preventive arrest provisions.

These measures were largely without precedence in Canadian law and for good reason. We believe that these provisions run contrary to fundamental principles, rights and liberties enshrined in Canadian law. The rights and liberties violated include the right to remain silent and the right not to be imprisoned without first having a fair trial. We believe that these are important restrictions on the authority of the state because in their absence there is not sufficient protection of an individual's freedom.

As per the terms of the Anti-terrorism Act, these provisions, in order to be extended, had to be adopted by way of resolution by both Houses of Parliament. However, the resolution was defeated soundly, 159:124 in this House, and these controversial provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act sunsetted.

We know that the efforts did not end there. Similar bills were proposed in 2008, 2009 and 2010 in the forms of Bill S-3, Bill C-19 and Bill C-17 respectively. It seems this is an annual, or almost annual rite. Now they are back.

Time has passed in the interim, a decade roughly since Bill C-36 was brought before the House, and time has been instructive. Since the passage of the Anti-terrorism Act, the recognizance with conditions or preventive arrest provision has never been used. The investigative hearing provision has been used once in the Air India case. Many consider that exercise to have had no positive effect, in fact quite the opposite.

Paul Copeland, a highly experienced and respected lawyer representing the Law Union of Ontario, speaking about this sole experience with the investigative hearing provision, said to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in 2010 that the Law Union characterized this episode “as a fiasco, and I think that's an appropriate description”. He went on to say about all the provisions examined:

The provisions you are looking at here, in my submission, change the Canadian legal landscape.... They should not be passed, and in my view they are not needed. There are other provisions of the code that allow for various ways of dealing with these people.

This seems to be the nub of the issue. Without such extreme provisions, without changing the legal landscape of Canada, without breaching the rights and civil liberties of Canadian citizens, we have successfully protected the safety and security of Canada and Canadians from terrorist attack. These provisions have proven over the course of time to constitute an unnecessary and ineffective infringement.

As the former NDP justice critic said in the House in 2010:

When facing a crisis, we as political leaders feel that we have to do something even when all the evidence shows that the structures we have, the strength of our society, the strength of our laws, are enough to deal with it. We passed legislation in early 2002 to deal with terrorism when we panicked. We have learned in the last eight years that there was no need for that legislation.

The only thing to add to that summation is that in the past decade we have learned that we did not need this act.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. As Denis Barrette, spokesperson for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, noted before the standing committee on Bill C-17 in 2011:

Since 2007, police investigations have succeeded in dismantling terrorist conspiracies using neither one of the provisions we are talking about today.

He concluded:

We believe that Canadians will be better served and better protected under the usual provisions of the Criminal Code, rather than others that are completely unnecessary. Reliance on arbitrary powers and a lower standard of evidence can never replace good, effective police work. On the contrary, these powers open the door to a denial of justice and a greater probability that the reputation of innocent individuals...will be tarnished.

We have borne witness to that in this country.

While these provisions have proven to have no effect on the fight against terror, they have had a profound social impact on Canada and many Canadians. On the eve of 9/11 this year, I showed a film at my local review theatre, the Fox in the Beach. The film is called Change Your Name Ousama. It was produced and directed by local filmmaker Fuad Chowdhury and focuses on a community in my riding of Beaches—East York called Crescent Town. Crescent Town is a very densely populated and diverse community, which is largely made up of Bangladeshi Canadians, most of whom are Muslim.

The film is not a point of view film. It was made for television and screened at the Montreal film festival. It includes significant interview footage, for example, of the assistant director of CSIS. It also includes footage of our Prime Minister in a fairly recent CBC interview telling Canadians that the major threat to Canada is still Islamicism. The film also tells the story of what it feels like to be one of about a million Muslim Canadians living in a political climate where their religion has been held to be a threat to the security of their country.

It is noted in the film by a University of Toronto academic that governments, through their actions, have the power to create stigmas and to marginalize communities. Of this we need, in this place, to be very mindful and sensitive. This is where the film gets its title. It was the advice, amidst the political fallout of 9/11, of a Muslim leader of Crescent Town to members of his community, “Change your name Ousama. Shave your beard. Do not wear your kufi”. In essence, “change or disguise your identity”.

Motivated as they have been, bills such as that introduced in 2001 by the Liberals and its partial reprisal today in the form of Bill S-7 have had that impact. They have left so many across this country and in my riding feeling like they have something to apologize for, as if the onus rests on them to demonstrate somehow that they are not terrorists.

Herein lies a great tragedy. In Bill S-7, as with Bill C-36 before it, we have before us a bill that contradicts not just the legal heritage of this country but a fundamental social and political heritage that takes us back decades at least, a heritage of which we should be proud and protective. The heritage I speak of is the opportunity to maintain and exercise one's culture and religion in Canada freely and still be and feel fully Canadian. This social and political heritage is one that has made us a great place, a place where so many around the world long to come to live.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague for her very rational, fact-based arguments about the bill and why we should be opposing it.

I want to tell her that I was in Parliament in 2001, when the original anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36, was basically rushed through Parliament. There was very little examination and the one thing we were able to do was to get those sunset clauses included so that there would be a review on the two key issues of interrogation and preventative detention. This is what is coming back to us now, after so many years of various attempts to have this legislation come back.

I am very glad that she has given an overview of what this legislation is about.

I guess the thing that really bothers me is that what we see from the Conservative government is a pattern, that for every problem it defines, and it is not necessarily a problem, the only answer it can come up with is some new piece of criminal legislation. This is exactly what is happening here.

We know, for example, that the sunsetted clauses were only used once. It really begs the question as to why these provisions are needed. I think it is probably more important that we provide support to law enforcement agencies for enforcement, for intelligence gathering, rather than saying, “Well, the answer is another new law”.

I wonder if the member would comment on that.

I liked her analogy that we are getting on a train with no idea where it is going. I think she was right on when she said that.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to debate the bill known as the Combating Terrorism Act with my colleagues.

The main objectives of this bill are: to amend the Criminal Code in order to provide for investigative hearings and preventive arrests; to amend the Canada Evidence Act to allow judges to order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information about a trial or an accused once the appeal period has expired; to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit a terrorist act; and to amend the Security of Information Act to increase the maximum penalty for harbouring a person who has committed or is likely to commit an offence.

More than 10 years have now passed since the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001. These events turned the whole world upside down. As a result, international co-operation has been strengthened in order for the global community to better protect itself against terrorist acts.

A number of western countries implemented policies and laws to protect themselves against terrorism. Canada was no exception. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the government hastily passed Bill C-36, which was followed by Bills S-3, C-19 and C-17 in later years. The Conservatives introduced all bills after Bill C-36.

The attacks had a much more insidious effect: everyone felt threatened by terrorists, who were hiding everywhere, and it was necessary to sacrifice freedoms for security. All of a sudden, people felt far less safe and a climate of fear began to take hold.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have spent a great deal of time creating an atmosphere of fear, suspicion and insecurity with respect to national security. They have led Canadians to believe that there is an ever-present danger to our major urban centres. In my opinion, the political objective of the government's approach to safety is to obtain increased police powers for the state from the Canadian people.

When a tragedy such as a terrorist attack occurs, it is easy for a government to fall into the trap of acting quickly and forcefully. It is understandable since, after all, the government is responsible for the safety of its citizens.

I would like to quote the former justice critic and current member of Parliament for Windsor—Tecumseh, who clearly described the government's willingness to act when catastrophic events occur. He said:

When facing a crisis, we as political leaders feel that we have to do something even when all the evidence shows that the structures we have, the strength of our society, the strength of our laws, are enough to deal with it. We passed legislation in early 2002 to deal with terrorism when we panicked. We have learned in the last eight years that there was no need for that legislation.

The bills that the Conservatives introduce and the speeches that they give leave me feeling completely baffled. They are asking us to give them the tools they need to protect us. In exchange for their protection, they are asking us to give up a few of our civil liberties. It is not true that freedom and security are mutually exclusive. It is possible to strike a fair balance between freedom and security by making thoughtful decisions that take these two variables into account.

The Conservatives do not believe that. I will explain why. The Conservatives' idea to adopt such a policy emanates from somewhere and that is from beliefs that are deeply rooted in their right-wing ideology. According to political studies, there are often many types of beliefs. This includes fundamental beliefs, which are often associated with basic rights. One's personal safety is, in my opinion, one of these fundamental beliefs. Anyone under the influence of fear will act to protect him or herself. In fact, in our laws, we recognize the legitimacy of the right to defend ourselves.

The Conservatives are dealing in fear. They want to put Canadians on the defensive so that they will then give the government more power in exchange for certain civil liberties.

The official opposition's role is to make sure that the government does not use worst-case scenarios to mislead the public and give itself extraordinary powers. Furthermore, the Conservatives have been implying that if opposition members do not agree with their very restrictive policies, it means that we do not care about public safety and that we cannot be trusted when it comes to national security. I think that the Minister of Public Safety has insinuated that many times.

To my Conservative colleagues I will say that I have worked to make Canadians safe. I also used to be the deputy critic for public safety and I care very much about the safety of all Canadians. Our party would take the necessary and appropriate measures to effectively protect Canadians. Unlike the members opposite, we care about the most fundamental human rights and freedoms, and these must be taken into account when introducing bills or policies that could threaten certain rights and freedoms. We do not take this kind of thing lightly.

The key thing is to never contradict the Conservatives. They firmly believe that an attack is imminent and that police forces need more tools from legislators to be able to combat terrorism. They will reject all facts and arguments that do not corroborate this belief. They focus only on those that support what they believe. How many times has the government refused to listen to scientists and experts, whether on environmental or social policy matters? If something does not support their position and ideology, they reject it outright, regardless of the facts, and the fight against terrorism is obviously no exception.

It worries me a lot to see that the government completely ignores experts in various fields. Public policy is no longer based on common sense. Good public policies are based on facts and on expert and stakeholder opinions. That is how it should work. That is what it means to govern in partnership, a concept that the Conservatives do not seem to care much about.

In my opinion, the worst is that the government is playing right into the hands of terrorist groups by restricting Canadians' civil rights. Terrorist groups attempt by their actions to cause greater collateral damage than the attack itself. So they try to draw media attention to the savage nature of their terrorist attack in order to spread a climate of fear among all nations. That is where the government may be tempted to limit its citizens' liberties. When that happens, the terrorists have achieved part of their objective. From that point on, all security-related political actions are influenced by terrorism and the fear that it caused.

How does that relate to Bill S-7? The purpose of this bill is to grant the government extraordinary powers with respect to terrorism. Those powers are not justified by the threat level or by Canadian society's values respecting civil rights and freedoms, particularly since the Criminal Code contains a series of sections on terrorism and security.

As I mentioned, Bill S-7 is the most recent in a series of anti-terrorism legislative measures introduced since Bill C-36 was tabled in 2001. In this bill, the provisions respecting preventive arrests and recognizance with conditions, two provisions included in the bill, were subject to a sunset clause that expired in February 2007. And there was a reason why that type of provision was inserted. It was that the House had serious concerns, including the possibility that those provisions might be abused.

When the House revised the Anti-terrorism Act, we saw that there had been no investigative hearings or situations requiring recognizance with conditions. The Conservatives wanted to renew the bill in 2007, but they needed the consent of the House, which they fortunately did not obtain. The House decided not to renew those provisions. In fact, only one investigative hearing has been held since 2007, in the context of the Air India attack, and that produced no conclusive results.

And now the government is back with its phoney majority to pass a bill that the House previously rejected because it ran counter to Canadian values. It has also not bothered to include all the recommendations of the Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act. It selected only what suited it.

What is the rush? Why are these measures suddenly necessary? They expired nearly six years ago, and the act has never been used for this purpose. Naturally, the Conservatives' response to these questions is that just because these measures have not previously been used does not mean they are unnecessary. They will use the ticking time bomb argument and offer all kinds of Jack Bauer-style scenarios.

I will briefly describe those two measures to put this bill in context and sum up what is stated in section 83.28 of the Criminal Code concerning investigative hearings.

A peace officer may, with the prior consent of the attorney general, apply to a provincial judge for an order that any individual who might have information concerning a terrorist act appear before a judge. If the order is made, the person must attend for an examination, answer all questions and bring with him anything he has in his possession relating to the order. Investigative hearings are used to obtain information, not to prosecute individuals. Accordingly, the answers given at one of these hearings may not be used against an individual in criminal proceedings, except in the case of prosecutions for perjury or the giving of contradictory evidence.

Section 83.3 of the Criminal Code deals with preventive arrest under the heading “Recognizance with Conditions”. That section is formulated to include preventive detention. A peace officer may arrest a person without warrant if he believes it is necessary in order to prevent a terrorist attack. The individual who is detained must then be taken before a provincial judge within 24 hours after being detained or as soon as possible, to show cause for the detention. The peace officer must then apply to a provincial judge, with the prior consent of the attorney general, to order that the person appear before a judge to determine whether it is necessary that the person be required to comply with certain specific conditions.

If a judge finds that the person must enter into a recognizance, the person will have to undertake to keep the peace and abide by other conditions, such as giving up control of his firearms for a period of up to 12 months. If the person refuses, he may be committed to prison for a term not exceeding 12 months.

As parliamentarians, the question we have to debate this afternoon is whether the provisions set out in Bill S-7 are necessary and appropriate to protect the safety of Canadians. During the first hour of debate, my colleague from Toronto—Danforth asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice whether there had been any testimony at the Senate hearings in support of reinstating the provisions set out in this bill. In her answer, the parliamentary secretary did not refer to any such testimony.

The reality is that in police investigations since 2007, terrorist conspiracies have been dismantled without having to use any of the provisions set out in Bill S-7, nor did those investigations call for any extraordinary powers to be granted. Whether in the case of Khawaja, the “Toronto 18” or, more recently, the four people in the Toronto region, none of the provisions of Bill S-7 have been necessary.

I think this is conclusive proof that our police forces have the tools they need to protect the Canadian public. We have to continue to support our public safety officers so they are able to keep doing the good job they have done to date.

We will be opposing this bill because it is a completely ineffective way to combat terrorism and because it infringes our most fundamental rights and freedoms. This bill demonstrates the Conservatives’ total failure to grasp the connection between security and liberty.

The way the provisions of the bill are written could have serious consequences for law-abiding people. Bill S-7 would make individuals who have never been charged with a terrorist act liable to imprisonment for as long as 12 months, or make them subject to strict conditions of release.

The provisions of this bill could be invoked to target individuals participating in activities such as demonstrations or acts of dissent that have nothing to do with any reasonable definition of terrorism. Is the government aware of that or is it knowingly doing this?

The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations has raised an interesting situation I would like to share with my colleagues. It says that it is still unclear how the distinction will be made between acts associated with terrorism and other criminal acts. For example, the recent firebombing of a Royal Bank branch in Ottawa, just before the G20 summit, was treated as criminal arson, and so no charge was laid under the anti-terrorism provisions. However, the people who committed that crime could have been charged with terrorism.

Need I remind my Conservative colleagues of who Maher Arar and Mr. Almalki are? They are Canadian citizens who were detained, deported and tortured because we had falsely accused them of terrorist activities.

Is this the kind of policy that this government wants to adopt? Regressive, outdated policies? The Conservatives need to listen to Canadians and perhaps relearn our basic Canadian values, for they seem to have forgotten them.

This bill applies to people who have not committed any terrorist acts per se. Also, in order to now justify all of the tools available to national security agents and for any strategic issues, there are several forms of terrorism and as many tools that can be used depending on the kind of terrorism—environmental, economic, religious, nationalist, and so on.

The recently released anti-terrorism strategy is proof that this government is targeting broader groups. That document gives examples of terrorist groups and includes things like occupy and environmental groups. The government has said on a number of occasions that environmental groups are extremists, perhaps even terrorists. That is why I think the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations is an interesting example, since it demonstrates that the application of these anti-terrorism measures will affect everyone differently.

This is not the best way to combat terrorism. The best way to fight terrorism is not by passing extraordinary legislative measures like the ones proposed in this bill, but rather to collect information, and that is the job of police forces.

The existing Criminal Code provisions are more than adequate to investigate people who engage in terrorist activities or to detain someone who poses an immediate and credible threat to Canadians. The Conservatives know this, but they want to prove that they are tough on crime, even at the expense of our individual rights and freedoms.

Neither I nor any NDP member can support this bill.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to speak about terrorism. As everyone is aware, it is an extremely important issue. Terrorism is a very complex and also quite a modern scourge that has afflicted the world for the past 50 years.

Before September 11, 2001, North Americans regarded terrorism primarily as someone else's problem. During the 1970s and 1980s, we watched what happened from time to time in Europe, the Middle East or Asia, on other continents primarily, and we thought we were immune to terrorism. Even when the horrible terrorist act happened in Oklahoma City, in the United States, for us it felt a little bit surreal and random. We told ourselves it was the act of a half-wit, a lunatic, an extremist who was not in touch with the real world; we told ourselves it was a one-time act. We did not expect this sort of thing ever to happen again.

Here in Canada, we thought it was perhaps also because in the United States, there were people with extremist opinions, and we thought that Canada was in many ways a more moderate country, a country that had no history of violence or political extremism.

The events of September 11 totally changed our perspective, which was rather simplistic and perhaps a little naïve. On September 11, the people of North America suffered a massive and profound crisis of conscience. Suddenly, we became aware in a way that deeply transformed us both individually and as a society. For the first time, we understood what it was to be the target of international terrorists and to experience a terrorist act, in broad daylight, in our own backyard.

We understood how the threat of terrorism is real for us as well, and no less real than it is for those living in countries where, so often in the past, we have seen terrorist acts, unfortunately. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, it was often something that affected Europe or the Middle East more than North America. We learned that it is not solely someone else's problem and that we must also protect ourselves, by tightening and strengthening our legislation and our public safety infrastructure to defend against terrorism.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the Conservative government does not have a monopoly on concern for public safety, despite the image that it has so carefully cultivated over the past few years. In other words, the Conservatives are not any more concerned about the safety of Canadians than are the other parties in this House. They are not more fiercely opposed to terrorism than are the other parties in this House. This needs to be said.

Let us take the example of the bill passed by this House in 2001, before I was elected and before many of the other members here were elected. I am talking of course about Canada's Anti-terrorism Act, which was passed by a Liberal government. Bill S-7, which we are debating in this House today, can be seen as an amendment to Canada's Anti-terrorism Act.

The Chrétien government’s Anti-terrorism Act added new provisions to the Criminal Code, in particular part II.1 and sections 83.01 to 83.33, which specifically covered terrorism offences and made the following activities crimes: collecting property for a terrorism offence or participating in terrorist activities; facilitating terrorist activities; and instructing to carry out terrorist activities.

This means that the bulk of the work of updating the Canadian criminal justice system to reflect the new terrorist threats was done in 2001 by a Liberal government. It is worth pointing this out. As I said, when we listen to this government, we often get the impression that those on the other side of the House are the only ones who worry about the safety of Canadians, and no other government before them has done anything to try to protect the Canadian public better against terrorist acts.

The 2001 act introduced two specific provisions that my colleagues in the other parties referred to earlier, and it is worth reiterating them. The first provision allowed for investigative hearings: it allowed a person suspected of having information about a terrorism offence that has been or will be committed to be compelled to appear before a judge and answer questions where the answers would make it possible to intercept a terrorist act or find the person or persons guilty of committing a terrorist act.

The second provision of the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act gave authorities the power to require a recognizance with conditions, allowing a peace officer who believes that a terrorist act will be committed and who believes that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions will prevent that act, to bring the person before a judge within 24 hours so that a show cause hearing can be held to determine whether the person should be released or should be detained longer in certain circumstances.

Of course those new provisions were controversial. Naturally, they generated debate and prompted questions relating to the principles in the Canadian Constitution, and more specifically in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is to be expected, in a democratic society, that questions will be raised when measures of that nature, relatively harsh as they in fact were, are introduced.

In response to the concerns expressed both by the Canadian public and by legal experts, who were very knowledgeable about the Constitution and concerned that it be adhered to, the Liberal government of the day came up with two quite creative responses. It included what is called a sunset clause in the Anti-terrorism Act, which provided that the two provisions I have just described would cease to be in force five years after the act was enacted, along with a clause requiring that the law be reviewed by Parliament three years after it received royal assent.

The sunset clause idea is well worth considering. The two contexts are different, but this clause does bear some similarity to the notwithstanding provision in the Canadian Constitution. In other words, this is not something that can be used indefinitely; its existence must be justified periodically. This is quite a creative response to a thorny and difficult situation in terms of protecting the rights of Canadians under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That is why the Liberal government included this sunset clause—so that these two provisions would come to an end after five years. As we know, the Conservative government tried to extend them, unsuccessfully, in 2007 and it lost a vote on this matter, as other members have pointed out.

At the time, the opposition voted against extending those two provisions, because the government had not taken into account the recommendations made by the House of Commons subcommittee that had thoroughly scrutinized those provisions.

I would like to quote the House of Commons legislative summary regarding the situation at the time of the vote:

For example, the subcommittee had also recommended that the revised investigative hearing provision limit its scope to deal only with imminent terrorism offences, and that section 83.28(2) be amended to make it clear that a peace officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence will be committed before making an ex parte application and to make it explicitly clear that anything done under sections 83.28 and 83.29 is a “proceeding” under the code.

We also wanted to ensure that these provisions would apply only to anticipated terrorist activity. The Conservative government failed to take those two recommendations into account in 2007 when it wanted to extend those two provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act. This brings us to Bill S-7, which reintroduces the two provisions that disappeared after five years, as set out by the legislation in 2001.

From what I understand, once again, this government still has not taken into account the recommendations made by the House subcommittee that had expressed some reservations. I just read one a moment ago. So we are no further ahead in that regard.

I think this government needs to be a little more open to what Parliament recommends. We will have an opportunity to discuss this in committee.

It is important to point out that these two provisions, which are rather controversial—I am talking about investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions—already exist in Canadian law. Yes, they are controversial, but these principles can already be found in Canadian legislation.

For example, laws concerning public inquiries, competition, income tax and mutual legal assistance in criminal law matters provide for procedures similar to investigative hearings. They are investigative procedures that do not seek to determine criminal liability. Furthermore, criminal law provides for peace bonds similar to recognizance with conditions, which are imposed to prevent anticipated violent offences, sexual offences and criminal organization offences. The principle of investigative hearings already exists, to some extent, in Canadian law.

I must also point out that, in my opinion, these two measures, investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions, respect the charter. For example, in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that investigative hearings were constitutional and stated that they must generally take place in public. There must be as much transparency as possible in the circumstances.

The court handed down this ruling in connection with an application for an investigative hearing order for the Air India investigation. The person who was the subject of the order challenged it under the charter, citing the right to remain silent and protection against self-incrimination. The B.C. Supreme Court held that the legislative provision was valid and that the witness's rights could be protected through conditions in the order.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal based on section 40 of the Supreme Court Act and in Re: Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code, concluded that the investigative hearing was constitutional.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

[Michael MacDonald]

That is a very good question. It speaks to the tool kit or what we referred to after 9/11 with the Anti-terrorism Act, Bill C-36 at the time, which provided the security intelligence and law enforcement community with an appropriate tool kit that they could use should they needed to use it. Of course, it comes with the effective oversight and scrutiny to ensure that there are not abuses.

The government of the day considered those powers such that they had to have a five-year sunset clause, and we know what happened after that sunset clause.

I believe the investigative hearing was used in one aspect. The annual reports—and I was responsible as a young analyst for writing the yearly end reports for the use of those investigative powers—would go on, and that was part of the regular accounting or public reporting mechanism.

I think the point on that is that you have a tool kit and if the tool kit remains closed it's closed. When a threat of such magnitude happens and you have to open the tool kit and use the power, it is there to be used appropriately. That's the mentality that followed along with at least those two particular powers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Holland.

Maybe I'll just make mention of the fact that I served on that original committee back in 2001. The Liberal Party brought that Bill C-36 forward, and I can tell you that all parties took it very seriously: would it be abused? Some parties believed that police would use it to open the floodgates. Looking back, I think one of the arguments at that time was that if it were to be abused, then at the sunset clause, after five years, that would be something that the police, CSIS, and all these other groups would have to understand: they might lose this tool.

At that point, it was very much accepted that this was a tool that was needed, but that we had to be very cautious and ensure that civil liberties wouldn't be abused. And you know, in fairness, when we look back over the last nine or 10 years, we really have to ask if they have been abused. This becomes, for all of us, all parties.... You don't want any civil liberties to be thrown out, but on the other hand, we are dealing with people's lives, and if there is an imminent threat.... The tool being there, the police and CSIS--all these groups--recognize that if they use the tool now, it will come under huge evaluation and they may lose it.

So personally, I'm thankful that we haven't seen a lot of abuses based on this sunset clause or based on this piece of legislation, but we would do well to pause and reflect a little bit on what the potential is and what the potential is on the terrorism side as well.

I have Mr. Davies, in conclusion, and Ms. Mourani.

Strengthening Aviation Security Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are more and more questions about the bill. I agree with the member that it has been shrouded in secrecy. When we were here in December we were under this cloud that the bill had to go through. There was a deadline and a lot of pressure on all the parties to rush it through. That has been a very familiar story. I remember the original anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36, which had to be rushed through, it had to be done. Here we are years later and we still see this kind of legislation come forward without transparency.

My understanding is that the Government of Mexico at this point has not approved the legislation that flows from these secret agreements and secret negotiations.

I think it begs the question, if we were told that this was essential and everything would come to a screeching halt if it did not go through, which obviously did not happen, what really is going on here? Are these agreements necessary? Why are they not transparent? Why does the bill have to come forward at this time?

Again, there is no evidence that shows anything to compel us to do this. On the contrary, the evidence is that the bill is going to create enormous problems in our society and would have a long, far-reaching impact on civil society. Therefore, we should be saying no.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is almost a cliché to say that the events of September 11, 2001 changed the world, but Professor Wayne MacKay, a professor at Dalhousie law school, wrote in a article called “Human Rights in the Global Village” that this was only partly true because:

—terrorism has been an international force for many years. However, on September 11, 2001 the reality of terrorism was visited on the heartland of the United States and it became clear to all that even a super power was vulnerable to the forces of terrorism afoot in the world. The world may not really have changed as a result of “9/11”, but the way that the United States, and by association Canada, approach the world did. We have become more cautious and national security has become a value that trumps most other values--including human rights.

Like most people, I have a very vivid recollection of where I was when the planes hit the Twin Towers in New York City. I was starting my first week at Dalhousie law school and was in the student lounge, which was packed with other students. We were all utterly silent.

I am not really one for numbers. I can never remember if it is Bill C-11 or Bill C-392 or Bill C-9 in the 40th Parliament or the 38th Parliament, but I remember Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act that was introduced in 2001. I remember it like I remember 9/11 because even though I was a fresh-faced law student eager to learn about this great big concept called the law, a concept based on human rights, justice and fundamental freedoms, I still knew that Bill C-36 was a departure from that base of justice and human rights.

As first-year law students, a group of us started a student association called SALSA, the Social Activist Law Student Association. SALSA was and continues to be, and it is still at Dalhousie law school, the coming together of like-minded students who are interested in seeking justice, environmental, social and economic justice. We want to see it realized in our communities.

When Bill C-36 was introduced in 2001, we did not know what to do, but we knew we had to do something. Therefore, we organized a panel of human rights and justice criminal law experts to talk about the bill and educate us on what was exactly going on and what the bill was trying to accomplish. Some of us wrote letters to the editor, others wrote op eds and we wrote to our members of Parliament.

There was a growing consensus then that the dangers of Bill C-36 were that it would trump our human rights and civil liberties in the face of national security and allow for government to act in the shadows shrouded in mystery and secrecy. However, the one thing everybody hung their hats on was the fact that there was a sunset clause in the act. That was the first time I had even heard the term “sunset clause”. The idea was that after a period of time, a review of the legislation would automatically be triggered by Parliament.

The current bill, Bill C-17, proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that would reinstate provisions from the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001 that expired under that very sunset clause in 2007. Very specifically, the bill relates to investigative hearings whereby individuals who may have information about a terrorism offence, whether it is in the past or the future, can be compelled to attend a hearing and answer questions. No one attending a hearing can refuse to answer a question on the grounds of self-incrimination, which is quite different than if someone is in a court facing Criminal Code charges.

The other issue is preventive arrest whereby individuals can be arrested without a warrant in order to prevent them from carrying out a terrorist act. It is detention based on what someone might do. The arrested individual has to be brought before a judge within 24 hours, which is fair, or as soon as feasible and the judge determines whether that individual can be released unconditionally or with certain conditions for up to 12 months. Also, if those conditions are refused, the person can be imprisoned for up to 12 months.

International human rights and domestic human rights are increasingly related when we look at the global village of today. What we do in Canada affects the greater and wider world and our actions have worldwide implications. Similarly, actions outside of Canada's borders can and do have an impact here.

As Greg Walton wrote in a piece for the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development:

Canada has an obligation to provide a model; we need to stand straight lest we cast a crooked shadow.

After my graduation from law school, I had the opportunity to work with Professor Wayne MacKay doing research and assisting with his preparation for the lecture that I spoke about, as well as his appearance before the Senate committee actually reviewing the anti-terrorism legislation back in 2005. While I was working with him, one topic of conversation that we kept coming back to was the idea of racial profiling.

Racial profiling has been defined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which is a really good definition, as follows:

...any action undertaken for reasons of safety, security or public protection that relies on stereotypes about race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion or place of origin rather than on reasonable suspicion, to single out an individual for greater scrutiny or different treatment.

Professor MacKay pointed out that before September 11 the issue of racial profiling was really about driving while black. A stark example of this comes from my home province of Nova Scotia with the story of Kirk Johnson, a boxer whose case appeared before the Nova Scotia Human Rights Tribunal. When Mr. Johnson was repeatedly, over years, pulled over by police in his expensive car with Texas licence plates, the tribunal found that actually race was a determining factor in the police's decision to pull him over again and again.

Since September 11, that phrase, driving while black, has actually been recoined as flying while Arab. Profiling is broader than just race now. It takes into account religion, culture and even ideology. Concerns about profiling based on race, culture or religion are real but they are accentuated by threats of terror. There is an alarming tendency to paint an entire group with one brush when in fact it is the act of individuals rather than religious or ethnic groups that are at fault.

We know about the uproar in the United States with the proposed building of a mosque six blocks from the site of the World Trade Centre. We think that kind of thing certainly could not happen here but here at home, on the day after the arrests of 17 terrorist suspects in Ontario, windows were broken at an Islamic mosque in Toronto. It can happen here and it does happen here.

At the Senate committee hearings in 2005 actually reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act, Canadian Muslim and Arab groups argued that if law enforcement agents were going to use profiling in their investigations, profiling needed to be based on behaviour, not ethnicity or religion. However, in a Globe and Mail article, a member of this House on the government side cited a different opinion when he said, “(y)ou don't send the anti-terrorist squad to investigate the Amish or the Lutheran ladies. You go where you think the risk is”.

Within the context of Bill C-17, we need to think about the real danger of imposing a sentence. I know it is not a sentence in the strict criminal terms of what a sentence is, but it is a 12-month sentence in prison based on something someone thinks a person might do. We can layer that with the fact that we know profiling is happening in Canada.

We know the Criminal Code works. We know there are provisions in the Criminal Code for a wide range of charges related to anti-terrorism. It is working. How do we know that? It is because these proposed sections that we are talking about in Bill C-17 have never been used. Therefore, why would we take that risk?

We have anti-terrorism legislation that has proven to be useful. The reason that these two provisions have never been used and were not renewed at the end of the sunset clauses is that they did not meet that balance between national security and human rights and civil liberties. There is a reason they expired with the sunset clause and there is absolutely no reason for us to bring them back to life today.

Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the world changed on September 11. I do not know whether the world changed or whether a darker side of our universe was somehow exposed. However, what is clear is that September 11 was a transformative event, impacting on our psyches as well as on our politics, on our priorities as well as on our purposes.

Eight years ago, the reach of global terrorism was illustrated, tragically, more vividly, viscerally and violently to Canadians than ever before. Twenty-four Canadian families lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks, reminding us also of the horror of Air India years earlier.

Amid the horror and outrage, our government reacted and enacted legislation in the form of Bill C-36. Accordingly, while the threat of terrorism or any legislative response to it was not even on the parliamentary or political radar screen before September 11, it dominated the discourse thereafter and since the enactment of the Anti-terrorism Act some three months after 9/11 itself.

Another measure is now before Parliament, the government's Bill C-35, which has the potential to alter Canada's approach to terrorism as well. However, I want to suggest that the private member's bill that I introduced on behalf of my party is a more dramatic and correct approach in order to provide justice and redress by way of civil remedy to victims of terror while at the same time effectively deterring the states, perpetrators and sponsors of terrorism.

What we have to understand, and this applies both to the government legislation and our own, and here I agree with the generic premise of the government legislation respecting the need to amend the State Immunity Act, for while acts of terrorism are clearly illegal under international law, customary international law has historically given states immunity from suit in domestic courts.

Therefore, we have the situation where Canada's State Immunity Act, in accordance with this basic principle of customary international law, affirmed the principle that a foreign state is immune from jurisdiction in any court in Canada with certain specific exceptions.

Ironically, there is an exception for commercial activity but there is not an exception for terrorist activity. We have a situation where, simply put, our State Immunity Act unconscionably favours foreign states that aid and abet terrorists over Canadians who are harmed by that terror. It removes impugnity with respect to commercial transactions but it retains immunity with respect to terrorist actions. It is in that context that I introduced a private member's bill to rectify this inversion of rights and remedy, this inversion of law and morality.

Under this legislation, when a state engages in the sponsorship of terrorism, it deserves no protection from our federal government. When a state supports a terrorist group that targets Canadians, our Canadian tax dollars should not be spent on defending that state's immunity from liability.

The private member's bill that I introduced sets forth in its preamble the raison d'être for this legislation. I would acknowledge that this raison d'être may well be the objective of the government's legislation and, indeed, features of its preamble in its legislation very much resemble the features in my private member's bill.

What I will seek to show is, while we both may have the same objectives in mind, regrettably, the Conservative legislation does not secure at the end of the day redress for victims of terror, nor does it deter the state perpetrators of terror because the listing framework set forth in the government's legislation undermines the very objectives in the legislation itself, as I will show.

However, let me turn now to our preamble in Bill C-408, which sets for the raison d'être for the legislation. It speaks clearly to the United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, enacted in the aftermath of 2001, and subsequent UN Security Council resolutions thereafter. It states:

—reaffirms that acts of international terrorism constitute a threat to international peace and security, and reaffirms the need to combat by all means—

As our preamble has put it. It continues:

—in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts;

It states that:

—the prohibition against terrorism, as well as the prevention, repression and elimination of terrorism, are peremptory norms of international law—

That is what I refer to as jus cogens.

—accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as norms from which no derogation is possible;

—the support and financing of terrorism...are criminal acts under international law, not sovereign acts for which a state is entitled to immunity;

—the victims of terrorist acts include the individuals who are physically, emotionally or psychologically injured by the terrorist acts, as well as their family members;

—hundreds of Canadians have been murdered or injured in terrorist attacks;

—the Government of Canada reported to the Security Council that fighting terrorism is...the highest priority for the Government of Canada;

I close, with respect to our preamble, and I acknowledge that many of these same principles are set forth in the preamble of the government legislation. As to objective, there may well be a shared objective, but as to the achievement of that objective, the legislations then diverge, and I will show in a few moments exactly how that divergence undermines the very purpose of the legislation of the government, but I will suggest that this purpose is secured by our private member's legislation.

Finally the preamble states that:

—it is in the public interest to enable plaintiffs to bring civil lawsuits against terrorists and their sponsors, which will have the effect of impairing the [function] of terrorist groups, thereby deterring and preventing future [terrorist] attacks;

Admittedly, and this needs to be said, prior to the introduction of Bill C-35, or the introduction of my private member's bill, victims of terrorist acts, arguably, had the capacity to sue individual terrorists, or terrorist entities, or groups, for loss or damage suffered, using Canadian civil responsibility or tort principles in that regard. In fact, if one looked into the situation, there indeed have been civil suits previously in this regard that in fact address the sponsors themselves.

Also, in that regard, at first blush, there may be some concern therefore that while the existing legislation has allowed, under civil law, delictual law in Quebec or the common law of tort, remedies to be taken, this legislation, either that proposed by the government or that proposed by us, raises some constitutional concerns because it attaches civil remedies to federal legislation when such civil remedies are normally thought to be matters within a provincial jurisdiction.

However, as the constitutional law will show, Parliament can establish provisions related to civil redress if they are established within the context of broader regulatory or administrative schemes, which are themselves within Parliament's legislative jurisdiction under the constitution act or, more specific, if they are under the federal jurisdiction in matters related to criminal law, and certainly anti-terrorism law, in its pith and substance, is not only matters related to criminal law but matters of national concern, matters that the courts have held are within the peace order and good government clause and that the civil remedies are, in that sense, ancillary to a power that already exists within a federal jurisdiction.

Other concerns have been raised, which I will very quickly refer to because they have risen in debate this morning and they will arise in discussions before the committee. It might be useful to address them very quickly.

Apart from the constitutional issue, a reference has been made by my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party on the matter that this legislation gives a right of civil remedy to victims of terrorism, but does not give a right of civil remedy to victims of torture.

That is correct, but the reason for this is not that victims of torture do not have a right to civil remedy. They do. I could even give notice now that I will be introducing legislation that will also provide a civil remedy for victims of torture in the same way that my private member's bill purports to give a civil remedy to victims of terror. However, the issues from a legal point of view, as I will point out at the time of the introduction of my private member's bill, are different in terms of the characterization of the issues, the nature of the remedy, the character of the perpetrator and the like and one could not comingle the two in this legislation because one would do a disservice to both.

Another concern that has been raised is the fact that diplomatic concerns may arise with respect to this legislation and this leads to the final concern and that is the matter of listing of legislation. Here we come to the core of the differences between our legislation.

Simply put, the Conservative legislation takes as its basic premise that state immunity should still operate. In other words, and this is crucial, victims of terrorism under the government legislation will be unable to sue a country that should be held responsible unless the Canadian government decides it should be held responsible. Therefore, whether a foreign state is listed will always be the subject of political negotiations between government. It will always be an issue of executive discretion. It will always have an element of arbitrariness about it. It will take away the basic right of civil remedy from the victims themselves.

In other words, after studying the government's proposed legislation and while I may share its purpose, and I am not questioning the intention, I regard it as necessary in terms of justice for victims of terrorism to put before the House a bill that properly addresses the evil of transnational terrorism, that properly targets the impunity of those states that perpetrate, sponsor or finance acts of terrorism and that properly allows Canadian victims of terrorism to seek justice.

We have an opportunity to provide redress for Canadian victims anchored in principles of domestic and international law. Regrettably, the government's bill handcuffs the victims of terrorism by subjecting them to a political list of countries that the government chooses to target. In this the government bill fails victims of terrorism and places politics above justice.

Simply put, the government's bill takes as its basic premise that state immunity should still operate, which undermines its own purpose in the legislation even when a state is charged with supporting terrorism. Only those states that the government chooses to single out will be held accountable. The government's legislation politicizes the legislation as victims of terrorism have themselves noticed.

Our legislation, my private member's bill's premise on the foundational principle that sponsors of terrorism do not deserve to be shielded by Canadian law and thus state immunity should not continue to operate for such perpetrators of terrorism as it will continue to operate under the government bill.

I move to a close, referring to the words of Victor Comras, which were invoked by the government in order to support its legislation, a former senior official in the U.S. state department who testified before a Senate Standing Committee for Legal and Constitutional Affairs, he explained how maintaining a list of designated countries ended up undermining the U.S. legislation. Therefore, the authority that the Conservatives rely on is Mr. Victor Comras, who came before our standing committee in the Senate and said, “don't go there, don't enact that legislation”. His exact words were, “If we had to do it over again, I have no doubt we would have done it without a list”.

Then he concluded in his testimony here in Canada, “Please learn from our lesson...do not make the same mistake”.

The government, which is invoking Mr. Victor Comras as authority for its legislation, is making the exact mistake that Mr. Comras warned against. I invite the government to in fact respond to Mr. Comras, whom itself has quoted.

While we share the basic principle with the government that victims of terror must have a civil remedy with respect to deterring acts of terror, with respect to providing justice for victims of terror, with respect to giving them standing before the courts to confront the terrorist perpetrators and the like and with respect to removing any immunity from civil liability before Canadian courts, that will only be accomplished if we adopt the private member's bill or if the government is responsive and amends its legislation so as to include the basic principled approach to providing civil remedies for victims of terror that is contained in our private member's bill.

Then we can go forward in common cause, the government and the opposition, to provide victims of terror with a civil remedy that will effectively deter terrorism, that will effectively hold terrorists liable, that will effectively remove immunity from such terrorists, their sponsors, their agents and their like and that will give and secure justice as it must be done for victims of terror.

Criminal Code

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to participate in the second reading debate of Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).

Bill S-3 was first introduced last October. The Special Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act reviewed the bill and made three amendments. The bill was passed by the Senate on March 6, 2008.

In order to ensure that all due consideration be given to this bill, it is important that we fully consider the bill, its background and the importance of this bill to Canada's law enforcement agencies. This is what I will be focusing my remarks on.

First, I will provide an overview of the bill. This bill seeks to reinstate two important powers that were created by the Anti-terrorism Act but which sunsetted on March 1, 2007. These powers are known as the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions.

Briefly and simply put, the investigative hearing is a tool that provides the opportunity to have a peace officer bring a person before a judge to be questioned in relation to a terrorism offence, past or future. Its purpose is to enable law enforcement to investigate terrorism offences that have either been committed or that will be committed. Thus, one of its main purposes, although not its sole purpose, is to prevent the commission of a terrorism offence. All of us in the House recognize that is an extremely important objective.

The recognizance with conditions is a tool that allows a peace officer to bring a person before a judge who, after being presented with the proper evidence, may order the person to enter into a recognizance with certain conditions to prevent the commission of a terrorist activity.

Let me provide the background information that led to these provisions sunsetting in 2007.

As everyone in the House is well aware, the Anti-terrorism Act, or Bill C-36, received royal assent on December 18, 2001. Before the Anti-terrorism Act became law, Parliament heard from many witnesses on a number of issues. One of these issues had to do with the two powers that are now contained in this bill.

Witnesses voiced concern over the creation of these new powers which were previously unknown in Canadian criminal law and which appeared to constitute a threat to individual rights and liberties protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In view of those concerns, Parliament agreed to subject these powers to annual reporting requirements and a sunset clause.

In addition, section 145 of the act required that a committee or committees of Parliament begin a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of the act within three years from the date that the Anti-terrorism Act received royal assent. Consequently, on December 9, 2004, a motion was adopted by the House of Commons authorizing the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to begin a review of the Anti-terrorism Act. Its Subcommittee on Public Safety and National Security began its review in February 2005. The Senate adopted a similar motion on December 13, 2004 establishing a special committee to undertake a separate review.

In late 2005, Parliament was dissolved and an election was called. The work of the committees was put on hold. When Parliament resumed in early 2006, the special Senate committee was authorized to continue its review. In the House of Commons, a new Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security began its review of the Anti-terrorism Act.

Both committees sought and received extensions to table their final reports on the review of the Anti-terrorism Act. However, in October 2006, the House of Commons subcommittee released an interim report that addressed exclusively the use of the provisions that we are discussing today. It recommended a five year extension of these provisions, subject to a further review. However, it also recommended that the investigative hearing provision be limited to the investigation of imminent terrorist offences, not past ones. In addition, some technical amendments were also proposed.

Although this report was released in October 2006, the work of the special committee in the Senate was still ongoing. The statutory provision allowing for the renewal of these provisions by passage of a resolution through Parliament did not allow for amendments to be made to the provisions. In effect, time was running out.

In the fall of 2006 and the spring of 2007, the government thus moved toward presenting a resolution to have Parliament extend both provisions for a period of three years. On February 27, 2007 the House of Commons voted 159 to 124 against the resolution that was introduced in the House, and as a result, both provisions expired on March 1, 2007.

It is interesting to note that while this was happening, on February 22, 2007, the special Senate committee released its main report on its review of the Anti-terrorism Act. Two of its recommendations related to these provisions.

First, as was the case for the House of Commons subcommittee, it recommended these provisions be extended for a period of three years, subject to the possibility of a further extension, following resolutions passed by both houses of Parliament. Second, it recommended that the annual reporting requirements also require the Attorney General of Canada to include a clear statement, an explanation, indicating whether or not the provisions remain warranted.

One may wonder why the House voted against the renewal of these provisions when both committees reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act had recommended their extension. There were essentially three reasons given during the House debates.

One, the proposed resolution did not take into consideration the recommendations that had been made by the House of Commons subcommittee, nor the ones made by the Senate special committee.

Two, there were suggestions that these provisions were not necessary, given other powers that existed and the fact that they were rarely used.

Three, the government did not respond in a comprehensive manner to all the recommendations made by both committees that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act.

As I mentioned, these were the three reasons or excuses why members did not vote in favour of this issue.

The issue of human rights safeguards was also raised. With regard to the first question, as I indicated earlier, in the spring of 2007 there was no time for the government to address the recommendations made by the committees reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act, as the deadline for the renewal of the provisions was too close to allow for a modified version of these powers.

Since that time the government has had time to give full consideration to the particular recommendations in relation to the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions that were made by the committees, and has had time to implement a large number of them in this legislation.

As for the second argument, allow me, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate why it is important that these provisions be brought back through this piece of legislation.

The current absence of the investigative hearing and recognizance powers has created a serious gap in our law. I wish I could say it were not so, but unfortunately, Canada continues to be exposed to the threat of terrorism and there are no signs that this is about to stop. All of us, being honest with ourselves, know that is indeed the case.

As we all know, since the introduction of the Anti-terrorism Act in 2001, there have been horrific attacks on innocent civilians in Colombia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

Canada and Canadians have been largely identified by leaders of al-Qaeda as targets for future terrorist attacks. Recently, a criminal trial has begun in the United Kingdom, where several persons have been charged with plotting to blow up planes crossing the Atlantic, including some Air Canada flights.

In its 2006-07 public report, CSIS confirms that terrorism remains a threat to Canada and to Canadians and indicates that the threat of terrorism from extremists posed the most immediate danger to Canada and Canadians in 2006 and 2007.

Given this obvious threat, there is no question that police and prosecutors need the powers to investigate terrorism and to disrupt terrorist activity. Representatives of our law enforcement agencies appeared before the committees reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act and indicated clearly that they needed these tools.

For all these reasons, the government believes that it is necessary to reinstate these provisions.

We must not forget that these tools are unique. There are no other powers in the Criminal Code that do what the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions do.

Today the efforts of terrorist groups are not abating. Terrorists are displaying increasing sophistication and the ability to use diverse technologies to further their deadly activities.

To combat terrorism, law enforcement must be able to investigate effectively individuals and groups who may pose a threat to the safety and security of Canadians.

For these reasons, I ask all members to give serious consideration to the following notorious facts.

One, terrorism is a very serious and very present threat in Canada. Two, and I think this is something we can all agree on, it is best to prevent terrorist activity and not wait to sift through its aftermath. I am going to repeat that one. It is best to prevent terrorist activity rather than sift through its aftermath. Three, the nature of terrorist activity is such that it must be disrupted at the preparatory stage rather than reacting in its aftermath. Important tools that allow disruption at this stage include the tools we are proposing to reinstate through Bill S-3.

The government is convinced of the necessity to reinstate the provisions that are contained in this bill. Our law enforcement agencies need these tools and we have the responsibility to provide them so that they may be properly equipped to adequately respond to any potential terrorist threat.

Let me also respond to the third argument that has been raised to justify voting down the renewal of these provisions, the fact that the government did not respond in a comprehensive manner to all the recommendations made by both committees that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act.

First, it was impossible at the time for the government to respond comprehensively to the reports of both committees, since when these provisions expired, the Senate committee had released its main report just a few days before and the House committee had not yet released its final report on its review of the Anti-terrorism Act.

Second, since the expiry of these original powers, the government has been engaged in efforts to respond comprehensively to the reports of both committees that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act.

Earlier this year Parliament responded to the Supreme Court decision in Charkaoui by enacting Bill C-3, which creates a special advocate regime in the context of security certificates. The government also published last summer its response to the House of Commons subcommittee's final report on its review of the Anti-terrorism Act.

In short, this bill is part and parcel of an ongoing comprehensive approach to review the Anti-terrorism Act, an approach, I might add, that warrants full support by all members.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I understand your position, but that is not my point. You would not be comfortable with the idea of having maximum, rather than minimum, sentences. Of course, I respect your point of view as sponsor of the bill.

I am very interested in the question of organized crime. The chair will remember that there was a subcommittee on organized crime when we were studying bills C-24 and C-36. What sort of information do you have on the links between organized crime and vehicle theft?

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Youth court. I should have remembered him because of his baby face.

When Justice Bellehumeur was a member of the Bloc Québécois, he was particularly enterprising with regard to the provisions of the anti-gang legislation. He had support in caucus and we convinced the government. We started this battle in 1995 following a very sad incident that I will not forget as long as I live—the car bomb attack that led to the death of young Daniel Desrochers in the Hochelaga—Maisonneuve area.

It was at that point that the public took notice that the existing legislation did not have the teeth to attack organized crime. We were presented with a bill that created the new offence of gangsterism. It was too general. In fact, at the time, it required five individuals who, in the previous five years, had committed an offence carrying a sentence of more than five years. It was the three fives rule. It was too general and the police asked us to review the anti-gang law.

The first Bill C-95 was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Bloc Québécois' hard work. The provisions of the anti-gang law were revisited by Bill C-24 and Bill C-36. It was also the Bloc Québécois that worked on taking $1,000 bills out of circulation, thanks to the efforts of my colleague for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Richard Marceau. This man has been a great inspiration in justice matters. He stands out in other areas as well, but in justice he has been a true inspiration.

Once again, it was the Bloc Québécois that introduced and ensured the adoption, on the last day of the 2004 parliamentary session, of a bill on reverse onus. The member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue likes bills that address specific issues and distrusts those that are generic.

The bill was very specific because it reversed the onus of proof for proceeds of crime acquired by criminal organizations.

When I hear the Minister of Justice showing a lack of respect by saying that the Bloc Québécois used stalling tactics, I do not see how that applies to me, and I am sure the other Bloc members feel the same way. It is the role of the opposition to keep pushing the government to be better. Obviously, every member of the Bloc leaves Parliament at the end of the day feeling exhausted, since there is so much work to do.

That said, crime is not on the rise; in general, it is going down. I think it would be ill-advised to hold a debate that does not take that fact into account. The Bloc Québécois has always been very concerned about mandatory minimum penalties.

Sure, they have always existed in the Criminal Code. But when we passed the bill to establish the firearms registry, back when Allan Rock was minister, we also decided to add 40 or so mandatory minimum penalties for offences involving firearms.

The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, with his characteristic insight, already had very serious reservations at the time. He relied on studies by criminologists, particularly at the University of Toronto, who concluded that there is no link between the availability of mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code and the crime rate in a society, any more than there is a link between the incarceration rate and the crime rate in a society.

Consider, for example, the United States. The incarceration rate there is three times higher than Canada's, but the crime rate is seven times higher. Thus, it is not through reliance on incarceration that we will have a safer society.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois recognizes that incarceration must be used in certain situations. This is why we do not question the need to have certain provisions in the Criminal Code, such as section 753, which talks about dangerous offenders. A very serious offence must be involved in order for an individual to be a dangerous offender. An offender must be convicted of personal injury offences. An offender must present such a high a risk of recidivism that the court must be convinced that the person cannot control himself or herself or has difficulty controlling his or her impulses.

Regarding dangerous offenders, the older people among us—including some members of my caucus—will recall that, in the 1950s, they were referred to as “habitual criminals”. Perhaps some members remember this? Even my mother used this expression, although never about her own children.

I think I am out of time, but I would like to be able to start over again after question period.

Anti-terrorism Act

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 15, 2001, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Liberal government at the time introduced Bill C-36. The then minister of justice and attorney general, Anne McLellan spoke in support of that legislation, including the two provisions that were not then but are now the subject of sunsetting clauses.

I rose in the House at the time and expressed the view that I had 10 civil libertarian areas of concern with the proposed legislation and which included the two provisions at issue, on which I elaborated subsequently in speeches and in an article thereafter in the 14 National Journal of Constitutional Law entitled, “Terrorism, Security and Rights: the Dilemma of Democracy”.

In discussions with the minister and government at the time, I made certain recommendations regarding these areas of concern. While I remain still concerned about certain provisions of the bill, such as the definition of terrorism itself, an aspect of which was recently invalidated by the courts, citing, as it happens, my article at the time, I ended up supporting the bill because the government amended the proposed legislation in many of these area of concern, though I still maintained certain reservations about it as set forth in the article.

Among the amendments I proposed and which the government accepted was that these two provisions at issue be sunsetted after three years, which has now stretched into five, and pending parliamentary review of these provisions.

I am of the view today that these provisions do have provision for executive oversight, as in the requirement for consent of the attorney general, for parliamentary oversight, as in the requirement for annual reports from both the federal and provincial ministers concerned at Parliament and the provincial legislatures, and a judicial oversight to judicial review. The Supreme Court, as has been mentioned before in the House in the matter of investigative hearings, has held these provisions to be constitutional.

Indeed, the sunset provisions may be said to comply with the charter and are not otherwise unknown in Canadian law. For example, preventive arrest is effectively the invocation of a peace bond process set forth in section 810 of the Criminal Code, which has been used to protect against criminal violence, such as domestic violence, sexual violence and organized crime, and extends it now to suspected terrorist activities.

Similarly, the investigative hearings are not unknown in Canadian law. We can find it under the Coroners Act, the Inquiries Act, in section 545 of the Criminal Code and I can go on. All that is also set forth at length in my article respecting those two provisions at the time.

It is not surprising then that five years later reasonable people can and do reasonably agree on the import and impact of these provisions. We can take the view to agree or disagree. We can take the view, as many in my party do, that since the provisions were not used, they are therefore not needed. Or, we can take the position, as I have, that since they have not been used this demonstrates that they have not been abused and that they in fact may be needed.

That is why, while I initially proposed that these clauses be sunsetted subject to parliamentary review, following the experience of the last five years, as I have just summarized, and my own experience as minister of justice and attorney general, I now favour their extension. However, as I have said, this is a position on which reasonable people can and do reasonably disagree.

I regret, therefore, that the government is proposing the extension without taking the views of these parliamentary committees into account in the House and the Senate. I regret that reference was made to a prospective investigative hearing impugning thereby the reputation of a member of the House and undermining thereby the integrity and the independence of that very inquiry itself, and seeking to link it to a debate on the sunsetting of these provisions.

Indeed, even if we support the extension of these provisions, as I do with certain safeguards and after parliamentary review, this prejudicial invocation was inappropriate, irrelevant to this debate and wrong. I regret the references made by ministers of the crown that our party is “soft on terrorism”. That is to politicize the debate, which should be addressed on the merits, and convert a debate on which reasonable people can and do reasonably disagree into one of bumper sticker slogans and smears.

Accordingly, for those reasons I cannot support the government's motion. It has been proposed without the benefit of parliamentary review on appropriate safeguards and it has been advanced in a politicized and prejudicial fashion.

At the same time, I would support the extension of these provisions with appropriate safeguards after parliamentary review at the appropriate time. My position for now and for those who will now follow is that of a principled abstention.

Since the court's decisions regarding the definition of the Anti-terrorism Act need to be revisited; since the Security of Information Act has also had provisions quashed; since the Supreme Court of Canada has now unanimously invalidated the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that deny the named person on a security certificate the right to due process, the right to a fair hearing, the right to know the information against him or her and be able to answer and rebut the charges; since the Supreme Court has suspended the impugned provisions for a year; since the question of deportation to a country where there is a substantial risk of torture is otherwise before the court; since, elsewhere and during the period that I was minister of justice, the whole question of the security certificate regime puts us in a Hobson's choice of having to either deport to a country where there is a substantial risk of torture on the one hand, which I said as minister that I would never support, or prolong detention on the other, aspects of which have now been invalidated by the court; and since the security certificate regime scheme needs to be revisited because of this Hobson's choice; therefore, given the need for a comprehensive look at the entirety of our anti-terrorism law and policy, which includes not only Bill C-36 but the Security of Information Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the provisions in the Canada Evidence Act and a whole holistic approach to anti-terrorism law and policy review, I cannot support the government's motion at this time.

However, I trust that we can have a principled discussion and debate with respect to the whole question of anti-terrorism law and policy that does not end up being a politicized and prejudicial debate, but one in which we can arrive at an all party agreement, both as a matter of principle and as a matter of policy.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, scurrilous seems to be the word of the day and hopefully the hon. member will help us with the definition.

I agree with him that it has become emotional and politicized. I regret that very much. These are very serious issues and I regret very much that the Prime Minister chose to take that route. I regret that he chose to attack the hon. member and therefore put into play the validity of the investigative section of Bill C-36 and to raise the very fears that my hon. colleague from Scarborough Southwest and I were talking about just a moment ago, that these kinds of hearings can be used, frankly, as fishing expeditions and in the process, people's reputations and lives are compromised.

I find that very regrettable on the part of the Prime Minister.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased for the opportunity to speak to this issue. I wrote this speech a week and a half ago when the debate was first before the House and I needed an opportunity to speak.

As they say in politics, a week is a long time. We have had an extraordinary set of events over the course of that week. We heard the decision of the Supreme Court last Friday, a 9-0 decision, which is certainly a significant decision. We also had the attack on a member of Parliament by thePrime Minister of Canada in the House.

I know it came as a shock to the government members that the Liberal Party was prepared to embrace all of Bill C-36, not just the parts we wanted to tiptoe around. Unlike the Conservative Party, we voted for the entire bill. I sat on the justice committee five years ago when that bill was being considered. I was quite skeptical of those sections, the impugned sections that we are talking about today, and I was not very shy about saying so, both inside and outside of caucus.

In my view, on the evidence that was presented to us in the months following September 11, the evidence simply did not warrant the inclusion of these provisions in Bill C-36. There was quite an animated discussion both inside and outside of caucus on this and, indeed, on the Hill as well.

Hansard has me saying this on October 17, 2001, about a month after September 11:

Watching television last night I was struck by the eagerness of some Canadians to trade their rights and freedoms for security. It was both surprising and disheartening to me to hear caller after caller be prepared to give the government and parliament a blank cheque. It was also disheartening to hear Canadians make wild and outrageous links between immigrants, refugees and security. When people are afraid they say things that they would never otherwise say. They think things that they would never otherwise think, and they do things that they would never otherwise do.

It will be a test of our nation that has a reputation for stability and tolerance to deal with these fears. Otherwise the terrorists win. They win because neighbours turn on neighbours. Instead of reaching out we turn inward. We walk away from our rights for which previous generations have fought and died. The challenge is not to let terrorism win and to break this cycle of victimization where victims in turn victimize. I am hopeful that the justice committee will carefully scrutinize the bill.

We did in fact scrutinize the bill. Some of us argued long and hard that these sections were flawed and had the potential, and I emphasize potential, for abuse and would be used in ways, if they were to be used at all, that we would not otherwise have anticipated. Quite a number of caucus members spoke against these provisions and the prime minister and minister of justice of the day agreed to put a term limit on these sections of the bill.

After third reading, a reporter put a microphone underneath my nose and asked me how I could have voted for Bill C-36. I said it was very difficult. Again I quote myself from Hansard:

None of us will be enthusiastically voting tonight. Possibly after the work of the committee we are somewhat less unhappy, but no one would introduce this kind of bill unless the circumstances justify it.

There are three conditions which erode civil rights: unanimity of purpose, just cause and great uncertainty. We have unanimity of purpose. Canadians want something done. We have a just cause in the fight against terrorism. We have great uncertainty. The population is quite nervous. We have eroded civil liberties, but will our Faustian bargain give us greater security?

We now have five years of experience under our collective belts and with one notable exception, the provisions have never been used. The Air-India inquiry is the notable exception, but at the committee, in caucus and on the floor of the House, I cannot recall any member, any minister or any official ever saying that this could have a retrospective application. Therefore, in some respects, the Air-India inquiry comes to me as a surprise.

It was sold to us on the basis that it would have only a prospective application; that is, the police, or the RCMP or CSIS would have reason to believe that something bad was about to happen. Then they would use the provisions, which we are talking about, to prevent that bad thing from happening.

Using the section for an inquiry like Air-India was certainly something that did not cross my mind and possibly did not cross the minds of many of those who voted in favour of Bill C-36.

No legislation is proposed in an isolated environment. Laws are proclaimed and laws are withdrawn on the basis of experience. What is our experience thus far?

On the security side of the ledger, clearly we are much better prepared than ever. We have had arrests and incidents which have thus far been contained by good intelligence and good police work. On the funding side, we have built up the capability of our intelligence, police, security and military services over the past five years with very significant resources. I dare say that those budgets have possibly grown the most of any budget passed in the House in the last five years.

On the human rights side of the equation, however, the record is somewhat less clear and not nearly as sterling. We just had a Supreme Court of Canada decision, which was a unanimous decision, that detention certificates were unconstitutional. Taking away the liberty of the citizen and others without trial, without access to the evidence and without counsel is an anathema in a free and democratic society. I thought the court's comments were balanced, reasoned, fair and respectful to Parliament and the government's foremost obligation to protect its citizens.

Mr. Arar could have used some of that protection. I cannot recall a case of any Canadian citizen in all of our history where the rights of a citizen have been so abused. Supplying dubious intelligence, cooperating in the extraordinary rendition by a foreign country, knowing that he would be tortured or having reasonable apprehension that he might be tortured is about as bad as it gets. The result is the resignation of the RCMP commissioner, an apology from the Prime Minister and compensation in excess of $10 million.

Apparently, Justice O'Connor's inquiry is even having effects in European nations, where European nations are reconsidering their willingness to allow airplanes for the CIA to land on European soil in order to complete these renditions to other countries. In those countries there has been a great deal of soul-searching going on as to what laws and what cooperation they will offer in the future. Unfortunately, soul-searching does not appear to be the strong suit of the Prime Minister or the government.

What was the Prime Minister thinking about when he attacked the member for Mississauga—Brampton South? Did he really think that a scurrilous attack on a fellow member, who happens to be a Sikh, would somehow enhance the debate between security and rights? Did he really think that this was going to be a contribution to the two major tasks of government: the right of citizens to expect that their government provide security and the right of all citizens to live freely and face their accusers in an open trial with all the evidence? What was he thinking about?

Does he really believe that baseless allegations contribute to an atmosphere of reasoned debate or is this feeding some other agenda, that thePrime Minister really will do anything, absolutely anything, to get his majority? Does this not play into his pandering to fear in Canadians, much like I read out in my quote from Hansard of five years ago, playing to the fears in the population?

The respective merits of whether to sunset or not sunset are irrelevant to the tactics narrative, tough on crime, tough on terrorism. The reality is that security, citizen's rights, reasoned debate and just plain common decency give way to the tactics narrative in pursuit of a majority. Destroy a live, who cares? Destroy a family, who cares? Destroy a nation, who cares? “I have got my majority”.

The Prime Minister, and I do not know whether it is advertently or inadvertently, gave a classic display of the abuses that those of us who sat on the committee five years ago were most worried about. He took a newspaper article and tied it to a member's family and the Liberal position on these clauses.

Surely, it was fundamental to ask questions like these, after all he is the senior political officer in our country. How did the newspapers secure a secret list of potential witnesses? If someone handed him an article just before question period, is that not a fundamental question? It seems fundamental to me. How did that newspaper receive that secret list? Would it not be perfectly ordinary for any prime minister to ask, who would leak such a thing? Why would they leak such a thing? What is the motive?

If for no other reason but simply to protect his own government, would he not ask, “Could my government have been involved in such a leak?” Would he not ask that kind of a question? Is that not a straightforward question to ask before he would engage in a long term smear, knowing full well that these sections on sunsetting or not sunsetting were going to be implicated in some way?

If he is not worried about his own government and he wants to get in his tactical narratives, et cetera, surely to goodness he would have the victims of the Air-India inquiry in mind. These people have been seeking a form of justice for literally years now. Would this not be a fundamental question to ask? “Is my attack on the hon. member going to compromise the integrity of that inquiry?” Is that not a fundamental question?

I do not even know whether he does not care. I think he will do absolutely anything to get a majority and he really does not care how he gets there.

Are witness lists not to be held in the strictest confidence? What little association I have had with inquiries is that they are guarded like Fort Knox, so how does one get those kinds of witness lists?

Using his bully pulpit as the Prime Minister of Canada, the biggest bully pulpit there is in the country, using his bully pulpit to undermine the integrity of the commission of inquiry, what was he thinking about?

Finally, there are the victims of Air-India. As I say, these people have sought justice for years. Surely to goodness a scurrilous and baseless allegation such as this will only lead to the undermining of the quality of that inquiry.

As I look back on my time here and my time on the justice committee, I feel some justification for my skepticism. I do not think that we can deal with terrorism lightly. I do not think we can just join hands, sing Kumbaya and hope that terrorism will somehow or another go away. Terrorism is real. There are indeed those who wish to do us harm. Some even live among us. And threat assessment is not an exact science.

However, as legislators we must only create laws that are proportionate to the reality of the threat. In my view, these provisions are an overreach, disproportionate to the threat, and cannot be justified in a free and democratic state.

Part of Justice O'Connor's report dealt with the policy review of the RCMP's national security activities. He said at page 22:

The national security landscape in Canada is constantly evolving to keep abreast of threats to our national security. It is vital that review and accountability mechanisms keep pace with operational changes. A review in five years' time should assist in this respect.

We have now had five years with Bill C-36. The evidence of the need for these sections was sketchy at the time. The government of that day felt sufficient discomfort to build in an exit ramp. No evidence in these five years has come forward to justify the retention of these sections. This continues to be a significant intrusion into the rights of all Canadians. Therefore, it is my view that these provisions should sunset.

Mr. Speaker, I put it to you that actually the government had been offered a couple of other alternatives. I see the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest sitting down there, and I know that he and his colleagues have worked diligently on this particular section of Bill C-36. I am somewhat disappointed not to see the government coming forward with legislation that reflects the hard work of that committee. I am also disappointed that the government has not come forward with legislation that reflects the work of the Senate.

I have heard arguments in the House that the election intervened and things of that nature. What I have read of the reports is that there are certain decisions that could be taken, that could have been presented by the government, and which would have addressed a number of the significant human rights concerns that have been raised over the course of this period of time, while still addressing the security concerns, those twin responsibilities of government.

I know that our leader has offered cooperation to the government in the event that the government could present comprehensive legislation such as this, but, for whatever reason, the government has chosen a straight up, straight down vote. Unfortunately, I therefore find myself in a position where my skepticism over this period of time has been justified, and my view is that these impugned sections should be allowed to sunset.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion to extend the provisions of Section 83 of the Criminal Code, which, if they are not extended by a vote of the House, will lapse and die. Arguably, if there is a need for these types of provisions, new legislation will need to be introduced, thereby creating a gap in our law, if it is the will of the House and the government to proceed in that way.

These particular sunset provisions were added to the Criminal Code by Bill C-36 after extensive justice committee study and public debate. I was very involved in the work of the justice committee and I do have some personal knowledge of those events at that time.

The sunset provisions were inserted at the insistence of a number of people, including members of the House, for two possible scenarios. The first was the possibility that the provisions, which were quite new to the Criminal Code, might be misused in some way. It turns out that the sections have not been used and therefore have not been misused.

The second reason was in the event that the sections were not needed. Over time it was felt that the perceived need for this type of procedure might not be there and if the conspiracy that gave rise to this legislation was to end, diminish or calm, it could be argued that these more robust procedural provisions might not be necessary and that our ordinary laws might prevail and be usable.

In my view, I do not think either of those circumstances have occurred. There has not been a misuse of the provisions and the conspiracy that gave rise to them has not ended or calmed. I will speak to that later in my remarks.

One could say that these provisions were certainly not enacted because they were not needed. If they were not needed, they would not have been enacted. In fact, the public servants and parliamentarians who generated the legislation could see the need at that time and that is why they were enacted. One could argue that circumstances have changed and that is part of the subject of debate here today.

Why were the sections needed five years ago? I think the reason relates to the fact that there was an acknowledged gap in our criminal law, our common law, that simply evolved through the passage of time. Prior to the last century, the subject of security of the state was in the hands of the king. In fact, it was listed among the king's prerogatives and the king actually did take care of that kind of business.

We have all read history books and seen the movies. The king and his forces would actually detain and arrest people who were conspirators against the state. I suppose they did not make fine distinctions in those days whether it involved a conspiracy, a sedition, a subversion or a treason. These were all components of the common law in those days. The king simply would detain the person, perhaps arrest the person and make use of the dungeon and eventually liquidate the conspiracy.

After we entered into the 20th century, with the growth of civil liberties and written constitutions, it became apparent that our citizens needed rule of law. Commonwealth jurisdictions then adopted what were then known as the war measures acts. When the state entered into a serious war conflict, it relied on special legislation called the war measures act. It was used during the first world war and the second world war.

Eventually, in the modern context, those pieces of legislation were seen to be a bit too draconian for peacetime and therefore were dropped. We no longer have a war measures act. As a result, the legislation we relied on through the Korean War and the two world wars up to about the 1960s is no longer there so that the state cannot rely on any special provisions. It must use the criminal law.

We then had the terrible events of 9/11. Roughly 300 or 400 miles from here as the crow flies, we witnessed the events in Washington, New York and Pennsylvania. Following that, other events occurred in Bali, Madrid, Philippines, London and an almost event in Los Angeles. These events have been ugly. They were terrorist attacks, killing and maiming many and creating the maximum in violence, disruption and disorder. That is the nature of the threat.

As I mentioned, we do not have the provisions that used to be contained in the war measures act, and not only do we not have those, but in years gone by the state could rely on conspiracy laws. However, with the evolution of modern evidentiary rules, it becomes very difficult to convict for a conspiracy. As a result, because the sections have fallen into disuse, not many police or crown prosecutors are good at using them and the courts are not comfortable with them.

I would also point out that we no longer have grand jury investigations. These were part of our criminal process. A grand jury would be invoked, put in place and would investigate allegations of a criminal act or a conspiracy before they actually occurred or just after they happened but before criminal charges were laid. Two or three decades ago our jurisdiction stopped using the grand jury procedure.

At the end of the day, our laws have given up on the war measures act, the law of conspiracy and grand juries. My point is that there has been, by happenstance, a gap in our law. In peacetime, our laws work quite well. We are always reforming them but our laws generally are up to the test, but when the state gets into a conflict or it is at risk, it would be my view that the state needs to rely on a different set of provisions. These sunsetted provisions in Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, were intended to fill the gap.

It is also worth noting that all of our major allies had to do the same thing. This is not just a Canadian story. Our allies in the U.K., the United States of America and Australia all had to legislate to fill this gap in their laws as well. That is a notable thing and we in the House should take note of it. This is not a circumstances peculiar to Canada.

It is important to segregate things which are not politically, legally connected. I have read some of the debates and I have seen some of the media on this. We are not dealing with investigative warrants under the Security of Information Act. We are not dealing with investigative warrants taken out by CSIS to deal with threats to the security of Canada under the CSIS Act. We are not dealing with continued detention under the Immigration Act. We are not dealing with security certificates, which are removal procedures under the Immigration Act. All of those things are outside the envelope of what we are dealing with here.

We are dealing with two sections. The first one, the investigative hearings section, is both retrospective and prospective in its stance. It can look in the rear view mirror at threats and offences and terrorist activities that happened previously, or prospectively or pre-emptively into the future. The second one is the detention with recognizance section and that is pre-emptive in perspective. In other words, it does not look backward. It is there for the purpose of pre-empting an imminent terrorist attack.

I have tried in my own layman's way to conjure up a scenario when these sections would be used. This is one thing that is actually missing from the debate and I am not sure why. I am curious why security professionals or government officials have not offered a scenario which would explain a bit more clearly how and why these sections would be used. I realize that security professionals do not want to alarm the public. They do not want to reveal existing procedures. They are under oath to keep their information inside a security loop. These are probably some of the reasons we have not had that element of this debate.

It is also notable that this country's security apparatus is populated by officials who do not have the power of arrest. This is a very important distinction here. Most people think that CSIS officials can run around and scoop people off the street. The fact is they cannot legally or otherwise. CSIS officials are not even armed. They do not arrest people. The only people who arrest in this country are peace officers, that is, police officers. All the security professionals on the job are not able to make an arrest, whether it is at CSIS or CSE or in transport. They must be peace officers before they can arrest anyone.

As we develop our intelligence data, it is important to realize that if there is going to be any pre-emption of a terrorist attack by an arrest, it would be done by a policeman, not by our security apparatus. Most of the information we get involving security and intelligence comes from the broader security and intelligence apparatus. Some of it comes from police intelligence, but the bulk of it comes from our security and intelligence apparatus and our allies. That is a very important and indispensable function.

Because we do not have a scenario here, I am going to suggest the scenario of a border attack somewhere on the Canadian border. I do not think I am being right off the page here in suggesting there could be an attack. I do not have to go into any gory details; let me just say that an attack is possible and that the attack is imminent. Let me suggest that police and authorities may not have all the data needed to obtain a Criminal Code warrant for any of the existing provisions in the Criminal Code. They may have only one or two persons identified. They may have a possible target identified. They may have detected part of a cell and a likely target. They may not be able technically to connect all of the dots necessary to obtain a Criminal Code warrant. If they can, then they can take out a Criminal Code warrant and make an arrest.

Let me suggest as well that this data has not come from their own sources, but has come from an intelligence agency or an allied intelligence agency. I will assume for the sake of my scenario that the information is credible and real.

Given the potential for massive violence and disorder, pre-emption becomes the order of the day. It becomes a priority. If people are not sure what massive violence and disorder is, they should think about what happened in London, Madrid or New York City, just to get the flavour of what this is.

Under these sections a peace officer using credible data, probably packaged by an intelligence agency, either domestic or ally, would then present the information very quickly to the attorney general of a province. If some members think that is time consuming, some of our constituents have to wait sometimes to see an MP or to see a cabinet minister, but I can say that getting through to the attorney general of a province on a matter of priority happens very quickly. I have had the pleasure of dealing with an attorney general on a matter of that nature, and it was a very prompt and a very quick turnaround time. The information is then packaged for an attorney general, who must provide consent in writing. The information is then taken to a judge, who must also sign off and issue the warrants.

The procedure for the use of these sections is judicially supervised in the beginning. It is consented to by the attorney general representing the government. It is managed by a peace officer, police officer, subject to the Criminal Code. The entire process in both sections has been judicialized. It is totally judicially supervised. There is a warrant, a judge, an attorney general, and a totally judicialized procedure. It looks awfully charter compliant to me.

It has already been mentioned that our courts have agreed that these procedures are charter compliant. An argument that the charter is a reason that these sections should not be renewed, in my view, respectfully to all of those who feel that way, is not on; I do not accept that. There may be other issues involving civil liberties that concern them, but certainly not the charter, at least not in a way that I have heard in this House or in the courts up to now.

There are some side notes worth noting. Both the committee of this House and the committee of the Senate have reviewed these provisions and have reported back confirming their support for the provisions.

Also, there exists, as I pointed out earlier, an arguable symmetry between the provisions that we have enacted here and the provisions enacted by our major allies. They operate on the assumption, and I know there was collaboration back at the time these sections were enacted, that our legislation bears some analogy to their own, that when we deal with our allies, they will have the ability to act quickly, and when they deal with us, we will have a similar ability to act quickly.

If these two sections are to lapse, it is arguable that our legislation will not be so symmetric, will not coincide with the legislation of our allies. Since the threat of conspiracy persists, and I am informed that it does, they may be curious as to why we would allow these two sections to lapse.

I would attribute the argument that the sections have not been used to good intelligence work and good luck. Both of those have contributed to that. Regarding the suggestion that the sections are not needed, one only has to look at weekend reports from the United Kingdom, where public reports are that the threat level there is as high as it has ever been.

With all due respect to many in the House who are concerned about the civil liberties aspects of this, I hope the record will show that these sections are charter compliant and that they are there for the benefit of Canadians as a whole as a protection order. I hope colleagues will take all of that into consideration in the vote.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise and speak to this motion. I must say that I feel rather ashamed. I was here in the House in 2001 when we had the debate. I remember very well all the questions raised by the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who was the opposition leader at the time, as well as those of our justice critic, Michel Bellehumeur, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.

We were worried about a number of things. The first was the very definition of terrorism and a terrorist act. I do not want to return to all that because the Supreme Court did not rule on it. The other extremely important questions that we raised had to do with procedural fairness, the right to a full and complete defence, and how best to achieve a laudable objective. We need to remember the situation in 2001 and how concerned we were, especially in view of what had happened in the United States. We know how close the historical bonds have been between Canada and the United States, bonds that led a former Canadian Prime Minister to say of our relationship that geography made us neighbours but history made us friends.

We could not remain unmoved by the collapse of the twin towers and all the information pouring forth about terrorist networks, real or potential. I would like to thank the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, by the way, for all the vigilance he has shown.

The speeches we heard this morning are pretty amazing in some respects. I should say, first, that for me the Liberals and the Conservatives are the same. We need to remember what the Liberals were saying. The Bloc was very clear. Not that we were great seers or prophets, but we did anticipate a few things. Some provisions of the bill that was being introduced, Bill C-36, were obviously incompatible with the basic principles on which our justice system is built.

I remember very well the questions and comments made by the justice minister at the time. They were even more unacceptable in that she was a former professor of constitutional law who had written articles on legal guarantees and procedural fairness, which I had had occasion to read.

The Liberals and Conservatives were animated by a common desire to move as quickly as possible and respond to the emergency because the situation was indeed very worrisome.

I read the Supreme Court ruling from beginning to end. What the Supreme Court told us is that in a democracy, and in a system where the rule of law means something, the end never justifies the means. As parliamentarians, we must respect that. The Conservatives and the Liberals were of one mind; we realize, with hindsight, that their position does not stand up to our most basic principles of justice.

It is demagogy, to some extent, to rise this morning in this House and to make it seem as though there are those who are concerned about the safety of citizens and those who are not. All parliamentarians in this House are concerned about the safety of citizens. However, it may be that, in our work as parliamentarians, we have to propose measures that push the boundaries when it comes to how we perceive the evidence or how we see the process unfolding.

I was in this House when Bill C-95, the first anti-gang bill, was adopted in 1997.

The definition of a criminal organization then was: five individuals who, in the past five years, committed offences punishable by more than five years' imprisonment.

At that time, there was also a sense of urgency. However, I would never have thought about rising in this House and voting for this bill, which was to be revised by Bill C-24, if the principal condition of the law had been to deny the accused access to all the evidence. That is the problem with this bill. I am surprised that no government members have noted this fact.

We will have an opportunity to mention this: the Criminal Code does contain mechanisms for preventive detention. First, common law recognizes this principle and the Supreme Court has recognized it several times. We need not go very far. Section 495 of the Criminal Code—if my memory serves me correctly—allows a police officer to arrest, on reasonable grounds, a person he believes has committed or is about to commit an offence.

Later, of course, the individual will have a trial and can be represented. All legal guarantees will be offered and justice will be served the way it should be in an adversarial system, in other words, the public prosecution lays charges and provides evidence and the accused can defend himself or herself. Getting to the truth is what this confrontation should be all about. That is not what is being proposed in the antiterrorist provisions.

We are not against the fact that measures are needed. I am sure that the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin never said anything of the sort. We acknowledge that some individuals may pose a threat to national security. It is true there are terrorist movements.

I remember attending lectures given by researchers from the Raoul Dandurand Chair in strategic and diplomatic studies. We know that terrorist movements have been at work and that they will be in the years to come. We are even told that the largest terrorist movements, which constitute the worst threat to the security of modern states, are those with religious motivations.

We know all that. We are not questioning the fact that in legislation, whether in the Immigration Act or in other legislation, a minister may be asked to review situations where individuals will have to be deemed threats to national security. We recognize that and we agree that in all modern countries, particularly in vast countries and countries where borders are porous, it is acceptable for these provisions to exist.

Nonetheless, there is something quite unbelievable in these provisions. The Supreme Court said that the way in which the antiterrorist provisions are set up, in their wording and the way the courts are called to interpret them, some procedural guarantees are being breached. I will come back to that.

This leads to the following question. Can these terrorist movements be dismantled by using the provisions in sections 83.27, 83.28, 83.29, and 83.3? Why have these provisions not been invoked? Logically speaking, just because they have not been invoked yet does not mean they will not be in the future, but this is nonetheless a measure of their immediate relevance.

Under the existing Criminal Code—as we were reminded—an individual can be arrested without a warrant. It even sets out that in individual can be brought before a judge, compelled to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and prohibited from contacting certain individuals. This is set out in section 810 of the Criminal Code.

Section 465 even includes a provision that allows for the arrest of individuals on the basis of conspiracy alone and because there is a risk they will commit acts at a later date. It is not as though we are completely without any other legislative recourse, or as though there is nothing in our existing legislation.

Something is very troubling. While we may not agree on how our political system operates, we cannot deny that there is a recognized tradition of respect for human rights. This includes Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act adopted in 1977 and, more recently, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the National Assembly, in 1982, at the time the Canadian Charter was debated, we did not agree on the management of linguistic rights. Nor did we agree on section 27 pertaining to the enhancement of multicultural heritage. We nevertheless recognize the charter as a tool for the protection of human rights, particularly for judicial guarantees, which, moreover, already exist and were already set out in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. We recognize that it serves as a tool for the promotion and enhancement of human rights.

As legislators, how could we have let ourselves become distracted? The Bloc Québécois cannot be blamed because, based on the recommendation of the leader of the Bloc and our justice critic, we voted unanimously against BIll C-36.

Why did we vote against Bill C-36? Because we did not believe that an individual could receive a fair trial without access to the evidence, especially the most important pieces of evidence, the ones supporting the charges or leading to a guilty verdict. The Supreme Court spoke of “sensitive information”. That was the main problem with the proposed law.

I would like to quote what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said on page 54. A unanimous ruling is significant, after all. In a decision written by Madam Justice McLachlin, the court said:

I therefore conclude that the IRPA's procedure for determining whether a certificate is reasonable does not conform to the principles of fundamental justice as embodied in s. 7 of the Charter.

This is serious. Legislators should be very concerned about this paragraph. I have difficulty understanding the government's obstinate refusal to recognize the proposed law. Of course, the Conservatives were not responsible for creating it; the Liberals were.

I hope that all Parliamentarians in this House will acknowledge that things have been taken too far, that due process is not happening and that even though we have a general duty to protect our fellow citizens, we must have safe communities. Specifically, we must protect our fellow citizens from possible terrorist attacks.

The court will explain what it means by the “principles of fundamental justice” embodied in section 7. This section is well known to us all. It concerns life, liberty and security of the person. The Supreme Court will say that those rights cannot be interfered with. First and foremost, we must ensure an impartial hearing.

The Supreme Court considered the question of the evidence being introduced ex parte, that is, the judge reviews the evidence, but not in the presence of both parties, specifically, defence lawyers for the person named in the certificate.

Is it not troubling to know that a person who does not appear before the judge—a judge who has reviewed the evidence, including the sensitive information—cannot refute that information, cannot correct the facts, cannot explain them, cannot respond to the quality of the information provided and the credibility of the informants?

Not only did the Supreme Court say that it was a miscarriage or denial of justice, as must exist for section 7 of the Charter to apply, but it also said that judges hearing the evidence ex parte are placed in a position where they cannot be impartial. Is this not tantamount to asking them to be investigators?

The court said that not allowing a person detained under a certificate to receive all of the evidence and be able to refute, explain and correct it, and to question the source of the evidence infringes section 7.

The court did not say that security certificates are unnecessary. Over the next year, the court invites the legislator to review the way in which certificates are issued. It is interesting to remember that the court gave the United Kingdom as an example. In committee, this was even brought to the attention of parliamentarians. The court even gives Canadian examples where the members of a House of Commons subcommittee, who were hearing from employees of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, were able to respect the security and confidentiality requirements and still carry out their parliamentary work.

The court also has the following observation, and again I will cite Justice McLachlin. Furthermore, no parliamentarian or minister has provided an explanation for this. I hope they will during our exchanges later. Justice McLachlin said, “—Why the drafters of the legislation did not provide for special counsel to objectively review the material with a view to protecting the named person's interest—as was formerly done for the review of security certificates by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, and is presently done in the United Kingdom...has not been explained”.

The United Kingdom has also passed antiterrorist provisions. The court wonders why we did not take the same route. The court proposes a compromise between complete denial of access to sensitive information about the person named in the security certificate and the possible confidential nature of certain information in thwarting terrorist attacks, in other words a procedural fairness requirement, a requirement for respecting basic justice. The court says that if we want to maintain these balances, these powers that have to be balanced between national security, confidentiality of certain information, but also the rights of those who may be charged—who are in fact charged in some cases—then we need access to information. I hope the government will take this into account during the review it has been given one year to do.

In closing, I cannot believe that people were detained for five or six years. I am running out of time. However, we have to remember that different rules apply depending on whether the person is a permanent resident or a foreign national when it comes to a review of detention. A permanent resident gets this review within 48 hours and every six months. A foreign national can be imprisoned for 120 days without ever having their detention reviewed. As the Supreme Court pointed out, this does not make any sense.

I will stop here, but, once again, I believe there is no reason to be proud today of Bill C-36. In my opinion, this House would have been better advised to listen to the Bloc Québécois when it gave these warnings. Fortunately, the Supreme Court was able to take an informed look at this legislation that offends human dignity and the best we can do is to review it.

Opposition Motion--Government Policies

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Anti-terrorism Act was brought in for a reason by the Liberal government years ago. There is a sunset clause. I was the chair of the subcommittee on Bill C-36. At that time, the deputy prime minister, the minister of public safety and I had many conversations. They were not prepared to make any changes. They supported the act as it stands today.

I do not know why they have had a change of heart. Under the current circumstances I think it is important--

Citizenship and Immigration

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to this motion, particularly in light of my own personal history on the issue. I have always been deeply concerned about the rights of Canadians and the freedoms that we have in our society.

Going back to Bill C-36 and what is presently under consideration by this House, the motion to give an additional three years to the anti-terrorism law, it turns out that I am going to have to confess to the House and to Canadians that I made a mistake. I made a mistake five years ago when I voted against this anti-terrorism bill. It was the position of my party to support the Liberal government on the anti-terrorism bill.

The bill was proposed immediately prior to the break week in October, and the debate proceeded to the break week around Remembrance Day. During that period of time and those two breaks, I went around my constituency. I went to classrooms and to coffee shops. I conducted town halls. I listened to the people in my constituency.

The major concern coming out of all of that was the fact that the anti-terrorism bill as such was so odious and so bad, and so crushed the individual freedoms and liberties for which hundreds of thousands of Canadians died, that nobody wanted the bill. Although there are the two provisions that are now before the House for debate in the bill, and there is a five year sunset clause, there are other provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act that are virtually equally odious to the sense of freedom and the sense of fair play that we have in our society.

As a consequence of that, I chose to take a position contrary to the Canadian Alliance position at the time and contrary to that of my leader. I was one of two people in our party, I believe, who stood up and voted against that bill.

I am happy to say that I was wrong. I was wrong with my vote because, in the intervening period of time, we have seen that the police forces, the people who protect Canadian society, have not had occasion to enact any of those provisions, and that is good.

I was also wrong in taking a look at the potential for there to be a miscarriage of justice, for the potential for there to be excessive use, and for the potential for civil liberties of Canadians to be taken away.

Quite frankly, I feel somewhat qualified to speak to this particular motion because of the strong sense that I as an individual representing the people of Kootenay--Columbia have about the individual civil liberties of everybody in Canada.

Taking a look at this motion per se, and having listened to the presentation by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, I find his position, if indeed it is representative of where Liberal members are coming from, to be absolutely breathtaking in the scope of its hypocrisy.

His position is unsustainable when we look at the fact that my colleague from Abbotsford and I pointed out, which is that it was the Liberal justice minister who went before the press gallery, who spoke very well, very strongly and very purposefully about the Anti-Terrorism Act, and who actually saw the incarceration of these men. If it was not she, it was her predecessor, also a Liberal justice minister.

For him to be standing here and saying that just because we have changed government, just because the Conservatives are now in charge of the keys on the doors that we should be changing the system, if there is such a thing as logic in that argument, it absolutely eludes me. I do not comprehend other than for possible political posturing and advantage, why he would have chosen to have made that speech.

Although I disagree in the most fundamental way with the position the NDP members are taking on this issue and the position they take on a number of related issues, in my judgment, although I believe they are fundamentally wrong, they are nonetheless doing it because they believe it. There is a consistency to the NDP position.

There is a total inconsistency to the Liberals' position. We never know what it is going to be from day to day. The new leader of the Liberals I believe took a position on the anti-terrorism bill, or at least certainly his party did, which the Liberals have now completely overturned and flip-flopped on.

As a person who is deeply concerned about the personal freedoms and the rights that we have in Canada, I say to the Liberals to get their act together, to get some principles on the positions they are going to be taking on these issues. It is far too important.

I will argue and do everything I can within the law, within the legislative power of Parliament to defeat what the NDP members are talking about, but I do respect the fact that they are taking what they consider to be a principled position. It is a position that they have.

I find myself in despair over the fact that on issues that are so fundamental, so bedrock to who we are as Canadians and what our society represents, the Liberals wish and wash and flip and flop and we never know where they are going to end up.

I felt compelled to stand on this issue because it is one that has been immensely important to me as long as I have had the extreme privilege that I have had to represent the people of Kootenay--Columbia in this place.

Anti-terrorism Act

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley that in the subcommittee we are looking at all other aspects of Bill C-36. It is a very comprehensive review. That report will be finished in the not too distant future. Really, I hope the government looks at that report seriously.

With respect to Mr. Arar, my argument would be that these provisions have not been used. If the provisions of investigative hearings and preventive arrests had been abused since 2001 until today, I would be the first one to say we should sunset them. In my judgment, and I think in the general consensus, they have not been abused because they have not been used.

Therefore, my argument would be that because they parallel many of the provisions currently available in the Criminal Code, although they are not precisely what is needed under Bill C-36 and that is why they were written in, my argument would be that they have not been abused, they are still needed, and they therefore should be extended.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being the member for Etobicoke North, I will not be saying how I will be voting either on this matter.

I am pleased to enter the debate on this motion that has been brought before the House by the Conservative Party to extend for a period of three years the provisions related to preventive arrests and investigative hearings.

I serve on the subcommittee and in fact I served on the subcommittee in the previous Parliament as well. We agreed to revive the former testimony from the last Parliament so that we could get on with the recommendations. We are working still very feverishly on the main body of the report. Unfortunately we had to uncouple the provisions related to investigative hearings and preventive arrests because they have the sunset clauses. I believe they will sunset this week. Those provisions had to be uncoupled from the main body of the report and that is why they are on the floor of the House today.

I know that the committee is doing a lot of hard work on the Anti-terrorism Act generally. There will be a report at some point, hopefully in the not too distant future, which I think will respond to many of the concerns raised by many Canadians.

I am disappointed that the government has chosen to ignore the 10 recommendations of the subcommittee and has brought in only two of the recommendations. In fact, the two recommendations with respect to extending the provisions differ from the recommendations of the subcommittee. The subcommittee recommended that they be extended for five years. We did that because we know how long it takes to review these provisions. These are very complex matters. They require a lot of testimony and witnesses on both sides of the issue. If there was a three year review, I would suggest that some subcommittee would have to begin that review almost immediately.

Some of the other recommendations were more of a housekeeping nature, but there were a couple of recommendations that were important and the government has chosen to ignore them. I raise the same concern as my colleague from the Bloc. I am hoping that as we are putting in this effort at the subcommittee that the government will actually listen to what the subcommittee has to say.

On a general theme, it is very difficult to get balance in life. That could be at a personal level. How does one balance one's professional life and career with a family? How do we balance so many different competing demands on us as citizens? That is very true, in fact more profoundly true, for governments and parliaments when they have to find the right balance between protecting their citizens against threats to their security, whether those threats are internal or external, and balancing that against the legitimate rights of Canadians to have their civil liberties protected and respected, for their privacy rights to be respected, and for their rights and freedoms to be protected. It is never an easy task and it will never be an easy task. It was not an easy task in 2001 and it is not an easy task here today when we are presented with these issues.

It would be easy for me to hide behind the fact that I was on the subcommittee in both Parliaments. I heard all the testimony. In fact, I had the great honour to serve as parliamentary secretary to the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness in the last parliament. I am not going to hide behind all that because I think all of us in this House know what the issues are.

There are questions around the fight against terrorism and the protection of civil liberties. That is what it is about. At the committee we heard from both sides. We heard from civil libertarians that these provisions were excessive and we heard from many other witnesses that the provisions were necessary or in fact did not go far enough.

This is what life is about. We have to wrestle with these issues and we have to make some decisions.

What I would like to do first of all is to come back to the recommendations that the government, at this point and perhaps forever, has chosen to ignore.

What the subcommittee recommended was that investigative hearings only be available when there is a reason to believe there is imminent peril that a terrorist offence will be committed. It surprised me to learn that right now an investigative hearing can be called into play when a terrorist act has already been committed. We challenged the government members at the time to bring forth evidence that would justify that provision, not just looking forward, but looking backward. We were not able to get that evidence, so we made that a recommendation.

With respect to preventive arrest, we said that a peace officer must have reasonable grounds to believe a terrorism offence will be committed. The government has chosen at this point not to deal with that one. It is difficult, when the government comes in with two out of ten recommendations and two of the recommendations are different from what the subcommittee recommended, to respond to that.

In a general theme, my view is that since 2001, nothing much has changed. We still face the threat of terrorism. I would agree with my colleague from Leeds—Grenville that perhaps a terrorist threat is more complicated, more intense, more sophisticated than ever before. I do not think much has changed since 2001. If anything, the terrorist threat could be worse.

It is no secret that our forces are fighting in Afghanistan. That has many people not very happy with us. We are on the al-Qaeda list, not necessarily because of Afghanistan, but perhaps for other reasons as well. I do not believe that the terrorist threat has diminished very much, if at all. In fact, I think it has probably increased.

I can certainly respect the judgment of my colleagues in the House on this side and the other side that 2001 was a grand compromise. Many in the House felt that preventive arrest and investigative hearings were instruments that were too severe and, as a compromise, the sunsetting provisions were written into Bill C-36. Today, five years later, the debate is if they have not been used, they are not needed, and therefore that is why we did sunset them. That was the purpose of it. Because we were not comfortable with them back in 2001, and therefore we should be sunsetting them.

I certainly respect that point of view. It is not a point of view I agree with, but that is what this place is all about, having debate. I do not agree with it because I believe that the other argument is equally or, in my judgment, more valid. If those provisions have not been used, then clearly the concerns of those in 2001 that maybe law enforcement or authorities would abuse these provisions has not been borne out. They have not been used. For me, that makes the case that we should extend them.

We know that with respect to investigative hearings there was a time during the Air-India inquiry when an investigative hearing was requested, but by the time the Supreme Court ruled, and the Supreme Court ruled that it was an appropriate instrument, it was too late because the Air-India work had been completed. That was a decision of the Supreme Court. The investigative hearings as a function have never been used, nor have preventive arrests.

Last summer 15 young people were arrested in the Toronto area. Some ask if the provisions of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, were used. They were not used. Some argue that if they were not used, then why do we need them. It is a good debate.

What we are missing here is that there will be occasions when there is enough evidence to arrest people under the normal provisions of the Criminal Code, but we do know that with terrorism offences, sometimes all that the security people or the law enforcement people are seeing is maybe email messages, sometimes encoded, but they have a very strong feeling that some terrorist attack might be imminent. In a case like that, they might not have all the evidence they need to arrest people under the current provisions of the code and they may need the provisions under Bill C-36.

I recall the testimony of the ombudsman from the United Kingdom who came to our committee. He basically oversees the anti-terrorism regime within the United Kingdom. When pressed about why these provisions were necessary, he used the analogy of when the police believe that a bank robbery is imminent, but they do not have a lot of evidence and they just put two and two together. The police have been around and have seen it all and can figure things out sometimes that something is about to happen. With a bank robbery, if they thought that something might be happening, they could stake out the bank and just watch for signs of suspicious activity.

This witness from the United Kingdom said, and I think he is so right, that with a terrorist attack we cannot stake out the place. If someone comes in with a bomb and blows up a building, it is too late because the person, who probably would look like any of us, would walk in and might have bombs or other terrorist instruments and therefore we cannot stake out the joint. We have to deal with it.

That is why these provisions were put into Bill C-36 and that is why I believe that they are still required.

I think there is misinformation circulating with respect to these provisions. There are already provisions in Canada's law that are equivalent for example to investigative hearings. Investigative hearings are investigatory and not intended to determine criminal liability within the context of the law related to public inquiries, competition, income tax and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. There are already provisions for investigative hearings in those areas.

With respect to recognizances with conditions, that is preventive arrest, there are equivalents with respect to peace bonds that are issued to deal with anticipated violent offences, sexual offences and criminal organization offences.

Both these legislative measures, preventive arrest and investigative hearings, already have some grounding in the criminal law of Canada. Unfortunately, these provisions themselves do not apply to terrorism offences so they had to be written into the law to be applicable to terrorism offences.

The member for Leeds—Grenville chaired the subcommittee. I was surprised that he was not able to have all 10 recommendations dealt with by his government. That is a disappointing aspect for me.

With the reports coming out of the Maher Arar inquiry, we are anticipating increasing demands for oversight over the RCMP and over CSIS. In fact, it was our Liberal government in the last Parliament that tabled a bill to set up a committee of parliamentarians to oversee our national security policy and agenda. I am hoping the government proceeds with that legislation or something akin to it because I think it is appropriate to have these oversights.

The drafting of the bill was worked out with all the parties in the House in the last Parliament. Whether it would have the support of all parties in this Parliament I do not know, but I suspect many of the same people are around and that we could reach some agreement on what should be in a national security committee of parliamentarians. I think more oversight is needed and that would be an important step.

Also, the Maher Arar inquiry has recommended certain initiatives to increase the oversight of our agencies: CSIS, the RCMP and perhaps the Canada Border Services Agency.

We also need to deal with some concerns by Canadians about the sort of star chamber aspects of some of the provisions of Bill C-36 and also the security certificates. Even though security certificates are outside the realm of Bill C-36, the subcommittee, in its wisdom or lack thereof, decided to include security certificates. I know that these are of much concern to many Canadians. The government refers to them as a three-walled cell. People can be detained under security certificates if they pose a national security threat to Canada but they are free to leave at any point in time. There are star chamber elements about that and I would like to see those dealt with.

There are also questions from various charitable organizations, and I think rightfully so, that feel they could be delisted when something inadvertently happens even though they applied the due diligence that would normally be expected.

There are many things that we can do to deal with the balance between civil liberties and the need to protect society against threats. In fact, I think there is a lot of outreach that the government and all parliamentarians should be doing. Under the previous Liberal government, we started a major dialogue with the Muslim community in Canada. I attended a meeting with the then prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, when we met with 35 imams from across Canada. These imams were speaking out against the violence in the United Kingdom in which terrorists bombed buses and innocent people lost their lives.

These imams spoke out against that violence, so the then prime minister and my colleagues and I met with these imams, first to thank them and congratulate them for speaking out against violence and the injuries to and deaths of innocent bystanders, but also to begin a dialogue on how to reach and connect with the Muslim community in Canada. In my riding of Etobicoke North, I have the third largest Muslim community in Canada. These people are very much against violence and against injury to and the death of innocent bystanders. The imam there spoke out against that as well.

We need to do more. I think we need to do more at our border. We know what the policy is: no racial profiling. But we know about, and I have heard of, real life experiences of people coming across our border who have been treated unjustly, unfairly and with a discriminatory sort of bent. That is why our government launched the fairness initiative, which would have given everybody coming across our border an outlet to go to if they felt they were treated unjustly or discourteously at our border. They would have had an objective observer to complain to, where those matters would be dealt with and disciplinary action would be taken if that was what was uncovered. I hope the Conservative government introduces that.

We started a consultation process under the previous Liberal government, but I do not see anything coming forward to give people dignity and respect at our borders and to cut out racial profiling. Threat profiling? Absolutely. Racial profiling? Never. We should not allow that. We can take measures to start to deal with that.

We need to do more work. The government needs to orchestrate this with CSIS, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to redo the outreach to these communities, because there is a lot of misinformation. There is a lot of miscommunication. I do not mean to single out the Muslim community, but the Muslim community is affected. We have to deal with that. Muslims are largely affected. There are some misunderstandings. There is some miscommunication going on. We need to deal with it.

I hope this government seizes upon those opportunities to dialogue with the Muslim community, because the vast majority of the Muslim community is made up of peace-loving people. They too want peace and security in Canada. They tell me, “We live in this country as well, and we want peace and security for ourselves and our children and our children's children”. We need to do more dialogue and outreach. As I said, our Liberal government started that process, but I think much more needs to be done.

Twenty or more years ago now, in Canada we witnessed the Air-India terrorist attack, so anyone who argues that Canada is immune from a terrorist attack just simply does not get it, in my judgment. We cannot be naive about these things. These terrorist organizations are very organized. They are prepared to do whatever it takes to make their point.

To wrap up, nothing much has changed since 2001, in my judgment. I think we still have terrorist threats. While we do not like to infringe on civil liberties, in my judgment the balance is still appropriate. It is not Draconian in my view. I think it is still necessary to ensure that we protect our citizens, give them peace and security and, at the same time, reach a good balance with their civil liberties.

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to join the debate on such an important subject as Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

This enactment amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to enhance the client identification, record keeping and reporting measures applicable to financial institutions and intermediaries.

It establishes a registration regime for money services businesses and foreign exchange dealers and creates a new offence for not registering.

It allows the Financial Transactions and Report Analysis Centre of Canada to disclose additional information to law enforcement and intelligence agencies and to make disclosures to additional agencies.

The bill permits the centre to exchange compliance related information with its foreign counterparts. It also permits the Canada Border Services Agency to share information about the application of the cross-border currency reporting regime with its foreign counterparts. It also includes a consequential amendment to the Canada Border Services Agency Act.

The bill creates an administrative monetary penalty regime, something which certainly seems to be needed.

It also amends the Income Tax Act to allow the Canada Revenue Agency to disclose to the centre, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service information about charities suspected of being involved in terrorist financing activities.

Everyone in the House will likely agree that one of the best ways to fight organized crime and terrorism is to starve those involved of the funds that they need to operate. Stemming the flow of illegal money is of great importance, and it is equally important that we protect the privacy and the charter rights of individual Canadians.

Bill C-25 is a step in the right direction and contains much of what the previous Liberal government was in the process of developing. We will certainly support it in principle at this stage of debate.

The proposed amendments in the bill will make Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime more consistent with new financial action task force standards. They also follow some of the recommendations made in the 2004 Auditor General's report and in the 2004 Treasury Board evaluation of the regime. I will now turn to some of the key features in this bill.

There are enhanced client identification and record keeping measures for financial institutions and intermediaries. The proposed amendments include requirements for reporting entities to undertake enhanced monitoring of high risk situations, correspondent banking relationships and transactions by politically exposed persons. Banks, insurance companies, securities dealers and money service businesses would be required to take measures to identify and to monitor the transactions of foreign nationals and their immediate families who hold prominent public positions.

There is the reporting of attempted suspicious transactions. All reporting entities currently reporting suspicious transactions would be required to report suspicious attempted transactions to FINTRAC. This is the practice in other G-8 countries and is consistent with financial action task force recommendations.

Another feature in the bill is the registration regime for money service businesses and foreign exchange dealers. The proposed amendments would create a federal registration system for individuals and entities engaged in money service businesses or foreign exchange. FINTRAC would act as the registrar and would maintain a public list of registered money service businesses and foreign exchange dealers. These businesses are already covered by the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act; however, given that this is an unregulated sector, the registry will assist FINTRAC in ensuring compliance with the act.

The bill refers to enhancing the information contained in FINTRAC disclosures. As recommended in the 2004 Auditor General's report and at the behest of law enforcement, the proposed amendments enhance the information FINTRAC can disclose to law enforcement and security agencies on suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing. This will increase the value of FINTRAC disclosures, ultimately leading to more investigations and eventual prosecutions.

The bill creates an administrative and monetary penalties regime. Currently the act only allows for serious criminal penalties if the act is contravened. FINTRAC requires the ability to levy fines to deal with lesser contraventions in order to take a more balanced and gradual approach to compliance. The amendments create an administrative and monetary penalty system whereby fines can be applied for non-compliance. This was a recommendation in the 2004 Auditor General's report.

The bill reintroduces requirements for legal counsel. The government is working with the legal profession, including notaries in Quebec, to finalize requirements for client identification, record keeping and internal compliance procedures for legal counsel when they act as financial intermediaries. The bill removes the obligation for legal counsel to file suspicious transaction reports or other prescribed transaction reports.

The bill expands information sharing between federal departments and agencies. The amendments in the bill would expand FINTRAC's ability to share information with the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canada Revenue Agency and the Communications Security Establishment. In addition, FINTRAC would be able to receive terrorist property reports under the United Nations act regulations.

Internationally, the enforcement of the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing requirements would be strengthened by information sharing provisions on compliance related information between FINTRAC and its foreign counterparts on obligations applicable to the financial sector and between the Canada Border Services Agency and its foreign counterparts on the enforcement of the cross-border currency reporting regime.

This bill proposes to make some necessary changes to the previous government's Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001. Changes such as these will likely be required every few years as money launderers become more sophisticated and police need new powers to fight them. This is precisely what makes money laundering so difficult to combat. No matter how many safeguards and checks we as legislators put in place, the criminal element will always look for new ways to avoid or to counter them.

Canada's financial intelligence agency reported $5 billion worth of suspected money laundering and financing of terrorist activities last year alone. That total is more than double the one a year earlier. Of that, $256 million is tied to suspected terrorist financing. Of the 143 reports FINTRAC made to law enforcement agencies, there have been no convictions. The Auditor General in 2004 suggested that allowing more information to flow to law enforcement authorities would help in investigating these suspicious activities. This bill provides these powers.

This bill is largely derived from recommendations made by the Department of Finance under the previous Liberal government's tenure. Money laundering and terrorist financing have economic and social costs against which we must remain vigilant. In order to achieve this, we must continually re-evaluate how we monitor and disclose suspicious transactions as the nature of these activities changes and continually becomes much more sophisticated. The government must move to stem the tide of money laundering and terrorist financing and at the same time protect the privacy rights of law-abiding Canadians.

Given that both the Auditor General and the RCMP have expressed concern that exemptions for the legal profession leave serious gaps in this legislation, I am concerned with the government's decision to remove the obligation for legal counsel to file reports of suspicious transaction with FINTRAC.

Our colleagues in the other house recently tabled a report entitled “Stemming the Flow of Illicit Money” which made several recommendations, some of which are in the bill and some of which are not. I would also like to see the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce recommendations for Parliament to have greater powers to also scrutinize FINTRAC.

One of the main concerns I have is that we are not bringing some of the businesses that currently do not fall under FINTRAC's guidelines into the bill. As the banking, trade and commerce committee reported, the RCMP believe that as stricter regulations are imposed on businesses in the financial services industry, criminals are seeking alternative methods of laundering the money accumulated from criminal activity.

Various characteristics of the precious metals, stones and jewellery industry make it highly vulnerable to criminal activity. The RCMP has identified these businesses as a likely place for criminals to launder money, yet this bill does not require them to report suspicious transactions as financial institutions must. I strongly recommend that all of us in all parties work together to make sure that we amend this law so that it reflects clearly what is needed.

Another weakness that has been identified by both the Auditor General and the RCMP is that lawyers are not required to disclose suspicious transactions to FINTRAC. This is, of course, another delicate balancing act. On the one hand, we need to give law enforcement the ability to track down those who launder money, using a lawyer as a financial intermediary. On the other hand, we have the issue of protecting solicitor-client privilege. This bill strikes a compromise between the two and I look forward to studying whether this compromise is appropriate under the circumstances.

Another major concern with the bill is that it does not adequately ensure that the privacy of Canadians is protected. The bill will allow FINTRAC to share greater amounts of information with law enforcement agencies. This is necessary in order for those agencies to fully investigate suspicious transactions and to eventually prosecute where appropriate.

Another part of the bill that does not work as effectively as we would like to see is to provide increased protection for the privacy of Canadians, such as by creating an independent review commission with the powers and authority to conduct random reviews of an agency's files and an agency's operations. The Auditor General has also recommended that some such commission be created. In her 2003 report, she wrote:

The government should assess the level of review and reporting requirements to Parliament for security and intelligence agencies to ensure that agencies exercising intrusive powers are subject to levels of external review and disclosure proportionate to the level of intrusion.

It is extremely important that be put in place as this legislation goes forward for the review. Essentially, if we are going to give FINTRAC the ability to share more of Canadians' personal information with bodies like the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency, then should we not also move to ensure there is sufficient oversight of FINTRAC to ensure that the information that it is disseminating is appropriate?

As I said before, this is by and large a good bill. It has certain omissions and weak points and I feel that we should all work to amend it at the committee stage, but overall it will provide the police and prosecutors with some of the tools they require to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party supports the principle underlying this bill. This is not surprising, since we essentially created this bill following the events of September 11, 2001.

I would like to emphasize that my colleague, the member for Willowdale, brought the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) into being. After a certain period of time, we have to amend it. Generally, the amendments proposed in this bill make sense.

I think everyone in the House would agree that while money is not everything, money is a lot, and one of the best ways to choke off terrorism and money launderers is to remove them from their source of money. Essentially, that is the purpose of FINTRAC. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen our ability to act in this area and to bring FINTRAC up to the international norms in terms of money laundering and terrorist financing. However, it is also important that we look at the other side of the coin, and that is privacy concerns and individual rights.

While the pursuit of choking off the sources of funds for money launderers and terrorists is extremely important, at the same time the bill has to safeguard the privacy rights of individuals and prevent a situation in which totally innocent people suffer as a consequence of this bill. I will come back to that point in a few minutes.

Overall, Liberals think the bill is a move in the right direction. We have a number of concerns that we will raise in committee and possibly propose amendments, but we will certainly support the bill for second reading.

The bill proposes to make some necessary changes to the previous government's bill in 2001, Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act. I think changes like this will likely be required every few years as money launderers become more sophisticated and police need new powers to combat them. This is essentially the nature of money laundering and why it is so difficult to combat.

Technological changes occur and money launderers make a few steps ahead. It is always important for the government to react to that so we can be ahead of them, rather than they ahead of us. In that general sense, we fully support the intentions and actions of the bill.

There are three concerns I would like to highlight today. Two of them have been raised by my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

The first of these is that money laundering does not necessarily involve just money. It might involve precious jewels, diamonds and even real estate, as the parliamentary secretary indicated. Therefore, if we are to be comprehensive and effective in our pursuit of terrorist financing and money laundering, then we have to broaden the scope of the act beyond pure cash.

Much of what I am saying, I should point out, has come from a very good report entitled “Stemming the Flow of Illicit Money”, which was presented by fine colleagues from the other place. As they reported, the RCMP believes:

--[a]s stricter regulations are imposed on businesses in the financial services industry, criminals are seeking alternative methods of laundering the money accumulated from criminal activity. Various characteristics of the (precious metals, stones and jewellery) industry make it highly vulnerable to criminal activity.

The RCMP has identified these businesses as likely places for criminals to launder their money. Therefore, there is a good case that the bill require members of this industry to report suspicious transactions in the same way that banks and other financial institutions are required to do. This point was reinforced by my colleague in his conversations with people in Russia.

I know the parliamentary secretary has suggested that in some respects the bill may respond to these concerns, but from my initial knowledge of the bill, it is not at all obvious to me that the bill provides an adequate response to these concerns. This will certainly be one of the areas that the Liberal Party will want to explore when the bill goes to committee.

This as well was mentioned by my colleague from Scarborough. It is the issue of solicitor-client privilege and the need to balance that principle with the need for the government and for Canadian society to get tough and serious with terrorist financing and money laundering.

I am not sure that the compromise that has been reached with the legal profession is the perfect compromise. There may be other means to tighten that up, so the government, the security agencies and FINTRAC can get better information from the legal profession.

I was chatting with my colleague, the member for Vancouver Quadra. He is a lawyer and he has some ideas in this regard. I am sure when the bill gets to committee, the question of solicitor-client privilege and how best to deal with it and whether the law adequately deals with will certainly be one of the areas where my party will want to ask questions and possibly propose amendments.

The third and final concern is that the bill may not adequately address privacy concerns. When the initial law was written, I believe a lot of work was done to create the appropriate balance between on the one hand the need for FINTRAC to share information with law enforcement agencies and on the other hand privacy concerns and the right to protect individuals.

The Auditor General in her 2003 report also commented on this. She said:

The government should assess the level of review and reporting to Parliament for security and intelligence agencies to ensure that agencies exercising intrusive powers are subject to levels of external review and disclosure proportionate to the level of intrusion.

The bill allows FINTRAC to share more information than had been the case before with law enforcement agencies. If we are to preserve the balance, then maybe, in going further in the direction of giving more information to law enforcement agencies, the bill should offer a greater measure of protection due to privacy concerns and a greater level of review, as suggested by the Auditor General, than was in the earlier law.

I know, for example, CSIS and it is also true for CSE, because I dealt with it when I was defence minister, have important civilian review functions. This is designed to monitor the agencies to ensure that nothing unfair or inappropriate is done and to safeguard the rights of individuals and their right to privacy. It may be that some further steps should be taken. I do not know yet what those might be. This will be another issue for the committee.

Of course, the Maher Arar case has brought home to Canadians the importance of this area. I think it could be important as well in the area of money laundering and terrorist financing.

We support the bill in principle, but we have significant concerns in those three areas that I have mentioned. We will want to consider further in committee whether amendments would best be provided to the law. Again, those areas are as follows.

The first is whether the scope of the bill should be broadened to include not only cash, but in a meaningful and strong way also jewels, diamonds and other forms of wealth that can be used as a substitute for cash in money laundering and terrorist financing.

Second, is the issue of solicitor-client privilege and whether the invocation of that privilege has not been so strong in the bill that we are not availing ourselves of information that the legal profession has and could help society track down terrorist financiers and money launderers.

Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, I have some concerns with the whole issue of the balance between, on the one hand, our need to get tough and track down terrorist finances and money launderers, and on the other hand, the need to protect the rights of the individual and privacy. I believe that balance has been undone by the bill and that the defence of privacy issues will need to be correspondingly strengthened.

Violence against Women

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me try to put the question more directly then.

We have had from the government a string of anti-terrorism bills, Bill C-36, Bill C-42, Bill C-44 and Bill C-55. The government spends millions of dollars fighting terrorism yet women in this country live with violence every minute of their lives. The government refuses to make the issues pertaining to women in abusive relationships a priority.

My question is, where is the money to protect women and for public security for women in violent situations? Where is a national strategy on domestic violence against women?

Main Estimates, 2002-03

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House of Commons especially in the evening. We are here tonight to talk about the Privy Council Office estimates for the coming year.

As the House knows, the Privy Council Office is one of the three central agencies of the federal government, along with the Prime Minister's Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat.

This debate comes at an important time, not only in the life of the country but in the life of this parliament. There is a growing unease among Canadians who since 1993 have been prepared to give the government and the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt in many areas. In light of the stories that we have been hearing and reading about for many weeks, there is a growing concern among the population about where is the beef, where is the vision that the government has for the future of the country.

We have seen in the past week two editorials in English language newspapers calling for the resignation of the Prime Minister. Gordon Robertson, one of the most respected public servants, was acknowledged earlier in the debates. He said that he believes the Prime Minister is about to join the ranks of other Liberal prime ministers who have outstayed their welcome in that important job and role as the prime minister of the nation.

The role of the Privy Council Office is to provide cabinet with non-partisan political advice to guide the decision making of the government. That is in stark contrast to the Prime Minister's Office which is on the partisan side of the ledger.

There is some concern of late about whether or not the Privy Council Office itself is straying over the line and into the role of partisan political advice. I do not know Alex Himelfarb who three weeks ago was appointed the Clerk of the Privy Council but he has been criticized in public quarters for taking an active role in the recent highly publicized dispute between the Prime Minister and the former finance minister.

Public administration scholar Gilles Paquet has concluded that the Prime Minister had politicized the position by asking the current Clerk of the Privy Council to directly intervene in a partisan dispute. Before that dispute broke, columnist and author Jeffrey Simpson had written in a column just over a month ago that Mr. Himelfarb is a favourite of the Prime Minister. It is widely reported, according to the columnist, that he had helped write the last red book which the Liberals campaigned on in the 2000 election, a rumour that if true would represent a breach of public service neutrality.

Under the government the relationship between the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office has been the focus of a good deal of scrutiny. There was a hallmark study done by Donald Savoie who had spent considerable time at the centre of government in a previous administration. He concluded that the decision making authority had been highly concentrated in these two bodies to the detriment and possible obsolescence of others including parliament. Mr. Savoie wrote:

Cabinet has now joined Parliament as an institution being bypassed. Real political debate and decision making are increasingly elsewhere--in federal-provincial meetings of first ministers, on Team Canada flights...in the Prime Minister's Office, in the Privy Council Office, in the Department of Finance, and in international organizations and international summits. There is no indication that the one person who holds all the cards, the prime minister, and the central agencies that enable him to bring effective political authority to the centre are about to change things.

What I think Mr. Savoie was saying is that cabinet, like parliament, has become little more than a focus group that polling companies engage in from time to time to assess the temperature of the electorate on issues of the day.

Mr. Savoie is not alone in his concern in this area and neither is Mr. Simpson, because Mr. Paquet has said:

I'm surprised that the clerk of the privy council, who is serving the prime minister as his deputy minister, would be politicizing its position to such a degree that he would become involved in partisan debate with other ministers.

Mr. Paquet concluded that as an official of the Prime Minister's Office, it is Mr. Eddie Goldenberg in this case who is in the political job, while Mr. Himelfarb's role is to oversee the machinery of government.

What this points to is the public's right to know and a feeling that the right to know is under some siege and in some considerable difficulty. The information commissioner has just this day released a document which indicates that the federal government has taken advantage of the tragic events of September 11 by suppressing information and stopping independent inquiries that it deemed to be threatening to national security. Information Commissioner John Reid says that the government has given itself the power to remove classes of records deemed to be too sensitive from ever being accessed while halting all requests under review. He believes that the government has “quietly and firmly” shut the door on 19 years of public access to the records showing how ministers and staff are spending public funds.

Mr. Reid stated “The report emphasizes the fragility of the public's 'right to know' and” cautions “ that this right continues to be under siege” by parliament. Mr. Reid, I am pleased to note, takes issue with the much debated anti-terrorism law, which was known last year as Bill C-36. He refers to it as “a sweeping derogation from the right of access contained in the Access to Information Act”. I am pleased to hear that because it is confirmation of and one of the reasons why our party stood in opposition to Bill C-36 when it was being rushed through the House of Commons in the wake of September 11.

The report states:

Bill C-36 gives the Attorney-General the power to use a secrecy certificate to resist giving records to the Information Commissioner...The federal government has given itself the legal tools to stop in its tracks any independent review of denials of access under the Access to Information Act.

The commissioner said that we Canadians need to be wary of this government's continued attempts to prevent access to important information. He is critical of the intent of the government to reform the act by way of an insider review process. He stated:

The harsh attacks made this year by the government against the right to know heighten the concern that, no matter how well the task force does its work, no serious effort will be made by this government to modernize and strengthen the Act.

Those are very significant concerns. In addition to them, Mr. Reid is also saying that Canadians should ask themselves why the Prime Minister is so opposed to independent political auditing of his ethical standards and those of his fellow ministers. We find the answer in the report from the commissioner, who is an independent officer of this House and who has had to take the Prime Minister's Office to court. This is what he has to say in that report released today:

The fact remains, however, that there is a reluctance to write things down (for fear of access) and an oversensitivity to preserving the good “image” of a minister, the government or the department. It is a fact that the Clerk of the Privy Council insists on the broadest possible interpretation of the scope of cabinet secrecy. As well, the Prime Minister is personally committed to insulating his office and offices of ministers from the Act's coverage and from the Information Commissioner's investigative jurisdiction. These “hostilities” at the top stand in the way of the good-faith efforts, at more junior levels, to get on with a cultural change to open government.

Those are fairly important words from the Information Commissioner, who does report to the House of Commons and to parliament. It brings up the fact that the New Democratic Party, for three consecutive parliaments now, has been endeavouring to have the House pass ethics guidelines. We favour a range of legislative reforms that would introduce transparency and accountability into party and campaign financing and the conduct of legislators and members of the executive in their dealings with lobbyists.

I think this is a terribly significant time to be making these kinds of ethical guidelines, just because of what we have been reading and hearing about in the news media. I believe that the root of the problem is kickbacks or perhaps kick-forwards in terms of working with ad agencies and the like, either for past favours or for future favours.

One of the ways that this could be corrected very quickly would be to amend the Canada Elections Act to incorporate funding of party leadership campaigns under the disclosure requirement. A second way would be to develop and promote a system of state funded campaign financing, possibly modeled after the system in Quebec or Manitoba, which must be implemented to curb the influence that business and the wealthy have over the democratic electoral process.

I do not want to imply by referring twice in one speech to Jeffrey Simpson, the Globe and Mail columnist, that I am necessarily a big fan, but I did read with some interest a recent column that Mr. Simpson wrote in that newspaper regarding the changes to the election law that have occurred in Manitoba under the premiership of Gary Doer. In that column, Mr. Simpson indicated that Mr. Doer “first had to persuade his own party to abolish union and corporate contributions to political parties”. He managed to do that. He has brought that law into power. The provincial parties operating in the province of Manitoba must now rely only on contributions of up to $3,000 maximum from individuals, wrote Mr. Simpson, “a change that would be worthwhile for federal parties to adopt with modifications, instead of having their leaders fly around scooping up corporate (and union) cash” as the Prime Minister did recently in the province of Manitoba at a $400 a plate fundraising dinner.

I recall that René Lévesque, the first leader of the parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec, who governed for a number of years, was asked after he left office what the one piece of legislation was that he was most proud of. He responded very promptly that he was most proud of the guidelines his government brought in on spending for political parties and curbing and restricting donations from corporations and from trade unions. This is something that, as I have said before, but I do not think we can say it too often, would go a long way to restoring the faith of Canadians in what it is that governments are doing and what it is that political parties need to be doing.

Another area that could and should be looked at is the whole notion of whistleblower legislation. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, introduced a bill more than a year ago, an act to respect the protection of whistleblowers and to amend various acts. The bill proposes to protect members of the public service of Canada from retaliation for making in good faith allegations of wrongdoing and to provide a means for making such allegations in confidence so that it may be determined whether or not there is substance to the charges and to allow an opportunity to ferret out all of the facts. The legislation proposed by my colleague would have placed present practices under the House of Commons where they could be referred to a committee by the House.

Whistleblower laws are posited on the belief that employees should be able to disclose without reprisal to those in a position to investigate instances where there has been or there will likely be a criminal or a civil offence, a breach of legal obligation, miscarriage of justice, danger to public or individual health or safety, damage to the environment or a coverup of any of these matters.

The basic provisions would be protection of disclosures made in good faith to prescribed bodies. The bill would prohibit employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees in retaliation to the disclosure to the employer, an independent body or government agency. It would protect employees and allow them to participate in formal government proceedings in connection with violations, including amnesty from any legal proceedings arising from their participation. Finally, it would establish an independent appeals procedure for any employee who believes that he or she has been discharged, demoted or otherwise discriminated against contrary to the provisions, and compensation could be awarded in cases where this has occurred.

This is not groundbreaking legislation. It would be in this country, but it certainly is not around the world. The British public interest disclosure act is considered by some to be the best example of comprehensive whistleblower legislation and makes provision for whistleblowers to be protected in the case of wider disclosures, which is mentioned in my colleague's bill.

My time is drawing to a close. I indicated that I was not here to be critical of Alex Himelfarb, the new Clerk of the Privy Council Office. Indeed, I noted with some interest that he addressed some 800 senior public servants yesterday in a speech here in Ottawa.

Among other things, Mr. Himelfarb said that the time was ripe for the bureaucracy to dish up new and exciting policy options like this government has “never seen before”. He is calling for an agenda in the fall that includes public service reform, health care reform, the long promised innovation agenda, a skills and learning blueprint, and something that will reach out to aboriginal, poor people and make certain that every child has a good start in life.

I think that if that were to happen it would be a good start, not only for Mr. Himelfarb, but for the House and mostly for the people of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, you have my firm promise that I will be referring only to you in the course of my comments, tempted though I am.

I would like to refer back to the debate that occurred between the member for Toronto--Danforth and the Conservative House leader and to address one of the issues they had raised in their comments. The member for Toronto--Danforth suggested to the Conservative House leader that there is no distinction between a minister's position and that of an ordinary member and that ministers ought not to be restricted in how they represent their constituents and to what degree they work as ombudsmen on behalf of their constituents.

There is a fundamental distinction here. It used to be traditional for members of parliament to step down and seek re-election when they were becoming cabinet ministers on the understanding that they would be incapable of representing their constituents to the same degree as an ombudsman because they would have the power to represent the interests of their constituents over the interests of the people of Canada.

That was a practice which was abandoned in the early 20th century because we believed we had other protections that would ensure that ministers could no longer represent the interests of their constituents over the interests of the people of Canada who they were representing as ministers of the crown. I am afraid that we are seeing some of those protections being eroded.

More particularly and further to the point the hon. member was making, when the Prime Minister defended the solicitor general he was referring to the fact that the minister was representing the people of Prince Edward Island in his capacity as a regional minister. The solicitor general is a regional minister charged with the task of bringing home the goodies that are dispensed on a discretionary basis by the government to his part of the country in competition with various other regional ministers who have these non official but apparently extremely important portfolios. They are so important in the mind of the Prime Minister that they override their official functions. They override their duty to the crown and their duty to the people of Canada.

They bring home the pork and in consequence exercise discretion in such a way that they pay people in the area where regional ministers are official pork dispensers to hire members of their family to be in parts of their institution to ensure the pork will come to their institution when it is being delivered to the region. That is the fundamental problem and that is the distinction between ministers and ordinary members of parliament, be they on the government side or the opposition side, who are not in the position of power to disburse public funds.

Tonight we will be voting on well over $1 billion in government spending in the form of several votes on several different issues. Due to the vagaries in the way members of parliament submit their motions of objection, it turns out we will almost certainly spend the entire period of time debating the first motion. As it turned out the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough submitted first and therefore we will focus not only on his motion but also on the item which he selected to put in a motion. The result is we will talk about the privy council.

I would like to go through the various votes that will come up tonight and point out the number of dollars involved in each. Under Vote No. 1, which we are debating, $101 million; Vote No. 2 is $3,423,000; Vote No. 3 is $426 million; Vote No. 4 is $110 million; Vote No. 5 is $325 million; and Vote No. 6, grants and contributions from the justice department in the amount of $399 million.

The item we are debating is not the largest item on tonight's agenda and for that reason my remarks will stray a little into some of the other areas other than the privy council. We cannot therefore just focus, as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister did, on a civics course essay on what the Privy Council Office does, informative as it is for those who are enrolled in civics courses.

To me what is happening tonight with these votes is symptomatic of a problem which affects so many votes in this place. We find ourselves debating whatever is first on the agenda and then we are simply unable to deal in detail with votes that come up later on the agenda, notwithstanding their importance.

I can give a couple of examples. When Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, was up for debate, the House got hung up on a motion that I had put forward when time allocation and closure was put in place. The motion was not outstandingly important and the result was that it got debated far more than it deserved and we never got on to the other items, many of which were important. Something like that is happening tonight. With Bill C-5 something similar has occurred.

If I were to pick out the item that seems to me to deserve the greatest consideration among the various votes that are occurring tonight, I would probably say that it would be the grants and contributions, vote 6, in the order of just under $400 million in the justice department. I say that because there is a crisis in the country of confidence in the government, and as polls show, a crisis in the faith that Canadians have in their government not to be corrupt. It is based on the assumption, which is backed up by an outstandingly large amount of evidence, that when governments have the capacity to spend funds in a discretionary manner and when individual ministers have the capacity to allocate in a discretionary manner, and grants and contributions of course fall under this category, then we see the tendency for them not merely to bring the pork home to their region but the bring the pork home to those who might just happen to make contributions to their party or to their own campaigns or indeed in certain cases to their own leadership campaigns.

That is a serious problem. It is more than a serious problem. It is verging on a national crisis.

There are vast amounts of government grants and contributions in other departments, not just the ones we are voting on tonight. I want to give some examples tonight, taking the estimates for this year in three other departments: in the ministry of finance, $675 million in grants and contributions; in the human resources department, just shy of $1 billion in grants and contributions, $925 million to be precise; and in industry, $933 million in grants and contributions.

What this involves of course is money that is given out on a discretionary basis. I do not mean to suggest, and no doubt someone on the other side will insinuate that this is what I mean to suggest, that this is all in the form of grants and contributions to Liberal contributors. However, when we have this amount of money, we have a very large haystack in which more than one or two needles can be buried and of course huge opportunities for abuse.

We all know that these grants and contributions are recorded in the public accounts of Canada. How much does that actually mean? The Public Accounts of Canada list the various grants and contributions given out by the Government of Canada. To give an idea of what it means and how it is supposed to protect the public interest, let me quote from a recent article in the National Post , written by Andrew Coyne. He says:

An informed electorate, so the theory goes, should then be able to decide for itself [by reading the public accounts] whether politicians are too cozy with business or other interests, and punish them at the next election. It's perfectly simple, really. Voters have only to check the list of recipients of grants and subsidies in the public accounts, keep tabs on all untendered contracts issued by Public Works, sift through the files of the various federal lending agencies to see which companies have received government loans, scan the text of each piece of legislation or order-in-council, then cross-reference these with the list of donors maintained at Elections Canada, not only for the current year, but previous years as well.

Presumably we could do this through access to some kind of teleporting device into future political contributions as well. That is what we are up against.

To make things worse than that, we do not get access to all grants and contributions, only those over the amount of $100,000. Any grant or contribution up to $99,000 is completely off the public accounts.

That is a change, incidentally, which occurred during the lifetime of this government. It used to be any grant or contribution over $10,000 but then the rules changed. Why did they change? We were told that there was a problem with the size of the public accounts books being produced. They were getting too large so rules changed to save paper.

This change came through just about the time the Internet came into use and these things were being posted on the Internet. The argument was that too much paper was being used and it was expedient to make this change. It is expedient all right but not perhaps for the reasons suggested by the government at that time.

Is there an opportunity for needles to be hidden in these vast haystacks? There certainly is. The way these accounts are put together, there is not merely one big haystack out there. We have to go through elaborate cross-referencing and we have to have access to information requests to get this information which is not readily or quickly available. Having launched over a 100 access to information requests last year, I am well aware of the fact that they can be delayed, deferred or any number of tactics to deny information to the person seeking it, particularly when it is something worth seeking.

All these things are designed to ensure that there is a separate haystack for every needle out there. As a result, we only ever see what I would like to say is the tip of the iceberg, but actually 10% of the iceberg is actually shows. It is the tip of something much larger with much less showing. That is what is going on.

Here is the tip of the iceberg as it stands now. This is a partial list because I do have limited time. There is something fishy going on with the various Groupaction contracts. There is the new Groupe Everest contract. Media IDA Vision controlled 75% of government advertising contracts last year, when only 25% can be permitted to one company under the rules. There was the overspending on the promotion of the La FrancophonieGames, which has been raised so eloquently by our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois.

There was a $101 million untendered contract for new jets for our ministers. The Cascade Data Services incipient scandal is emerging in which Cascade Data Services is receiving money when it has no website, no public telephone number and no address known to people who live in the immediate vicinity of its supposed location.

Faced with this situation and all this administrative convenience we have a serious problem. Even if it were the intention of MPs, and more particularly of ministers in the House, to try to be as clean as they possibly could be, the temptations and competitive pressure under such a system for a person to veer from the straight and narrow would be overwhelming, particularly anyone running for the leadership of the governing party when all their competitors are out there raising money with the potential to give favours.

I suggest the only solution is to raise the political costs to the actors who seek to become the leader of the Liberal Party to the point where it no longer pays to get involved in any kind of trading of favours. When this is done, there will be an elimination of any hint or threat of the misuse of public funds.

In my remaining time let me suggest one way in which this sort of thing could be done so that we could improve the public access to the information that would raise the political costs for getting involved in the kinds of conflict of interests that we see emerging. I would suggest we eliminate the $100,000 floor for reporting. I do not suggest taking it down to $10,000 but taking it down to zero.

If a grant or contribution is given out, I suggest it would be recorded in the public accounts, period. Moreover, I suggest it should be placed on the government's website. I would suggest one step further. Being on the website, it should be placed in the form of a manipulable database so individuals can do a few experiments and see, for example, if there are any commonalities in the names of the individuals who are recipients. It can be manipulated by name of recipient.

I would suggest that would make a huge difference. It would greatly reduce the potential for hiding money from the public view. Moreover it would make access instant. It would substantially reduce the costs to those who are looking for this kind of information.

If this were done, I think we would see a tremendous increase in transparency. I think we would see a great reduction in the temptations for people, who perhaps might otherwise be the most honest people in the world, to get ahead in politics and in their search for the leadership of their party without finding any need to put themselves in either a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Royal Assent Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill S-34, an act respecting royal assent to bills passed by the Houses of Parliament.

I will be speaking against the bill but, for the sake of clarification, I will be speaking against it on my own behalf and not on behalf of the Canadian Alliance as a whole.

I want to begin my comments by congratulating the government House leader for resuming his role. I know he has a deep appreciation for this place and its traditions. In our discussions prior to this debate, we reviewed together some of the provisions of the bill, which he supports and I do not, but I do know that he has a deep appreciation for the history and traditions of the House, and I can appreciate that.

I want to now turn to the three points I want to make about the bill. First, I will give a brief review of the contents of the bill. Second, I will talk a little bit about the role of tradition and of state ceremonial in our system and indeed in all systems. Third, I will talk to the broader question of the reform of this place and some of the dysfunctions that have crept into it.

Bill S-34 would provide an alternative to the formal royal assent procedure currently used in the Canadian parliament. It would provide that royal assent can be given by a written declaration similar to that which is used in Canadian provinces, in Australia and in the United Kingdom, and which has been used in some of those jurisdictions for a number of years.

The provisions of the bill allow for one traditional royal assent ceremony to be held per year. However, the bill carefully states that should such a traditional ceremony not take place there would be no consequences. I think that is definitely a mistake. If the bill had gone through committee and through report stage in this Chamber where amendments could have been made, I would have proposed an amendment to that effect.

Those procedures would take place during the parliamentary session in which both Houses passed the bill.

Those are the general outlines of the legislation. The formal ceremony for royal assent, of which many Canadians may not be aware, occurs, at most, once per session and perhaps not at all.

The way it works now is that when a bill is assented to, the Governor General, or the Queen if she is present in Canada, takes the throne in the Senate, members of the Senate are assembled, the Usher of the Black Rod comes down to the House of Commons and invites all members present to join in the ceremony of royal assent. A parade of members walk over to the Senate and the Governor General or the monarch, as the case may be, gives formal assent to the legislation in question.

I want to talk a bit about the value of this kind of tradition and indicate why this is a key part of my opposition to this bill. I oppose the bill because it represents one small part of the steady erosion in Canada, which has been going on for a number of decades, of the traditional state ceremonial that exists and the respect for the traditional forums in which we enact our laws, carry out our daily lives and carry out the functions that make us part of a body politic, a polity, a community that is not simply a state but something that has an organic existence of its own. Those organic relationships develop slowly. They maintain the value in bringing a solemnity to what we do.

The institution we see eroding bit by bit as these changes take place tends to be the monarchy which is the capstone of the Canadian constitution. Under our constitution and traditions, this is a central part of the parliamentary system. In fact, parliament is not composed under our system of two houses, the Commons and Senate, but rather of three parts: the Commons, the Senate and the Queen. That is why we refer to the Queen in our formal documents and pronouncements in parliament.

We are intended under our original constitution to be a republic in the classical sense. A republic is not in the trite modern sense a state without a monarch. Rather a republic is a mixed government which consists of elements of a monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. It seems to me that the erosion of the traditional monarchial element is a very dangerous process, particularly when the natural form, and this goes back to ancient philosophy, of all institutions is to develop elements of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. However when one is taken and shaken from its traditional foundations the danger is that it will shift to a caricature of itself. When we replace the traditional monarch with another institution, another person who starts to fill that role unofficially, the danger is that the person can become a kind of caricature of the monarch, filling that monarch's proper role.

All great and stable democracies have understood this and have been very careful to move and change those institutions with extreme care and caution, or perhaps not to change them at all but rather to put the necessary time and effort into ensuring that those institutions will be resuscitated, revived and made a part of the daily lives of citizens, particularly of our young citizens. We see that pattern we see in the United Kingdom of course which as long ago as the 1860s, was referred to by the great writer Walter Bagehot in his book, The English Constitution , as a republic, meaning a republic in the classical, traditional sense.

It is the tradition that was followed in the United States when it was founding its constitution. The Americans were very careful to give a role not only to the democratic element but to the aristocratic element which they embodied in their senate, and to the monarchy. They very much understood that their monarch, which they referred to as their executive, would have a power placed and formalized in the president and also limited in the president.

We have not done that. We left the form of the monarchy surrounding the monarch herself. We have steadily eroded the pomp and circumstance around that office and gradually moved it to the real executive, who of course is the Prime Minister, and we are gradually putting more and more pomp and ceremony around that individual.

I believe that leads to a corrosion of not only our respect for the monarchy itself but our respect for other institutions of our system of government and that includes this place. I have said on previous occasions, the House functions not as a legislative body but as a parliamentary body which considers all bills, debates them and proposes amendments and sends them to committee. We are not doing that on this bill.

In so eroding this institution we have turned into effectively an electoral college which sits in perpetual session and which is repeatedly called upon to renew its vote of confidence in the Prime Minister. That was not the original purpose of this House. I think that is a dangerous trend which has deprived us of the great wisdom that was read into our original constitution and that we inherited from our ancestors, our forebearers, in the parliament in Westminster.

This bill is a very tiny step in that direction but I think again any step in that direction ought to be avoided and we ought as much as possible to reverse that trend.

The value of ceremonial in a broader sense throughout our society is emphasized by any number of scholars. The one who comes to my mind most easily is Joseph Campbell, the great explorer of traditions and comparative sociologies. He made the observation that in each society the glue that holds it together is always the least tangible, the least touchable and the most formalized part of that society. When that is eroded and stripped away, it is formalized but formalized without law and formalized in the minds of the people.

When that is eroded, it always leads to deleterious effects for that culture. He looked at cultures that had largely been untouched by western society that were just, as he wrote in the mid 20th century, coming into contact with western society and western civilization and which saw a rapid erosion of their traditions and forms. He saw tremendous damage being caused to them. It seems to me that in a much lesser degree the same sort of thing can occur here.

In the third part of my remarks I want to address some of the objections that were raised in support of the bill by the government House leader and by others who have spoken in the other place about this bill.

First, the observation was made that many countries with a Westminster style government had abandoned the royal assent ceremony and that Canada was now unique among the parliamentary democracies on the Westminster model, or at least among the more populous ones, in retaining this ceremony in its tradition form. As long ago as 1958, it was observed that “the Canadian ceremony seems to be that which most closely resembles the original”.

This has been presented in the House as being something of a negative. I would say this is actually a very positive thing, that our retention of the ceremony in its original form is something we ought to rejoice in, in the very same way that we place a great deal of value in some of the other symbols in the House.

Of course the symbol of the mace and the power it represents is taken very seriously. We have a parade every day in which the Speaker, accompanied by the Sergeant-at-Arms, brings the mace into the House. The various officers of the House come in wearing either their three cornered or two cornered hats, as the case may be. These are ancient traditional robes of office. They do not serve any practical purpose in making the Speaker, the Clerk or other officers of the House more effective. They serve to remind us of the great and ancient traditions that we have established in this place.

They are the glue that holds us together. They are the glue that in our constitution holds us together. That is why we always have to read our constitution with the understanding that many of the most important aspects of the constitution are not written anywhere. They are understood and held in our hearts.

The very office of the Prime Minister or the institution of cabinet responsibility to parliament, neither of these things are in the constitution itself. They are understood. They are conventional in the same way that the form of the traditional royal assent ceremony is conventional. It is only now in this law being written down, changed and limited.

Without those conventional aspects to our constitution, we would not merely be a much inferior place. If we took our constitution seriously, we would be a virtual dictatorship written as it is without looking at any of the conventions that give it its depth, its breadth, its heterogeneity, its compassion and its flexibility which make it, when taken as a whole, one of the finest in the world, an example to so much of the world.

The preamble of the bill reads as follows:

And whereas it is desirable to facilitate the work of Parliament and the process of enactment by enabling royal assent to be signified by written declaration;

Then it goes on to state some other things. It talks about the need to facilitate the work of parliament by stripping away a bit of ceremony and by enabling royal assent to be given without this ceremonial. This bit of ceremonial, which is supposed to be an intrusion on the effectiveness of our operations here, is something which is no more elaborate than the ceremony that takes place here everyday, and it took place less than an hour ago. It seems to me that rather than stripping this away we ought to consider doing something which is very much the opposite.

Let me suggest that we could, for example, have the current ceremony and whenever a bill is assented to bring in Canadians to see it. We could announce in advance when the ceremony would take place. We could contact local schools and invite school groups to come to the Senate Chamber to see royal assent being given. I think that would be a valuable exercise.

As someone who grew up in this area and could have been brought to such a ceremony as a youngster, it is a great shame that this was never done and that we were not investing this traditional ceremony with the public attention it deserved.

To make this much clearer, I would like to point to another ceremony that occurred 20 years ago on the Hill when the Queen came to sign our constitution, our new charter of rights and amending formula into law.

I was then a high school student. I came down on my own with a friend that day. I took the bus to the Hill. Only a small crowd gathered to see the event. I still have those memories which are a very precious part to my personal attachment to our system and our constitution.

No effort was made to have school groups go to that event. We have all kinds of excuses when we talk about the lack of national feeling that exists in Canada and the lack of natural attachment Canadians have to their country. We are a federal state. We are a continent sized country. How can we expect it? There is the draw of the United States which is so much larger than us. There are two languages in this country. How can we expect Canadians to feel this kind of loyalty to their country?

I would argue that I can find counter examples for everyone of those excuses. We are the size of a continent and we have no sense of loyalty to our country. The Australians are the size of a continent and they have an intense sense of loyalty to their country, as do the Americans. We have more than one language. So do the Swiss and they have an intense sense of loyalty to their country. We are faced with a larger and culturally powerful neighbour which steals away the affections and emotions of our people which is a more exciting place. Look at Switzerland. It is surrounded by three of the most dynamic and exciting cultures in Europe: the Italians, the French and the Germans. Again, the Swiss feel a greater loyalty to their country than do probably any people in the world. I believe this is largely because of the tremendous respect that they show for the traditions and forms of their constitution and of their many cantonal constitutions of all the ceremonial of their state. Some of these ceremonies go back many centuries before the discovery of the continent but they are treated with tremendous respect even when they are slow moving and inconvenient. That is something we need to appreciate and respect.

I have only been to one traditional ceremony for royal assent. With regard to the question of whether this is an inconvenient matter, this ceremony was for Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, a law I voted against. However the ceremony was to take place and I thought it was a wonderful opportunity to attend. I was in my office, which is in this building. I saw that something was going on so I went in. There was no inconvenience involved. Parliament was not sitting at the time. It was after the House had risen for the Christmas recess. I, the acting Speaker and the member for Yukon were present.

There was no inconvenience involved at all. If the member for Yukon and I had not been there, the procedure and ceremony would have gone ahead. There was no inconvenience to the House. This ceremony does not slow down the business of the House if we do not want it to. It can be dealt with at a time that is convenient and it is a simple matter with which to deal.

Again, there was something fundamentally wrong with the idea that the putting into effect of this law, probably the most important piece of legislation on which members of the House in this parliament will get a chance to vote prior to the next election, would be done with very little notice on a day during the Christmas holidays when no attention was given to it. If it is as important as we say it is, we ought to treat it with the appropriate respect. We should have treated that law with the appropriate respect. We should have treated the ceremony by which it was enacted with the appropriate respect.

Her Majesty's loyal opposition supports parliamentary reform. We believe in reforming private members' business. We believe in allowing parliament to have greater freedom by giving greater powers to standing committees, greater powers to special committees, allowing an ethics commissioner to be appointed who would report to the House as opposed to reporting to the Prime Minister, having standards of ethical behaviour written down and available so that parliamentarians know what they are. We do not have to guess at what binds the cabinet.

We would like the Prime Minister to enact some of the rules that he promised to enact nine years ago when he was elected. It has been left to the opposition to push the government to bring forward the red book promises which it made almost a decade ago. That is very unfortunate.

We have seen promises recently that some kind of parliamentary reform will be forthcoming. This measure today is presented as an example of parliamentary reform and from one perspective perhaps it is. But it is not a parliamentary reform which empowers this House or which allows us to be more effective representatives of the people who voted for us and sent us here, or which allows us to resume our proper and constitutional role as the democratic arm of our country.

Our country deserves to have a legislature which is genuinely independent and in which genuine debate takes place. Our country deserves to have a legislature in which a variety of points of view are expressed and in which legislation changes as members present their points of view in order to reflect not only their own views but the views of the various communities they represent. None of that occurs because of this measure or because of the other watered down measures the government has been bringing forward.

Last June it was left to the official opposition to put forward a motion instructing a committee to come up with proposals to reform private members' business. On that occasion the government supported the motion, but at committee the government majority voted not to comply with the wishes of the House.

While Bill S-34 does represent parliamentary reform of a sort, watered down and a decade late, it is not enough. Canadians deserve better.

Public Safety Act, 2002

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from British Columbia for his remarks. He has given a thoughtful and detailed analysis of the shortcomings and the dangers associated with this legislation. He has pointed out the lack of the government's ability to justify the need for the bill, to bring forward logic behind cutting off these interim orders, and to remove some of the safeguards that exist under existing legislation.

A number of members who have spoken have highlighted the fact that we already have in place an Emergencies Act. Let us look at the chronology and the history of how that particular legislation came about. The government House leader and other members present who have more history in this place will be quick to acknowledge that the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act, under the Liberal administration of the time, was invoked and led to perhaps one of the most egregious assaults on civil liberties that this country has experienced.

There were numerous detentions and arrests that aggravated and inflamed the passions of Quebecers in particular, but Canadians generally. In invoking this type of Draconian approach and the denial of civil liberties, Canadians bore witness to a sad and dark chapter of Canadian history.

When one goes back further an example comes to mind and that is the Steven Truscott case. An individual was sentenced to hang in a judicial process where disclosure was not mandatory and where there were many shortcomings that led to egregious errors in law and almost cost young Steven Truscott his life.

I do not point out that type of example to torque up or engage in rhetoric, but to exemplify the fundamental breaches that could occur when there are parameters of the law that are stretched and ignored, which is what could happen in instances if the bill were to pass in its present form. There could be instances where basic rights could be denied such as the rights to enjoy privacy, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, and the free use of a person's property. That is how fundamental these infringements may become.

Many members who have spoken have pointed very quickly and earnestly to the declaration of controlled military zones and the ramifications that could flow from such declarations. What we are talking about here, because of the nebulous language contained in the bill, is that by simply moving a single piece of military equipment into any region, province or property within our nation's boundaries a declaration could be made deeming that area, in the immediate vicinity of this military vehicle, a controlled military zone. Being deemed a controlled military zone would create certain ramifications that would have grave implications for human rights and liberties. That is of concern when one examines the context of what happened in APEC, Quebec City, and what might happen in Kananaskis.

There is some question as to the timing, the need and the necessity for bringing this legislation forward now. In the aftermath of September 11, as all members rightly have been quick to point out, we are living in a brave new world. We are living in a new environment that recognizes the grave consequences and the real tangible threat that is out there, yet we have seen legislation passed hastily through the House in Bill C-36.

There was great rush and trepidation on the part of the Liberal government to bring forward Bill C-42 which encompassed many of the same elements as the bill we see before us. One could say that to a large extent Bill C-55 is a stripped down version of Bill C-42. Bill C-42 was part of this crass rush to bring in legislation that was supposed to take advantage of the prevailing public attitude and fear that existed.

Thankfully calmer thoughts and introspection have prevailed. What we see with Bill C-55, though, is a very dangerous piece of legislation, particularly when we look at the new powers that would be placed in the hands of ministers. A single minister would have the ability to make these designations and judgments based on information that could be very nebulous, could in fact be secret and could be withheld from parliament or from an individual who might fall victim to the enactment of this type of arbitrary power.

What is perhaps most fundamentally offensive and disturbing about elements of this bill is that once again we see in this legislation a deliberate effort on the part of the drafters, and therefore on the part of the government, to circumvent the role of parliament for scrutiny and for responsible criticism and questioning of the government's actions in the state of an emergency. What this does is waters down what might be deemed an emergency.

Under the current legislation the government rightly has to justify itself. It has to come before parliament within a very short period of time and say that the existing circumstances are so grave that the legislation is necessary. In the aftermath of September 11 there was no such attempt by the government to bring forward a request to invoke the Emergencies Act.

Reflecting on the sentiment of this nation and our brothers and sisters in the United States, clearly there was panic afoot. Yet even in that atmosphere there was no attempt by the government to declare the Emergencies Act in effect in Canada.

What, pray tell, is behind the government's intent to bring in a piece of legislation that is a watered down, interim measure that falls somewhere between no emergency and no need to invoke that type of legislation and something where the government can make a decision to invoke very severe and arbitrary powers without coming before parliament and without bringing it to the House for a vote where the people's representatives are given an opportunity to ask relevant questions, to press the government to justify its actions, to do what parliament is supposed to do in its finest hour, which is to ensure that people's rights are protected, that we are invoking due process and that we are in fact following the democratic process?

There is much to be discussed. There is much answer that the government must provide to convince members present. The previous speaker referred to the fact that there is much opposition and not only in the ranks of assembled members of parliament. Clearly groups that we have heard from around the country share these concerns and are looking forward to the occasion in which they might come before a parliamentary committee to force the government to bring forward its justification for the bill in the very same manner which we are attempting to do through this debate.

By example, if we are not permitted to have a full and open debate and to press the government on this type of legislation, it demonstrates the dangers, should this bill pass, and the inability for members of parliament to invoke this process of questioning and criticism. That is the danger. This debate in and of itself demonstrates what is wrong with having the type of legislation that allows the government to hide, to cover up, to keep secret its justifications for making designations that are tantamount to an emergency or a military zone. People have to understand that this is what will take place, if the legislation were to pass.

Like previous speakers to the legislation, I am encouraged by the fact that members have brought forward thoughtful criticisms, pressed the government on issues that will be affected, issues that pertain to immigration, the Aeronautics Act, the criminal code and the effect that will have, the transportation and security bill and the passing of information between government agencies. All that has caused many, including independent parties who answer to parliament, to question the government's motive, intent and public trust, which is an important element in all of this.

I hope members will continue to question that not only in the House but before the committee, which is the true test as to whether this open, transparent and honourable legislation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate on the main motion of Bill C-55. I recently had an opportunity to speak to the amendment. I also have had the opportunity now to listen to a number of other speakers and very thoughtful presentations as we work our way through this very complex bill.

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I would like to address the remarks of the previous speaker from the Liberal Party, the member for Bonavista--Trinity--Conception, who found fault with the NDP's analysis of Bill C-55. He felt that perhaps we were being too harsh and that we were not looking hard enough to find the merits and benefits of the bill.

I would like to point out that we have made a very detailed, in-depth analysis of the bill and we still find it flawed, we still find it worrisome and we still find it necessary to caution the Canadian public that some of the very values by which we identify ourselves as Canadians will be jeopardized by the bill.

I do not think my colleague from the NDP caucus who spoke previously overstated things at all in her speech. Perhaps the hon. member from Bonavista should have paid closer attention to some of the concerns we have raised. We do not raise them just to be obstinate. We raise them as a way of cautioning the Canadian people that this massive power grab of an omnibus bill raises serious concerns and could jeopardize the very way we view ourselves as Canadians, because some of those basic freedoms and principles that we enjoy and are committed to are the very things of which we are most proud.

When I raise specifics, I hope the hon. member listens. He said that the NDP had nothing positive at all to say about Bill C-55. I would like to put it on the record that there are points in Bill C-55 that we find important. In fact I would point out that Bill C-42, which was so hastily thrown together after the tragic events of 9/11, had to be done away with and put out of its misery. Some of the changes in Bill C-55 are improvements over Bill C-42, such as the change to the Aeronautics Act whereby the transport minister's regulation making powers concerning aviation safety will be better defined under Bill C-55 than they were under Bill C-42.

There are specific areas, to which I am happy to point, where we find Bill C-55 better than the previous bill. I would start by saying though that Bill C-42 was thrown together hastily and when it was pulled, we waited for four or five months for Bill C-55 to come forward. Now we are being told by the government that we must get Bill C-55 through immediately and hastily because it is an urgent issue. Where was the urgency when Bill C-42 languished for five months in bureaucratic limbo prior to us seeing the introduction of Bill C-55?

I do not accept the argument that the same sense of urgency exists as may have existed the day after 9/11. Certainly we are all interested in national security. A lot of Canadians feel that the government currently has a great deal of authority or ability to intervene, if it really thinks there is a clear and present danger. The War Measures Act for instance was always there as a tool, as an instrument for ministers to use.

One of the worrisome things that has been pointed out is a difference between Bill C-55 and the War Measures Act. Under the War Measures Act, the government had to come back to parliament within 48 hours. Under Bill C-55, a minister could exercise this expanded authority, not even report to cabinet for 15 days and not have it dealt with in parliament for 45 days. That is a broad and sweeping power. A lot could happen in 45 days and we would not have a chance to give it parliamentary oversight or scrutiny for 45 days. That alone should be cause and concern enough to the Canadian people that they should be asking us to put the brakes on the bill, let it sit over the summer and rethink if we really want to trade this amount of personal freedom for that amount of national safety.

This is one thing of which I am very critical. I guess to summarize the trend or theme of the bill, it very much expands ministerial authority. It very much diminishes parliamentary oversight. That is a very worrisome theme. That is actually a motif that I have noticed in virtually every piece of legislation introduced by the Liberals in the years that I have been here. There has been a tendency to expand ministerial authority and to diminish the ability of parliament to have true parliamentary oversight.

It is a slippery slope. It is a very tempting and seductive thing I suppose for the ruling party. I would remind the ruling party that it will not always be the ruling party. As it strips away parliament's abilities and powers in the way the government was intended it to be, the Liberals will find themselves on the opposition benches wondering why they do not have any opportunity to intervene, to make legislation and to act as a true parliament. The government will have been the architects of dismantling and downsizing the authority of parliament.

That is a very worrisome trend that is very evident in Bill C-55, enhancing the discretionary authority of ministers and diminishing our ability to exercise parliamentary oversight, especially as it pertains to such sensitive issues of personal freedom.

Another thing is, when we talk about an omnibus bill, most people are tempted to call it a Trojan horse. To achieve what most Canadians would support, which is an enhanced sense of national security, we believe that the bill has been loaded up as an absolute catch-all for other things that are incidental. They were perhaps part of a plan of the Liberal Party to have them introduced. The government is using this as the vehicle, the Trojan horse, for all kinds of other measures.

There are 15 different acts that will be amended by Bill C-55. These 15 different acts are under the jurisdiction of nine different standing committees. Yet the bill will only go to one standing committee, the transport committee.

I should point out for the record some of the acts that will be amended by the bill; the Aeronautics Act, the biological and toxin weapons convention implementation act, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Criminal Code of Canada, the Explosives Act, the National Energy Board Act, the National Defence Act, the Hazardous Products Act and many more will be affected by Bill C-55. However the people in our caucus who are experts in these fields and sit on the appropriate committees will not have the chance to view this document or to move amendments at committee stage or to even scrutinize it at committee stage. They do not sit on the transport committee.

Our health expert, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, sits on the health committee. If this bill will have an impact on the health act, why is it not before the health committee so it can receive the all party scrutiny that we do at committee?

I am trying to itemize the number of legitimate reasons why the NDP caucus cannot support Bill C-55. This is why we are trying to alert the Canadian public that it needs far greater attention and scrutiny.

I am not only asking for more time to debate and less of a rush so that we can hear more brilliant speeches in the House of Commons. I am asking for more time so that we can engage Canadians, so that we consult Canadians, so that we can ask Canadians are they willing to trade these personal freedoms for these issues of national security? How much are Canadians willing to trade? How far as they willing to go?

Those are the questions Canadians deserve to be asked and we need to undertake a process by which we can get input and feedback.

We know it takes time for an issue to percolate from the House of Commons through the general public consciousness. I am sure Canadians are not aware that we are dealing with such a broad and sweeping piece of legislation right now. By the time this gets rammed through it will be too late.

By the time this session ends in a couple of days or a couple of weeks, Canadians still will not have been aware that we are undertaking changes to their personal freedoms that will change the way they live in this country and the way they view this country.

The one example people are fond of is the expanded enhanced ability to declare a military security zone. I think it is not being paranoid to assume this may be tied into the upcoming G-8 demonstrations scheduled for Kananaskis.

We saw how the government dealt with the gatherings and crowd control at APEC. We saw it again in Quebec City, ducking tear gas cannisters as we did. If the bill goes through, the government will have far broader, more enhanced sweeping powers and authorities in dealing with even peaceful demonstrators. That is another good reason why Canadians are concerned and why the NDP caucus has been critical of Bill C-55, just as we were of Bill C-36 and Bill C-42.

Some of the changes between Bill C-42 and Bill C-55 warrant mention. One of the changes to the military--

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-55 and on the amendment.

The bill is unnecessary, as was Bill C-36. Bill C-36 was unnecessary because we already had a new version of the War Measures Act known as the Emergencies Act. That is the purpose of the Emergencies Act. There is no reason the government cannot invoke the Emergencies Act during such times.

Since being passed by both Houses, how many times has Bill C-36 been used to fight terrorism? It has not been invoked once. I voted against Bill C-36 because it is bad legislation. It jeopardizes the values of a free society under the smokescreen and rationale of security. The real way to make Canada more secure is to have good intelligence, good police forces, good immigration policy and good customs and border personnel.

Bill C-55 falls under the same category as Bill C-36. If Bill C-36 has not been invoked up to this point in time why would the House and the country need another bill called Bill C-55, a so-called second version of Bill C-36 under the guise of national security?

Like Bill C-55, the Liberal government's gun control bill, Bill C-68, was not necessary. A report by the Library of Parliament to the House committee stated that Bill C-17, the former Tory bill for gun control which was brand new at the time, had not had time to be implemented before the Liberal government started another gun control bill. The Liberal government did not listen and we ended up with the big mess we have today under Bill C-68.

Canada has always had gun control. Handguns have been registered since 1934. Will registering all firearms make the country safer? Of course it will not. We all know that. Let us look at the statistics. Over the last four years since Bill C-68 was implemented gun murders have doubled. An Ontario study showed that 80% to 90% of illegal handguns are Saturday night specials that come over the border from the U.S.A. Canadians who own legally registered handguns are not potential criminals. This is an illustration of how unnecessary Bill C-55 would become.

Through Bill C-68 the government has criminalized all Canadians who use firearms legally. Unfortunately, Bill C-68 has divided Canadians along urban-rural lines. As has been said many times, rural Canadians use firearms as necessary tools in their culture and environment.

Canadians support gun control but not the kind created by the Liberals to gain votes from urbanites. There has been little accountability from the Liberal government regarding gun control expenditures. Other than buying votes and creating jobs in Liberal ridings the government's expenditures of over $700 million have done absolutely nothing for the health and safety of Canadians. I am comparing Bill C-68 to Bill C-55 because I hope doing so will foreshadow the bill's possible effects.

Cancer kills many more people annually in Canada than firearms. In 1999 there were 536 homicides of which 165 were shooting deaths. In 1997 there were 58,703 deaths due to cancer. The Liberal government has spent over $700 million on gun control in the last eight years. How much do members think the government has committed to cancer research? Since 1992 the government has committed only $25 million to breast cancer research. In the 54 years since 1947 only about $700 million has gone to cancer research. Those are pretty lopsided figures.

There is something wrong with this picture. Statistics Canada tells us we are 320 more times likely to die of cancer than by being shot. Is it not ridiculous that the Liberal government has spent over 25 times more on gun control than breast cancer?

Bill C-55 would give the optics of security. However it would do nothing more than give Canadians a false sense of security. It would attack whatever was left of the freedoms of being a Canadian and living in a democracy.

Part 6 of Bill C-55 would impact every firearm owner in Canada. In amending the Explosives Act it would give the government the right to regulate and put an end to the making, purchasing, possession and use of all ammunition. It would take us back to a time when one had to write in a permit book how much and what kind of liquor one purchased at a vendor. Will the next step be to control the amount of bullets and empty cases one can have in one's home? Part 6 of the bill defines “inexplosive ammunition component” as:

--any cartridge case or bullet, or any projectile that is used in a firearm--

Would plumber's lead come under this class? It has the potential of being made into bullets. Perhaps lead fishing weights and jigs would qualify. How about shotgun wads, felt pads and patches? I do not imagine too many Liberals even know what a patch is.

How would part 6 of Bill C-55 protect Canadians from terrorists? Terrorists would keep bags of bullets and empty cartridge cases hidden. As far as I am concerned, poor unsuspecting law-abiding Canadians would be the victims of another Liberal bill much like Bill C-68 and Bill C-36. With laws like C-55 why would law-abiding firearms users or any other Canadian trust the Liberal government?

The biggest problem in Canada is that the Liberal government thinks it knows what is best for Canadians. However it does not listen very well. We have heard over and over again that in Canada we have government by one Liberal. It is not far from the truth. Is it surprising to see the Liberal government embroiled in corruption charges in recent weeks?

The government pays only lip service to the needs of Canadians. Let us look at our problems in softwood lumber and agriculture. Europeans receive 56 cents on the dollar in subsidies. The Americans will end up with the same. The poor Canadian farmer fighting to survive receives only nine cents on the dollar in subsidies.

Like Bill C-68 and Bill C-36, Bill C-55 is nothing more than a snow job and a power grab. Canadians need to wake up before it is too late. Canadian values are being attacked daily by the Liberal government. It is time to change the government.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am deeply concerned that again we have this legislation before the House in its present form. It is especially disturbing that the government has decided to refuse the reasoned and rational requests for major amendments. The bill has to be changed. Like its predecessors Bill C-36 and Bill C-45, which was wisely withdrawn, it gives priority to an anti-democratic measure taken in the name of protecting our democracy. It fails the basic test of protecting our civil liberties from the state.

We are a country with a proud tradition of fighting for democracy. On Monday, I was dockside for the return of one of our proud naval vessels from anti-al-Qaeda patrols in the Arabian Sea. It is alarming to see the paradox of our brave sailors putting their lives on the line for our democracy while parliamentarians are trying to rush through a bill which would take powers from parliament and allow more single decisions from ministers to deprive Canadians of their civil liberties.

As an example, let us first look at the part of the bill that I find most troubling, the so-called military security zones from Bill C-42. These have now been changed to “controlled access military zones” in Bill C-55. The bill, with amendments, stipulates that these zones can be created only to protect Department of National Defence property or foreign military assets within Canada. These changes do not sufficiently address our concerns about how the power to create these zones could be abused. The basic message of the bill is that all of us, and including the very institutions Canadians have created to express their democracy and protect their freedoms, like parliament, like a free press, like public debate, have to trust the decision making ability of a single minister to restrict access to a designated place for any length of time the minister would like and we should not be able to question the decision. In fact we may not even publicly know about the decision.

Given our history of policy over reaction at APEC or in Quebec City or at the G-20 meetings just down the street from our Chamber, I frankly do not trust any single minister to protect the civil liberties of Canadians. Given the state of allegations of scandal and mismanagement being levelled at the ministers opposite, I am not sure that any Canadians trust any single minister to protect their civil liberties when left behind closed doors, yet this is what Bill C-55 is asking us to do. By doing this, the bill is attacking the democratic values those brave sailors who came home on Monday are fighting to defend.

Last year, along with my leader, I met with women from the Muslim community in Halifax and Dartmouth and we heard their very real fear of the legislative changes that the government was bringing forward in response to the September 11 attacks in the United States. Many of them came to Canada because they believed that our democratic traditions would protect them from oppression, but this series of security bills, of which Bill C-55 is the latest, makes them afraid to answer their doors: once again it may be the police taking them away because of the ethnicity of their name. Specifically, I wonder if provisions of the bill could be used against them because of their religion or their ethnic background.

I have been with teachers opposed to this bill because of the attacks on their civil liberties. I have met with immigrant service organizations who tell me of the fears of their clients. This legislative reaction of the government in response to the September 11 attack goes way too far and, we believe, way too fast. Where is the sunset clause on these measures?

One of the ideas touted by numerous witnesses on Bill C-36 was the idea of an American style sunset clause. This would have had the effect of forcing the government to reintroduce, debate and amend the legislation for it to take effect for another period of time. A three-year time limit affecting different aspects of the legislation was suggested by numerous witnesses.

The New Democratic Party proposed an amendment that addressed these concerns. However, the government had already decided that it would only include a watered down sunset clause by which the House and the Senate would vote after five years for a motion to extend the investigative hearings and preventive arrest sections, two of the most controversial measures in the bill. Though this is better than no clause at all, it is not a sunset clause in the true sense. Rather than the government having to reintroduce and re-examine legislation, this would simply require that the government tell its members and senators to vote an extension of that which currently exists in Bill C-36. The government refused to sunset Bill C-36 and it has never even entertained debate on a sunset clause for Bill C-55.

In just a few weeks there will be a G-8 summit meeting in Kananaskis, Alberta. I was amused yesterday to see that the member for Wild Rose was on his feet calling protestors terrorists for insurance purposes even before any protest has taken place. Even though I fully expect that the people in the Calgary march and the demonstrations will be peaceful and I believe that if there is a protest village in the bush the only violence committed will be against the mosquitoes and the black fly population, I fear for the protestors' safety because of reactions of people like the member for Wild Rose, people who have already called these peaceful labour and anti-globalization activists terrorists, a word that has serious legal consequences thanks to Bill C-36 and Bill C-55.

After seeing the violence at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City and at the APEC conference in Vancouver, I wonder how long it will take for the minister of defence or others in the government to simply start using these laws to stifle legitimate dissent that threatens the political future of the minister, dissent that does not have any real threat for the nation. Do not get me wrong, I oppose vandalism, even of McDonald's, but I also oppose any law that would equate these actions with the evil events of September 11.

I am strongly suspicious of the government. The tens of thousands of peaceful protestors are also suspicious of the increasing use of police force against demonstrators. The stubbornness of the government in refusing reasonable amendments to this historic legislation gives credence to these suspicions.

I believe in a democratic Canada. I take our civil liberties, given in our charter, extremely seriously. Let us take the time and make the effort to produce a law that protects our security while it defends our civil liberties in this anxious period in our history.

Criminal Code

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the matter. While I cannot speak for the Canadian Alliance on the issue I can speak for myself and my constituents.

I have no doubt that every member of the House is firmly opposed to all forms of genocide and the public incitement of hatred against others. At the same time it is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that any legislation to censure these acts is consistent with both the principle of fundamental justice and our Canadian ideal of a free and democratic society. I prefer to deal with the issue on a principled and rational basis than on the emotional basis that has sometimes accompanied the debate.

In 1995 the Reform Party put forward a persuasive argument against adding section 718.2 to the criminal code. The section instructs sentencing judges to take into consideration whether offences are motivated by hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental of physical disability, sexual orientation or any similar factor.

Reform Party members opposed the addition of the section on the basis that all criminals should receive appropriate sentences regardless of their reasons for committing a crime. The Alliance continues to maintain that political and social ideas that may motivate an offender to commit a crime are irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts of the crime and how to deal appropriately with the offender. Similarly, victims who suffer from crimes motivated by greed should never be treated with less dignity than victims of crime based on hatred.

For similar reasons members of the Canadian Alliance opposed the definition of terrorist activity in the first anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36, which referred to the religious, political or philosophical motivations of a person committing a terrorist act. People's political or religious thoughts at the time should have no bearing on whether they are convicted of a terrorist offence or on the severity of the sentence they receive if convicted.

The issues we are dealing with in the hate propaganda laws are somewhat more nuanced and complex. Some speakers glossed over the distinctions between hate propaganda and advocating genocide. These are very different issues and considerations, yet they seem to lump them all together.

I do not intend to wade into the convoluted and intricate arguments that surround the discussion of how freedom of speech can or cannot be applied to hate literature. However I would point to two specific concerns in the bill which must be addressed and which form the grounds of my opposition to the legislation.

First, the legislation would extend protection from hate propaganda to some groups while excluding others. While the bill would add sexual orientation to the list of groups who may claim protection from hate literature, a number of other Canadians who may be targeted for reasons of age, health, disability, social status or a number of other characteristics would not be afforded the same protection.

What concerns me is not only the piecemeal way we are approaching the law but the exclusion of a number of vulnerable groups in our society that are routinely subject to discrimination and inequality. Discrimination based on age will present an increasingly difficult moral dilemma in the ongoing public debate surrounding euthanasia and how we treat elderly members of our society. Promoting hatred or genocide against those perceived by some to be a drain or to no longer be contributing members of society is a real concern. It will undoubtedly present a challenge for us in the future, particularly in the contemporary climate of modern technology.

A more broadly based approach would assist in addressing the challenges the mentally or physically infirm may face from those who advocate eugenics or euthanasia. The unfortunate case of Robert Latimer, a father who took the life of his severely disabled daughter in the hopes of relieving her pain and suffering, has brought the issue to the forefront of moral and ethical debate in Canada.

Groups representing disabled Canadians have voiced concerns that they may become targets without their consent. To address the issue there are two possible solutions. First, the definition of identifiable group could be expanded along the lines of our current standard in the charter of rights and freedoms. The charter currently extends protection from discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

Amending the definition in this manner has been suggested in the past. In April, 1985 the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution recommended the definition be broadened to include sex, age, and mental or physical disability. The Law Reform Commission of Canada recommended the same so the provisions would be consistent with the charter of rights and freedoms. A broader definition would be consistent with international standards such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees that everyone is entitled to rights and freedoms:

--without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Second, I would prefer to remove the definition that applies to the offence of advocating genocide, since genocide in itself is self-defining. This way any group which found itself subject to abuse could seek and receive the necessary legal protection.

It is second reading and I am not entitled to move an amendment. It will therefore have to wait. At the same time, given the shortcomings of the bill I cannot support it either.

Another concern about the legislation relates to the issue of legal defences. Section 319 of the criminal code proscribes public incitement of hatred. One of the four defences set out in the section would likely preclude prosecution in the context of the expression of a religious opinion. Subsection 319(3) reads:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject--

These defences do not currently apply to section 318. There is a substantive difference between section 319 and section 318. However problems immediately arise that need to be addressed, and Bill C-415 ignores the difficulty in a simplistic way.

The absence of defences in section 318 could pose a problem for a number of common publications including the Bible, the most widely read and widely published book in Canada and across the globe. This would affect both Christians and Jews. In addition, many Muslims do not believe homosexuality should be permitted. Specific books of Islamic law dictate that homosexuals should be punished harshly. Under a broad definition of the law this could arguably fit into the definition of advocating genocide based on sexual orientation.

Is this the intention of the amendment? If it is, or if this is its effect, we cannot support it. I do not believe this kind of material was intended to be prohibited under these laws. However without specific defences in place individuals could be subject to costly prosecutions. Religious publications of many varieties could be subject to censorship or even prohibition. If Bill C-415 passes second reading we must require the committee to consider which legal defences would be appropriate in this context.

The Canadian Alliance has always promoted equal treatment of all Canadians under the law. However we are not in favour of preferential treatment of any group, something the legislation in its current form would do. We must be mindful that one man's or woman's freedom is not arbitrarily exchanged for another's based on what happens to be the current political flavour.

I will continue to work to extend equality and freedom from discrimination to all Canadians. Although I will not be supporting his bill I thank the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas for bringing the matter forward for debate.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I am most pleased to speak today to Bill C-415, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which deals with hate propaganda, introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

This bill would amend the definition of “identifiable group” outlined in the criminal code provisions on hate propaganda. It would add “sexual orientation” to the criteria used to establish that a group comes under the definition of “identifiable group”. By ensuring that a group is considered as an “identifiable group” under the terms of the definition, the provisions on hate propaganda would apply to this group.

For more than 30 years, the criminal code has targeted the promotion of hate. Provisions on hate propaganda were added to the criminal code to avoid the difficulties associated with using libel provisions to take legal action with respect to a group as opposed to individuals.

The provisions that were added to the criminal code in 1970 were based on the recommendations of the special committee on hate propaganda in Canada, which submitted its report in 1965 to the justice minister at the time.

This committee, chaired by Maxwell Cohen, included notable personalities, such as the future justice minister and Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and another future justice minister, Mark MacGuigan. It was under Mr. Trudeau's government that these provisions were added to the criminal code.

These provisions prohibit the dissemination of hate messages targeting an identifiable group. This term is currently defined as any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

What offences are created under this provision?

First, encouraging genocide or promoting genocide is considered an offence. Genocide is defined as killing of members of the group, or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group. It is interesting to note that adding sexual orientation to the criteria used to define “identifiable group” would expand the usual meaning of genocide, which normally applies to a race or a people.

The second offence mentioned in the provisions dealing with hate propaganda is communicating statements in any public place and thereby inciting hatred against any identifiable group, where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. From the condition attached to this provision, it seems that its main purpose it to protect public peace.

The third offence is communicating statements, other than in private conversation, which wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group. It seems that this provision is aimed at protecting members of a particular group rather than the state.

It should be noted that, apart from statements made in public or in private to advocate or promote genocide, all other offences require an element of public communication. This shows that, even before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted, legislators were careful not to interfere in cases where ideas and opinions were expressed in private by an individual.

In recent years, the Internet has been used as a means of communicating hate propaganda against identifiable groups. This is why, in the fall, the government added a provision to deal with this problem in Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation.

The provision in question authorizes the court to order the deletion of hate propaganda stored on and made available to the public through a computer system within the jurisdiction of the court. This would allow for the deletion of any offensive material in cases where the person who posted it is not known or is outside the country.

Canada is now involved in negotiating a protocol on the Council of Europe's cybercrime convention signed by some 30 other countries in November 2001. Among other things, the convention would provide for international co-operation on investigations and legal proceedings regarding certain offences. The protocol would extend the benefits of the convention to offences related to hate propaganda. The question raised in Bill C-415 is whether legislative provisions dealing with hate propaganda should be extended to a group that is identifiable because of its sexual orientation.

In considering this issue, we must take into account the fact that in the Keegstra case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the provisions on hate propaganda interfere with the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms. However, by a slim majority of 4 against 3, the supreme court confirmed the provisions as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.

One of the areas examined by the supreme court was the damage caused by the promotion of hate toward identifiable groups. It stated that the damage was caused on two levels: the members of the group singled out by the hate propaganda and society as a whole. The court found indications of the damage caused to groups identified by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin and stated that the protection of identifiable groups was a pressing and important goal aimed at by the legislation.

We must ensure that any amendment made to those provisions will not bring about some imbalance between freedom of expression and protection of minorities that could jeopardize the provisions regarding hate propaganda.

Before adding to those groups, we must ensure that there is enough hate propaganda targeting the group to justify its inclusion under the protection provided by the provisions on hate propaganda.

The Minister of Justice supports this bill. I think this issue should be given careful consideration before we decide whether Bill C-415 should go forward.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not necessarily happy to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-55, however, it is important that I do so.

This bill comes after others that were passed in this House. I think that we must take them into account when we make a decision on Bill C-55, which will allow for the creation of controlled access military zones.

I want to remind the House that, over the last few months, since the events of September 11, we have passed, in spite of the Bloc Quebecois' opposition, Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, and Bill C-35, where section 5 allows the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to take measures, including building walls around any area where events are taking place, in accordance with procedures to be determined by the RCMP alone.

So we already have, over the last few months, passed two bills that are very disturbing from a civil liberties standpoint. Amnesty International, in a report published yesterday and discussed today in the media, says that, since the tragic events of September 11, freedoms and democratic rights in general have regressed, and this is true in Canada.

Clearly, in a number of countries these days, including our neighbours to the south, arbitrary arrests are taking place, detentions without warrant, or even, as was done with the prisoners brought out of Afghanistan, the creation of special courts that do not come under any civil authority.

This morning Amnesty International announced that democratic freedom had experienced setbacks in almost all of the western world. Canada is not, unfortunately, an exception. Bill C-55, along with Bills C-36 and C-35, which have unfortunately already been passed, is one more proof of this. Canada's reputation is exaggerated as far as democratic freedom is concerned. One of the signs of this is that, ever since Canada has become a member of the Organization of American States ten years or so ago, it has signed not one of the regional conventions on basic rights. I feel obliged to denounce this.

Moreover, more and more stakeholders, including Amnesty International, have emphasized this exaggerated reputation Canada has as far as democracy is concerned. For instance, the latest issue of the Quebec chapter of Amnesty International's publication Agir spoke out against the Canadian government for its attacks on democratic freedoms.

We now have before us a new bill, Bill C-55, which is in fact a reincarnation of Bill C-42, which the government was trying to ram through, like Bills C-36 and C-35, but which was withdrawn as a result of criticism by the opposition, the Bloc Quebecois in particular.

So now we have its replacement, Bill C-55. This is the same bill again, except for a few cosmetic changes. For instance, the new terminology: controlled access military zone, instead of what was used in Bill C-42, that is, military security zone. Whatever the terminology, we are talking about exactly the shame negative effect on rights and freedoms.

Bill C-55 cannot therefore be supported by the Bloc Quebecois, as indeed Bills C-35 and C-36 were not, because of their totally arbitrary nature. Bill C-55 merely repeats what was in Bill C-42.

One might argue that some of the criteria for establishing these controlled access zones have been tightened up. Nevertheless, it is still the minister of defence alone who has the power to establish such zones.

Let us not forget that it was the minister of defence who, just recently, neglected to inform the Prime Minister about Canadian troops taking prisoners in Afghanistan and handing them over to the Americans, information which was quite important in the context. Moreover, this minister had to resign just days ago; he was fired from cabinet for reasons related to conflict of interest.

One can wonder about the adequacy of giving one minister, namely the Minister of National Defence, the power to create controlled access military zones. It seems excessive to us and it opens the door to much arbitrariness and dangerous situations, especially since the bill does not even require the approval of the Quebec government or any provincial government as far as the creation of a controlled access military zone is concerned.

As we know, unfortunately, there have been a number of federal interventions in Quebec that were not requested by the Quebec people. I am also convinced that a controlled access military zone would have been established at the Quebec summit in April 2001. If the Quebec government had objected, the minister of defence would have ignored it, just as they denied the Quebec Prime Minister the right to address the heads of state visiting our national capital.

In Bill C-55, the only criterion governing the designation of these controlled access military zones is that they must be reasonably necessary. This is a criterion that is elastic to say the least, both in terms of the dimensions of the zones and their period of designation.The provisions included in Bill C-42 and Bill C-55 are basically the same. No improvements have been made. There is only the following, in clause 260.1(4), which reads:

(4) The dimensions of a controlled access military zone may not be greater than is reasonably necessary to ensure the safety or security of any person, thing or property for which the zone is designated.

As we can see, there is a grey area, an arbitrary wording that will allow the Minister of National Defence, the federal government to do what it wants with these zones. Again, Bill C-55 complements Bill C-35, which gives the RCMP the power to erect walls, as it did in Quebec City. What were meant to be exceptional measures will now become the norm during any important event, any event of international scope. Bill C-55 has the same flaws as Bill C-42 in terms of the applicable criteria, and this is what makes it just as unacceptable.

Another aspect of the bill is that in these controlled access military zones, the people could lose certain rights. They will not be able to sue for damages, losses or injuries. It is written in the bill. For example, subsection 260.1(12) says:

(12) The Canadian Forces may permit, control, restrict or prohibit access to a controlled access military zone.

No reference whatsoever is made to the rights of people within this zone who, for example, would want to hold a peaceful demonstration, which is consistent with our charter of rights and freedoms and all the international conventions. Once again, nothing could be more totally arbitrary.

Finally, while in Bill C-42, a number of reasons, such as international security, defence and national security reasons, were given for the creation of such zones, in Bill C-55, all these references have disappeared. This bill essentially expands the reasons for designating controlled access military zones.

When we look at the bills passed since September 11, we find that not only Canada's reputation concerning human rights before September 11 was overrated, but the varnish is starting to peel off. The balance between rights and security needs was broken. Now, we are living in a state where civil liberties and democratic freedoms are more vulnerable than a few months ago.

In this context, the Bloc Quebecois has no other choice but to oppose this bill.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am quite happy to take part in the debate on second reading of Bill C-55.

I am pleased to enter the debate on this omnibus bill, Bill C-55, and to specifically address the amendment before the House. It is important for us to remember that it arose from the ashes of this government's heavy-handed, ham-fisted handling of Canada's response to the horrifying events of September 11.

We are now dealing with Bill C-55, a bill that represents a second go around of the so-called public safety act that the government introduced last fall.

It is not surprising that within hours of the government introducing both Bill C-42 and Bill C-36 as part of its supposed comprehensive anti-terrorism plan, there was a very loud and growing outcry from Canadians. They understood the heavy-handedness of those legislative measures. It was ironic that on the one hand the government wanted to make Canada and its citizens feel safer and more secure but on the other hand it brought in measures that were in fact a very real threat to the human rights and civil liberties of Canadians.

In some ways we are talking here about a good news, bad news scenario. I am prepared to acknowledge, although it may sound a bit grudging, that at least the government was forced to beat a hasty retreat with respect to Bill C-42. Unfortunately it was not prepared to withdraw Bill C-36. Although it did capitulate to a great deal of pressure to introduce some amendments, the amendments were not nearly sufficient to address the underlying concerns. Therefore, the New Democratic Party, as people I am sure would have expected, could not support that legislation.

In the instance of Bill C-42, I am prepared to say that at least the government recognized that it had to withdraw it. Whether it was forced to withdraw it or not I suppose could be the subject of debate. In the strictest sense we could say that the government had the numbers to carry the day if it had wanted to persist but it did understand that politically it was simply unacceptable to ram through the so-called public safety act when it would have put in jeopardy some of the very important human rights and civil liberties of Canadians. It also put in jeopardy the protection of public safety, in the very broadest sense of the word. What public safety comes down to is whether people's human rights, civil liberties and their rights to be protected are fully intact.

It is obvious that there was a climate of very considerable fear, rage and certainly a sense of revenge in the aftermath of September 11. One of the things the New Democratic Party tried to do was to counsel and plead with the government that we were not alone in this. There was a great deal of support from citizens and citizens' organizations who were very vigilant about the importance of protecting human rights and civil liberties. They tried to encourage the government to not act in that climate of fear in a way that could only be described as overreaction. Unfortunately, the government was not prepared to take that counsel seriously.

The reason I say we are now perhaps looking at a good news, bad news scenario is that it is good news that the government felt compelled to withdraw the initial stage of legislation.

The bad news is that the government has still failed to take under serious advisement some of the most important warnings and pleadings that were made, not just to the Canadian government but to governments around the world as they grappled with the appropriate legislative responses to try to address the issues of public safety.

Instead of listening to the lesson, it is clear that the lesson was forgotten. That was the lesson that the UN secretary-general put out to all parliamentarians, all legislators, to say that in the war to defeat terrorism there cannot be a trade-off between human rights and human security or public safety. Perhaps an even more dramatic expression of that same important principle is found in the words that now are really seared in the public mind, the words of the lone member of the U.S. congress who had the courage to stand against the appropriation of funds to launch the military offensive in Afghanistan. She said “In the attempt to defeat terrorism, let us not become the evil that we deplore”.

The bad news is that the government has still failed to take that very important principle under advisement.

My colleague, the member for Windsor--St. Clair, who spoke just before I rose, was quite right in pointing out that at a time like this when there are threats to public safety and when there is a sense of fear in the public, the pressures are enormous to weaken, to erode, to lessen and in some cases to just plain throw overboard human rights and civil liberties.

We are very proud to stand in support of standing up in that kind of climate against the pressures to conform, to cave in, to simply cater to the fears and toss aside the important human rights and civil liberties of our own citizens and of other citizens. In fact we represent the political party that has the most distinguished record in the country of doing that.

There are many examples. The examples are legion, but let me refer to a couple, one being the case of the Japanese internment. This party stood alone and said we could not accept that simply on the basis of ethnicity and national origin citizens in our country literally should be imprisoned and robbed of all of their rights and freedoms in the name of public safety, completely abandoning the rule of law, completely abandoning the upholding of human rights and civil liberties.

The more recent example, and the one that would be best known by the generation of young people now growing up in our country, was the example where the New Democratic Party, again alone, with at the end a tiny number of three enlightened so-called Progressive Conservatives at a time when in fact there were progressive conservatives in parliament, stood together in opposition to the imposition of the War Measures Act in Quebec in those dark and difficult days in Quebec.

Practically every one of the members of the NDP caucus have spoken specifically on the act, but in a general way I want to again implore the government to recognize that this legislation remains too heavy-handed. This legislation continues to characterize the inadequacy and the inappropriateness of the government's response to the climate of fear.

The fears are real and remain real and the climate is one of looking for assurances, but greater freedom, greater liberty, greater safety and greater security are not assured through the suspension of important human rights and civil liberties. The real test of whether a government believes in democracy is whether it will stand up against as much pressure as there may be to uphold democratic rights when those rights are threatened.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for recognizing me while I was still not completely properly attired. I suggest that it is a Liberal plot that we are having to spend our time debating the bill in such intemperate weather. I also want to point out that if we had dealt with climate warming a number of years ago it may not have been quite so uncomfortable in here today. I never miss an opportunity to deal with that very important issue.

The bill we are discussing today is clearly an attempt on the part of the government to recover from a very disastrous response from the general public across the country to Bill C-42.

Bill C-42 was introduced shortly before we went home for the Christmas holidays. It was interesting to see the types of responses we were receiving from our constituents. I certainly know that was my experience. I am guessing that members of the government are receiving the same responses from their constituents to Bill C-55. The responses to Bill C-42 were that Bill C-42 was not acceptable to the Canadian public.

I have to say that the government's attempt to recover from its faux pas with Bill C-42 has not been very successful.

I must say that Bill C-55 goes some distance in addressing some concerns we have had over a number of years under various pieces of legislation but, after reviewing the bill, I see that there are still a number of excesses, especially in terms of security.

We have a crisis as a result of September 11 and we get a knee-jerk response that has not been properly thought out. A number of sectors that would be affected by the bill have not been properly consulted but the government goes ahead and says that there is a security problem. It often brings in this almost dictatorial type of response. It is an authoritarian response that is often not a methodology that will be successful but that will seriously impede the civil and human rights of Canadian citizens if the bill becomes law and attempts are made to implement it.

In a number of ways the New Democratic Party opposes the legislation. Certainly near the top of that list is the unprecedented powers that have been accorded to some of the ministers in government.

This is one of the areas where the government has tried to cover over the inadequacies and excesses of Bill C-42. I am sure other members of the House in the course of this debate have expressed concern over the declaration of what used to be a military zone, which has now been replaced by more neutral wording but which, in many respects, has the same effect.

The offensive part of that is that it would allow the minister of defence, without any other review and solely on his or her assessment of the situation and decision making, to decide what area will be a war zone. All the laws of the country will then be suspended in that area.

The government tried to cover that up by saying that it would only invoke that if it needed to protect its equipment. Frankly, if we were to analyze that explanation from an objective viewpoint we would see that it was plainly absurd.

Similarly, the bill would give the Minister of Transport a number of extraordinary powers in regard to the travelling public. Even if one could argue some justification for that, it is not, in a number of ways, possible to support that type of power. However even if one could argue the point in some other areas, it begs some other type of review, whether that be judicial or by a special committee.

We also have a number of other precedents within our legal and constitutional framework for those types of situations where a review could be established under the legislation thereby preventing any excessive use or abuse of the power. We see little or none of that in Bill C-55.

The powers that would be given to those ministers would clearly infringe the rights of Canadians. The bill still remains quite heavy-handed. It is not just the members of the New Democratic Party who are saying this. As I believe all members of the House know, the privacy commissioner went public with a letter to the Minister of Transport. It was very unusual for him to take that kind of position in the public venue. However his letter expressed deep concerns about the legislation. I want to quote part of the letter where he talked about the privacy and civil rights of Canadians. The letter states:

In summary, my concern is that its [the bill's] provisions could fundamentally and unnecessarily alter the balance between individuals and the state that exists and should exist in a free society such as Canada.

I know he used the words “fundamentally alter” but I think the more important words were “unnecessarily alter”. We know from some of the experiences we had with Bill C-36 that it was true about that legislation. However the government is now repeating the same errors.

There are already a number of criminal and quasi-criminal provisions in the criminal code and in other legislation that could deal with the points being dealt with in this legislation. These statutes could deal with them more appropriately because historically we have worked out any problems, as opposed to this bill which would expand powers significantly and, as we argue and as the privacy commissioner has argued, unnecessarily.

The government simply does not need the powers contained in the legislation that it has argued it needs. The potential for abuse is glaringly obvious when one analyzes the whole bill.

If we were to go back into history and look at the abuses of power, especially when the War Measures Act was brought in, we argue from the perspective of our party and we believe from the perspective of fully protecting civil and human rights, that we should almost give ourselves a slap on the side of the head and tell ourselves that we must not forget our history. The rampant abuse of power throughout history should caution us to not repeat the same mistakes.

Our party is adamantly opposed to the legislation in its present form. It needs to be withdrawn and sent into a consultation process. The problems that do exist require attention and the potential abuses that are contained in the bill need to done away with.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have passed Bill C-36 and now we are on Bill C-55. As my colleague was just getting into, these pieces of legislation are designed to deal with a new paradigm, a new phenomenon that we have the world today, the threat of international terrorism which became so evident last September 11.

The problem is we have this new paradigm but how does the civilized world deal with that problem? What are the facts with this phenomenon of international terrorism?

For the past decade or decade and a half throughout various locations in the Middle East thousands and thousands of people have been trained to become international terrorists. They are distributed throughout the world in the form of sleeper cells. It is a highly sophisticated network. It was designed to operate without a central command system. Perhaps we have destroyed or fragmented the central command and design behind the network but the sleeper cells exist.

What has the government's response been to this new paradigm? It seems to think if there is more government bureaucracy, more regulations, more laws, more infringement of the rights and privacy of Canadian citizens and more taxes that somehow the problem will go away, that it will have been dealt with.

The bill is deficient, as is Bill C-36. We are missing the boat. The way to deal with this matter is in the areas of security, our armed forces and immigration and refugee policy. Maybe I am missing something but I have not seen a whole lot of action by the government in regard to those three areas. The military and the security system are starved for resources. The immigration and refugee policies seem to be virtually the same as they were before.

Warren Buffet, the president of Berkshire Hathaway, has interest in some of the biggest insurance companies in the world. At the annual meeting not very long ago he made it abundantly clear there is an absolute certainty that these sleeper cells will strike again and will cause no end of harm and damage to the western world. About 10 days ago U.S. Vice-President Cheney reiterated that it is an absolute certainty that these people will strike again and that they will strike very hard.

A concern I have and one which the government certainly should have is that it has been sleepwalking through this. I think many government members believe that the crisis is over, that it has passed and we can get back to normal business. They seem to think that a $24 air security tax will solve the problem.

What will end up happening, but I hope it does not happen, is that we will wake up some day with a repeat of September 11. Something else will happen. I hope the people behind that action will not have come from Canada. If that were to happen, my prediction is that our trade with the United States would come to a slamming halt within 24 hours. This country would be in serious difficulty. People would look back at this period of time and say that the government had the opportunity to put policies in place to deal with this threat but ignored it. They would say that the government was too busy with cash for contract agreements and all sorts of other things to deal with the issues that were very apparent to Canadians.

I am talking about foresight. I know hindsight is 20:20 but the government has not addressed the real root of the international terrorist threat. It has ignored the core problem and is not dealing with what we should be concerned about. I cannot emphasize it enough.

If we had a repeat of September 11 and it could be pointed out that a leaky immigration or refugee system in Canada caused the problem I am almost absolutely certain the border with the United States would never be the same again. We would pay a heavy price in every sector of the economy. The problems we have experienced in the last year would be minor compared to what we would be facing at that stage.

I wish I could look through a bill like Bill C-55 and see real action by the government with regard to the three areas I have mentioned. However I do not. Creating military zones and giving ministers more power would not deal with the problem. We would be dealing with something after the fact rather than before. The government should be more concerned about taking the necessary steps to prevent something from happening in the first place rather than trying to react to it afterward. Reaction to this sort of problem would be too late. Our country would be in serious difficulty at that stage.

What is a bit perturbing about the legislation is that rather than dealing with the real problems we are facing as Canadians and taking steps to minimize the risk, it would concentrate more power in fewer hands with less accountability. That is not a good thing in a democracy.

Our society was built on being open. It was built on the rule of law and transparency. It was built on giving citizens freedom, liberty and the ability to make decisions. These things are the backbone of our western way of life. Any time governments get more power and are not accountable they can do things in secret, rise above the law and trample on privacy and other issues. That is not a healthy sign. In a democratic society a government moving in that direction like the Liberal government has been doing is in a lot of ways helping international terrorists.

International terrorists want to destroy our way of life. They do not value our individual freedom and liberty. They do not respect our economic or political freedom. They do not respect the rule of law or our open civil society. In their minds it is the enemy and they are out to destroy it.

The government is rushing to create more power for the cabinet and Prime Minister in a secretive, star chamber atmosphere without any transparency. In doing so it is not dealing with important issues like the need to increase our military resources and security forces. It is not taking a hard look at how to close the leaks in our immigration and refugee system. Under the guise of dealing with security the government is seeking to grant more power to the Prime Minister and his little group of people. That is not the answer to the problem. It will not deal with the issue.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege for me to talk about this very important and truly antidemocratic bill. I share the views expressed by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois on the matter. I would like to say clearly, as my colleague from Churchill, the NDP's transportation critic has said already, that the members of the New Democratic Party will vote against this bill. We will do all in our power to try to stop it and to ensure that it is never adopted in Canada.

In the days since September 11 we have witnessed a number of very serious assaults on the most fundamental civil liberties and human rights of Canadians. All of us of course support a fight against terrorism which is targeted and respectful of basic human rights. Indeed, there are some elements in this legislation, as my colleague from Churchill pointed out, that we support.

For example, we support the provisions with respect to money laundering, the new criminal offences for bomb threats, the implementation of international conventions to fight the proliferation of biological weapons, explosives and people smuggling by organized crime.

We do not oppose those. What we had hoped is that the government would have listened to Canadians from coast to coast to coast who voiced their outrage and anger about the provisions of Bill C-42. Instead what we see is legislation now tabled, Bill C-55, which while it purports to improve some elements of Bill C-42, is some very draconian and dangerous provisions that were not encompassed in the previous legislation on Bill C-42.

We have seen too often in Canada and in other countries the fight against terrorism being used as an excuse to suppress fundamental human rights.

We have seen this already in the case of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. Only one political party voted against this bill at the second reading stage, the New Democratic Party. I was really disappointed to see that my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois had not heard the strong voices of all Quebecers who exposed the possible abuse Bill C-36 could lead to. They even supported this bill at the second reading stage. This was far from acceptable.

As a number of international human rights organizations have pointed out, it is precisely at times such as this that civil liberties and human rights are most vulnerable. As the UN high commissioner for human rights, Mary Robinson, stated:

Excessive measures have been taken in several parts of the world that suppress or restrict individual rights including privacy, freedom of thought, presumption of innocence, fair trail, the right to seek asylum, political participation, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

My colleagues already have pointed out some of the concerns about this legislation, such as the sweeping and unaccountable discretion that is given to cabinet ministers, who only have to report back to parliament after a number of days, and the fact that there is no guarantee whatsoever that there will be any accountability to parliament. All they have to do is table their reports.

We know as well that the concerns with respect to the so-called controlled access military zones are very serious concerns. Canadians spoke out against this in the context of Bill C-42. While there have been some modifications, overall there is still a very grave potential for abuse in this area as well.

In the context of Kananaskis, my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois has pointed out that these provisions could indeed be used there, despite the denials of the minister. Many of us are very concerned about the growing atmosphere of intimidation of those who would peacefully and non-violently dissent at the upcoming G-8 summit in Kananaskis.

In fact just last week a senior brigadier general from the Canadian military threatened to use lethal force, lethal weapons at Kananaskis. This is shameful. He said “We are very serious...we have lethal weapons and we will use force if we think there is a serious threat”. He warned protesters and others that they would be risking their lives by protesting at the G-8 summit.

We do not want to give these kinds of sweeping and unaccountable powers to the government such as those proposed in Bill C-55.

One of the most dangerous provisions of this legislation is a new section that was not included in Bill C-42 at all. That is the possibility of sweeping access by the RCMP and CSIS to passenger lists for airlines. We have to ask ourselves why this is needed. Is it strictly needed to target potential terrorists? In fact that is not the case. The legislation includes some 150 offences under the criminal code for which this dramatic expansion of privacy invasive police powers is possible.

I want to pay tribute to the privacy commissioner of Canada, George Radwanski, who has sounded the alarm bell in the strongest and most eloquent terms against these abusive and dangerous provisions of Bill C-55. He said in a direct warning to parliament that:

It appears to be, quite simply, a power grab by the police. More precisely, since the police in a free and democratic country like Canada cannot seize power for themselves, a provision like this could only go forward into law as an award of unnecessary and unjustified new powers to the police by naive or indifferent political authorities.

What has been the response by some Liberal members of parliament to this cry of anger and concern by the privacy commissioner who has the mandate to protect the privacy of Canadians? Has it been to have another look at the legislation, to go back and say that maybe he has raised some serious concerns here before parliament? No, shamefully it has been to attack the privacy commissioner, in some cases in very personal terms.

We have heard for example the Liberal MP from Aldershot who said that he was condemning parliament and that he had gone way too far. George Radwanski, the privacy commissioner, is not condemning parliament. He is condemning a Liberal government that is prepared to abuse its powers to trample on the most basic privacy rights of Canadians. In fact, far from condemning parliament, he is sounding an alarm to parliament, one which it appears that Liberal members of parliament are quite prepared to ignore.

Business of the House

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-55. I had been prepared to speak to Bill C-42 at one time. I am pleased the bill has been withdrawn, changed and critiqued.

I will take this opportunity to go over what the Minister of National Defence stated today and what we believe to be significant improvements in the bill. Recent events continue to show that the security environment in Canada has changed significantly. The measures contained in Bill C-55 would improve the ability of the Canadian forces to protect Canadians and respond to the new threats.

It is clear that the government has listened to Canadians in terms of what they wanted changed. The government has also listened carefully not only to its own caucus and backbench but to the opposition. The new public safety act, 2002 has taken into account the concerns expressed about the previous Bill C-42. When opposition members study the new bill they will realize it is an improvement and that it tries to address the problems.

I will deal specifically with the amendments to the National Defence Act. They are a logical continuation of the amendments contained in the Anti-terrorism Act which received royal assent in December 2001. Sober second thought has prevailed and we now have time to look at the terrorist threat and highlight some of the changes.

One of the amendments deals with controlled military access zones. It is the amendment everyone is trying to read something into whether it is there or not. It would replace military security zones with controlled access military zones. The new zones would be limited to the protection of Canadian forces and visiting forces personnel or property. Contrary to what other members have said, the zones would be strictly for the protection of our military and the military of our allies. They are not intended and would not be used for other purposes, plain and simple. They would be temporary. Any extension of a designated zone for more than a year would require the approval of governor in council.

After the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists in a harbour in Yemen I came to the conclusion that there was no control. I could also point to a recent visit to Halifax harbour by an American aircraft carrier which was so big it had to stay in the outer harbour. Let us imagine that. The boat was 28 storeys high. Its landing surface was four and a half acres. It was a huge piece of military equipment creating a tourist attraction in itself.

If we allow huge military craft and vast numbers of personnel into our harbours, whether on the west coast or the east coast, they must be protected. We must allow the designation of zones to protect them. It is only prudent. We do not have that now. We have it in civil law but not military law. That is important.

Bill C-55 also contains amendments for notification and publication of the designation of zones. This would make Canada a more reliable international partner and at the same time address concerns about the extent to which the zones could be used for non-military purposes. Obviously we are talking about military purposes and terrorist activity. The zones would protect visiting aircraft whether at an air show in Trenton, a harbour in Halifax or Cold Lake, Alberta. When people visiting from other countries want to be assured they have protection we must be able to offer it whether it is in military or civilian areas.

The second part of the bill relating to the military would improve on the amendments in Bill C-42 regarding the ability of Canadian forces to protect their computer systems and networks and the data they contain. The proposed amendments are now consistent with the amendments contained in Bill C-36 for other government agencies. We should keep in mind that the Department of National Defence operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week in many countries of the world and therefore it must be protected during that time.

Certainly that means there are limits. The Department of National Defence would only interpret communications that would prevent harmful, unauthorized use or interference with DND and CF computer systems and networks and the data they contain. It is vital we protect it.

A key role of these systems and the networks is the daily operation of the Canadian forces anywhere in the world in conjunction with our allies. Because of the fact that these systems and networks are targeted by our enemies and hackers, they require the Canadian forces to have the ability to protect these systems 24 hours a day, seven days a week anywhere in the world. The amendment would allow that. It is a fairly simple amendment.

The third part is the reserve military judges panel. The amendment contained in Bill C-55, modified from Bill C-42, would establish a reserve military judges panel. This panel would provide the chief military judge with access to appropriately qualified reserve force officers who have previously performed military judicial duties. It would also provide the military judiciary with the necessary flexibility to meet any increased demands placed on the military justice system. They can be quite relevant.

It is important that Bill C-55 adds the word voluntary in relation to a panel member ceasing to be an officer of the reserves. This change would enhance institutional independence by ensuring that a panel member who involuntarily ceases to be an officer of the reserves would only have his or her name removed from the panel after a recommendation has been made by an inquiry committee.

The government has made a clear and concise commitment to fight terrorism and protect the safety and security of Canadians. The areas I touched on further enhance the ability of the Government of Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces to protect Canadians from terrorism while ensuring the rights and privacy of individuals.

I encourage all members to support the bill, to get it into committee and ask questions. That is where committee work will come into play, when expert witnesses are called and people are allowed to ask questions.

Members previously touched on compensation. I know the right to sue would be withheld, but anyone suffering loss or damage as a result of a controlled access military zone would be compensated from the consolidated revenue fund.

I believe the enforcement of controlled military zones would involve a range of items such as erecting fences or barriers and the removal of unauthorized persons from controlled access military zones. Any person who is removed from a controlled zone would be turned over to the appropriate civil authorities, be tried in a civilian court, and if charges were laid be entitled to all due process under civilian law. Section 288 of part eight within Bill C-55 offers trial by civil courts.

Most of the concerns of the members have been summed up. I am anxious to see the bill discussed in committee, for all members to have input into it, to bring expert witnesses forward to explain every portion of it and to make sure that it is examined with a fine toothed comb to ensure everything that is of concern to members will be looked after.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to this bill, since it is such an important one. I understand that all the bills in this House of Commons have a certain importance, but this one is extremely specific in character, and extremely important. It must be considered very wisely.

We need to look at Bill C-55, the purpose of which is to fight terrorism, keeping in mind that this important legislature must meet the expectations of the voters of Canada, and those of Quebec as well. Examination of this bill requires us to bear in mind all the other pieces of legislation in place in Canada, but in particular, the charter of rights and freedoms, which is in place and must be respected as well. We must meet the public's expectations, respect existing legislation as well as the charter, and strike a balance between individual and collective rights and national security.

The government has failed in its duty on at least two occasions, by attempting to get Bill C-42 through, which was divided up and enacted in part, and then by going back to the drawing board and tabling Bill C-55.

Upon examining this new legislation, one cannot help but notice that the government has not listened and is not responding to the expectations of constituents across Canada and Quebec. This is so evident, that at first reading of this bill, the person responsible for monitoring and protecting the privacy of individuals has said that this is legislation that could be found in totalitarian countries. Naturally, I am referring to the privacy commissioner.

I do not agree with the member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot who said that the privacy commissioner should not be commenting. This is not the first time that the privacy commissioner has commented to the media about a bill, saying that it makes sense or does not.

I remember Bill C-36, to fight organized crime, because it is an issue that I was concerned about. This very same privacy commissioner supported it. The member opposite did not rise then to say “He should not comment on it”. No, then it was fine, because the privacy commissioner was supporting the government.

That is not how it works. He did not have to rise when the commissioner commented on Bill C-36, just like he did not have to rise and get offended by the fact that the privacy commissioner made his view on Bill C-55 clear. He described it as unacceptable. He said that it was legislation that could exist, but in totalitarian countries, not a country like Canada, where individual and collective rights are recognized. The privacy commissioner probably came to the same conclusions that the members of the Bloc Quebecois did, when we examined the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I only have ten minutes. I cannot go into detail on each of the points, but you must understand that the whole issue of controlled access military zones worries us.

Incidentally, the words may have changed, but the nuts and bolts of Bill C-55 have not necessarily been changed, because it bears a curious resemblance to Bill C-42, which was plagued with problems. The military security zone is now called a controlled access military zone. This is the biggest change to this section. The whole issue of controlled access military zones is worrisome.

The interim orders that are included in a whole series of acts are also a major source of concern. When we look at the list, we may be surprised, because interim orders may be made under the Department of Health Act, the Explosives Act, the Export and Import Permits Act, the Food and Drugs Act, The Hazardous Products Act, The Marine Transportation Security Act, the Pest Control Products Act, and so on.

What is particular about these interim orders is that each of the ministers responsible for an act will have the authority to make such orders. If we look at these changes, we see that they are exempted from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

A layperson who reads this without really knowing about it, or without the schedule to these acts, may not understand. I wonder if the Minister of National Defence himself understands these provisions, considering the replies that he gave us today.

If we look at the Statutory Instruments Act, we see that sections 3, 5 and 11 are those that are used to determine whether or not an act complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I understand why Quebec did not sign the Constitution. Members opposite boast about this and they celebrate the 20th anniversary of the constitution. Incidentally, they are celebrating a little too soon, because it has not been 20 years, but they are celebrating the 20th anniversary simply to show that they are a little mixed up. This year is the 20th anniversary of the patriation of the Constitution. But the 20th anniversary of the coming into effect of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will come later. They will eventually learn that in the history books, when they read them.

These sections will not be applied to the acts that I listed. In other words, the government will not check to see if these measures respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is serious business. Yet, the government seems to be merrily going forward, oblivious of the fact that trouble may lie ahead because of these sections. But, as far as the government is concerned, there is no problem.

The very important part 2 of the bill, which deals with the National Defence Act, gives exceptional powers to the Minister of National Defence regarding the creation of the controlled access military zones to which I referred earlier.

My third concern has to do with the whole issue of damages. It will not be possible to sue the government in cases of abuse.

The amendments to the National Defence Act give excessive powers to the Minister of National Defence. One of these powers has to do with the dimensions of zones. He is the one who, at some point, is going to decide exactly what size of controlled access military zone is needed.

Right off the bat, we think that there should be very specific criteria in the bill so that the minister, whoever he is, cannot get carried away. A properly advised, open-minded legislator acting in good faith includes such criteria in a bill. The criteria in subsection 260.1 (4) are as follows:

The dimensions of a controlled access military zone may not be greater than is reasonably necessary to ensure the safety or security of any person, thing or property for which the zone is designated.

These are the criteria which the Minister of National Defence will use. This is the same Minister of National Defence who showed a lack of judgment in the Afghan prisoner affair.

Let us remember that Canadian troops captured prisoners. The minister knew this. He was told that they had during a briefing. But he did not feel the need to inform the Prime Minister, cabinet, or anyone else, while everyone in Canada was anxiously waiting to hear what would happen if prisoners were taken. He even told the House that none had been, when it fact some had, and so on. This is a flagrant lack of judgment, and this is the same minister who is going to implement this legislation.

It is ridiculous. I could give other examples, such as subsection (14) of this same section, which prevents taxpayers from taking the government to court.

I am being signalled that my time is up. I would have liked to speak at greater length about this bill, because it is extremely important. We in the Bloc Quebecois are naturally against it, because we defend ordinary citizens. That is why we were elected.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the public safety act, 2002, or Bill C-55, contains some important legal prongs or features in the juridical war on terrorists whose purposive basis is the promotion and protection of human security, including the most fundamental rights, the rights to life, liberty and security of the person.

These legal prongs include the following: amendments to the Aeronautics Act to maximize the effectiveness of Canada's aviation system and thereby enhance the ability of the Government of Canada to provide a safe and secure environment for air travel; amendments to the criminal code to deter terrorist hoaxes that endanger the public or heighten public anxiety; amendments to the Explosives Act to establish tighter controls over illicit trafficking in explosives, including the acquisition, exportation, manufacture, storage or transportation of explosives; and amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act establishing controls over the export and electronic transfer of military and strategically sensitive technology.

Perhaps most important, the proposed legislation also would enact the biological and toxin weapons convention implementation act to prevent the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition, transfer or use of biological weapons by states, individuals or other entities. It will thereby reinforce Canada's existing legislation to prevent the development of, and deter the proliferation of, biological weapons. This is a particularly important legal prong in the domestication of international anti-terrorist treaty law in the anti-terrorism juridical effort.

However, the bill also contains some disconcerting features which, however well intentioned, include some errors and omissions that may result in the legislation falling victim to what might be called the “law of unintended consequences”.

The concerns are as follows.

First, while the bill seeks to circumscribe the power initially conferred upon the Minister of National Defence in the predecessor Bill C-42 to designate any part of Canada a military security zone, the scope of both the exercise and application of this power remain problematic. Admittedly, the bill improves upon its predecessor Bill C-42 in that the application of the power is limited to the protection of Canadian and allied military equipment and persons, and the exercise of power is limited to that which is reasonably necessary for this purpose, rather than, as in Bill C-42, what the minister “in his opinion” believed necessary for reasons of international relations, national defence or security.

However, the definition of a “controlled access military zone” has a certain indeterminate feature to it, which could, however inadvertently, be stretched to result in the very thing that this revised version was designed to prevent, for example, the application of this power to something like the G-8 meeting in Kananaskis, simply because the presence of Canadian military equipment or personnel or foreign diplomatic personnel with their related equipment may result in a military zone being nonetheless designated.

As well, it should be appreciated that, under present law, a military base or any property belonging to the Department of National Defence is already a military zone under its control. Clearly, then, we are speaking about the designation of a controlled access military zone that is outside our “defence establishment” on civilian territory. This power needs further delineation and clarification so that it can be clearly limited to the purposes for which it is intended.

Second, and more important, even if the scope of this exercise of ministerial power is appropriately delineated and clarified, the absence of any cabinet or parliamentary accountability is disturbing. In effect, there is no requirement for cabinet authorization of this ministerial decree. There is no requirement that it even be tabled, let alone debated by parliament. There is no express reference to the power of judicial review, though the right of judicial review would still be available even in unexpressed form. In a word, this is government by ministerial decree without the appropriate checks and balances constitutive of a parliamentary democracy.

I am not saying that a carefully circumscribed ministerial power is in no case warranted; I am only saying that the scope of its exercise still has an indeterminate character about it and that it is lacking in the appropriate checks and balances.

Third, as a response to the critique of its predecessor Bill C-42, Bill C-55 further defines and circumscribes the power of other ministers to issue interim orders if “immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment”.

Admittedly, the government has refined the scope of these powers by reducing the period within which the minister would be required to obtain cabinet approval from 90 to 45 days after the interim order is made. An additional requirement has been added that now requires that a copy of the interim order be tabled in each house of parliament within 15 sitting days from the time it is issued, thereby instituting a measure of parliamentary oversight. Also, the interim order is expressly subject to judicial review.

However, some disturbing questions remain. Why should there be a waiting period of 45 days to submit these emergency orders for cabinet approval? Why not reduce the period to 72 hours, or a week, as the Canadian Bar Association recommends? These orders are of an emergency character; they can last up to a year. The interim is a long time. The timeframe for cabinet approval needs to be much more expeditious.

Fourth, why should the interim orders have to be tabled in parliament only after 15 sitting days? If parliament were not sitting, there would be no requirement for it to do so. Also, why should parliamentary oversight be limited to the tabling of the interim order and not also the debating of a prospective amendment or an appeal of the interim order, as is consistent with the principle of parliamentary oversight? Again, the principle of parliamentary oversight and accountability needs to be enhanced.

Fifth, both the power of the Minister of National Defence regarding designated controlled access military zones and the power of ministers to issue interim emergency orders are exempt from the application of the Statutory Instruments Act. That means, in brief, that they are exempt from the examination of proposed regulations as required by the Statutory Instruments Act to ensure that these regulations are authorized by the statute pursuant to which they are made; that they do not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which they are made; that they do not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms; and that they do not in any case breach the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

This does not mean that such decrees or regulations are not subject to the charter but it does mean that the “scrutiny and screen filter”, the filtering out of objectionable features before the regulations are enacted, is absent. Regrettably, a judicial corrective may be necessary when a pre-emptive screening corrective could be utilized first.

Sixth, while Bill C-55, for the most part, strikes a reasonable balance between security and privacy rights, the new provisions giving RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information of all Canadian air travellers, both on flights within Canada as well as on international routes, are also disconcerting. For example, if the RCMP can obtain and scan airline manifests in search of anyone subject to an outstanding warrant for any offence punishable by five years or more, or for an offence under the Immigration Act, this would appear to be an undue expansion of police power at the expense of privacy rights, without clear justification.

In other words, if, as the privacy commissioner has put it, proposed section 4.82 were limited to providing the RCMP and CSIS with access to airline passenger information for the sole purpose of checking against databases of known or suspected terrorists, with the proviso that all such information would be destroyed except where a match with the database was found, this could be regarded as a legitimate exercise of police power for security purposes.

Seventh, an appreciation of these three distinct exercises of executive power, the power of the Minister of National Defence to designate a controlled access military zone, the ministerial powers to issue interim urgent orders, and the power of police and security services to access aviation manifests, invite us to ask whether they comport with the proportionality principle, that is, that the remedies sought are rationally connected to the objectives sought to be secured, that they comport with the minimal impairment principle, that is, that they intrude on civil liberties as minimally as possible, and that the value of enacting these powers outweighs their cost.

Eighth, we must ask whether these authorized powers, taken as a whole, maintain the equilibrium between the related needs of security and rights protection.

Ninth, we must ask whether the legislation, taken as a whole, maintains the equilibrium among different branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial, or is there an undue allocation of power to ministers with a corresponding diminution of cabinet responsibility, parliamentary accountability and capacity for judicial review? In particular, the parliamentary role in this legislation appears to be diminished.

Finally, as a matter of parliamentary process, I would recommend that the legislation be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for the following reasons.

First, this is the second part of the government's anti-terrorism package, the first part of which, Bill C-36, was considered and debated before the justice and human rights committee. As a result, that committee acquired a certain repository of experience, if not expertise, in dealing with anti-terrorism law and policy and related issues.

Second, the bill raises fundamental questions, both about the equilibrium between security and rights protection and the equilibrium among the various branches of government that underpin a constitutional democracy, both of which are foundational legal concerns that are the natural subject matter for such a committee.

Third, the exercise of the authorities of the police and security, both under the criminal code and in surveillance matters, again is the natural stuff for a justice and human rights committee.

In conclusion, the public safety act, 2002, has important features, some of which I have described today, that are germane to an anti-terrorism law and policy and to the protection of public safety and human security. However, there are also disconcerting features, as I have also described, that taint the bill and which need to be addressed and redressed so we can promote human security without unnecessarily intruding on civil liberties.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, if I recall my own speech correctly, it seems to me I did raise this very matter that there may be loopholes in what we now have in Bill C-55 and that through the location or insertion of a particular piece of military equipment into a particular zone in proximity to an international gathering or whatever this could then be used. As the minister says, of course it could be challenged in the courts after the event.

I am glad to have the hon. member and his party on board in opposing Bill C-42 and to these measures. I remember when Bill C-36 came before the House the NDP was alone in expressing concerns about these security measures. I welcome the new found concern of the Canadian Alliance about the welfare of people who are protesting against globalization and various other things because it seems to me that a year ago, when we were expressing similar concerns about what had happened to protesters in Quebec City, we were scorned by people in the party of the hon. member. They have come a long way, and it just goes to show that some people are in fact teachable.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Well the government is doing it awful slowly if it is doing it. I guess it is trying to do it in a way that nobody notices.

We know the problems the military is having with recruitment and with infrastructure. Some of our armories are the only places where we can walk in and feel like we are having a time travel experience. Our armories do not look any different than they did in 1965 when I first started going as a cadet. If I ever want to revisit my past I just have to go there and I will see that absolutely nothing has changed except that the rifle ranges are closed down because proper equipment has not been provided and a whole bunch of other things that used to be there are not there. However I did not get up to make a speech about the reserves. I am here to talk about Bill C-55.

With respect to Bill C-55, we in the NDP were opposed to Bill C-42 and we are opposed to Bill C-55 in spite of some of the changes that have been made. The minister pointed out changes that have been made with respect to controlled access military zones. The change between Bill C-42 and Bill C-55 is a change for the better in the sense that it does limit in a way what the previous bill did not, and that is the application of this particular power of the minister of defence.

I understand the difference between being able to designate areas around equipment, personnel and entire areas that contain that which the forces have been assigned to protect. That is fair enough. However what the minister has not answered is whether or not the insertion of equipment or personnel into the area that is to be protected or in close proximity to those which are to be protected could then become a rationale for doing in effect what was possible in Bill C-42.

In the final analysis this comes down to trust. Do we trust the government not to have a hidden agenda or not to abuse the language that we see in Bill C-55? It is a hard thing to get a hold on. It is a bit like what we talked about when we were debating Bill C-36. If we had been debating Bill C-36 not in a context where protesters had been pepper sprayed at APEC, rubber bulleted at Quebec City, et cetera, maybe we would have had a more trusting feeling about the government when it came to Bill C-36. We still have not been able to build up that appropriate sense of trust so that we can take at face value what the minister says about these new controlled military access zones not being available for purposes like Kananaskis, although the minister has been very clear that it is not intended and cannot be used for Kananaskis. We will know soon whether the minister was telling the House something that is not true.

With respect to the difference between Bill C-42 and Bill C-55, it seems to me that we have a bit of sleight of hand here in the sense that there is the illusion of more parliamentary involvement than there was in Bill C-42. There was no illusion of parliamentary involvement in Bill C-42. We cannot accuse Bill C-42 of being involved in any sort of sleight of hand. However in Bill C-55 interim orders would have to be tabled in the House of Commons within 15 sittings days and therefore we would have the opportunity theoretically of these interim orders being the object of debate in the House of Commons. I grant that, except that we all know that simply to be tabled in parliament does not mean that it will be debated in parliament or voted on in parliament because the government controls parliament. Except in the situation of minority parliaments or in the situation where we had a much freer political culture than we do now in the House, the government controls parliament. In fact when the Minister of Transport was being interviewed on this he said “It will be tabled in parliament and you know, an opposition MP might be able to move a motion to have it debated and the government might even support it”. The word is “might”.

What we are saying is that if we really wanted parliamentary oversight and wanted an opportunity for parliament to debate this we would not leave this to the whim of a government that might be sensitive about what it had just done 15 sitting days ago. We might want to mandate that parliament would have to debate it within a certain timeframe, perhaps not 15 days, but perhaps within a certain timeframe after it has been tabled, whatever, but we would not leave it subject to the parliamentary dictatorial powers of a majority government as to whether or not that ever actually came up for debate.

That is certainly one of the concerns that we have. The fact is that the interim orders themselves, as has been argued by other members in the House, are inferior substitutes for the kind of powers that the government now has under the Emergencies Act, except that the Emergencies Act of course would have to involve parliament in a much more meaningful way than these interim orders potentially involve parliament.

Quite the contrary to what the government is saying, it may not be that now it has listened to Canadians and now it is trying to involve parliament. It may be that we just have a more sophisticated run around parliament in Bill C-55 than we had in Bill C-42 which was a rather blunt instrument and more transparently contemptuous of parliament than Bill C-55. Of course, if the government wants to claim otherwise, then we look forward to rather extensive study of this in committee, which brings me to my second point.

There was an emergency, so the government said. Clearly there was an emergency after 9/11. However whatever emergency Bill C-42 was intended to address, certainly could not have been much of an emergency, if the bill could sit on the order paper for months.

Now the Liberals have been listening to Canadians. I do not remember hearings on Bill C-42 because we never even had the first round of debate in this House about it. It never even got to the NDP and the Tories when it came to the debate on second reading, but the Liberals have been listening. If one were to listen to the rhetoric of the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister, one would think we had a thorough debate about this. Now we have to get this through by the end of June.

Four months of idleness on the part of the government with respect to Bill C-42 and now it is a big emergency. We will not be able to have extensive committee hearings. It is the same old show. It is the same as with Bill C-36. Anything that is important, we have to get it through in a hurry. The legislation can sit on the order paper for four or five months with no problem, but now we have to get this thing into committee, have hearings and it has to be all over and done with by the end of June.

The government really has its nerve when it comes to Bill C-55. It is a parliamentary outrage that it would expect us to say that there is an emergency, as if it has been acting as if there were an emergency when in fact it has not.

I put the government on notice to the extent that the NDP is able to influence matters here. I get a similar feeling from other opposition parties that we do not see any grounds now for some kind of unholy rush, particularly when Bill C-55 is not a reduced, or ameliorated or amended version of Bill C-42. What we have are entirely new measures inserted into Bill C-55. I am thinking in particular of the measures to do with the revelation of lists of passenger on planes.

When the government was listening to Canadians, whenever that process took place, that invisible process that happened between when it first introduced Bill C-42 and when it withdrew it, I guess I missed it. I missed all those public meetings where Canadians were saying that they wanted the RCMP and CSIS to know every time they got on a plane and that they wanted to have that information in some big computer somewhere. I do not remember anyone asking for that. Maybe the RCMP and CSIS asked for it. However let us not kid ourselves. It was not something for which that Canadians were calling. The privacy commissioner has expressed very real concerns and objections to this.

There is a whole new dimension to this bill. We are supposed to pass it because now the government is in a rush. When it came to this, the government was in a coma for four months but now there has been a boom, it has woken up, little lights have gone on and now the rest of us have to just shove it on through. I do not think the opposition will go for that, particularly with respect to this new demand for information.

A Liberal member of the justice committee was quoted in the paper as saying there was no reason this provision could not be expanded. I am talking now about giving information with respect to lists of passengers on trains, buses and people who rent cars. Why do we not just find out the names of everyone who goes into Wal-Mart. Where does this end?

I thought this was to fight terrorism. There are ways to fight terrorism, including on planes, that we support. However we do not support using 9/11 to create everyone's nightmare of a big brother, where everyone knows what everyone else is doing. Not everyone knows; big brother knows the travelling habits of people. The credit card companies probably know already, but that is beside the point. Why does the government not just go there. That is certainly one thing about which we are concerned.

We think we are being offered a bit of a sleight of hand here as to what a great improvement Bill C-55 is over Bill C-42. We want to see a thorough process when it comes to this bill. For the government to expect that somehow now we will just let this thing go is a very serious mistake on its part.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, last fall the government promised that it would listen to the concerns of members of parliament and Canadians with regard to Bill C-42 and it has. Bill C-55 improves on Bill C-42.

This bill will improve the safety of Canadians, while protecting their rights and their privacy.

I would like to briefly outline for the House how the proposals contained in Bill C-55 would affect the defence portfolio and the National Defence Act. I will begin with controlled access military zones.

One of the most substantial changes in the new bill is the replacement of the military security zones as defined in Bill C-42 with the new controlled access military zones. These zones would be temporary areas designated to protect defence establishments as well as Canadian forces and visiting forces' personnel and property, both on and off defence establishments. This would include, for instance, a Canadian, American, Italian or French ship that might be anchored in one of our harbours, or perhaps a Royal Air Force aircraft or two that would be temporarily staying at a civilian airport.

The new controlled access military zones are more limited than originally envisioned and have more restrictions on their use and purpose. For example, these zones would only be designated where they are considered reasonably necessary to ensure the safety and security of Canadian forces or allied personnel or equipment.

In other words, there would be no sweeping designations for international conferences, such as the one at Kananaskis. There would be no sweeping designations, as some people suggested, to cover an entire province or city. That was never the intent, but certainly people expressed fear about it.

In addition, the authority given by the minister of defence cannot exceed one year. Only the governor in council, the cabinet, could approve a renewal and only if it is deemed reasonably necessary, a fact that could always be tested in the courts, that the designation be in place for a period longer than one year.

These zones would help us better protect our military personnel, equipment and establishments from the possibility of terrorist attacks. They would make us a more responsible ally when it comes to protecting visiting forces.

Following our consultations, we introduced a second series of amendments concerning the protection of defence systems and networks.

Provision in Bill C-55 would give the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces the authority to protect their information technology without compromising the privacy of individuals. Defence systems and networks play a critical role in the daily operations of the Canadian forces both at home and in the field. As such they are high value targets for attack and for manipulation.

Under the new legislation the Minister of National Defence would have the authority to permit the department and the Canadian forces to intercept communications into, from, or through defence computer systems. This is very similar to a provision in Bill C-36 that involved the civilian oriented Communications Security Establishment in the defence of government departments and their systems. This would be done only in order to identify, isolate or prevent the harmful, and I emphasize the word harmful, unauthorized use, interference or damage to the information systems.

These authorities would be strictly for the protection of our systems. They would have nothing to do with listening to private conversations or eavesdropping, nor would they apply to actions that would more appropriately be covered under the government's acceptable use policy or the criminal code. They are however, essential to protect our information technology systems here at home and abroad. In the case of controlled access military zones, they would make Canada a more reliable international partner. Our IT systems are often closely integrated with those of our allies and we cannot afford to be the weak link in that chain.

The privacy of Canadians would remain paramount when it comes to applying these new authorities. A number of safeguards regarding the use and retention of intercepted communications have been incorporated into this provision. For example, the commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment will be responsible for reviewing activities carried out under this authorization.

Nothing in this part of the bill will in any way affect the powers or the role of the privacy commissioner who has previously looked at these kinds of systems in connection with CSE and has found them to be quite satisfactory.

Let me turn to the establishment of the reserve military judges panel. There are six provisions in the bill that apply to defence. This is another one. The amendment is designed to provide the chief military judge with a mechanism to access qualified reserve officers with prior experience as judges in the military justice system.

The establishment of this panel would ensure that our military judiciary has the same flexibility as currently exists in the civilian court system. It would provide an effective and efficient mechanism to respond to short term increases in demand for judicial services. At the same time it would prove beneficial when competing demands or conflicts limit the availability of the permanent cadre of military judges. The amendment is about efficiency and due process, which I believe Canadians would support.

Another element in the legislation is job protection for members of the reserves. Our ability to generate forces in the event of an emergency can in part depend on the compulsory call out of reservists. Should this situation arise, we have a responsibility to ensure that these members do not lose their civilian employment. The bill would ensure that they are reinstated with their civilian employers in equivalent work upon their return from the call out. The proposed amendment would mean that reservists would not have to choose between possibly losing their livelihoods and breaking the law that requires them to serve on call.

This is a pragmatic and a moral concern.

We will not be able to recruit new members if they risk losing their jobs when called out compulsorily. At the same time we cannot oblige our people to serve and not protect their employment. These measures will ensure that the dedicated men and women of the reserves are treated fairly when they make the sacrifice to serve their country.

I might add, if they are volunteering for a service such as they have in some of our past natural disasters, such as the ice storm, or the floods in the Saguenay or the floods in the Red River, that would continue to be on a voluntary basis as it has been in the past. In this post-September 11 world with the possibility of a terrorist attack and if an emergency arises in which there has to be a compulsory call out, it is only in that context we would use the job protection provisions. It is only in the context of an emergency compulsory call out.

Dealing with the word emergency brings me to the next component of the amendment and that is the definition of emergency. The proposed amendment simply modernizes the definition of emergency found in the National Defence Act by making clear reference to circumstances of armed conflict that fall short of formally declared war. It will now be defined as “insurrection, riot, invasion, armed conflict or war, whether real or apprehended”.

The difference from the previous longstanding legislation are the words “armed conflict” and the word “whether”. The word “whether” is put in the English text to make it balance with the French text. Insurrection, riot, invasion or war have always been there.

Not too many wars are actually declared these days even though there is armed conflict. There has not been a war declared by this country since the second world war even though there are a number of conflicts that have been called war in the colloquial sense. In the popular jargon when we refer to such things as Korea or gulf or Afghanistan, the word war is frequently used but they are not involving Canada or our allies in an actual declared war. The words “armed conflict” help to bring things up to date in that respect.

I stress that this would in no way lower the threshold for declaring an emergency. Rather it aligns the definition with the new security environment in which wars are seldom declared, as I have said, and threats are often posed by groups other than states.

The amendment is important because a number of important powers under the National Defence Act, such as the authority to retain Canadian forces members on service beyond the date on which they are entitled to be released, are tied to the existence of an emergency as defined in the act.

The sixth and final provision that involves defence in Bill C-55 amends the clause regarding aid to the civil power. This is really the same as it was in Bill C-42. Most of the provisions are the same as they were in Bill C-42 except for the controlled access military zones.

The provisions of the bill would allow the Minister of National Defence to provide appropriate direction to the chief of the defence staff to ensure the Government of Canada has the ability to manage simultaneous or multiple requests for assistance during an emergency.

Requests for aid to the civilian authorities will continue to be made directly to the chief of defence staff.

In conclusion, we have listened to the concerns of Canadians and have presented a bill that responds to the security threats that face Canada, that protects individual rights and protects privacy. It makes us a strong partner in the international fight against terrorism. It further improves the ability of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces to protect Canadians from terrorism and its effects. I strongly recommend that the bill be supported.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to Bill C-55, the public safety act. The public safety act 2002 is part of the Government of Canada's anti-terrorism plan which actually began with the anti-terrorism act, Bill C-36, and which was bolstered by a $7.7 billion investment in budget 2001.

Where the anti-terrorism act focused mainly on the criminal law aspects of combating terrorism, this bill addresses gaps in the federal legislative framework for public safety and protection. It is also very important to remind everyone that Bill C-55 is an improved package of public safety initiatives in support of the government's anti-terrorism plan.

While Bill C-55 retains key elements of Bill C-42, which was withdrawn on April 24, it also incorporates a number of very important improvements. It is very important to remember that the new revised bill is responding and has responded to concerns that were expressed about Bill C-42.

It is important also to remind members and Canadians of what the Minister of Transport said when he tabled the legislation in the House. He stated:

We have taken the input of parliamentarians, provinces and territories and others, and used it to significantly improve this legislation. It responds to the need for enhanced security while respecting the rights of Canadians.

It is very important that we look at that sentence. We are talking about finding a balance.

The hon. member who just spoke said that we have not taken into account the RCMP's concerns and that we have not taken into account financial institutions. We have consulted with Canadians. We have looked at the importance of being Canadian and what our values and rights are. That is what the government tries to achieve, a balance, the right balance to protect those things that are important to Canadians and to protect our charter of rights and freedoms.

The bill seeks to amend 20 acts and enacts a new one. People should know what those acts are. Included in the amendments are the Aeronautics Act, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act. There are also amendments to the criminal code but this is with respect to hoax offences. The bill also amends the Export and Import Permits Act, known as the EIPA, and the National Defence Act.

The act to be enacted is the biological and toxin weapons conventions implementation act. Before I speak about two very specific acts, it is important to talk about what the new act will do because we are actually ratifying a convention.

The new act will prohibit biological weapons and agents that do not have a peaceful purpose and will provide a more complete legal basis to regulate dual use biological agents in Canada. The new act will help to prevent the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition, transfer or use of biological weapons by states, individuals or other entities. It will supplement and reinforce Canada's existing legislation to prevent the development or transfer of biological weapons. In addition, the new amendments will set the terms and conditions of inspectors' activities in Canada, particularly in relation to their search and seizure activities.

It will be seen that Bill C-55 encompasses many things, but we must remember that it is part of our government's anti-terrorism plan. The word plan means more than one piece of legislation. It does not mean things in isolation or in silence. It is part of a comprehensive way that we are dealing with combating terrorism while at the same time protecting the rights and privacy of Canadians.

I would like to talk about two specific acts which fall within the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources, the National Energy Board Act and the Explosives Act. Earlier this morning I heard our colleagues in the Alliance Party commend the government for its amendments to the Explosives Act.

It might be trite to remind people that the terrorist attacks of September 11 not only changed the world but placed public security at the top of Canada's priority list. Since then the government has acted quickly and effectively on many fronts to address the serious threats resulting from these horrible events. It is also important to remember that we have acted cautiously. The Prime Minister is to be commended for how he dealt with the situation immediately after September 11.

Natural Resources Canada responded by working immediately with the Canadian energy industry to implement very appropriate security measures. Regulatory agencies, including the National Energy Board and the department's explosives administration, worked immediately to safeguard Canadian interests and ensure the security of Canada's energy systems and infrastructure.

With the proposed changes outlined in Bill C-55, Natural Resources Canada is taking further measures to enhance the safety and security of Canadians. Just as an aside, what motivates the government to pass this legislation and to have an anti-terrorism plan is to enhance the safety and security of Canadians, our citizens, whom we as parliamentarians have a duty to protect.

Natural Resources Canada administers the federal Explosives Act and the regulations. The act regulates the importation, manufacture, storage and sale of commercial explosives along with aspects of their transportation. The department's primary mandate is to ensure the health and safety of workers in the industry and of the Canadian public first and foremost.

As I mentioned earlier, in the December 2001 budget the government made a substantive investment of $7.7 billion to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. This budget funding will underwrite the legislative amendments that are proposed in Bill C-55.

The proposed amendments to the Explosives Act are contained in part 6 of Bill C-55. They will enable us to enhance the security of our domestic explosives industry and, I cannot say this often enough, ensure the safety of Canadians. They will strengthen the federal government's role in regulating the acquisition, possession and exportation of explosives. As well they will implement tougher security measures related to the manufacture, storage and transportation of explosives. For example, in transit and export controls combined with the import controls that currently exist under the Explosives Act will greatly improve the security of explosives shipments during transport.

The amendments will also help to bring Canada in line with the Organization of American States Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials which we signed in 1997. The act will now define what illicit trafficking is so that it captures the type of activity that can lead to the acquisition of explosives by criminals or terrorists.

New sections will address security measures, record keeping and the exchange of information for the purposes of tracing, identifying and preventing the illicit manufacture or the illicit trafficking of explosives. What we have to remember is that we are targeting illicit activities, we are targeting terrorist activities. We are not targeting honest, hardworking, everyday Canadians.

Enhanced controls over the acquisition and possession of explosives and their precursors would deter terrorists from using Canada as a place to prepare and launch terrorist attacks. The new possession controls would identify and deter individuals who posed a risk from having access to explosives.

A further deterrent to unlawful explosive activities would be the bill's changes to the penalty structure to bring penalties into line with those already in force under Canadian law for other serious crimes. The important thing is that explosive precursors such as ammonium nitrate would need tighter controls. As members will recall, ammonium nitrate was a key ingredient in the tragic Oklahoma City bombing. Bill C-55 would regulate such chemicals under the Explosives Act. The bill's intent is to prevent acquisition for unlawful purposes while ensuring ready access for legitimate agricultural use. It is about balance.

The proposed amendments to the Explosives Act would put Canada on the leading edge of explosives control. We would be seen around the world as taking a leadership role in protecting and securing our explosives supply. Moreover, Canada would be well placed to actively participate and lead in discussions about potential international control measures.

The proposed legislative changes illustrate the government's commitment to public security and the fight against terrorism. They illustrate its commitment to be a leader on the international scene in the fight against terrorism.

I will turn my attention to part 12 of Bill C-55 which proposes amendments to the National Energy Board Act. Currently the National Energy Board has a mandate to regulate the safety of interprovincial and international pipelines and international power lines. In working with industry the National Energy Board has institutionalized rigorous standards in maintenance practices to ensure the integrity and safety of the national pipeline system.

The proposed amendments to the National Energy Board Act would provide the board with clear statutory authority with respect to the security of installations. First, the board would be given the authority to order a pipeline company or certificate holder for an international power line to take measures for the security of the pipeline or power line. Second, it could make regulations respecting security measures. Third, it could keep security information confidential both in board hearings and in orders. Fourth, it would advise the Minister of Natural Resources on issues related to the security of pipelines and international power lines. Fifth, it could waive the publication requirements for applications to export electricity or construct international power lines if there was a critical shortage of electricity caused by a terrorist activity.

The board's inspectors would be given additional authority to make orders with respect to security matters. The ability of the National Energy Board to keep sensitive industry security information confidential is essential to the exercise of regulatory responsibilities for security. The amendments therefore contain a provision enabling the National Energy Board to take measures to protect information in its proceedings or in any order.

There are two tests for exercising this authority. First, the board must be satisfied there is a real and substantial risk that disclosure of information would impair the security of pipelines or international power lines or the methods used to protect them. Second, the board must be satisfied that the need to protect the information outweighs the public interest of having it disclosed. Again we are talking about balance.

The regulated companies have been co-operative in ensuring strengthened security arrangements are in place. They continue to operate at a heightened level of awareness to potential threats. The National Energy Board will continue to work co-operatively with industry in ensuring appropriate levels of security are maintained into the future. The amendments to the National Energy Board Act would provide the board a clear statutory basis for regulating the security of energy infrastructure under its jurisdiction.

Bill C-55 would amend 20 acts. I have been able to touch on at least two of them that the opposition and Canadians in general will have a hard time arguing with. The changes would be for the security and safety of Canadians. They would strike a balance. Bill C-55's amendments to the National Energy Board Act and the Explosives Act would contribute to the safety and well-being of Canadians. They would provide us with better tools to address and protect ourselves from terrorism.

Last year at this time terrorism was something we watched on television and in the movies. After September 11 the world changed. Canadians must respond to the changed world. We as parliamentarians must do everything we can to protect Canadians while ensuring the values which are so important and dear to us remain.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to complete my remarks on Bill C-55. I am also glad to know that the amendment has been accepted. It is very much the thrust of the last number of speakers who feel it is entirely inappropriate that the bill be considered by the transport committee.

The number of provisions found within this cumbersome and convoluted omnibus bill predominantly deal with security issues. They touch upon matters which would best be considered by the justice and human rights committee of which you were once a member, Madam Speaker.

That would lead to at least a greater level of scrutiny which would allow members of that committee and the public generally, through that committee, to see what a sham it is for the government to be presenting this bill at this time knowing that the measures currently found in the Emergencies Act lead to a greater level of scrutiny by the House of Commons and a more expeditious enactment of emergency measures should the government choose to go that route.

The Emergencies Act is more timely and more open to judicial consideration. It allows cabinet to be more in the loop whereas under Bill C-55 one could have ministers of the crown, specifically the minister of defence, acting in a unilateral and unchecked arbitrary way.

Yesterday I compared the Emergencies Act and Bill C-55. Clearly there is greater safeguard and an ability for the public to have checks and balances in place that threaten civil liberties. Yet this demonstrates time and again that the government would like to do away with the hassles of coming to parliament and being accountable. It wants to do away with the scrutiny that would take place at a committee level. That is the ruse and the constant effort by the government to bypass or sidestep any kind of accountability. Bill C-55 is perhaps the most blatant example that we have seen in years.

Bill C-36, the earlier terrorism bill, at the very least went through a rigorous and onerous examination in the chamber and the justice committee. I suspect that may be the motivation behind floating this one by members of parliament and referring it to the transport committee where it would not receive the same level of scrutiny.

Headlines in editorials spoke volumes yesterday as to how the journalistic community viewed the bill: “New public safety act threatens civil rights”; “Anti-terror: take two”; and “Freedom will keep us safe: The revised public securities act is still too undemocratic”.

These are damning condemnations. They talk about the reluctance of the government to use the Emergencies Act because it would require all party scrutiny. Scrutiny is extremely important, I am quick to add, to ensure that civil liberties are not infringed upon, that property rights are respected and upheld, and that the private information of Canadians is not infringed upon.

The privacy commissioner, as is often his wont, has made a great deal of noise about problems that he has with the new bill. Yet I suspect that in a few days or weeks when amendments come in he will climb down off the curtains just as some of the other individuals such as the farcical ethics councillor. The supposed watchdogs are really anemic, toothless chihuahuas when we get right down to brass tacks and look at what they do in the wake of very dangerous and very intrusive legislation such as Bill C-55.

I can best describe the bill as one of confusion, an overlapping, cumbersome conglomeration of a power grab by the government. The public safety act, in and of itself, would not allow the government to act in a more timely fashion, nor would it allow it to act in a more safe and responsible way in response to an emergency.

It would allow the government with little consultation or consideration to empower a minister to make strong arbitrary decisions as they relate to a person's privacy and sovereignty over his or her property.

The idea that a military person could drive a tank or an army jeep onto someone's back lawn and declare it a military zone is the absolute ludicrous upshot of what the bill would empower the government to do.

A lot of time and effort went into drafting legislation that would confuse and distract members of parliament from the task at hand. We have before us a bill that touches on dozens of different areas of legislation, nine different pieces in particular. It talks about environmental protection, health, food and drugs, hazardous products, navigable waters protection, pest control, quarantine, and radiation. Where is the transport element in all of this? It should be before the justice and human rights committee. We support the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this important debate. I want to pay tribute to all of my colleagues who have spoken previously. They have brought a great deal of sensibility and reasonableness to the debate. They have raised issues of great importance that have been left unanswered essentially by the bill itself and which were left unanswered by the minister when he spoke.

The Minister of Transport stood in the House at the beginning of the debate and said that the bill is the essence of parliamentary democracy. That is how he described it. I would qualify the statement by saying that the bill is the essence of Liberal parliamentary democracy because it completely bypasses parliament.

Perhaps it is an attempt to further concentrate some of the arbitrary power in the hands of government and more specifically the minister but it is certainly the opposite of parliamentary democracy. It was referred to at one point as drive-by democracy or perhaps fast food democracy. That might be a more appropriate way of characterizing what we have before us in Bill C-55.

I would not go so far as to say what the federal privacy commissioner has said in terms of describing it. He used the term totalitarian in discussing aspects of the legislation.

Certainly there are troubling elements. There are elements that seem consistent with the Prime Minister's continual contempt for parliament and attempts to bypass any sort of process of review or any check or balance on his powers. It is consistent with his style of executive decree and making decisions unilaterally and simply not being able to justify them.

The bill is one which in time will get the scrutiny it deserves. It is fair to say that Canadians are intelligent enough and able enough to decide for themselves whether these steps are necessary, whether the bill will in fact violate their fundamental rights.

A huge unanswered and unaddressed issue keeps coming back time and again from the time we saw the first incarnation of this bill as Bill C-42. That is the fundamental question of is it necessary, do we need it right now? I would say there are parts of the bill that arguably we do need. However when we saw the first incarnation, Bill C-42, we knew it was coming in the wake of a very tragic event that invoked strong emotions and a strong sense of instability among countries, including our own.

An hon. member from British Columbia, the transport critic for the Alliance Party, talked about the fact that Bill C-36, the criminal code amendments, another omnibus bill, brought together certain excessive responses given the circumstances. It received a lot of scrutiny in the House and a lot of concern even from members of the government.

However it was not until a full two months later that we saw Bill C-42. Then the government skated. The government delayed. It went to great lengths to not bring the bill forward. It was debated for a very short time in the House and then it was sloughed off and put on the back burner until after Christmas. As people started to look at it more closely in the light of day in a more rational time, it became apparent that the bill was fatally flawed.

We have gone through the examination. The critic for the Alliance took us through a detailed analysis of why the government carved out a certain aspect of it to meet with American legislation and regulations that we had almost overlooked. We almost missed the time line because of the sloppiness and the convoluted, cumbersome method in which that legislation was drafted. The government took to its scrapers and had to rush to pull an element out and draft a new bill which was passed through the House very quickly.

It is indicative again of the lack of consultation not only with the stakeholders which is important but with other parliamentarians as well. They should be given the respect they deserve by consulting with them to see if there are ways in which legislation could be passed in a more effective non-partisan way.

Let us be very clear that the bill is another seriously flawed piece of Liberal legislation. It is a slap in the face to those who value their privacy, their rights of protection of property rights and many other fundamental democratic rights.

In the wake of September 11 it was understandable that the legislation that was brought forward and which was on the drawing board might go to extreme measures. In the shadow of such a threat, reflecting on the legislation is extremely important. That is part of what we do. It is part of what we should be expected to conduct.

The arbitrariness of the decision making found in the legislation and the decision making process itself is palpable. It will permeate and permit further war measures like activities within the country. That word should not be thrown around lightly. We should not get into the habit of hyperbole when we talk about the War Measures Act.

I would like to briefly give a comparison between the Emergency Measures Act and Bill C-55, just so we have it in context. Bill C-55 has no other objective than to give ministers arbitrary power that would come in the face of a real threat, an issue that was going to no doubt disrupt and perhaps put Canadian lives in peril. However we already have legislation on the books today, the Emergency Measures Act, that allows for a very swift and decisive response.

The Emergency Measures Act is a declaration of emergency. It becomes effective immediately upon proclamation, immediately upon the government declaring that such a state exists. It also goes to parliament within seven, not 45, but seven sitting days. If parliament is not sitting, parliament shall be recalled. That is reasonable.

Parliament debates the declaration of emergency immediately and can vote it down if it decides to do so. Every order or regulation that would come out of the Emergency Measures Act must go to parliament within two sitting days. There is an exception for exempt or classified orders. That is reasonable in the circumstances if the military so determines, but they are sent directly to an all party parliamentary review committee which would be sworn to secrecy. Parliament can revoke or amend any order or regulation.

That is the state of the current legislation. That is a summary of what is currently available and in the hands of government in the wake of an emergency.

By comparison what Bill C-55 will do also comes into effect immediately but no declaration of emergency is required to be proclaimed by parliament beforehand. Parliament is out of the loop. Parliament has no vote on the existence or the determination of the emergency, nor are interim orders to be tabled in the House until the first 15 days on which the House is sitting after the interim order is made. There is no debate in parliament. Parliament cannot revoke or amend any interim order.

Under the Emergency Measures Act parliament is the place where the orders are debated, amended, defeated, approved and reviewed. The government would be accountable to parliament. Under Bill C-55 parliament is the place where orders are simply published. We become a clearing house, a publishing place for the government's decisions. The government is not accountable under Bill C-55.

Putting this much power in the hands of a minister does nothing to benefit Canadians. On the other hand it does a great deal to give more arbitrary power. It also cloaks the government in greater secrecy as to what it is doing. It also bypasses the scrutiny that would be expected in most circumstances.

The interim orders that are made by the minister and the minister alone without parliamentary approval can remain in place for 23 days in secret. No one would know that they had been invoked. They can be in effect for 45 days without any cabinet approval. Forty-five days; it is ridiculous to think that the cabinet would not convene within 45 days if a national emergency took place.

The orders can be invoked by a person unnamed, unknown, but designated by the minister. Unless specified in the order, the order can be in effect for a year and if the minister so chooses, it can be renewed for at least another year. Where is the balance? Where is the scrutiny? Why is the Prime Minister and the minister so intent on avoiding parliamentary scrutiny? Why are they displaying this continued contempt for the House?

We know what happens when things go awry and there is a report to be prepared or a committee to look at things. It is simply thrown on a shelf. That is what happens.

Or if there is an investigation like we saw at the APEC inquiry, a public inquiry, the Prime Minister simply can choose not to go, or the minister himself might just say that he does not think he will go there to account for what he has done.

The changes from Bill C-42 that we see now before us in Bill C-55 are what I would deem a slight improvement, but once again parliament and the public are relegated to the back seat. It seems that parliament increasingly is becoming an afterthought and an irritation to the government.

Changes to the National Defence Act are a perfect example. Here we have a minister who in the past has demonstrated that he has been less than forthright to parliament, his party, his caucus and even the Prime Minister, although I think in fairness we may have found that it was probably fair to say the Prime Minister was briefed and chose to let the defence minister twist in the breeze. This minister hardly inspires confidence that this minister or a person he deems suitable should be making those decisions. It is that decision making power that I think Canadians and parliamentarians here on the opposition side certainly question.

In that instance we had a circumstance in which Canadian soldiers should have been given accolades. Yet what we saw was this public debate and debacle over questions. Did we take hostages or did we not? Were the hostages handed over or were they not? Was the Prime Minister told or was he not? That should have been a moment of pride, yet it was stolen by some of the stumbling and bumbling of the minister. It took three briefings to get up to speed before something clicked and yet the Prime Minister wants him to have the ability to declare unchecked, uncontrolled access to declaring a military zone somewhere in the country.

The Liberals say that they would consent to a short term extension if we wanted to finish this debate today, so I wonder if I might ask the Chair if we would be prepared to do that.

Make no mistake about this. This legislation and the government can drive a tank onto a street corner or a field anywhere in the country and then at the discretion of the minister deem it to be a military zone.

Under paragraph 260.1(1)(b), “Controlled Access Military Zones”, there has to be some question as to what the government means by property. Is this real property? Is this real estate? Or is it property in terms of equipment such as a main battle tank or a military vehicle or perhaps even one of our embattled Sea Kings which the Prime Minister of course is refusing to replace because of his hardheadedness and his previous decision to cancel them? I would suggest the answer to this question about the definition of a military zone is found in proposed subsection 260.1(3), where the designation of the nature of the zone is stated:

A controlled access military zone may consist of an area of land or water, a portion of airspace, or a structure or part of one, surrounding a thing referred to in subsection (1) or including it, whether the zone designated is fixed or moves with that thing. The zone automatically includes all corresponding airspace above, and water and land below, the earth's surface.

That is a pretty broad definition. Pretty much any place would fit that bill. Key in that definition is the phrase “or moves with that thing”. This is the nature of the legislation. Were it to create such zones or around areas which permit permanent structures not designated as military bases, there would be no need for a clarification or classification of this type. This gives the government, or rather one minister in this instance, the ability to designate a controlled military access zone around any piece of military property if he feels it necessary to do so. As the equipment moves through the area, so goes the zone. For Canadians working long, hard hours for everything they own, a stroke of the pen would negate the expectation that a person's castle is their home.

It is totally unacceptable. We need to know that protections for private property and public property exist. There have to be greater checks and balances. The Liberals might suggest that the checks and balances are contained in proposed subsection 260.1(6) where the maximum time limit of one year is put on the zone. However, clearly we know that with more jiggery and pokery and legal wrangling, the average Canadian's--

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the transport minister on at least waking up the justice minister to his wonderful display of arm waving which was good.

First, I want to comment on his final comments with regard to airport traffic. I will move specifically to Bill C-55 in a moment. The minister said that airport traffic is back after September 11 and somehow that is a great feat by the government.

First, airport traffic is back because people already bought their tickets prior to April 1, so they did not have to pay the $24 tax. Second, people are booking their flights today for the summer to avoid paying the $24 tax and it is the travel season. Third, the vast majority of air carriers are having broad seat sales right now because they are scared of going under because the government is taxing them into the ground.

I rise on Bill C-55 which is an act to amend certain acts of Canada and to enact measures for implementing the biological and toxin weapons convention to enhance public safety. It is also known as the public security act.

Bill C-55 gives cabinet members acting alone outrageous and broad new powers with limited checks and balances. If these powers were exercised to their fullest possible extent, they could represent a grave threat to the notion of parliamentary democracy that Canadians hold so dearly.

We were glad that the Liberals withdrew their Bill C-42, but they seem to have missed the entire reason why so many members of the House and so many members of the public were exercised with concern about the problems of Bill C-42.

Specifically, the concerns that Canadians had with Bill C-42, which are still present in Bill C-55, are the capacity of cabinet ministers to invoke a number of interim order measures and the capacity for the minister of defence acting alone to create military security zones. Both of those aspects of Bill C-42 are alive and well in Bill C-55. It is because of those aspects that a number of Canadians will continue to have concerns about the bill and that the official opposition will oppose the bill and encourage all others to do so as well.

As I said, the government can still create a military security zone to protect, as the bill says, “property that is provided for the armed forces for the department and is situated outside a defence establishment”.

In the old bill the government could have declared an area like Kananaskis where the G-8 summit will be a military security zone. It still can in Bill C-55. All it has to do is put some military equipment like a jeep or a helicopter in the zone and they can therefore declare it a security zone under section 260.1(3) which reads:

A controlled access military zone may consist of an area of land or water, a portion of airspace, or a structure or part of one, surrounding a thing referred to in subsection (1) [basically equipment and personnel]...The zone automatically includes all corresponding airspace above, and water and land below, the earth's surface.

This power should not be in the sole, arbitrary hands of the minister of defence.

A recent poll has shown that 69% of Canadians see our federal political system as being corrupt. Canadians are unlikely to be thrilled by this legislation such as this, where the government grabs more unchecked power for ministers. At present the public's faith in democracy is tainted more than ever by the Liberal government's track record on things such as imposing a $24 air tax, despite the fact that air security at most airports has not been improved as the minister says and that the transport committee recommended against such an extreme airline killing measure.

Also, the government invoked closure to impose the legislation, Bill C-49, and which imposed the tax. These things do not build confidence with Canadians. The government also has a lack of respect for free votes in this place and the treatment of private members' bill. It has a lack of commitment to a democratically elected Senate. It has muzzled politically free speech for their own backbenchers. It has a lack of free votes allowed by Liberals in this place. There are also countless other examples and they do not build the confidence of Canadians.

The government should be building the confidence of Canadians in democracy and governance. Bill C-55 will only work to continue the downward spiral of public faith in the institution of governance.

Bill C-55 is a vast and comprehensive bill affecting some nine federal departments. It amends 20 federal statutes and implements in domestic law an international convention that Canada ratified back on March 26, 1975. That treaty is the biological and toxin weapons convention and it shows a stunning lack of vision that it has taken us a quarter of a century to finally make it part of our laws.

In times of trial lucky nations remember great leaders. The British remember Winston Churchill. His unbroken spirit strengthened British resolve during the darkest days of the second world war. Americans remember Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the president who led their nation to great victories across two different oceans at a time when freedom itself was at stake.

All those who are alive today know that President Bush, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and Prime Minister Blair will fare similarly well with historians. As we struggle to deal with the aftermath of September 11, now roughly eight months ago, these three leaders have set the standard by which the world will judge political courage in a time of crisis in the years to come.

Those standards are tough. They mandate a committed ongoing and continuous fight against terrorism and the defence of our way of life, the rule of law, pluralism and democracy. Tougher still, they will require respect for diversity and understanding through dialogue so that in our zeal to protect the democratic Liberal values, which the western world so shares, we do not inadvertently diminish or deny that which we are striving to protect.

Finally and perhaps most important, those standards require firm, principled leadership. That leadership requires two very simple things: a clearly identified goal and a precise way of reaching it.

In the immediate aftermath of September 11 President Bush led. He set a goal of making America safe against further terrorist attacks and of restoring the confidence of Americans. He launched six different initiatives.

The first was the office of homeland security to deal with threats against American territory and appointed Vietnam veteran, former army ranger and former Pennsylvania governor, Tom Ridge as its director.

Second, he created a military campaign to fight terrorism abroad and involve America's allies in that campaign.

Third, he launched an aggressive worldwide campaign to identify and prosecute those who were responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Fourth, blocking of terrorist financing was a priority and access to international banking networks was fought.

Fifth, he launched a concerted diplomatic effort with America's allies to secure the co-operation of the United Nations Security Council, NATO and the Organization of American States in collectively fighting terrorism.

Sixth, he established a fund to help Afghan children, recognizing that they too were victims of the events of September 11.

Each of President Bush's initiatives were and are distinct and well designed, rather like the blades of a Swiss army knife. Each has a specific purpose but the six together are a powerful and comprehensive combination. Quite simply, they have been designed like a Swiss army knife, to work well together so as to be greater than the sum of their parts and like a Swiss army knife they are designed to get the job done.

If we think of President Bush's initiatives as a Swiss army knife, this government's attempts to deal with the aftermath of September 11 are rather like the tools we might find at the bottom of a box at a rummage sale. Some are good, some are missing pieces, some are quite beyond redemption and even the ones that work are not necessarily designed to work together.

Of all the governments on this continent, the Canadian federal government has by far the most legislative and administrative power. An arrogant Prime Minister can appoint his cabinet ministers and he can make them do his bidding or face political exile in the obscurity of the government backbenches. His decisions are supported by 170 plus Liberal voting machines. Their unquestioning support of every piece of government legislation gives the Prime Minister a degree of concentration of power unseen in other liberal democracies.

Given the vast powers of the Canadian Prime Minister, virtually any bold incisive solution was possible in response to September 11. Whatever measure, whichever regulation desired would have easily become a legal reality. Given such latitude, it is sad, perhaps even a bit frightening, that with respect to the public safety act this is the third time in three attempts that the Liberal government has dropped the ball.

When after September 11 Canadians clamored for a collective sense of security, the government increased taxes on air travellers. Today in reaction to polls showing that Canadians do not trust government, the federal Liberals offer up not accountability but a power grab for the cabinet.

Bill C-55 is another omnibus bill that the government has tabled since September 11 and the tragedy therein. The first was Bill C-36 which the government introduced on October 15, over a month after the tragedy and which amended over a dozen statutes and added a new one.

Bill C-55, the public safety act, is just as cumbersome and every bit as complex as Bill C-36. Indeed this bill's complexity and the ham-fisted way incompatible themes have been duct taped together into one bill is obviously a sign of a government unable to and arguably incapable of leading in a time of crisis.

On November 20, 2001 at about 5.25 in the evening the government House leader sought unanimous consent to suspend the standing orders and introduce a government bill at 2 p.m. the next afternoon. The bill, “An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety”, would be complex and a briefing to staff would be offered. After two months of hibernation on aviation security legislation, there was now a flicker of hope that our government would finally react.

At 2 p.m. on November 21, 2001 the promised bill was nowhere in sight. Last minute problems delayed its introduction. Bill C-42 was introduced the following day on November 22 and contained some 19 parts dealing with everything from money laundering to the implementation of a 1977 treaty on biotoxins. A miniature section on aviation security was thrown in for measured optics.

With the same deft touch that marked the bill's introduction on Wednesday, November 28, within a week of its first reading in the House, the government House leader was again on his feet to state that unanimous consent had been required and obtained to delete clause 5 which dealt with section 4.83 of the Aeronautics Act regarding the provision of information. The clause was to be reintroduced in Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, which was ordered for consideration at second reading a mere two sitting days later.

Examination showed that the clause which was deleted had been written to comply with section 115 of the U.S. aviation and transportation security act which had been signed by President Bush days prior. In short, airlines would not be able to fly into the United States after January 18 unless they provided certain information to the U.S. customs service.

There was one problem. The clause allowing Canadian airlines to comply with the U.S. legislation was buried deep in a massive omnibus bill and there was no hope of getting the omnibus bill passed before January 18, 2002. The government took the only possible option. It took the useful clause out of Bill C-42 and introduced it as Bill C-44, a one clause bill which was passed in the House on December 6 and received royal assent on December 18.

The Liberals' stunning mishandling of the public safety act is underlined by the fact that more than five months after Bill C-42 was introduced we are discussing and debating a virtually identical bill with most of the same problems. The government seems to have learned nothing.

Bill C-55 addresses a number of totally unrelated ideas. It should be broken up. Just as it made sense last November to put clauses of Bill C-42 into a separate bill, Bill C-44, it now makes sense to break Bill C-55 into separate bills so they might in turn get the committee's scrutiny. This is what our system of government was designed for. It is what Canadians expect. It would allow the various committees of the House to study the relevant parts of the bill instead of sending the entire bill to a single committee, in this case the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations.

Bill C-55 deals with money laundering and the implementation of a 1977 treaty on biotoxins, topics which would hardly be considered the domain and responsibility of a transport committee. Having said that, I will deal in specific terms with the sections of the bill that deal truly with transport. It is our intention to give each of our party's critics the opportunity to speak to the parts of Bill C-55 that would affect the departments they monitor. It is also our intention to allow our justice critic the hon. member for Provencher to address the parts of the bill that would give ministers the power to make interim orders with respect to unforeseen threats in their departments.

I will address the key areas with respect to transport. The first is the apportionment of security costs. As members opposite may notice, this is not dealt with in Bill C-55. That is part of the problem. Bill C-42 which Bill C-55 replaces was also called the public safety act. It contained a clause which would have introduced a new subsection to the Aeronautics Act. Proposed subsection 4.75(1) read:

The Minister may apportion the costs of any security measure between the persons to whom it is directed, or by whom it is carried out, and any person or persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, would reasonably be expected to benefit from the security measure.

In the context of passenger screening this might have apportioned costs among the flying public to whom it was directed, the airlines and airport authorities who carried it out, and any person who could have reasonably benefited from it. Given that the September 11 victims were mostly in office towers and on the ground, this might well have been the general taxpayer.

These sentiments were expressed in recommendation 14 of the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations, “Building a Transportation Security Culture: Aviation as the Starting Point”, which was released on Friday, December 7. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport is here because the report which tabled 15 recommendations on airport and airline security was supported unanimously at committee.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the hon. member of parliament from Chicoutimi, said the government should not impose a $24 tax and put it all on the shoulders of passengers. He said we should spread out the costs. The view was supported unanimously but the government rejected it. It rejected its own parliamentary secretary and the hard work of the committee.

The recommendation I am referring to reads:

All stakeholders--including airports, air carriers, airline passengers and/or residents of Canada--contribute to the cost of improved aviation security. In particular, the amounts currently spent by airports and air carriers should be continued--

They are not now continued by law. The recommendation goes on:

--with appropriate adjustments for inflation. A ticket surtax could also be implemented, and any funding shortfalls could be financed out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The initial apportionment of security costs was a good idea. It was in the spirit of what the transport committee had recommended. I was surprised the clause was not included in the new public safety act Bill C-55. After all, we read constantly in the press that the Liberals want to listen to Canadians and their concerns.

When I heard WestJet was cutting 13 weekly flights between Edmonton and Calgary and dropping its Victoria-Kelowna service as a result of the oppressive impact of the Liberal government's air tax on short haul carriers, I hoped the Liberals were listening. I thought maybe they were having a change of heart. Then I noticed the apportionment of costs clause was gone from Bill C-55. If Bill C-42 had not been withdrawn and had been reintroduced in virtually its original form with only a number change, the apportionment of security costs would have ended up being debated and scrutinized by the transport committee which had recommended an apportionment of security costs model in the first place.

Given that the model was rejected by the finance committee after the Liberals who supported it were removed and by the Liberal voting machine which heeded the Prime Minister's orders on Bill C-49, the government did not want the apportionment of security costs clause going back before the committee. Since it was the only way to avoid having such a clause debated by committee the government pulled the bill, deleted the clause, renumbered the bill and reintroduced it as a brand new piece of legislation in Bill C-55. After all this government members wonder why 69% of Canadians think federal politics is corrupt.

The second transport related clause of Bill C-55 that I will address is the new anti-air rage provision. Clause 17 of Bill C-55 would introduce a new section to the Aeronautics Act, section 7.41. In many ways the section would build on concepts contained in the 1963 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft which Canada ratified on November 7, 1969, and the 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation which Canada ratified on June 19, 1972.

Essentially these treaties make interference with cockpit crew an international offence. Clause 17 of Bill C-55 would make it an offence punishable by a $100,000 fine and/or up to five years in jail to interfere with any crew member in the performance of his or her duties or anyone who is following the instruction of a crew member. We in our party fully support clause 17 of Bill C-55 and applaud its introduction by the government.

Clause 5 of Bill C-55 deals with the type of information an airline or other transport authority may provide to authorities. It would modify sections 4.7 and 4.8 of the Aeronautics Act. Under clause 5 of Bill C-55 the new subsection 4.82(4) of the Aeronautics Act would read:

The Commissioner, or a person designated under subsection (2), may, for the purposes of transportation security or the identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued, require any air carrier or operator of an aviation reservation system to provide a person designated under subsection (2), within the time and in the manner specified by the person imposing the requirement, with the information set out in the schedule

(a) that is in the air carrier's or operator's control concerning the persons on board or expected to be on board an aircraft for any flight specified by the person imposing the requirement; or

(b) that is in the air carrier's or operator's control, or that comes into their control within 30 days after the requirement is imposed on them, concerning any particular person specified by the person imposing the requirement.

The modified subsection 4.82(5) of the Aeronautics Act would enable the RCMP to share this information with CSIS. These powers, correctly used and perhaps modified by committee, might give Canadian intelligence authorities access to the same type of information the Americans have in their Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System or CAPPS. It is imperative that this be the case.

For years Canadians have bragged about having the world's longest undefended border. We have had access to America like no other nation. Those days are over because of the government's mismanagement since September 11. Armed national guardsmen now protect the previously undefended border. That single fact, breaking with years of tradition, is a damning indictment of the government's post-September 11 record. By guarding the border the Americans are sending Canada a simple, four word message: “We don't trust you”.

Sunday's 60 Minutes report may help convince some of the voting machines opposite of the urgent need to act. We face a choice as a nation. With regard to the new fortress America we can either be inside looking out or outside looking in. We are on probation. It matters greatly what we do in the coming months.

It is critical that we build computer system like the one America has, the Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System or CAPPS. This would show we were serious about protecting our border from terrorism and those who would use our tremendous support of legitimate refugees as a cover for criminal acts. A cornerstone of CAPPS is getting information from airlines. Bill C-55's modifications to subsections 4.82(4) and 4.82(5) of the Aeronautics Act are a step in the right direction.

It may come as a surprise to members of the House that airlines maintain two types of files on their passengers. First, they maintain a passenger name record or PNR. This is the file airlines create when they reserve a seat for a passenger. It contains information such as the passenger's name, address, phone number and form of payment. It also contains reservation information such as boarding city, destination, connections, flight numbers, dates, stops and seat assignment. Based on this information the manifest is prepared for each flight showing who is sitting where. Routinely at present this is the information handed over to authorities when there is an airline accident.

Second, airlines maintain the APIS or advanced passenger information system data. It includes five fields: passenger name; date of birth; citizenship, nationality and document issuing country; gender; and passport or document number. Other than the passenger's name this information is not normally collected by the airlines. Unless passports are machine readable much of the information must be entered manually. For this reason airlines only collect it when they must provide it to immigration authorities.

The U.S. currently requires this type of information for U.S. bound Asian passengers transiting through Vancouver under the Canada-U.S. memorandum of understanding which allows such passengers to go through U.S. customs without first passing through Canadian customs. It is not immediately clear whether the modified subsections 4.82(4) and 4.82(5) of the Aeronautics Act would apply only to PNR information which airlines normally have in their reservations systems or also to APIS information which may be collected as passengers board flights overseas destined for Canada.

In the U.S. the new aviation and transportation security act mandates that the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration require air carriers to expand the application of the Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System or CAPPS to all passengers regardless of baggage. In addition, passengers selected under the system are subject to additional security measures before boarding including checks of carry on baggage and of their person. Both the PNR and APIS information is sent electronically to the U.S. customs supercomputer in Newington, Virginia where the CAPPS system enables the passenger profiling that keeps America's skies safe.

The U.S. is actively fighting a war on terrorism. It is walking the walk, unlike the Liberal government. Given that page 95 of the budget allocates $76 million to improving co-ordination and information sharing among government agencies, I call on the government to follow America's lead and send both PNR and APIS information to a single agency so Canada can create its own CAPPS system to enhance intelligence gathering on would-be terrorists. This would keep Canadians safe in the air and on the ground. More importantly, it would help restore America's trust in Canada's commitment to fighting terrorism as opposed to merely talking about fighting terrorism which is all we have seen from the government. It would be nice if the government would make the real legislative and budgetary commitments to send that signal. With a view to enabling this type of information gathering the Canadian Alliance will be tabling amendments at committee.

I conclude by calling on the government to divide Bill C-55 so the appropriate standing committees may give the bill proper examination. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting the following:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55, An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, since the Bill reflects several principles unrelated to transport and government operations rendering it impractical for the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations to properly consider it”.

Terrorism

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to support the decision of the government to ratify the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This brings to 12 the number of conventions we have ratified.

In this war against terrorism, as mentioned by my colleague from Mercier, we must also ratify the other international instruments dealing with human rights.

All states should be encouraged to ratify international human rights conventions at the earliest possible time, particularly the six core treaties. As well, ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court should be promoted along with a strengthening of the mandate of the court to enable it to deal with terrorism which may not constitute a crime against humanity. In the struggle against terrorism the importance of respecting fundamental human rights and freedoms must be underscored. As Bacre Ndiaye of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights pointed out:

There is evidence that some Governments are now introducing measures that may erode core human rights safeguards.

In some countries, non-violent activities have been considered as terrorism, and excessive measures have been taken to suppress or restrict individual rights--

Here at home the so-called anti-terrorism legislation Bill C-36 and the legislation just tabled, Bill C-55, raise serious human rights concerns as well.

In the fight against terrorism we must do far more to tackle the conditions which give rise to desperation and hopelessness and can ultimately be exploited by terrorists. These include poverty, the injustices that continue in the Middle East with respect to the illegal occupation by Israel of the occupied Palestinian territories, the inhumane sanctions on Iraq, and the continued denial of the rights of the Kurdish people.

We in our party welcome the decision of the government to ratify the treaty. However much more work must be done if we are to effectively counter terrorism around the globe.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess the Liberals get so many fairy tales at caucus it is a little tough to listen to them here.

As I was saying, the fire consumed 50 of the backbenchers and sent the rest scurrying back into the castle. When King Jean was told of the terrible tragedy he resolved to investigate it himself. To help he took along two of his most trusted knights: Lady Marlene, the keeper of the royal whip; and Lord Goodriavere who had just risen to high rank through faithful service to King Jean.

As they surveyed the scene of the tragedy and saw 50 fried backbenchers they observed three things. First, they said it was too bad. Second, they saw the dragon lying dead from overexertion. Third, they noticed the dragon's fire had ignited a seam of coal in the cave from which smoke continued to billow.

Lady Marlene who is a straightforward woman said the obvious: “The dragon is dead. This is good news. Let us go and tell it to the backbenchers”. However Lord Goodriavere said not so fast. Turning to King Jean he said “I see an opportunity here to maintain and increase our control over the peasants. Let us imply, indirectly of course, that the fiery dragon still lives. We can point to the smoke belching from the cave as evidence of this. Let us tell the backbenchers that henceforth they can only go out of the castle with royal permission and under the supervision of myself and Lady Marlene, for the safety and protection of themselves and the castle of course”.

King Jean thought this was a splendid idea. Thus the myth of the fiery dragon was established to coerce and control the backbenchers of the kingdom.

Like the dragon in the story, it is a myth that a government must resign if a government bill or motion is defeated or if an opposition motion or amendment is passed. The myth is used to coerce government members, especially backbenchers, to vote for government bills and motions with which they and their constituents disagree and vote against opposition motions and amendments with which they substantially agree.

We saw this when Liberal members were forced to vote down compensation for hepatitis C victims. We saw it when they were forced to vote down their own policy to scrap the GST. We saw it when they appointed an ethics counsellor who reports directly to parliament. We saw it last Wednesday when the Liberals forced the withdrawal of a private member's bill instead of giving the House an opportunity to vote on it.

In determining the guilt of the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca it is important to compare his actions to other inappropriate acts. In other words, does his behaviour live up to the standards we have established and does he deserve the punishment mentioned in the government's motion?

Let us look back at the election that first brought the government to power. No motion was tabled criticizing the members who told the public they would scrap the GST and then decided to keep it. No one on that side of the House tabled a motion to admonish the Prime Minister for flip-flopping on free trade. Nothing was done about the broken promise to restore faith in good government.

That is why today in the papers we see a poll that says 71% of Canadians think government is corrupt. Ministers caught in a jam about the truth refused to resign and were never pressured by the Prime Minister to do so. How about ministers or so-called leadership candidates accepting payments from undisclosed interests to finance their undeclared leadership races? How about my favourite issue: closure and time allocation? It has been implemented 75 times. That is a higher number than under any other government in the history of this great nation. It leads to frustration.

Mr. Speaker, you had strong words to describe the abuse of time allocation and closure when you were in opposition. On February 19, 1993 you said:

What we have here is an absolute scandal in terms of the government's unwillingness to listen to the representatives of the people in the House. Never before have we had a government so reluctant to engage in public discussion on the bills brought before this House...I suggest that the government's approach to legislating is frankly a disgrace. It cuts back the time the House is available to sit and then it applies closure to cut off the debate.

If I did not know it I would have thought the Chair was talking about the present government. He would have to work a lot harder because the list of the present government is long compared to the Tory government of the past.

Mr. Speaker, I have one more quote from you. It is a good example of how closure frustrated even a patient man such as yourself. On April 23, 1993 you said of the use of closure:

I suggest this is not the way to run Parliament. This is an abuse of the process of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you. When a government abuses the process as it did with the private member's bill for the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca it results in frustration. It is no way to run a parliament.

I will go over a couple more examples. As hon. members will recall, there was to be an independent judicial inquiry into the Somalia affair. The minister of defence shut it down. Then the Prime Minister decided it would be best if he did not testify before the APEC inquiry. There was also a certain phone call to the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada. I am sure the Chair would agree these actions are better suited for a motion of contempt than the actions of the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

My party has raised many questions of privilege of the House on important matters that attacked the authority and dignity of the House but no action was taken. Not one Liberal stood to support this institution. I will cite a few examples.

Do hon. members remember when the Minister for International Trade sent out a press release on March 30, 1998 entitled “Marchi Meets with Chinese Leaders in Beijing and Announces Canada-China Interparliamentary Group?” At the time there was no Canada-China interparliamentary group. The minister gave the impression the association existed when parliament had not approved it. That is a fine example of the respect the Liberal government gives to parliament.

Let us not forget the naming of the head of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation by the government before there was legislation to set up the foundation. Did the government think this dismissive view of the legislative process was an affront to parliament? No, it defended its actions.

I could supply the House with many more examples. However I will now turn to cases that involved the conduct of hon. members and cases found to be prima facie. In this parliament alone we have had three questions of privilege involving ministers. The Chair found all three to be prima facie. As a result they were referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Let us examine the three cases. First, the present Minister of Health when she was minister of justice leaked the contents of Bill C-15 to the media before it was tabled in the House. She was found to be in contempt by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs but the committee declined to recommend a punishment. It instead gave her a warning. The committee suggested if it ever happened again it would not be so generous. Let us compare this to the current case. They are both affronts to parliament but the Liberal minister received no punishment. She was told not to do it again. She received a mere slap on the wrist.

Second, the same minister was up on the same charge for leaking the contents of Bill C-36. The committee concluded she could not be responsible because it could not find the guilty party who leaked the bill. That is so much for ministerial responsibility. The minister got away twice without punishment.

Third, the minister of defence made misleading statements in the House. This is normally considered a grave matter. What was the outcome of the question of privilege? The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs essentially whitewashed the whole affair. The minister got off without having to receive any punishment whatsoever.

Let us go back to the 35th parliament. We had a case where a Bloc member, Mr. Jacob, wrote a letter to Quebecers in the military suggesting they defect and join a separate Quebec army in the event the referendum result turned out to be a yes. Do hon. members remember that? A Reform member, Mr. Hart, rose in the House and charged Mr. Jacob with sedition. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs considered the matter. The Liberal majority, afraid to upset anyone in a post-referendum atmosphere, concluded that contempt had not occurred and no punishment was deserved.

Let us imagine that. In the U.S. the member would have been sent to prison and put on death row. In Canada we get more upset over someone grabbing the Mace. At least the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has apologized. Mr. Jacob never apologized to the House for his conduct.

Let us look an identical case which occurred in the 34th parliament. In a similar moment of frustration Ian Waddell grabbed the Mace as the Sergeant-at-Arms was carrying it out of the House. The next day the government House leader moved a motion requiring Mr. Waddell to appear before the bar of the House to be admonished by the Chair. If that was the punishment for touching the Mace in the 34th parliament why is the government House leader in this parliament recommending a more severe punishment?

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to a notice sent out yesterday by the Standing Committee on Health. The notice misrepresented the role of the House in a way that seriously maligns parliament.

The notice sent out by the health committee indicated that its business for the day was Bill C-53. Bill C-53 was up for debate yesterday and had not yet passed second reading when the notice was sent. The committee chairman had presupposed that the House would pass Bill C-53. While that ended up being the outcome, the committee notice to study Bill C-53 should not have been sent out until the House had made the decision to refer the bill to committee.

I refer the House to a ruling from October 10, 1989. Mr. Speaker Fraser ruled on a similar matter regarding an advertisement put out by parliament before parliament approved it. The Speaker quoted the then member for Windsor West, the recent Deputy Prime Minister, as saying:

--when this advertisement...says in effect there will be a new tax on January 1...the advertisement is intended to convey the idea that Parliament has acted on it because that is, I am sure, the ordinary understanding of Canadians about how a tax like this is finally adopted and comes into effect. That being the case, it is clearly contempt of Parliament because it amounts to a misrepresentation of the role of this House--.

The Speaker's comment in 1989 ruled that the effect of presupposing a decision of the House may tend to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public.

We can draw a parallel between the 1989 case and the recent notice sent out by the health committee. If the committee gives the impression that Bill C-53 received second reading before the vote took place at second reading then its notice conveys the idea, as the former member for Windsor West argued, that the House adopted Bill C-53 at second reading since that would be Canadians' normal understanding of the process. The former Deputy Prime Minister argued that this sort of mockery of the parliamentary system amounts to contempt of parliament.

While the Speaker in 1989 did not rule a prima facie question of privilege he did say:

--I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous.

Mr. Speaker Fraser was in a quandary. He was not sure on which side he should rule so he gave a warning. He warned that next time he would rule on the side of granting a prima facie question of privilege.

This sort of thing has happened many times since those words were spoken. In the last two parliaments the Speaker had a tendency to look the other way. He did so when the Minister for International Trade sent out a press release announcing the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group when no such group existed. He did so when the government announced the appointment of the head of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation before there was legislation to set up the foundation.

A matter was raised by hon. member for Prince George--Peace River regarding the Canadian Wheat Board on February 3, 1998. Another matter was raised on October 28, 1997 regarding the Department of Finance. These complaints headed other warnings.

On November 6, 1997 the Speaker said:

--the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department...are of some concern...This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices...I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it.

These are strong words but such words cannot always be effective in defending the authority of this House. The fact that this behaviour continues undeterred demonstrates that the House must get serious.

Thankfully in this parliament the Speaker has taken these matters seriously. I will comment on two of those cases because they help to establish a pattern involving a particular minister.

Bill C-53 is sponsored by the same minister who was charged with contempt for leaking the contents of Bill C-15 before it was tabled in the House. When the Minister of Health was minister of justice, she was at it again with Bill C-36. Bill C-53 represents the minister's third offence, the latest tragedy to be preformed from her trilogy of contempt.

If the House is to function with authority and dignity then it must be respected, especially by its own members.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege at which time I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Terrorism

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that I cannot comment on any operations of the RCMP. We are not commenting on any specific group but, generally speaking, we know that within Canada there are people involved in terrorism just as there are anywhere else in the world. It is a global problem within a global context.

However we have to bear in mind that over the past two years the government has provided the RCMP with an additional $2 billion to fulfill its requirements. It has also been provided with additional tools such as Bill C-36 and is doing everything in its power to bring those people to justice.

Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to speak to Bill C-15B which contains unfortunately provisions that are continuations of some of the greatest flaws in the legislative drafting practices of the current government. It behooves us to look at what some of these themes are and to think about what could be done to avoid doing them both in this law and other laws in the future.

There are three themes. First, this is an omnibus bill, but not as bad as it started off being. However it is still an omnibus bill dealing with more than one topic. Second, it strips basic legal protections from individuals who are accused of making offences under the law. This is a current theme that is also quite strong in Liberal legislative drafting practices. Third, it contains vague regulatory guarantees and requires us to take it on faith that the government would undertake the protections that it has refused to place within the law. At the very same time we are finding these guarantees withheld we are told to trust the government. The guarantees would be placed in the regulations at a later point in time subject to the government's arbitrary will.

These are three themes that are strongly present in the general legislative practices of the government. For example, Bill C-36 was an extraordinary omnibus bill that contained provisions like rules relating to the Internet and appointment of judges as well as the enactment of provisions relating to preventative search and detention, and provisions that related to the enactment of United Nations conventions and so on.

This law follows the same general pattern. It contains unrelated provisions dealing with cruelty to animals and dealing with firearms. I cannot see any reason why these two subject matters are contained in the same bill. There is no logical connection between them whatsoever.

The bill was worse before. It contained measures relating to child pornography which fortunately were split away from the bill and are now contained in Bill C-15A.

It is difficult to deal intelligently and to vote rationally on a bill that is effectively a package deal, a part of which might or might not be acceptable to an individual member. How does one vote one's conscience when something good and bad is contained in the same bill?

To some degree we have divided the good from the bad in the bill, but the bill should have been subdivided into several sub-measures.

This is a trend that has existed in Canadian legislative practice for some length of time. It has been a disastrous practice that nearly split up the country on some occasions. I am thinking of the Meech Lake accord which contained five unrelated constitutional amendments as a single package. They all had to be passed. Most Canadians were quite comfortable with certain aspects of the Meech Lake accord. Other aspects were quite contentious, particularly the distinct society clause. However they all had to be done together.

The Charlottetown accord was even worse. It was a package that effectively would have gutted the entire Constitution and cobbled it back together in a vast document that was several times as long as the entire United States constitution. It was presented as a single package deal. Had it been broken into a series of smaller items not all of them could have be passed, but many could have been. Some of them were good; a lot of them were terrible.

This practice has continued on in Bill C-15B and it should be stopped. It should not be a practice that occurs at all in Canadian legislation.

I will turn to the stripping of basic legal protections. This is another thing that occurs frequently in current Liberal legislation. I recall Bill C-36 and the way in which basic legal protections of Canadians were stripped away under the preventive detention provisions of that bill. That bill made it possible to be prosecuted for one's religious beliefs. Amazing, but true.

Bill C-5 has provisions which I am attempting to amend. I have several amendments before the House that deal with the question of mens rea, whether one must have a guilty mind prior to being found guilty of destroying an animal habitat or destroying an endangered species. That law denies the requirement that one must have a guilty mind, a mens rea, in order to be found culpable.

This law does much the same thing. I will say it is not as bad in this respect as Bill C-5, but it is still problematic. It takes the aspects of the criminal code that deal with animal cruelty and removes them from the property offences section and moves them to a special new section.

I cannot determine what the legislative reason for this is, that is to say what is the need for this, but I can determine what the result would be. The result is we would remove the various protections that are built in under the property parts of the criminal code. There are certain basic protections that are not accompanying this section of the law as it moves from one part of the criminal code to the other.

The phrase legal justification or excuse and with colour of right in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. That would cease to be available as a protection.

It is a funny thing that those on the government side of the House are always happy to attack members on this side of the House as somehow being out to strip those who are accused of offences against the law of their legal protections and legal rights. The fact is, and the record will show this, it has been entirely the other way during the course of the government.

This law would strip those who are accused of offences of basic protections. Protections, which are inherent to our traditional rule of law, to the common law, and to our entire legal structure, would once again be stripped out in Bill C-15B, Bill C-5, and Bill C-36. This is a consistent, unacceptable, inexcusable and entirely avoidable pattern.

The meritorious goals found in parts of each of these three pieces of legislation could all have been achieved without stripping Canadians of these basic legal protections. They are absolutely not needed. That should be corrected in this law. Or, potentially, if the government were unwilling to protect it, then the law in my opinion, on that basis alone, should be dropped from the order paper.

I want to turn to the offer of vague regulatory guarantees that protections which are not included in the law would be included later on. We are told by the minister that this would be taken care of. There would be protections for those who are accused or charged, but they would not be included in the law, they would be included elsewhere.

The record of governments, not this government in particular but of governments in general, of protecting individuals administratively when they are not protected by law is very poor. That is the whole reason why our system of government is based upon the rule of law.

I encourage the minister and all members of the government to look at the classic academic text written by Albert Venn Dicey which deals with the question of the rule of law. It is a book called An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution published in the 1880s and republished in many editions prior to Dicey's death around the time of the first world war. He deals with the question of the rule of law at length.

Privilege

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of the government, its track record of intimidation and ruthlessness are cause for concern. You must take these factors into consideration in your role as defender of the minority against the tyranny of this majority.

I will give you, Mr. Speaker, another example as to why you should not allow this matter to proceed.

I participated in three contempt charges against a minister at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Despite the testimony, the Liberal majority on the committee failed to take any action to curtail ministers from making a mockery of parliament and members of parliament. They did not invoke any consequences to the former minister of justice with respect to her briefing the media on Bill C-15 ahead of members and before the bill was tabled in the House. They let her off the hook entirely the second time when Bill C-36 was also leaked to the media.

It appears that the outcome of the question of privilege involving the minister of defence is heading in the same direction of a Liberal cover-up as a result of public comments made in advance of the Standing Committee and Procedure and House Affairs report to the House.

We have witnessed over the years the persuasive powers of the Prime Minister in directing the Liberal majority in the House. I cannot accept that the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary has been permitted to pursue this question of privilege if the government were not concerned that the truth could become known to the Canadian people. This is obviously just an intimidation tactic.

My colleagues have already made the point that the use of words such as deliberately misleading outside the House, under these circumstances, is perfectly in order and does not amount to contempt. No statements contributed to me and my colleagues in any way tarnish the reputation of the minister of defence. Public debate has already passed comment on the competence of the minister.

The point I do want to make is the fact that there is a real attempt on behalf of the government members and the Prime Minister's deputy minister to intimidate opposition members. In this situation, the only protection afforded to us is your decision not to allow the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary to move his motion because once the motion is moved, our fate is in the hands of the Liberal majority, which is controlled by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister is bent on defending his minister at all costs. His determination and ruthlessness in doing so has no bounds.

We had an example the other week, during the election of the chairman of the finance committee. The government whip was threatening opposition members and staff, as well as government members, to get the Prime Minister's choice for chairman elected.

It would be irresponsible to hand over to the majority Liberal government the fate of opposition members whose only crime is that we were being effective members of the opposition. That is what you are charged with protecting. In this scenario, that means you should sooner as opposed to later rule that this matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

From a communications point of view, bringing this matter up in the way the parliamentary secretary has done, has been calculated as doing less damage than a positive finding in the committee. If the actions of the defence minister embarrasses the government, then why is it inviting more debate in the House? If it is worried about hearing the words deliberately misleading associated with the minister of defence, then I point out that because of this question of privilege I have heard those words again several times.

I looked at the Hansard from February 28, when the parliamentary secretary first brought up this matter. The words deliberately misleading were mentioned at least six times in the short debate on the question of privilege of that day. I would not be surprised if it is repeated a few more times before we complete today.

Maybe now the parliamentary secretary gets it. The issue is before parliament in a formal way, as a formal charge. Therefore, we can say the D word and the M word. We are not fooling anyone by not saying them. Everyone knows what the issue is.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the parliamentary secretary, I stand by my statement. I will not be intimidated. This I do to protect our democratic institution and the rights of all Canadians.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I promise in the end of my statements to show my comments now relate to the matter at hand.

I am quoting from the letter from Mr. Cappe, the Clerk of the Privy Council, to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs. He states:

I must also express to you my strong concern about the allegation by the Member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke that the Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Richard Fadden, may have intentionally misled Parliamentarians with respect to the deployment of JTF-2 on a military operation outside Canada.

I will now quote my letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in response to the allegation of the deputy of the Prime Minister's. It states:

As a Member of Parliament for Her Majesty's Official Opposition, my constitutional role is clearly defined to scrutinize the actions of government in an atmosphere of professionalism.

A careful perusal of the unedited transcripts of our committee show at no point did I use the word “intentional” in reference to deputy clerk Fadden's testimony. It was a statement of the facts given to our committee on this point by Fadden and certainly if he was in error on a key historical fact as to whether or not Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) had been deployed outside Canada in the past, then he might have been in error on other points. I was not aware that questioning the reliability of a witness, regardless of who they are, in that manner is inappropriate.

I believe you recognized this when you acknowledged that I kept to parliamentary language in my questioning.

It would seem that it is Mr. Cappe who is drawing an inference from my remarks and stating it as a given fact in his letter when he writes “intentionally misleading”. I draw your attention to the actual exchange:

(Myself):

As part of the combined force sent to Rwanda, elements of the JTF2 were also deployed. Given those facts, would you not agree that your deputy clerk has misinformed the committee?

(The Clerk of the Privy Council):

Did he mislead the committee? I don't think he did it intentionally, if that was your inference.

It is clear from this exchange and the rest of my testimony that at no point did I use the words “intentionally” or “misled”. Curiously, Mr. Cappe is not denying that Mr. Fadden may have misled the committee, only that he did not do so intentionally. In fact it would appear that Mr. Cappe was drawing an inference from my use of the word “misinformed” even though I pointed out that Mr. Fadden had not qualified his words when he repeated that the JTF2 had never been deployed outside Canada for any reason previously.

As the most senior political appointment to the federal public service by the Prime Minister, the Clerk of the Privy Council does have a duty and a responsibility to maintain the professional integrity of all servants. Equally so, I am sure you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that it would be inappropriate for a public servant, even if it was unintentional, to suggest limits on parliamentarians, certainly when it comes to what is appropriate in a parliamentary committee.

Unfortunately in my experience this is not the first time the Privy Council, through the counsel of security and intelligence co-ordinator, has found it necessary to write to the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to clarify comments to our committee recently. Mr. Fadden wrote to our committee chair on January 2 of this year regarding the contempt charges against the Minister of Justice in the premature release of the information outside the House on Bill C-36.

This evidence demonstrates that the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary is not alone in this campaign of intimidation. The Prime Minister's ministry, the Privy Council, has been fully engaged in this campaign of intimidation. After the Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council appeared before the committee, and after I questioned the Prime Minister's deputy, the Liberal member for Toronto--Danforth openly threatened to fire witnesses who contradicted the Minister of National Defence.

These are hardly the actions of people concerned about the dignity of parliament. These actions themselves should be considered contempt. From the procedural book written by the member for Scarborough--Rouge River, The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers & Records , at page 78 it references a resolution passed by the U.K. House from March 8, 1688.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, sometimes it is a daunting and intimidating task to follow my colleague who has a wealth of parliamentary experience and certainly continually displays a great deal of common sense. His cup runneth over in that regard.

My colleague and the mover of the motion similarly comes before parliament with motions such as this one that bring about change which would invoke a real impact in the important and significant community of firefighters who, as he has indicated, support him in this endeavour and for good reason. There is very much the motive behind this motion to bring about greater attention and a greater focus on deterrence for those who engage in a reckless activity such as setting a fire, arsonists who put lives at risk just by virtue of that act.

The firefighters are the front line who have to respond to that sort of reckless activity. This motion would call for a change to section 231 of the criminal code to amend the definition of first degree murder.

I listened with interest to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary. He has expressed, as he should, on behalf of the Department of Justice the constitutional concerns. We know time and time again that those concerns are real and are there. Charter constipation constantly arises in these debates, except in the case of Bill C-36 where it seemed to be cast to the wind. Yet this issue is really about putting greater emphasis on protecting the lives of firefighters.

What simpler message would come from this motion? As the member and previous speakers have pointed out, there is specific recognition in the criminal code for police officers, constables, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and others working in the preservation and maintenance of public peace. Certainly firefighters would fit into that category.

There is some idea that there will be greater deterrence because clearly the penalties for first degree murder are the highest available now in the criminal code, life imprisonment. This is the general and specific deterrent that would come from such an amendment to the criminal code.

My colleague in the New Democratic Party from Winnipeg questioned why this would not happen, why things do not happen around here. He spoke of his suspicions. I will perhaps be a little more blunt. Sometimes there is a faceless, guileless guiding hand at the PMO that rears its head every now and again. I cannot imagine that there would be some intent to scuttle an effort such as this one, an effort that is aimed purely out of the goodness and the goodwill that come from such a motion.

This type of change would have an impact. It would allow the courts to react in a more significant way when faced with these situations. That is not to suggest that this is a simple case by any means. Each case is inevitably decided on its facts, on its merits. Yet what is behind the message in this motion is that offenders who recklessly go out and cause harm by way of setting fires, by way of putting death and destruction in their path, will face real repercussions and will face the jeopardy of going to prison for the rest of their lives.

A minimum sentence of life does not always mean life, as we have seen in many instances sadly. Yet including it as an aggravating circumstance, as suggested by my friend in the Bloc, might also be one of the ways in which it could be incorporated and by which we could recognize in legislation by codifying the Criminal Code of Canada that firefighters deserve this special recognition by virtue of the important role they play in society and the important tasks they undertake every day when they go to work at the station, put on their gear, ride trucks to fires and save lives.

It would show that their government, their country, their countrymen and women are in their corner as well. It would respect and recognize what they do and the jeopardy in which their lives are placed by virtue of their job.

The motion is very admirable in its intent. I daresay there is no hesitation on behalf of members of the Conservative coalition to support the member in what he is seeking to do. There are offences that already have these special attachments, hate crime being one that was alluded to earlier, where a strict and strident response is available to a judge to mete out in response to circumstances that come before the court.

That flexibility exists. Why on earth would we deny the opportunity to codify a recognition of firefighters? In particular the obvious allusion has been made several times to what happened on September 11, those horrific circumstances and the renewed vigour with which firefighters across the country and around the world became the focal point of emergency situations. Society was reminded in those dire circumstances what huge risk, what incredible sacrifice exists in that vocation.

The range of options currently available for the crime of arson as an indictable offence go up to the sentencing maximum of 14 years. The motion intends to expand that envelope. It does not say that in every case this will happen, surely not. The burden of proof will still remain with the crown. The police forces in their investigative efforts must still produce evidence before a court that is admissible. Then a conviction would be rendered and the judge would have this sentencing option available to him or her.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary that there is an element tantamount to an end run around the issue of intent which is somewhat problematic. That is why I agree with the common sense and useful suggestion that perhaps this is an issue which should be referred to the justice committee for examination.

It is an issue on which we could hear from the fleet of government lawyers available, but I would suggest as well lawyers practising in the field. More important, we should hear from the firefighters lobby because I am sure there is ample research and interest within that community to have the opportunity to make the motion a reality.

Raising the bar of accountability is part and parcel of what this criminal code amendment would do. On the surface it is never a bad idea to have greater accountability and responsibility. It is something we should strive for and something we should encourage in most legislative intents.

There are already references to the fact that not every fire is one that is set with the intent to cause bodily harm or murder. Sadly there are children who often engage in this activity. I think of a recent occurrence in Lunenburg county where Canada's oldest church was reduced to rubble because of a fire on Halloween night which was suspected to have been caused by children.

With the jeopardy in mind that can befall a person charged with arson we have to be somewhat cautious in making any kind of a criminal code amendment which mandates exactly what the punishment will be. This is not an amendment which mandates that in every instance there will be a penalty of life imprisonment. Surely not every fire is set to inflict harm on a person.

In conclusion I say to the hon. member and to members present that we support his effort. I am encouraged by the level of support that has been expressed here and by those who have contacted the member and encouraged him to pursue it further.

I hope there will be genuine goodwill and intent on the part of the government to bring this matter before the justice committee. I hope we will have an opportunity to see the issue through to fruition to allow firefighters to clearly receive the signal we want them to receive. We value and cherish the work they do and respect the task they have each and every day in their lives as they protect Canadians everywhere.

Point of Order

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

Madam Speaker, before I proceed, I want to say that I totally agree with what my colleague had to say about the motion.

For those who are watching, it might be interesting to read the motion once again, to fully appreciate the comments that can be made throughout the debate. It was not supposed to be a votable motion, but it will be following a decision made by the Speaker of the House.

The motion reads as follows: “That this House condemn the government for its failure to implement a national security policy to address the broad range of security issues, including those at Canadian ports of entry and borders, and call on the government to reassert Parliament's relevance in these and other public policy issues”.

There is a part of this motion that we cannot disagree with, but there is also another part on which we cannot agree and, since this motion has been made a votable item, members will understand that we have to vote against it.

In the last few weeks, even the last few months, the Bloc Quebecois has made its position clear on the bills the government introduced to address the events of September 11 and the issues of international crime and terrorism.

I said at the time, and it still holds true, that we do not have any real example of how this policy has been implemented or abused. As my colleague mentioned earlier, there will always be the potential for abuse as long as the legislation opens the door to certain things, and the legislation in question does open the door to this kind of abuse. I remember stating very clearly in this House that, if the government had a clear vision on how to fight terrorism, it should have submitted its anti-terrorism legislative agenda.

What did it do? First, it introduced Bill C-36, which provided for a whole series of new powers for police and law enforcement officers. It included very broad definitions and infringed upon rights and freedoms, all under cover of ensuring national security.

I remember saying it. The police, the government and the ministers, to whom Bill C-36 gives great powers, bragged about these new powers. Twenty-four hours before this bill was introduced, one could not have imagined that such a piece of legislation would be introduced in this parliament, in a country called Canada. Canada is not a police state, as other countries may be.

Using as an excuse the events of September 11, the need to protect national security and the fact that the public was concerned, the government introduced Bill C-36. Even then, I had concerns about its application, and I still do. The fact that there has not been any abuse of these new powers so far does not mean that it will never happen.

In its great wisdom, the government did not unveil its entire legislative menu to fight terrorism. First, it put Bill C-36 through the House, and then it introduced another bill, Bill C-42, which went a little further. Unfortunately for the government, it went too far and met resistance.

We already had Bill C-36, which allowed electronic surveillance, gave increased powers to the police, and authorized arrests without a warrant. Then there was the whole issue of the sunset clause in the bill, which finally became a review clause. These powers already exists. Bill C-42, without giving increased powers, without providing for the establishment of military zones or something of the kind, went much too far, and it was just unacceptable.

Again today, we are debating Bill C-42; we are talking about it, but we have not adopted it. When will the government bring back Bill C-42? We will see.

However, we know that because of pressure from the United States, part of this bill was passed before Christmas because the U.S. had finally decided that no Canadian plane would be allowed to land in the U.S. if this part of the bill was not passed. We had no choice, economically, from the point of view of travelling and all that could result from refusing to pass that part of the legislation. We therefore had a vote and passed that part.

As for the legislation, as my colleague said earlier, the government seems to deal with in a piecemeal fashion. If the government really had a clear vision of the type of legislation needed to deal with terrorism effectively, it would not have gone about it this way. It would have introduced legislation as a package that we could have analyzed on the basis of our own experience and of the case law that exists in this country, with our way of doing things and with our charter of rights and freedoms. We could have analyzed the whole range of government initiatives to fight organized crime. Instead, it has been done bit by bit.

Worst yet, on top of giving excessive powers to some categories and putting forward legislation that is going too far, which I hear even from the police, the money is not forthcoming to make sure the act is implemented properly. It is all very nice to give powers to the police, but if we want these powers to be exercised properly, if we want that there be monitoring, to prevent abuse and to fight efficiently against terrorism, we must make sure we have the money to implement the act.

I can already hear the government say “We have allocated the money; we made an announcement”. Indeed, it announced it would invest $576 million over six years in national security, $21 million of which had already been announced even before September 11. However, it lumped it all together to make the amount look bigger, to make itself look good and to score political points. It said “Five hundred and seventy-six million dollars over five years”.

However, if we take away what had already been announced for various programs, we are left with $87 million a year of new money to implement the Anti-terrorism Act, increase monitoring at borders and in ports, when we know that the government's position on ports is to cut personnel. Indeed, there have been layoffs in major ports, in the ports of entry for containers and ships coming from abroad. The government has made cuts when it was supposed to enhance port security.

It is so true that, in this respect, I read recently in the paper that the Americans were going to put their own people in Canadian ports to monitor everything heading for the United States through Canada. This is going too far. Canada is loosing its sovereignty to foreign countries. On top of this, the border will be just about 100% monitored by the Americans.

Mr. Speaker, you seem to be in agreement with what I just said. I realize that what I am saying does not please the Liberals, but that is the reality. If Quebec were sovereign, we would have done things quite differently from the government across the way. This is another reason why Quebec must be sovereign, because we do things differently from the people across the way. Furthermore, it is the only way for Quebec to develop as it should.

However, I did not intend to talk about Quebec's sovereignty. Let us talk about Canada's sovereignty and the great Canadians opposite who kowtow to the Americans and give away a little more of Canada's sovereignty every day. One of the latest compromises is to allow Americans in Canadian ports to rule the roost with respect to the containers in transit to the United States.

This is the vision the members opposite have of Canada. I could have talked about this for hours, but it would seem that my time is up. This is a very interesting topic, but as my colleague said previously, we cannot support this motion for the reasons I mentioned and many other reasons, whether it pleases the government or not.

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

Madam Speaker, as you probably know already, I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Montcalm. I rise today on this opposition day of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition whose motion deals in part with national security.

At the outset, I would like to say that in spite of the fact that the last part of the motion is of some interest since it calls for greater involvement of parliament, the Bloc Quebecois will not support the motion.

We are not questioning the appropriateness of looking at the need to put in place new measures to improve and enhance public safety.

Our message to all those who were expecting to tear a strip off the Bloc for its position on national security is that, contrary to what the Prime Minister dared claim before the House not so long ago, the fact that the Bloc is refusing to give free rein to the Liberal government on defence and national security issues does not mean that we are taking the side of terrorists nor that we are more concerned about their fate than about the protection of honest citizens. To claim such a thing is pure demagoguery.

First of all, either I do not quite understand the scope of the motion before us or my Coalition colleagues were asleep last fall. As it stands now, their motion states that the House of Commons should condemn the government for its failure to implement a national security policy.

I will refer to Bill C-42, the Public Safety Act, and to Bill C-36, which became the Anti-terrorism Act. I hope this will juggle their memory.

I am willing to believe that, with regard to this last bill, the opportunity for the Coalition to speak on the topic was substantially limited by the passing of a time allocation motion. However, I find it rather astonishing that they managed to forget the theme which captured the attention of parliamentarians, the media and the population as a whole from September to December.

Moreover, the Anti-terrorism Act was, in terms of its impact on individual rights and freedoms, the most significant piece of legislation on any legislative agenda since the notorious and now infamous War Measures Act, from which Quebec suffered the abuse in October 1970.

We must be careful and not agree too quickly with the coalition when it states that the government has not implemented a public security policy. I think it is appropriate, indeed necessary, to put things into perspective.

First of all, let me go over some of the security measures included in Bill C-42, which is still before the House at second reading.

First, the bill authorizes ministers and delegated officers to make security measures and interim orders in order to respond to security threats.

Second, it implements the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunitions, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

Third, it provides for better control over the export and transfer of technology.

Fourth, it allows a senior immigration officer to suspend the consideration of a refugee claim.

It also creates military security zones.

Furthermore, it extends the powers of the National Energy Board to include matters relating to the security of pipelines and international power lines.

Finally, it authorizes the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to disclose information to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.

Now, in the Anti-terrorism Act, the government took the following measures.

First, it created a whole series of offences related to terrorism.

Second, it created new offences to counter intelligence gathering activities, including the unauthorized communication of special operational information.

Third, the rules of evidence were changed so as to allow the non-disclosure of evidence that could be prejudicial to national defence or to national security.

Then there is the possibility of intercepting communications without prior judicial authorization. Lastly, the Minister of Justice has the discretionary power to exempt information from the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Obviously, these measures were not taken under a national security policy, but the fact remains that these are 12 major measures, some of which went so far that we had to vote against the Anti-terrorism Act and we will have to do the same for Bill C-42. Moreover, there is a most important point that needs to be mentioned. Members should not forget that, in the most recent budget, which was tabled in December of last year, security got the lion's share with $7.7 billion over five years.

The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is not whether the government should have taken or should be taking these security measures under a comprehensive, integrated, national policy or something like that. In fact, what is important is not the colour of the envelope but its content.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves if the government is showing initiative and if it is taking the appropriate measures. The answer to both these questions seems obvious to me. It is no in both cases.

With regard to the level of initiative shown by the government, one cannot escape the fact that this government is constantly in reactive mode. Seeing how it runs the country on a piecemeal basis, one does not have to look any further to find the reasons why the Americans are dictating the approach we should be taking with regard to security.

The Liberals have no idea what the term “proactive” means. The recent events that unfolded just confirmed what we already knew.

Furthermore, we have denounced the relevance of these measures on countless occasions throughout the legislative process involving Bills C-36 and C-42. We repeat this again today: the measures proposed by the government do not establish a fair balance between security and freedoms.

Some will say that, contrary to what we fear, Canada has not become a police state. However, even if the debate remains purely in the realm of the theoretical, the problem lies not in the fact that there has not yet been any abuses of wiretapping or any arbitrary arrests. The problem is that this possibility exists within the text of the bill. Also, it is helpful to remember that since Bill C-36 was passed, the crisis has subsided to a large extent and these measures have yet to be put to the test. The situation could be quite different if there were another crisis.

As well, if the measures proposed were as effective as the government claims, how can it explain the backlog at the borders and the fact that drug imports have not diminished since Operation Printemps 2001 and the tightening of border security since September 11?

In its February 2002 report entitled “Canadian Security and Military Preparedness”, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence examined the most vulnerable elements that the terrorists could make use of. The committee heard a wide range of witnesses including representatives of organizations responsible for the various aspects of security in the Montreal-Dorval and Vancouver international airports and in the maritime ports of Halifax, Vancouver and Montreal. In so doing the committee had the opportunity of examining the capabilities and security plans of these organizations. Moreover, the committee based its discussions and conclusions on the following premises:

1. The efficient use of security intelligence can help reduce the risks to society.

2. The limited resources available force us to discriminate in favour of cooperation both internally and externally.

3. The use of technology can enhance the effectiveness of security measures exponentially.

On the other hand, solutions as simple and affordable as the erection of a fenced security perimeter and a monitoring system could certainly increase port security. I cannot believe we needed the Senate to come up with that.

In conclusion, while this motion has a certain interest, the Bloc will not support it essentially because it is vague, ambiguous and too general to risk tying our hands for.

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Chatham--Kent Essex.

I was a little surprised to read the content of today's motion because anyone who says that the government does not have a national security policy either has not been paying attention to the actions taken by the government over the past six months or just plain does not know what they are talking about.

We know that Canadians have been paying attention because they have voiced strongly and clearly their consistent approval of the government's actions since September 11.

The government's response to the tragic events of September 11 reflects the principles of our national security policy. Our response was immediate and it was co-ordinated. It was driven by the continued need to ensure the national and economic security of Canadians.

Canadian response to September 11 was immediate. About 250 flights and 33,000 airline passengers were diverted from U.S. destinations to Canadian airports. Officials from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the RCMP went on a heightened state of alert at all border points. Security and law enforcement agencies went into a full court press to investigate terrorism in co-operation with their U.S. counterparts. Ships were put to sea, aircraft was put on alert, and the military was put on standby.

On October 1 the Prime Minister established the ad hoc committee of ministers on public security and anti-terrorism. This committee was tasked with ensuring and building, where necessary, a rapid and co-ordinated response to the new threat environment. Some of the key elements that have been advanced include the following: identifying an initial programming package for this current fiscal year of $280 million for security, intelligence and law enforcement departments and agencies to heighten border security and to undertake initiatives to enhance the security of Canadians; passage of the anti-terrorism act, Bill C-36, to put the communications and security establishment on a legislative footing with a mandate to collect intelligence on international terrorism; and the tabling of Bill C-42, the public safety act, primarily aimed at implementing international conventions on controlling biological weapons and enhancing air transportation security.

The 2001 budget clearly identified the two interrelated challenges which are to maintain a strong and stable economy and to protect Canadians.

These goals have been partly achieved by strengthening personal and economic security and by keeping terrorists out of the country and maintaining an open and efficient border.

In all, the budget has committed a total of $7.7 billion over the next five years to enhance the security of Canadians by increasing resources to our intelligence and police agencies, by enhancing screening of new entrants to Canada and by strengthening air security.

Moreover, $1.2 billion will be invested in border security, not only to address the concerns about security but also to improve long term economic opportunities by maintaining a more open and efficient border between Canada and the United States.

Of the more than $1.2 billion to be invested in border infrastructures, $646 million will be used to enhance security at the border and facilitate the movement of people and goods between Canada and the United States.

In particular, the focus of the budget is on: new technology to help Canada Customs and Revenue Agency facilitate the passage of goods and people at border crossing points; new Canadian multi-agency integrated border enforcement teams to co-ordinate intelligence and enforcement efforts along the Canada-U.S. border; advanced information sharing technology to help customs officers screen travellers arriving at airports and other border entry points; better equipment for detecting explosives, firearms and other dangers without delaying the flow of legitimate commerce and tourism; and new secure Internet-based technology to ease customs compliance for small business.

We must remember however that our concern for public security is matched by and intrinsically linked with our concern for economic security.

With almost half of our GDP dependent on access to the U.S. market, it is imperative that our shared border be kept open, even as we make it more secure. Most people are aware that Canada and the United States have been working on the smart border action plan since December 2001. My U.S. counterpart on this initiative, Governor Tom Ridge, has stated:

This Smart Border declaration is an agreement between two independent sovereign nations to work together--to solve problems of mutual interest that affect the security and safety, as well as the economic well-being of the citizens in each country.

These issues however are not new. We did not discover border security and border management on September 11. It is an integral part of the government to government relationship that operates every day in hundreds of ways. In fact, Canada and the U.S. share the most extensive bilateral co-operation in the world focused on managing our borders and mutual security.

The action plan that Governor Ridge and I agreed to on December 12 recognizes that link between public and economic security. We cannot adequately protect our citizens if our economies are barricaded. Likewise, our economies cannot function if our citizens do not have confidence in their security. The smart border discussions, which are frequent and productive, build on a long history of border co-operation between Canada and the United States.

All steps that we have undertaken, both before and after September 11, recognize that the guiding principles for a 21st century border include streamlining and harmonizing border policies and management, expanding co-operation at and beyond the border and collaborating on common threats outside of Canada and the United States.

They demonstrate our shared belief that the border should support open trade and travel while defending its people and economies against threats to the social and economic well-being of both countries. We are developing risk management solutions that facilitate the flow of low risk people and goods while concentrating greater resources on flows that may pose a threat to our two countries.

Last Friday in Washington, D.C., Governor Ridge and I announced the expansion of NEXUS, the risk management system for processing travellers. Our customs agencies are working out the details of a similar system for commercial goods.

These initiatives will benefit from a new $600 million program to improve the infrastructure, including highways, commercial vehicle processing centres and the technology needed at the major entry points.

This program will be implemented with the cooperation of public and private partners from both sides of the border.

September 11 showed us that even in an age of globalization we need to remain vigilant that our borders continue to meet our security needs while allowing the growing transborder trade to move swiftly and efficiently.

The smart border that we are building with the United States through strategic planning, risk management and co-ordinated infrastructure will serve as a model to the world. Combined with the new security measures that we have introduced in legislation and in the budget, our border innovations demonstrate that the government is fulfilling its responsibility to protect the security of Canadians and the open economy upon which our way of life depends.

Supply

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on behalf of the NDP caucus today.

I begin by saying, with respect to the controversy earlier today about whether or not this motion by the Conservative Party should be votable, that one wonders whether or not, as someone who contests whether or not the motion should be votable, we will in fact actually vote.

However the matter before us is the motion and, I would say, without prejudice to whether or not we should be voting on it, that the motion is far too general to elicit the kind of support that I think perhaps the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough might have been looking for from all opposition parties.

While there are certainly things for which we would want to be critical of the government and criticisms that we might well share with the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, there might be other criticisms that we do not share. The member cannot simply ask us to sign on to a general condemnation of the government for its failure to implement a national security policy to address the broad range of security issues when we do not know the list of issues that the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough wants the government to address. I realize that he outlined some of those things in his speech but the motion, as it reads and if it were to be passed or, for that matter, approved by any party or individual, would be open to interpretations.

For instance, the NDP was critical of the government, not for its failure to implement a particular security policy when it came to anti-terrorism legislation but for, in our judgment, going too far when it came to anti-terrorism legislation. Therefore it would be difficult for us to support the motion because it seems to imply that, with respect to a broad range of issues having to do with security, the government has not gone far enough.

When Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, was before the House, one of our criticisms was that we felt the government had gone too far. We also felt that way with respect to Bill C-35 and we feel that way with respect to Bill C-42, which now seems to be on the back burner but which is nevertheless still on the order paper. Is it the position of the Progressive Conservative Party that Bill C-42 is part of the government's failure, that it does not go far enough?

These are all the kinds of interpretations that could be attached to support this particular motion because it is in fact so general. It is one of the reasons why I do not see how we could support this particular motion as it stands.

Because it has come up in debate, is the motion intended to refer in some codified way to the Senate report on security? If that is the case, perhaps a motion saying that we adopt the recommendations of the recent Senate committee on security would have been in order. At least we then could have debated what was in that particular report.

Having listened to the debate a bit today, it seemed to me from time to time that we were vicariously debating the report that was brought forward in the Senate with respect to security. The allusion in the motion to ports of entry and borders, for instance, is clearly a reference to a subject matter of concern that the Senate committee report addressed itself to.

Having said that, with respect to ports and security matters having to do with ports, I would like to put on the record once again that the NDP felt at the time and feels still that the privatization of ports and the elimination of the national harbour police were serious mistakes.

Addressing whatever security concerns there may be with respect to our ports would be to reinstitute a police force dedicated to port security, instead of having the municipal police and the RCMP trying to do a job that in our judgment should be done by a police force dedicated to that particular purpose.

To me, it always makes sense to have people who are vocationally attached to a particular task. I think that is the way the members of the national harbour police worked when they were in existence. They were not municipal police who might be looking after port security this year, looking after the vice squad next year and looking after something else the next year. Their job was port security and they were there for the long haul.

However it has become a fad in the last 10 to 20 years to do away with dedicated services of any kind and to turn everything over to--I am not sure what to call it, but nobody ever does anything for the long haul any more. They are just in there for the duration of a contract when things are privatized, or in the case of what we are talking about here in terms of ports police, we do not have a police force dedicated to port security but we have a number of police officers in various police forces who are assigned from time to time to port security. This is not a criticism of them. They are put in a very difficult position and, as the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and others have said and quite rightly, are often asked to do the job without adequate resources.

We cannot have security on the cheap. Yet in some ways we are reaping now what was sown over the last 10, 15, 20 years whereby governments, through various public policy initiatives, generally in the way of deregulation, privatization, contracting out and doing away with things that were directly funded by government, tried to do things on the cheap that they used to do in a dedicated way and they used to do by way of paying whatever it cost to get the job done and to have the job done well.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. It was fine as long as, to put the obvious, everything was fine, but now that things are not fine we find that there are all kinds of holes in the system.

It will not do, while we are alluding to the Senate report, to impugn the integrity of a lot of people who work at the ports.

There seems to be an underlying theme in the Senate report that is of concern to us and I think of concern to many others that somehow its the workers in the ports who are the problem.

A very good article in the Province by Christina Montgomery talks about some of the things wrong with the Senate report. She highlights, for instance, the disbandonment of the ports police which I have already mentioned. She also takes issue with the way in which the report implies that somehow its the unions that are at fault for whatever security problems there may be at our ports. I would like to put that on the record.

Returning to the matter of resources, the fact is that a lot of our ports are underpoliced. Whether we return to a national harbour police, a national ports police or however we do it, we will need a lot more resources at our ports, along the borders. Others have spoken of the longest undefended border. It is undefended and that is part of the problem. It is undefended from a lot of things.

I do not, and I do not think anybody does, want to see the border become a difficult place for ordinary Canadians and Americans to go back and forth and for commerce to transpire. The fact is that we have been under-resourcing our security personnel wherever we find them, whether we find them at customs, in the ports, in the RCMP or wherever Canadians are called upon to engage in security tasks for the public there has been a pattern of underfunding and under-resourcing these tasks for a long time and it is coming home to roost.

If the government is serious about security, I would urge it to get serious about funding security. Its only major initiative so far, which I think was wrong, has been to bring in the anti-terrorism legislation which I think, in some respects, goes beyond targeting terrorists to making it possible to make life miserable for legitimate, democratic dissent in this country.

A couple of weeks ago I had an opportunity to meet at a forum with the United Steelworkers of America which has many thousands of members in the security industry. The United Steelworkers were saying to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is in charge of security, that they wanted to sit down and talk about the security industry and talk about national standards for training, certification and pay.

One of the problems in the security industry, particularly as it pertains to the private security industry which guards much of our infrastructure, which we are now told we should be worried about in terms of possible terrorist attacks, is that a lot of that infrastructure is provided on a private for profit basis. It is also not necessarily the best kind of security that we could ask for. People in the security industry know that. They would like to see higher standards, better training and the kind of pay that would create in that industry people who would be dedicated to that particular task. If they were paid well enough they would stay at it and do the job properly. They would not feel that they had to move on because of an offer of a better paying job somewhere else.

All these things are on our mind as we reflect upon the Tory motion that we have here today. We cannot support the motion as it is. We reiterate our contention that part of the solution for addressing the security problems at our ports is the reintroduction of a dedicated national harbours or ports police.

We agree with others who say that the resources are a great part of the problem and that there is a need for the government to make sure that our police and security forces, in the broadest possible sense of the word, have the resources to do the job that they are being asked to do.

The NDP cannot support the motion because we find it to be too general. We do not want to condemn the government holus-bolus or support the government holus-bolus on this. It has done some things right and some things wrong. Simply to have a motion which condemns the government without saying what it is it is being condemned for does not provide the opportunity for the kind of detailed debate that we would like to have in the House.

I remind hon. members that even though they might not have supported the NDP motion during the week before we broke, there were 12 things that we thought the government should be doing. Members could get up and disagree with those 12 things but they knew what we were talking about. We do not have a similar kind of motion before us here today.

With respect to the final phrase in the motion calling “on the government to reassert Parliament's relevance in these and other public policy issues”, I am not entirely sure what the member means here. If this is a general call for parliamentary reform, which would restore parliament's relevance in these and other public issues, of course we support that. I would say that as an individual member of parliament I have supported this kind of effort all the time I have been here.

However I am not sure whether this final phrase was supposed to entice people to vote for the rest of the motion, in spite of the fact that it had so little content, out of our love for parliamentary reform, or what effect it was supposed to have on us. In any event, we certainly would like to see parliament's relevance reasserted in these and other public policy issues.

With all due respect to the members of the PC/DRC coalition who are in the House now, and I know none of them were here when what I am about to speak of happened. One of the reasons why parliament suffers from a lack of relevance in these and other public policy issues is because of what was done to parliament between 1984 and 1993 when the Conservatives were in power.

Much of what we now experience in opposition, the frustration and powerlessness, the feeling of being left out of decisions taken in the Prime Minister's Office and elsewhere, a lot of these trends, if not begun, were solidified and consolidated under the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party between 1984 and 1993.

What is of course tragic, ironic and, in the final analysis, despicable is that the party that in its days as official opposition that opposed these measures has now been in power for nine years and has done absolutely nothing to undo the damage that it so loudly protested at that time.

I certainly join with members of the PC/DRC in calling once again on another government, in another time, in the same place, to reassert parliament's relevance in these and other public policy issues.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, precisely, this may be where the whole problem lies. The hon. member who just spoke cannot give me the exact definition of a national security policy. Since he cannot provide that definition, this means that all members in this House present their party's view or their collective view.

Earlier, I mentioned that the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford spoke at length on the registry of sexual offenders. Another one will deal at length on another issue, while another yet will say that Bill C-36 or Bill C-42, which I tried to define earlier, did not go far enough. As for us, we say that the government went too far.

Until we have a definition of security policy, it is hard for us to give our support. I could be asked “Do you agree to change the national defence policy?” This is not in the motion, but I could include it, because it is indeed a security policy. I would say “Yes, I agree on a new white paper, because the existing national defence white paper is based on the 1994 white paper”. We are now in 2002 and the situation has evolved extremely quickly, as evidenced by the events of September 11. We could never have imagined what happened. Ours was a typical national defence strategy, and it was based on previous wars.

If the motion said that, I would support it. But we do not know what it says. I could also interpret it and say “The Minister of Foreign Affairs should also align his policy with that of national defence, so as to know how to intervene in various existing conflicts”. This is my personal interpretation, based on a part of the motion that is vague enough to allow everyone to give it their own interpretation.

Indeed, the problem is that we cannot support such a broad interpretation. The motion should be much more specific. Again, this is why we cannot support it.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to advise the House that I am pleased to share my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel. I would also like to add that I will not be touching on the discussions that took place this morning regarding procedural issues, as this was debated for one hour. In my opinion, the Speaker of the House of Commons has quite a hot potato to deal with. It will be interesting now to see how he will get rid of it.

There has been much debate about the proposal before us. As far as we are concerned, there is a problem with the wording of the motion. The comments made my colleague from Langley--Abbotsford only serve to demonstrate this fact. He was already quite happy to broaden the scope of this motion, particularly when it comes to implementing a national security policy.

Obviously the motion refers to areas where we agree that actions must be taken, whether it be at ports, borders—I will comment on this briefly—and in particular, the relevance of Parliament in these matters. However, when it comes to a national security policy, this is quite different in scope, and this scope is interpreted in almost individual terms. Everyone has their own ideas about where action should be taken. As I mentioned, my colleague from Langley--Abbotsford certainly does, and this is what concerns us.

Yesterday we remembered the events of September 11; it was six months ago to the day. Immediately after the events, the Bloc Quebecois took a very responsible attitude by telling the government, “We will support you”. This was done in a general manner. We said, “We would not, however, accept too many restrictions on the freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians, because if this were to occur, if we get to the point where we are violating freedoms, the terrorists will have won”.

So when the government introduced the first bills in response, we mostly supported them at first and second reading. However, we reached the point where we felt that the government crossed the line that must not be crossed, the line that violated the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians.

As an example, there is Bill C-36, the famous anti-terrorism bill. There are all sorts of things concerning human rights, the protection of privacy and access to information, where, in our opinion, people's rights were trampled on.

Consequently, we wanted to put forward important clauses ensuring that there would be a time limit. Everybody remembers the “sunset clause”; it was said that there ought to be a review after three years. Unfortunately, the government did not listen to us. It brought in a so-called sunset clause, which is not really one. It was made meaningless because it applies only to two things: detention and another concept that is minor to us. The government should have done more, in our opinion.

The same thing applies to the bill's definition of terrorist activity. Terrorist activity was very broadly defined, and that concerned us, because we believe that anyone could be considered a terrorist, even a person who throws a rock at a police officer during a demonstration. Some Liberal members had stretched the concept to such an extent. We believed that it was going too far. So we voted against the bill at third reading.

It is the same thing with Bill C-42, the infamous omnibus bill that amended 20 pieces of legislation. We had a lot to say about military security zones, because we know what this means. The War Measures Act had a terrible impact on Quebecers, and we do not want any bill to give the government the go ahead to inflict such hardship on the public again.

So, Bill C-42, the omnibus bill amending 20 pieces of legislation, is just another example I wanted to give concerning military security zones. We were also afraid that many other provisions in that bill would violate the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians.

The motion brought forward by our friends from the PC/DR Coalition is not totally negative. I am also concerned about the security at our ports and harbours. In fact, a Senate committee has released an excellent report describing their concerns about this issue. I think security in this area should be reinforced.

Will voting on this motion, as it stands today, automatically lead to more severe measures? I am not sure about that. I have more bad than good to say about this motion. However, I wish to remain positive and tell my friends from the PC/DR Coalition that they did raise some very interesting issues. However, we still have problems with the way the motion was drafted.

The motion also mentions borders. Only yesterday, I gave an interview to TVA because, in my region, we are very concerned. My riding borders on Vermont and the State of New York.

We have learned that, after a very arbitrary test, a number of regular customs officers who had always received excellent appraisal reports were let go and replaced by students. I want it known that I have nothing against the students, but the government seems to be taking a penny wise and pound foolish approach right now, to the detriment of security.

Under the legislation, the people laid off had been given increased powers; they could use pepper spray and other means to stop terrorists. They could use handcuffs or a baton, which the students cannot. By replacing these customs officers with students, the government is saving approximately $10 per person an hour because they were paid $20 an hour. When security is ignored, there is a problem. That is the point raised in our colleague's motion. But unfortunately I do not think that the positive aspects are enough to offset the problems with the motion's wording.

It is the same when it comes to parliament's relevance. It is very clever to include it in the motion because, in fact, Bloc Quebecois members have been saying that the government is not transparent enough. Furthermore, only yesterday, I told a Journal de Montréal journalist that I had learned more in a three hour briefing session with the Americans in Tampa Bay last month than during the entire period following the September 11 attacks.

The Americans assembled parliamentarians, explained to them where the special force was, how many were taking part in it, and what operations were next. We do not have that here. Parliament is kept in the dark. When I say parliament, I do not mean the cabinet; I mean opposition members and Liberal backbenchers. They do not know what is going on, except when they attend a briefing such as that given by the National Defence chief of staff last week, at which he explained in very vague terms what is happening.

This is deplorable. Things have gotten to the point that when the Minister of National Defence announces that he is going to send troops somewhere, we are told: “The troops will be leaving tomorrow, but tomorrow night you will have a chance to discuss this in the House because we are going to hold a take-note debate at that time”. This is a new label for empty debating with no opportunity to vote.

It seems to me that, when issues as important as deploying troops are concerned, it is essential for Parliament to be informed, for them to be fully debated, and for members to have the opportunity to vote.

I was elected as an MP in order to speak and to advance my views. Doing so, however, does not just mean speaking out. We also need to be able to rise and announce how we will be voting on behalf of our constituents. This is a rarity, particularly in connection with security matters.

As far as the government is concerned, their culture is still one of secrecy. The Minister of National Defence, along with a small group, has given himself the exclusive right to decide on security, and then to advise us of the decision. We are told after the decision has been made “If you do not like it, you can express your views in a debate that will not lead anywhere because there will be no vote”.

I find our colleague's motion to be a skillful one, but unfortunately as I have said, it is not worded sufficiently clearly as far as implementation of a national policy is concerned, one which underlies all manner of bills that go far beyond this, such as C-36 and C-42. Unfortunately, I must inform my colleagues that we will have to find other ways of solving these problems.

This motion is not going to be the way to do it, because it implies a number of negative impacts as far as restricting the freedoms of Canadians and Quebecers is concerned.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to nudge the debate a little closer to the topic. The mover of the motion proposed the motion and we seem to be dealing with all kinds of different topics such as the way the deficit was 5, 10, 15 and 20 years ago, firearms legislation and helicopter purchases.

I remind colleagues, and perhaps the mover of the motion, that the subject is national security generally. The opposition has moved the motion so inevitably it will be rhetorical. Inevitably it will be political and sometimes wilfully blind to some of the facts. However that is the way we operate around here. Our job is to try to contribute things to the debate that will keep us on topic.

National security is very much a challenge of responding to and managing risk. It is pretty clear to everyone that the perceived risk pre-September 11 is different from the risk we see now. Most of the risk we have had to encounter was risk targeted at our American neighbours.

Pre-September 11 these risks did not seem to be targeted directly at Canada, but these days national security is an international item. It has an international dynamic. It is not just domestic. We must work with our partners internationally to deal with managing the risk. When one of our international partners is at risk our legislation and our policy are to assume that we also are at risk and will collaborate with them.

The December 12 announcement of a 30 point action plan by this government and by the government of the U.S.A. reflects the fact that security in North America is pretty much pooled together. That 30 point action plan was not accomplished overnight. It is a wish list that will span out over several years. The 30 point plan became a much shorter 8 point plan, I think it was, by March 8 when our minister met with his U.S. counterpart, Mr. Ridge.

Many things are going on and one of the challenges of responding to security threats is that the actual response by government is not made public necessarily at the time the response is taken. One element of dealing with security is that its elements are not usually made public, at least in an aggressive, press release kind of way.

The March 8 announcement included improvements to our Canada-U.S. border screening operations and a joint program to address the risk of security breaches involving shipping container traffic at our seaports. These joint teams will now be developing action plans for Canadian and U.S. ports across the northern tier of the U.S. or the southern tier of Canada.

They will find problems. They know what they are. The member opposite who moved the motion has referred to the problem of organized crime in more than one of our seaports. It is a fact that police have told us at committees of the House and apparently of the Senate that we do not control container traffic. It is controlled by workers at the ports. Statistically speaking approximately half the workers in some of those ports have criminal records, which does not mean they are not following the rules but it does raise concerns. I for one have concluded that we do not control sufficiently our container traffic coming into our ports. I will not say which one.

We have a serious problem which can only be addressed by government. What we have heard publicly so far from the people who manage the seaports is not accurate. I assume some of us in this place will be engaged in further debate on that.

One of the problems with security matters is that they often get siloed into different subject and ministry areas. The difference among health, policing, customs and military security creates a great challenge for modern government.

We have tried to address it by placing one minister at the cabinet table with an ad hoc committee of relevant ministers. The Americans have tried a different route by using a non-cabinet minister to try to bring things together. There were challenges on both sides of the border. Both sides are working with these challenges and have attempted perhaps to low ball the turf wars that occur between different agencies within government.

Our problems are analogous to the kinds of problems in that regard of our American neighbours. Our response to terrorism includes two pieces of legislation: one passed by the House, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, and Bill C-42 which is before the House. It will certainly have more debate here. Those are good faith strong attempts, strong responses by the government to deal with legislative weaknesses of which we perhaps were not aware before September 11. The same has happened in many other countries around the world as we try to remediate our domestic legislation to respond to the very real threats out there.

The government reconstituted the national security subcommittee of the justice committee. The phone calls went out within days after September 11. Members of the House will be working on that committee in an attempt to provide focus for the House on the envelope of national security, which I have already said is somewhat segmented, inevitably so, between different ministries and different agencies within government.

In the motion today is what I regard as a silly throwaway comment asking the government to try to make parliament more relevant. It is not the job of the government to make parliament more relevant. It is the job of parliamentarians. Let us please stop asking government, which is several hundred thousand people strong working outside the House, to try to make the House more relevant. This is our job. Anyone in the House who asks some nameless, faceless person in government to help us make the House more relevant is whistling, dreaming.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to enter the debate on national security which remains a key concern for all Canadians I believe. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River.

On behalf of the solicitor general, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of parliament that national security and public safety continue to be the number one priority and the top priority for the Government of Canada.

The Solicitor General of Canada has a leadership role within the Government of Canada for protecting Canadians and helping them to maintain a peaceful and safe society.

Many other ministers of the government, including departments and agencies, are also key partners in this very important area in the fight against terrorism, including my hon. colleagues from justice, CCRA, CIC, DFAIT, national defence, Transport Canada and Health Canada. We all work closely with our federal partners on a daily basis through a variety of informal and formal meetings to ensure that the government's overall public safety strategy is co-ordinated and effective.

The ad hoc ministers' committee on public security and anti-terrorism as well as the deputy ministers' committee on public safety are prime examples of interdepartmental co-ordination.

The portfolio of the Solicitor General of Canada also co-operates with federal, provincial and territorial partners in a number of ways to share information, consult on major initiatives and to reach consensus on proposed criminal justice reforms. These include, for example, ministers responsible for justice, deputy ministers responsible for justice, co-ordinating committees of senior officials and several subcommittees and working groups to examine specific policy issues.

In particular, a new federal-provincial-territorial deputies committee has just been formed to ensure co-ordination among all jurisdictions in their approach to anti-terrorism and public safety issues.

Strong partnerships with stakeholders is vital to the work of the Solicitor General of Canada. We encourage and actively support co-operation with our non-governmental partners, including provincial and municipal police forces, and emergency firstline responders through consultation, information sharing, exchange of expertise and knowledge, training and the provision of resources.

It goes without saying that since September 11 counterterrorism is a top priority for police and security agencies the world over. It is a top priority here at home too for the RCMP, for CSIS and for law enforcement officials across Canada.

The primary role of the Government of Canada is to lead this fight against terrorism at national and international levels. The government is doing so through new legislation and several important initiatives announced in the last two federal budgets.

Since the year 2000, the Government of Canada has dedicated a total of $9.5 billion to public safety and national security, including $7.7 billion in the December 2001 budget. The comprehensive set of measures outlined in budget 2001 are designed to keep Canada safe, keep terrorists out and keep our borders open. To this end, it includes major investments to equip and deploy more intelligence and frontline investigative personnel, improve co-ordination among law enforcement, intelligence and national security agencies, and to boost marine security and safety to the tune of $1.6 million. It also includes improving the screening of immigrants, refugee claimants and visitors to the tune of $1 billion; creating a new air security organization, assigning armed undercover police officers on Canadian aircraft, purchasing explosive detection equipment and enhancing policing to the tune of $2.2 billion; and finally, enhancing border security and improving the infrastructure that supports major border crossings to ensure the legitimate flow of people and goods, which is so important to our economy, to the tune of $1.2 billion.

Furthermore, under Canada's anti-terrorism plan, key federal agencies responsible for public security, such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, will receive substantial new funding to enhance their counterterrorism capacity and priorities.

CSIS will receive an additional $334 million over five years which will be used to boost its frontline security intelligence capacity. The RCMP will receive an additional $576 million which will bring new technology on line and put more officers to work on national security matters.

Under Canada's anti-terrorism plan, specific federal support for provinces, territories and municipalities include the establishment of new integrated national security enforcement teams, INSETs, and increased integrated border enforcement teams, IBETs, by the RCMP with provision for the salaries of INSET members seconded from other jurisdictions.

These are all important measures and, while the focus is on counterterrorism, initiatives undertaken on this front have had ripple effects that will benefit organized crime investigations, community policing and policing and law enforcement in general. What these measures do is establish a framework to ensure a high level of public security and safety for Canadians wherever they live in a national security framework.

Federal anti-terrorism initiatives will clearly strengthen the criminal justice system on a national basis. All jurisdictions will benefit from the resulting tools, expertise, new or expanded programs and infrastructure. These benefits will continue over a long period of time.

As a result of the events that took place on September 11, the Government of Canada and the U.S. administration have been more attentive than ever in ensuring security and safety at our joint border. Both countries have formally agreed to co-operate on border security and regional migration issues and have signed a smart border declaration which includes a 30 point action plan to ensure a safe, secure and efficient border.

The goal is to facilitate the movement of legitimate goods and people while preventing terrorists and undesirable individuals from entering Canada or the United States.

The Government of Canada has long realized that the fight against organized crime is not a task it can take on alone. Since the adoption of the joint statement on organized crime in 1998, we have been working very closely with our provincial and territorial counterparts to address this problem.

The national agenda to combat organized crime identifies a series of new legislative initiatives to enhance the investigation and prosecution of organized crime. Bill C-24 was a good first step and an important first step.

The police community told policymakers there was a need to improve legislation and that is exactly what happened and what we did. Bill C-24 will assist in addressing serious problems like biker gangs and other forms of serious crime.

We all know that criminals are making full use of technological advances to facilitate and provide leverage for their crimes. In order to respond effectively, we need to capitalize on the new technological tools available to us.

An excellent example of this is the Canada Public Safety Information Network which is designed to link criminal justice agencies across Canada to allow for better detection and prosecution of offenders. In October 2001, the Solicitor General of Canada announced that $4.9 million in new money would be dedicated in part to enhancing this program.

Furthermore, encryption technology is becoming cheaper, stronger, widely available and easy to use. Criminals and terrorists increasingly use some form of encryption or password protection to secure their communications. That is why the Department of the Solicitor General has implemented an action plan to provide technical solutions and to conduct a comprehensive legislative review.

Here, as with organized crime, the challenge is for our laws to keep pace with the changing face of technology and crime.

The Government of Canada does not take public safety and national security for granted. As I have just outlined, we have introduced numerous initiatives designed to enhance both national security and public safety.

Parliament and parliamentary committees continue to play a vigorous role in this area. We have only to point to parliament's work on Bill C-36, Bill C-24, Bill C-11 and continuing debate regarding Bill C-42 and Bill S-23.

I look forward to the continued input of all parliamentarians as we work together in this very important area. I will conclude by saying that public security and public safety remain a top priority. As a government, along with all Canadians, we need to work in this very important area to ensure that at the end of the day we secure a safe and good place for Canadians wherever they live in this country.

Refugees

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make regulations under paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Immigration Act with the effect that people claiming to be refugees pursuant to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees will not be admitted for consideration of their claim from the following countries: the United States, New Zealand, Australia and all countries that are members of the European Economic Union.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss my private member's Motion No. 422. I would first like to express my disappointment that the motion was deemed non-votable, especially when business can come from the other place without ever having to enter into the lottery and is instantly made votable.

I dare say that public safety and secure borders are more relevant to most Canadians than creating a national horse or setting aside a day in honour of a former prime minister. That is not to suggest that those issues do not have merit. They certainly do, but we must get our priorities straight in this place.

That being said, the motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make regulations under paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Immigration Act with the effect that people claiming to be refugees pursuant to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees will not be admitted for consideration of their claim from the following countries: the United States, New Zealand, Australia and all countries that are members of the European Economic Union.

The issue of refugees coming to Canada has been of significant public concern for decades. If average Canadians were asked what they thought about Canada's refugee system we would find they are very proud of the fact that we have assisted tens of thousands of people who are genuinely persecuted in foreign lands. I also think we would hear that people are tired of Canada's generosity being taken advantage of by fraudulent refugee claims.

My motion would virtually eliminate the practice of silent shopping and the use of our refugee system as a back door immigration method. This would help offset public opinion that in one survey says 70% of Canadians agree that many people claming to be refugees are not real refugees.

It is vital for Canada to continue its tradition of helping those less fortunate and I truly believe that. I believe that if Canadians were able to see that only genuine refugees were being admitted those attitudes would greatly change. It is as equally vital that Canadians not feel used. By prescribing certain nations as safe third countries the government would restore a lot of confidence in Canada's refugee system.

Before addressing the motion I would like to congratulate the government for entering into an accord with the United States that would implement one aspect of my motion. It was only shortly after I gave notice of my motion that the former immigration minister announced that Canada and the United States would be entering into a safe third country agreement that would turn back refugee claimants coming from either country.

This is especially significant considering that the majority of asylum seekers come to Canada through the United States by using its visa system as a staging ground to enter Canada for an easy refugee claim. Unfortunately all we have at this point is some talk. We have no agreement yet.

I would now like to address why it is important to list all western democracies that adhere to and are signatories to the United Nations convention on refugees. One immigration policy expert, James Bissett, who spent several years in the civil service, says Canada could reduce bogus claims by 40% if it adopted a safe third country rule across the board. Thus Canada would stop accepting refugees who travel to Canada via the United States or other modern, liberal democracies where they clearly face no threat of persecution.

This is what my motion suggests. Canada is a destination of choice for refugee asylum shoppers because it accepts up to 60% of all claimants compared to 28% in the United States and only 10% in Europe. This rule would force claimants to make their case in the first country they land in rather than the most likely country to accept them.

The member for London North Centre, the Liberal chairman of the all party committee on border security, said the two countries must put a stop to economic migrants who claim refugee status after gaining legal entry into Canada. He said:

If you are coming from a safe third country, that is, the United States, you are not being persecuted and you are in that country, why do you want to make a refugee claim here? We should be able to deport them and send them back to the United States. What the United States wants to do with them is their own problem. It shouldn't become our problem.

What many Canadians do not recognize is how expensive it is to allow people coming from safe third countries to make a claim in Canada. It cost Canadian taxpayers more that $21 million last year just to provide free lawyers for refugee claimants, many of whom entered from the United States after their visitor, work or student visas expired.

The costs do not include welfare and health care spending to accommodate refugee claimants. With both our health and welfare systems strained to the breaking point, it is ridiculous to continue allowing people to come to Canada to make a refugee claim when they could have made that claim in the first country in which that they landed.

Critics of a motion such as mine will say that I am being cold and heartless. That could not be further from the truth. I am very proud of the role Canada plays in assisting people with nowhere else to turn, those who are genuine refugees. It is an unfortunate reality, however, that we have also become the destination of choice for asylum shoppers.

If my motion had been deemed votable and subsequently passed in the House of Commons, the government could have virtually put an end to the practice of asylum shopping and sharply curtailed queue jumping, leaving room for our overtaxed refugee determination system to focus on people truly in need of Canada's assistance.

This of course raises the question of who is in need of Canada's assistance.

Canada expects to receive 45,000 refugee claims by the end of this fiscal year, up from 38,000 last year, of which only 8,000 of the claimants are government sponsored. Are 45,000 claims that are expected to arrive not a truly disproportionate number to the 8,000 that have been pre-screened and known to be genuine refugees long before they came to Canada?

If we did not have so many people constantly showing up at our doorstep, imagine the relief we could provide to refugees in camps around the world where people have no hope of ever finding asylum because they are the poorest of the poor.

The majority of the 45,000 asylum seekers will come through countries where they could make claims but have chosen to come to Canada, most likely because it is widely known that if they make it to Canada they are all but assured of having their claim accepted and if it is rejected, it is also widely understood that one will never get deported.

It is very clear to anyone in the world that Canada does not have the wherewithal, nor perhaps the political will, to deport failed refugee claimants or even dangerous criminals. This point is made very clear by the fact that Canadian immigration officials have no idea where over 27,000 failed refugee claimants are, even though they have been ordered deported.

If the government were to list all the countries that are signatories to the UN convention on refugees, our immigration system could put far more focus on removing undesirables from this country instead of simply losing them and not knowing if they have or have not left the country.

Let me take this one step further. If we had implemented the safe third country strategy in time, we would likely not have had to deal with the likes of Tafari Rennock, a violent fugitive who was deported from the United States for sex offences and was later granted refugee status after slipping into Canada.

When Canadians read regular news stories like this one, they certainly do not feel safe, especially considering the recent terrorist attacks on America. If we are willing to provide a safe haven for violent sex offenders, who else are we willing to harbour?

What is worse is how this looks to our allies. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, despite all its bristle and the introduction of Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, the federal government has stubbornly refused to acknowledge that our overly generous refugee system poses a major threat to our country's security and to that of our American neighbour.

Last year, we know that more than 45,000 asylum seekers arrived in Canada. Most of them were smuggled into the country by international criminal organizations that, in turn, brought these people through safe third countries. I would point out that many of these smuggling problems would be solved if we listed all western nations as safe third countries. After the events of September 11, it is inexcusable not to list all UN signatories to the refugee convention as safe third countries.

However, even more alarming is the knowledge that since the attacks against New York City and the Pentagon last September, more than 15,000 asylum seekers have entered Canada. Of these, close to 2,500 have come from terrorist producing countries, like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia, Algeria, Albania and Afghanistan. An additional 870 have arrived from Sri Lanka, almost all of them undoubtedly Tamils.

That is certainly not to suggest that all of these claimants are bogus. However, some could quite easily be members or supporters of various well-known terrorist organizations, like al-Qaeda or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The LTTE is one of the deadliest terrorist organizations in the world and is banned in Britain and the United States. I would suggest that if Canada had already proscribed the countries mentioned in my motion, this number would be significantly smaller and there would be far fewer opportunities for terrorists and criminals to slip through undetected.

Even if we were to disregard the current events, the reality is that when an illegal entrant arrives on Canadian soil and claims to be a refugee, there is very little chance that the individual will be removed, as I have already mentioned; remember the 27,000 deportees missing.

Unfortunately, this is especially true of serious criminals and terrorists because their removal frequently means they would be required to face justice in their homeland. Any thought of removal in such cases runs up against formidable obstacles. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies not only to Canadian citizens but also to anyone on Canadian soil whether in Canada legally or not.

In addition to the charter protection, even the most outlandish allegation that the individual might be mistreated or tortured will guarantee months, if not years of litigation. After several years of reviews, appeals and rehearings, the individual's own country will often refuse to accept the person back. Canada has been stuck with a number of these cases.

It would be easy to go on about this issue but I am allowed only so much. More important, I am looking forward to what my colleagues have to say about my motion. As I said before, it is unfortunate that this motion is not votable especially because the government appears somewhat warm to the idea of implementing safe third countries in our immigration policy.

Species at Risk Act

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to make some preliminary comments. I am from Saskatchewan and my riding is largely a rural one. The signals sent out by the government are not friendly toward rural Canada or are not perceived as friendly. There seems to be a total lack of sympathy by the government toward the plight of Canadian farmers and producers.

I noticed in the budget run-up the Minister of Finance noted that the average per capita contribution of Americans toward agriculture was $350 per person whereas in Canada it was less than half at $168. I was expecting some initiative in the budget but I did not see any. I guess this is more of the same with the government.

Bill C-68 was another piece of legislation that was perceived as a hostile step by rural Canadians. They cannot see any logic or reason behind the legislation. They see a total waste of money coming out of the legislation and they cannot see one single benefit other than maybe more job creation in this town for public servants.

The cruelty to animals legislation seems to be driven by the fanatics in the cruelty to animals industry. The last thing my constituents need is this sort of thing to enter their part of the world, with the aid of all the resources of government on its side, and harass people who are having a difficult time making a living, paying their taxes and supporting their families.

The endangered species legislation is just another intrusion in the lives of my constituents and they do not feel it is necessary either. When Liberals go around the country trying to determine why they are not very popular in rural Canada, they just have to look at their actions. The actions are the reason why there is this feeling of alienation in that part of the world.

In the fall we debated Bill C-36 and much hot air was let out over sunset clauses. We would be better served in the House if we started evaluating existing government policy with sunset clauses to determine whether they are achieving any useful results or not. We would probably find that a good part of what we have created is irrelevant, useless and we could do away with. We could simplify the world.

The reason I raise this is that the majority of members on the other side of the House believe that if there is a problem in society they can make it go away by passing a law.

Generals do not win wars by ordering a result. They win wars by having a solid strategic plan in place and having motivated, well equipped personnel who can carry out the plan. Anyone can order a result. The members over there could get a private member's bill or something that orders a result but that does not mean there will be a result. Getting and achieving results is something totally different than just ordering them.

Good laws, like success in the military field, require a plan that will work along with the resources necessary to complete the plan. It involves the co-operation of the necessary participants. The bill is a miserable failure on just about every count that we can look at. It totally overlooks two levels of government, municipal and provincial. The government has a bad habit of ignoring them. It likes to go right over their heads and ram something through without considering the impact.

The recent kerfuffle in Russia over the Kyoto accord is another example of how the government is out of touch with the people of this country.

This bill ignores one of the most important participants required to make the legislation work, the landowners. The Liberal government has continually shown contempt for property rights. When it brought home the constitution it absolutely refused to comprehend that the charter of rights should include some protection for property rights. Just about every other country that has something like that does entrench property rights or some recognition, but the Liberals did not. The Liberals had an opportunity to patch up their omissions with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, however they failed there as well.

Most people I know are involved in their businesses or their careers. They devote a huge part of their week toward creating income for themselves, their families, their communities and their government. In my province, government consumes something like 50% of all such income. At the end of the day, only a small portion is left over and people use that generally to acquire property and equity in property. We are no different.

Last spring the Liberals, with much enthusiasm, voted for a pay increase. Why did they want a pay increase? To buy a better boat, get a better home, get a better car or take a nice trip. Basically, what they were after was trying to materially improve their standard of living as Canadians, that is, property.

Everyone appreciates that the government, in trying to carry out its obligations or responsibilities, from time to time must interfere with property rights. No one is arguing with that belief. However, we do object to a government that ignores due process, and fair and reasonable compensation.

That is why the Liberal government, back in the early 1980s, refused to recognize property rights in our charter of rights. It did not believe in due process when it dealt with property rights. It did not believe in fair compensation to citizens who had their property robbed or damaged by government action. Maybe it was the Trudeau effect on liberalism. A little of that left wing, socialist mentality has crept into its way of thinking and is flourishing today in this society.

The Liberal government has a good track record of interfering by imposing obligations on Canadian citizens without providing compensation such as: the Canadian Pension Plan, EI, GST, fuel taxes, and payroll deductions. It imposed these obligations on businesses and put onerous responsibilities on them. It made them become its bookkeepers and tax collectors and, in most cases, there was absolutely no compensation whatsoever for doing these things. Again, it showed a wanton disregard for property rights and the economic interests of Canadians.

What really takes the cake, from the Magna Carta to where we are today, is that the British-American Anglo justice system says that it takes a guilty mind not just a guilty act to create a criminal offence. The government has a consistent track record of chipping away at that concept and turning things into strict liability. I do not know why it wants to do that because when it gets people in prison, no sooner does it get them in prison and it wants them out. It is a crazy system. Just about everyone else in the world recognizes mens rea, mental elements and so on and the government ignores it.

Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member is getting everything mixed up.

I remind the member that in the aftermath of the tragedy of September 11 all Canadians, no matter what party they belonged to, recognized that new measures were required to ensure our common security. These steps need to be taken in co-operation with our international partners to strengthen our defences against terrorist attacks.

One such step is the protection of highly sensitive information, which is the point of the bill. The fight against terrorism depends largely on our ability to gather sensitive intelligence relating to terrorist activities. It is imperative that we be able to protect not only the substance of our intelligence but also its source.

As a final note, Bill C-36, which is the bill we are discussing here and not any other so-called misdemeanour the member of parliament could raise, provides for a comprehensive parliamentary review of the provisions and the operation of the act within three years after the act receives royal assent. I think we have proven very well that there is--

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to talk about the points raised by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough regarding Bill C-36 and the issuance of certificates by the attorney general, even if the member did not expressly mention it.

I would like to explain exactly how the new subsection 38(13) resulting from the coming into force of Bill C-36 works. The Attorney General of Canada has the power to issue a certificate that would prohibit the disclosure of information in connection with a proceeding for the purpose of protecting information obtained in confidence from or in relation to a foreign entity as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Security of Information Act or for the purpose of protecting national defence or national security.

The hon. member's question would seem to imply that the certificate could be used to deny the disclosure of all types of information held by the government, but this is simply not the case. Freedom of information remains the rule for the government rather than the exception. Full public access to the vast majority of government information will not be affected by the legislation.

The attorney general's certificate process is intended to apply in exceptional cases only as the ultimate guarantee that it ensures the protection of very sensitive information that is held by the Government of Canada.

I would like to add that there are a number of safeguards. I will mention only two, given the time limit. First, the certificate can only be personally issued by the Attorney General of Canada. Second, it can only be issued after an order or a decision for disclosure of that information has been made under the Canada Evidence Act or any other act of parliament that would result in a disclosure of the information.

Unfortunately time is short, but I would refer the hon. member to the subsections I just mentioned in my reply where he will find the exact information that develops my answer to him even more.

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

Madam Speaker, the matter which is before the House results from a question that was put to the minister. It is very much an issue that is in line with what we have seen happen on numerous occasions where the minister made an attempt to avoid giving any substantive answer.

The government continues to be out of touch in many ways with the country by virtue of avoiding straight questions and clouding its responses in secrecy. It does little to encourage, as I mentioned earlier, the relevance of parliament.

On October 23, 2001, I rose to ask a question of the Minister of Justice and spoke of the new Bill C-36, which was in response to the terrible events of September 11. I raised the issue with respect to Canada's watchdogs who had clearly indicated that the new anti-terrorism bill went too far in denying disclosure of information to Canadians. As a result, I suggested that this was open to abuse.

The legislation, as the Chair will recall, gives the government an opportunity to withhold information by denying access to information by virtue of the minister having at his or her disposal the issuance of certificates which essentially blanket the government's actions. Amendments to Bill C-36 will allow the Privacy Act and the Information Act to be subverted. The government overreacted in including this particular provision and this ability within the act.

I asked the government why it was using the security threat to justify a clampdown on the free flow of information. The response, as flippant as it was, was that the government was not involved in any kind of a clampdown. I suggest that there is ample evidence to the contrary, both at the time that the question was raised back in October and subsequent to that.

The Treasury Board ruling is a recent example of that. Expense reports and other documents relating to cabinet ministers and staff will not be released under access to information. This runs directly contrary to privacy laws. The Treasury Board president has said that the decision by her department to keep the ministerial expenses secret was an appropriate balance of the public right to know with privacy concerns.

That is simply not the case. It is a misinterpretation of the supreme court. The minister seems to be relying very much on the dissenting opinion of the court as opposed to the majority ruling.

We have expressed this frustration time and time again. I know the member for New Brunswick Southwest has a question on the order paper regarding the Lancaster Aviation cover-up and scandal. What Canadians are hoping, through their members of parliament and opposition, is that the government would reveal itself and keep those promises of transparency and openness that were so prevalent in prior election campaigns, literature and pamphlets. The government is letting down the country with respect to being open and revealing itself through information.

What comes from all of this is the suggestion that the country deserves better. The country should expect more. The government has not kept its word with respect to being open to Canadians. I hope that in the future we would see the government reveal itself more as to not only its past but its present intentions by addressing Canadians directly through the House of Commons.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-6, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act--Chapter No. 40.

Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 32.

Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 33.

Bill C-32, an act to implement the free trade agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica--Chapter No. 28.

Bill C-34, an act to establish the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 29.

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--Chapter No. 41.

Bill C-38, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act--Chapter No. 35.

Bill C-40, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect--Chapter No. 34.

Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act--Chapter No. 38.

Bill C-45, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2002--Chapter No. 39.

Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (alcohol ignition interlock device programs)--Chapter No. 37.

Bill S-10, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Poet Laureate)--Chapter No. 36.

Bill S-31, an act to implement agreements , conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Slovenia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Senegal, the Czech Republic and Germany for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income--Chapter No. 30.

Bill S-33, an act to amend the Carriage by Air Act--Chapter No. 31.

National Security

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

Mr. Speaker, it does not sound very smart or clear. The firearms provisions in Bill C-36 will permit the government to make secret orders to allow individual foreign nationals or any class of non-residents to carry guns for their employment. In effect, a minister will have the power to permit individuals to pack weapons with no guidelines and no regulations.

Why the ambivalent Liberal gun fixation? No guns for Canadian border guards, park wardens or even duck hunters, but if one is a bodyguard for a foreign dictator or a rock star, load up and come on in.

Missing Women

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the number of women missing from the downtown east side is a tragedy. Earlier this month the joint police task force released the names of 18 more women who are missing, bringing the number to 45 women. Many of them were involved in the sex trade and were at risk of the most awful violence and death.

I believe all levels of government must co-operate with all possible resources to find out what has happened to these women and to prevent more deaths and harm from taking place. SFU criminologist John Lowman has said repeatedly that women will continue to disappear and be killed unless Canada's prostitution laws are changed.

I implore the Minister of Justice to pay attention. Her bent on security in Bill C-36 did not help these women. Yet their dangerous environment is caused by federal laws pertaining to the sex trade.

These women are not pieces of garbage that can be disposed of. They are human beings with every right to dignity, safety and hope for the future. They demand our attention.

The Budget

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to engage in this debate. Somewhere in the middle of the debate the exchange of rhetoric on both sides of the House was somewhat surprising to me. I do not know how readers of Hansard or viewers of the proceedings are taking this but from time to time I get lost in the great gulf between the rhetoric of what seems to be on one side of the House and what is on this side.

For the benefit of my own constituents in Scarborough--Rouge River I will try to focus my remarks on something where there are not great gaps in credibility and understanding.

We have gone through a budget presentation. The budget records a number of landmarks around the budget year. The budget year is the year that will follow the budget, not the fiscal year ending in March 2002.

There are two or three landmarks I have taken pleasure in viewing. I would say the same no matter what side of the House I sat on. First, I have taken pleasure in the reduction of our public debt. We can measure public debt, net debt and foreign debt seven ways to Sunday, but to make the matter simpler we have managed over the last couple of years to pay down our net public debt by some $35 billion.

Someone in the House was inquiring what happened to the $17 billion surplus. Most of it went to pay down the debt. We did not pay down $35 billion in debt by losing money somewhere and not finding it. It had to be paid down with real money. It was paid down with real taxpayer money scavenged from the surplus we had accumulated over the last couple of years. Our debt now stands at about $547 billion by the simplest measure.

Second, our debt to GDP ratio has moved down from approximately 71% to 51.8%. Next year, the year beginning next April 1, it is anticipated that our debt to GDP ratio will fall to under 50%. That is particularly pleasing because most of the industrialized world uses the 50% threshold as the benchmark for affordability of national debt no matter how we measure it.

I will not get into a debate about the various components of our public debt, some of which are more manageable and repayable than others. However once we are under 50% GDP we have a very manageable portfolio.

The budget documents contain quite a bit of information about how the government intends to manage and diversify our debt to ensure Canadians pay the lowest interest rates and reduce the debt in an appropriately orderly fashion over the years to come. That will happen.

Third, there was a time a few years ago when it was said that we paid 36 cents of every tax revenue dollar on interest. The budget records the fact that this year, the year ending this coming March, we are only spending 23 cents of every revenue dollar on interest. Some will say it would be better if we did not have to spend 23 cents of every dollar, but that is a heck of a lot better than 36 cents of every dollar. That is where we are now. That is how far we have come. We are continuing to make progress.

The budget follows through with a number of other commitments the government had made previously. A lot of the rhetoric and discussion here today is about things that were not in the budget or should have been in the budget. The tax cuts that have been described as cuts of $100 billion over five years were announced previously. They were not in the budget. They did not need to be in the budget. They are already part of government policy.

The number for the fiscal year we are in is some $43 billion, but the tax cut over five years is continuing. It is in the pipeline. It does not happen in one year. Whether we measure it at 20, 40 or 100, no matter how many billions of dollars or how we slice it up, the tax reductions are in the pipeline for all Canadian taxpayers.

The budget was intended to address a weakening economy as well as the September 11 incidents. It is important to note that two things are happening already which most economists would agree in large measure do as much as possible to address a weakening economy: fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus.

The fiscal stimulus is the current $17 billion of tax cuts which will find their way back into Canadians' pockets this year. That is already is the pipeline. That money finds its way back into the economy as fiscal stimulus by a reduction in taxes on paycheques for all who pay at source or for those who pay their taxes in other ways.

The monetary stimulus comes from the very recognizable reduction in interest rates across the country. Not that long ago we were all paying 10%, 11% or 12% interest on various things such as consumer debt, mortgages, business loans and the prime rates. Those rates have all come down to 3%, 4% and 5%. That is a huge difference to Canadians. These low interest rates are providing the monetary stimulus. There is not an economist anywhere who will not agree that they are mega, major stimuli for our economy. These things were already in the pipeline when the finance minister delivered his budget.

I cannot address the many other elements of the budget in the few minutes I have, but there is a huge emphasis on security. What happened on September 11 changed our perception of what is happening in the world. The threats manifest in that incident were quantitatively and qualitatively beyond anything we have experienced outside of wartime.

We know there is an enemy out there and the enemy is pretty much unseen. In true gamesmanship theory, when we have an enemy we must find and liquidate the enemy before the enemy gets to us. Without going into details about how we must do this, it is imperative that we do. It is arguable that this enemy is intent on blowing us into the dark ages. No one in the House will permit that to happen.

We must now invest in security and intelligence in a way that will let us find and root out the enemy. Some of that is happening today in Afghanistan as we speak, but there are many other things ongoing and many other threats related to that, not just in Afghanistan but here and in our neighbouring countries.

It is not always possible to go into detail about all the threats. Canadians understand that we cannot do it because there are ongoing attempts to find the enemy. If we tell the enemy we are looking for him the enemy then changes the players on the chess board and we make our success that much harder.

These things are going on now but there are huge risks out there. We do not know when the risks will reduce. There is no reason to believe they are any less today than they were on September 11. They will continue for some time.

In that process, it is possible that all of us as Canadians will be asked to rethink our own civil liberties from time to time and invest a bit in our own collective security. These issues have been discussed elsewhere in relation to Bill C-36 and Bill C-42. Where we will be a few months from now I am not sure.

I come from a riding which has a large representation from each of the five large Islamic groupings: the Sunni, the Shia, the Ahmadiyya, the Ismaili, the Bora and others. These groupings of the Islamic faith are embarrassed and unhappy that the terrorists have in a sense hijacked their faith and pretended that the Islamic faith is the reason for the terror.

This is not the case. We must all be sensitive to that. As we move along we must ensure that all Canadians are treated fully as Canadians and accorded all their civil liberties with great respect.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this place and to partake in the budget debate. This is the first time since being elected just a little over a year ago that I have had the opportunity to participate in a budget debate, because as we all know it is the first budget we have seen in this parliament and in probably almost two years. It is time that the finance minister indulged our interest and that of many Canadians in dealing with our financial well-being and gave us some type of indication as to the course that he has charted in these turbulent times.

As a first time member, I sat and listened yesterday and I listened intently. As the critic for the solicitor general, I was listening particularly for a mention of CSIS, the RCMP and Corrections Canada in the budget. However, as a member representing an agricultural riding, I also listened intently to the speech that our finance minister brought forth as to how it would impact agriculture. I listened in order to hear to how it would affect the farm family, how it would affect the agricultural sector. I listened and I listened and I listened. There was really no response. It is a sad commentary when the Liberal government has forgotten a very important sector of our economy, agriculture, because it affects so many in the west and the regions of Canada.

However, it is a pleasure to be here today. I stood in the House over a month ago debating Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation. I began that deliberation with a quote from the Toronto Star . Although I do not have time today to quote the whole article again, I would like to quote one or two sentences by James Travers from that article:

Now the federal government is desperately trying to respond by bringing forward legislation and introducing security measures that for years have been relegated to the bottom of the agenda. It clearly hopes that the current flurry of activity will somehow mask years of inaction.

On that note, I would like to say that this is the same response that we e see in this budget: years of inaction, years of forgetting to bring in a budget and now setting a course to try to rectify it. What do we see?

Witnesses from the Canadian Police Association, representing some 30,000 frontline police personnel in Canada, including RCMP officers, recently appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights regarding Bill C-36. During that presentation the association stated:

We have serious reservations...about the capability of Canada's police and law enforcement officials to meet the increased demands of anti-terrorism requirements and sustain important domestic policing and law enforcement responsibilities.

Let us make this abundantly clear. The Canadian Police Association request for more resources, and that is what it was asking for on that date, was not a knee-jerk reaction to the September 11 tragedy. It was the realization that there was a much larger problem.

For nearly a decade the Canadian Police Association has been requesting more money so frontline officers can effectively do the job, all of the job, not a selective part, not just a small amount, but all of the job. It has repeatedly asked the federal government to move on repairing the gaping holes in Canada's security and enforcement capabilities. Until then, it had not had much luck.

Our frontline officers were not successful in beefing up their numbers until the horrific events of September 11 highlighted the fact that Canada is viewed internationally as a point of entry. The events of September 11 made the government and many people recognize that Canada was an entry for access to the United States for criminals and terrorists.

Therefore, although we welcome the increased dollars given to the RCMP, as announced in yesterday's budget, I would be remiss if I did not point out that it is perhaps too late and perhaps also too little. The bleeding within our security and intelligence agencies has been occurring for so long that the band-aid approach we saw yesterday simply will not stop the bleeding.

According to RCMP commissioner Zaccardelli's own admission, 2,000 RCMP officers were withdrawn from other enforcement duties to respond to the terrorism crisis. The officers were taken from assignments previously considered to be priorities, such as fighting organized crime, providing frontline policing in their communities and waging the battle against drugs. Many of those jobs were left unattended as the RCMP scurried to deal with the latest crisis within its current budget constraints. Officers previously assigned to organized crime priorities had to abandon their investigations for anti-terrorist assignments.

According to the CPA, of the complement of approximately 15,000 RCMP officers, 9,000 are assigned to municipal and provincial contract policing responsibilities. Of the remaining 6,000, 2,000 of those or one-third, were reassigned to the terrorism file as confirmed by the commissioner of the RCMP.

Minimally, 2,000 additional officers are needed to service the deficiencies that are being felt hardest at the community levels. Taking the Canadian Police Association's estimates of $125,000 per officer, at minimum the RCMP should be given $250 million for staff alone. Yesterday's announcement falls much short of that mark.

Of the solicitor general's previous funding increases of $250 million, only $9 million was allocated to provide for staffing in priority areas for the RCMP. This, again based on the Canadian Police Association's estimates, equated to only roughly 72 full time RCMP constable positions. Obviously this was not sufficient to address in any meaningful way the new and existing national policing demands placed on the RCMP.

The Canadian Police Association, therefore, desperately looking for some salvation in this budget, failed. The government failed and fell short of the CPA's needs and expectations.

I will turn to the other and equally important component of Canada's security force, that being the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS. Yesterday I had the pleasure, together with our Sub-committee on National Security, to go to CSIS offices to be briefed by the director, Mr. Ward Elcock.

Yesterday the government announced funding for CSIS of $334 million over a six year period. This amounts to $56 million per year. The new funding does not, on average, bring CSIS funding to the level it experienced in 1993. In 1993, funding for CSIS was $244 million. Under the Liberal government, funding was cut to $197 million in 2001. Funding cuts were occurring at a time when terrorism throughout the world was becoming more violent, more indiscriminate and more unpredictable. CSIS, in its 2000 public report, brought that out. It said:

Up to now, CSIS has been able to risk-manage the challenges. However, the terrorist events of late 1999 underscored the continuing requirement to review efficiency within the context of the existing threat environment, with particular emphasis on the allocation of human resources. More than ever, the Service--

This is the service dealing with our national security.

--must rely on risk management, concentrating resources selectively and precisely on the major issues, while assessing new and emerging threats.

What the report was stating was that CSIS was seeing acts of terrorism increasing and its budget decreasing. I would like to highlight the fact that this report was released before September 11. Long before the attack on America, CSIS was experiencing staffing shortages and a serious lack of trained analysts. Between 1992 and 1998 CSIS experienced a cut of 760 personnel.

Different individuals such as Wesley Wark of the University of Toronto and others brought forward the fact that money was needed but money was not enough. CSIS needed analysts and trained expertise. This budget does not allow them the resources that they need to bring them back to the 1993 level.

All these changes and enhancements as encouraged by many experts in the security field will cost much more than what was offered by the government yesterday. We need a stronger financial commitment. We need our federal government to stand and say that it recognizes the fight against terrorism will be a sustained one.

In closing, the budget is a start but it is not the whole enchilada. It is not what is needed by CSIS and the RCMP.

An act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am perhaps just following up on the comments of the hon. member who just spoke. I would point out that whenever we consider anything the government has done or is doing, we always do it with a certain degree suspicion because of its actions in the past.

I am not sure if I would completely agree with him that government members are acting in the most forthright manner in how they have handled the bill. It took a lot of effort by a great many individuals out in the real world, as well as all the opposition parties, to get them to split the bill into two bills. There has been considerable debate about that.

The one thing I would agree with him on is that at least we have had substantial debate on this bill and on this issue throughout its course through the Chamber. I only wish the Liberals would have applied that same high degree of debate and committee time to other legislation, notably Bill C-36, instead of invoking time allocation and ramming it through the House.

I will now focus my comments on report stage of Bill 15B, specifically the amendments that are before the House dealing with those sections and clauses that deal with the cruelty to animals. Like many who have spoke before me, I have heard from a great many of my constituents concerning this issue. I think all parliamentarians, regardless of party, have heard loud and clear from their constituents.

Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, this is an issue that to some degree pits urban versus rural people. Being from a riding that is roughly a quarter of the geographic size of British Columbia, a huge rural riding, the eighth largest riding in the country, obviously this bill and the way that the law, once enacted, could be interpreted by the courts is of great concern to the rural folks of Prince George--Peace River. They have made their concerns known to me.

Who are the stakeholders who have the greatest concerns with this legislation? Again, as other speakers from the coalition and other parties have stated, they are quite numerous. Medical researchers have been greatly concerned about the legislation because of the work they do in trying to advance the cause of disease prevention. Trappers certainly have reason to be concerned about it.

I want to specifically address hunters, guiding and outfitting and the economic benefit that this brings to my home province of British Columbia, specifically to my region of northeastern British Columbia, the Peace River--Prince George area. I also want to mention the potential for low income, local hunters as well. When we talk about big game hunting, we are not dealing specifically with guiding and outfitting. We are also dealing with the local hunters who are in many cases low income people who rely upon wild meat to provide a certain amount of sustenance to their families.

I remember my own youth. I am not sure exactly how much meat would have been in our diet, if we would not have had my father out hunting and getting the odd moose, or caribou or deer to put meat on the family table.

As well, people have raised concerns about the aboriginals. They have talked about their concerns with Bill C-15B and the provisions on cruelty to animals. The member from the Canadian Alliance who spoke before me is a past farmer like myself. He spoke quite eloquently about the potential impact on the agricultural sector industry and on people from his riding in Saskatchewan.

Let us use the case of farmers for example. If farmers had to spend time in the courts and incurred costs to defend themselves because of provisions of the law that would see them subjected to charges of cruelty to animals for their practices in the husbandry of animals and the way they raise their livestock, obviously at some point those costs would have to be passed on to the consumer. Although urban people may say that legislation such as Bill C-15B does not directly impact them, down the road it very well may.

Another stakeholder of concern is the rodeo industry. What will it mean for the Calgary Stampede, the Williams Lake rodeo and such organizations depending on the interpretation of the law down the road?

I am in support of the two amendments that I put forward on behalf of my colleague for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough who originally had the amendments in his name. I am disappointed that Motion No. 3 was ruled out of order because a similar motion had been made at committee stage. Therefore it was dropped and we will not get to vote on it at report stage. That motion would have removed the definition of “animal”. It is of great concern. My colleague from the Canadian Alliance spoke about that a few minutes ago.

Motion No. 9, which is also in my name, deals with the deletion of a clause that would move cruelty to animals from part XI to part VI which would take it away from the classification it has always had. For some 50 years we have had animals protected under the property section of the criminal code. Motion No. 9 would see that maintained for the future, rather than see it moved.

If the intent of the legislation is to increase the penalties to those who abuse animals, then obviously we would all find ourselves in agreement with the intent of the legislation. No one, except the cruellest of the cruel, would want to see insufficient laws or penalties in our country to deter abuse of animals. With the possible exception of child abuse, I cannot think of anything more horrendous than abusing a defenceless animal. If that was the case and the legislation was specifically targeted to that and it was very clearly defined, we would not have the problems that we see with the legislation. Unfortunately it is not clearly defined.

Interestingly enough, when I was having my morning coffee at home and was reading through the paper, I noticed a story in the Ottawa Citizen about a case of animal abuse and cruelty. A Belleville man who apparently had been out hunting after dark had mistakenly shot a pony instead of a deer. The article says he was drunk and stoned at the time. He received what I would classify as quite a harsh sentence. According to the story the man received five months for killing the pony and for animal cruelty and two months for an unrelated assault charge. In addition he received a fine.

The point I am making is that the laws we already have obviously can deal very harshly with those that are involved in the abuse of animals. That is good and is something we all support.

I would suggest that Bill C-15B is causing great concern for a number of industries. I wish I had more time to get into the potential impact it might have on industries such as guiding and outfitting, big game hunting and some of the other industries that are especially important not only to Prince George--Peace River but to all of British Columbia. Maybe at third reading I will have a chance to make those additional points.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address Bill C-15B. The title of the bill is an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

This bill was introduced at first reading on March 14, 2001, and at second reading on May 3 and 7, but it was not reviewed in committee before the summer recess of the 37th parliament.

The bill was split in two. It was the government's response to hundreds of letters and thousands of signatures from people asking for a more effective act regarding treatment, protection and penalties relating to animal cruelty.

Since most of the provisions of the criminal code on these issues dated back to the late 19th century, a growing number of associations and groups called for the legislation to be modernized, for the scope of the various offences to be considerably broadened, and for harsher penalties to be imposed for animal cruelty offences.

Because there is considerable support for a reform of the part of the criminal code dealing with animal cruelty, Bill C-15B gives rise to strong reactions and conflicting interests.

Initially, the Bloc Quebecois supported several elements of the bill, including the creation of a new part in the criminal code, which would see the transfer of provisions dealing with animals from part XI of the code, entitled “Wilful and Forbidden Acts in Respect of Certain Property”, to a new part 5.1, entitled “CrueIty to Animals”. However, the Bloc Quebecois can no longer support the bill, because it does not protect, among others, the legitimate activities of breeders, farmers, researchers, hunters and so on.

The purpose of this bill is to have more adequate means to deal with offenders who commit cruel and reprehensible acts against animals. The purpose of this reform is to protect animals.

However, while the Minister of Justice claims that the bill does not deprive the animal industry from its revenues, it would have been important to specify this in the legislation, so as to reassure the animal, farming, medical and sports industry regarding any risk of frivolous action.

This was not done. The minister simply amended the bill by adding the defences in paragraph 8(3) of the criminal code. The minister and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected the Bloc Quebecois' amendments, which would have explicitly added as a defence acting with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The Bloc Quebecois was in favour of the bill in principle if it could have been amended to reflect the means of defence earlier allowed in part XI of the criminal code. That is why the Bloc Quebecois asked that the means of defence in article 429 of the criminal code be added explicitly to new part 5.1 of the criminal code.

According to my colleague, who defended this position in committee, these amendments were not accepted by the government members. In all committees, all we hear from these members is no, no, no.

The Bloc Quebecois is also opposed to the bill because it seeks to take away a number of powers and responsibilities which now fall under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and give them to the chief firearms officer.

Since the gun registration scheme was first introduced, the Government of Quebec has set up agencies responsible for issuing permits—the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec. Briefly, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill because it does not explicitly protect the legitimate activities of the animal industry, hunters and those doing research, and it takes away the Government of Quebec's authority to enforce the Firearms Act.

Bill C-15B contains the present provisions of the criminal code concerning cruelty to animals and adds a number of new provisions. Since animals are now considered goods and not human beings, the offences and recourses possible are essentially minor.

Enforcement of the legislation as it now stands results only in damages for loss of goods. In addition, because sentences are lenient, they encourage repeat offences. Animal rights groups have repeatedly called for better protection with respect to cruelty to animals. Respect for human beings begins with respect for animals.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of increased protection for animals, but only provided there is protection for legitimate activities involving animals, animal husbandry, sport hunting and fishing, and research. Such is not the case, even after the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, for all of them were rejected. The purpose of those amendments was to improve this aspect of the bill.

The initial premise has to be that all those involved directly or indirectly in the livestock industry judge this bill unacceptable in its present form. For the great majority of them, these new provisions are likely to increase the possibility of criminal charges against those who work in the industry or who engage in recreational activities such as hunting and fishing.

The demands by the chicken protection coalition clearly illustrate the concerns raised by Bill C-15B. The board of the Quebec federation of poultry producers called unanimously upon the federal government to amend Bill C-15B so that livestock producers would retain the legal protection they enjoy at the present time and be able to continue to exercise their legitimate profession without any risk of complaints or charges. All of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois relating to this were turned down by the committee.

I would also like to mention that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is asking that the current wording of the provisions of Bill C-15B regarding cruelty to animals not be kept as is, but that it be amended to provide the agri-food sector with the legal protection that its members currently enjoy under the criminal code. It is a protection they deserve.

In conclusion, producers are asking for the protection of their livelihood and for the assurance that they will not be prosecuted for activities related to their work. The definition of animal could be a source of problems.

I would like to conclude by saying that the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois would have clarified certain provisions of the bill and would have made a clear distinction between hunters and people who voluntarily hurt animals just for the sake of seeing them suffer.

Unfortunately, the federal government has shown again its unwillingness to listen and its conviction that it knows it all. Had it been open to our excellent amendments, we could have supported this bill. However, such was not the case, and we will vote against the bill, because it needed to be improved.

It is obvious, with Bill C-27, Bill C-36, the one regarding marine conservation areas and all the bills that come before the House, that the government does not want to listen. It sees the opposition as totally useless.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the stated purpose of the bill would be to consolidate animal cruelty offences and increase the maximum penalties. The bill would also provide the definition of animal and removes cruelty to animal provisions from part XI of the criminal code, that is, the property offence section.

Many groups have expressed concerns about the legislation: agricultural groups, farmers, industry workers and, indeed, medical researchers. Just recently we received a letter from the author Pierre Berton expressing his profound concern on behalf of medical researchers about what the bill would do in the area of medical research.

Many of the groups in fact support the intent of the law, as its objective is to modernize the law and increase penalties for offences relating to animal cruelty. However, despite some minor tinkering with the legislation as demonstrated here today in the bill, which is coming from committee, these groups advise that the bill requires significant amendments before their concerns are addressed.

One of the central concerns with the bill is in fact that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. The phrase “legal justification or excuse and with colour of right” in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection for the offences found in respect of the property section. However, by moving the offences out of the property offence section and leaving the defences, in fact those defences no longer apply to the offences.

The minister, her staff and her parliamentary secretary have stated they somehow implicitly apply and that this should be good enough for members of the House and indeed for those who have expressed concerns about this legislation. However, when members of the Bloc and the Canadian Alliance asked Liberal government members to make the defences explicit in the new legislation, they refused.

Therefore I think there is a hidden agenda. There is a lack of frankness with the Canadian people about the true intent of what the bill is to accomplish. One of the interesting comments that the minister's parliamentary secretary made was in respect of the fact that one of the amendments to the bill will now confirm that the common law defences available under subsection 8(3) of the criminal code will continue to apply to any cruelty to animal offences.

Subsection 8(3) sets out the common law defences that we have inherited in our justice system and specifically already applies to all of the criminal code. It is not limited to any part. Yet the drafters of part XI, the property offence sections, found it necessary to include the specific defences that we find in section 429 relating to legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The parliamentary secretary said we would make it explicit that subsection 8(3) now applies to these offences that have been moved outside of the property section. Subsection 8(3) has always applied, so what the government is doing in a very disingenuous way is trying to lull people in agricultural or medical research or the other food production related businesses into believing that their concerns have now been met. In fact that is nonsense. Section 429 does not apply and those defences do not apply. To suggest that they implicitly apply is to mislead the Canadian people.

During committee I also listened with some astonishment to the fact that the minister had proposed screening mechanisms for all private prosecutions. We did not get a look at this. However, generally speaking, if there is controversial legislation, what ministers usually do, especially in the context of the criminal code, is require the consent of the provincial attorneys general to proceed with a prosecution in that jurisdiction. That is a time-honoured mechanism. The attorney general is there to prevent an abuse of the criminal court system.

The minister is now saying that she will not prevent these private organizations from bringing frivolous prosecutions by this time-honoured mechanism. We know that animal rights interest groups have indicated they will prosecute and take this law to the limits. Those are their words. However the minister has said that she will set up a screening mechanism which is very consistent with the type of cumbersome procedure that this government has enacted on previous occasions. Whether it is the organized crime legislation or Bill C-36, there is a real disconnect between the Department of Justice people who draft and propose these policy initiatives and the actual provincial prosecutors who have to go out and do the real work.

The mechanism being proposed is this. An information is sworn and then it is brought before a magistrate to prescreen to see if it is frivolous or vexatious. The purpose of requiring the information to be sworn is to determine that it is not frivolous and vexatious and that there are reasonable grounds to proceed. Now there will be another hearing at this stage. Imagine someone coming up in front of the magistrate saying that something is vexatious or frivolous. That person will be met now with another court hearing. Then the person could still be met with a certiorari application in the superior courts to quash the information. Then there is a possibility of a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for the matter to go to trial. Then we finally have the trial.

This is convoluted and is destructive of the criminal justice system. It will contribute to the backlog. Therefore, I am very concerned about the bill.

We have stated a number of reasons why the bill should not be supported. We have stated it in committee and we continue to voice our disapproval.

I want to make just a couple of comments in respect of the Liberal member who brought forward the animal service provision dealing with police dogs. We liked that amendment and supported it. What the Minister of Justice will do now with this amendment is water it down. I want the police officers and security agency people who use dogs in the course of their service to know that the Minister of Justice is watering down what a Liberal member first proposed.

My very last comment is that I support, and encourage my Canadian Alliance colleagues to support, Motion No. 7 brought forward by the Bloc member in respect of service animals.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues from other parties, I will be keeping my remarks on these amendments quite brief. I rise on behalf of the coalition to add some thoughts on this issue.

As others have said, there is more than just a touch of irony that the unelected other place was successful in getting these two substantive amendments to Bill C-24, despite the best efforts of opposition members, especially at the justice committee, to get similar amendments through in the House of Commons. Unfortunately that speaks volumes to the attitude of the government in its approach to legislation, specifically its approach to the consideration of amendments to its legislation.

Unfortunately something very similar transpired with Bill C-36 more recently, despite assurances from the government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice that adequate consideration, and a common sense approach, would be given to representations from individuals, groups, opposition MPs and its own backbenchers. Once again we saw a flawed process brought to a very speedy close with the use of time allocation.

I would like to congratulate the Senate for bringing forward these two amendments to Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation. I refer specifically to the one increasing independent review or civilian oversight. That is especially appropriate, but not only for this legislation.

Similar concerns were put forward not only by opposition members of parliament, but by groups concerned about the rights and privileges of individual Canadians and the risk of abuse by police forces in how they would implement the new powers contained in Bill C-36. Very serious efforts were put forward by a number of organizations, including the PC/DR, to have an independent oversight agency or individual hold the police and law enforcement agencies that would have the new powers, such as CSIS, accountable rather than individuals going to court to hold the government and law enforcement agencies accountable, if they felt their powers were being abused.

That is an important amendment to Bill C-24 made by the other place. Hopefully, something similar will be included in Bill C-36. The same concerns are being expressed about Bill C-42, which we are just now beginning to debate.

The fact that the system had to ultimately rely upon the Senate to bring forward amendments successfully points to a serious flaw, as other members from other parties have said, at the committee level and in the House of Commons. We do not have a system of free votes. I would argue very strenuously that if we had that, much better legislation would be passed in this place. That legislation would then go to the Senate and it might not be required to make amendments that should have made here originally.

Hopefully it is something the government will consider in the future. It is hoped the government will free up its members to vote more independently, especially when dealing with something as common sense as amendments being put forward to legislation at the committee stage. It could ultimately have the effect of parliament being more democratic and also of the House of Commons operating much more efficiently and effectively.

Legislation would come back from committee properly amended. I suspect there would be fewer amendments put forward at report stage on the floor of the Chamber. In many cases that is one of the few tools the opposition members have to draw public attention through the television cameras to what they feel is flawed legislation. They bring their amendments forward at report stage in the Chamber.

Obviously the legislation, as has been said before, is targeted at organized crime, specifically at some of the horrific activities of biker gangs, especially in the province of Quebec. We are all aware of those activities. We do not need to rehash those ongoing issues. We want to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the necessary resources, powers and the tools to combat organized crime wherever it occurs.

On that one specific issue, concern has been expressed by the coalition and by other parties about the financial resources available to our law enforcement agencies. In the eight year history of my involvement as a member of parliament I have spoken many times about the need to ensure adequate resources for the RCMP.

As the previous speaker for the Canadian Alliance alluded to, the legislation once it goes into effect can easily involve substantial expenditures by our police forces. That obviously would be at the local or city police level, provincial police forces or the RCMP, or presumably even an agency such as CSIS, in combating organized crime. It is much similar to the need for all those same agencies to wage the successful war against terrorism.

We want to ensure that we provide the tools that these agencies and law enforcement organizations require to do the job, to go head to head with organized crime and terrorists. We want to ensure that they have the adequate financial resources as well.

It is little help to them if we only say that we will make the necessary legislative changes to ensure that they have the power to do their jobs effectively and hold those individuals to account, whether those individuals are in organized crime, or undertake terrorist activities, or encourage others to undertake terrorist activities. It is simply not enough to give them the necessary legislative tools without giving them the financial resources.

Obviously all of us in this place and all Canadians will be watching with great interest the presentation of the finance minister's budget on Monday. We will be watching to see what financial resources will go hand in hand with the legislative tools to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the resources and funds necessary to take on organized crime and terrorists wherever they may be lurking and hiding and conducting their filthy business in our country.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the parliamentary secretary, the import of the amendments is to increase clarity and independent review with respect to the designations of public officers.

The amendments are timely. They are born of the rapid succession of bills brought forward by the government to deal with public security matters. There is a growing unease among Canadians that the government is not concerned about debating the principles or details of bills it brings forward. The unease has increased as a result of the Liberals' imposition of closure with respect to Bill C-36.

While the position of my party vis-à-vis the Senate, the other place, is clearly in favour of democratic reform and accountability, it is ironic that non-elected members of that house have more freedom to take steps to safeguard the security and traditional liberties of Canadians.

This is because of the shameful conduct of the Prime Minister. It is shameful that the House is no longer permitted to vote in accordance with the values of Canadians. The Prime Minister and the government consistently use the dispensation of political favour or the withholding of political favour to ensure government members vote in accordance with the Prime Minister's personal wishes.

I am prepared to recommend support for the amendments, perhaps as a result of the troubling conduct of the government over the past few months. The amendments are more necessary now than they were a few months ago.

Bill C-24 still has serious shortcomings. It is procedurally cumbersome. It would do nothing to streamline prosecutions. It would require substantial expenditures on the part of provincial and local police authorities. At the same time the federal government demonstrates increasing reluctance to fund the operations and prosecutions flowing from the legislation it passes.

Law enforcement in the country is being crippled by cumbersome legislation and inadequate resources. It is ironic that the member opposite stands and talks about improved definitions. We have seen this type of legislation add detail to the process without an appreciable increase in security.

I am prepared to recommend the amendments born of the concerns raised in the Senate. I urge the government to review this type of legislation and re-examine the principles underlying many of the bills it is passing. They are not effective. Nor do they do anything to enhance civil liberties in the country.

Aeronautics Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for his comments and his question. Obviously what we have seen transpire is of great concern to the very basis of democracy in this place. We have seen the government utilize time allocation and closure more than any previous government. That in and of itself is of great concern.

We saw the way the government handled Bill C-36 even though concerns were expressed, not only in this place, but in committee, by organizations from coast to coast, by every province and territory and by the average Canadians, about the potential for abuse in the area of civil rights and liberties. The government rammed the legislation through the House in the most undemocratic way possible with the use of time allocation. It shut down debate and, as my hon colleague alluded to, it shut off debate on amendments. There were some potentially excellent amendments brought forward by opposition parties which were never debated on the floor of the House. Some of the amendments were never debated in committee, despite the assurances of the Minister of Justice that we would have adequate debate and that there would be lots of time taken to ensure that we did it right. That was a very sad day for democracy, for Canada and for parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I will utilize all my time, but listening to the debate today I thought it would be a good opportunity to participate in the larger issue of the way the government is conducting the business of the House in its so-called fight against terrorism.

As I said to my colleague from the Bloc during questions and comments, I found myself agreeing with his overarching statement that one of the problems we in the House, let alone Canadians out in the real world, have with the government's approach to the war on terrorism is the way it is bringing in legislation.

We all recognize that while the legislation is hurried it must be done properly. There is not only a great need for the government to bring forward thoughtful legislation that will stand the test of time. It must allow the legislation to be open to amendments from all parties in the House. It must listen attentively to representations by people and organizations out in the real world who would ultimately be affected by the legislation we pass in this place.

Unfortunately what we have seen in the last two months or so, as my colleague was saying, is Bill C-36, the so-called anti-terrorism legislation; Bill C-35; and Bill C-42. Bill C-44 which we are debating today was hived off Bill C-42 because of the sense of urgency that the clause needed to be passed before the House rose for mid-winter break.

It is this approach that is causing consternation and concern among all opposition parties and to a certain degree the Canadian public. The government has not communicated an overall vision of what it intends to do to address the issue. It is encouraging the Canadian public to get back to business as usual.

We want to minimize the economic impact of the war on terrorism and the aftermath of the horrendous attacks. We all understand that. However the world has changed forever. People outside the Ottawa bubble recognize that at least as much as we do and possibly more. The world is not the same place. Canadians are looking to the government for leadership.

The government is bringing bills before the House one at a time. We in the opposition are expected to assist the government in making sure the best possible legislation is ultimately put into law, or at least sent to the other place for the Senate to consider. While we struggle with this it is extremely difficult if we do not understand the government's overall vision and exactly what it intends to bring forward.

As a number of individuals said prior to my remarks, we might react quite differently to legislation if we could see it within the overall context of what is coming down the road. We might be more supportive or more opposed.

We have no idea what bills the government may introduce between now and when the House rises next week. We do not know what it will bring forward in late January or early February to address different facets of the huge issue of terrorism and try to make our country, society and people safer and more secure.

As the previous speakers have said, we are supportive of the fact that the legislation before us today, Bill C-44, is very simple in nature. We are concerned about the lack of vision and foresight that the government continually exhibits and what that elicits in the minds of the public. It is not very comforting for the people of a country, who are looking for leadership, to see this piecemeal approach wherein legislation is very hurriedly brought in and then amended by the government amends.

In the case of Bill C-36, there were somewhere in the order of 100 amendments, the vast majority of which were brought forward by the government. Those types of procedures send a very clear message to Canadians that the government is not in control and that it does not have a clear plan. If it did, it would not have brought the bill forward and before it was barely in the House start looking at possible amendments, tearing it apart and rejigging it.

With Bill C-42, the government brought the bill forward, then rushed around and talked to all the opposition parties to see if there was some way the bill could be shuttled off to committee right away so the committee could hive off the clause that was needed right away. The government had some concerns about that because it wanted to adequately debate Bill C-42 on the floor of the House.

When the government ran into resistance with that, it then thought it could perhaps get unanimous consent to carve off one piece of the bill, submit it as new legislation in the form of Bill C-44 and then rush it through the House. That type of activity by the government is far from comforting or reassuring to Canadians, let alone to Americans.

I can well remember rising in my place to speak shortly after the House reconvened in late September. I believe it was the September 18, if memory serves me correctly. In my remarks at that time I suggested that it was incumbent upon the government to communicate to the Canadian people and Americans a vision of what it intended to do to make our country, and indeed our continent, more secure. Sadly, over two months have passed since the House reconvened and we have not seen that type of vision or comprehensive plan put forward by the government. We have not seen it communicate its plan is to Canadians and Americans or North Americans as a whole.

Instead, as my colleague from the Bloc just said, the government has brought forward one piece of legislation at a time thinking it could perhaps plug the problem with airline security, or airport security, or passenger lists or some potential problem at a seaport. I believe it is this piecemeal approach that is of great concern to the Canadian people. It does not send the proper message to Canadians or Americans that the government knows what it is doing on this all important issue.

My colleague from South Surrey--White Rock--Langley who spoke earlier on this legislation has done an incredible amount of work, not just in the last couple of months but in the last few years on the issue of border management. The issue of trade corridors is obviously of huge importance to her because her riding is very close to the U.S. border.

Cross-border trade is a big issue, not only to all Canadians but to the Americans as well. Eighty per cent of our trade is with the Americans and one-quarter of theirs is with us. However it also is a huge issue for her and to people of her riding. She has done an incredible amount of work on this very complex issue of border management, even prior to the horrendous terrorist attacks of September 11 and the fallout those attacks.

Unfortunately what we are witnessing now is a tightening of security at the U.S. border. The coalition has argued that that tightening of our entry points should be on a continental perimeter rather than restricted only to the American-Canadian border. I know this is of grave concern to local politicians. The mayors and councils of the cities closest to the U.S.-Canada border have become quite involved because they have recognized the fallout. Whether it is Quebec and the New England states, or the Windsor border area of Ontario or at different points across western Canada, this problem has affected the vast majority of Canadians, and we want to see it solved.

That is why my colleague, on behalf of the coalition, put forward more of a comprehensive plan, or a vision, on greater border management and security. One of the facets of the plan is a binational or bilateral agency to exchange freely information between the United States and Canada by setting up a databank computer system. By doing that our systems would be fully integrated and both countries would know exactly what was going back and forth across the border. We would then have the reassurance that both countries would know what is going on.

I am reminded of the example I used when I spoke to the issue back home in my riding of Prince George--Peace River during the November break week. I was talking to some Rotary clubs and chambers of commerce in the riding. I made the comment about the banks designing a bank card which could be used almost everywhere in the world. People could go to an international bank, put in a bank card and get money out in local currency. That truly is amazing when one thinks about it. If the banks could design something like that, then surely to goodness two countries with so much at stake, as Canada and the United States have on the issues of security and safety for our citizens, could design an integrated computer system and establish an agency to monitor that system. By doing that, both countries could feel comfortable in knowing who and what goods were travelling back and forth across our common border.

I commend my colleague for the work she has done on this issue and I commend our proposal put forward by the coalition on November 1. I know that she has had discussions with some Americans and American agencies on this issue and that the vision of a new way of managing the border between the U.S. and Canada has been relatively well received. It could bear some great fruit on how we approach this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be a little bit clearer. The Bloc Quebecois and, I believe, Quebecers and Canadians as a whole, would have liked to hear the government say: “This is what we intend to do to fight terrorism. A bill will deal with an issue, and another one with another issue. Bill C-42 will be about this and that”. We would have liked the government to explain the approach on which is based the anti-terrorism legislation we are going to pass.

This does not mean that everything should be put in a single bill. I agree with the member who said that an omnibus bill always contains elements that are frightening or that we would like to oppose, and others elements that are interesting and we would like to support.

Right now, we are in between: we do not know what to do and we feel the government tried to slip us a pill we did not want along with something we did. I have always been against such an approach. I have always said that the government should not proceed in such a way and I still hold that view.

We would have liked the government to show the political courage it seems to lack and spell out everything it wanted in terms of the legislation to fight terrorism.

I can immediately say that if we had been shown Bills C-35, C-36, C-42 and C-44, and if I had examined them with my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, we would not have supported Bill C-36 at second reading, because it went too far, because it was not consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and because it lacks the proper balance between national security and individual and group rights.

The government decided to introduce Bill C-36 first, and then Bill C-35. Still later, it came up with Bill C-42, which was supposed to be extremely important and which had to be passed in a hurry before the holiday season. Suddenly, we found out that the only very important part in this 100 page bill could hold on a single 8½ X 11 sheet of paper.

What are we to believe in everything this government is saying? This is called a piecemeal approach.

I congratulate the government on this initiative to have the minister remove a clause from the bill and introduce new legislation, Bill C-44. I agree with the splitting of this part, which will allow us to support it, although not wholeheartedly as I was saying earlier on Bill C-44, but in general. My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel made a very eloquent speech in this regard.

We will indeed support this bill, even if we might add that the government has gone too far and that it is not abiding by the promises it made regarding the regulations. We will support it because life has to go on, particularly since many people deal with the United States in Quebec and in Canada. A lot of people travel, et cetera. On January 18 or 19, there would be a problem if we did not have legislation. Therefore we are going ahead with this.

But the government might be going too far. For the rest of Bill C-42, when the debate will be held, when all of that will be examined in committee, we will realize once more that it is really going too far and that we have to analyze all the pieces of the puzzle to understand the government's approach to the fight against terrorism.

I sincerely hope that there will be opposition members, who have done an excellent job on these rights, as well as some government members, such as the hon. member for Mount Royal, who told reporters before the bill was passed that it made no sense and he would be voting against it, but yet when the time came to vote, he stood up and voted the same as the rest of the government.

I trust they will be logical in their thinking, and will not yield to the government's pressure, the pressure it puts on every time it introduces bills of this kind.

I think I have been sufficiently clear this time on how I see things, and I believe I am not alone in my views. I think this is what the public wants, and it deserves to have the government act according to its wishes.

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

Mr. Speaker, since this morning, I have been listening carefully to the debate about this very important bill. When I heard what the Bloc Quebecois member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel had to say, I decided to speak to the bill myself, given its importance.

The House will understand that this is an issue which the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has followed closely and on which he has done a considerable amount of work. He advises and informs the Bloc Quebecois members on this topic. I listened to him earlier and several things that he said about Bill C-44 caught my attention. I am thinking of such things as all the legislative measures that the government has put in place to fight terrorism, and the atmosphere that has been created as a result.

I simply had to speak because this is an issue that is terribly important to me, since it touches on key concepts, on the criminal code and related legislation. It is important for the legal system of Canada and of Quebec. I therefore decided to rise and speak.

As my colleague said, this is a very important bill, which will influence our justice system for years to come. To give a bit of context, it must be recalled that the government began by introducing Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. This bill gave various powers to ministers, including the solicitor general and the Minister of National Defence, with respect to arrests without warrant, very broad electronic eavesdropping, and so forth. It is a very complex piece of legislation, whose principle we agreed with, and we thought we should support it. That is what we did.

But we had such major reservations that, in the end, we voted against the bill at third reading. At the time, we thought that this was the government's anti-terrorism measure. Surprise, surprise. We see that Bill C-35 contains all sorts of clauses giving increased powers to the RCMP, special powers to peace officers during visits by foreign heads of state. So there is another anti-terrorism measure.

Then came another such measure—this is basically how Bill C-44 came about—it was Bill C-42. Bill C-42 is highly complex. As we said earlier, it is about a hundred pages long. Once again, more powers are given to ministers, the solicitor general and the Minister of Defence. Interim orders may be taken and military zones may be created. This is another legislative measure to combat terrorism.

That is when we said “This is too much, this is going too far”. We cannot even support Bill C-42 in principle, because it disregards the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and gives far too broad powers to one single man or woman. We need to examine this more closely. We need to take time to study the whole issue.

Once again, the government is rushing us. The government is gagging us. It introduced motions to study all of these bills quickly under the pretext that we had to meet international requirements.

According to the government, Bill C-42 responds to important international requirements. Is this not strange? When the government realized that it was not able to rush the bill through before the holidays, is it not strange that it managed to limit to one page what had to be passed by then? It is as though all of the rest of Bill C-42 confirmed what we on this side of the House have been saying all along: the events of September 11 were a pretext for this government to turn upside down a number of statutory approaches.

The events of September 11 have provided the government with the opportunity to grab the powers it has always dreamed of, but lacked the political guts to.

This is so much the case that they have taken what was important on the international scene and put it into a bill to be called Bill C-44, the provisions of which fit on an 8½ x 11 sheet of paper.

These important provisions concern air travel, and I will be returning to that later.

What is of concern to me is the improvisational approach the government, which claims to be a responsible government, is taking at present. It is improvising legislation of great importance, seemingly not knowing where it is headed.

This is so much the case that, at one point, the government imposed a gag order for Bill C-36, and the next day we were forced to adjourn at 4 p.m., or maybe it was 5 or 5.30 p.m., I do not remember, because there was nothing left on the order paper. There was nothing more to look at. That shows lack of vision, not knowing where they are headed.

This improvisation goes back to the very start. For weeks on end, the response from the other side when opposition members, particularly the official opposition, were asking the government whether there ought not to be anti-terrorism legislation in Canada, was that it was not needed, that we already had all the legislation required.

Then overnight, two weeks later, a complex bill was introduced; a week later, another; a week later, yet another. Today, the government came up with a bill that we absolutely must pass before Christmas, one that is going to be divided in two. When it comes down to it, it all boils down to one clause.

I feel the government does not know where it is going. This is dangerous when something as important as rights and freedoms are concerned.

The objective we have always tried to attain, with bills C-36, C-35, C-42 and now C-44, is to strike a balance between national security and individual and group rights. This is hardly complicated.

We have an international reputation, and deservedly so, of being a country where rights are preserved. At least, that reputation used to be deserved. We have case law, lawyers to apply it, judges who bring down good decisions. There are some very important elements on which to focus, to invest. It is a good thing for the country, in a way,to live in a place where that balance can be sought.

In all these bills, including Bill C-44 currently before us, we have always been able to draw on the expertise of lawyers, people who for years have worked with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with individual and group rights. There are even experts among the Liberal government members, including the member for Mount Royal, who claims to be—and I think it is true—a great defender of individual and group rights.

They all, including the member for Mount Royal, criticized bills C-36, C-42, and C-44 now before us.

I read in the papers that the member for Mount Royal criticized Bill C-42, which is in a way the starting point for Bill C-44. He said it was problematic because it upset the balance between the executive, legislative and judiciary branches. The executive is being given more powers. He says he will oppose it.

I should be rejoicing, but I will not be. Why? Because the member for Mount Royal said the same thing about Bill C-36.

Once the steam roller passed on the other side, he did what the majority of Liberals did, he voted in favour of Bill C-36. But those who appeared before the committee, the civil liberties union of Canada, the great and true defenders of individual and group rights continues to condemn this bill, which will come into effect one day, because it has been passed by the House.

I have no illusions about Bill C-42 and Bill C-44. However, I must say that the government opposite has a knack. It has a way of getting many people to swallow affronts. It has a magic potion that makes people accept things they would otherwise reject. It worked with us at first and second reading of Bill C-36. But it did not work afterward, because we saw them coming from miles away.

However, this way of doing things may work with the public as long as it does not see the real impact of the legislation. This is the case with Bill C-44.

The government tells us “We moved an amendment in committee, with the result that the privacy commissioner agrees with the whole thing. Things are fine. There is no problem”. Still, when I look at Bill C-44 and at the amendment, I am very concerned.

What is Bill C-44? It is an act which, once in force, will allow the government to provide information on air travellers. This information will not only include names, addresses and passport numbers: it will be much more detailed. The government says that, thanks to this amendment, the privacy commissioner agrees with the legislation and there is no problem, since everything will be secure. I will read the amendment.

No information provided under subsection (1) to a competent authority in a foreign state may be collected from that foreign state by a government institution, within the meaning of section 3 of the Privacy Act, unless it is collected for the purpose of protecting national security—

I have no problem with that.

—or public safety.

This is where I have a problem. Public safety is a very broad concept. What is public safety? For example, could a department such as Human Resources Development Canada get from the United States information relating to a monetary issue, for reasons of public safety?

It will be up to the courts to interpret this provision. But in the meantime, how will this provision be applied? Will there be abuse? We must never forget that, to fully understand the meaning of this bill, it must be examined along with all the other acts that will come into effect at the same time. We need all the pieces of the puzzle to fully understand the scope of the government's anti-terrorism legislation.

This is worrisome. I cannot see how this amendment can reassure the privacy commissioner, particularly since the governor in council will define through regulations the information that travellers will have to disclose to the government. The government had promised us that we would have the regulations.

As the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel has said on numerous occasions, we asked for copies of these regulations. We asked for the information. The government always stalled.

At some point, we felt that we could not wait any longer, that we wanted something in our hands. It sent us a summary of what might be in the regulations. As everyone knows, a summary is always the minimum. When we see the actual regulations, it is clear that the government added little things that it never told us about. It is clear even from the summary that a lot of information is required, even a passenger's social insurance number, telephone number, itinerary, everywhere he has travelled. This is far-reaching.

Using public safety as an excuse, a minister can ask the United States for this information. In other words, it will be possible for someone to invoke public safety and do indirectly something that is outright illegal in Canada. This is using the events of September 11 for highly political ends.

The more we look at the legislative measures, such as Bill C-36, Bill C-35, Bill C-44 and Bill C-42, the closer we get to a police state. That is what is disturbing. I am not saying that this will happen tomorrow morning, but all the ingredients are there to set the stage for a rather ugly situation, a way of doing things which is foreign to Canada and to Quebec. I do not want to live in such a country.

Everyone knows our party's platform. This shows once again that it is high time that Quebecers cast off this central authority, which shows unbelievable arrogance in passing legislation as important as this.

The principle of the bill is understandable, as is the fact that we must have legislation to comply with certain international obligations and with American legislation. The Americans have the right to pass the laws they wish when it comes to their country's security. If they want to allow our carriers to land in their country, I understand that we do not have a big say.

This is why we will support Bill C-44. However, this is another example of the way the government really thinks. It uses an obligation to give itself even greater powers and to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. This flagrant lack of political courage needs to be stressed. But we should stress even more the ad hoc attitude this government has shown throughout the whole process by introducing piecemeal legislation to deal with terrorism.

The opposition would probably have had cooperated fully with the government if it had proceeded through a single bill. However, to do so you must know what you want to do. This may be where the problem lies: the government does not know where it is going, which explains why it deals with such an important issue in a piecemeal way. This is very concerning, because this approach will taint the legislation as a whole and the Canadian way of doing things.

I conclude by saying that we will support Bill C-44 reluctantly, considering that its object is to meet certain obligations. But the government should get its act together and deal with such an important issue much more seriously.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act. As has been mentioned earlier by my colleagues from other parties, the bill was the result of significant co-operation by opposition parties in the House.

It would enable the government to remove a section of Bill C-42 and bring it forth as an urgent piece of legislation to address the concerns of the United States regarding access to information with respect to passenger lists on flights within Canada.

As I indicated, there was great co-operation on behalf of the opposition parties in allowing this to take place. We all recognize in the House that there is urgency in a number of areas to address the problems that have come forth as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11. There has been great co-operation in trying to address those concerns.

Bill C-44 would give airlines the right to release information to the government of the United States in regard to passenger lists. I will read a descriptive note we got in committee regarding section 4.83 which would be included in the Aeronautics Act:

It relieves air carriers from certain requirements of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and allows them to provide passenger information to foreign authorities, where foreign law requires such information.

Subsection 4.83(2) authorizes the making of regulations generally for the purposes of carrying out section 4.83, including regulations respecting the type of information that may be provided to the foreign authority, as well as the foreign authorities to which the information may be provided.

At committee we are given a rationale. For Canadians and others listening to this, here is the rationale:

This section is necessary to allow air carriers to pass on passenger information to foreign authorities, but only in circumstances where foreign law requires such information as a pre-condition to landing in that country.

At first blush this does not seem to be a big issue. Canadians have recognized as have people throughout the world that times have changed. We are willing to accept that there may be some infringements on our privacy rights and civil liberties. Canadians recognize this and we in the House have recognized it. We have been open to it.

The concern is that the government is not as forthright about the type of information it would include. My colleague from the Bloc stressed this point and it is important to stress it. The legislation does not specify what the information would be.

As we met in committee and wanted to know what type of information would be requested we were given only the intent of the regulations. We were told the intent of the information the government would include. The reason we could only get the intent of the regulations was that the government does not know what will be requested. That is a scary point.

The Government of Canada is putting in place legislation but will not include in it the specific information that is required because it does not yet know. It has said that. The Americans have not told the government exactly what they need.

As a citizen of Canada, a sovereign nation, I have a real problem with agreeing to put in whatever information on the basis of the request of another country.

I recognize the need to address the problem of terrorism and to identify terrorists. However I have a real problem with a government that would leave a blanket opening in a bill to put in whatever regulations it likes and decide whatever information can be released without allowing it to be debated in the House of Commons so that members who represent all Canadians can have a say.

There was concern at committee. Concerns were raised and not only by opposition members. There was concern from a few Liberal members on the committee. There was concern about the type of information the government would then release.

The reason that concern is there is that there is not a lot of faith in the government. There is not a lot of faith on the part of opposition members or Canadians that the government will act respectfully on behalf of Canadian citizens first and not buckle down to what the Americans say. Quite frankly, I am not against Americans and the U.S. The bottom line is that my priority and what we are here for is to represent Canadians first. That is not happening. It is not happening in a number of areas, but specifically the government is not putting the respect and the privacy of Canadians first. As my colleague from the Bloc has mentioned as well, the U.S. legislation specifies exactly what information will be required. This does not happen here.

At committee we did attempt to at least have this intensive schedule of the type of information that would be requested. We tried to have it put within the legislation but were unable to have it passed at committee.

My party thinks the way the government is intending to deal with this, although we do not really know for sure yet, is to have schedules. Schedule I would be the type of information that the foreign states will receive on absolutely all passengers. They would receive some information on everyone. Should they then request information on specific passengers there would be schedule II, which would be the type of information that will be asked for on those passengers. The bottom line is that they could request the schedule II information on every single passenger. There is nothing to restrict that from happening. Schedule III, in section 1, lists the countries that the government has agreed to give this information to. Again, it is only in schedule, in regulation, and is not part of the legislation, so the government at its whim can change it. The government can add on one, two, three or fifty countries and release the information within their schedules, and we do not know what they will be yet. The government could release that information to those countries.

I have a concern about this. I will give members an idea of what the schedule I information is. Quite frankly, the privacy commissioner did not have a big issue with schedule I. The privacy commissioner thought, under specific reasons, schedule II was not a problem either. However even the privacy commissioner felt it would be much better if these schedules were incorporated into the legislation.

There is one thing that we are very clear about after listening to the privacy commissioner. He is in place to respect Canadians and to act on their behalf. It says a lot when we must have a separate commissioner to act on behalf of the privacy of Canadians because we cannot trust the government to do it. This is a crucial point.

Schedule I is the information that would be given to a foreign state on all passengers:

1. The surname, first name and initial or initials, if any, of each passenger or crew member.

2. The date of birth of each passenger or crew member.

3. The citizenship or nationality, or failing either of these, the country that issued travel documents for the flight, of each passenger or crew member.

4. The gender of each passenger or crew member.

5. The passport number or, if the person does not have a passport, the number on the travel document that identifies the person, of each passenger or crew member.

At first blush, it is basic information. I think a lot of us who travel tend to think that information pretty much is available to a lot of people anyway because we book through our travel agent, through other charter companies, through the airlines and we know we are all tied to reservation systems. I think there are a lot of us out there who do not really believe that any information on the computer is private anyway because we know a lot of people seem to be able to access that information. At first blush it is not a big issue.

Where it gets a little touchy is in schedule II. Schedule II mentions things such as:

1. A notation that the passenger's ticket for a flight is a one-way ticket.

2. A notation that a passenger's ticket for the flight is a ticket that is valid for one year and that is issued in travel between specified points with no dates or flight numbers--

It goes on. There are actually 29 notations as to the type of information, but again, this could change. There could be numerous other bits of information that the government at its whim could add to the regulations at any given point.

Schedule II continues:

1. The phone numbers of the passenger and, if applicable, the phone number of the travel agency that made the travel arrangements.

2. The passenger name record number.

3. The address of the passenger and, if applicable, of the travel agency that made the travel arrangements.

4. A notation that the ticket was paid for by a person other than the passenger.

Also there is one that was of considerable concern to a number of members:

1. The manner in which the ticket was paid for.

Again there was a concern. It would be fine here if it just requested to know whether it is by cheque, cash or credit card, but there was a concern that the credit card numbers might be included in the information. One of the concerns the airlines have raised is the amount of the costs that would be incurred if they had to input a whole lot more information or if the information requested had to be disseminated from the information they already have. In other words, areas would have to be blanked out so there would be increased costs to the airlines.

A number of us recognized that at this time there is a need for increased security and without question the safety and security of passengers in the air and on the ground has to be the priority, but we do not want to put the airlines in any greater financial difficulty than they are already. There was concern that the credit card information the airlines have would end up flowing if they just hand over whatever information they have.

As well, there was concern that when the information is handed over to those receiving the information, whatever government departments it might be, they might then pass on information, whether to different bits of industry or possibly back to the country from which it came. I was pleased that the amendment the privacy commissioner suggested to the committee and to the government was agreed to unanimously by the committee. It was put forth at report stage and accepted.

The amendment put forth by the privacy commissioner states:

That Bill C-44, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 1 with the following:

Restriction--government institutions

(2) No information provided under subsection (1) to a competent authority in a foreign state may be collected from that foreign state by a government institution, within the meaning of section 3 of the Privacy Act, unless it is collected for the purpose of protecting national security or public safety or for the purpose of defence, and any such information collected by the government institution may be used or disclosed by it only for one or more of those purposes.

It is crucial to note that up until that amendment came in there was no safeguard as to what would happen with the information. It is definitely an improvement to the bill.

I also note that there is no reciprocal agreement between the United States and Canada or, for that matter, between any other foreign state and Canada so that foreign states would have to give that information to our security services within Canada.

The reason we had to make these changes within our legislation and allow the airlines to give that information is that we do have a Privacy Act that represents the rights of Canadians. There is no such act in the U.S. That information can already be given if the airlines decide to do it, but the bottom line is that they do not have to. Our government has not ensured that there will be a reciprocal agreement because it was not there saying it would stand up for the rights of Canadians. It was in there jumping when the U.S. said “Give this to us right now or you're not flying into our country”. That is what it was about.

Quite frankly, the privacy commissioner commented on that as well. He commented on how it was unjust. I will not use his exact words, because there were some who were not happy with his words. I did not have a problem with them. He thought it was somewhat unjust that the U.S. would demand the information right now and not give Canadians and the Parliament of Canada a reasonable period of time in which to have input and debate. Normally we would get a bill, take it to committee and witnesses would be able to come to committee. Citizens of Canada who had objections would be able to possibly appear before committee, but because the U.S. wanted the information immediately or it would disallow or restrict flights into the U.S., no opportunity was given to have the legislation to go through the normal process within the Parliament of Canada.

That is not just unjust but is really a show of disrespect and disregard, I believe, for the relationship that Canada has with the U.S. We have not been a confrontational northern neighbour. We have been a willing, caring, approachable neighbour. Canada has worked well with countries throughout the world, not just with the U.S. It is not acceptable that at the whim of the Americans, at the snap of their fingers, the government jumps to the tune of the U.S. government. We are here to represent Canadians. We are not here to jump.

The minister responsible for the issues relating to softwood lumber is in the House. Frankly, the softwood lumber issue has been quite an annoyance for me simply because I am greatly concerned that this government is going to buckle under and sell out our forestry workers in B.C. and throughout Canada. I am concerned that the government will sell out workers in general who have fought to maintain raw logs within Canada for value added jobs within the country. I am concerned that U.S. officials are going to snap their fingers and demand that raw logs head down to the U.S. so its sawmills and plants can operate and to heck with Canadian workers.

Quite frankly, I see this government buckling under and I think that is what we are going to see over the holidays. Merry Christmas, forestry workers in Canada, and from the Government of Canada, no jobs, as we send the present of raw logs down to the U.S. Merry Christmas. It has been disappointing to see this from our government.

I also want to comment on Bill C-42, the public safety act, from which this legislation was taken so it could be rushed through to address the concerns of the Americans. We expected a lot more decisive action on the part of the government with respect to that bill. Bill C-42 gives a lot of power to a lot of ministers but there is not a whole lot of oversight to ensure they act responsibly. Again, the government does not have the respect of Canadians for its actions. It is becoming very clear that Canadians do not expect the government to act on their behalf.

That became quite clear last week when Bill C-36 was before us. I wish to say again that I believe opposition parties in the House have been very willing to co-operate with the government to try to move legislation forward to address the issues that came up as a result of September 11. What we saw last week was a show of absolute disregard for the voices of Canadians, with closure implemented on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, which is one of the most crucial pieces of legislation to come before the House and one of the most crucial pieces of legislation infringing on the civil liberties of Canadians. The government invoked closure. Was there any need for it? Was there a big rush for it? Was somebody running off to a Christmas party so that legislation concerning the civil liberties of Canadians had to be rushed through? Was there some other absolutely urgent piece of legislation that we had to get before the House? Did we have to make sure all of this was done before the Christmas break? Was that more important than listening to the comments parliamentarians were hearing from citizens in their ridings?

We are still hearing comments about this. I would wager that the greatest number of comments coming through on everybody's e-mail were telling us to get rid of Bill C-36 because it does not have to be like this. We do not have to go to the great length of infringing on the civil liberties of Canadians in order to address terrorist concerns and we can fight terrorism without all the infringements within Bill C-36.

What is crucially important is to recognize that this government invoked closure and then had no business to deal with. Talk about a slap in the face for the rights of Canadians. The government did not want to hear any more debate on Bill C-36 because it wanted this legislation and would not listen to anybody else. That is what it appears to be and it is not acceptable.

At some point I expect that Canadians will let the government know what they think about it, whether it be before the next election or at the time of the next election. I do not think we will see the arrogant kind of approach to the views of Canadians and parliamentarians that we have been seeing over the last while.

I hope the government recognizes that Canadians are not happy with that, will take it to heart and will not continue with this type of approach in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill C-44, which was split as suggested by the Bloc Quebecois. This is part of Bill C-42, which was a follow-up to Bill C-36.

I would like to help Quebecers and Canadians who are listening understand how it is that Bill C-42 ended up being introduced in the House on November 22, 2001. This bill is 98 pages in length. The bill is considered to be a measure of extreme urgency. This is the second anti-terrorist bill, the first one being Bill C-36.

Thanks to the Bloc Quebecois' actions, particularly questions to the government on the relevance of Bill C-42, it became clear that the only true measure in Bill C-42 that needs to be dealt with in a hurry is the one which became Bill C-44, a bill that is one page long. Bill C-44, which we are discussing today, is essentially a measure to align Canadian legislation with that of the U.S.

I will come back to this, because since September 11, all this government has done is harmonize our policy and procedures with the U.S., because it has no initiative, nor has it ever had any.

All this government does, is go along with what is done elsewhere. Obviously, one can understand that when events as tragic as those that occurred in the United States happen, it is our duty, as neighbours, to adopt security measures.

We would hope and wish that all of these security measures would respect the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians, rights that are so important to our democratic society which, we hope, preserves our personal rights and freedoms at all times.

If ever we were to violate these rights, we would quite simply be conceding to terrorists. Once again, they would win if we were to make any significant changes that would result in a violation of our rights and freedoms. That is what the Liberal government has been doing since this crisis.

In the end, the week of November 22 was a difficult week for the Liberal government. First, there was Bill C-36. For two weeks now, since November 22 when the bill was introduced in the House and debate was stifled, the Liberal government has gagged debate on this bill, the first antiterrorist bill for which more than 80 witnesses were heard.

In the end, the government passed the bill, in spite of the recommendations and in spite of the 66 very relevant amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois. In particular, we were asking a sunset clause to be included in this anti-terrorist bill, which was obviously aimed at limiting the rights of Quebecers and Canadians.

We all felt, like the majority of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, that this bill had to cease to be in force after three years. We see what is happening elsewhere, in other societies and in other countries. We should already plan an end to this bill, which would compel us to review it in its entirety. In the meantime, again, the Bloc Quebecois moved an amendment requiring an annual review of the bill to ensure that rights and freedoms are respected.

Of course, the Liberal government rejected all these amendments. It would much rather keep on violating rights and freedoms as much as possible and appropriating all the power it can.

We always wonder why a government that should be working in the best interests of its population acts in such a way. I keep telling our listeners that we have to be careful because a government always want to control things.

In Bill C-36, the government made sure it had control over pretty well everything, including the rights and freedoms of the people in this country, especially Quebec, which concerns me. It is difficult when the ministers, who have made statements in the House on Bills C-36, C-42 and C-44, tell us we will be able to exercise our rights in committee, we will be able to make amendments there and they will listen to us there. But this is not the case. This is the harsh reality for our viewers.

The government does not listen to us. It listens to itself. It does not even listen to the recommendations of its own members. There are members of the Liberal Party who were opposed. Some did not vote for Bill C-36.

Today in the papers, a Liberal member was very critical of Bill C-42. So, obviously, we are not the only ones defending the rights and freedoms of people in Quebec and Canada.

Few people in the Liberal Party, only one member in fact, since the advent of the important Bills C-36 and C-42, have opposed the direction taken by the Liberal government. It is all to his credit, but it reflects very badly on all the others who blithely follow the recommendations of officials and, more importantly, the directives of ministers. That is what is hard to accept.

This is what the citizens of Quebec and Canada must understand. They are lucky, in the end, there are still opposition parties in the House that can ask the right questions and, more importantly, hold the real debates, which do not take place in the House. The real debates are in the media, through the media, which have stepped in because that is the way it works here in the House.

We are not heard. Our amendment proposals are not heard. Once again, the media hear the recommendations and especially the real substantive debates contributed by the opposition parties.

A very important substantive debate, initiated by the Bloc, among others, in fact by my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm, was the one on Bill C-36. The debate is not over yet. Daily resolutions arrive in our offices in protest over Bill C-36. The people of Quebec and Canada call on us daily to oppose Bill C-36, but it was passed in the House.

Even if we wanted to help them, we can no longer do so. There was a gag order. The Liberal government, unilaterally, put an end to discussions on Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act. Yet, the day after, there was no debate in the House for two hours because there was nothing to debate. This is the harsh reality. We have to live with that every day.

Earlier we had a substantive discussion the hon. member for Champlain initiated on the sad situation of some 278,000 seniors who are deprived of the guaranteed income supplement simply because they are not unaware that they are entitled to it. A House committee, which includes Liberal members, has unanimously put this terrible situation before the House.

Today the hon. member for Champlain wanted to debate the issue. Of course, the government has once again forced, by a vote, an end to the debate. Therefore, we were unable to learn the positions of the members of the Liberal Party, the Canadian Alliance or other opposition parties on this terrible issue where 230,000 seniors, men and women, have been for many years deprived of money they are entitled to. That is the harsh reality members of parliament have to deal with.

We try to initiate debates in the House. Today the government forced us to vote on having the House proceed to the orders of the day. Of course, once again, the harsh reality is that debates will be delayed. Meanwhile, just before the holiday season, there are seniors, men and women, who will not get such big sums, which would ensure them to enjoy a nice holiday season. The Liberal government chose not to hold a debate on this substantive report, which pointed to the existence of this tragic situation.

Again, I thank the Bloc Quebecois member for Champlain, who raised that issue. He held a press conference to highlight this sad situation, where 230,000 Canadians, men and women, including 64,000 Quebecers, who are entitled to income supplement, are not getting that money.

This is over $3.2 billion that the government kept unjustifiably and that belongs to them. The government cannot tell us today that it is unable to reach them. When it wants them to go voting, when it is doing the census, it goes knocking on their doors and gets them.

However, when the time comes to help them and give them what is owed to them—this is not money that they owe the government; it is money that the government owes them—what the Liberal government does is hide the money, through all kinds of forms that are so complicated that, eventually, people are unable to submit them or, in the case of some seniors, they cannot even read them.

These past two weeks have been very difficult for the Liberal government, which is not listening at all to the people, which is not listening at all to the thoughtful and smart recommendations that may come from opposition parties, and even from its own ranks.

I will continue with Bill C-42 that is leading us to Bill C-44.

Bill C-42 was introduced in the House on November 22. We had a difficult debate on this bill. Right from the start, the Bloc Quebecois was able to clearly read the intentions of the government, especially concerning major powers that it is now giving to ministers, and them alone. These are powers delegated to ministers, including the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Agriculture and other ministers in this House, powers to take interim orders without being subject to parliamentary procedure.

In this regard, when regulations are prepared, there is a very important procedure requiring that regulations be submitted to the Privy Council so that it can ensure that they are in accordance with the charter of rights and freedoms. Ministers have been given the power to take interim orders. This obviously goes against the whole parliamentary procedure.

Quebecers and Canadians who are listening should be aware that, were it not for the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties, Bill C-42 would have been passed before the holiday season. The government was determined to ram Bill C-42 through the House. Finally, when direct questions were put to the leader of the government by the Bloc Quebecois and others as to what could not have been done on September 11 that could now be done under the bill, no answer was forthcoming.

The only answer we got about Bill C-44 was “The Americans have their requirements. They want to check the information on passengers. If we want Canadian airlines to do business in the United States, they will have to provide the information required by the American government”.

Naturally, we asked questions to the government House leader. Among other things, we asked him why the urgent provisions would not be included in a separate bill, since we have to meet the requirements of the American legislation by January 18. That is why we have Bill C-44 before us today, and I obviously have comments to make on this bill.

But I have more to say about Bill C-42. When this legislation was introduced in the House, we were opposed to these interim orders which, without any input from the House, give discretionary powers to ministers and even allow the Minister of National Defence to create military security zones without the authorization, which has normally always been required, of the provincial governors in council. Thus, it is an exceptional power that is given only to the Minister of National Defence.

For the benefit of our listeners, let me quote from an article published in today's La Presse , that sums up well the position of one Liberal member. Manon Cornellier, from the La Presse bureau in Ottawa, wrote:

If Bill C-42 on public security is not amended, the Liberal member for Mount Royal told Le Devoir that he will have to vote against it. He thus becomes the first government member to show publicly his disagreement with this legislation.

The problem with this legislation is that it upsets the balance between the executive, parliamentary and judiciary arms. More powers are given to the executive.

Of course, the article refers to the Liberal member for Mount Royal, an internationally known lawyer and law teacher at McGill University. The article goes on to say:

A first study of Bill C-42 prompted the member to worry about the provisions that will allow the creation of military security zones and those that will give some ministers the power to issue interim orders without first obtaining the agreement of the cabinet or parliament.

The Liberal member for Mount Royal is adopting the position that was defended from the very first moment here in this House by the Bloc Quebecois. If the Bloc had not been here in the House to defend the interests of Quebecers, today we would be having to live with Bill C-42, a danger for the rights and freedoms of Quebecers. It is dangerous to give ministers the possibility of making interim orders that do not comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or to give the Minister of National Defence the power of imposing his army anywhere in Quebec without being invited to by the Government of Quebec. This is the harsh reality of a government which has made such a decision in the name of a noble cause.

The battle against terrorism throughout the world is a noble cause, and not one single person in Quebec or in Canada is unaffected by it. All of us have been touched by the tragic events that struck our American neighbours on September 11. There is, however, not one single person who is prepared to have all his or her rights taken away because of those events, particularly when the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, is asked “What could you not do on September 11 that you could do now once a bill like Bill C-42 is enacted?” No answer is forthcoming, purely and simply because the government could take action under existing legislation.

The Prime Minister and ministers such as the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Transport tell us: “The powers contained in Bill C-42 are all ones we have already”. That is false. These are not existing powers, they are new powers the government wants to acquire. Proof of this lies in the statement made by the Liberal member for Mount Royal, quoted in today's La Presse and available for all Quebecers to read.

In this House, it must be understood that the people of Quebec and of Canada are nobody's fools, and they may well be better informed than the ministers and members of the Liberal government.

Opposition members, including Bloc Quebecois members, were very quick in finding out the problems with Bill C-42 and explaining them to the public. The debates did not take place in this House, but outside, in the media. We had to use the media. This is the harsh reality.

Why? Because the government used closure with Bill C-36. The government gagged the opposition to prevent it from getting to the bottom of things and helping Quebecers and Canadians fully understand the scope of Bill C-36. We were gagged. This is why the debates took place outside the House, so much so that every day we still talk to Quebecers and Canadians who ask us to do something to prevent Bill C-36 from coming into effect. But it is too late. The debate was not concluded here in the House. This is why it is still raging in the media. Every day, we read the comments of people who are opposed to Bill C-36. But it is too late. The bill was passed by the government, rushed through by the Liberal majority in the House. This is the reality and this is what Quebecers must understand.

Luckily for Quebecers, we will not have to live with Bill C-42 before the Christmas holiday.

There is no doubt that the government will use closure again if it runs out of time, as was the case this week. We discussed Bill C-42. I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for transport issues. I was contacted. We were told that there was not enough on the legislative agenda and that Bill C-42 would be brought back. It was not even on the agenda that day.

The government brought back this very important bill, which is challenged even by Liberal members, and said “There is not enough on the legislative agenda; therefore, we are bringing back Bill C-42”. We discussed the issue and the debates are underway. I had the opportunity to make a speech on Bill C-42 which is not yet completed. I have 29 minutes left. But what will happen if the government again runs out of things to do before the Christmas holiday? It will again bring back a bill that is extremely controversial and regarding which the Liberal majority still has a lot of work to do. Ministers must try to understand the bill and explain it to their colleagues. The harsh reality is that we will again debate Bill C-42.

I just hope for Quebecers that this is not the Christmas gift the federal government is planning for them. If Bill C-42 were passed before the holidays, that would be quite a lump of coal for them to get in their Christmas stocking. That is what the government is trying to do; it wants to pull a fast one on us by ramming Bill C-42 through the House.

This brings me to Bill C-44 now before us. Again, Bill C-44 was put together in a rush by drawing from Bill C-42 because the Americans want information on passengers on flights to the U.S. or passing through U.S. airspace. It is very understandable that we should discuss the American requirements.

How can the Canadian government distort these requirements? Everything seemed perfectly clear, but I read section 115 of the American legislation passed last November 19. It says:

1. Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act,each air carrier and foreign air carrier operating a passenger flight in foreign air transportation to the United States shall provide to the Commissioner of Customs by electronic transmission a passenger and crew manifest containing the information specified in paragraph (2).

(a ) The full name of each passenger and crew member

(b) The date of birth and citizenship of each passenger and crew member

(c) The sex of each passenger and crew member.

(d) The passport number and country of issuance of each passenger and crew member if required for travel.

(e) The United States visa number or resident alien card number of each passenger and crew member, as applicable.

(f ) Such other information as the Under Secretary,in consultation with the Commissioner of Customs, determines is reasonably necessary to ensure aviation safety.

These are the requirements of the American legislation.

Reading Bill C-44, we see that it contains what the Canadian government is asking for. Section 115 of the American legislation gives an explanation of the requirements, that is what information the Americans require.

There is no mention in Bill C-44 of the list of requirements. It states as follows:

4.83 (1) Despite section 5 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act—

We have legislation to protect the personal information we are obliged to provide and, obviously, we have to deviate from that act:

—to the extent that that section relates to obligations set out in Schedule 1 to that Act...an operator of an aircraft departing from Canada or of a Canadian aircraft departing from any place outside Canada may...provide to a competent authority...any information—

The information is not specified. It is stated that the governor in council may make regulations respecting the type or classes of information that may be provided.

Thus, instead of having a clear and simple bill indicating what information is to be required, it is stated that this will be given in subsequent regulations.

The Bloc Quebecois' first question for the government House leader in connection with Bill C-44 is: Could you provide us with the bill's companion regulations, so that we can have a better idea of Bill C-44? Why is the required information not listed? You plan to put it in regulations? Well then, give us the regulations.

We were promised the regulations for last Friday. The House leader had mentioned an outline and came to tell me that they thought regulations would be better. Then he changed his mind and came back to tell me that we were back to an outline only. We did not receive the regulations on Friday. We received them on Monday, toward the end of the afternoon, so late that we were not able to examine them until the next morning in committee. It was the same for the government members.

We had documents that were given us prior to the committee meeting, but we had not had the time to go through them all individually. There was a pile of material. Even the members of the Liberal majority on the committee had questions. I sincerely believed that we had not received the regulations and they did not even know that they had.

Finally, at some point, an official came to tell the parliamentary secretary that the regulations were included as an attachment to the material.

We then examined the list of regulations and the list of information required. Once again, there was a list, which had been mentioned by the government. But that was not what the parliamentary secretary wanted to talk to us about in committee.

He did not want to talk to us about the regulations. He had an amendment to put forward. Obviously, this is what goes on in committee; we put forward amendments. The amendment was put forward by the government and all the parliamentary secretary had to tell us was “We will get started while we are waiting. There is an amendment on the way and I should have it”.

Finally, we received it during our proceedings, because it was not yet ready. According to an intelligent explanation given by the parliamentary secretary, this amendment came from the privacy commissioner, who had been consulted about Bill C-44 and who had suggested this amendment, which I will read in a minute. Finally, we received the amendment and the privacy commissioner appeared before the committee.

The privacy commissioner had not had the list of information contained in the regulations or in the draft regulations. The commissioner had discussed Bill C-44 without the list of information to be supplied. This bill will allow airline companies to release information about Quebecers and Canadians, and Canada's privacy commissioner had not seen the list of information that would be supplied.

When I asked him if it was important that he have the list, he answered that he had received it 30 minutes before appearing before the committee. I then asked him whether he had it when the bill was being discussed, and he said no. It was not important. It did not matter, when introducing an amendment, to know what information had to be provided to the Americans.

Things have been going badly for the Liberal government for two weeks now, and it kept on going badly for the Standing Committee on Transport. The privacy commissioner was appearing before the committee and, 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, the minister did not know what information the Americans were requiring, and what information on Quebec and Canadian citizens we were to provide. This was not important to him. He had even proposed an amendment without knowing what information would be contained in future regulations that the governor in council might pass in the future. Talk about confusing.

When we questioned the privacy commissioner, we asked him “Are you not concerned about the list of information, which you only saw 30 minutes prior to testifying?” He replied, “No, it does not concern us”.

One of the information items, item no. 23 reads as follows:

Airlines could provide passengers' telephone numbers to the Americans.

I have great difficulty in understanding how the privacy commissioner is not concerned that we would be providing the Americans with the telephone numbers of citizens of Quebec and Canada. He himself admitted that such measures could be discussed.

It is important to understand that no regulations have been adopted yet, but once all regulations are, they will come into force immediately. They will not come back to the committee for review until several days later—even up to one year later—at which time the committee will be able to examine the regulations and propose amendments.

I have here the amendment proposed by the privacy commissioner. It is a relevant amendment, and it reads as follows:

No information provided to a competent authority of a foreign state may be collected from that foreign state by the government of Canada or an institution thereof, as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act, unless the information is collected for the purposes of protecting national security, public safety or defence.

His concern about the information provided to the Americans was that Canada could not request it, except for certain purposes. He had quite a problem with that. The commissioner feared that the Government of Canada might try to obtain the information through the back door.

There was clearly a problem, but not knowing what information was to be provided was not a problem. It was not important. As for the 29 types of information requested by the Americans, besides the phone number, and the fact that so much information could be provided to the Americans about our lives, about what we do and so on, about how the ticket was paid for, whether in cash or on a credit card—the credit card number could even be requested—that was not important for the commissioner. What mattered, however, was that the information provided to American authorities not come back to Canada through the back door.

The nature of the information that we give is not important, as long as it does not come back to Canada. I have a big problem with that. I asked the privacy commissioner “Why did you not present an amendment containing all that is included in the American legislation?” It is the list that I read a few moments ago, the list of information the Americans included in their legislation. They put everything they wanted: the full name of each passenger, the full name of each crew member, their date of birth, and so forth. His answer was “That would not have gone through. If I had proposed that amendment, it would not have been passed”. They would not have included anything contained in the American legislation. He was probably right. That is the reality. They did not want to include what was already in the American legislation. Why?

We asked the House what information was to be provided. The government would not tell us and then agreed to table draft regulations that would include the list. We got the draft regulations two days later than we were supposed to. Its aim was to get them to us so late we would not have time to analyze them. It tabled an amendment in committee so our legal service could not analyze it. That is the reality. That is the way things work in this House.

The privacy commissioner, whose job it is to protect our interests, said “I have not tabled an amendment that would include the list, because I knew it would not be passed, that the government would reject it”.

When I asked him further questions to find out what he was afraid of, he said he was afraid he would no longer be listened to. I had to ask him “Are you afraid of losing your job?” He said he was not. He was not, because he had a seven year mandate. This means there will be someone else after that. I think he is afraid he will not be reappointed. That is the truth of it. That is the way it works. Quebecers and Canadians have to understand that.

The government controls the House of Commons, the Senate, the supreme court and the privacy commissioner. Such is life. This is the way it works. Then the government tables bills and asks us for amendments in committee. The government asks us to table amendments. “You will see”, it says, “we will look at them”. The Bloc Quebecois tabled 66 amendments to the anti-terrorism legislation. As many again were tabled by the other opposition parties. The government did nothing with them. The one accepted, in the case of the Bloc Quebecois, was the one that added the word “cemetery” to the list of heinous crimes. They agreed to add the word “cemetery”. I am very grateful. This is the reality.

Quebecers must understand that this government controls everything, from start to finish. I realize the Prime Minister says “I have no problem. If you have a problem with this bill, challenge it in court”. I will not say what I think, I could be accused of all sorts of things. I have a good idea what will happen. I have no doubt that, when the Prime Minister says there is no problem, he knows that in advance. He controls everything in this country. It is no problem, that is the way it works.

We must examine Bill C-44. We are only at report stage and we will have some tough questions for the government on this bill and on Bill C-42.

I have a message for those who are listening to us: keep sending us e-mails and letters telling us that you do not want Bill C-36 to be implemented by the government, even though it has already passed it. Bill C-36 is now in effect. You can be sure that the government will not amend it. The government will wait until a colossal blunder occurs before acting on the recommendations made by the 80 witnesses who appeared before the committee, and by opposition parties. These recommendations were perfectly acceptable and included a sunset clause, a clause providing for an annual review like the one included in similar legislation throughout the world.

The harsh reality is that the current Liberal government has decided to control everything, including the House of Commons, the other place, the supreme court, the office of the privacy commissioner and all the institutions in this country that should protect our interests.

I cannot get over the fact that, as regards Bill C-44, the privacy commissioner, who proposed an amendment that was accepted by the government, did not want to propose another one whereby the information to be provided to the Americans would have been listed. He did not make that suggestion because, as he said, the government would not have accepted it.

The Americans are smart enough to include such a provision in their legislation, but not us. We must trust the government in making regulations that will be adopted, as provided under the bill, by the governor in council. And these regulations will specify the types or classes of information.

We are given the list of the 29 types of information to be included in the regulations, but we do not have any say in the process. That information will be included in the regulations, which will then be submitted to the committee in a few months.

Meanwhile, the rights and freedoms of Canadians will have been infringed on by a government that does not have any backbone and that wants increasingly more power to control everyone.

The government surely figured that with $30 million, given the number of federal public servants, it could divide them and control them all. This is what the Liberal government is doing.

On that note, I hope that all members will have a nice Christmas holiday and that Liberal Party members will take this opportunity to do some soul searching and make good resolutions for the year 2002, because they are ending 2001 on a very bad note.

Income Tax Act

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

Mr. Speaker, my question this evening arises from a question I raised in the House on September 21 regarding the issue of a gentleman named Mr. Nabil Al-Marabh, who had been arrested on stabbing charges in Boston, had attempted to illegally enter the United States from Canada, had illegally re-entered Canada and was finally found to be carrying a forged passport, a forged citizenship card and a forged social insurance number and who may have been connected with terrorist organizations.

In raising this question, I was informed by the minister, who responded:

It is wrong to equate all failed refugee claimants with terrorism. That is clearly wrong.

We could all have figured that one out. She then went on to say:

We do not detain people on mere whispers. We do not detain on suspicion

In light of Bill C-36, that seems a bit ironic. Of course, the government can now detain without either whisper or suspicion, and moreover has the ability to arrest people who have the misfortune to simply have the same name as someone who is suspected of terrorism. They can find their assets seized, taken away permanently and find no compensation, even if they were completely innocent. That of course just puts the lie to everything she said.

The problem we face with Mr. Al-Marabh is that he is part of an enormous problem in which we do not have control of our borders. Having failed to assert control of our borders for a number of years, we now find a situation in which we are flooded with a large number of refugee claimants, many of whom are bogus and a small number of whom may potentially be terrorists.

If I can refer to reports of October 30, 2001, it was reported that confidential immigration documents stated that the number of foreigners claiming refugee status in Canada was expected to reach 41,250 by the end of this year. That represented a 37% increase over last year and was the biggest 12 month leap ever. That is the kind of problem we face.

I note that in the face of this the government has no adequate response. I would like to quote from the auditor general's report to make this point. The auditor general writes:

In our 1997 chapter, we concluded that a thorough review of the refugee determination process was needed. The process did not quickly grant Canada's protection to claimants who genuinely needed it, and it did not discourage those who did not need or deserve Canada's protection from claiming refugee status.

The report, which came out a few days ago, further states:

Citizenship and Immigration Canada could not provide information on removals of failed refugee claimants from the country that would indicate whether (the department's) processes were more effective.

More effective meaning more effective than they had been four years ago.

My question for the minister is simply this. Is the minister prepared today in the House to provide the information the auditor general has been seeking with regard to the effectiveness of determining whether or not people are genuine refugees, deserving of our protection, or not?

Nuclear Fuel Waste Act

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Exactly. The point was raised and is worth repeating. It is not Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. but Canadian taxpayers who are reaching into their jeans pockets to come up with those dollars.

On an annual basis, Ontario Hydro will fork over $100 million to keep this waste management organization active. Hydro-Québec will fork over $4 million. New Brunswick Power will give $4 million. Atomic Energy Canada Ltd., with somehow no responsibility for nuclear waste, will still fork over another $2 million per annum.

We are talking about significant dollars going into a waste management organization. I cannot help but think that we have it backward. Perhaps Atomic Energy Canada Limited should be putting in the primary dollars. The subsidiary dollars should be put in by the industry itself because it certainly is responsible for nuclear waste.

I found a number of issues in this piece of legislation to be problematic. The bill pretends to deal with the issue of nuclear waste but it does not satisfy the problem. Nor does it completely deal with the issue. We end up with a piece of legislation which would allow for on surface or on site management of nuclear fuel waste for perpetuity.

There is absolutely nothing in the legislation which would force the nuclear energy sector in Canada and Atomic Energy Canada Limited to come up with an option. We must consider one option which is on site storage if we are to deal with the problem.

My colleagues mentioned earlier that we could recycle the fuel, run it through reactors so that it would become inert and the radioactivity would be taken out of it. Perhaps science will find a way of dealing with this through transmutation. Those are not options that are realistic at this time but they are still options. They are worthy of debate and that debate was curtailed in committee.

It should be noted that prior to our last debate at report stage on Bill C-27 there was a piece of legislation that was important to the security of Canada. Bill C-36 was as important to our security as this piece of legislation. Yet the government forced closure on Bill C-36 because it did not have time. It was an emergency. We did not have time to debate it. The next day there were not enough government members to continue debate at report stage of Bill C-27. Debate failed on Bill C-27.

What is important and what is not important? Canadian voters will make that decision a few years down the road.

It is true that the issue has been around for 50 years. We need to deal with it in a timely manner. This does not necessarily allow us to deal with nuclear waste in a timely manner because it does not preclude on surface and on site storage forever.

There is the issue of accountability to the public. It is also important for the bill to establish a waste management organization and an advisory council that would be reflective of Canadian society.

The member for Windsor--St. Clair talked about the amendments that were put forth by Ontario municipalities which have nuclear reactors in their midst. The PC/DR coalition put forth amendments on behalf of those municipalities as did other members. There was unanimous support for the amendments on the opposition side. That speaks to some unity that we found as we all worked together on this piece of legislation.

The government claims to represent Ontario because it has a lot of members from Ontario. However it does not represent Ontario when push comes to shove and we are trying to get amendments passed that were proposed on behalf of the people from Ontario. They wanted their concerns reflected in legislation that will affect them more than any other group in Canada.

The bill does not mention property values in municipalities that have nuclear reactors or on site storage facilities. People tend not to like to be near radioactivity. They tend to have doubts, concerns and worries about radioactivity. They tend not to buy houses and properties or to build businesses there.

It is a cheap source of power. We would not see that reflection in the property values if we assured Canadians that it was safe and if we dealt with the issue in a timely fashion. A municipality that has a nuclear reactor in its midst would benefit from it because it would be an immediate source of electricity and corporations would come to the area for that reason.

I want to talk about the issue of foreign waste being deposited at some type of a waste management facility in Canada. That issue is neither dealt with nor precluded in this piece of legislation. Most Canadians do not understand that.

The legal authority from the department stated in committee that the intent of the bill did not cover the question of the import of nuclear fuel waste. Another piece of legal advice was that the scope of the bill did not touch upon the importation of nuclear fuel waste from outside the boundaries of Canada. It did not speak to that point.

That is important to me and is one of the reasons, if not the main reason, that the PC/DR coalition will not support the bill. It does not preclude Hydro-Québec, Ontario Power Generation, New Brunswick Power Corporation or any corporation from setting up a plant in the U.S. It does not preclude them from producing nuclear fuel waste at a foreign owned plant and bringing that waste back to a depository somewhere in Canada. It is unfortunate that the legislation was drafted so poorly that we will not be able to support it.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to address Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.

A few days ago, I spoke on Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. My Bloc Quebecois colleagues also addressed Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, and Bill C-42, the public safety act.

I would like to explain from the outset what issues I will discuss over the next 40 minutes. First, I must point out that this government constantly displayed a confrontational attitude, despite the fact that Bloc Quebecois members were committed to co-operating regarding this bill, whether at second reading, during the review in committee, or at report stage.

The Bloc Quebecois, which acted in good faith at all stages of the parliamentary process, was always told by Liberal members opposite no, no, no.

This afternoon, I will again directly address my constituents and all Quebecers and Canadians. We feel that Bill C-27 is incomplete. It lacks transparency and it does not take into account public opinion.

Under the circumstances, we could have said no right from the beginning and made things complicated for the government, but no, we felt that we had to give our support at second reading in order to improve the bill in committee.

However, during the review in committee, when we heard witnesses and when the time came to amend the bill, Liberal members sitting on the committee said no, no, no, without really knowing what the issue was all about.

We are talking about the management of the country's nuclear fuel waste. I was stunned to the hear the Liberal member for Frontenac—Mégantic say, as he was leaving a meeting, that plutonium and uranium were no more dangerous than asbestos. The chair of the standing committee on natural resources and member for Nickel Belt also made a similar comment.

This is a serious matter. We heard many witnesses at the standing committee on natural resources. My colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke and Bloc Quebecois critic in this area, has done an excellent job, with some contribution from myself, in his desire to improve this bill.

It is clear, however, that the Liberal members of the committee did not have any idea what we or the witnesses were talking about. At that time, and still today, we were addressing nuclear waste, precisely, 24,000 tonnes of uranium and plutonium which will remain radioactive for some 25,000 years. This has nothing in common with asbestos.

When I hear comments like that, I feel there is no point in talking to the Liberal MPs. They heard all the same things we did, but understood nothing. I think they were there with their ears and eyes firmly closed. The only thing they could say was no, no. That was all we got out of them.

I will therefore continue to talk to our audience instead. Despite what the Liberal committee members have said, the taxpayers of Canada and Quebec are very much attuned to what is going on as far as waste in general is concerned, and nuclear waste in particular. I feel their judgment is far superior to that of the Liberals.

What is Bill C-27 all about? The whole thing dates back to 1989, when the Minister of the Environment of the day mandated the nuclear fuel waste and disposal environmental assessment commission, known as the Seaborn panel, from the name of its chair, to come up with a concept for the permanent storage of this country's nuclear waste.

I would like to digress for a moment. It would be mistaken to mix things and say that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-27. The Bloc supports strict management of nuclear waste. This is a matter of huge importance, and the government has not bothered in recent years to resolve it. The situation has continued, and today we realize that problem must be solved, but not at any cost.

The main recommendations of the Seaborn panel were that an agency be established that would hold public hearings and propose a type of management for this country's nuclear waste. It recommended as well that the cost of this country's waste management be assumed by the nuclear energy industry.

What is there in Bill C-27? Does it follow the letter of the recommendations of the Seaborn report? We must remember that the Minister of Natural Resources was drawing on the recommendations of the Seaborn report when he said he was going to draft the bill. This, however, is not what the chair of the standing committee on natural resources said to me. He said that the Seaborn report is outdated. I think the Seaborn report is very important. The Seaborn panel was independent. It lasted 10 years, cost a small fortune, but it has given us guidelines for the successful management of nuclear waste.

The management is to be independent of the nuclear energy industry. As the committee studied the matter, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a number of amendments to bring Bill C-27 closer to the conclusions of the Seaborn panel. Contrary to what the Minister of Natural Resources said in his speech at second reading, his bill bears no relation to the main recommendations of the panel.

Indeed, the Seaborn panel recommended that energy companies be excluded from the management committee that would propose a form of nuclear waste management.

Let us look just at recommendation 6.1.2, which advocates the creation of a nuclear fuel waste management agency. It reads as follows:

For various reasons, there is in many quarters an apprehension about nuclear power that bedevils the activities and proposals of the nuclear industry. If there is to be any confidence in a system for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste and—

I am still quoting the Seaborn panel:

—a fresh start must be made in the form of a new agency. The agency must be at arm's length from the producers and current owners of the waste. Its overall commitment must be to safety.

Bill C-27 specifies that energy companies will have to establish a management committee to propose to the minister a long term nuclear fuel waste management concept.

Such a situation is tantamount to opening the henhouse door wide open to let the fox in. As far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned, recommendation 6.1.2 should be fully implemented. Unfortunately, the Liberal government rejected it out of hand. Incidentally, a number of witnesses who appeared before the standing committee on natural resources also asked that Bill C-27 be amended to reflect that recommendation.

I will quote a few. Irene Kock, a research consultant with the Sierra Club of Canada, testified before the committee on November 8, 2001. She said, and I quote:

The Seaborn panel recommended that an independent agency be formed at arm's length from AECL and the nuclear utilities in order to manage the programs related to long-term nuclear fuel waste management, including detailed comparison of waste management options. The waste management organization must be at arm's length from the nuclear industry. This is a very key part of the recommendations from the Seaborn panel.

It is not just the Bloc Quebecois who says it. All the witnesses said the same thing to the committee. Irene Kock added “It was a very well thought out conclusion and must be incorporated in this legislation”.

I will quote from another testimony, namely that of Brennain Lloyd, a co-ordinator for Northwatch, who also testified on November 8, 2001:

The context is that there have been a number of experiences on the part of the public with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and with the nuclear industries more generally, specific to this issue of nuclear waste management and related siting processes. They've been very negative experiences for the greatest part, and that needs to be kept in mind.

She was warning the government about certain past experiences. Ms. Lloyd went on to say that:

The resulting mistrust and apprehension on the part of the public must be kept in constant consideration...Third, the waste management organization lacks independence. Given the track record of a number of the agencies that are proposed to be involved, that's particularly problematic. The panel was clear that the waste management organization must be independent and it must be perceived to be independent.

It said an independent agency, not an industry agency. This would be an industry agency. This in fact is what Bill C-27 proposes: a management committee composed of members of industry. This can only be problematic in terms of delivery, the ability to look more broadly at the issues, and the ability to engender public trust and engagement.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore proposed that paragraph 6(2) be amended as follows:

No nuclear energy corporation may be a member or shareholder of the waste management organization.

But what did the Liberal members say? No, no, no.

We have not lost our sense of humour or our desire to see the government make this bill into something that would be what the Seaborn panel and the general public wanted. We proposed other amendments.

I could talk all day about the amendments which the Bloc Quebecois proposed in committee. There were, and the member for Sherbrooke is nodding, between 40 and 45. The New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition also moved amendments.

But each time, the committee, which was chaired by a Liberal member and contained a Liberal majority, said no, no, no. At every stage of the process, they said they were right.

Earlier, the Canadian Alliance member spoke about the fact that the public had to be consulted, but it is plainly written in the bill that the governor in council “may”. In other words, it is not required. When you are told “you may do something” you always have a choice. The majority prevails. If one says “I have everything I need” or “I do not have what I need”, I am going to go ahead. In this case, what it says is that the public may be consulted.

This reminds me of the very moving times we went through in the summer of 2000, when this government wanted to import MOX fuel from Russia and the U.S. I stood up to this, all five feet, five inches of me.

The people of Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean, hon. members will recall, were on side with me on this. A total of 99.9% of my constituents said they were opposed to the importing of MOX. Some 120 municipalities throughout Quebec and a number of regional county municipalities did the same. The Quebec government and the aboriginal peoples voiced their opposition.

Atomic Energy of Canada officials came to the region, telling us that this was just a little rod that went into a big cylinder. They made it out to be such a wonderful and attractive thing that I would have been happy to have it as a decoration in my living room.

Away we went to consult people. This is not an expensive proposition, and it provides us with an opportunity to speak to people concerned by a problem. We talked to the experts. We asked their opinions. We also consulted the Quebec department of health. We even went to a university, along with our regional environmental committee, and held an information session. We invited three experts, who told us that the concept of importing MOX and the method planned for its transportation were not safe.

According to U.S. studies, this concept was not acceptable because it was not 100% sure. Afterward, people were entitled to make comments via the Atomic Energy of Canada website, and this took some 28 days.

So 99.9% of those in our region were opposed. Nevertheless, they went ahead and did it. One fine evening, I am not sure exactly when, the MOX shipment set out. Everyone was on the alert. We have the Bagotville military base in our area. They said they were going to bring the shipment in via CFB Bagotville or an Ontario military base. Let us remember that the MOX was headed for the Chalk River nuclear facility in Ontario.

One night—and I know because I took a stroll near the military base in Bagotville—there was quite a flurry of activity. We did not know when the big day would be, but people from national defence, from public safety and from the health sector were there. There was this flurry of activity. And yet, officials from Atomic Energy of Canada told us, when they came to see us, that there was no danger.

What was all the commotion about if there was no danger and if it was not serious, as they said at the time? Everyone was on edge.

They went ahead and they took it to Chalk River. This proves the government's attitude, that they went ahead despite what everyone thought. In my riding, it was a very strong majority. I held my own consultations. Representatives of Atomic Energy of Canada were in one room and I was in another, that the hotel where the consultation was taking place graciously let me use.

Before going into the room with the Atomic Energy of Canada representatives, people came to see me and sign a petition. They would then come back from the consultation and say to me, “Ms. Bujold, if I could, I would sign the petition twice. I am not sure about what they are saying”.

So we can see just how important the issue of nuclear waste is. We must consult with people. But this is not reflected in this bill.

We must manage our nuclear waste, because it our waste. We have to store it in a way such that it remains inactive for many years to come. Most of the waste that is currently being stored is at nuclear reactors located in Ontario. There are 24,000 tonnes of nuclear waste being stored there. That is a lot of nuclear waste.

We cannot count on the goodwill of a management committee that says it is the representative of these companies that are going to manage the storage.

We, elected members who represent people, must be kept informed of what is happening. We need to challenge them and say “Show us what you are going to say and do. We will accept it or reject it on behalf of our constituents, because we have been democratically elected.”

In committee we proposed a clause to the government which stated that members would have to be consulted in the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker, you are a member like me. When we run for election we say to our constituents “I am going to represent you on all issues. I am able to represent you. If I cannot represent you, I will consult with you and you will give me your opinion”.

People know that whether we are talking about domestic, nuclear or other kinds of waste, we must not become the world's dump. Nobody wants to have any kind of wastes in their backyard. We always say “Not in my backyard”.

So to reassure the public, we had asked the government that the plan be submitted here, in the House of Commons. What did the Liberals say? They said no, no and no. They refuse to be accountable to the people who elected them on a most important issue.

I do not think this is being very transparent. Since we have been sitting in this House, we have noticed that when introducing bills the government always says that it will listen to us, that it will refer the bill to committee for further study, that it will hear witnesses and be open to amendments.

That did not happen for Bill C-27. Nor did it happen for Bill C-36, Bill C-44 or Bill C-42. Who does this government take people for, particularly those people who represent all those who did not vote for the Liberals and that the Liberals no longer represent? I am talking about opposition parties.

I am thinking of people who take the trouble to appear before the committee. I recall that on the last day, before the committee began to examine the bill clause by clause, the mayors of Ontario municipalities came before it. They were involved with this issue because there are nuclear plants in their municipalities. They came to say to the committee “We have to be informed and be part of the development of management. We are involved on the front line because we have to protect our people”.

A member from the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative Coalition proposed an amendment in this regard, and the members of the Liberal Party once again said no, no, no.

It was also pointed out that consideration should be given to having people representing the native communities on the committee. Some witnesses said that it was important that these communities be consulted. There are not just the experts, there are ordinary citizens as well, who have some expertise in this regard. The answer was no, no, no.

I think we should call them the no, no, no gang. This is what comes out as soon as opposition members introduce something intelligent. Initially they suggest that a bill be drafted. Officials then draft it. Then the minister or members representing the Liberal majority in committee must defend it. Most of the time, I think they do not even know what the subject is and this is unfortunate because it is extremely important.

It was not only yesterday that I started being concerned about nuclear waste and all sorts of waste that we import from the United States and elsewhere. The Bloc Quebecois even asked, through an amendment it put forward, to have the bill provide that we manage our own waste and contain a clause banning the importing of waste from elsewhere. This amendment too was rejected. The Liberal members said no, no, no and yet we know how important this is.

The Seaborn panel was set up by people who wanted to do something about an issue that had been dragging on for years. It took time to write the report. The panel made excellent recommendations. The Minister of Natural Resources, whom I really like, seemed to show goodwill. He had said from the beginning, and I believed him,“I rely on the reports of the Seaborn panel”. But over time he made an about-face.

Now I cannot make sense of the bill. There are many Quebecers and Canadians who will also be lost. Why? Because when it is passed, they will no longer be consulted. It will be the governor in council who will consult, because he “may” do so.

The first recommendation of the Seaborn panel was that the public should be consulted on any nuclear waste management principle. This is what should have been done. That was the panel's first recommendation. This is the one recommendation that should have served as a basis for all the other ones. The government ignored the one recommendation that should have been taken into account with this bill.

Had it not been disregarded, I would have told myself “At least the government is taking this issue seriously. It is not doing this to please people who are close to the powers that be. No, it is really presenting a bill that will reassure Canadians and Quebecers”. I would have welcomed this initiative.

I sat on the Standing Committee on the Environment for two years. When good things were happening, I would always say to the minister and the Liberal members “Yes, we will co-operate, because when it comes to the environment we have to co-operate to advance government initiatives”. That was always my attitude during these two years, and things worked well. When I did not agree with something, I said so.

This bill is now at third reading. Yesterday we voted on the last amendments at report stage. The Bloc Quebecois presented four amendments. They were not even examined. They were rejected out of hand. It was time to do something about this issue, but the government should act in the respect of people, of the public.

That is not what the government is doing. This bill will be studied by the other place, and I hope that they will be able to do what the Liberal government has not done.

Such a bill, such an issue, must not be dealt with casually, as we have seen. I was not present for all of the hearings, but my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, was. He told me “It makes no sense. There are so many things going on; the witnesses that are appearing are only talking about the Seaborn report. They thought that the government wanted to implement the recommendations”.

Do we bring in witnesses in as a formality, or are we there to listen to them? Most of them are experts. Sometimes, regular citizens can become experts. They came in good faith to warn this government about the problems with this bill. They came and said “We are warning you; listen to us, introduce amendments. It needs to be done properly”.

But the Liberals did what they did to the opposition: they turned a deaf ear. They turned deaf and blind. As far as they were concerned, it was no, no, no. Their answers were dictated by the minister's instructions and the overall bill.

I am very disappointed for the people of the riding of Jonquière, which I represent, and I am also very disappointed for future generations. I have grandchildren, two boys. My daughter has given me two beautiful grandsons aged 5 and 3. Tomorrow, I do not want to tell my grandsons “You know, grandma could have done something. She tried, but nobody on the other side listened to her”.

I am very disappointed because they are the ones who will have to live with the results of our lack of action on December 5, 2001. We will have failed to convince the government to change Bill C-27 into the bill that we wanted at the outset.

This is a sad situation. The holiday season is upon us, and in 20 days it will be Christmas. This is a time of celebration, a time for enjoyment, for spending good times together, but I will be using that opportunity to tell my constituents “We did everything we could to get the government to listen to us, but to no avail. It is doing as it pleases, and it is not even interested in consulting you”.

I think that this government sees itself as the one possessing the truth. Of all those listening to us today, there is not one who possesses the whole truth. When one has an idea in mind, one must take into consideration the opinion of those who want to caution us, who tell us “Take care, there, don't go in that direction. I have proof of my stand, just listen to me and I will tell you why”. We need to listen to others if we are members of parliament. Otherwise, we would be better off elsewhere.

I believe that all members of this House, be they Liberals or opposition members, should have that ability to listen to others, yet in the standing committee on natural resources, I could see that the government MPs lacked that ability.

This has been a great disappointment to me, because today we are forced to acknowledge that we could have done something worthwhile, something to advance a cause that involves everyone. Last week, my colleague from Sherbrooke told me that there were people in one region discussing bringing in waste from the United States to bury in their area. One might also bring up a matter that we settled last year.

Do you remember this, Madam Speaker? At the time, you were not the acting Speaker. They wanted to bury waste from the Toronto area in northern Ontario, near the Témiscamingue area in Quebec.

With the help of the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, we set up emergency hearings. The Minister of the Environment arranged for an environmental assessment to be done. People came to tell us that there were many irritants and they were right, so the government said that this would not be done and it was not.

All the witnesses who appeared before the committee at various times told us the same thing. The city of Toronto was forced to back down.

The government could have done the same thing with Bill C-27. It could have said “Yes, there are irritants”. We never said that this bill was all bad. We said that there were things that were not what we were looking for and that the bill needed to be improved.

We are calling for consultation, management and a report to be tabled in the House. The other day, we suggested the services of the Auditor General of Canada. Yesterday she told us about what was going on with employment insurance and about the $75 that the government handed out before last year's election to individuals below a certain income. She told us about that. The auditor general is credible.

The government members refused. They said that they want an independent auditor appointed by the governor in council.

Our request for clarity demanded an answer, ut we can see beyond any doubt, and it is a shame to have to say this, and I am sad to do so, that there is no clarity. Clarity is not a predominant characteristic of the Liberal government in this issue. I am sorry to see this because I am certain that there are members across the way who would have liked more clarity too, when they realize how little there is, and that they too hear from their constituents on the whole topic of waste. They are going to start looking at the bill and I hope that they will ask themselves what questions their constituents will have for them when they see this.

We must not disappoint the people who elect us. We must ensure that issues as important as nuclear waste management are not relegated to the back burner, as a third, fourth, or fifth priority.

This is a top priority. We have done much harm to our planet in the past. Today it suffers from what we humans have inflicted upon it. With this bill, we had an opportunity to lessen the burden that we have placed on the planet.

However, we did not. The government turned a deaf ear and did not innovate. We hear the word innovate a lot. Today we need to innovate more and more. Since the events of September 11, the world has changed, I believe.

Every weekend I meet a great number of constituents who always tell me, “You know, Jocelyne, we have changed since September 11. Our values are different. We see things more clearly now and we to want to change the little day to day things that we overlooked”.

This bill was an opportunity to change the little day to day things and allow us to finally keep an open mind and consider the winds of change on this very complex and difficult issue.

Today the Bloc Quebecois can say that it is against this bill and that it will continue to oppose it. I hope that my speech will spark something in the members opposite. That is my wish.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister on Thursday, November 29, alleging that the leader of the official opposition divulged the findings, proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs before that committee had presented its report.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this matter. I would also like to thank the House leader of the official opposition, the House leader of the New Democratic Party and the hon. member for Peterborough, chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, for their contributions on this question.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister claimed that, during the debate on third reading of Bill C-36 on Wednesday, November 28, 2001, the Leader of the Official Opposition had breached the privileges of the House and contravened our practices by making reference to the proceedings of the procedure and house affairs committee before that committee had presented its report to the House.

The report in question, which was presented on November 29, 2001, dealt with a question of privilege related to the premature release to the media of the contents of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism.

The parliamentary secretary complained of the references made by the Leader of the Opposition to the proceedings of the committee and especially to his revealing the conclusion of the report. He was critical as well of the hon. Leader of the Opposition's comments on the work of the committee.

I have carefully reviewed the report of the committee as well as the minutes and evidence of its public meetings on the order of reference concerning Bill C-36. I can find nothing in the report to which the hon. Leader of the Opposition may be claimed to have referred that is not also available in the committee's public proceedings.

In particular, the conclusion of the report that no contempt had been found also forms the subject of a motion debated in public session, adopted by the committee at its meeting of November 22 and recorded in the official minutes of that meeting.

Therefore, since there has been no disclosure of in camera proceedings it is my ruling that there is no breach of privilege in this case.

However the parliamentary secretary in bringing this matter to the attention of the House also indicated that the remarks made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition transgressed against the usual practices of the House with respect to proceedings in committee. He referred to House of Commons Procedure and Practice , page 885, which states:

It is not in order for Members to allude to committee proceedings or evidence in the House until the committee has presented its report to the House.

The passage continues:

This restriction applies both to references made by Members in debate and during Oral Question Period.

The hon. member for Peterborough as chair of the procedure committee has explained that the presentation of the report was delayed until November 29 at the express request of the official opposition. Furthermore, the opposition House leader in speaking on this point has acknowledged that the Leader of the Opposition based his remarks on the public proceedings of the committee's meeting of November 22.

The House has a longstanding rule against referring to proceedings in committee until the committee itself reports back to the House. In this instance the Leader of the Opposition took upon himself the right to discuss those proceedings before the chair had presented the committee report. It is regrettable that the hon. Leader of the Opposition should have ignored usual House practice in this way and I would invite him to be more prudent in future.

It is our practice that committees may report their own findings in their own time without fear of having that role usurped by other members. It is my intention to see that this practice is upheld until such time as the House may decide otherwise. I remind all hon. members that it greatly assists the House and the Speaker when members exercise proper care in choosing their remarks.

Public Safety Act

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments at this time in respect of this very important legislation, this very important step the government has taken. I will be rather general in the brief time I have, but I think a few words have to be put on the record at this time.

It is true that the opposition has been urging the government to act. The opposition, especially the Canadian Alliance and the predecessor Reform Party, has been urging the government for years to act in respect of security. The only answer we received then was that the party, the Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance, was anti-immigrant and anti-refugee. Instead of debating seriously the concerns that Canadians needed addressed, the government engaged in political rhetoric. That was unfortunate because we lost very valuable time over a number of years.

Whether or not the response that the minister has provided to us today in respect of the bill that he has tabled is correct should be the product and the examination of parliament. That is the concern: Parliament has not been given the appropriate opportunity to examine legislation.

Parliament indeed can act quickly if called upon to do so when government tables those very important bills. However, what we have seen happen here in parliament is that there has been a reluctance by government to table the necessary legislation. When legislation is finally tabled after weeks and weeks, compared to the Americans who move very quickly, the bill is sent to committee and what happens at committee in respect to Bill C-36? We clearly see a failure by government members, the majority on the committee, to seriously consider the amendments that many members brought forward.

I did not agree with all the amendments brought forward by my colleagues in the Bloc, the New Democratic Party or even the Conservative Party, yet one could sense there was a disrespect for the committee process. I understand that in other committees disrespect does not necessarily happen, but it was evident there. It was clear that once the government brought that legislation to committee its agenda was set. It was set, not by parliament, not by debate here, but by the minister in consultation with bureaucrats who developed the legislation, developed the policy and then forwarded it to committee. That is unfortunate for the parliamentary process.

So I was very pleased today to hear the minister state that committee should be open to amendments because I think it is very important that the committee is open and listens to members on both sides of this very important issue.

I do not disagree with the minister when he says that ministers need the power to act immediately, but that power needs to be placed in an appropriate context. I think that many members, especially in the opposition, and I noted it among the government members as well, simply do not have the confidence that the government is putting these emergency powers that ministers will hold in the appropriate context.

Yes, it is true that they need the power to act unilaterally in certain circumstances, but what is the appropriate context in which those powers should be placed? That is what needs to be debated in committee, honestly, openly and without the presence of the government whip, or indeed, worse yet, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, who maintains order and ensures that the preordained amendments are put through, not amendments arising out of the discussion of the committee. What happens when the amended bill comes to the House after committee is that we are not getting the product of honest debate. We are getting the product of the instructions provided to the parliamentary secretary, who essentially acts as a party whip in committee.

I am not confident, and I think many members here are not confident, in the parliamentary process. I want to be able to say to that minister that if the minister opens up that parliamentary process and ensures that there is legitimate debate in committee, we will work with the minister.

I can only point out how my party acted in respect of Bill C-36. I think we co-operated with the government. Yes, at times we felt that government was simply not listening, not because there was not merit and not because many of the members would not vote that way if they had the choice, but simply because the order had been given.

I challenge the minister to ensure that the openness remains, because I think that if there where an open debate there would not be the same concern members opposite are expressing here today about the unilateral power exercised by the minister. Government by ministerial fiat, that is the concern.

We need to ensure that the amendments made to the bill are the product of legitimate discussion as opposed to a preordained plan by a minister or a deputy minister or indeed some policy bureaucrat squirrelled away in some department.

There are clearly amendments that are needed in this bill. I think that our party will commit to working with the minister and the committee, but we want to see some genuine reciprocity in terms of working, because this is not just about a particular bill and the security of Canadians. This bill, I believe, will be a test of the parliamentary system.

I was back in my riding this week. Over and over again what I heard was a concern that parliament is becoming irrelevant, that parliament no longer matters. The policy initiatives of parliament are simply cast aside. We rely on unelected judiciary to set our policy in this country. Over and over again we hear ministers say that we have a charter of rights. What they are saying is that we have judges who make determinations under that charter of rights, so the goal is not to satisfy the legitimate policy aspirations of Canadians but rather to satisfy the judiciary who are appointed essentially for life, unelected.

The focus in our country is wrong. We need a government that says it will address the concerns of Canadians in accordance with the values of Canadians and that is prepared to take that legislation, then, to the courts and justify for the courts why Canadians need it.

If the government spent more time considering the legitimate needs of Canadians and their traditional concerns for input into policy, they would have more respect for the House. I am taking the minister at his word when he says that the committee process will be open and will deal with some of these very difficult issues.

I do not agree with everything in the bill. I have some concerns, but I want to be there to ensure that the people of Canada get the legislation they deserve and that it reflects the policy aspirations of Canadians.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-42, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-42, the public safety act.

This bill proposes to amend 19 acts of parliament and to enact one new one. The changes and measures proposed will promote and protect public safety and strengthen the government's ability to improve the safety of Canadians.

The bill is another important step in the government's fight against terrorism. It has been shaped by bringing forward amendments identified during normal reviews of several of the 19 existing acts, as is the case with the Aeronautics Act which is under my purview, and by reviewing all these acts in light of their prevention and response provisions at a time of increased security concerns.

The basic objective of the bill is to ensure that the Government of Canada has the proper authority to establish and maintain an appropriate security program for the protection of all Canadians.

One of the important characteristics of any terrorist attack is that its true scope is not immediately perceptible.

It will be recalled that right after the first plane struck the World Trade Center people were wondering how such an accident could have happened. Only after the second strike did it become obvious that this was a terrorist attack.

After reports about a third and a fourth plane, people did not know whether the attack was over or whether others would follow. We did not know at that time whether there were plans to hijack Canadian planes or whether a plane arriving from Europe might have been hijacked.

As a result, we made the immediate decision using our powers under the Aeronautics Act to ground all Canadian aircraft and to direct all aircraft that were in the air to certain designated airports.

Although this was a terrorist attack on a country other than Canada, our government needed the ability to respond immediately and fortunately that authority was present. We have to consider that a major attack on Canada could have occurred at that time and could still occur. We also have to consider that such an attack could involve trucks, ships or aircraft. It could also employ diverse substances, including biological agents such as anthrax or chemical weapons.

We live in a generally peaceful country built on trust and our acts and regulations dealing with safety are more than adequate to deal with regular and ongoing activity or prevent and deal with accidents. However the attacks on September 11 have made it clear that we must also be prepared to respond to fully formed problems such as attacks on our water supply, food supply or our infrastructure.

Of the acts to be amended under Bill C-42, 10 provide the ability to bring into play the authority of the federal government in the event that it is required in order to protect public safety or security. I would like to emphasize that these authorities already exist. The objective of the amendments proposed is to provide the ability for the immediate use of these authorities when required.

I would like to take a few minutes to speak about the amendments to the Aeronautics Act for which I am responsible as Minister of Transport. The amendments to the act are designed to clarify and update existing aviation security authorities. They are also designed to strengthen some of the authorities to maximize the effectiveness of the aviation security system and enhance the ability of the Government of Canada to provide a safe and secure environment for aviation.

In addition, the amendments set out some of the specific matters that could be dealt with in regulations, including those concerning restricted areas at airports, screening of people entering restricted areas and the security requirements for the design or construction of aircraft, airports and other aviation facilities.

The amendments would also update or expand certain authorities to make regulations, including establishing restricted areas within aircraft and airports, as well as other aviation facilities, requiring more security clearances, for example, for crop duster pilots, and screening of people entering restricted areas, even those with security clearance and a restricted area access pass.

The amendments discourage unruly passengers by making it an offence to engage in any behaviour that endangers the safety or security of flights or persons on board by interfering with crew members or persons following crew members' instructions. Such an offence would be punishable, on summary conviction, with a maximum of 18 months in prison and a $25,000 fine or, on indictment, with a maximum of five years in prison and a $100,000 fine. These should be an effective deterrent for activity which is more commonly known as air rage.

The amendments also address the issue of passenger data that may be required both at home and abroad in the interest of transportation security.

Prior to September 11, it had been assumed that persons intending to hijack a plane would take on board with them traditional weapons. September 11 made it apparent that this was not necessarily the case. Airport screening to protect aircraft can no longer be restricted to searching for or attempting to detect traditional weapons such as guns or knives. The passengers themselves must be considered more closely to determine if any of them are likely to pose a threat, which is to say, passengers who are known or suspected terrorists need to be identified.

This raises the potential conflict between the security demands for information on people being screened on the one hand and the protection of an individual's right to privacy on the other. We must find the proper balance in this regard and I believe we have done so with the amendments.

The amendment necessary to allow Canadian air carriers to provide very specific and limited information to American authorities, as the House is aware, was split last week into a new bill, Bill C-44, which went through second reading on Friday.

Within Canada, the amendments would provide the authority to request information from airlines or a passenger reservation system on a specific person. As well, under exceptional circumstances, such as when a credible threat has been identified, Bill C-42 sets out provisions whereby we would require Canadian carriers to provide us with additional information.

To be clear, the proposed amendments would allow the Government of Canada to acquire basic information on specific individuals, known or suspected terrorists, and only in the interest of transportation security. This information would include name, date of birth, nationality, gender and, if it exists, passport number.

The amendments would also allow the government to respond to a credible threat. For example, let us suppose a woman reports to the police that her husband belongs to a terrorist cell that intends to hijack a Toronto-Winnipeg flight later that day. In this instance the balance between information requirements and the right to privacy shifts dramatically. The Government of Canada would want to be able to obtain all possible information available on all people on that flight, including how they paid for their tickets and where they are seated.

Thus, the specific proposal in the amendments would require an airline or an airline reservation system operator to: immediately provide to Transport Canada basic information on a specific individual; retain on a watch list the name of that individual for no more than 30 days; immediately provide to Transport Canada basic information on that individual should that person's name be added to the data held by the airline or added to a passenger reservation system; and, immediately provide to Transport Canada all information on all passengers and crew of a flight subject to an immediate credible threat.

The amendment would also make it possible for the government to enact regulations designating to which other federal ministers, agencies or individuals the information obtained by the minister may be disclosed, along with procedures for its use, communication and destruction.

It is essential that screening apply to people as well as their luggage and carry-on baggage. The proposed amendments would allow for the capture of just enough of the data held by airlines and passenger reservation systems to provide for increased passenger safety.

My colleagues in question period, certainly those from the Alliance, talked of their disappointment about what is in the bill. The amendments to the Aeronautics Act as we brought them forward were primarily, as I have said before, the result of ongoing review and stakeholder consultation. However some of the provisions were specific to the events of September 11, and that is why we brought them forward in this package.

I have acknowledged that since September 11 our priority as a government has been to make sure that security screening, security checks, on board safety and airport safety have not only been rigorously enforced according to the normal standards but that new standards have been introduced which are also rigorously enforced. Anyone in the country who has flown by plane in the last few weeks knows full well what the government has done and how the added security has helped Canadians and assured them they should travel.

That is being borne out by opinion surveys. Canadians feel much more confident about travelling by air in Canada than in the United States. It is not just that the attacks happened in the United States. Notwithstanding what the opposition says, the public understands that the Government of Canada has strict rules, that we have amended our rules and that we will be bringing in more rules to effect airline and airport safety.

I have been much more preoccupied with getting the rules in place and getting them enforced than with the discharging of security measures. A lot has been made of the fact that the way people are currently screened at airports, which is the status quo with the airlines, is unsatisfactory. I have said it is unsatisfactory. I think there is a general consensus. We have been looking at various options but the options will be costly. They come at a price, and the price must be paid by either the Canadian taxpayer or the users of air services.

That is a subject of considerable debate. The financial implications of all the security measures that will be coming forward on the airline and airport side alone, notwithstanding the things we are looking at with respect to our land borders, the sea and all other measures, are expensive. They have obvious budgetary implications and are the subject of discussions among my colleagues, the Minister of Finance and me.

It is not just a question of agreeing on what must be done. We must cost it out. We must be prudent. We must know we are responsible for taxpayer money. We want to know what burden the fiscal framework is expected to take. That is why the matters have been under deliberation. Shortly we will be able to conclude the deliberations and let people know how we propose to pay for all the measures and how they are to be implemented.

I have focused only on the measures that affect my portfolio directly. There have been a lot of questions in question period to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Health, the Deputy Prime Minister and others about the various bills that would be amended and the new bill that is to be included in Bill C-42.

Much has been made of the fact that somehow the measures are draconian and not needed. However I would remind members in the House that they were the ones who after September 11 demanded that the government deal with the security threat and ensure that all legislation be looked at, amendments be brought in, procedures be tightened up and new regulations be brought into force.

That work has been ongoing. Bill C-36 has been under debate. Amendments have been made to Bill C-36 to reflect the deliberations of hon. members in committee. That is what parliament is all about. In the same way, worthy consideration will be given to amendments that come forward in the course of both Bill C-44 and Bill C-42.

Although I am speaking about Bill C-42, members can forgive me if I say a word about Bill C-44 since it was introduced at the same time. The House has agreed that we split it off for obvious reasons.

We need to get Bill C-44 through the House quickly. We have had co-operation from hon. members because under the laws that have been changed in the United States there will be no flexibility past a point in mid-January with respect to the providing of information from airline manifests.

This will not impose an infringement on our sovereignty. Any country has the right to determine who goes into it. The Americans want to know who is coming in and under what auspices. They have every right to know that. Canada was one of the few countries in the world that had lately been prohibited from providing that information. That is why we need to get that bill forward quickly.

The privacy commissioner has made some statements. On Friday he called me out of courtesy before releasing his letter and told me what he would say. I understand his concerns. We are willing to see if his concerns can be met by way of amendment or by way of undertakings we receive from the American government.

That is why it is important to get the bills into committee so that true deliberation and fine analysis of the various clauses can take place. It is important that we deal with the broad brushes of strategy and principle, but in committee we can look at the various clauses and decide if amendments are required.

In the deliberations on Bill C-36 the Minister of Justice showed she was flexible. The Prime Minister and others have said that. We respect the parliamentary tradition, the role of parliament as a deliberative Chamber and the role of the committees in analyzing legislation. That is why I welcome the sending of these bills to committee.

Concerns have been raised by some about the alleged inordinate power temporary regulatory orders would give to ministers. I did not hear members of the opposition on September 12, September 13 or when parliament opened on September 17 talk about ministers not having power. The opposition wanted ministers to have the power to act.

We did act. The government acted under the Aeronautics Act to close the skies. It was not done by order in council. It was not done by wide consultation. It is a power that was there under the Aeronautics Act, and it was invoked. Within the hour North American airspace was closed.

The very flexibility that I as Minister of Transport had in the hours following the attacks on the World Trade Center is what is needed by ministers to deal with a threat.

Let us take as an example the Minister of Health and the scare we have had with anthrax. If a regulation needs to be promulgated members want the Minister of Health to deal with the anthrax threat immediately. He can worry about the technicalities of the order in council, the gazetting and all the processes to be followed, but not immediately. Members want the authority exercised and exercised immediately. That is why the temporary powers requested in the bill are absolutely necessary to deal with situations of crisis.

Some members have said we have the Emergencies Act and can use its emergency powers. Despite its title the Emergencies Act is somewhat more rigorous and the processes under it are much more lengthy. Under the statute there must be an order in council process and wide consultation. We may be arguing hours versus days or a week or two under one act versus the other.

The example I gave about the powers the Minister of Transport already has under the Aeronautics Act demonstrated that in certain circumstances we need keen powers and regulations to protect the public interest and public safety. Bill C-42 is called the public safety act.

Hon. members are right to say these powers must not be abused and there must be additional safeguards. I will be interested to hear at committee what hon. members have by way of safeguards. We have the gazetting procedure. We have the ultimate judicial review process. Hon. members will say that we need to bring these regulations to parliament for approval, but what happens if parliament is not sitting? Parliament was not sitting on September 11. Under the Emergencies Act, how could I have consulted with parliament when it had not even been called?

Are we going to allow planes, perhaps with terrorists on board, to fly into Canada or into the U.S. without taking immediate action because parliament, in its wisdom, needs to sit down and debate the matter, even if it is for two hours, three hours or two days?

Sometimes governments have to act. Sometimes they have to take their responsibility and be accountable to the public. I believe this government has acted, has taken its responsibility and it is accountable to the public and to parliament, which is why we are debating these measures here. We will go to committee with an open mind to work in the best interests, not of the government or the government party or one party or another, but in the interest of public safety for all Canadians.

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2001

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-31, an act to implement agreements, conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Slovenia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Senegal, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic and Germany for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, at third reading.

Unlike my colleague I am not just concerned about the fact that a bill on taxation was introduced to the House through the Senate and all the implications that puts in place. The question is, why would a bill of this nature take precedence over other important issues regarding Canada's economy and the government's lack of policy concerning the same? Why does the government refuse to address issues like the Canadian dollar and the fact that it has lost 20% of its value against the U.S. dollar since the Liberal government was elected in 1993?

Since 35% of everything that Canadians consume originates from the United States, a 20% reduction in the Canadian dollar's relative value represents a massive drop in the standard of living of all Canadians. The dollar is not just doing badly compared to the American dollar. It has lost 11% against the Mexican peso, 4% against the British pound, 3% against the Russian ruble and 6% against the Argentine peso.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada said he was very concerned about the Canadian dollar. The chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank said:

At certain levels of the dollar you can argue that a depreciation is a value to the economy, but I think that went out the window a long time ago and any further slide is not helping.

Why is the government not doing something about the value of the Canadian dollar? Canada's productivity growth over the past two decades has been slower than that of every other G-7 country. We have one of the worst growth rates in the OECD. Over the last four years productivity in Canada has grown at a cumulative rate of 4.2% per year whereas in the United States it was 11%.

Why is the government not realizing that high taxes are not a good thing? Canadians had the second highest corporate tax rate in the OECD before the October 2000 mini budget. It is expected that following the budget, which is coming before the House hopefully on Monday, Canada will continue to have the second highest tax rate in the OECD.

Why has the government not dealt with the fiscal policy issues? The coalition supports the finance committee's recommendations to eliminate capital taxes. The coalition supports the committee's recommendations to eliminate the remaining capital gains tax for gifts of listed securities. The coalition recommends that lowering the corporate tax rate to the OECD average would be a positive thing.

It would be remiss of me not to talk about border issues. One-third of our GDP is a direct result of exports to the United States. Some 70% of exports move by truck, the mode of transportation that has been adversely affected by the congestion at the borders. Much of that trade is just in time delivery which is very important to Canadian commerce.

The coalition recommended to the government that it work with the United States to promote public policy that would move commerce across the border in a timely manner and at the same time deal with the security issues that are of such concern to the United States.

The coalition recommends that the Canadian government create a new ministry of public protection and border management to take responsibility for Canada's customs, immigration, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It recommends the creation of a binational border management agency that would jointly monitor the entry and exit of goods and persons into and out of the United States and that would continue monitoring goods and persons throughout the North American continent.

The border management agency could expedite pre cleared individuals and commodities across the border and not tie up the border. It would allow agencies to concentrate on the 5% or 10% that might be high risk to both Canada and the United States, and potentially Mexico in the future.

An entity that is missing in this and most government legislation is parliamentary oversight. There must be a parliamentary oversight committee formed to oversee not only the border management committee and public protection ministry but also the anti-terrorism legislation the government has put before the House: Bill C-36, Bill C-42, Bill C-44; and who knows what other legislation the government may try to put through the House without a parliamentary oversight.

We would like to know why the regulatory reforms with which the government should be dealing are not being dealt with. There should be a red tape budget that would afford parliament the opportunity to debate the regulatory burden on both Canadian businesses and individuals.

A regulatory budget would hold the government accountable for the full cost of the regulations that it puts into place and would prevent the current patchwork of redundant regulations with which Canadians are faced that stifle Canadian enterprise. The use of sunset clauses can ensure that the raison d'être of a regulation is reviewed periodically to make sure that it is appropriate and relevant.

We would like to know why the government does not deal in a more structured way when it places its estimates before parliament. There should be a system wherebys a certain number of departments are selected by the opposition that would have their estimates scrutinized by parliament without a time limit. We should be forcing our ministers to defend their parliamentary estimates in the House of Commons. That would improve parliamentary scrutiny on government spending and strengthen the role of members of parliament.

We would like to know why the government has made Bill S-31 a priority. There are many other issues of importance to Canadians and the Canadian economy that the government has ignored and refuses to address. The coalition wishes the government would get on with the priorities that Canadians feel are important instead of the things it would like to shove through the House and have Canadians think that it is doing the government's business.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill S-31 today, especially in light of the fact that there is agreement among all parties to see the bill move through the House as quickly as possible.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has stated, the bill would help streamline tax rules in Canada and elsewhere so we can increase and promote trade and commerce with our trading partners.

I was to keep my comments brief and I still plan to do that. However the parliamentary secretary said a couple of things in his statement that I must address, so I will stretch my speech slightly. I am sure many members are excited and ecstatic to hear that.

I will specifically address the point he made that opposition parties in the House continuously cite problems with the government's policy when it comes to immigration and customs. He says we are irresponsible for doing so, or something to that effect. It is completely outrageous to make a comment like that.

Bill S-31 is an act to ratify tax conventions agreed to by Canada and Slovenia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Senegal, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic and Germany. These agreements were set out to avoid double taxation between the respective nations and establish a co-operative framework to prevent fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.

Canada is a trading nation. I do not need to tell members that. As such it is important to establish formal tax and trade relationships with partner nations. For all intents and purposes Bill S-31 is a housecleaning bill that would facilitate such relationships.

The Canadian Alliance has traditionally encouraged all measures to further equalize and liberalize foreign trade and investment. In this regard Bill S-31 is a positive measure. However we usually have concerns when bills are introduced in the Senate, a body that is unelected and unaccountable. We have concerns about bills originating from that place and coming into this place. That is our only major concern with Bill S-31.

The tax treaties the bill would implement reflect efforts to update and expand Canada's network of tax treaties to obtain results in conformity with current tax policy. These treaties are generally patterned on the model double taxation convention prepared by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

It is important to look at the countries with which Bill S-31 would establish relationships, namely those in South America and continental Europe.

Canada's economy has flourished as a result of NAFTA whereby 80% of our exports are destined for U.S. markets. As a result of the tragic events of September 11 it is more than evident that we need to diversify our trade overview and seek additional markets.

Over the past century Canada's traditional trade links with Europe have declined. Bill S-31 is an excellent opportunity for Canadian exporters to develop and promote those trade relationships in the future. Germany, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic are target markets for Canadian products and ingenuity. South America, as was witnessed at the summit in Quebec, is an emerging market ripe for Canadian exporters.

To qualify our support for the bill I will read into the record the Canadian Alliance's policy pertaining to the matter:

We support securing access to international markets through the negotiation of trade agreements. Our trade agenda will focus on diversifying both the products we sell abroad and the markets into which we sell those products. We will vigorously pursue reduction of international trade barriers, tariffs and subsidies. We will work with international organizations that have relevant expertise to ensure Canadians' concerns about labour practices, environmental protection and human rights are reflected.

In light of the positive attributes of the bill, the Liberal government has not done enough to promote and protect the trade relationship we have with the United States under NAFTA.

As members may have seen, today the Coalition for a Secure and Trade Efficient Border released a report containing recommendations which echoed the demands the Canadian Alliance has been speaking about, actions that must be taken by the government to protect our citizens and provide continued unfettered access to U.S. markets.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance talked about how the opposition parties continue to bring up shortfalls with the government and that it is not the proper thing to do. I must remind the hon. member that, as the opposition, we have a responsibility in Canada to try to keep this arrogant government to account. That is one of our jobs. If the parliamentary secretary does not agree with that, then he should review his belief in democracy. This is specifically what we are supposed to do.

I would remind the hon. member that because of time allocation, we did not have enough time to debate Bill C-36. Many members would have liked to have spoken on this most profound bill that will affect all our civil liberties.

I will cite a November 17 edition of The Economist which I basically cited during my speech at that point in time, especially with regard to what the parliamentary secretary said.

In light of people who criticize certain policies of the government, The Economist said:

Those who criticize such measures should be given careful hearing, even if their views must be sometimes overridden.

It went on to say that one of the chief aims of democracy in liberal societies and those in office is to preserve democracy and promote liberty.

We in the opposition cite certain things that we see as profound problems with the way the government operates, and that we have done. The parliamentary secretary referred to our concerns with immigration. We have also expressed concerns on the way our border security is handled. We have expressed a number of concerns in these areas not because we want to put down the excellent work that is being done by immigration officials or customs agents. We have to take a moment to congratulate them for their work, with the limited resources available, and for the type of work they have done around the clock ever since the tragic events of September 11, which has been phenomenal.

I have taken the time to go down to some of those border crossings and talk to those agents. They have some serious concerns that the government has neglected to address and which the report on border security, which came out today, highlights. I hope the government will take this into account.

In light of Bill S-31, which promotes the trade relationships in Europe and other places in South America, it is so important that our security of the nation and our security at our borders is viewed as being taken seriously. If that means we have to review from time to time the way our immigration system works, especially as it pertains to refugees, the screening process and a number of other issues pertaining to our refugee settlement program, then it is responsible for the opposition to cite some of those concerns. The same thing goes for customs.

I have said time and time again, and I think many members know, that my family was displaced when I was a baby. We came to Canada as refugees in the early 1970s. We were very grateful for the process that we went through to come here. Canada opened up its arms and allowed my family to make a new life here. We do not want to jeopardize this. We want to have a system that can settle genuine refugees as effectively as possible.

We have cited some of the problems with our current plan. We let people into Canada who often do not come with documentation and we let them roam free until an opportunity comes up for them to have a refugee hearing. That is unacceptable, especially if they potentially pose a security threat. I do not think anyone would disagree that we want to help people coming here. In some cases it is true that people come to Canada without the proper documentation. They may have fled their countries under very turbulent circumstances. We have to be sensitive to that.

Our immigration critic, our solicitor general critic and a number of other critics have talked about the importance of being able to screen effectively those refugees who are making these claims from coming to the country, even if it means detaining them temporarily so we can do the proper security checks to make sure that Canadians are protected.

It is the job of the government to protect Canadians. We have seen a number of failed cases where potential refugee claimants have come to the country without the proper documentation and then have been allowed to roam free. This is a big concern for Canadians. Unfortunately, because of the lack of responsibility on this refugee settlement issue, the minds of Canadians have been changing on the whole view of immigration.

I recently saw a few reports and a few polls which were taken. Canadians are starting to become skeptical of allowing more immigrants into the country in light of what has happened since September 11.

This is a road that I hope Canadians never go down. If anything we should be increasing and looking at ways of improving our immigration system, its efficiency, the way it screens refugees and the way it lets people into the country. Hopefully we can improve and we can increase the number of refugees that come to Canada.

The parliamentary secretary surprised me when he spoke about the irresponsibility of the opposition citing weaknesses in government policy, but this is our role. We want to do it constructively so that we build a stronger and better country to protect Canadians and to make our systems, which many Canadians cherish, work more effectively.

In light of Bill S-31 as it pertains specifically to the borders, there still are some huge concerns when it comes to customs. We have raised them on a number of occasions. Also, as cited in the report released today, there are many concerns among the coalition of business groups and others, especially those involved in transportation, and a number of other industry related groups which can be affected very negatively if border security issues are not taken seriously.

We learned also in question period today, and in some of the other documented media reports, that even though the Americans are looking to working with us on border security issues, they are concerned and they have taken the precaution of setting up more military related personnel at the border.

This should raise some red flags for the government. In light of the great job that our customs agents and immigration officials are doing at the border, it is imperative that if we are to continue to modify tax agreements as this bill is proposing, we do what is required on the security front to allow for trade, especially with the United States, to be expedited effectively. To do that we need to ensure that we put the right resources at the border.

We are anticipating the budget which will come out next week. It is a budget that is long overdue. It has been almost two years since the finance minister produced one. This is unprecedented in the history of any democratic regime. Almost every type of organization that is accountable to a certain group of people, whether it is industry or other levels of government, has to take the time to report its financial condition to the people to whom it is accountable. The government has failed to do that for two years.

Therefore we are looking forward to the introduction of the budget by the government next week. We hope that the areas of customs and security at the border will be taken seriously. We have heard different reports leaked as to how much money will be put into those areas. Alongside any investment to increase the customs agent personnel at the border, it is also important to have the infrastructure to allow for the proper flow of goods and services across the border, as the report mentioned. That is another concern that has been cited.

As much as we may do at the border to allow for the proper security measures, we still have some outdated areas of transportation, especially when it comes to infrastructure, that do not allow for the increased amount of trade we share with the United States. This is of great concern to a number of industry groups that want to see efficiency at the border and that want to work with the government and stakeholders on the security issues. However infrastructure has to be a big part of that.

In conclusion, as important as the bill is in trying to facilitate agreements with other countries with which we are currently trading and to facilitate the growth of trade and commerce with those countries, we have to take a step back.

As I said, I was very disturbed to hear the parliamentary secretary say that it was irresponsible for the opposition to talk about potential problems in our system. It is so important that these things be dealt with hand in hand. If we are not taking seriously the security concerns and the efficiency concerns of our current policy as it applies to immigration, customs and in a number of other areas hand in hand with refining tax agreements, no one will be better off, especially in light of the tragic events of September 11.

An act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act

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

The junior minister of finance says it does not bother him a bit, but I am sure he does not speak for all of his colleagues. It does bother some of them. The way this government is continuing to govern with its dictatorial and arrogant manner I think it is of great concern to a great many Canadians. That is the simple reality of the situation.

When the government perceives the least bit of opposition from Canadians and from the opposition parties to try to improve a piece of legislation, instead of trying to work with those groups and those political parties, it just brings down the heavy hammer and after there has been a couple of hours of debate it rams it through the House of Commons. It does not matter that certain parties did not even get a chance to speak at third reading. It does not matter that some amendments did not even get a minute of debate on the floor of the Chamber. The reality is the government rams it through using closure or time allocation.

These are the same members in many cases, because of their longevity, who ranted and railed against those uses of power by the preceding government. Yet now that they are in power they have used it far more than the government before them.

Why Bill C-43 is before the Chamber today? In some cases there are legitimate errors, or omissions or adaptations that were necessary to this myriad of statutes and laws. However in some cases, as my colleague from the Canadian Alliance already pointed out, it is sloppy work. One of the trademarks of this government, over the eight years that I have been in this Chamber since the fall of 1993, is sloppy work. We hear this from a great many people. Certainly a great many parliamentarians who have a lot more history either in this Chamber or in the other place than I have are remarking that never before in their political history have they seen such sloppy work from a government. It brings forward legislation, amends it before it almost gets to the House, then it changes it.

Bill C-36 is a prime example. There were 100 amendments, it was still deeply flawed and the government had to rush it through. It will still be a mess and create problems when it gets to the Senate. The senators will probably amend it and send it back.

The government seems intent upon forcing through legislation, whereas if it just took a bit more time, worked in a more co-operative manner with the opposition parties and seriously considered some of the amendments that are brought forward both at committee and at report stage, we would see a lot better legislation passed through this House. We would see a functioning parliament. We would see a legislature working for the people instead of against the people. That is the reality of the government and a sad legacy for it.

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

My hon. colleague from Manitoba mentions Bill C-36. Of course the whole country if not the whole world is now aware that the government brought forward the dictatorial power it has to enact closure and time allocation and crush any debate.

I pointed out yesterday that the coalition had amendments that did not get one minute of debate on the floor of the Chamber before those amendments were put to a vote. That was at report stage.

Then at third reading of that legislation, both the New Democratic Party and the coalition did not get the opportunity to put up even one speaker before the government shut down debate. It basically eliminated the opportunity for Canadians to have their elected representatives bring forward concerns about the legislation. That is completely unacceptable.

There is more than a touch of irony that today, a couple of days later, we are debating Bill C-43 which makes, as the hon. House leader quite rightly identified, technical or minor amendments to a myriad of other acts.

I was going to end my comments at this point but one of the government members took it upon himself to say that it was so unacceptable that the coalition, or at least the majority of our members, voted for Bill C-36. That bears a bit of explanation and I thank the hon. member for his heckling from across the way to remind me of that.

On controversial issues like that, clearly there are parts of an omnibus bill that we believe are going in the right direction. This is true for so much of the legislation that comes before the House. Then there are other parts that we are vehemently opposed to and have very serious concerns about. Members, and I would suggest not just opposition members but indeed members of the governing party as well, are constantly caught in a quandary of whether to support the legislation as brought forward by the government or whether to vote against it. Oftentimes there is some good and some bad in the same legislation and we have to weigh the pros and cons.

Unfortunately, what inevitably happens, and the same would be true of a bill like the one we are debating today, Bill C-43, is that there may indeed be some good and some bad in a bill like this. It is an omnibus bill. It is making, as I said, a whole range of amendments, termed as minor amendments by the government, to a whole range of laws and statutes. The reality is that often times we are caught where we have to make a judgment call as to whether there is some good, some bad and which way to go on a particular way of legislation.

The only way to get around that is what the government is at least at this point willing to do with Bill C-42, the next omnibus so-called anti-terrorism bill. The government brought it forward. Then, within a day, it was before the opposition party claiming it needed to draw out one or several clauses and get them through the House, such as the clause dealing with airplane manifests and passenger lists, and then just let the remainder of Bill C-42 sit there for the time being and not debate it in the House. Rather it would have the House rising early, as the House leader for the opposition stated. Nine times so far in this fall session the House has adjourned early for lack of legislation put forward by the government.

This is a growing concern, I believe, not just to the opposition but indeed to a number of government backbenchers as well in the sense that the--

[An hon. member]

Such as Bill C-36.

Aeronautics Act

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent from what my colleagues have said that confusion occurs when a government uses the omnibus bill process to move legislation through the House. It is quite apparent from the comments my colleagues have made that in some of these bills there may be an aspect of things that should and can be supported. Because there is support for some of the amendments, the government also tries to put through other legislative amendments that are not acceptable and are very difficult for Canadians to support. We saw that in Bill C-36 and we see it again in Bill C-42.

The reason for the comments from my colleagues on Bill C-42 is because that is the origin of this section that has now found itself in Bill C-44. This section was originally in Bill C-42 as a measure to advance airline security and to respect the legislation that the United States government passed through its congress.

Quite frankly, it is a fairly good piece of legislation in itself in the one aspect it deals with. I think we will likely find that there is almost unanimous support for this piece of legislation.

If this was the intent by the government or if this is what was necessary in the first place, why did it dump it into an omnibus bill that brings a whole lot of other issues to the table at the same time? This bill should have been introduced by itself without being put in the omnibus bill. That omnibus bill probably should not have seen the light of day. Various sections should be brought to the House that deal specifically with the issues pertaining to defence, the health department or to transport provisions under the Aeronautics Act .

This part of the bill respects the law that the United States has put in place as a result, I would suggest, of the demand by its citizens to respond in some strong measure to answer the concern of safety and feeling secure and confident in using the airlines after September 11. Americans perhaps have more pressure than we do in Canada because they were the victims.

Yes, Canada had individuals who were killed in the towers. Yes, Canada helped the United States in responding to September 11. After visiting Washington and talking to people who lived there and worked in buildings near the Pentagon, we will probably never appreciate the damage that it did to the psyches or souls of Americans or the impact it had on their vulnerability.

Because of that, the American government had to respond in a way so that the American people could feel their government was in control and would prevent this from happening again. In response to that, the American government, the congress, the senate and the administration came up with a very concise and precise bill outlining what safety measures they were going to be taking.

One of them was the requirement for all international flights coming into the United States to provide to competent authorities passenger manifests prior to landing in the United States. That is a legitimate request. As a country, it has the right to ask for that.

Therefore, Bill C-44 was introduced by the government to respond in kind to the American legislation. This legislation will be enacted on January 18, 2002. Because of that, Bill C-44 must also come into effect prior to January 18, 2002 to be in compliance with section 117 of the U.S. aviation and transportation security act.

That is the reason the government removed this section from Bill C-42. Again, if this was timely and an important part of that legislation, then why did it not enter a separate piece of legislation in the House prior to putting Bill C-42 on the table?

The question arises as to what this manifest will contain. Why would a person be concerned about this information being made available? We heard from my colleague from the NDP of how people are concerned about the invasion of their privacy and of information they feel no one has any right to know.

We should make it clear that we are talking about the full name of passengers and crew; the date of birth; the sex; the passport number and country of issuance for each passenger, and crew if necessary; and the U.S. visa number or resident alien card number for each passenger, or crew if applicable. This information must be transmitted by the air carrier to U.S. customs in advance of the aircraft landing.

I do not know that this is really all that invasive. For the most part, this information is pretty widely known and is quite obvious in many cases. However the legislation, other than allowing the manifest to be transmitted before the landing of the aircraft, also permits the disclosure of information to other countries that the cabinet may designate by regulation.

Right now we know the Americans require this in legislation, but we are not aware, or at least I am not aware, of any other countries that might be contemplating similar legislation. I would like to have some idea, and I think Canadians would like to have some idea, of just how widely spread this kind of sharing of information will be.

Another amendment in Bill C-42 relates to changes in the Immigration Act that Canada will require air carriers bringing passengers to Canada to provide similar information by prescribed regulation to Canadian authorities. Obviously what we are doing in Bill C-44 is allowing Canada to send the manifests to the United States and other countries, when we ourselves, in Bill C-42, will be asking for the same kind of manifests to be sent to Canada from carriers bringing people into Canada. It is a quid pro quo and certainly something that is necessary after September 11.

I would like to reiterate that the Americans have reacted this way in a very strong show to their citizens that their government is in control and their government is acting in a very responsible way. Canadians have to realize that this is not new for us and that it will have very little effect, if any, for most Canadian travellers to the United States.

Eighty to ninety per cent of all airline passengers travelling to the United States go through one of seven major airports in Canada where U.S. immigration and customs services conduct pre-clearance before boarding. This pre-clearance basically gives the Americans all the information that they are requiring through legislation now. For most Canadians flying to the United States, this will not be any different than what happens now.

One thing we did hear when we were in Washington was that it had the same problem as we had in Canada where intelligence agencies did not share information with each other. Although this information will be flowing to the United States and to Canada, neither of us have a competent system to deal with that information and ensuring that all agencies, which may have an interest in certain people and threats posed by individuals, have the information in a timely manner. Something we and the Americans have to address is how to use this information, not only in an appropriate manner but in a manner that will make a real difference in the fight against terrorism.

Over a month ago, the coalition proposed a plan on public protection and border management. We put before Canadians and before the government a concept of how intelligence information could be shared, not only with our own agencies but with agencies in the United States as well. We feel this is a very practical approach, an approach that manages intelligence in an effective way, in a way that is useful and meaningful in attacking terrorism and terrorists themselves. We feel our proposal would go a long way to providing a practical application for what the Americans are asking and potentially, through Bill C-42, for what Canadians are asking.

The bottom line with Bill C-44 is that American legislation requires this change for all international flights landing in the United States. A failure to allow Canadian carriers to forward passenger manifests would prevent them from flying into the United States.

I would suggest that Canadians might perceive this legislation as a response to the American demand that Canada put it into practise. The embarrassing thing with this legislation is that it would appear that the Canadian government is once again responding to something coming from the Americans rather than the Canadian government taking a leadership role and putting in place a process that would address this issue. The Canadian government should have shown leadership. It should have shown initiative. It should have stepped out in front of the pack instead of trailing along behind the pack.

I would suggest that the concept put on the table a month ago by the coalition should be given serious consideration. Information collected on airline manifests could be used in a meaningful way and put into a system where it would be dealt with in real time. This would ensure that those individuals, who threaten the security of not only the United States, but of all the free world, could be dealt with in an efficient and expedient manner.

The government will find support for this legislation. We see the need to have this legislation in place. However it is a very small step in the road that has to be travelled to make sure that intelligence information is shared by all necessary agencies and dealt with in an expedient manner to address the issue of terrorist threats.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened carefully to my remarks, he would know that he has not at all reflected anything I said in true form. I did not suggest that the measures in Bill C-44 could be equated with the internment of Japanese Canadians, nor did I say that it is the draconian steps of the United States legislation that has led us to this point.

What I did say was that in terms of Bill C-36 and Bill C-42, which are the two umbrella pieces of legislation by the government dealing with anti-terrorism, there are broad sweeping provisions that go beyond the question of ensuring security for Canadians and invade the privacy of people in this country.

I refer the member to the statement made by a United Church minister here in Ottawa who said, “I deplore terrorist acts whoever commits them, but I have deep concerns about Bill C-36 as a response. When we react from emotional fear, we are very likely to make choices which violate human rights. I cite the October crisis, the internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II, the McCarthy era in the U.S.A. as examples of what can happen when nations overreact xenophobically to perceived threats”.

That is what I was attempting to suggest to the House. I would hope the member would not misinterpret my comments.

Finally, let me just use the words of one Canadian individual who has written all of us on the issues of Bill C-36 and Bill C-42. She put it so well and so poetically. She said, “If we believe in beauty and compassion and the possibility that good will overcome evil, then we are taking steps in the wrong direction. We are on the brink of selling out almost every important and essential component necessary to realizing our common goals of life, liberty, empowerment of the individual, celebration, joy and creativity”. I think that says it all.

Public Safety Act

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, more exaggeration from the opposition. The bill codifies and clarifies responsibilities which fall to the Government of Canada already. The bill does not violate the charter of rights and freedoms. The government is as interested and as concerned with ensuring that we take into consideration the rights and freedoms of Canadians, together with their safety and security.

It is this government that brings about a balance. It is this government that amended Bill C-36 and listened to the various representations which were made. We are prepared to listen to representations again.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government said the same thing about Bill C-36, but did not listen to anyone. We are not naive.

The Bloc Quebecois has been saying since the beginning that, when faced with exceptional situations, we must strive to maintain a balance between freedom and security. However, the minister's bill does not meet this requirement, and the extemporaneous nature of the legislation is obvious.

Does the Minister of National Defence realize that, with his bill, he is falling into the trap of terrorists by forgetting that our best weapons to fight terrorism are democracy, human rights and freedom?

Aeronautics Act

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking all the members of the Standing Committee on Transport with whom we have had the opportunity to work. After the many hearings we held on issues having to do with the terrorism crisis, I can say that airline safety in this country is considered among the best in the world.

All the work done since September 11, both by the Minister of Transport and all his colleagues, and by all government agencies, is the envy of many other countries.

We were also able to visit Washington and hold hearings there. The way airline safety is handled in this country is considered second to none right now. There are still improvements to be made. We will make them, and are making them daily.

I do not want everything to be lumped together here this morning. There was reference to Bill C-36, to which substantial amendments were made. It is a shame to hear otherwise. If there were marks for exaggeration, many members of this House would have no trouble passing. They are lumping all the bills together.

We are looking at Bill C-44. I would like to ask the New Democratic Party member what she means—

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-44 on behalf of the NDP caucus.

The bill is clearly part of a much broader agenda with respect to phase two of the government's determination to pursue broad, wide sweeping and very comprehensive legislation. On the one hand the bill appears to deal with issues of security, issues which we all share, but on the other hand very much impedes civil liberties and human rights.

We will be consistent on the issue. We have said from day one with respect to Bill C-36 and now with respect to Bill C-42 that the government has crossed the line between balancing those two concerns, between standing up for measures that actually address in real terms the threat of terrorism and respecting Canada's longstanding traditions and historic developments in civil liberties and human rights.

It is good that the Minister of Transport has introduced Bill C-44. He has carved off one specific section from the massive piece of anti-terrorist legislation for our consideration today. In the process he has left us presumably some time to deliberate, to discuss with Canadians the full ramification of the provisions in Bill C-42. I hope that is the case. That was certainly our concern with respect to Bill C-36.

The minister may talk about the time given to the House to deliberate on that very massive piece of legislation which impacts on almost every aspect of our lives. The government came in with a heavy hand. It gave a window of opportunity to hear some testimony from Canadians but then without due consideration to the amendments being proposed by those organizations or by opposition members, the government proceeded as it had originally wished, with the exception of some housekeeping amendments. That is clearly unacceptable. We have said that over the last few days.

The events leading up to yesterday's developments and the commotion in the House yesterday speak to that precisely. It was a fascinating day yesterday in the House. There have been fascinating developments over the last couple of days.

The Conservatives in the House have gone through a remarkable conversion from a position of support for Bill C-36 to a position yesterday of strong opposition to Bill C-42. Many have questioned how this is possible. A Conservative member has said that it was a logical thing to do. That is what we are searching for; we are trying to find some logic in the Conservative position.

At least in the case of the Bloc members who voted for Bill C-36 at second reading, they wanted to reserve judgment at third reading based on the testimony and concerns raised. Bloc members listened and acted on those concerns and ended up opposing Bill C-36.

In the case of the Conservatives, my goodness, they spoke with such opposition to Bill C-36 and ended up supporting it at third reading. One has to wonder, as someone said to me, if they woke up the morning after having slept with the Liberals feeling guilty and had to do a quick change in position based on those feelings of guilt. I hope instead that it is a case of the Conservatives seeing the light of day and realizing just what kind of pervasive stranglehold the government has over our society as a result of Bill C-36 and with respect to Bill C-42.

It is clearly an issue today of trying to find a balance between civil liberties and dealing with serious threats. No one here is suggesting that the threat to our security as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks is not real nor that action should not be taken to address those threats. That is exactly what we have been trying to do in the course of debate, to find that balance.

We have been trying to persuade the Minister of Justice and now the Minister of Transport to find that balance and truly represent the concerns of Canadians. It is the kind of balance we hope will be achieved in the final analysis at least with respect to Bill C-42. It may be too late for Bill C-36 although it is still in the Senate and who knows what can happen. It is certainly not too late for Bill C-42. We now have a much greater consolidation of concern on the part of the opposition, with the exception of Alliance members who feel that even these major intrusive measures are wimpy. It is hard to imagine that kind of viewpoint is alive and well in this Chamber but it is.

This is probably the most draconian piece of legislation in the history of the country and the Alliance finds it wimpy. The Alliance claims it does not go far enough. It wants to see tougher measures. It wants to take away all our rights and liberties in the interests of terrorism. That is certainly a marginal position. It is not even on the table. The work of the majority of parliamentarians with cool heads and rational judgment is to find the common ground to balance security with civil liberties.

Bill C-44 represents one small part of the wide sweeping, major anti-terrorist legislation, Bill C-42. We in the NDP certainly support the legislation going to committee. It should be studied and dealt with expeditiously. However we have some concerns. There are real questions about what Bill C-44 means in terms of privacy in Canada and in terms of protecting individual rights and freedoms.

It is very disconcerting not to have a clear understanding from the Minister of Transport as to what it means for Canada to provide passenger lists for every airline crossing into American airspace. What does it mean to collect all that information and where does it go? What does it mean when the government says it will release the passenger lists and crew data to a foreign government where such information is required by the laws of the country? What laws and according to what standards, values and principles? When do we draw the line between providing necessary information to ensure the threat of security is addressed and allowing foreign invasion of individual rights to privacy?

There is no question that some action has to be taken in terms of security at our airports. Our caucus has been very clear about wanting beefed up security at our airports. We have raised numerous concerns about the chaos in the airline industry. We would like to see some real leadership from the government about the crisis at Air Canada, about the collapse of Canada 3000, about the turmoil and uncertainty facing air travellers and the chaos at the airports themselves.

It would be good to have a comprehensive piece of legislation from the minister dealing with the crisis in the airline industry and a comprehensive plan on airline and airport security. This kind of patchwork, ad hoc response is not that helpful in dealing with the bigger picture. It is not apparent to us how this kind of initiative will fundamentally address the root causes of terrorism.

Given the incidents over the last few days and weeks, we are concerned about racial profiling. We are obviously concerned about what happens to passenger lists, given the incident recently reported about a member of our Sikh community travelling by air and being pulled off the plane because of the way he looked. This was done clearly not taking into account cultural mannerisms and not being sensitive to the diversity of this nation.

What happens if an airline en route from Winnipeg to Ottawa travelling through American airspace has a couple of Sikh names or Arab sounding names on that list? Are these people singled out? Given past experience are we looking at people being identified and under suspicion because of how they look, the colour of their skin, what they are wearing, what their body language is and what their facial expressions are?

We have legitimate reasons to be concerned given what has happened in the last few weeks. The number of people who are being detained as an ethnic group and questioned on the basis of their ethnic origin raises suspicion. Suspicion is also raised when people are being detained without access to legal assistance and an understanding of why they are being detained without evidence of any wrongdoing. All that gives us great concern.

It makes us wonder how the government will go down this path and ensure that our diversity is respected and individual rights and freedoms are preserved in Canada if it cannot handle the situations we have had over the last few weeks.

We will support Bill C-44 going to committee. We want to hear answers to many questions and raise concerns. NDP members want to give a cautionary note to the government about Bill C-42. This is broad, sweeping legislation that tips the balance in favour of security over civil liberties and human rights.

We are asking the government why it is trampling on rights and freedoms in order to achieve greater security in this country. I do not think the government has an answer for that. In many ways it has leapt into this area with the determination to have a quick response without thinking through the final impact of its decisions.

The government has to sit back, look at the situation and start to act in the interests of Canadian traditions and values. It must know full well that we have the means, the ability and the tools to attempt to offer security to all Canadians without taking away basic rights and freedoms.

We look forward to having the legislation debated in committee. My party will be raising many concerns at that point. The New Democratic Party hopes the government makes a commitment in this process to allow Canadians to be heard on Bill C-42. All members should work together to achieve the balance between protecting people against the threat of terrorism and standing up and protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-44.

First, I would like to try to explain how the Liberal federal government has been having a bad week since last Thursday. At the same time, it is important for Quebec and Canadian people to understand how we can go from the 98 page bill tabled last week to the one page bill tabled in a rush today under a new number.

It is important to understand that because there has been numerous discussions on Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, and on Bill C-42, the Public Safety Act.

Right from the start, we noticed that Bill C-42 on public safety contained no aviation security provision. No investment, no measure was announced in it. That was our first finding. Besides, people had great expectations that the bill sponsored by the transport minister could reassure them with regard to airport security and aviation safety, but it failed to do so. The minister candidly admitted to it for that matter. Budget measures will re required, which the finance minister will hopefully put forward on December 10 next.

Why did he introduce this voluminous 98 page Bill C-42? As the transport minister told us earlier, it is because the U.S. government had tabled a legislation on aviation safety the day before. The Canadian government, which was working on a public safety legislation, tabled it on the next day.

At the outset, as I already told Quebecers who are listening, there was nothing new announced about airline security. There were, however, major announcements the new powers which the government wanted through interim orders, without the authorization of the House. The words interim order were invented to allow the health, agriculture, environment and other ministers to make from time to time emergency orders, which would have the force of regulations and which would be implemented immediately, without going through the regular review procedure, especially the security procedure enacted by the government through the Privy Council to determine whether those orders are consistent with the Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms. This was the first main thing we saw.

Second, there was the issue of military security zones, about which the Minister of National Defence gave wonderful speeches this week.

The Bloc Quebecois, as an opposition party should, did its homework, went over the bill and asked questions in the House directly to the Prime Minister. First, we asked a very simple question to the Prime Minister “What would Bill C-42 allow you to do that you did not do in September?” Of course, the Prime Minister let the Minister of Transport answer the question. They were not able to tell us what they could not have done in September, why we should have this bill and how it would allow us to respond in a better way. The minister gave a very evasive answer.

There was obviously no answer to the question, because intervention occurred under the current regulation. Since the public sought some reassurance, the government used legislation under its jurisdiction. Ministers used the powers they had. Apart from a few mistakes, by the Health Minister, for instance, the government managed rather well. It did not, however, need new legislation to deal with such tragic events as those of September 11.

We have to understand that for many years ministers, departments and officials have had expectations, and would have liked more power. Bill C-42 was probably a good opportunity for the ministers to include all the traditional demands of their departments and officials so that they can have control without the members of parliament being involved and without any parliamentary process, something which is too cumbersome for some. For others, of course, this process is necessary.

This is what happened with Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. The government proudly said “See, we have introduced a bill that has gone through all the legislative stages. Members of parliament have been able to debate the bill at second reading, in committee, and at third reading. They had the opportunity to move amendments.”

The legislative process has been so well followed that, last Wednesday, the government gagged the opposition. The government prevented us from going on with the debate to better explain to the citizens the content of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. We were gagged.

So, on Wednesday, the debate ended because of the Liberals' decision to issue a gag order. Bill C-36 was passed in virtually the same form as it was introduced, despite the fact that the Bloc Quebecois alone had moved 66 amendments, of which only one was retained. That amendment was to include the word cemetery in the list of objects which could be considered as being part of hate crimes. We have to hand it to the government for having included the word cemetery.

However, there were some very important issues, and some very important discussions. There were more than 80 witnesses heard by the committee who asked, almost unanimously, that some significant restrictions be added. Among the restrictions was the sunset clause, proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, to limit the bill in time to a three year period, given that the bill creates new provisions and new limits to personal freedom. This did not happen. We wanted an annual review. The government did not retain this idea.

Once again, the government used the legislative process. For Bill C-36, the government used the process to say, “listen, the committee worked on the bill and you had your chance to be heard. In the end, we will not retain anything”. This is clearly this government's motto: zip, we will not retain anything. This is how the Liberal government operates.

It is especially difficult when, in the same week, there is debate on bills as important as Bill C-42, which introduces interim orders. It grants exceptional powers to ministers, to individuals. Take the example military security zones. It provides the Minister of National Defence with the power to establish, on his own authority, military security zones, without the provincial attorneys general even requesting it, which was the case until now.

Quebecers who are listening should know that, thanks to the good work of the Bloc Quebecois, and the other members of the opposition in the House, Bill C-42 will not be passed before the holidays. This is why we are debating Bill C-44.

They have taken the only urgent measure, the only truly urgent measure, from Bill C-42, and that is obviously what the minister has introduced today. An independent bill has been created, Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, in order to comply with U.S. requirements for air carriers taking passengers to the United States or through U.S. airspace.

This is indeed the only measure that was really necessary and urgent in Bill C-42, as I said at the beginning of my speech. How, within one week, can a bill of 98 pages be introduced? Finally, and everyone agrees on this, the only true emergency measure is the single page representing clause 4.83. That is the change that has been made and I will address that shortly.

So that is what the Liberal government's difficult week has been all about. It has once again tried to pull a fast one on all Quebecers, all Canadians, in the guise of a concern for national security.

It is sad because, when it comes down to the bottom line, if Bill C-42 had been passed this week, the terrorists would have succeeded in what they were trying to do from the start, which is to directly attack the very foundations of our liberal and democratic society.

This is the worst of it. Rather than discussing real security problems, announcing measures, announcing budgets, the government has introduced a bill. The Minister of Transport could very well have caused a real hullabaloo in the House by pressuring the Minister of Finance, by saying “This is what we need to have enhanced security, and this is what it will cost, according to a number of people who came before us in committee. This is what the people of Quebec and of Canada need”.

That is not what was done. A bill was introduced. It was just smoke and mirrors to distract Quebecers and Canadians, and all because last Wednesday the U.S. government introduced a real air security bill.

This is why today, before Bill C-44, we are all to understand that it was an emergency measure. This is why the Bloc Quebecois told the House on Tuesday of its clear desire to debate a bill that gave Canadians some security. This measure alone, which was contained in C-42 and which we are debating today, is intended to harmonize Canadian legislation with American legislation that came into effect on November 19 in the United States.

I will read the American text, so it will be clear what the Canadian legislation should include:

Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act [American], each air carrier and foreign air carrier operating a passenger flight in foreign air transportation to the United States shall provide to the Commissioner of Customs by electronic transmission a passenger and crew manifest... to provide the information required by the preceding sentence.

(a) the full name of each passenger and crew member;

(b) the date of birth and citizenship of each passenger and crew member;

(c) the sex of each passenger and crew member;

(d) the passport number and country of issuance for each passenger and crew member, if required for travel;

(e) The United States visa number or resident alien card number of each passenger and crew member, as applicable;

(f) Such other information as the Under Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner of Customs, determines is reasonably necessary to ensure aviation safety.

This is therefore the request the Americans are making of all foreign countries whose airlines are passing through the United States either carrying passengers to the United States or passing over American airspace.

Of course, since our American friends are asking, it is important that we, as responsible neighbours, comply with their requirements.

As for the bill before us, the Bloc Quebecois will support this measure to standardize the information to be provided on passengers. However, we have to be careful. The American legislation, which I have read, is clear, but the bill introduced in the House today is not so clear.

I will quote clause 4.83 of the bill, for the benefit of Quebecers. In any case, there are only four paragraphs in the bill.

4.83 (1) Despite section 5 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, to the extent that that section relates to obligations set out in Schedule 1 to that Act ... an operator of an aircraft departing from Canada or of a Canadian aircraft departing from any place outside Canada may, in accordance with the regulations, provide to a competent authority in a foreign state any information that is in its control relating to persons on board or expected to be on board the aircraft and that is required by the laws of the foreign state.

So, this first paragraph says that we will provide the information requested by foreign states. However, the second paragraph provides that:

(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations generally for carrying out the purposes of this section, including regulations:

(a) respecting the type or classes of information that may be provided; or

(b) specifying the foreign states to which information may be provided.

So, regulations will have to be made and this is why the Bloc Quebecois asked the Leader of the Government in the House yesterday if, considering that the clause before us is not clear as to the information to be provided, we could have the regulations which, among other things, will govern the type or classes of information that may be provided.

We had indeed been told that today we would be provided with a draft or at least with the speech notes on the regulations. This is what the minister seems to have promised for noon today. We could certainly consider those notes or the first draft of the regulations the government intends to propose and pass. We hope to have the opportunity to discuss the matter before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess.

It should not be forgotten that under the U.S. order that I was reading earlier, Canada has to adopt some measures before January 18, 2002 and it must be able to produce the regulations and the list of information that the Americans might demand regarding the carriers transporting passengers to the United States or flying over U.S. air space.

I am repeating it again to all Quebecers and Canadians listening to us, we started off last week with a 98 page bill from which we extracted the only emergency measure contained in Bill C-42, that is the measure regarding the information on passengers that we will have to submit if we want our airline companies to be authorized to continue to do business in the United States, and we drafted a separate bill.

It was a very difficult week for the federal Liberal government because, once again, it tried to present a distorted picture of Quebecers and Canadians. We are much more on the ball than people in many other countries around the world.

The Liberals are lucky enough to have opposition parties that know how to read legislation and guess at the intentions of ministers, who too often take advantage of crisis situations, such as the events of September 11, to try to make some old dreams come true. For the Minister of National Defence, the dream is to have his army operate anywhere in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, even if the governor general or the provinces have not asked that the army be called in.

It is hard for opposition parties in this House to put up with situations like what happened last week, when we were gagged and unable to debate Bill C-36. We are prevented from speaking. The following day, the proceedings of this House were interrupted for two hours because there was nothing to debate. This is what the Canadian parliament has come to. Canadians and Quebecers who are listening must realize this.

As things stand now, the federal Liberal government is too strong and believes it can do as it pleases. Once again, I trust Quebecers and Canadians. They see what is happening, just as we do, and they will increasingly trust the Bloc Quebecois and the opposition parties to defend their interests.

Nuclear Fuel Waste Act

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

Mr. Speaker, since we do not have a motion to debate, I would put forward a motion that we use the next two hours to debate the closure the government imposed on Bill C-36 so we can have the debate we did not have yesterday.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No it is not. In fact in reference to Bill C-36, we had allotted three days for the consideration of that bill but that was refused. The bill has to go to other place to be passed.

The bill that was passed today was thanks to the co-operation of everyone on all sides of the House. That is the kind of co-operation that we would have sought and we could have received, but unfortunately were unable to do so on Bill C-36, would have made it equally possible at the time. Thankfully it occurred today. Regrettably it did not occur yesterday.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's question of privilege cannot be taken seriously for two reasons.

First, everything the Leader of the Opposition said came from a public meeting of the standing committee on November 22, including the motion to report to the House that a breach of privilege had not occurred. I invite the Speaker to review the proceedings from November 22 and compare them to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Any mention of the report by the Leader of the Opposition was in the context of a request. Again, if you review the leader's request and the report, you will see that they do not match.

Second, the member's question of privilege is out of order because the proper procedure to raise a question of privilege involving a committee is to bring the matter before the standing committee. If the standing committee concludes that a breach has occurred, it could report the breach to the House. I refer the hon. member to page 128 of Marleau and Montpetit:

Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the committee which directly deals with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member.

I bring your attention to the fact that the hon. member was in the House affairs committee earlier this day and did not raise the matter whatsoever. The hon. member does not understand the parliamentary procedure and definitely does not understand privilege. It is evident today in the manner in which he raises the issue and by his behaviour at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when dealing with the question of privilege regarding the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-36.

During the public proceedings of the committee the hon. member, as the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, led his Liberal members to shut down the opposition, gag the privy council and sweep the matter under the carpet. His members made the lamest excuses to discontinue the study such as it costs too much to investigate the matter, the committee has gone far enough and it is too difficult a task.

If the hon. member wants to talk about contempt he should look no further than at his behaviour and efforts today. He should take note of another aspect of parliamentary privilege. Page 26 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada declares:

“One of the first and greatest of its privileges is free speech and one of the advantages of legislative bodies is the right of exposing and denouncing abuses by means of free speech”.

If any privilege is under siege today it is the right of a member to speak freely in the House and expose and denounce the abuses of the government. The premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-36 is one example. The lack of action to deal with the matter is yet another. The government use of closure on Bill C-36 is yet another example.

The member's attempt to question the right of the Leader of the Opposition to speak freely in the House is conclusive evidence that the government's contentious behaviour regarding the proceedings on Bill C-36 is pathological. I ask the member and the House to consider the report in question and the Deloitte & Touche findings which my leader referred to. The report stated at page 11:

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.

In addition, my leader made reference to the fact that it was disclosed to the committee that the PCO had the Deloitte & Touche report edited prior to its delivery to the committee. The opposition smelled a rat and moved to use the authority of the committee to obtain a copy of the unedited report. However the member, probably acting on the instructions of the PMO, led his Liberal majority once again to vote the motion down.

All this took place at a public meeting. I invite the Speaker and the public to examine those minutes, not just to clear the air but to expose the disrespectful and contemptuous actions and behaviour of the Liberal government in this cover-up.

It is no wonder that the contents of Bill C-42 were also leaked to the media prior to being tabled in the House. Why should any government official be deterred from leaking information to the media ahead of parliament when the majority in control of the House is too weak-kneed and complacent to take any corrective action to avoid it? There is contempt here today, but you will not find it on this side of the House. You should look to your right.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the debate of yesterday afternoon. I want to thank the table clerks and the clerks of the committee on procedure and House affairs who helped me in haste to put together the facts of this question of privilege.

In his remarks concerning Bill C-36, the Leader of the Opposition made repeated references to the findings, proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the matter of a breach of privilege brought to the House by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast. The Chair will know that the matter was referred to the standing committee and the report was tabled this morning by the chair of that committee, the member for Peterborough.

As a foundation for my argument I draw the attention of the House to page 884 of Marleau and Montpetit:

Committee reports must be presented to the House before they can be released to the public...Even when a report is adopted in public session, the report itself is considered confidential until it has actually been presented in the House.

It goes on to say:

It is not in order for Members to allude to committee proceedings or evidence in the House until the committee has presented its report to the House.

I would argue that the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition contravened both conventions. On the first issue he twice referred to the fact that the committee concluded that there was no breach of privilege. The reference from the House required the committee to recommend on that issue and the issue of the alleged breach. That finding was the essence of the report. It was the committee's response to the reference from the House.

The committee did go in camera for a portion of the discussion so the notion that confidentiality was expected could not have been misinterpreted. On the larger issue of when and why committees go in camera, a practice that I think all members try to minimize, a major factor is the confidentiality protections that public proceedings enjoy as laid out in Marleau and Montpetit.

To take elements of the proceedings out of context and bring them to the floor of the House, using the argument that they were technically not part of the in camera discussions, may very well result in a dramatic increase in in camera activities by committees. In addition, the context of the member's criticism leaves no doubt as to the inference he was making. On November 28 the Leader of the Opposition stated in Hansard :

—why did the committee conclude that no breach of privilege occurred?

Marleau and Montpetit specifically included findings from public meetings to reinforce the fact that the finding is not the conclusion of the committee until the report is tabled in the House. Members are prohibited from cherry-picking aspects of the process without the context of the full and complete report. The hon. member continued his critique of the committee:

Then for some reason the committee decided to abandon its responsibilities in the incident related to Bill C-36.

I would argue that the responsibilities he refers to being abandoned were not fulfilled until the report was tabled in the House. That happened this morning. He continued:

I do not know how the committee will explain why it concluded that no breach of privilege had occurred when it tabled its report.

In fact the report had not been tabled. As I understand it, it was delayed at the request of the Alliance Party.

The words in context of the member were a conscious criticism of the findings of the committee, again before the actual findings were tabled. The member chose to exploit findings of the committee to potentially strengthen his political argument. The finding of no breach was a fait accompli. He referred to it in the past tense. He went on to disagree with and criticize the Liberal members of the committee in the House for that finding.

The only issue I take exception to is the timing. He should have waited until the finding was tabled in the House like all other members of this place. By pre-empting the finding and the reference that it was the final conclusion of the committee prior to the chair tabling the report this morning, the Leader of the Opposition, an officer of the House, showed contempt for the rights and privileges of all members of this place.

On the second issue of the reference to evidence and proceedings the transcript is clear. The member repeatedly described evidence and the voting pattern of the committee on a number of motions that were dealt with. I rose on a point of order at the time to object to the content of his remarks but was told it was a matter of debate. I would appreciate some clarity on this issue from the Speaker.

I put the issue in your capable hands and learned mind, Mr. Speaker. Should you find there is a prima facie breach of privilege I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Immigration

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. Terrorists know that they can enter the country without identification, in spite of Bill C-36. And amazingly, they can continue to belong to terrorist organizations.

How long on average will the government detain these individuals before setting them as free as birds?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, my information from sources that I think are at least as good as the hon. member's is that there were not 30 people let go without documents. One person arrived without documents. He was examined and the appropriate action was taken.

We are being vigilant at our borders. We are giving ourselves additional legislative tools. We appreciate the fact that most of the members of the Alliance Party supported us on Bill C-36. I hope that this support on behalf of Canada's security will continue.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, as terrorists are being hunted down around the world, many of them know that despite Bill C-36 they can still get into Canada without documentation. Now workers at Pearson airport have told us that about 35 people a day arrive without documents. As a matter of fact, on Tuesday there were 30 who arrived here without documents. These frontline workers also tell us they are worried about possible terrorist connections that these people may have.

I ask the Prime Minister, specifically of the 30 who arrived here on Tuesday without documents, how many were let go and how was it determined that they were not a security risk?

Bill C-42

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have become masters of combining the good, the bad and the ugly into massive omnibus bills, forcing members to accept flawed legislation in order to pass needed amendments. They did this with Bill C-36 and they appear to pushing the boundaries even further with Bill C-42.

Tagged with the misnomer the Public Safety Act, the bill should be more accurately called the ministerial power grab act as most of the bill would give ministers broad authoritative powers with no parliamentary accountability. Bill C-42 would give the Minister of Transport and bureaucrats a blank cheque to develop an aviation security process as they see fit.

Let us contrast this to the American aviation and transportation security act where it was elected representatives and senators who determined what the security measures would be.

When will the Liberal backbenchers finally realize that all bills like Bill C-42 do is strip them of whatever little power they still have left?

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not rise at third reading to address this important bill, as I did at the other stages.

As the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm just did so brilliantly and eloquently, I too will explain that we agree with the main purpose of this bill, which is to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. However, we are totally opposed to the three paragraphs in clause 5 that seek to give new, unrecognized powers to the RCMP.

I know that Liberal members agree with this statement. These three paragraphs in clause 5 give to the RCMP new powers that go against individual and collective rights.

The Bloc Quebecois supported the bill at second reading, but with some reservations. The research done and the evidence heard in committee convinced us that these three paragraphs should not be included in Bill C-35, because they give new powers to the RCMP, because they change the relations with other peace officers, and because they change the RCMP's relations with other provincial and municipal administrations during international conferences.

Now that Bill C-36 will become law and that Bill C-42 is before us, we are all the more concerned about these three paragraphs in Bill C-35.

Briefly, I want to say that the rest of the bill seeks to modernize the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and that, contrary to some other parties in the House, we agree with that change. We think that the increase in multilateral international relations over the past 10 years requires us to have more flexible mechanisms to guarantee full protection to those come here to represent their country at various international conferences.

However, as all the witnesses heard by the committee said, clause 5 is unnecessary. As my colleague showed, the powers of the RCMP are already clearly established elsewhere. They are established because they were defined by the supreme court, since common law differs from civil law—but as members know this is not my forte—in that the law is the result of the whole jurisprudence.

This bill, which authorizes the RCMP to establish the perimeters that it deems reasonable, without any further guidelines, gives a new power to that police force.

The minister said “This is a codification”. I am sorry to report that witnesses said this was a new power being conferred on the RCMP. It is not to be found elsewhere. And incidentally, it is not clear whether or not the supreme court would allow the RCMP to establish perimeters based on what it believes is reasonable.

What is the impact of this power being given to the RCMP? There are consequences for the police themselves, and serious consequences when it comes to the rights of citizens. Regarding the police, witnesses who appeared before the committee testified that it was not wise to allow police—who have neither the time, nor the resources to decide at any given moment when they are on duty, what they are permitted to do based on jurisprudence—to make this type of decision, for which they will be held accountable, this decision to determine the perimeter that is required and how to then manage the fact that numerous rights are being violated.

Which rights would be violated? I am quoting from Wesley Pue, professor of law and incumbent of the Nemetz Chair in legal history at the University of British Columbia. He states:

—the right of free movement within Canada, the right of assembly, the right of free expression, the right to enjoyment of your property—because the erection of a security perimeter to limit a private area amounts to an expropriation, limited though it may be in time—the right to work, if one's business is located within the security perimeter, and limited by the existence of the perimeter, without being interrupted or harassed by the police.

We could add to that, subject to tear gas, as many people experienced during the Quebec City summit.

A security perimeter compromises all of these rights and raises a number of questions. How long before and after an event can it be erected? What kinds of solutions can be offered to those whose rights are violated? Will there be compensation or recourse for them? Will there be security passes? Who will be admitted?

I could go on for quite a while but I realize that I am running out of time. As Mr. Pue put it:

These are serious questions.

He adds:

It can of course be assumed that most RCMP agents will conduct themselves as responsible policemen. But their desire to act in a responsible way will not be enough to protect the public anymore than the imposition of an obligation that is brutal but sufficient in police terms. According to the rule of law, the law must specify as clearly as possible the conditions in which these violations of fundamental rights are foreseen.

None of this is in the bill. When we asked whether a simple amendment could be made to these three paragraphs so that they reflect citizens' rights, the answer was no. It is unacceptable that the government has continued to allow these three paragraphs to spoil the rest of the bill.

In fact, many Liberal members of the committee were extremely troubled by the evidence given and tried to get these paragraphs withdrawn. I give them credit for that. They know that this is not where we should be headed. They felt so strongly that they presented a motion in the House, part of which I will read:

Whereas the codified powers of the RCMP could affect the rights and privileges of Canadian citizens during conferences—

Just that is enough. The Liberal members submitted a motion to the committee, which adopted it unanimously. This motion said that the government should review clause 5 in order to ensure that citizens' rights and freedoms were not being violated. We know that our colleagues opposite rarely run the risk of rebelling. This is confirmation which we did not need, but of which we are proud, that we absolutely had to oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not planning on speaking to Bill C-35 this morning, because the hon. member for Mercier, the Bloc critic, has worked so well on this issue that the Bloc's position has been very clear.

Given that the government has once again, through means at its disposal, prevented the opposition from doing its job on issues as important as this one, I feel compelled to rise to both speak to this bill and denounce it at the same time.

I do not completely agree, in fact, I would say that I completely disagree, with the government members who say that there is no link between bills C-35, C-36 and C-42. I think that we need to look at the big picture. It is very relevant to discuss this. It is so relevant to discuss this that the government has gagged debated on Bill C-36 in order to rush it through, so as to prevent us from having all of the legislative pieces in hand to discuss them as a whole.

There is one complaint that the Bloc Quebecois wants to make to the government regarding the September 11 events. Yes, September 11 is an extremely sad and tragic date. We all know the clichés such as “Nothing will ever be the same after September 11”. If the government had any political courage, it would have presented to us all the bills, its global vision, all at once, so that we could see how it plans to strengthen security—assuming it needs to be strengthened—and, as it says, fight terrorism.

But instead, the government is using a piecemeal approach. It resorted to closure with Bill C-36. As for Bill C-42, we learned yesterday that, because of a lack of political guts, the government has decided to split this legislation in two. As regards the very controversial part, it says “We will shove it down their throat later, when we get back from the Christmas break. Since all the other parts of the controversial bills will already have been adopted, there will only be this small part left and we will deal with it later”.

Today, in relation to Bill C-35, we heard another falsehood from members opposite. Bill C-35—unless I do not know how to read—was introduced on October 1, 2001. That was after September 11, 2001. Therefore, it reflects what the government intended to do following the September 11 events. Whether the bill was previously debated in committee or wherever, the fact remains that we have been here since November 2000 and the government had ample time to introduce this legislation, had it wanted to.

But probably because of a lack of political will, it waited for the events of September 11, and now it is in a great big hurry to see all its wildest dreams realized. It is passing bills. It is giving itself all sorts of powers to intervene, to ignore the information commissioner, a superior court judge, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is full steam ahead because of the events of September 11. The government is going to give itself so much power that, at some point, the criminal code will be affected. It will head in the direction of the Canadian Alliance, in the direction of the Canadian right, even if it means abandoning principles which have been years in the making and which are part of the criminal code. Not to worry. It is going to give itself far-reaching powers and it is going to use them.

This is absurd. That is why I wish to speak to Bill C-35. The preamble to the bill says that this will be a clearer piece of legislation and that it will also correct the deficiency in the existing statutory definition of international organization. When we examine this bill, we find that some of its provisions are even retroactive.

In Law 101, one of the most important considerations when examining a bill has to do with the retroactive effects, because this is contrary to many principles of Canadian law. There are even portions that are retroactive. On close examination, the provisions in clause 5 are absurd.

Under the guise of protecting our diplomats and people from outside the country, the government is preparing to give the police vast powers. Everything that is done currently will be set aside in order to tidy up and make things safer.

Let us have a look at clause 5. I understand that, because of the government's earlier motion, we can no longer introduce amendments at third reading. This is another way to gag the opposition. It is another way to ignore democracy in Canada.

It is rather strange that the government, which says it passes laws to protect democracy, is in fact ignoring democracy in order to get these laws passed. It is ignoring the elected representatives of the people, those with something to say to properly represent their constituents. They are ignoring all of these people in order to protect democracy, as they say. This is no doubt their democracy, their view of the things that, in terms of democracy, they want to protect.

Clause 5 of the bill amends the act by adding a new section. I think it is worth reading it. We are at third reading, and I think people have to understand what is happening. The amendment reads:

10.1(1) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under this Act and to which an order made or continued under this Act applies.

Subclause (2) reads:

For the purpose of carrying out its responsibility under subsection (1), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

Subclause (3) reads:

The powers referred to in subsection (2) are set out for greater certainty and shall not be read as affecting the powers that peace officers possess at common law or by virtue of any other federal or provincial Act or regulation.

Is this clear? Has the proper legal terminology been used to give the clarity that is so greatly desired? If I answer this, I will be accused of petty politicking, and since it comes from the government, and the opposition has always criticized the government, it is certain that I will be told it is not true.

The bill was discussed in committee. People appeared before the committee, people who were not politicians, not evil separatists, as some may well think. Nor were they members of the Alliance, the NDP, the Progressive Conservatives, or anything else such as that coalition of members over there in the corner. No, they were specialists, people who had examined the issue.

What did these people have to say? They said that this amendment is either unnecessary to the extent that it purports simply to codify a status quo or, in the event that it's not unnecessary, it's woefully incomplete.

Those were the words used by a lawyer who came before the committee on November 6.

William Sloan, president of the American Association of Jurists, told the committee “You have ‘appropriate measures’ and then you have ‘to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances’. These are so many undefined terms; they are all terms the courts have found to be terms that confer discretion”.

He is right. When the courts interpret this, they will understand it to be a discretionary power given to the RCMP, or the Mounties, as the Prime Minister calls them. That is how they are going to interpret it.

Does giving discretionary power to police clarify the situation? I think not. The lawyers my colleague heard in committee—I was not a member but I am aware of certain facts—all said that it was not precise, not clear.

Wesley Pue, from the University of British Columbia, said that RCMP officers also need clarity. Ultimately, they are the ones who will face disciplinary measures, civil suits, investigations and possible criminal proceedings. The police deserves to have clear legislative guidelines.

This B.C. lawyer is surely not a Bloc Quebecois supporter. He said that, in order to protect police officers, the act has to be clear, because they are the ones who may be held liable by the courts if they go too far. Obviously, these officers, who deserve an appropriate framework to enforce Bill C-35, do not have the tools to interpret it correctly. They do not have legislative guidelines to do a good job. In opposing clause 5, we are also thinking about police officers.

As regards powers, if we want to change a situation, it is because there is a problem. What is the problem? How does the RCMP currently work? What are its powers? This is what we must look at if we want to properly assess clause 5 in Bill C-35.

Currently, there is no act that provides for the establishment of security zones. The RCMP's argument is based on a series of powers and judicial precedents.

So when the government tells us that we must stick to Bill C-35 and not look at other legislation, it is because it does not understand the bill. In its section on security zones, Bill C-35 refers to Bill C-42, which is now before the House. This is in the context of terrorism. We must also keep in mind the entire thrust of Bill C-36.

I can understand that it does not want us to look at all of them together, because the powers are truly excessive when lined up one beside the other. Canada is looking more and more like a police state. In any event, that seems to the objective of the Prime Minister, who claims to be the father of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With bills like these, the child, which is the charter, must be renouncing its father right now.

So what powers does the RCMP's have right now? Does it have the legislative tools it needs? There is the Security Offences Act, section 2.3 of which provides that the RCMP has primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of individuals when, in paragraph ( b ):

the victim of the alleged offence is an internationally protected person within the meaning of section 2 of the Criminal Code

The entire first part of clause 5 of Bill C-35 is therefore unnecessary because there is already an enactment identifying very clearly those individuals the legislator wishes to protect.

Add to this the powers conferred to the RCMP under its incorporating act, which specifies, at section 18—and I will read it since clearly there are some government members who either cannot read, do not want to read, or do not take the time to read the existing legislation before wanting to amend it. Section 18 reads as follows:

It is the duty of members who are peace officers, subject to the orders of the Commissioner,

(a) to perform all duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime and of offences against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed, and the apprehension of criminals and offenders and others who may be lawfully taken into custody;

(b) to execute all warrants, and perform all duties and services in relation thereto, that may, under this Act or the laws of Canada or the laws in force in any province, be lawfully executed and performed by peace officers;

(c) to perform all duties that may be lawfully performed by peace officers in relation to the escort and conveyance of convicts and other persons in custody to or from any courts, places of punishment or confinement, asylums or other places; and

That is quite a few powers that the RCMP can already exercise:

(d) to perform such other duties and functions as are prescribed by the Governor in Council or the Commissioner.

This means the RCMP has the powers of peace officers, which powers are described and set out by the supreme court. It has spoken with respect to these powers over the years. It has established limits which we are looking for and which a number of international lawyers have said are absent from this legislation. The supreme court has set perfectly good guidelines for preserving the peace, preventing crime and protecting life and property.

Currently, before it intervenes in a situation, the RCMP considers the approach it will take based on existing case law in Canada. However, it takes years for case law, real case law reflecting supreme court decisions, to be incorporated in legislation—and it is worth remembering this, because the government members seem to have forgotten it as well, or actually did not know it.

There are certain principles of law that the supreme court has spent 20 or 30 years considering before establishing specific guidelines. In the matter before us this morning, the supreme court took some 20 years before clearly establishing the powers of the RCMP, what it can and cannot do, again in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was clarified over the years, obviously since its passage. Why change it?

Let us look at the most recent events, for example, the summit in Quebec City. Did it provide evidence of a glaring legislative failing? Was it shown that we failed, in legislative terms, in Canada, and thus in my beautiful Quebec? Did we not have what it takes to face the music, as they say?

I think things went well at the Quebec City summit. There were demonstrations, it is true, but this is a free and democratic country and we are proud of that fact. There have to be such things. Yes, the demonstrations got a bit out of hand. Yes, some went too far, but there is the criminal code. Those who acted improperly should be taken to court for it. For those who plotted reprehensible acts, there is a whole section on plots in the criminal code.

We must not change something that is working. This is illogical. As I have just said, the events of September 11 are being used to justify exorbitant powers. This situation, dreadful as I admit it was, is being used to change the rules of the game in a number of different Canadian statutes. What I find the most alarming is that, when amendments are made and incorporated into the criminal code or some other related piece of legislation, this is going to influence courts trying criminal cases.

As we know, one of the principles in Canada and in Upper Canada—this will be my final point—is that a law is interpreted according to its legislative text. When questions arise, however, similarities are sought, either in the criminal code or in specific statutes. When this is done and an interpretation of the changes arising out of Bills C-36, C-42 or C-35, the bill before us at the present time, is sought, individual and group rights will be restricted, which is extremely worrisome.

I will close by saying that, had clause 5 of the bill been eliminated, we would have supported it, and we have been straightforward about this. Given the government's lack of courage in the way it is proceeding, however, by putting such powers into the bill, we will be voting against it. We are proud to oppose it, in the interest of individual and group rights.

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

Madam Speaker, obviously Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned. The two articles from which I quoted clearly show that journalists are waking up to the dictatorial manner in which the government is governing our country.

Is there a need for some of the legislation the government is bringing forward and passing? Of course there is. That is why from time to time we find ourselves supporting the legislation. All opposition parties are working quite hard to improve the legislation. I find it quite astounding that when we are working to improve legislation and trying to work with the government it constantly says that we are stonewalling. That was the argument used by the Minister of Justice when she brought in closure on Bill C-36.

Fortunately they have not moved to bring in closure on Bill C-35. Perhaps we should have put up more speakers and actually stonewalled on the legislation so that they could have at least had an excuse to ram it though. They certainly did not have that excuse with Bill C-36 yesterday. Canadians have awakened to that fact and are rightly appalled by the dictatorial manner in which the government continues to govern.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating Bill C-35, not Bill C-36. Could the member please concentrate his remarks on the debate at hand?

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member was listening intently to my remarks. At the outset I said that members were torn, as is often the case with legislation in the House, and it happened on Bill C-36 the other night. We were given the choice between being seen to be opposed to terrorism and the parts of the bill directed at that and being in support of civil liberties and civil rights and the parts of the bill directed at that.

That is often the case when the government brings forward omnibus bills that have both good and bad in them. Unfortunately all members regardless of party are subjected to making that choice.

In this case, as I said at the start of my remarks, we support clarification of the role of the RCMP in providing security for these international conferences. That is a good part of the bill. Clarification is necessary, but it does not make up for the bad part of the bill which would extend a blanket immunity to who knows whom at future conferences. I would ask the hon. member on the government side to consider that when he is deciding how to vote on Bill C-35.

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

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have less than a minute. I am sure you allowed for the time that the hon. secretary of state used up. For a member of the government to rise to question relevance on the very relevancy of parliament indeed points to the problem in this place these days.

Whether we are debating Bill C-35, Bill C-36 or any other legislation, if parliament is not allowed to do its work appropriately then one has to question, as these journalists and as Canadians from coast to coast are increasingly doing, the very relevance of this institution.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would simply like to remind the House that the debate is on Bill C-35. There was a very long debate on Bill C-36. There was 82 hours of debate. I would like to know the members thoughts on Bill C-35, and I have already read this morning's papers.

[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.

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

I do not often respond to ridiculous interjections but a Liberal member just said “what about forgiveness”. To forgive somebody who killed 3,000 people and send a message to him that, hey pal, it is not a problem, he will be up for parole; that is not forgiveness following that act, that is stupidity.

The bill does not make it illegal to be a member of a terrorist organization. Those who are thinking of fleeing to a country where they can still be a member of their terrorist organization though banned from doing so in other freedom-loving countries would be welcome here in Canada. That is ridiculous.

By saying “recognized terrorist organization”, I mean one that has met the burden of proof that is set out in the bill to be included in the list of entities. The minister maintains she has done this for the purpose of targeting terrorist acts and terrorist activity, but we are all aware that joining a terrorist organization has only one purpose: to participate in or to facilitate terrorist activity. That is the only reason for joining.

The minister has argued that banning membership may contravene the right to freedom of association. Surely our courts would rule that such misguided tolerance is an affront to the rule of law and abuse of the concept of freedom of association.

By far the most glaring omission of Bill C-36 is the minister's failure to deal with the issue of extradition. The Canadian Alliance long before September 11 had called for prompt extradition of foreign nationals who are charged with acts of terrorism. We will continue to ask the government to take steps to ensure that Canada no longer remains a safe haven for terrorists who come to Canada to escape the consequences of their actions in other countries. These terrorists should never be allowed to exist freely in our society and endanger Canadian citizens.

Canada quite rightly has earned a reputation of being welcoming to people from all over the world who want to come here to love and respect freedom and liberty, to pursue their hopes and dreams and see their children grow up to pursue and achieve their hopes and dreams. That is a reputation of which we are proud. But we also have a reputation of being a haven for those who do not respect freedom and liberties and for those who would tear freedom and liberty from others and those who would destroy life in the process and then would come to Canada knowing that our legislation would keep them from facing the consequences of their actions in other jurisdictions. That is ridiculous. That door must be slammed.

In addition to these shortcomings, unfortunately, the Liberal government has not yet allocated sufficient resources to the military, to police services or to the intelligence activities that we must have if we are going to properly fight terrorism.

It is no secret that the costs of fighting terrorism and organized crime are huge. These are huge costs. In a recent case that was prosecuted in Edmonton, it took $5 million to convict just three members of the Hell's Angels. Convicting terrorists will be no different. They will use every legal loophole and other means available to them to fight their convictions. The cost will be significant.

In a written brief submitted to the justice committee last spring, the Canadian Police Association wrote of the extraordinary fiscal consequences that the police face when they are investigating and prosecuting these kinds of crimes. They said that these fiscal consequences “defy any modern sense of efficiency or effectiveness”.

Although Bill C-36 will to some extent help to combat terrorism, this legislation in itself is not enough to effectively prevent terrorist activity on Canadian soil. Bill C-36 is only one piece of a very necessary puzzle. There need to be other issues addressed also, such as tightening our refugee determination system and giving powers to CSIS to operate overseas.

If we do not tighten our refugee determination system, then the genuine refugees, who should be here in this country experiencing freedom for the first time in their lives, will be jeopardized by those who continue to abuse the system and continue to be allowed to abuse the system because Bill C-36 will not slam the door on that abuse the way it should.

The legislation will be of no use whatsoever if we do not also have the resources in place to enforce it. Norman Inkster, the former commissioner of the RCMP, supports the bill's provisions that allow police to perform preventive arrest, as do we, but there have to be safeguards provided. He has said that other measures must be added, such as stepping up screening procedures at Canada's overseas missions and harmonizing border policies with the United States. He was clear on that and we are clear on that, as are many other associations and provinces.

Mr. Inkster believes it will be easier to deal with this issue offshore than it is to deal with the people when they are inside our borders and that makes ultimate sense. The former RCMP commissioner says that Canada should definitely be gathering information overseas and more important, Canada should be more diligent in whom we allow into the country in the first place.

Another RCMP officer, Sergeant Philippe Lapierre of the National Security Investigation Section, the counterterrorism branch of the RCMP, said at a conference on money laundering in Montreal that some people are sent here with a mission and some people come and are recruited, but once here, they all have the same modus operandi. Then he described what they do when they come here. These are the illegal ones who should not be here, who are allowed to get through and will continue to be allowed to get through by the gaping holes left in the legislation.

He also said that the first step is they claim refugee status, allowing them to remain in Canada as long as their claim is working its way through the cumbersome refugee determination process. He went on to say that the second step is to claim Canadian social benefits, applying for welfare and health cards, to ensure a stream of income. He said that the third step is to become involved in petty crime, such as theft and credit card fraud. Then he said that the fourth step is to launder their money through legal businesses that are set up as fronts. If we are to break this terrorist modus operandi, we must start at the front end and stop false refugee claimants who are security threats from getting into the country in the first place.

Every time we talk about the gaping holes in our refugee determination system, the government assures us that all will be well under the panacea of Bill C-11, but Bill C-11 was in the pipeline long before September 11. It is not a bill designed to deal with the clear and present danger of international terrorists coming into our country.

As a matter of fact, Bill C-11 creates a whole new level of appeals for refugee claimants. In some ways, it makes the matter worse. This vaunted front end screening the minister talks about simply means that we will begin security checks a few weeks earlier in a process that could take 18 months to complete just at the preliminary stage.

What is completely lacking in the bill is the kind of tough measures that are found in comparable U.S. and U.K. legislation.

If refugees arrive in the country on airplanes or on ships without documentation, they must be detained until it can be determined what their true identity is. That has to be checked against existing databases. Then and only then can a determination be made that they are not a security threat, because to have arrived here either by airplane or ship from an international destination, they had to have some kind of document or paper in their possession to get on that plane or that ship. That means somewhere in the process of coming over here, they destroyed their documents. They threw them overboard, tore them up, or did something to them. That automatically makes them suspicious. Those individuals need to be detained until they can be cleared totally of being any threat to security.

Nothing in Bill C-11 addresses these issues. Nothing in Bill C-36 and nothing in Bill C-42 addresses these issues.

In addition to dealing with potential security risks before people show up in the country, we need to provide more resources to the RCMP. The RCMP has served a vital role in the protection of Canadians over the years of our history. This national police force is a source of pride and comfort to Canadians.

Funding problems facing the RCMP during the last decade are well documented. The 2000 Conference Board of Canada report finds that in the past decade, the RCMP lost 2,200 positions and close to $175 million in funding. The report found the results of these cuts were heavy workloads, inadequate operating budgets in the field, loss of trust in senior management and officers who were overworked and demoralized.

Examples of the repercussion of Liberal funding cuts to the RCMP are all over the place. In 1999 in British Columbia the RCMP reported being understaffed and overworked. One 30 month investigation involved numerous hours of unpaid overtime due to an acute lack of financial resources. In RCMP A division, which operates in Ottawa, investigators were denied voice mail, cellphones and pagers. They were even told that they could not spend $20 for new business cards. That is no way to treat the men and women who are serving with their lives to protect Canadians.

In British Columbia the RCMP closed dozens of commercial crime files because there simply were not enough resources to investigate those files. Some officers were responding to calls with their own personal vehicles. This situation existed before September 11. Now post-September 11, we find a massive reallocation of limited resources to the fight against terrorism. What we do not see is a commitment from the government to provide long term, stable and sufficient funding for the force.

This piecemeal approach that the Liberals have taken does not address the severe shortage in human resources that is facing the RCMP. What is most disturbing however is the contradictory messages that we are receiving from the leadership of the RCMP and from those who represent the front line officers.

The front line officers have recognized the desperate situation. They are calling for action. RCMP Sergeant Mike Niebudek revealed that the new war on terrorism has put a severe strain on a force whose resources were already stretched to the limit. David Griffin, who is a Canadian Police Association representative, stated recently: “Before September 11, new squads were being created within the RCMP to deal with organized crime. That priority is being abandoned”. That is what he said. The priority of organized crime is being abandoned. That is simply unacceptable. We cannot simply drop everything that the RCMP was working on prior to September 11, but the funding situation is driving it in that direction.

Statistics Canada just released its statistics for homicide in Canada. It found that over the past five years gang related murders in Canada have more than tripled. The solicitor general must realize that the RCMP needs the resources not only for the fight on terrorism which is so important, but to continue to ensure that Canadians are protected from other threats. What will be done to ensure that in the effort to fight terrorism other responsibilities of the RCMP will not be dropped?

The RCMP has been chronically underfunded by the Liberal government. The Canadian Police Association has recognized this. It passed a resolution at its 2001 annual meeting calling on the federal government to increase funding. The resolution states:

Whereas the RCMP budget has been reduced to the point the force cannot meet its obligations in many parts of Canada,

Whereas RCMP officers are being removed from federal services to augment shortfalls in municipal and provincial complement, and

Whereas the Government of Canada does not adequately fund the RCMP budget as it pertains to areas of federal and national responsibilities, and

Whereas these responsibilities provide vital support to all police agencies in Canada.

The resolution concludes by saying:

Be it resolved that the Canadian Police Association, in co-operation with its member associations, implores the government--

Our police officers should not have to come on bended knees, begging and imploring the government. They are literally begging the Government of Canada “to provide adequate funding to the RCMP budget, to maximize the effectiveness of federal and national policing responsibilities”. The association passed that resolution before September 11.

According to Statistics Canada, there were 5,180 RCMP officers designated as federal in 1994. These officers handled criminal investigations involving organized crime, immigration fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking. Last year that number had dropped to only 4,341 personnel. That is a drop of 839 people through a period now of increased threats from terrorism and organized crime, not to mention an increase in the population.

The threats from organized crime, drug trafficking and immigration fraud did not go away after September 11. They are still here and perhaps even enhanced, yet we hear reports of up to 2,000 mounties being reassigned to investigate terrorist threats. Even Commissioner Zaccardelli has stated that the RCMP is curtailing some work as an effect of the reallocation of these human resources.

We hope the upcoming budget will address the crucial need for more resources for the RCMP. We will be watching very carefully to see that it does.

Another area where the government has shown great neglect, which the bill and actions taken by the government to date have done nothing to address, is CSIS.

Wesley Wark, a University of Toronto associate professor, who was speaking before the justice committee, said that we are at a crisis point in the evolution of Canadian security and intelligence. He believes that parliament has turned a blind eye in the past to security and intelligence matters.

I would only debate with him that parliament has not turned a blind eye to security and intelligence matters. The Canadian Alliance official opposition has had both eyes on that target. The federal government has turned its eyes away from these concerns.

The Toronto professor pointed out that while the United States spends $30 billion a year on intelligence collection and on analysis, Canada spends a laughable fragment of that sum on these matters. That is not acceptable. He also said that CSIS needs more money, something we have been pushing for a long time but to no avail. Even this expert said that money alone is not enough.

CSIS is on the front line protecting Canadians from terrorism. Over the past years CSIS has warned of the threat that terrorists pose to Canada and its allies. However, like the RCMP, funding cuts to CSIS have undermined its ability to operate effectively. According to its 2000 public report, financial resources were $244 million in 1993. In 1999 the figure was down to $179 million. The number of people working for CSIS went from 2,760 in 1993 to less than 2,000 in 1999. This represents a 40% decline in human resources for Canada's counterintelligence service. Today the budget for CSIS is only $194 million and it employs just over 2,000 people.

The lack of both human and financial resources has left the agency and its workers swamped with work, as are RCMP officers. Threat assessments are conducted in years rather than days according to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The agency simply was not a priority of the government.

According to the solicitor general's 2001 estimates, funding for CSIS would decline further, unbelievably, to $169 million in 2002. This was despite the warning that the terrorist threat to Canada and its allies was at an all time high. This was before September 11.

Paule Gauthier, chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, says that the extra $10 million that was announced for CSIS will go largely toward new equipment. What is needed is long term, reliable funding that will enable this important agency to employ the human resources necessary to deal with the mountains of information that must be processed. Dealing with potential threats expediently and efficiently is what CSIS needs to do but it is unable to do that because of the resource cuts the government has hit it with over the last years.

It is the responsibility of CSIS to perform background checks on immigrants and refugee claimants. The Security Intelligence Review Committee reports that CSIS is so overloaded with work it can take years to determine if a person poses a security threat. That is simply not acceptable. The chair of the committee, Paule Gauthier, stated that the agency needed more resources and that it was stretched to the maximum. The screening of refugees and immigrants is one of the most important elements in this fight against terrorism and it requires adequate human resources.

The government's priorities simply must change. We all know the Liberal leadership race is on and the ministers seem to be funding their own pet projects to the detriment of Canada's security. We continue to hear, regardless of what is leaked out in the headlines, that the Minister of Industry wants $1.5 billion for broad band Internet access. Canadians already lead most other nations in the world in terms of personally making the choice to get on the Internet and to have their own personal computers at home. Canadians have done this on their own initiative and yet the minister wants $1.5 billion to enhance chat lines.

The Minister of Justice has asked for an additional $114 million to top up the over $500 million that taxpayers have had to pay out for a firearms registry system that simply is not working.

To put these costs in perspective, we must remember that the total budget for CSIS is under $200 million. We have been told that the accumulated cost of the firearms registry system, which is not working, will be $685 million this year. Where are the priorities? We ask people to think in these terms: $200 million for the war on terrorism and $685 million for the war on duck hunters. The government has to get its priorities in order.

The government must address CSIS funding if Bill C-36 is to be effective at all and not simply a paper tiger.

CSIS also needs, to quote Dr. Wark:

--talent and expertise, and, above all, highly-trained analysts to make sense of the information that is going to be collected by Canadian operatives and be passed to Canada, if we stay in the alliance game, by our allies.

That is absolutely necessary.

He went on to say:

--making sense of the information that comes into a security and intelligence community, putting the pieces of the puzzle together, analysing it well, packaging it in a credible way that will be read and understood.

It is equally and vitally important in Dr. Wark's perspective.

Dr. Wark also believes that there is an enormous deficiency in terms of the way in which intelligence gets to cabinet level for decision making. I feel like making an analogy about intelligence and cabinet level decision making but I am resisting. Dr. Wark ponders the idea of the creation of a cabinet level ministerial position responsible for national security and intelligence. I am not saying I am completely in agreement at this time with that proposition but I do think we need to bring together all the departments responsible for analytical issues in the security and intelligence field. That definitely has to happen.

Furthermore, concurring with the Toronto professor, I believe we need a foreign secret service capacity. Right now under the CSIS Act, CSIS has a restricted mandate for collecting foreign intelligence. That is not good enough today in the war on terrorism.

Dr. Wark goes on to say:

We need such a capacity for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to allow Canada to continue to play a role as an independent actor in the global intelligence business; and, in addition, to allow Canada to maintain its place at the allied intelligence table, which has historically been so vital to any of the successes it has had in that field.

If Canada is not there carrying the weight and carrying the freight, it will be excluded from a position of prominence around that intelligence gathering table internationally. We cannot afford that.

Former RCMP commissioner, Norman Inkster, and former CSIS deputy director, James Corcoran, believe that the CSIS Act requires a full overhaul and they have therefore urged the government to review that 1984 act, and we agree with them.

Under Bill C-36, the CSIS Act has received a minor amendment in that it adds the terms “religious or ideological” to the definition of a security threat. I do not see bin Laden and his troops shivering in fear when they read that.

Appearing before the Senate defence committee, both Inkster and Corcoran said “within Canada needs to be removed from the act to give CSIS a clear international mandate”.

So again, there are still large weaknesses in the powers that are given to the RCMP and to CSIS under the bill, and there is still no guarantee that the resources they will need to be effective, even with this somewhat weakened bill, will be there for them.

Nonetheless, there are provisions in the bill which we support, as I have said, and we will vote for the bill on third reading despite the shabby way the government has dealt with it in the House.

These elements are of grave concern to Canadians, especially in the area of supporting those security forces that need to be there for us.

In 1998, CSIS stated that some 50 international terrorist groups were operating in Canada and that the names included some of the most deadly enemies of peace and democracy in the world today. Some of the groups that were banned by the British terrorism act of 2000 and are known to have operated, and do operate in Canada, are the Babbar Khalsa, the International Sikh Youth Federation, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Irish Republican Army.

The Kelly report, a recent report from the Senate special committee, stated in 1999 that Canada was a primary venue of opportunity to support, plan or mount terrorist attacks, contrary to what some people wishfully think.

What happened in New York City can happen here, perhaps even worse. Attacks like the New York City attack could be planned and orchestrated from Canadian soil by groups attempting to take advantage of the weaknesses of our legislation.

In 1999, Canada signed the UN international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. We need to do more. We need to take extra steps in that regard.

If a government like the United States seeks people accused of terrorism in Canada, we must be convinced that there is reasonable evidence. This is a very important point.

I know some of our colleagues in the House have some sensitivity on this. If there is reasonable evidence, we should turn terrorists over, regardless of the fact that they may face a penalty in that country, for instance in the United States, that would not apply here. That move would require a change in Canadian law to send a signal to terrorists that they cannot take advantage of Canada to avoid facing justice for their crimes.

One can only imagine the outrage if one of the perpetrators of the acts in New York City and Washington, perhaps even the criminal mastermind who so carefully co-ordinated the flight schedules of the terrorists, found his way to Canada and we found ourselves unable to extradite such a person to the United States to face justice. Canadian law must address this possibility now because Canadian citizens will demand it.

Before concluding I must turn to address my friends in the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition. The Canadian Alliance was pleased that they supported our September 18 motion calling for tough anti-terrorism legislation. At the time and in the days immediately following September 11, they did seem to stand with us in supporting tough action on terrorism, but as the days went by various interest groups started criticizing the bill for giving Canadian police the same kinds of powers as those of police in the United States, Britain and Europe. The interest groups say there are valid concerns about information and privacy rights under the bill and say that we need parliamentary review.

We are pleased that the government has made some amendments in the area, but Canadians deserve tough anti-terrorism legislation to protect them. Our police deserve the powers and resources they need to break up terrorist cells in Canada. Our biggest concern is that the bill is not tough enough in some areas and does nothing to provide the resources that our police and security services need.

Very soon we will all have a fundamental choice. Our colleagues in the PC/DRC will have a fundamental choice. Will they stand with the lobbyists and special interest groups who do not believe in giving police officers the powers they need to do their job or will they stand up for the safety and security of Canadians and our allies? That will be the vital question that we will be asking today, tomorrow and in the days ahead.

We have asked for and received, not perfectly, some of the steps necessary to review the legislation in a proper way at a proper time. In a time of crisis, a time of war, we do recognize that certain liberties we may enjoy at a certain time may in fact be somewhat curtailed because of a crisis that is upon us. That should not be permanent, but it must be in place so that we can prevent the terrible acts happening that otherwise would were it not in effect.

That is why we support the government on the provisions it made. We deplore its complete lack of recognition of the gaping holes that it leaves unattended. We also recognize that there are provisions in place to, at a convenient and proper time, review the legislation and make adjustments if necessary.

The official opposition will continue to ask for the kinds of changes that we feel are necessary to restore confidence to our citizens, confidence in safety and security, confidence in the markets and confidence that we continue to grow both socially and economically.

However, the one thing we cannot afford is complacency. As Edmund Burke famously said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. Changing laws alone will not stop terrorism. We are legislators and drafting and changing laws is what we do.

Let it not be said after the next horrific terrorist incident that it happened because the good men and good women of the House chose to do nothing.

There was an unfortunate incident that took place in the development and discussion of Bill C-36. It must be addressed. We were all dismayed when we learned earlier that the contents of the bill were actually leaked to the media before being tabled in the House. Our House leader raised it as a question of privilege.

The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. What is disturbing is that the committee was too quick to give up. More disturbing was the fact that nobody on the government side took responsibility for this glaring act of abuse of the parliamentary process. When the minister leaked the contents of Bill C-15, she took responsibility.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, approximately 50 terrorist organizations have been identified in Canada. If I were a leader or involved in one of those terrorist organizations advising fleeing fugitive terrorist agents in other countries which country to run to, especially in light of the new laws that have been passed and recent laws in Great Britain, the United States and western Europe, I would be tempted to tell them to come to Canada.

The reason I say this is that in spite of Bill C-36 individuals could still get into Canada without documents. They could still be in Canada and be a member of a terrorist organization. They could still escape to Canada if they are pursued in other countries for their crimes and have some reasonable sense that they would probably not be extradited to face those crimes.

If terrorists mass murder Canadians by the hundreds or the thousands in Canada they would still be eligible for parole after 25 years. As a result of Bill C-36 these gaping holes in the walls of protection would undermine the portions of the bill that are there in a protective way.

I want to address in my remarks today why I will be reluctantly supporting the bill. I will talk about the gaping holes that exist in the legislation and where Canadians won and lost in this legislation. I will address the fact that the safety and security of a country's citizens should be the foremost role of any government as it has failed to address that area. I will talk about civil liberties and what happens in a time of crisis or a time of war and the process that was involved as the bill proceeded.

I am disappointed and concerned that the government decided to rush through this complicated, controversial and powerful piece of legislation without debate and input. That was necessary for legislation of this nature.

The Canadian Alliance has consistently called for legislation that would give the government the tools to fight terrorism. However the government has cut off debate and cut it off in a premature fashion.

This reveals what we have pointed out before: an ongoing contempt for the democratic process and a complete disregard for the contributions that elected members can make to this process. The government disregards millions of Canadians by disregarding elected members. That has been the pattern of the government in the past and it unfortunately appears to be continuing in the present and into the future.

A columnist wrote something interesting today. He wrote that in his view the decision to invoke closure on the bill represented in some ways the death of the true meaning of parliament. Parliament is the ability to gather together as elected representatives to talk, discuss, debate and hopefully do things that can enrich the lives and in this case the safety and security of Canadians. The federal Liberal government has failed Canadians.

Bill C-36 is being pushed through without full and detailed debate. Since 1993 the Liberal government has shut down debate on 73 different occasions. It is not surprising that it is doing it again. Members of the opposition are shocked that the government would employ this tactic on this important and unprecedented piece of legislation.

It would be different if we were unnecessarily and frivolously filibustering for hours, days, weeks or months on end. There is a time when the government must step in and do something. The precious little time that was spent on the key issues in this debate reveals a very obvious flaw of the government. It has a disrespect for democratic positioning and democratic choice.

The Canadian Alliance has been very co-operative in the House and in committee. It is a matter of record that we have tried to move the bill forward. We support the intent of the bill and we want to see it passed in a timely fashion. The government's attempt to muzzle MPs by prematurely cutting off debate reveals its appalling arrogance and lack of respect for the entire democratic process.

The minister and others have used the excuse that the bill had been discussed in committee at great length. There are 283 members of the House who do not sit on that committee. A large majority of the members will not get a chance to have their say before they are forced to vote on the bill a little over two hours from now.

The bill was set to pass by the end of the week in any event so it is inexcusable for the government to act as it has by suppressing debate. The government said it could go to the end of the week. Here we are mid-week and it is slamming the door. The late Stanley Knowles, certainly not of the same ideological stripe as the Alliance but at one with us on the importance of parliament, once said:

Debate is not a sin, a mistake, an error or something to be put up with in parliament. Debate is the essence of parliament.

As it is, I acknowledge and I am thankful that I can put my concerns on record. Unfortunately many of my colleagues who wanted to speak at third reading have been denied that opportunity. Nevertheless, even though the government has given us only a few precious hours to debate the bill, I am pleased to represent the official opposition and put forward our views on the strengths and weaknesses of this historic legislation.

The importance of the debate must not be underestimated. As we analyze and debate the fine points of the bill we must not forget that the introduction of the bill was a direct result of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It was the largest individual act of mass terrorism by any group in the history of modern terrorism. More people were killed in that terrorist attack than have been killed in 35 years of terrorism in all of western Europe.

The problem of international terrorism will not go away. It seems to be getting worse both in scope and magnitude. One expert recently said that terrorists have passed the point where they “want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead”.

In testimony before the justice committee of the House of Commons a renowned British expert, Professor Paul Wilkinson, warned Canadians that it was a mistake to view the present military action in Afghanistan as the sole means of ending the threat from these terrorists. He said that killing or capturing bin Laden might seriously disrupt and weaken his terrorist organization. He added that this would not mean that Americans, Canadians and our allies would be safe nor would the threat end. He observed:

--the tentacles of the network, which, as we are now discovering through the belated intensive efforts of intelligence agencies and police in so many countries, is spread over at least two dozen countries...including Canada, there is a continuing danger of further attacks.

That is not fearmongering. That is proper concern for our safety and security. The professor also noted that it would be unwise for Canadians to assume that the international effort against terrorism could be dealt with in a period of just over a few years.

It was for that reason that he urged members of parliament to enact strong anti-terrorist legislation which would provide Canadian police and security agencies with the appropriate ongoing legal authority to continue to deal with this very serious threat.

Peace is essential to freedom. In Canada, we have become complacent about our freedoms and have taken peace for granted. While others have fought for that peace, most of this generation did not, until now.

The continued presence of a real terrorist threat compels us in the House to advocate for thoughtful changes that respond to the climate of fear that prevails. What could be more important than safeguarding the domestic security of Canadians?

However, our response to the terrorist threat to our freedom must not imperil that very freedom. We must not respond to a fear of losing our personal liberty by legislating it away. That truly would be a victory for terrorism.

That is why it is so critical that we address the root cause of these threats in co-operation with and in support of our allies at its source, rather than simply reacting and responding to it domestically.

There are some areas where Canadians won. It was on September 17 that I rose in the House, as did others, to urge the government to bring in a comprehensive package of anti-terrorist measures including tough, new anti-terrorism legislation modelled after the legislation already in place in the United States and the United Kingdom.

The next day the official opposition moved a supply day motion. We urged the government to bring in a comprehensive anti-terrorism bill modelled after the British terrorism act 2000. We recommended several specific measures that we hoped the legislation would contain, yet to our dismay the government used its majority to defeat the motion that would have set in motion in a more rapid fashion the very things we needed to protect Canadians. The government used its majority to defeat the motion.

The government said the measures we were recommending were too radical and contrary to Canadian values. The Canadian Alliance called for anti-terrorism legislation long before September 11. I am certainly encouraged that many of the provisions we have called for may in fact become law before Christmas. For that, I thank Canadians across the country from coast to coast who over the last number of years worked hard with the Canadian Alliance to develop the policies and principles that would lead to the safety and security of our citizens.

I am thankful for our critics and other members of our caucus who have worked hard to take the information toward this goal. Bill C-36 in fact includes many of the elements of the Alliance opposition motion of September 18, which the Liberal government voted against at one point.

Our list of anti-terrorist measures was long. We called for the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada. We called for a ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism and for provision for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations. We called for the ratification of the international convention for the suppression of terrorist financing and we called for the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or inciting terrorist acts abroad from Canada.

I will say that Bill C-36 has incorporated these elements, but after the Canadian government voted down these elements at one point and then some time later brought them back, it then took the government another five weeks after the fact to bring in the anti-terrorist legislation. That is in contrast to the United States and the United Kingdom, both of which had similar legislation long before September 11, just as we were advocating for these things long before September 11.

Nonetheless, I do not mind going on record and thanking the minister for bringing the bill forward and for taking many of the past recommendations of the Canadian Alliance and putting them into consideration in this legislation.

After the events of September 11, even a country like Canada, which is used to thinking of itself as a peaceful and non-violent country, finds itself at risk. Of course, we are not immune. One need only recall the tragic Air India bombing which killed 329 people. That flight originated in Canada.

Thankfully, we have not often seen lethal acts of terrorism on our soil. However, other countries have not been so fortunate. They have had the bitter experience of dealing with terrorism and have been forced to modernize their laws to deal with these threats. Two countries with very similar democratic values to our own, the United Kingdom and the United States, have already brought in comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation.

While the events of September show that strong laws alone will not in all cases stop determined terrorists, they can at least give to police, prosecutors, border security and others the tools they need to fight terrorists and terrorism.

We must examine and learn from the experience of the British and Americans and see where their legislation could possibly be a model for our own.

In 1995-96, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, the United States brought in comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation in the form of the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act which was signed by President Clinton.

In Canada, the interdepartmental intelligence policy group reviewed the U.S. legislation in 1997 and made a conclusion saying that the need for such a scheme could not be established.

In 2000, the United Kingdom, which already had strong anti-terrorism legislation on the books to deal with the threat of the IRA, brought in new sweeping anti-terrorism legislation to deal with international terrorism that could possibly be operating within the U.K.

The official opposition has pointed to the British terrorism act of 2000 as an example of the kind of effective legislation that Canada should look at. The U.S. and the U.K. governments, under the Clinton Democrats and Tony Blair's Labour Party, felt that it was possible to bring in comprehensive terrorism legislation without endangering the democratic values that are important to us.

This is not about posturing politically. This is about being able to stand tall together and to protect our citizens and answer their concerns and their cry for security. This is one of a number of areas. Security of markets is something we will also be pursuing, but we need to look at this in terms of security of the person and the people of Canada.

After the bill was tabled, debated at second reading and considered at the justice committee, I was again encouraged that the minister took some of the concerns of the members of the Canadian Alliance into account and agreed to amend the bill. We acknowledge that.

For example, we told Canadians that we needed to have a mandatory review mechanism for Bill C-36 which would ensure that the minister is accountable to parliament. The minister agreed with us and introduced an amendment that requires the Attorney General of Canada and the Solicitor General of Canada, as well as the ministers responsible for policing in the provinces, to publicly report to parliament their use of the Bill C-36 powers of preventive arrest and investigative hearings. This is not the option that would provide the strongest or the most comprehensive review mechanism, but it is a start. We acknowledge that.

We told Canadians we must have assurances that ongoing investigations under the powers of Bill C-36 would not be affected by the expiration of that legislation. Canada's police forces, including the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, had expressed concerns that the legislation would lapse, leave ongoing investigations in peril, and in fact be a deterrent to beginning investigations at all.

We had to listen to the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and impress upon the government that necessity. We did that. The minister then agreed with us and introduced a grandfathering provision for preventive arrest and investigative hearings which allows ongoing investigations to continue and evidence gathered to be admissible.

We also told Canadians that in order to prevent abuse of power by government there must be an independent review of the ministerial certificates that are issued to prohibit disclosure of information. This is very important in terms of Canadians' ongoing freedoms and liberties. The minister then agreed with us on that point and her amendment mandates that the certificates must be reviewable by a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal.

We told Canadians that there must be increased protection within the legislation for religious and political groups. The minister agreed with us. Her amendments to the definition of terrorist activity offer an added degree of protection to these groups and distinguish their activities from those of actual terrorists. That was an important consideration and we acknowledge that she agreed with us.

Unfortunately the government did not remove the provision of the bill that would provide for prosecution of a terrorist act based on a political, ideological or religious motivation. That was and continues to be of concern to us. The minister has failed on several occasions to give us any concrete reason as to why that clause is necessary. That clause has huge potential for abuse. We will monitor it very carefully. It should not be used against those who want to protest because of political, ideological or religious motivations.

We told Canadians it was necessary to secure protection for charities and other groups that may be affected if they are inadvertently facilitating a terrorist offence. Members will note that I used the word inadvertently. The minister agreed with us and the bill has been amended so that the person or group would clearly have to be knowingly facilitating a terrorist activity.

Unfortunately there are some areas in the legislation where Canadians lost. Although we have been somewhat reassured by the minister with respect to her concessions on some aspects of the bill, there are a number of shortcomings which I have asked the minister to reconsider.

One is that Bill C-36 fails to eliminate the possibility of parole for all perpetrators of terrorist attacks. I ask members to think of that. A terrorist here in Canada wanting to emulate the mass murder of innocent citizens, as has so tragically occurred in the United States, could kill dozens, hundreds or even thousands of Canadians and after due process be found to be guilty of a horrendous crime like that and still be eligible for parole. That is ridiculous.

Parole should not be available to a mass-murdering terrorist.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-36, known in short form as the anti-terrorism act. Bill C-36 was introduced in the House to provide needed enhancements to Canada's ability to address terrorism under the criminal code, to make related changes to other laws and to amend Canadian law to improve our ability to respond to discrimination and hatred.

The bill responds to the events of September 11 and the new face of terrorism that was revealed that day. While more than two months have passed since the events of that day, I am sure that none of us can forget the horror of the mass murder that took place.

Since that time this government and other governments around the world have taken significant and immediate steps to improve security. Also, through military and other efforts we have taken very significant steps toward dismantling the base of Osama bin Laden, a terrorist network in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless it would be very wrong to conclude that the threat of terrorism has disappeared, whether from al-Qaeda or from other potential terrorist organizations. We must remain vigilant as a country. Further, we must act in concert with other countries in the global effort against terrorism. It is recognized throughout the world that we need a long term approach to the problem.

The measures in Bill C-36 are a key part of Canada's long term plan to address terrorism. While as I have said the bill is responsive to the events of September 11, it would fill gaps in Canadian law that need to be filled regardless of the events of that day. September 11 has given us a great impetus to act without delay. It is important to emphasize, as the Minister of Justice has done, that these are not emergency measures but rather measures that would allow us to remain vigilant to an ongoing threat.

I will take a few moments to go over the major elements of Bill C-36. I then intend to review the changes accepted by the standing committee which have been reported back to the House.

I now turn to the major elements of the bill. Bill C-36 would implement the international convention on the suppression of financing of terrorism and the international convention on the suppression of terrorist bombings, the two remaining international conventions on terrorism that Canada has not yet implemented. The term terrorist activity is defined under this bill. The definition makes reference to offences that are set out in international conventions relevant to terrorism.

In addition, a general definition is provided referring to acts or omissions undertaken for political, religious or ideological purposes intended to intimidate the public or compel government to act and cause death, serious bodily harm or a number of other serious harms specifically set out in the definition.

The bill would provide for a list of terrorist groups and persons to be made by order of the federal cabinet on the recommendation of the Solicitor General of Canada. Under Bill C-36 comprehensive new terrorism offences under the criminal code would be created.

These include offences relating to participating in, facilitating or instructing terrorist activity and harbouring others who carry out terrorist activity. These offences would criminalize a full range of activities related to terrorism.

The bill would provide for limited and strictly safeguarded preventive arrest as a means of assisting law enforcement officers to disrupt the planning of terrorist attacks.

The bill would also provide for investigative hearings under the criminal code. These hearings, permitted under limited conditions, would be judicially supervised and would require the individual to give evidence to assist the investigations of terrorist offences. Such evidence could not be used against that individual and so protects a person's right to remain silent in his or her own criminal proceeding.

The bill would implement an aggressive sentencing and parole regime for terrorist offences including a maximum of life imprisonment for many offences as well as restricted parole eligibility.

Under Bill C-36 measures would be added to the criminal code on the financing of terrorism. Included within these measures are provisions on the seizure, restraint and forfeiture of terrorist property.

In addition, the bill would amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act. The mandate of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, Fintrac, under this act would be expanded to gather, analyze and disclose information on terrorist money laundering.

Also, as a way to assist in drying up the source of funds for terrorist groups and to prevent abuse of Canada's laws on charities, Bill C-36 would enact the charities registration security information act. This act would allow for the removal or denial of charitable status from organizations where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the organizations make their resources available to terrorists.

The focus of these measures is the prevention of terrorism. While our current laws allow us to charge and convict terrorists after they engage in terrorist acts we clearly must be able to do more. The measures in Bill C-36 would significantly enhance our ability to charge and convict those who are in the planning stages of terrorist attacks, to go after those who direct terrorist activity even before the activity occurs, to arrest and impose conditions on the release of persons where this is necessary to prevent terrorist activity, to dismantle the financial networks that support further terrorist activity and to incarcerate for a long period of time those found guilty of terrorism.

There are a number of other significant provisions in the bill. The bill would update and refine the Official Secrets Act to better address national security concerns. The bill would also amend the Canada Evidence Act to allow for enhanced protection of sensitive information during legal proceedings. I also highlight measures under Bill C-36 that are relevant to targeting discrimination and hatred within Canada.

Under the bill a new criminal code offence of damage committed against religious groups and their places of worship would be created. This new provision would send a strong signal that behaviour such as destroying or damaging a church, mosque or temple or interfering with religious activities is completely unacceptable in Canada.

As well the bill would provide a new power to order the deletion of hate propaganda made available to the public through computer systems such as the Internet. The Canadian Humans Rights Act would be amended under the bill to clarify that communication of hate messages using new technologies such as the Internet is a discriminatory practice.

It is now my intention to explain some of the amendments that were accepted by the standing committee and that have been reported back to the House. Under these amendments the major elements of the bill would remain. However the amendments would make a number of improvements and refinements to these elements.

Certain of the amendments would help to clarify aspects of the bill for which misunderstandings might otherwise have arisen. The changes would reflect the government's intent in the bill but would help to ensure that this intent is clearly understood and would be appropriately implemented. Other changes would help to provide additional oversight and control of certain of the provisions of the bill.

In addition to these amendments a number of technical corrections and refinements were made to Bill C-36. I do not intend to review these in detail.

In making these major and minor changes the standing committee listened to the concerns of parliamentarians as reflected in the report of the special Senate committee on Bill C-36, as reflected by comments made by members of the standing committee and as reflected by the debates in the House. The changes would also take into account comments made by numerous other Canadians whether in submissions before the parliamentary committees or elsewhere.

Of course not all the suggestions that were received were accepted by the standing committee. We are grateful nevertheless for the close attention that has been paid to the bill and the thought provoking and useful ideas that have been provided.

Let me begin with the definition of terrorist activity, which has received considerable attention during the examination of the bill. One of the provisions of the definition as originally put before the House excluded “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work” from the scope of the definition. Some have questioned whether because of the use of the word lawful activities of this type which include unlawful conduct such as assault, trespass and minor property damage might be interpreted as being terrorism.

This was never the government's intent. The fact that an activity is otherwise unlawful does not by itself mean that it amounts to terrorism. Quite the contrary. Therefore the committee has accepted an amendment removing the word lawful.

This would not have the effect of making protests lawful that are otherwise unlawful due to violations of other criminal laws. It would, however, clarify that this specific exclusion from the scope of the definition of terrorist activity applies whether or not the advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work is lawful.

While discussing the definition of terrorist activity I also wish to observe that certain words in the definition that have provoked some discussion were not amended by the committee. These are the words “political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” that refer to the motivations for terrorist activity under the definition.

These words have been retained in the definition as they are absolutely necessary to appropriately define and limit the scope of Bill C-36. It is important to emphasize that nothing in these words would target any particular cultural, religious or ethnic group or political or ideological cause. Rather, the words would help to distinguish terrorist activity from other forms of criminality that are intended to intimidate or compel people by the use of serious violence.

The committee nevertheless recognized that it was advisable to clarify the definition to provide with further certainty that the enforcement provisions in the bill are not to be interpreted or applied in a discriminatory manner or in a manner that could suppress democratic rights.

The committee considered and accepted an amendment that stipulates in this regard that the definition of terrorist activity would not apply to the expression of political, religious or ideological ideas that are not intended to cause the various forms of perverse and extreme harm set out in the definition.

Proper review and oversight of the powers provided under Bill C-36 would also help ensure that the powers are applied appropriately. Many such review and oversight mechanisms were already part of the bill when introduced. The government is committed to ensuring that the enhanced enforcement powers under the bill contribute to the safety and security of Canadians but do not undermine fundamental rights.

The standing committee listened to submissions that additional monitoring was necessary. However, further to these submissions, it accepted an amendment requiring an annual public report by the Attorney General of Canada, the Solicitor General of Canada and their counterparts in the provinces and territories.

This report would concern the powers of investigative hearings and of preventive arrest under Bill C-36. This information would provide an annual check on the use of these provisions and inform the parliamentary review which is to occur within three years.

Let me assure the House that a substantial amount of information is required to be reported. This information is analogous to information required to be reported on the interception of communications under the requirements currently established under the criminal code and analogous to information required to be reported with respect to the law enforcement justification under requirements that would be established by Bill C-24 regarding organized crime which the House approved.

I emphasize with respect to the investigative hearings and the preventive arrest that the provisions for an annual report are supplementary to the considerable checks and balances already provided with respect to each power. We have all seen reports and commentary to the effect that these provisions would allow uncontrolled and unprecedented powers that jeopardize the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

In response to these suggestions it is important to emphasize that both the investigative hearing and the preventive arrest in fact build upon powers already found in Canadian law. Both build upon these powers only for the special purpose of helping preserve Canada's safety and security against terrorist activity. Both are subject to very significant limits and controls and both are subject to direct judicial supervision. Further, both powers have been extensively reviewed to provide confidence that they comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Additional review and monitoring of the powers of investigative hearing and preventive arrest would be provided by making these provisions subject to a sunset clause. The standing committee has accepted an amendment under which each of these measures would be subject to the expiry provided for after five years. Parliament would be authorized to extend this expiry period on resolutions adopted by a majority of each chamber but no extension may exceed five years.

The best sunset clause would be the circumstances that occur where it is never necessary to use these provisions. It is important to note the committee did not accept a sunset clause for the whole of the bill. Such a clause would negate our ability to fulfill international obligations to address terrorism. Further, it would fail to recognize that the need to maintain vigilance against terrorism is a continuous one and that the measures in the bill are balanced, reasonable and subject to significant safeguards.

The power to issue certificates by the attorney general under the Canada Evidence Act, the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and other acts prohibit disclosure of sensitive information relating to national defence or security or received in confidence from a foreign entity.

The power to issue such certificates would be a vital addition to our ability to prevent the disclosure of information injurious to international relations, national defence or national security.

At the same time the standing committee agreed that the provisions could be better circumscribed and should be subject to review. For these reasons it accepted amendments under which the certificates would have a maximum lifespan of 15 years unless reissued. The certificates would be reviewable by a judge of the federal court. The certificates may only be issued after an order or decision for disclosure in a proceeding. The certificates would be published in The Canada Gazette .

These changes would substantially enhance the controls on certificates. I observe that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Mr. George Radwanski, sent a letter to the Minister of Justice stating that these amendments fully and effectively address the concerns he previously raised about this aspect of Bill C-36.

I want to speak briefly to a matter which was raised at committee hearings and which, it has been said, might relate to the privilege of the House and the Senate to send for persons, papers and records. As the House knows, the subpoena power of parliamentary houses has existed for over 300 years and is essential to their functions.

There are provisions in Bill C-36 which refer to “a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information” and related procedures in clauses 43 and 70 which would protect sensitive security information from public disclosure. It would not be the intention of the bill to alter the current status of parliament's subpoena powers and privileges. In fact similar provisions already exist in sections 37 and 39 of the Canada Evidence Act.

Having stated this for our parliamentary record so that the intention of the House is clear, an amendment was made to the bill under Motion No. 7 yesterday for the same purpose of clarifying our intention that parliament's privilege to send persons, papers and records not be affected by this legislation.

Canadians can be assured that the government is taking timely action against the threat of terrorism while at the same time ensuring that rights and freedoms are preserved.

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved 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 read the third time and passed.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada swung an axe across the throat of parliament. While committee members had an opportunity to speak to Bill C-36, members of all parties in parliament lost the ability to express the concerns of Canadians.

If the bill was the right thing to do, why did the Prime Minister do the wrong thing by invoking closure?

Public Safety Act

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

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-42 the government has decided to introduce the ability for ministers to pass interim orders declaring emergencies, just as in Bill C-36 the government will grab more executive power. There is no provision for these orders to come to parliament for debate. The orders appear to have no set criteria, do not have to be publicized in the Canada Gazette for 23 days, nor pass through parliament.

Why has the government brought in these measures when the Emergencies Act, with comprehensive powers and specific limitations, already exists?

Anti-terrorism Legislation

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I guess tokenism is the best we can hope for from an arrogant majority government.

On September 21 the House unanimously supported the NDP motion for parliamentarians to stand together in protecting the human rights of all of our citizens. In total contradiction, the government is about to ram through Bill C-36. The legislation is the most flagrant attack on the civil liberties of Canadians since the War Measures Act.

In response to the rising tide of opposition, will the government learn from the mistakes of the past and withdraw Bill C-36?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today a broad coalition of community organizations is calling on the government to withdraw Bill C-36. Since September 11 alarming incidents of racial hatred have occurred right across the country. We need leadership from the government. We need concrete measures to combat racism. Instead, the government is targeting voices of dissent and abandoning visible minorities and, by shutting down debate, proving that Canadians have a right to be worried.

Will the government show some leadership and launch an urgent positive plan of action to combat racism?

The Budget

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what is strange is that the hon. member is wrongly asserting gaping holes in Bill C-36, because on October 16 his justice critic, the member for Provencher, said:

The government has taken some important steps. Although we will be considering the provisions of the bill very carefully, it is imperative that the legislation move forward as quickly as possible. I therefore thank members of the House for the increase in the number of hours for debate to raise concerns and move the matter along.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition: meet his justice critic.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not waiting until December 10. They are leaking stuff daily.

We need to know. With the gaping holes that have been left in our security wall in Canada because of Bill C-36, will there be an extra billion dollars to the RCMP and to CSIS and our border security forces to be able to plug the holes that have been left by Bill C-36?

National Security

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the government is ramming through Bill C-36 in order to ensure that Canadians are protected against terrorists.

Airport security has been tightened. Lineups exist at our borders as every vehicle is checked. However, there is another way into our country: by water.

Anyone who has anything from a dory to an ocean liner can enter anywhere in the country. The only way we will know they are coming is if they call ahead for reservations.

This dilemma is caused simply by government cutbacks to the DFO and coast guard specifically.

The greatest threat to the country lies not across the ocean but across the House.

Bill C-36

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in recent days we have been treated to the kind of gap between rhetoric and reality that causes Canadians to have a lot of cynicism about Canadian politics.

The leader of the Conservative Party has said that Bill C-36 is about shutting down the information commissioner, that it is a power grab, that it is muzzling a parliamentary watchdog, that it represents a culture of secrecy, that it is an assault on Canadian civil liberties, that it is comparable to the War Measures Act and that it must be stopped.

If that is the case, why is it that the Conservative Party voted for Bill C-36 when it could have joined New Democrats and the Bloc in opposing Bill C-36?

It is one thing to approve of a bill and suggest how to improve it, but to denounce it in its final form and then vote for it is the height of cynicism.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, access to information is a cornerstone of democracy. The right to know ensures transparency and accountability in government and a healthy democracy. The government recoils at the level of accountability that transparency brings.

With Bill C-36 the government would weaken Canada's access to information laws in its zeal to provide us with anti-terrorism legislation. It would give the attorney general the power to issue certificates that would exclude information now allowed. It would prevent the information commissioner and the courts from reviewing unjustifiable government secrets.

There would be no meaningful independent review of these secrets. The government would not have to prove that disclosure would cause injury and there would be no end to this period of secrecy. We would no longer have the right to protect our property and loved ones through democratic transparency and accountability.

The government is gutting the access to information we now enjoy and taking away the freedom of information from Canadians.

Anti-terrorism Act

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

moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-36 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 183 the following new clause:

“147. Sections 6, 6.1, 7, 8 and 81 of this Act, and section 38.13 of the Canada Evidence Act as enacted by this Act cease to apply at the end of the fifteenth sitting day of Parliament after December 31, 2006, notwithstanding section 146.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-36, in Clause 145, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 19 on page 183 with the following:

“145. Three years after this Act receives royal assent, the provisions of this Act shall expire, except the following:

(a) the provisions that fulfill Canada's commitment under the conventions listed in the definition “United Nations operation” in subsection 2(2) and the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code, as enacted by section 4;

(b) sections 11, 12, 13 and 102.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-36, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 82 with the following:

“proceeding” means a proceeding before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information.”

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-36.

First, I would like to go back to the fact that the United States experienced tragic events for which there is no justification whatsoever. U.S. citizens were the victims of unspeakable and incredibly violent acts, the consequences of which, for them and the rest of the world, are numerous. It is therefore necessary and critical to ensure that such terrible acts never occur again.

We must be careful to come up with an act that will protect people from violent acts of an exceptional nature. However, we must not, through this bill, interfere with individual freedoms, which is what this legislation will do.

Before the events of last September, Americans, Quebecers and Canadians thought they were living in a world based on individual freedoms and respect for one another. Everything is changed now. Still, the Bloc Quebecois feels that even though we must protect ourselves against barbaric acts such as those committed in September, it is necessary to respect individual freedoms.

The Bloc Quebecois is convinced that the Minister of Justice did not take into account the balance that had to be maintained. Bill C-36 will interfere with freedom of expression. It will eliminate a fundamental freedom enjoyed by individuals and restrict people's freedom of expression. With this bill, the government will incite people to commit acts of violence.

At second reading, we said that we supported the principle of an act to fight terrorism, because we felt that framework legislation was necessary, but since the bill was unacceptable to us, we decided to put forward amendments, which were all rejected except for one.

Moreover, several amendments were moved after witnesses appeared before the committee, but the minister ignored them. The amendments by the minister are totally insufficient to restore the balance, to which I alluded, between freedom and security. The context of the September events was an exceptional one. These events were exceptional ones and they must be dealt with in an exceptional fashion. This means that Bill C-36 must also be exceptional in nature.

Should the threat of terrorism diminish, several measures included in the current bill would become exaggerated and unacceptable in a society based on individual and collective freedom of expression.

It is therefore important for a sunset clause to be added to this bill so that it will cease to be in effect after three years. That is what the Bloc Quebecois called for. We also called for an automatic review every year by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, after the tabling of a report by an independent commissioner.

When we think of certain elements of Bill C-36, there is reason for concern about people's freedom being curtailed. The definition of terrorist activity is too broad and might limit people's choices of self-expression—in ways that respect the rights of others—although these are not grounds for considering them terrorists

The minister has not listened to the recommendations made in committee, including the one on tightening up the definition of terrorist activity. A definition must be given in order to ensure that demonstrations or illegal strikes are not considered terrorist activities.

According to the Bloc Quebecois, some demonstrators could still be perceived as terrorists. In our opinion, any reference in the bill to strikes and demonstrations must be removed.

Despite an amendment to the definition of terrorist activity by the Minister of Justice, we believe that certain groups of demonstrators could still be included in the definition.

We oppose the fact that the minister could withhold information by avoiding applying the Access to Information Act, without any safeguard. The bill will be reviewed only in three years' time.

Furthermore, the government did not even consult the Quebec department of justice, although this subject is certainly of interest to it.

Although everyone should roll up their sleeves and work together to fight terrorism in the world, this government has ignored the government of Quebec and its minister of justice by not consulting it. This is really worrisome, especially since the government of Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction over the administration of justice. It is by working together that we will put an end to terrorism.

Is the federal government's practice of deciding unilaterally not tantamount to dictatorship? What we lived through in September has certainly sown the seeds of concern, both here and with our neighbours in the United States. We are concerned about the future. We empathize with the Americans and are even trying to help them.

Here, perhaps, we should not only talk between levels of government in the context of decision making, but we should make decisions together in the best interests of our people. I think the bill concerns Quebecers and their minister of justice as well. People are observing us and count on this government to be effective and to work co-operatively to banish everything even remotely connected with terrorism forever.

We asked that charitable organizations and bodies have access to the information presented against them. There should be a legal process before listing occurs. The minister introduced no substantive amendment in this regard.

The expression “list of terrorists” would be changed to “list of entities”. Entities can be included in the list of terrorists, and organizations can have their charitable status withdrawn without being allowed access to the evidence against them. This is unacceptable.

Under this bill, an organization could be denied charitable status or have that status revoked on the basis of information that could pose a threat to national security. This bill has been strongly denounced by charitable organizations because of the secrecy surrounding the legal proceedings and the evidence provided by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

One must know what one is being accused of in order to be able to defend oneself. The Bloc Quebecois put forward amendments in this regard so that organizations that lose their charitable status will know what they are accused of.

They need to be able to have access to the evidence against them so that they can defend themselves. The result is that the minister has put forward no substantive amendment with respect to these provisions.

In conclusion, we are living at a time when everyone must help and support each other. How are charitable organizations, which help their fellow citizens, going to be encouraged if they are threatened at every turn, without explanation and without access to the grounds for the evidence against them? This is a good way to discourage them.

In conclusion, let us not forget that this bill, as drafted, will curtail the freedom of citizens and their right to express themselves. This is not the objective of the Bloc Quebecois, which would rather see a bill that will protect our constituents, not violate their rights. Security does not mean an end to freedom.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have some opportunity to speak on Bill C-36 and the amendments.

Obviously one of the concerns that we have is the limit on debate. Just for the information of the members and the listening public, this is at least the 72nd time, and some members have told me it is the 73rd time, that the government has brought in time allocation to limit debate on bills before the House and has simply called closure in the minds of most parliamentarians. In other words, it has limited debate on the most important bill to come before the House in many decades.

In fact, our party's justice critic, the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough said yesterday that this week we were debating the most important bill that we would probably see in the lifetime of this parliament or perhaps in the last 50 years and that the government was going to shut down debate.

That pretty well sums it up from this side of the House. We think the Canadian public wants to see some transparency in this process. Not all of us had the opportunity to tune in to the committee meetings and I think that most members expected that it would be debated on the floor of the House. We are not alone in that. It is not simply confined to members of opposition. The information commissioner, John Reid, who at one time was a member of the House, had some criticisms of the bill. He suggested that it had been rushed through the House with some pace.

Ken Rubin, an Ottawa researcher, has mentioned the same thing. Yesterday he said that it would permanently scar Canada's access to information legislation in terms of what the bill would do. He said that it would basically keep information away from the Canadian public.

That is reminiscent of what the Prime Minister has done in the House on so many occasions. I am sure that I do not have to remind members of Shawinigate or the APEC hearings, and the list goes on.

The Prime Minister prefers to have arbitrary power by executive decree. I do not think the Canadian public enjoys that type of government. It is heavy-handed and pretty tight-fisted. If we are going to rush through a bill in the House, and there is some sense of urgency to that, I do not think too many parliamentarians would object to extending the hours of the House. We still have 24 hours in a day. Most members would enjoy the opportunity to get up in their places and debate the merits of the bill or the weaknesses of the bill to make sure we get it right. There is a lot at play here in a sense that if we do not get it right, we will have to come back to this place to make it right. How many casualties will there be along the way?

One of the groups that appeared before the committee was the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It submitted a brief to the committee. It was not particularly overjoyed by what it saw. The opening paragraph in its presentation to the committee stated:

However, it is vitally important that, in our haste to introduce new measures to counter terrorism, we do not put in place measures that exceed this aim and jeopardize human rights... Let's fight back against terrorism and bring the guilty to justice but let us not endanger the innocent in our haste or abandon the very rights and freedoms which are the terrorists' target.

The justice critic for our party pointed out that the Liberal justice minister at one time was a member of the civil liberties association, so she is going against everything that in a previous life she raged against. That tells us a little about what Liberals are saying in private about the bill.

I will quote from a newspaper article that appeared in today's National Post , November 27. The article is entitled, “Grits snuff debate on terror bill”. It said:

One Liberal back-bencher, (the hon. member for Scarborough East), has broken from Liberal ranks, criticizing the anti-terrorism bill as “a deal with the devil.”

I do not think it can be expressed any stronger than that, but unfortunately when push comes to shove, every Liberal will stand in his or her place and vote with the government and the Prime Minister.

It is the long term harm that we have to be concerned about. We cannot emphasize that enough. We have to be very cautious in what we do in the House with the bills we put through that may infringe our rights and the rights of every group in the country from the east coast to the west.

In the government's haste, today for example, we are going through the amendments. We are only on Group No. 2. I would say it was a stalling tactic on the part of the government, but some of the motions will not have been put tonight before we vote on them and we will not have had the opportunity to debate them.

I use the case of Motion No. 9 by the member for Pictou--Antigonish-Guysborough. It will never be debated on this floor because we are going to run out of time. We have five or ten minutes left on the debate. I guess that is the way the government wants it.

I remind the Canadian public again that when the bill came forward, we had six justice teams, as was said in the article in the National Post , which go backabout a month now , who lived on fast food, worked weekends and into the wee hours of the morning to hastily put this bill together. They did it in haste, which tells us that there is a lot of sober second thought that should go into the bill, and the place that that should happen is right here on the floor of the House of Commons.

That brings me to a book, which I think will probably be on the Christmas best seller list, called The Friendly Dictatorship , written by Jeffrey Simpson.

It chronicles the tenure of the Prime Minister since his coming to office in 1993. Earlier in my opening remarks, I reminded the House that this is at least 72 times that the Prime Minister has brought in closure; hence The Friendly Dictatorship .

When it is over at the end of the day, the Liberals will all stand in their places, bow to the friendly dictatorship and rush the bill through the House of Commons without the opportunity to debate it fully on the floor.

For example, the listing of terrorists is wrong. The ability of the executive to abuse the power in the bill goes way beyond with what we would be comfortable. If I had my wish, it would be that we would continue to debate the bill, to go through it clause by clause with every member receiving the opportunity to at least debate it, so that we would know what is in it before we vote on it.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to enter the debate at report stage on Bill C-36. Motion No. 6 would impose a 15 year limit on the period of secrecy in certain instances. At this point there is no way to be assured 15 years is a sufficient time to keep secret certain matters that are important to national security. This is an amendment I do not feel could be supported.

However I will take the same opportunity most of my colleagues have been taking. I will use my allocated time to make general comments on Bill C-36 and review the process.

Subsequent to the events of September 11, as we are all aware, there was a tremendous feeling across the country that something needed to be done to address terrorism and to put measures in place. The opposition was quite critical that the government was not moving quickly enough. That is juxtaposed to the criticism we are hearing today that the government is moving too quickly in bringing in time allocation to deal with the matter.

After September 11 officials in the government and several ministries worked long hours for several weeks preparing the legislation. There was an acknowledgment when the legislation was tabled that it might require work because of the haste with which it was drafted.

For that reason the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice asked the committee to take a careful look at the legislation. That was done. In addition, the committee in the other place was asked to do a pre-study. It spent many hours and heard from approximately 80 witnesses.

We had the Senate pre-study and the time in committee. Over 100 amendments were proposed and accepted or passed at committee. This is a bill that has seen a considerable amount of work.

I will talk about the two main issues that came from the work of the committee of which I was privileged to be a member. It dealt with the definition of terrorist activity.

First, a concern was brought forward by many groups that by making the word “lawful” protest the exception we would exempt lawful protests but inadvertently trap labour movement walkouts or other protests where assaults, mischief or other activities may be committed that while criminal are a long way from terrorism. There are criminal code provisions to deal with those things so the word lawful in one of the amendments that was accepted has been removed from the definition. That is a useful amendment.

Second, there was the issue of the sunset clause. The great majority of the witnesses who came before committee wanted some form of sunset provision. They did not all agree on the type of sunset or the exact terms of the provisions but they felt there should be a sunset provision. That is why an amendment to put a five year sunset on the two most controversial issues, preventive arrest and investigative hearings, was adopted. That is significant.

Let us remember that the bill was drafted with the charter of rights in mind. It already contained a mandatory three year review period. We have all sat on committees where mandatory reviews are not always conducted when they are supposed to be. Unfortunately there do not appear to be any consequences when a government does not comply or when there is a change of government, an election or something that gets in the way of the mandatory review. That is why the five year sunset clause behind the three year mandatory review is so significant.

An editorial in the Midland Free Press , a newspaper in my riding, complains that we have put in a sunset clause that would weaken the message the legislation should be sending. I disagree with the editorial. However it is evidence that there is a will in Canada to have a strong bill which assures Canadians that measures will be taken against terrorists and that we mean business. A sunset provision is a way to make sure the review would be meaningful.

There are a couple of other issues I will touch on. We are hearing complaints that the bill would provide no oversight. That is far from the truth. We have the three year review of parliament; the annual reports from the solicitor general, the attorney general and the attorneys general of the provinces; the parliamentary committees review; the information and privacy commissioners; the RCMP complaints commission; and judicial review on certificates. There is significant review. The criticism is not the least bit founded.

We hear the bill would sacrifice civil liberties for national security. However we have heard the comments of the minister and others which remind us that the measures seek to protect our freedoms. This is an issue of human security. That is the goal of the bill and that is what we are attempting to preserve.

I have heard concerns about the stripping of citizenship. With all due respect, Bill C-36 does not deal with the stripping of citizenship. Those are other proceedings and that is a debate for another day.

We hear that minorities are being discriminated against. A non-discrimination clause is being inserted into the bill to clarify that it would not target religious or ethnic groups but terrorism. There is a level of comfort for most of us with the amendments being suggested.

As well, the minister, the Attorney General of Canada, the Solicitor General of Canada, the provincial attorneys general and the provincial ministers responsible for law enforcement must report to parliament on an annual basis.

This is important because it will be useful to parliament when it comes time to conduct its three year review. If we have annual reports, we will be able to determine if the measures go too far, if there are any shortcomings and if there is something that can be done to improve the bill.

There are also the provisions regarding the attorney general's certificates. These will not be issued willy nilly. They will be issued only after an order has been issued or a ruling has been made regarding the disclosure of information in legal proceedings. The certificate will be valid for 15 years, unless it is reissued. The certificate will be published in the Canada Gazette . The attorney general's certificate will be reviewed by a Federal Court of Appeal judge. This is yet another level of supervision that we are including in this bill.

On behalf of myself and my constituents, I am very proud of the amendments that have been made after having undertaken the studies requested by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. These amendments have been put in place to protect the rights of all Canadians. We are proud to support this bill, and I am happy that we are proceeding without any further delays.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. government member who just spoke on the bill. I give him a lot of credit for his courage in standing up and taking a position against his government. This is one of those bills that is important enough for him to do that. I am surprised and shocked that there are not more on that side who would do the same because many of them have serious concerns about Bill C-36.

Many members wanted amendments made to the bill. We are at report stage with the government invoking time allocation which would allow the House only about 16 hours to deal with the amendments. That is not enough time. In question period the Prime Minister bragged that he had allowed 60 hours in committee for a bill with such a potentially negative impact.

Many say that it is a matter of balancing civil liberties with the security of the nation. The Canadian Alliance is the party that pointed out problems in our system. We have been asking for stronger security to protect the country and its citizens. We support many things in the bill because it would move us in some way toward providing better security, although we do not think it would go nearly far enough in terms of protecting our security in many areas.

There are those who say that it is a matter of either allowing people their civil liberties or providing security. I suggest they are not really looking at the whole issue in a very comprehensive way. There are many instances in the legislation where it is not an issue of curtailing civil liberties when it would improve security. There are many ways in which parliamentary oversight could be put in place. This oversight would protect civil liberties but not at the expense of security.

I would like to talk about the CSE, the Communications Security Establishment, which is overseen by the Department of National Defence. It is one of Canada's intelligence services and employs about 1,000 people, mainly civilians. These individuals listen in to various types of electronic communications from around the world. It was aimed at communications outside the country until this legislation came forward.

It has not monitored residents of Canada as far as we know, at least not to any great extent as required by law, although the oversight is inadequate for us to be sure of that. It does not provide for the current oversight and the kind of protection we would expect when it comes to an intelligence establishment that could have a huge impact on the life of individuals.

In spite of what has been said the new legislation would give the CSE the power to monitor a Canadian citizen. For example, the monitoring could start outside the country and continue if the citizen moved to Canada. It could monitor a conversation between two Canadian citizens inside Canada if the monitoring started outside the country and these citizens moved to Canadian soil. The oversight has not been improved if one considers the greater ability being given to this establishment that would impact on the lives of Canadians.

I suggested at committee that SIRC, the body which oversees our intelligence establishment CSIS, oversee the CSE as well. It would make perfect sense. There are a lot of situations where the CSE deals with CSIS because the two agencies work together. One monitors communications outside Canada. The other focuses mostly within Canada although it sometimes goes outside the country. It would make perfect sense for SIRC to oversee the CSE.

What kind of oversight is provided for in the legislation? The oversight would be directly from the minister. We all know we need more oversight than that. I will not speak about this minister but any minister could in some way be compromised and not looking out for the best interests of Canada. We have seen it happen in many cases throughout history. We must be able to look at a situation and feel confident no matter who is the minister.

The minister through cabinet and an order in council appointment appoints a commissioner to oversee the CSE. We have the minister and we have an appointment recommended by the minister. That is the extent of oversight.

In committee the minister and others have said the privacy commissioner and information commissioner would provide oversight. In some cases that is true but in many cases, particularly when tied in with other provisions of the legislation, the two offices would not be able to provide oversight. They would be specifically restricted from doing so in certain circumstances.

This is an extremely serious situation. The application of time allocation limits the ability of parliament to oversee this extremely important piece of legislation. It is a wrong minded act. The government should reconsider. Bill C-36 is too important for that type of action to be taken.

I have heard only one Liberal member speak out against time allocation and having the bill rammed through in so little time, however I have not been here all day. I was at committee before coming here so there may have been others I missed. If there were others I congratulate them.

Time allocation absolutely should not have been invoked on a piece of legislation this important which has had so little time spent on it. The Prime Minister bragged that the bill had 60 hours at committee. That is not much when we consider the complexity of the legislation and the various acts it must be tied in with. It is extremely complex and 60 hours is nowhere near enough. The bill had 16 hours at report stage in the House. Time allocation has either been invoked or will be invoked at third reading. I can be confident of that.

This is not the amount of time an important piece of legislation like this should be given. In spite of the fact that we pushed the government to bring the legislation forth and it was tardy in doing so, it is the type of legislation we must give a proper hearing to. That is important.

I have referred to only one example in the legislation. I do not want to get into it in any more depth as I only have about a minute left. If the government will not listen to the opposition I ask that it listen to its own MPs. It should reconsider the issue of time allocation and give us a proper chance to put forth amendments starting with one that would ensure proper oversight through the application of a currently existing body, SIRC, to the other intelligence body, the CSE. That would make perfect sense.

I encourage the government to bring forth the amendment. I do not need to bring it forward. I would be happy to see it come from the government. I would support it. It is what I want. The legislation is far too important to be partisan as the government has made it by invoking time allocation.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to express the concerns I have about certain aspects of Bill C-36. The bill impacts on the civil liberties of individuals. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Bill C-36 changes the normal judicial process and accountability. An open trial might go out the window if a person or organization is suspected of terrorism. It lacks transparency. Individuals have no right to know why they were listed as an entity suspected of terrorism or to contest whether the source used to make these accusations was reliable. One judge made this determination in camera.

Bill C-36 undermines the security of a person. Under the bill individuals need only to be found to have made a financial donation to a charity that is suspected of supporting terrorism to have their reputation and life ruined. Individuals are listed as supporting a possible terrorist entity whether that charity is indeed found to be supporting terrorism. A shadow of suspicion has been cast that can never be removed.

We all recognize that one of the most important things we need is to dedicate more resources to policing, immigration and other agencies that enforce existing laws. I trust we will be doing that in the next budget. We can protect Canadians by keeping out those who would do us harm by developing the shared North American protection perimeter to screen out terrorists with our friend and ally to the south.

However the legislation we are debating gives extraordinary powers to the solicitor general, the courts and the police. It must contain at the very least a feature of accountability.

I notice that the motion for a parliamentary oversight committee will not be voted on since it was ruled out of order. I regret that because the amendment would have protected one of our most basic tenets of democracy: accountability to this Chamber. This accountability is absolutely necessary because without it we lose an essential element of the democratic process. If we fail to protect the process we will lose it.

The motions in Group No. 4 ask for a three year sunset clause, except for those provisions implementing United Nations conventions; a multi-party oversight committee annual report to the House; and a time limit to be placed on the sections dealing with changes to the Canada Evidence Act as it relates to the registration of charities. These amendments, along with those accepted by the government arising from the deliberations of the standing committee, represent the minimum acceptable standards of accountability.

I am intimately aware of the value of civil liberties as someone who has lived under the repressive heel of a totalitarian regime. I have a very deep and abiding fear that in the name of national security we may sacrifice civil liberties unnecessarily and in so doing endanger our democracy and the democratic process. We rely upon this process to ensure that the security of person, citizenship and basic human rights and freedoms are maintained and protected.

In their submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights civil liberties, law associations and groups representing Muslim, Arab and other ethnic communities expressed deep concerns about the danger of sacrificing, civil liberties for the purposes of national security.

The member for Edmonton--Strathcona, the only Muslim member in the House, put forward those concerns very eloquently. I share those concerns that in times of political and social stress such as the threat of terrorism civil liberties and human rights must not be discarded. It is during times of crisis that they are most needed.

I have been following with keen interest the debate in the House and the submissions and representations of witnesses to the standing committee. I observed media commentaries, debates and town hall style meetings that took place across the country regarding the anti-terrorism bill.

My impression is that Canadians are asking us, their representatives, to remain vigilant, to ensure that accountability is retained and that the duration of the extraordinary powers of the bill be limited. The government is saying to trust it to reduce civil liberties in the name of security and trust it not to abuse human rights.

Members of the House know of my battle against the current citizenship revocation process. I consider it to be a gross abuse of human rights and in contravention of section 7 of the charter. The decision to revoke citizenship is made by cabinet in star chambers using the rationale that it does not want Canada to become a haven for war criminals or people who have committed crimes against humanity. This appears to be a most worthy objective, but unfortunately the reality is quite different. Through this process the government tars people with the brush of being war criminals or human rights violators without producing a shred of evidence in court to back up these charges. It does not allow those accused to properly defend themselves.

It subjects people to a process of citizenship revocation under the guise of fighting violators of rights and freedoms and ultimately deportation which tramples on their civil liberties and human rights. It is a horror story for those involved and their families. With one notable exception the process of citizenship revocation was opposed by every one of over 50 groups because of their concern about the revocation process.

Last weekend in British Columbia at its biennial policy convention the federal Liberal Party passed a resolution moved by Diana Recalma, the policy chair of the Nanaimo-Alberni federal Liberal riding association. It asked for the right to appeal in the case of citizenship revocation so that the decision would be taken out of the hands of a political body, namely the cabinet.

In the last number of days we have had another example of a human rights abuse caused by this flawed process. It is against a 92 year old man suffering from Alzheimer's disease who lives in a nursing home and is incompetent to stand trial. However under the guise that he was involved in war crimes, a charge that the government will not back up in court, this man will in all probability be stripped of his citizenship. If he lives long enough he may be deported under a process that I consider fraudulent. I do not want this brand of terrorism to be applied against individuals unless they have the right to defend themselves.

The government introduced the anti-terrorism bill because of the terrorist acts of September 11 and I support that. What the government is saying in the bill is to let it curtail some of our civil liberties and rights in the name of the war on terrorism.

The fact that the government introduced an anti-terrorism bill in light of September 11 was the right thing to do. However cutting off debate on the bill is not in the interest of producing the best possible legislation.

Members should make no mistake that the bill would negatively impact on civil liberties. Canadians are ready to accept some curtailment of their rights in the name of collective security. However Canadians are concerned that their civil liberties are impacted only to the extent necessary for collective security. We must get it right. Canadians do not want their rights abused.

It is important to remember our history of human rights abuses. In the course of our history relatives of members now sitting in the House were interned in detention camps. There are members in the House who belong to ethnic and religious minorities who were discriminated against by past governments. It is as a result of these collective experiences that we created our cherished charter of rights and freedoms.

The more we disrupt our way of life, the more the terrorists win. We must never sacrifice the principles that form the basic foundation of our democratic state.

It is important to remember that the war we are pursuing in Afghanistan is against terrorism, but we are also fighting for human rights including the right of women to take their place in society and little girls to be able to go to school. It would be ironic that we win the war against terrorism at the expense of Canadian human rights and civil liberties.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am truly pleased to have this opportunity to address Bill C-36 at report stage.

As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who spoke before me said, this is a truly sad day. Bloc Quebecois members and other members in this House were up front regarding Bill C-36.

We listened to the minister who told us time and again “Wait, the committee will hear witnesses. We will listen, we will take into account what happens, what we hear and what is said in the briefs submitted to us”.

In order to speed up the process for Bill C-36, the Senate was even asked to work in a parallel way and do an initial review of the bill to try to determine what it thinks of it. This was done to speed up the process.

This is rather surprising, but some 80 witnesses appeared before the committee. The Bloc Quebecois members who sit on the committee read all the briefs that were submitted. They heard and reviewed all the evidence given by those who appeared before the committee. This was truly done in a non-partisan spirit. We told ourselves that no one could forget what had happened on September 11, that we had to fight terrorism, that we had to create conditions that would allow everyone to be comfortable in that process, so as to defend ourselves, even though it is almost impossible to defend ourselves against terrorism.

The Bloc Quebecois also played by the new rules of procedure. We tried to find a way to avoid endless sittings with thousands of amendments. We dealt with the core of the issue. After listening to the evidence and reading the briefs, the Bloc Quebecois presented 66 amendments based on what the public really wanted.

None of these amendments were accepted, except for one. It is almost a joke to say that the government accepted something coming from the Bloc Quebecois.

The clause about mischief in relation to property associated with religious worship said that these crimes could take place in a church, mosque, synagogue or temple. There could also be mischief in connection with an object associated with religious worship located in such a building or structure, or on the grounds of such a building or structure. The Bloc Quebecois wanted the bill to include mischief committed in a cemetery.

The government agreed. When the Bloc members are in the cemetery, they are no longer a threat. The government was therefore able to agree to this amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. Henceforth, mischief committed in a cemetery will be taken into consideration.

I am even hearing government members say that the minister put forward amendments. The Liberal member who spoke before the New Democratic Party member said that he was very pleased that a sunset clause had been added.

We wanted the entire bill to be subject to this clause, except, of course, for the provisions implementing international conventions. We wanted this clause applying to the entire bill except in the case of international conventions, to be in effect for three years. In three years, the legislation would have lapsed.

If the government or the minister wanted to be able to continue to use this act, the government then in power would have to pass a new bill, going through all stages, including first and second reading, consideration in committee, amendments, and report and third reading stage, as we are doing now with this bill.

What sort of amendments did the minister put forward? First, she proposed that the limit be five rather than three years and that the clause apply in two instances only: investigative hearings and preventive arrests. Naturally, our party voted against the minister's amendment in committee.

The clause proposed by the minister is not a true sunset clause. It sets a five year limit for only two clauses, but the law is going to continue to apply, with its entire process, with all its intensity.

If it is to be continued past those five years, it will take nothing more than a motion by the two Houses to extend the two clauses I have referred to by another five years; they will not be reintroduced into the law and will not undergo the legislative process. All that is required is a vote by the two houses.

As we know, in the one chamber as in the other there is a majority, a vocal majority, even if it is against the wishes of the people, with the majority of seats in this democracy. We know very well what might easily happen with this fake sunset clause.

It will be impossible to make any amendments to the wording of provisions. If it is realized that these clauses are really not desirable for the population, they cannot even be changed. They can be eliminated completely, because this will happen automatically.

This is pretty strange, however, when the minister says she wants to hear what people have to say. My goodness, I think she may need to have some kind of testing done to determine what is going on: whether she does not hear, or she does not listen, or she does not grasp what she hears, or she does not retain what she hears. The minister certainly has some kind of problem. It is very clear that something is the matter with her.

We also wanted an annual review of the legislation. We wanted there to be an independent commissioner with the responsibility of monitoring application of the law. We also wanted that commissioner's report to be submitted yearly to a House committee, to be examined, and to be the object of a committee report.

I am surprised to see my time is coming to an end. I will close by saying that once again the minister has not backed us up. She has not listened to anyone from this side. The Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada are the ones who will be responsible for enforcing this law, for evaluating themselves, for patting themselves on the back, for continuing to enforce the law, and no one will be able to make any amendments.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on this group of amendments to Bill C-36. As we have heard from other of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, we certainly support the amendment before us and other amendments that we are dealing with at this stage, but oppose the bill without some major acceptance of the amendments being proposed.

It is rather ironic that today of all days we are dealing with the heavy hand of closure by the Liberal Government of Canada. All of us will recall that today is the anniversary of our election, whether as a first, second or many term member to the House. It should be a day of celebration, a day to celebrate democracy, not to be sidelined and bowled over by the heavy hand of closure, which is the reality today.

One year ago we were elected or re-elected to stand and represent constituents and Canadians from one end of the country to the other. We were elected to represent, we were not elected to rubber stamp an arbitrary government measure. We were elected to debate and make tough decisions based on the collective good and the public interest. We were not elected to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of individual Canadians, yet today we are faced with just that.

It is a sad day, a very dark moment in the history of the country, since so much is at stake. So much of what we are dealing with is fundamental to who we are as a nation. The broad, wide, sweeping powers of the legislation, the substantive change that the bill represents are contrary to the fundamental values of Canadians. In no way is it an answer to what the government suggested is the threat of terrorism as we know it today.

I listened very carefully to the member for Etobicoke North and to others throughout the debate. It is clear to me that they are very much trying to defend the indefensible. It is impossible to pretend to be dealing with the threat of terrorism, which we all agree must be dealt with, by stepping over the rights and privileges of Canadians and dismantling the institutions that hold this country together and the values we hold near and dear to us.

In opposing the legislation without substantive amendments, the New Democrats did not vote against improving the security of Canadians. In fact, the contrary is the case. We are expressing our concern with the bill and raising a challenge to the government in order to find mechanisms to defeat terrorism without defeating basic rights enjoyed by all Canadians.

I quote a Globe and Mail editorial on October 1 in response to all those who suggested that Canadians desperately want this kind of bill that stamps all over the rights of individual Canadians, as there is a question as to whether that is the case or not. The editorial said:

Although Canadians desperately want to see evidence that the federal government is taking strong and meaningful measures to improve national security, there is no evidence that Canadians want to hand the government carte blanche to create a nation where important protections may be suspended arbitrarily if it seems handy.

That is the issue we are really dealing with today. It is that balance between protecting Canadians' against terrorism and ensuring their security while standing up for individual freedoms and liberties that we fought so long and hard for.

Many groups and concerned Canadians made presentations and sent us faxes and e-mails to let us know their concerns. Those concerns by and large were not taken into account by the government in a very heavy-handed process through the committee stage and into the House today. Those concerns ranged from preventive arrest right through to the definition of terrorism. I want to focus for a moment on that issue because it overlaps directly with the concerns we heard about Bill C-11 on immigration and refugee policy.

During those hearings concerns were raised around the fact that we do not have an accepted universal definition of terrorist. This makes it a questionable and weak legal term and one that is open to wide abuse. The label terrorist is often used as a political weapon against a government's opponents without any basis in fact. It is often a propaganda weapon used to discredit legitimate opposition. For these reasons my NDP colleagues and I proposed an amendment to improve the effectiveness of Bill C-11 by dumping the fuzzy language and basing our security provisions on sounder security grounds and verifiable evidence.

The definition we are dealing with today in Bill C-36 presents exactly the same problem. It may make us feel good but when it comes to enforcement, the water muddies and it comes down to personal biases and techniques such as profiling certain groups. That is exactly what has been happening. How can the government rationalize a system that holds someone like Ribhi Sheikha in custody for 57 days, 23 of which were in solitary confinement, for no apparent reason except he is Palestinian in origin? I do not need to tell members of the House that many other Canadians have been detained in the same way.

If the police are profiling identifiable groups as potential terrorists, how is the public going to react to those groups? By the religiously and racially motivated hate incidents that we have seen multiplying since September 11. This is totally unacceptable in Canada and is totally predictable with the approach the government is taking.

The government of the day is putting whole sections of our population under suspicion, suspicion by law enforcement officers and suspicion by their neighbours and friends. Children are being targeted with slurs. Families are being made to feel unwelcome in their own country.

We have to say again and again that there is a better way to protect Canadians. However the government has chosen to ignore honest propositions and responsible alternatives from groups all over the country, in particular groups that deal with immigrants and refugees on a daily basis. Many organizations, like the Canadian Council for Refugees, have offered clear alternatives that strike a better balance between security concerns and civil liberties. We can limit terrorist activity to specific internationally recognized offences. That is clear.

Many Canadians have fought long and hard to protect our fundamental freedoms, freedoms that the bill walks all over. One of the greatest threats to our whole political system is the undermining of our freedom of association. Guilt by association breaks down our trust of each other as was so amply demonstrated by McCarthyism in the United States. This bill reeks of guilt by association.

All of us are probably members or supporters of organizations of one sort or another, yet we cannot be expected to know about every connection to other groups. The average Canadian has no idea about all the interlocking corporate connections where their savings are invested, and that is one of the most sophisticated systems in the world. How can we expect every refugee to know as much as our intelligence services do about activities that function on secrecy?

Bill C-36 flies in the face of that basic quest for accountability and openness. It flies in the face of our basic legal premise that people have a right to know what evidence is being used against them in order to offer evidence to the contrary, if they have any. How are persons fleeing persecution with only the clothes on their backs expected to present their cases as refugee claimants without even knowing what or through whose information they are being challenged?

When Bill C-11 was under review many of us in the House, and from other parties as well, fought very hard for legal protections that we value and are enshrined in our charter of rights and freedoms to be applied to our immigration and refugee process. We said at that time and we repeat today that without the right to defend oneself, any hearing or legal process is a sham.

Canadians have spoken and I hope the government will listen. Many Canadians have made these points over and over again but they have not been included or incorporated in the bill. I want to refer to a few Canadians who have expressed concerns in very moving ways. A woman by the name of Margo said:

I am afraid of this legislation as written, very afraid. I am afraid for myself as a concerned citizen, someone who might choose to speak out, or march in a protest against perceived ills in our society or “for” something I believe in; I am afraid for my children who may choose to exercise their once-democratic rights in the future, and who will do so with their rights of expression and dissent no longer enshrined as they always have been. Yes, we need to make our country safe and as secure as possible against terrorism. But not at the price of abrogating our fundamental democratic rights.

Canadians have spoken. I hope the government will listen.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-36. I believe many members like myself will support the bill, reluctantly in one sense because we find it offensive, but in my opinion this is a necessary response to some extraordinary circumstances that call for an extraordinary response.

The bill will show that it reflects and meets the demands of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government has been very responsive in the amendments that it introduced. The five areas of amendment will go a long way to make the bill more palatable to Canadians and because of that I will be supporting it.

What would the bill do? It would ensure tougher sentences for terrorist acts and make it a crime to support, help or harbour terrorists. It would make it easier for police and security agencies to investigate terrorists and their supporters. It would make it a crime to collect funds for terrorism and would make it easier to deny or remove charitable status for organizations that are fronts for terrorism.

It would keep terrorists from getting across our borders and would make it easier to freeze the assets of terrorists. It would establish stronger penalties for hate crimes and would show Canada's solidarity with other countries fighting terrorism by ratifying the UN anti-terrorism conventions.

What would the amendments do? The amendments are in five key areas. First, sunset clauses would be added to the preventive arrest and investigative hearing provisions in addition to the three year parliamentary review of the act so that they expire in five years. Second, the Attorney General of Canada, Solicitor General of Canada, provincial attorneys general and ministers responsible for policing would be required to report annually to the public on the use of the preventive arrest and investigative hearing provisions of Bill C-36.

Third, the word lawful would be deleted from the definition of a terrorist activity. Fourth, an interpretative clause would be added to the bill clarifying that the expression of political, religious or ideological beliefs is not a terrorist activity. Finally, the provisions concerning facilitation of a terrorist activity would be reordered so that they clearly state that in order to be guilty of an offence an individual must know or intend that his or her act would help a terrorist activity to occur. These amendments would go a long way to making the bill a good bill.

I have a very large Muslim community in my riding. I visited the mosques and the people are concerned that there might be reactions against the Muslim community; in other words blaming the many for the actions of a few. I am glad that the bill establishes stronger penalties for hate crimes as this type of activity is not to be tolerated.

I also have a large number of Tamils in my riding. Their organization, FACT, has been attacked by members opposite as being a terrorist front. This organization is a cultural organization and its members are concerned that their organization will be swept up in the definitions of terrorist activities. I have spoken to the solicitor general and I would like to make it a matter of public record that any such move should be strongly supported by facts and not by innuendo that might come from other sources. I am sure our agencies, departments and ministers will make sure that is the case.

I have many Somali Canadian refugees in my riding who transferred money to Somalia. They used the al-Barakaat agency which was a money transfer operation. It was effectively barred and that is unfortunate. Al-Barakaat was seen on the one hand to finance terrorist activities. There were many Somali Canadian refugees in my riding who sent small amounts of money to Somalia. These were amounts that were supporting relatives and friends in Somalia in very remote locations and al-Barakaat was the agency that had the broadest reach and was most credible.

I have addressed this with the ministers to see if there would be a way to have legitimate money transfer operations continue. However, I do understand that it is complex and it is difficult to do that.

With respect to those organizations that could be added to the list of terrorists, I am pleased that the process of adding a group to the list of terrorists incorporates a number of protections, including the provision for removal, judicial review and safeguards to address cases of mistaken identity. As well, the list must be reviewed every two years by the solicitor general.

The question of refugee claimants is a very important issue. In Canada we have a very tolerant and progressive policy. We welcome those people who deserve the protection of Canada. Unfortunately, there has been some abuse.

I am glad to see that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is receiving $17 million. I think more will be needed and I hope that will be addressed on December 10. A more thorough review will be given of the background of refugee claimants to ensure they do not have terrorist activities in their background and also to make sure of their identity. The fact that a refugee who arrives here in Canada has no documentation by and of itself should not be tremendous cause for concern. Many refugees arrive in Canada with just the shirts on their backs if they are lucky. We need to be careful about broad-brushing those people who arrive without documentation as being automatically suspect. It behooves us all to make a very special check.

I have been arguing for some time that we need to make sure refugee claimants are brought before the Immigration and Refugee Board and tribunals more quickly so that a determination can be made. If there is a concern that they will not appear at their hearing, they should be detained. We have that ability now under the current legislation and the bill reinforces that. That is an important step we are taking.

There is the whole question of border issues. Some popular press says that the Americans are looking to us to tighten up our borders and if we do that, then we can move our goods back and forth more freely. I do not think that is the case at all. I do not think the Americans are looking for this so-called perimeter harmonization, integration and all those buzzwords.

The American ambassador used a term the other day with which I feel more comfortable. He called it a comfort zone. Yes, we need to ensure that we have a comfort zone. In 90% of the cases we may agree with the Americans on what is appropriate policy at the border, but in 10% of the cases we may not. We need to have that flexibility as a sovereign nation to decide for example that we do not welcome handguns in Canada. I could name other situations where we need to exercise our sovereignty.

Having said that, I believe that reasonable people, which I think we are as a government and the Americans are as a government, will agree on 90% of what is needed to make our borders more secure and to allow the free flow of goods. In fact, this parliament approved a bill not too long ago which modernizes the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and allows for the lower risk volume of traffic to move more freely with sanctions if they do not live up to the expectations.

I would like to see U.S. customs adopt pre-clearance and pre-authorization so our goods can start moving in that direction. I was very happy that our Minister of Finance and our Minister of National Revenue reached some compact with the U.S. secretary of commerce to fast track these border issues, to deal with infrastructure, to deal with policy and to ensure that our goods move back and forth, because trade between Canada and the United States is so vitally important to all our citizens.

To wrap up, let me say that the bill with the amendments is a necessary piece of legislation. There are sunset clauses to ensure that some of the more difficult provisions are lapsed. However, we will honour our national conventions when it comes to terrorism. We will make sure that the charter of rights and freedoms, which we value so much as Canadians, is respected. We will move on border issues. We will move on immigration issues. The government, I am sure, will address the terrorist elements that are here in Canada and the movement of funds. Overall we will achieve our objectives with this legislation.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as Bill C-36 is concerned, clearly we want efficient legislation that can adequately meet the needs of an emergency situation, but it must not disturb the delicate balance between people's safety and their rights and freedoms.

We stated unequivocally that any legislation sacrificing freedom would be tantamount to capitulating to terrorism, and that terrorists would get their way.

The choice before us as legislators is obviously a choice about security, but first and foremost, it is a choice about society. We must make decisions which, at the end of the day, are responsible ones, decisions that guarantee the safety of the women, men and children that we represent in this House, but which are also clearly protecting their rights and freedoms.

There are many aspects of this bill that are open to criticism. In order to begin studying the group of motions that are of interest to us, let us say that the bill allows the governor in council to put entities on the list of terrorists without any legal authorization.

What is more, there is no mechanism allowing anyone on the list access to evidence against them, which makes it impossible for them to challenge their inclusion on the list. The consequences of being put on the list are very serious. By virtue of being on the list, anyone unfairly listed would be precluded from renting an apartment, opening a bank account, and so on.

We were also calling for a three year sunset clause to apply to every clause of the bill. This legislation is in response to a situation that can only be described as exceptional, and we accept that. We must act responsibly, and the government must resort to certain powers that will not be required after a certain amount of time.

The minister agreed to include a clause which, in our opinion, is not a sunset clause, since it only applies to two provisions: preventive arrest and investigative hearings, and this for a five year period.

As for the legislative review, we proposed an annual review by an independent commissioner who would report to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which could then make recommendations to the House. This bill is an exceptional bill in response to an emergency situation, hence the importance of setting up a review mechanism that is thorough and appropriate.

Unfortunately, the minister preferred instead to have the ministers responsible for implementing the act report only on the number of preventive arrests and of investigative hearings.

We proposed amendments to limit the definition of terrorist activity. The minister's promised open-mindedness and attentive ear resulted in their rejection. Even with the minister's amendments, it is still possible for people demonstrating during a strike, for example, to fit perfectly into the definition of terrorist activity in the bill, so here is some impact.

In the case of access to information, to ensure greater transparency we wanted the information commissioner to have full authority over the application of the Access to Information Act. However, the attorney general will be able to remove information without any safeguard provided, something the information commissioner roundly criticized.

What about the complaint of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who called for a sunset clause too? What happened to the opinion of a number of important witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, who warned the minister against an abuse of power and a lack of transparency in the application of the law?

What about the testimony of the president of the Quebec bar association, the president of the Canadian Auto Workers Union, the Canadian information commissioner, the privacy commissioner and the Canadian Bar Association?

Warnings came from his cabinet colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In the light of what happened in committee, clearly the minister did not heed or hear the testimony of experts during committee deliberations.

I was very much in favour of the bill's consideration in committee, so that we might have a real debate and hear the views of experts like the ones I have just referred to.

To our satisfaction, the amendments proposed by expert witnesses and their criticisms were more or less in line with the Bloc Quebecois position. Then, when the minister introduced her amendments, the total opposite happened. It is clear that the minister is doing as she pleases.

We have shown nothing but good faith from the start of the debate on Bill C-36. We could see, however, that we were dealing with a minister who is doing just as she pleases, not just once, but twice. She has shown that her mind is made up and it has nothing to do with rights and freedoms and transparency. She took us in with her talk of open-mindedness in committee, but then our 66 amendments ended up rejected.

She also did just as she pleased in connection with Bill C-7, when all of Quebec clearly indicated to her that she was on the wrong track. She chose to dismiss out of hand Quebec's expertise, the best there is in connection with young offenders, imposing on Quebec a system that is totally the opposite of the Quebec way of doing things.

Given the way things went in committee, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against this bill, because it goes far too far and is therefore unacceptable.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Madam Speaker, September 11 revealed that Canada was not prepared and was in fact ill equipped to deal with terrorists operating within our country who had as their objective the destruction of our society and that of our neighbour, the United States.

The federal government had downgraded security at our borders. Immigration officers were woefully ill equipped to ensure that our immigration laws were not misused by those who came to Canada to engage in terrorism. In addition, the refugee determination system was packed with political cronies of the government who were prepared to put narrow political interests ahead of Canadians. Our security service, CSIS, had been downgraded through aggressive cuts to its budget and a general disregard for what it was designed to do. Our armed forces had been systematically run down by this government. The numbers in our military have drastically declined, as have the military budget and equipment, since this government came to office. September 11 exposed the government's failures.

Clearly there is a need to act to protect Canadians. We have a right to feel secure, to feel that we are safe from terrorist threats. September 11 revealed that we are not safe.

In the rush to respond to the public's desire to feel secure at home, the government has brought before parliament legislation that is designed to make the government appear to be protecting Canadians. The emphasis of the government has been on appearances. The result has been poorly thought out legislation designed to make the government appear to be tough on terrorism. Some of the critics of the government and the legislation have tended to focus on the loss of civil liberties. I have a great deal of sympathy for their concerns.

Professor Don Stuart of Queen's University Faculty of Law wrote a paper entitled “The Dangers of Quick Fix Legislation in the Criminal Law: the Anti-Terrorism Bill C-36 should be Withdrawn”. It appeared in a recently published book from the University of Toronto Press which addresses these issues.

Professor Stuart states:

What cannot be supported are the complex new criminal laws in Bill C-36. When the State turns to its power to punish and imprison the standard of justification should be high. Basic principles of a criminal justice system that deserves the name require the State to prove both that the individual acted and was at fault, that responsibility is fairly labelled and that any punishment is proportionate to the accused's actions. In my view the creation of the crimes in Bill C-36...cut across these principles and should be withdrawn. The new State power grab is unnecessary, will not make Canadians safer--

I do not think the government has adequately responded to the criticism of people such as Professor Stuart.

While parliament must give expression to and effectively articulate such concerns, we must make it clear that our normal criminal laws were essentially designed to deal with those who are attempting to better themselves through criminal acts as opposed to those who are bent on destroying our society. If we need extraordinary measures to deal with those who are bent on destroying our society, then parliament must be presented with clearly defined measures to deal with these special threats. I have trouble believing that Bill C-36 will address the real problems that have undermined Canadian security.

The government has proposed Bill C-36 as a way of convincing Canadians that their security interests are being protected and that the government is taking action to ensure that terrorists cannot operate in Canada to advance their causes. The reality is that Bill C-36 may do little to protect us from terrorism and yet may unnecessarily infringe our historic rights as citizens in a free and democratic society, rights that have been in development since the Magna Carta.

I find the comments of Linda Williamson in the Toronto Sun on November 22 helpful. She stated:

—we now have experts warning that the anti-terrorism bill, in practice, won't really make much difference—it's legally cumbersome and inefficient. That's the discussion we should be having, given this government's weakness for awkward, ineffective and largely symbolic legislation—

She goes on to state:

While everyone's been indulging in esoteric, academic argument over whether this law might conceivably do harm, we should be asking whether it will do any good. Will it actually help police and our courts stop terrorists and severely punish them? Or is it just another PR exercise, designed to make the government look like it's doing something (and a clumsy one at that)?

I believe that the sunset provisions are inadequate. There are no effective measures for parliamentary oversight. The three year parliamentary review provisions in the bill do not require an actual vote.

The fisheries committee has just completed such a parliamentary review of the Oceans Act. From my experience with the review of the Oceans Act, I can advise that such a review provision has little value and is dangerous if it is considered to be a substitute for real parliamentary oversight.

I have little confidence that this government will act appropriately in applying these laws.

We know that the government has sought to limit the power of parliamentary commissioners such as the auditor general and the information commissioner. I remain concerned that the government will use Bill C-36 to protect itself from the scrutiny of these officers of parliament. Such actions will not advance the security needs of Canadians. Instead they will advance the political security needs of the government rather than the people.

Professor Stuart of Queen's University expresses the concern that the government will apply political expediency in its application of Bill C-36. He states:

Expect Canada to embrace George Bush's most wanted list which excludes well established groups...not because they don't fit violent terrorist criteria but for reasons of political comity and expediency.

Fishermen on the west coast have protested the government's undermining of the public right to fish. As a fisherman and as a member of parliament I have joined fisherman in these protests designed to protect their historic right to fish. Would I and other fishermen fall under the net covered by Bill C-36? A government that would flout the constitutional and common law right of fishing could not be trusted to protect their right to freely protest the government's actions.

It was a desire for political expediency and for vote getting that caused the government to refuse to deal with the surges in illegal immigration and the swamping of our refugee determination system.

Australia has addressed these real threats to its security and immigration laws while Canada has brought forward Bill C-36, which fails to address the security issues in the failed administration of our immigration laws. Diane Francis, in the National Post , recently summarized the problem. She stated:

—In early October, Australia got its act together regarding bogus refugees. Like Canada, it has been flooded in the past and has finally gotten wise. Philip Ruddock, Australia's Minister of Immigration, announced: Anyone arriving from a safe country by illegal means will be returned. Anyone arriving without documentation will be rejected. A refugee who leaves the country cannot return. A refugee cannot bring dependants along. Those convicted of smuggling people will be given severe prison sentences.

Philip Ruddock stated:

By assisting us in our fight to repel the activities of people smugglers, these new laws will enable us to help those who are most in need of help—those people languishing in refugee camps around the world...In recent times the number of people entering Australia illegally meant we had no choice but to divert humanitarian program places away from our offshore program, which helps people identified as being in need of resettlement by the UN.

Canada has long, sparsely inhabited coastlines on the west, the north and the east coasts. Last week at its hearings in British Columbia the fisheries committee learned firsthand how much of B.C. is unmonitored. While Canada has the ability to use radar to monitor vessels coming into Canadian waters, the ability exists only on the lower half of Vancouver Island. The bulk of the west coast is open to all illegal arrivals, whether bent on mere economic gain for themselves or on terrorism.

In Ontario and Quebec there has been an illegal flow of people and goods at Indian reserves that straddle or abut the Canada-U.S. border. The government has refused to take effective measures. I doubt that Bill C-36 is needed to address this problem and I doubt that it is likely to help address this problem. The problem up to now has been a lack of political will, not merely a lack of effective statute law. Bill C-36 is not a substitute for political will.

The failure of the government to respond to terrorism in the air by putting air marshals on passenger aircraft is but an example of the government's refusal to take concrete measures to protect Canadian citizens.

I find Bill C-36 troubling and in the final analysis I would be uncomfortable supporting it. I am concerned that the government may well use the new power provided in Bill C-36 to stamp out legitimate dissent while at the same time ignoring the real threats to Canadian society posed by our porous borders.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, in my riding in Yukon there is a wide diversity of opinions on this bill and certainly there is across the country. That is not unexpected on a bill that is so important to us all. It is not necessarily bad because hopefully the dialectic debate among those opinions will help us come up with the best bill possible.

Certainly some of my constituents share the fear experienced since September 11 and would like to feel more secure, but they also agree that in providing this protection every effort should be made to maintain the type of society and personal freedoms and human rights that we enjoy today. I have talked to people in Dawson City, I have received e-mails on concerns and I have talked to at least one constituent who does not feel the bill is necessary at all.

It is for these reasons and concerns that I am very appreciative that lawyers reviewed the bill with regard to its relationship to human rights before releasing it. It is also why I was very encouraged to hear that the all party justice committee recently met until 3 o'clock in the morning to make a number of amendments related to these major concerns with the bill before completing its work.

Today I want to talk about one of those technical amendments in regard to the review mechanism for the attorney general's certificates. There is a basic, major reason for this section of the bill. If foreign countries have information on terrorism that can help prevent an act in Canada but cannot release it to us without protection and certification that we are protected, they may not be able to give it to us. This would allow them to give information that may protect Canadians from injury and we could provide protection for that information.

A great deal has been said about these attorney general's certificates. In response to comments received from witnesses a number of changes were made in committee, on government motions, concerning these certificates. Following is a list of some of these changes.

The first change is that the certificate can no longer be issued at any time but only after an order or decision for disclosure, for example, by a federal court judge in a proceeding.

The second change, and a major one, is that the life of the certificate is limited to 15 years unless the certificate is reissued.

The third change is that the certificate would be published in the Canada Gazette .

The fourth change is that the certificate would be subject to a review by a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal.

Finally, the existing provisions and process for the collection, use and protection of information are preserved under the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

Bill C-36 would allow the attorney general to issue a certificate in connection with a proceeding under the Canada Evidence Act to prohibit the disclosure of information for the purpose of protecting national defence, national security and information obtained in confidence from or in relation to a foreign country.

The attorney general's certificate process is intended to apply in exceptional cases only as the ultimate guarantee that ensures the protection of very sensitive information by the Government of Canada. The protection of this information is of particular concern in relation to information obtained from our allies.

When information is given on the condition that it not be released to a third party without the consent of the originating country, and where the consent is not given for such release, we must be in a position to meet our obligation. The attorney general's certificate provides the means to do so. It provides an insurance and an absolute guarantee that this information will be protected. The certificate could only be issued personally by the Attorney General of Canada and only where very sensitive information is threatened by disclosure in individual proceedings. It does not exempt entire departments or all information from the Privacy Act or the Access to Information Act.

Where a certificate has been issued it would also prevent the disclosure of the same information contained in a record under the Access to Information Act or the same personal information of a specific individual under the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. It would be pointless to protect information from being disclosed in proceedings when the same information could be disclosed under the Access to Information Act. The certificate would also suspend only the right of access under the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, but the existing provisions and process for the collection, use and protection of personal information would be preserved under these acts.

The amendments made in the committee restrict the timing of issuance of a certificate. Initially the wording of the bill allowed for the attorney general's certificate to be issued at any time. The bill now has been amended to stipulate that the certificate could only be issued after an order or a decision for disclosure of that information has been made in a proceeding.

Some concerns have also been expressed that in the absence of a review mechanism and a specific limit on certificates, the power to prevent disclosure could be used too broadly. The government has listened closely to Canadians on this issue. The certificate process was amended so that a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal would be given an independent review role to ensure that the limited scope of information for which the certificates may be issued under the legislation is respected. Further, the certificate is now limited in time. It expires after 15 years but could be reissued by the attorney general. Finally, each certificate would be published in the Canada Gazette .

These provisions allow the government to continue to continue to protect highly sensitive information. This stability is essential in order for Canada to play a meaningful role with its international partners in confronting terrorism, both at home and abroad.

To conclude, I cannot help but think of the people in the World Trade towers a few minutes before the planes hit, the secretaries and other workers who were mothers and fathers, and more important, of their children who were at daycare, in school or at home. I cannot help but think that every day innocent Canadians, innocent parents, also go to their workplaces. Hopefully we can do anything in our power so that these parents who are in the workplace every day in Canada will return home that evening and not be prevented from doing so by some ruthless terrorist attack.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate although I too want to register my objection to the fact that on such an important issue we are having to debate this under very significant time constraints. I do not think it augurs well for this relatively new parliament that we are heading in this direction on something as important as Bill C-36.

The announcements on the changes by the federal justice minister last week overall were disappointing. The minister proposed that two of the most controversial powers in the bill, namely investigative hearings and preventive arrests, would lapse unless specifically renewed by parliament every five years. That could probably be summed up by “a sunset clause if necessary, but not necessarily a sunset clause”.

The minister also offered to tighten the definition of terrorist act in Bill C-36 to ensure that it could not encompass activities such as illegal strikes. Although it did not go as far as I would have liked, they were certainly headed in the right direction in terms of the changes that the minister indicated she was prepared to make.

I submit that people who are concerned about freedom of speech, preventive arrests and human rights have every reason to be apprehensive that the powers in this bill have not modified or changed and are therefore very much at risk.

For example, a couple of weeks ago in Ottawa, even though Bill C-36 is obviously not yet law, civil libertarians were highly critical of the way in which the Ontario police broke up a peaceful march in the nation's capital by wading into the crowd, singling out people who were dressed in black and detaining 41 of them, only five of whom were subsequently charged. That in itself was very unfortunate, although it is amusing to see the signs festooned on lampposts around Ottawa in the aftermath of that incident suggesting that people should wear black because the Ontario police think it is an arresting colour.

People of the Canadian Arab and Muslim community are particularly disappointed by the failure of the government to modify the preventive arrest component because they believe their people and communities will be targeted, as the previous speaker and others before him have indicated.

I will take a minute to congratulate the editors and the writers of a book that was published in very quick order. The University of Toronto press produced and published a book entitled Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada's Anti-Terrorism Bill . The book was largely written by 25 Canadian experts in law, criminology and political science. I believe the member for Mount Royal, if I have that correct, was one of those essayists. It is a very impressive feat when one stops to consider that the anti-terrorism bill was only brought in on the October 15 and a 500 page book was produced in time for all MPs to be provided a copy before the Minister of Justice came back to the committee with proposed amendments last week.

According to the editors of that book, the challenge for lawmakers in this piece of legislation is to design arrangements that equip the nation to deal with terrorist threats without undermining our democratic core and values. Looking at that test, I submit that the changes suggested by the justice minister have failed to meet that high standard. Unfortunately experience in other countries in response to the threats to security has not been encouraging.

One of the essays that I paid particular attention to was written by Janice Stein, whom we sometimes see on national television, especially post-September 11. She noted that countries tend to grossly overstate the risk of terrorism and that they have in the past. She alleges that in such a heightened environment citizens are willing to accord state officials greatly expanded emergency powers.

Unfortunately these become the baseline for even more rights and liberties to move from the citizen to the state. That is one of the key points that we have been trying to make throughout this debate, especially the member for Winnipeg--Transcona, who has taken the lead for our caucus on this.

He did get an editorial in the Vancouver Sun which pointed out that he was correct in noting the pitfalls of legislation which is done quickly. As the editorial said, what may now appeal to Canadians when images of the World Trade Center are fresh may six months from now seem to be inappropriately extreme invasions of privacy.

Without question, we have gone too far in one direction on this legislation. In short, I do not believe it is balanced. It has been alleged that one senior RCMP official said in an unguarded moment that the provisions in Bill C-36 were greater powers than it ever dreamt it would have acquired.

Last month our caucus had the opportunity to meet with leaders of the Arab and Muslim communities. I was particularly impressed with and remember vividly one grandmother who immigrated to this country many years ago. She said she would not dream of living anywhere else and insisted that the first time she saw the snow-capped Rocky Mountains she knew she was in heaven.

However, most disturbing was her comment on Bill C-36, the provisions of which she believes will make Canada no better than the countries that she and other people fled to come to Canada. We are obviously talking about the racial profiling that was raised eloquently by the previous speaker.

In the wake of September 11, people said that giving up their lifestyle and way of life would mean that the terrorists had won. The same can surely be said for our laws. If the state can make a convincing argument that our laws must be circumscribed to deal with a particular crisis, then it should be allowed to proceed with emergency powers, but those powers should not remain one second beyond the point at which the threat has passed.

As others have noted, there have been incidents in the country where civil liberties have been overridden at times of crisis. They pointed out the Ukrainians in the first world war, the Japanese-Canadians in World War II and French-Canadians in the province of Quebec and the War Measures Act of 1970. In all cases the general public loudly applauded these actions at the time. In each and every case the general public decided later that the country made a terrible mistake.

Canadians need to work and stick together to maintain human and civil rights to the greatest extent possible. Otherwise, if we do not, I am reminded of the powerful words at the entrance of the Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, which I had the privilege to visit last year. They go like this:

They came for the Communists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist;

They came for the Socialists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;

They came for the labour leaders, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a labour leader;

They came for the Jews, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Jew;

Then they came for me - And there was no one left to object.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to participate in a very important debate. I cannot begin to express my disappointment and disdain for the government's decision to impose time allocation on this extremely important legislation.

The government's rationale for this vulgar display of power is that the opposition is seeking to discuss the bill in detail. This is the most important piece of legislation to be debated by this parliament in my lifetime and the arrogant, undemocratic Liberal government has decided that it has heard enough.

The Liberals, in particular the Prime Minister, have lauded themselves as champions of the charter of rights and freedoms, yet before us we have a bill that significantly infringes upon the charter rights of Canadians and the debate has been stifled. Shame on the government.

All this talk of protecting our democracy in the face of terror is totally hypocritical. There were no dilatory tactics or filibusters threatened by the opposition. The concerns raised by all the opposition parties were the reasonable concerns raised by Canadians from coast to coast.

The House is politically divided along regional lines. In time of war and in the face of terror it is crucially important to seek consensus on this groundbreaking bill. We all know that consensus is time consuming and it is hard work. It is what democracy is supposed to be about.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister believes that everything is partisan and to the victor go the spoils. A true leader would have brought Canadians together in a time of crisis. The Prime Minister has proven true to his traditional form by dividing Canadians in order to fulfill his wishes.

Much of the public debate has been focused on threats to democracy. I believe the true threat to Canadian parliamentary democracy is the arrogant, dictatorial reign of the current Prime Minister and the government.

I would like to quote from an editorial entitled, “Terrorism and Freedom” from the November 17 edition of the Economist :

Infringements of civil rights, if genuinely required, should be open to scrutiny, and considered a painful sacrifice, or a purely tactical retreat, not as the mere brushing aside of irritating legal technicalities. Those who criticise such measures should be given a careful hearing, even if their views must sometimes be overridden. After all, one of the chief aims of most terrorists, including Osama bin Laden and his ilk, is to undermine the long-established, hard-won freedoms of liberal societies. In a democracy, one of the chief aims of those in office should be to preserve them.

I call on the Prime Minister and the justice minister to weigh these words carefully, for history may judge harshly their disregard for those whose concerns are being brushed aside here today.

With the very little amount of time granted to me today, I want to focus my remarks on the specific provision in Bill C-36 that grants police the power of preventive arrest and the potentially dangerous impact this provision could have on Canadians if left unchecked.

Preventive arrest grants police the power to arrest and detain people for up to 72 hours based on suspicion alone.

We in the Canadian Alliance understand how these extraordinary powers are necessary in order to prevent catastrophic events like September 11 from ever occurring again. However, I have tremendous apprehensions over the lack of oversight and amount of secrecy regarding these measures.

The Economist article went on to say:

--it is essential that any new police powers be as limited as possible, and that the rival claims of liberty be taken seriously--even in the face of shadowy enemies. Striking this balance is bound to be tricky.

We must get this balance right.

The fact that the government has quashed debate while genuine questions of civil liberties remain unanswered is deplorable.

Canada has progressed over generations to be one of the most tolerant societies in the world. We are enriched by our ethnic and religious diversity. In many parts of the world it would be unspeakable to have a mosque, a temple, a synagogue, and a catholic and aprotestant church in the same region let alone on the same street. The same can be said about a classroom where children of all races and creeds learn in peace. That is the beauty of our country. That is what we are trying to protect by carefully scrutinizing Bill C-36.

I am a Muslim, the targeted group of this particular anti-terrorist legislation and investigation.

It does not matter how the government sugar coats it. All the provisions brought forward in response to September 11 involve racial profiling. There have been numerous incidents in Canada, the U.S. and Britain which have involved racial discrimination and even violence against Arabs, Muslims and Arab looking people.

Let me state clearly that I understand that the al-Qaeda regime was effective because it was able to infiltrate North American society and operate undetected. However, we must not go on a witch hunt, ostracizing recognizable, law-abiding communities within Canada.

We must learn from the mistakes of the past. During World War II, Japanese Canadians were interned to protect Canada from rogue agents. We must ensure that this never happens again. The hostility and societal disdain created by racially profiling Muslim and Arab Canadians as potential terrorists is creating an internment of its own.

Someone arrested under the new powers of preventive arrest is in effect guilty until proven innocent. Not only is it up to the individuals to prove their innocence, once acquitted it is up to the individuals to have their names cleared by petitioning the solicitor general.

What of their names and reputations? Where is the oversight to create the balance needed to protect the rights of Canadians? The justice minister put a sunset clause on this provision; however, it will still exist unchecked for five years.

I am calling on the government to be extremely diligent in using these new powers of preventive arrest for the consequences will have a scarring effect on our society. When a person of Arab or Indo-Canadian appearance is removed from an airplane because they are making other passengers uneasy, it is an abomination of everything for which this country stands. Yes, we must be vigilant to fight terrorism, but the cost must not be to undermine our society, thereby facilitating the very mandate of the terrorists.

These are extraordinary times that require extraordinary measures. In a pluralistic, democratic society, it is imperative that government powers be scrutinized and accountable. Canadians believe that a small loss of liberty is a fair return for greater security. That does not give licence to the government to ride roughshod over the rights of Canadians.

These powers granted by Bill C-36 are sweeping. I truly believe that there are inadequate safeguards to protect the rights of those who may be targeted by this legislation. In seeking a balance between increased power and protection of civil liberties, the government has failed miserably. Let us hope that those charged with executing the powers enacted by this legislation do so responsibly.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Mount Royal on his eloquent interventions over the last month or so on the bill. They have been greatly appreciated by me and I am sure by many other members of the House as well as the public.

Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, seeks to amend a number of acts. This perhaps is the most important bill to have come before the House in the past 50 years. It is wide ranging and has a profound impact on the rights of Canadians, our sovereignty, access to information, transparency as well as a number of revenue issues. Each and every Canadian should be watching the bill very closely. It is a bill that deserves our outmost attention. The bill deserves to be debated at length and all questions pertaining it asked and answered.

Unfortunately the government took it upon itself to engage in closure. Of all the bills that have come to the House, this bill deserved closure the least because of its profound nature, because of the potential impact the bill could have on all Canadians and because of the need of Canadians from coast to coast to have their questions answered, which has not happened.

My party as well as the other opposition parties and indeed many government members have asked the government to put the brakes on the bill in terms of closure. We should have a longer debate, extend hours if we have to, but make sure the bill is debated thoroughly and that all questions are answered. That has not happened.

We are pleased that the government, although it defeated a supply day motion proposed by our party, did seek to include a number of suggestions in the bill. These include: the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada; a complete ban on fundraising activities to support terrorism; the immediate ratification of the convention for the suppression of financing of terrorism; the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training and activities; and the extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism. We can only compliment the government for supporting them.

I would say that the government has been tardy in the introduction of this bill. We knew full well that the country needed a proper anti-terrorism bill years ago. Indeed, we have been asking for one. Why did it take the events of September 11 for the government to suddenly put the gears of this institution in place and move forward on the bill? Why was it not done beforehand when we had more time? We could have extracted information from the best minds in the country to apply to the bill. It could have been a thoughtful bill, not a rushed one, a bill that would have been more effective.

As the member for Mount Royal said very eloquently, the bill lacks the appropriate oversight mechanisms that are essential given the powers that the bill gives to the government.

We have passed stage one in the war on terrorism. Stage one is what took place in Afghanistan. I submit that was the easiest part of the war on terrorism. The more difficult part is what is happening now. It involves how we root out and find those terrorists who have already situated themselves in other parts of the world, individuals who have proven by the events of September 11 that they are willing to kill themselves in an act of aggression against the west. How do we prevent those situations from happening again? How do we drain the swamp so that other individuals will not take that extreme step of wishing to kill themselves in pursuit of those acts which they believe in their hearts are for their cause?

Canada has an extraordinary opportunity to deal with part two, the most difficult aspect of the war on terrorism. Given the interactions, the memberships and the abilities many Canadians have, we as a country can build on the coalition that exists today to prevent a lot of these situations from happening.

We must deal with the issue of propaganda. Whether it is in Rwanda, Burundi, the former Yugoslavia or in Afghanistan, how they get a group of people to believe in these myths, particularly the terrorists, is that they are fed a steady diet of hateful, venal propaganda from the time they are small children until they are adults.

In time some of those individuals will take it upon themselves to engage in these extreme acts of terrorism. What we must do with our partners, and I underline the Muslim states in particular, is address, diffuse and ameliorate the propaganda and tell people the truth. We should not allow individuals to harbour and foment violence between one group and another. We must step in and diffuse it. If we allow this to happen, as we have seen time and again, we will be sowing the seeds of ethnic hatred and discontent, and ultimately bloodshed.

As I said before, we saw it in Yugoslavia in 1974. We saw it in Rwanda and in Afghanistan, and we will see it again in the future unless we prevent it. Our country has an opportunity to work with members of the coalition to do just that. Economically, we must also build bridges between members of the coalition.

A profound thing happened recently with the introduction of Russia as a decision making partner in NATO decisions. It was absolutely crucial to bring that country closer to the fold of the international neighbourhood. It enabled the potential threat of Russia to be diffused. Given its nuclear capabilities, we know the threat, while small, could be profound if it was ever acted upon.

Similar initiatives must take place with respect to Muslim nations. Cleavage patterns are taking place within those countries and I think we now have the opportunity to ask the moderate Muslim states to intervene with other less moderate states, like Iraq, Syria and elements working in the Palestinian controlled territory, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, to work with those groups, diffuse those groups and to build bridges between moderates and, if necessary, go after and neutralize those terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

If we allow these cancers to live within our midst, then not only are we a target for terrorist activities but we also poison the ability of the vast majority of individuals who want peace from living peaceful, normal, integrated lives and becoming members of the international community. We should strike while the iron is hot. We have that opportunity now but it will not last. The coalition exists to deal with the situation in Afghanistan. We must build upon it and we must do it now.

We have a great chance to work with the American government. Individuals within congress would like to see a more international approach to foreign affairs but they need to be encouraged. I think our parliament should set up a formal working group with members of the American congress to work on issues of bilateral and multilateral importance. The Americans have a great untapped wealth of potential that is not being used for multilateral purposes. As Canadians and as the closest allies of the Americans, we can, should and must work with the American congress in those areas.

Although phase one of the war against terrorism has been largely accomplished, the more difficult aspect of phase two is before us today. Canada can play a role in dealing with hateful propaganda that is pushed out by some groups by hunting down terrorists with our partners, by integrating international police and foreign services to work against terrorism and to build bilateral and multilateral economic initiatives between countries that have formerly been at odds with each other. It is very difficult to hate the person with whom one is sitting at the table and working on economic initiatives. It is up to us to forge those connections. I am sure we will be successful at doing that in the future.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 16, one day after the introduction of Bill C-36, I rose in the House to identify nine areas of civil libertarian concern. These concerns and related references subsequently found expression in witness testimony before the House of Commons justice and human rights committee, in parliamentary debate and within my own remarks inside and outside the House. Accordingly, I am pleased that six core concerns whose importance may not have been fully appreciated, particularly those that relate to matters of secrecy and disclosure, have found expression in amendments to the original bill which I would like to summarize as follows.

First, and as a matter of particular concern, the definition of a terrorist activity has been circumscribed to ensure that the focus is on the intended terrorist evil rather than the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the act which underpins it. Accordingly, the amendment seeks to ensure that any advocacy protest, dissent or work stoppage activity, even if unlawful, even if attended by violence, even if it causes disruption to an essential service, would not be considered a terrorist activity unless it is undertaken for a political, religious or ideological purpose and it is intended to cause death, serious bodily harm, endangerment of life or serious risk to health or safety and it intends to intimidate the public, or segment thereof, or coerce the government, et cetera to do or refrain from doing something. In a word, unless the violent criminal act committed includes these three requirements of intentionality and motivation, it could not be characterized as a terrorist activity.

Second, mens rea or guilty intention is a requirement for criminal responsibility for a terrorist offence, including the notion of facilitating a terrorist activity.

Third, the power of the attorney general to issue a certificate prohibiting disclosure of sensitive security related information was, prior to an amendment, an unfettered, unreviewable power. Now, after amendment, the certificate cannot be issued at any time but only after an order for disclosure in a legal process. The issuance of the certificate would not remain secret but would be published in the Canada Gazette . The certificate would not be unreviewable but subject to judicial review by a Federal Court of Appeal judge. The access to information and privacy acts would not be excluded but would still apply, as would the oversight by the privacy and information commissioners. The existing provisions for the collection, use and protection of information would be preserved.

Fourth, a non-discrimination provision has been included to ensure that political, religious, or ideological expression could not be converted into any form of terrorist activity so that visible minorities could not be singled out for differential and discriminatory treatment.

Fifth, there would be sunset provisions for two novel investigative and procedural mechanisms, the preventive arrest and judicial investigative hearings. Nor are these provisions themselves without internal safeguards. For example, in the matter of preventive arrests, this power can only be invoked if, and the following considerations have not always been appreciated, there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity will be carried out and that imposing conditions or arrest is necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity. The terrorist threat must be specific and involve a specific individual. The attorney general must consent to the arrest in all cases.

The detention after arrest must be subject to judicial review within 24 hours. In addition, the consent of the attorney general is required before a judge can be asked to impose supervisory conditions, or the release of a person, or detention for a longer period up to 72 hours.

Sixth would be the sunset clauses. I appreciate what has been mentioned in the House, particularly by members of the opposition, that they fall short of a full demise prior to subsequent parliamentary resolution. But they are only one prong, one aspect of a range of oversight mechanisms which include: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; international human rights norms, including in particular principles respecting the right to a fair trial; the annual report to parliament of the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada and provincial ministers of police; an annual parliamentary oversight by Commons and Senate committees for purposes of public accountability; oversight by information and privacy commissioners; requisite authorization or consent by the Minister of Justice and an enhanced judicial capacity in relation to offences and investigatory mechanisms under the act; mandatory three year parliamentary review of the legislation; and sunset clauses whose demise or continuation will be assessed on the basis of the justice audit of this whole range of oversight mechanisms.

There are other oversight mechanisms which may not be in the bill but are part of the democratic framework of public accountability. I am referring to civilian complaint mechanisms and civilian oversight of police conduct and the sunshine focus of the media. There is also the role of parliamentarians inside and outside the parliamentary process; the role of human rights and non-governmental organizations; the role and representation of the professional bar and legal academe; and the role of visible minorities. There is also the institutionalized consultation, though not mentioned in the bill, between the Department of Justice and representatives of visible minorities to ensure their ongoing involvement and feedback regarding the enforcement and application of the act.

We have been focusing or concentrating on the sunset clauses, which standing alone are admittedly limited in their oversight. But we are losing sight of the whole range of oversight mechanisms, parliamentary and extraparliamentary, that together constitute a far more important sunshine process of democratic accountability.

We should not only be thinking in terms of sunset clauses, but more important, in terms of a sunshine process.

Computer Hackers

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions government orders will be extended by an additional 49 minutes to which can be added the 30 minutes from this morning, so there will be a total extension of 79 minutes beyond 5.30 p.m.

I wish to clarify the manner in which we will proceed this afternoon for private members' business.

As hon. members are aware, government orders have been extended and the hour provided for private members' business scheduled for 5.30 p.m. has been delayed until 6 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), the provisions regarding the debate on the motion for time allocation. We had a further delay because of the deferred divisions.

Later today private members' business may be subject to rescheduling due to the provisions of Standing Order 37. The Speaker is not able to anticipate how many divisions, if any, may take place on Bill C-36 at the end of government orders but I anticipate there might be some.

I want to inform hon. members that private members' hour will take place late tonight unless the recorded divisions at the end of government orders delay it by more than one and one half hours after the beginning of the votes. If members want to make other arrangements they can do so with consent.

Public Safety Act

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 has been in front of the House for days. There were 60 hours in committee. Dozens of witnesses appeared in front of the committee. We have come now to pass the bill.

I remember that the same people a few months ago were telling us that we were not going fast enough. Now there is a new flip-flop. The member tells us now that we are going too fast. He should make up his mind.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have just passed a new immigration act. It was studied for weeks on end by the House of Commons, and by House and Senate committees. It was passed and will help us to do something about the problem of bogus refugees.

We have introduced Bill C-36, which will be passed very soon by the House of Commons, and we have another bill before the House.

Naturally, with the problems mentioned, we want to combat terrorism but, at the same time, we must preserve Canadian values.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, imagine any of the leaders of the 50 terrorist organizations that are known to be operating in Canada advising their fugitive agents where to hide. They would look at the tough laws in the United Kingdom, the United States and western Europe, they would read Bill C-36 and they would say “Come to Canada. You can still get in without documents, you can still be a member of your terrorist organization, you will probably never be extradited and you can mass-murder Canadians and still apply for parole”.

Why will the Liberals not finish the job with Bill C-36 and slam the door on terrorists trying to hide in Canada?

Anti-terrorism Act

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. It strikes me that the New Democratic Party has not listened to Canadians on this issue in the same way it did not listen to Canadians on the issue of our military going to assist in Afghanistan.

The NDP claims to support the military. However it says the reason the military is going there is wrong. That is not supporting the military. It is undermining the confidence of military families and creating anxiety among those families which is uncalled for and inappropriate. It is time the NDP started to recognize that.

I wish to deal with the amendment before us at the moment which would add the following in clause 29:

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

Let us examine what the motion is really about. It is important to consider the kinds of secrets that are being considered and whether or not we ought to be allowing secrets of this kind to be opened up after 15 years. The motion would amend clause 29 wich defines a “person permanently bound to secrecy” as:

(a) a current or former member or employee of a department, division, branch or office of the public service of Canada, or any of its parts, set out in the schedule; or

(b) a person who has been personally served with a notice issued under subsection 10(1) in respect of the person or who has been informed, in accordance with regulations made under subsection 11(2), of the issuance of such a notice in respect of the person.

That is all a bit confusing. What makes it clearer is the kind of person it is talking about when it defines special operational information. It talks about a person who has offered or agreed to be:

--a confidential source of information, intelligence or assistance to the Government of Canada.

That person might be inside or outside Canada. We cannot be confident or absolutely sure that the person would not be in danger 15 years hence if the information were disclosed that the person had been a source of information. It is not a reasonable assumption to make. The next one is secrecy in relation to:

(b) the nature or content of plans of the Government of Canada for military operations in respect of a potential, imminent or present armed conflict.

This is suggesting that it is not necessary to keep those things secret for more than 15 years. These are important kinds of matters. A terrorist could look at information of this sort that was used by the military in doing its planning and look at the intelligence it gathered to determine where that information came from.

It is not always only the person's name that is the key. Sometimes it is the fact that the military or the government has certain information and when that becomes apparent suddenly the person who gave it to the government is apparent to terrorists. It is a matter of great importance that the information be maintained and kept secret. The third part is:

(c) the means that the Government of Canada used, uses or intends to use, or is capable of using, to covertly collect or obtain, or to decipher, assess, analyze, process, handle, report, communicate or otherwise deal with information or intelligence, including any vulnerabilities or limitations of those means.

This is the kind of information that can make individuals vulnerable. The last thing the government wants is to place people in danger who have given information that is important to our security. That is what this clause would do.

We heard a lot today from the opposition parties about the time allocation motion and their anxiety and frustration with the so-called undue haste of the government. It strikes me as a bit hypocritical to hear this from opposition members because what we heard from them for weeks after September 11 was why the government had not moved more quickly. There was great anxiety and there were constant demands in the House for the government to move swiftly. For example, I refer members of the House to the Debates of October 16 when the hon. member for Provencher said:

The government has taken some important steps. Although we will be considering the provisions of the bill very carefully, it is imperative that the legislation move forward as quickly as possible. I therefore thank members of the House for the increase in the number of hours for debate to raise concerns and move the matter along.

A few weeks ago opposition members were talking about how important it was to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Now they are telling us to slow down and not be in such a hurry. One minute they are telling us to go fast and the next to slow down. They ought to get their act together, get their messages clear and stop flip-flopping about what their view is on this matter.

Let us talk some more about how much debate there has been. Bill C-36 was introduced and read a first time on October 15, 2001. Second reading with extended hours took place on October 16, October 17 and October 18. In addition there were numerous opposition day debates on the same topic.

We had continuous demands from the opposition for the government to act after the events of September 11. We had debate about what the government response could be. We had all kinds of opportunities to express our views on how the government could respond to those events and what measures could come forward in relation to terrorist activities.

The government brought forward measures. We had those debates at second reading. They were referred to the House justice committee on October 18. That committee held hearings on October 18, October 23, October 24, October 25, October 30 and even on Halloween, October 31. It held hearings on November 1, November 5, November 6, November 7, November 8 and November 20.

The Senate was studying the bill as well. The special committee held pre-study hearings on October 22, October 23, October 24 and October 29.

We have heard from Canadians and from our colleagues in all parties. We are now moving forward as Canadians demanded and as members of the opposition demanded over and over in the House earlier this fall.

The real question is how should the government respond to the events of September 11? Do we go on as if nothing ever happened or changed? We heard a lot of comments around that time that the world suddenly became more dangerous on September 11. It is important for us to recognize that is not accurate because it did not become more dangerous that day.

We became aware of how dangerous the world was and what things could be done. We became aware of the terrorists who were in our midst and what impact they could have if we did not have measures to deal with terrorism, if we were not alert.

In spite of our best efforts we must admit that there may be times when things will happen, terrorist attacks may occur that we have not been able to foresee or prevent. I recommend to all colleagues that these amendments be rejected.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill. It is unfortunate we are debating it under pressure and with the dark cloud of closure hanging over us.

Many of us never thought we would have to deal with this issue during this parliament or even during our lifetime, however, it is here and we have to deal with it and give it the best shot we can. Not being able to debate it fully and at length in this place in front of the Canadian public is wrong. To hurry it through and limit the amount of time each and every one of us has to speak to the bill is something which I hope Canadians will remember as being common practice for the government and when the time comes for reckoning, it will still be on their minds.

We do not take the bill lightly. A number of people came out to a recent town hall meeting in my riding of Lethbridge. This legislation was the topic of debate and of utmost concern in their minds. They want this terrorism legislation to be strong, fair and balanced but in the end, it must make Canadians not only feel safe and secure, but make them safe and secure here in Canada so they can go about their lives in a fashion that is appreciated and cherished in a free democracy.

The aftermath of September 11 has reached into every aspect of our lives. As parliamentarians we travel a lot and are certainly aware of that by the things we have to go through now to get on and off a plane or any means of public transportation. This is going to become a reality in our lives. I personally do not mind people going through my bags as long as they go through everyone's bags so that when we do get on a plane, we feel safe and secure.

This issue is the number one concern among Canadians. Many people have concerns with the legislation. Some want to soften it and some want to make it harder. It is important to find the proper balance to make it right. Every opportunity should be given to people to put forward their ideas on what should be done to the bill.

There is the issue of the definition of terrorism. On TV we saw somebody breaking a window at a McDonalds here in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago. Is that terrorism? Is somebody who is demonstrating and carrying a placard letting his or her views be known terrorism? The definition is something that has caused great concern and needs to be looked at.

What is the critical balance we must find? There are opposing views on almost every piece of legislation dealt with in the House. We are always trying to reach the middle. We in the opposition have different views than the government but it is the mix and balance we are looking for. We sometimes have trouble getting our point across. We put forward amendments that we would like to see put into legislation but sometimes they are not. Usually we can come to some kind of agreement. There is a lot in the bill that we support but there is also a lot that we do not support and that is why we have to bring our views forward.

Today I am bringing forward some of the views of my constituents that I heard at the town hall meeting. I have written them down and I have let the ministers responsible know how our people feel. Some of those concerns have been addressed. Having our constituents' voices heard through us, their elected representatives, is what democracy is all about. That is why I am here and why I choose to represent the people of my riding, as did all of our members. Having our voices stifled by closure is not the way to do things.

Most Canadians put their trust in what the government is doing and what we are doing as parliamentarians. They do not pay a lot of attention to what is going on here on a daily basis because they feel that we must be doing the right thing.

Some of the people who pay more attention to what goes on in this place on a day to day basis are really concerned that some of the trust they put in us and the government is being compromised, or that we cannot fully voice our opinion and debate the issues at hand.

Something which we feel is needed in the legislation is a review mechanism. That is one of the items in the Canadian Alliance platform. All policies, programs and legislation need to be reviewed on a regular basis to make sure they are appropriate for what they were initially intended to do. To make sure that the legislation is current, it should be brought up on a regular rotating basis for review.

The amendment we put forward would require the attorney general and solicitor general to look at what this legislation does. How it applies in one year or down the road in two to four years is important. We have to make sure that it gets reviewed on a regular basis.

Also, the investigations that occur under the power of the bill are of concern to many people. To be able to go back after a period of time and look at it to make sure the investigative powers are not being abused is important for Canadians.

We have also called for an independent review of the ministerial certificates issued to prohibit disclosure of information. The amendment mandated that the certificates be reviewed by a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal. That is very important. That aspect of it has laid to rest some of the concerns I have heard about the legislation.

With regard to the protection for certain religious and political groups, in the aftermath of September 11 we saw some instances where an entire group of people was singled out. We cannot have that. The acts on September 11 were perpetrated by terrorists; they were not done by any large group of people. They were criminals and they have to be treated in that way. The people of like beliefs around the world are not part of that group. We have to make sure that certain religious groups and political groups have protection under the legislation. We are glad to see that was addressed.

One of the things we wanted to see in the bill was not put in the bill. It is one of the deficiencies of Bill C-36 and something we will continue to fight for as we go through the albeit somewhat shortened process. We will still put forward our ideas. It is the whole idea that the bill fails to eliminate the possibility of parole for people who perpetrate terrorist acts.

In looking at what happened in the United States, there was mass murder on a unknown scale and it happened in a lightning flash. We need to treat terrorists in a very special way. They should not be eligible for parole after 25 years. Consecutive sentences and keeping people who have the potential for that kind of destruction away from the general population need to be addressed.

The bill does not make it illegal to be a member of a recognized terrorist organization, one that has met the burden of proof set out in the bill to be included in the list of entities. While the minister assures us that it is the activity that is of consequence, we feel that joining a terrorist organization has only one purpose and that is to participate in and facilitate terrorist acts.

We have seen cases in Canada where organizations exist to help raise funds to sponsor terrorist organizations. I for one support the notion that President Bush has put forward in the United States, that if a person is involved actively in terrorist activities, if someone houses, feeds, or raises funds for terrorists or allows them to be involved in someone's area in any way, that puts the person into the same category as the terrorist who blows up buildings.

It is important that we address all of those issues. There are some things in the bill that we appreciate and some that still need to be worked on. We will continue to force that issue here in the House of Commons.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we had to vote on the gag order imposed upon us today, I would like to begin by telling you, speaking for myself, my party, and I believe the members of the opposition parties, that I am totally outraged.

Once again, for the 72nd or 73rd time—we are no longer sure of numbers—the Liberals are imposing a gag on us, after a history prior to 1993 of objecting to this approach, calling it the most undemocratic of parliamentary procedures for preventing the members of this parliament from expressing their views on various bills.

At the time, they accused the Conservatives in power of making abusive use of this parliamentary procedure. Yet they have now succeeded—maybe trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records —in beating the Conservatives' score by 100%, that is having twice as many gag orders.

I believe it is very important to remind all those who are listening to us or who will one day read the Debates of the House of Commons or those who are students of the “great democratic tendencies of the Liberal government”. They will be able to see how the government has gagged parliamentarians. Today, after a mere three hours of debate, if I am not mistaken, we are now being gagged and deprived of our right to express ourselves on this bill.

Perhaps the MPs could go before the supreme court and argue that this is contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms, restricting their freedom of expression. Who knows? But I am just joking about that, because it is one of the government's prerogatives to do so.

Motion No. 6 proposes, after line 14, to change permanently to 15 years in connection with secrecy and national security.

This amendment deserves our attention and deserves to be discussed, yet we have seen how the Liberals have dealt with amendments. The Bloc Quebecois proposed a number of amendments. Witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and suggested several ways to amend the bill constructively. Yet, each time the government, which had said that it wanted to hear from opposition members and witnesses to improve the legislation, turned a deaf ear to the constructive criticism and recommendations that were made to improve the legislation. According to many editorialists and specialists in the field, the bill fails to meet the objectives it was designed to fulfill, that is, ensuring greater security and fighting terrorism while preserving the importance of the freedom and safety of Canadians and Quebecers.

This bill could have been improved thanks to the proposals made to the government. Many people believe that this type of bill is completely new,and that prior to September 11 no one had examined the issue of international terrorism, but this is wrong.

Several international conventions have been signed and ratified by the Canadian government. The government has signed 12 of the United Nations conventions and protocols on terrorism, and has ratified 10. Two still await ratification, but I will discuss them later.

Thanks to the anti-terrorism measures proposed, Canada could ratify the two final counter-terrorist conventions. Under the proposed bill, Canada could ratify the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, a convention that would freeze the assets of terrorists by preventing the use of assets belonging to a person who is involved in terrorist activity and by preventing assets and financial and related services from being made available to terrorists.

These measures enable a federal court judge to order the freezing and seizure of property used to support terrorist activities. We heard the Minister of Finance boast about having had a good idea—it happens, but not as often as he would have us believe—to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. All he had to do was sign the UN international convention and Canada would have had a convention to monitor and fight terrorist financing.

Another convention that could be ratified by Canada at the United Nations is the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings, which contains provisions on the targeting of places of public use, government facilities, infrastructures and transportation systems for attacks using explosives or other lethal devices, including chemical or biological agents.

Canada could also ratify the convention on the safety of United Nations and associated personnel, which seeks to ensure the safety of United Nations personnel.

I just mentioned two conventions that Canada signed but has yet to ratify. I will spare hon. members and not mention the other ten conventions against terrorism that Canada signed.

This bill must be based not only on the views of opposition members, but also on those of government members who, in committee, through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, supported by the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, expressed their support for a true sunset clause.

These government and opposition members, as well as the experts who testified before the committee, tried to guide the government toward a more effective Bill C-36. Moreover, the public servants who drafted this legislation must or ought to have taken into consideration the various international conventions ratified or signed by Canada to deal specifically with counter-espionage.

This bill will amend a number of acts in Canada. Indeed, we are not dealing merely with Bill C-36. My colleagues, the hon. members for Berthier—Montcalm, Châteauguay and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert clearly demonstrated that Canadian legislation as a whole will be affected by this bill.

The criminal code will be amended so as to include provisions for dismantling the activities of terrorist groups and incapacitating these groups and their supporters. The definition in the criminal code of terrorist activity as “an act that is committed in or outside Canada” makes it an offence under one of the ten UN conventions or protocols against terrorism.

What we see is that the government wants to implement a law in Canada which contravenes a convention signed or ratified by Canada with other countries. We must therefore be very careful.

Another of the laws which may or will be amended by the passage of Bill C-36 is the Official Secrets Act. It would be amended to cover national security concerns, including threats of espionage by foreign powers and terrorist groups, and coercive activities against communities in Canada.

Other laws will be affected by the implementation of Bill C-36. The Canada Evidence Act would be amended to include changes in court and other proceedings for the purpose of ensuring the protection of sensitive information, if need be.

The National Defence Act would also be amended to clarify the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment so that it could intercept communications directed at foreign entities and do security checks of the government's computer networks. The permission of the Minister of National Defence would be required to intercept any private communication.

I have tried to show that this is a piece of legislation which will have an impact on other legislation and many other international conventions.

The criminal code would also be amended so that any person with information relating to an ongoing investigation into a terrorist crime could be compelled to appear before a judge for the purpose of disclosing that information.

Other legislation could be amended, including the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act. This act could be amended in order to give powers to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. I have listed a few of the acts as well as some of the international conventions.

In conclusion, I wish to tell this government that while there is indeed a serious situation following the events of September 11, and while this situation calls for emergency measures, there is also an obligation to consult, to listen, as the minister said, and also to be willing to understand. Listening is one thing, but there must be a willingness to understand.

I believe that by voting in favour of the bill at second reading, we have shown very clearly that we wish to support it, but we are not going to support it at subsequent stages unless it is actually improved.

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

Mr. Speaker, my comments on this group of amendments will be brief.

Obviously, with that rousing round of applause from the government members present, I am sure that they like me want to get on to the next group of amendments which were put forward by my colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. I am sure they will listen very attentively when we get to Group No. 3 amendments and hopefully give them due consideration despite the limited time we have to deal with all the amendments, not just the group that is presently before the House.

On behalf of my constituents of Prince George--Peace River, I want to make a point regarding the seriousness of what took place this morning. It is not at all unusual that the government forces through time allocation on bill after bill. In fact one of the members from the NDP, who spoke immediately following the time allocation vote, made the very strong point that unfortunately this has become the rule not the exception, in the House.

I was present in the Chamber this morning after the motion was put forward, when we had a new process, for the first time, whereby the minister, who put forward a motion for time allocation, had to defend it to the House, although I did not get a chance to pose a question to the minister.

This is a new process and a great many members from all of the opposition parties wanted to be involved in posing questions to the minister about why she felt it imperative to bring forward time allocation after only one day of debate on perhaps one of the most comprehensive and incredibly complicated bills ever been brought before this place, certainly in the eight years I have been a member of parliament. The opposition only had 24 hours to consider the amended bill, which has far-reaching ramifications for civil liberties and the freedoms for which men and women have been called upon to fight and die for the life of Canada.

After a short half-hour debate regarding the time allocation motion, the Minister of Justice said that the opposition was stonewalling. Yet, after one day of debate, she brought forward time allocation to ram Bill C-36, the so-called terrorism act, through the House of Commons. That is appalling.

Canadians need to understand that while I believe all opposition parties support certain aspects of this bill, it is completely ridiculous to say that we are stonewalling the bill because we have some opposition to it. It is ridiculous that a minister of the crown, especially one holding such an important portfolio as the Minister of Justice, would make those types of allegations after only one day of debate on the amended bill.

Given all the concerns that have been expressed over the past number of days and weeks, from the access to information commissioner, from the privacy commissioner, from other highly placed individuals, from the Senate, about certain clauses and powers contained in this legislation--

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how pleased I am to address the bill one more time but I am not at all happy, of course. Many members on the opposition side, and I would not doubt on the government side too if they would stand up and say it, agree that to put closure on this piece of legislation is not a wise thing to do. There is much more to be discussed yet. Given that, I am going to spend my time addressing some more points on the bill, which I think need to be addressed on the issue of resources.

For the last eight years in the House issues of security have always been of high interest to me, having come from a police background. Resources have always been a key point in getting any job done. The more thoroughly one wants the job to be done, the more boots on the ground are required to do it. Whether that is in intelligence gathering or investigation itself or even in the prosecution courts system, those are the areas where people are required to make things happen.

What concerns me not so much with the legislation but with the posturing on the government side is that the real issue has still not been addressed. We could have the best policies in the world. I for the most part do not disagree with much of what is here; there are some exceptions and my colleagues have addressed them quite adequately previously. We can have the best policy which looks really good on the books and even reads well but if we do not have the resources to make things happen, then that policy is all for naught.

Back in 1994 the issue for just about every enforcement agency, and here we are talking about enforcement again but I will throw defence into the mix, was the need for more manpower, resources and up to date equipment so the agencies could effectively do their jobs. That was the call in 1993 and 1994.

In the last four months I have taken trips not only to the border crossings in the country but also to an immigration office overseas. In speaking with some of my police colleagues and immigration enforcement officers, the message was far more urgent to resource the enforcement agencies than it was back in 1994. I cannot understand concentrating on this piece of legislation when it is resources that are going to make things work. In other words, let us put some money into it. Let us tighten up in the areas where it is not working.

If those two issues alone were looked after, if they alone were addressed by the government, I wonder how much legislation we would really need. What does it take to do intelligence gathering? If we have policy that restricts the use of the intelligence we have gathered, it is necessary to address that restriction. One example is shared information with our neighbours to the south. What are the inhibitors on this side of sharing information with them and what are their inhibitors that would prevent them from sharing information with us? To me, legislation for the most part does not come into play here. Or does it? If it does, it should be changed accordingly.

We can have these policies that address certain issues on terrorism and try to make an impact and make our country more secure, but for the most part the government has fallen far short of resourcing those particular agencies that need help. I am going to address some of those agencies, including the immigration offices.

When I was last in Vancouver, the immigration officers spoke of the need for 140 or 150 people right there at that time just to deal with the issues of increased security and processing of immigrants and refugees who came to those ports of entry in British Columbia. Maybe 140 or 150 does not sound like too many, but that is only one district. The minister has declared openly that she would supply 100 officers for the entire country, but technically that does not even fill the bill for the British Columbia district.

What will happen now? There is no question that with Bill C-36, Bill C-11, with the add-on of Bill C-42, which also has to do with immigration, the pressure will be on those frontline officers to deal with it. If they do not deal with it effectively, there will be a slipshod, haphazard job of security checks done on people coming into the country. Again, it is not because of the legislation per se, all of it, but because it is not being resourced. We are not bolstering up the manpower where it counts.

I will give one example. The immigration department alone, in the words of the immigration minister, presently has 27,000 applications that need security checks and security analysis. These cannot be done overnight. Immediately that puts a burden on immigration, on CSIS and so it should. The burden is undue given that both of those agencies are under-resourced. It also puts a burden on immigration enforcement. The enforcement section is already under-resourced.

There are 27,000 applicants now. On top of all of that, throw in another 20,000 claimants who have abandoned all claims. They have abandoned all claims of attempting to go through the refugee process. Where are those individuals? Who are those individuals? No one knows. No one has a clear indication of where or who those people are or if they belong to a questionable organization. It is an unknown factor.

There is much that can be done in dealing with issues such as these. This is a security issue and should be a priority for the government and for parliament. This gives me the opportunity to address those concerns which the government side is not addressing.

Having talked about immigration, I now turn to customs. The frontline officers are the first contact for individuals coming into Canada. They are the first contact, the front line. Their emphasis has always been on goods and services and the revenue generated as a result. It has not necessarily been on immigration. Although some of those officers do a fine job, their training is outside that whole realm. There is not a piece of legislation necessarily that could change that process and put the emphasis where it should be, again to further protect our country, to further protect those who have come here and those making their home in Canada. That is the situation.

The next agency that needs assistance is the RCMP. I am going to name CSIS as well. There is no question that between those two agencies right now the pressure is on our national police force, the RCMP, as well as CSIS, the intelligence gatherer, the analyzing agency that will disseminate much of what is found to other points and agencies in Canada.

The list could go on and on. It all comes back to the whole issue of resources. It is not so much the legislation, not so much the matter that we have another bill we can throw on the shelf and say that we did our job again. It is not that. It is where is the money and the resources to fund what we now claim to be the best piece of legislation going? That is my question to the government.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-36. It is an important piece of legislation. Concerns have been expressed by many and I will dwell on them shortly. The bill is needed because it is important that we address the issue of how to combat terrorism. Canadians want the bill but they are apprehensive.

It is critically important that all Canadians have an opportunity to discuss the bill thoroughly, bring in amendments and allow debate to take place. It is important that Canadians do not feel apprehensive about the bill. After a thorough debate they should feel satisfied with the direction it is taking.

However today the government has invoked time allocation to stifle debate on the bill. Hundreds of Canadians have expressed concern about the issue. More and more Canadians are expressing concern because they have not had an opportunity to provide input into the bill.

We had an opportunity this morning to ask the Minister of Justice why she brought in time allocation. That is a good step toward reforming parliament. Time allocation used to come in and we never had an opportunity to ask the minister about it.

What was amazing was the response the Minister of Justice gave. She said there had been extensive consultations and that 13 hours of debate were held in committee. What is 13 hours of debate for a bill of this magnitude? Most of us in the House have not had an opportunity to speak. Colleagues of mine would like to speak to the bill as would colleagues from other parties. We want to express our concerns about what is right and what is wrong with the bill but we no longer have the opportunity.

The government has put time allocation on the bill, yet the minister stands proudly and says the government has had extensive consultations with hundreds of Canadians. The most amazing thing is that she said parliament has had a full debate on the issue since September 11.

As was pointed out to her, the bill is coming before us after all the amendments were done in committee. As parliamentarians we would like to be able to discuss the issue and look at the views of colleagues. That opportunity is being denied us by time allocation.

A lot of concerns are being expressed about the legislation, especially by visible minorities and immigrant communities. They want assurances that they will not be targets. While the intent of the bill is not to target anyone they need assurances that the bill will contain provisions to make sure their freedoms are not taken away or curtailed to some degree.

We have heard about incidents where bigots and others have targeted minorities. This is wrong and totally undesirable in Canada. As recently as last week I heard a report about Sikh truck drivers from Montreal who were subject to harassment because they have beards and wear turbans. This kind of thing must stop. These people are not part of terrorist groups. However it can only stop when we have the opportunity to debate and bring out these issues and say this is the wrong thing to do.

The government has invoked time allocation and stifled the debate. People will be apprehensive. For the bill to effectively fight terrorism it needs the support of all Canadians. We cannot have people sitting out there feeling apprehensive about the bill and not fully supporting it.

The bill is needed. It is required after September 11 to fight terrorism. We are fighting people who do not obey the laws, people whose own narrow view of life prompts them to disregard human life and curtail the freedom of others. The most important thing is that they do not respect the freedom of others.

The bill is needed to fight these guys so we can maintain our freedom. At the same time we cannot stand here and create a bill that makes a huge section of the Canadian community apprehensive because they figure somehow or other they could be subject to unnecessary harassment. That is the most necessary thing we must do here.

An important example is the incidents that happened in Montreal when Sikh truck drivers were harassed. That is absolutely wrong. I hope the Minister of Foreign Affairs will do something about the issue.

We find it amazing that we have had extensive committee hearings, a bill has gone through committee and come in here, and the first thing the government does is invoke time allocation. The amazing thing is that the Minister of Justice is saying our allies, the Americans and the British, did the same thing.

That is fine. Our allies also need to fight terrorism and they brought in their own bills, rightly so. However we need to discuss the issues in a Canadian context and take into account the Canadian environment. We have our own laws. Our society is slightly different from other societies. We need a thorough debate in the House so we can address the issues many are raising.

My colleagues on this side have expressed many concerns. They want to tighten the bill where they think it is lax. The bill will not achieve its objectives. That must be done not only in committee but in debate in the House. The hon. member for Calgary Centre said we need parliamentary oversight of the bill to see that it fulfills its mandate but does not take anyone's freedoms away.

The minister said to the right hon. member for Calgary Centre that parliament is the oversight for the bill. That is exactly what she said. Yet it is in this parliament that time allocation has been brought forward so we cannot debate. Perhaps she can explain how this works. One minute she is saying parliament is the watchdog over the bill and the next minute we cannot stand to talk about the bill because she brings in a time allocation order. Does this make sense? No, it definitely does not.

Sitting here and listening to the Minister of Justice give all the reasons she has brought in time allocation,I feel Canadians will have no confidence in the bill. There will always be a little apprehension. We as members of parliament must go out and talk to our constituents. They are telling us they have apprehensions or they feel the bill is flawed in certain areas. All that can be dealt only with when there is a thorough debate in parliament.

Perhaps the minister could open an emergency debate on the issue this evening, let it go all night and allow every member of parliament to speak and give their points of view. If amendments are needed we could debate them in the House because we can always improve on the bill. She could then can pass the bill in the normal course of business. Members of the Canadian Alliance have said they are supportive of the bill. I do not see what the problem would have been.

I am extremely disappointed at what has happened today with the move for time allocation. The government talks from both sides of its mouth. As parliamentarians we will be keeping a close eye on the bill.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask hon. members to reread my speech of yesterday on Bill C-36, if they can.

Today, we are dealing with the amendment on the Official Secrets Act. Will people be permanently bound to secrecy or, as proposed in the amendment, for a maximum of 15 years?

I will begin with the motion and, later on, I will discuss the issue in a general manner. We have no choice but to support the proposed motion, because it is the lesser of two evils. In a bill of such importance, we are forced to choose an amendment with which we are definitely not pleased, but which is not as bad as the alternative. It is with some reluctance that we will support this amendment.

We moved 66 amendments in the standing committee on justice. Out of that number, only one was accepted. That was done perfunctorily. The amendment simply added the term cemetery in the clause on hate propaganda. Imagine that.

We discussed very important issues, including the sunset clause. We talked about the definition, which was too broad. We provided examples, even after the amendment by the Minister of Justice. During that sitting of the committee, we were told that, yes, to use our examples, protesters could be deemed to be terrorists under such a clause, even duly amended. It is not because a clause is amended that the whole issue is settled.

Let us not forget that this clause on definitions includes several possibilities. There is a cumulative effect. In a number of places, including in paragraphs (d) and (c), protesters are included in the definition of terrorist activity.

This motion is important, but it is with some reluctance that I say so. The Bloc Quebecois could have brought forward many motions, but we saw what happened.

As I said, out of the 66 amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois, only a minor one was accepted. One wonders how such a result can be arrived at.

It is a well-known fact that the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour of the bill at second reading because we were convinced in principle that we had to pass an anti-terrorism bill to make our fellow citizens feel more secure. However, we are not fools, and we are not blind. It does not take much imagination to see the scope of the powers granted under this bill. I am not just talking about the powers of the government in general, but about the powers of ministers, such as the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Defence, who will wield extreme power. This bill was supposed to be an exceptional series of provisions.

Beyond the exception, situations must be dealt with. Is there a balance between security and freedom? We worked on amendments to bring some balance to the bill. There is no balance in it. Amendments were put forward. The government put forward several amendments on the first day. The amendments were presented to us. I am a member of the standing committee on justice. The government amendments were presented to us at 4.15 p.m., between 4:15 and 5. Moreover, some were added as we moved along.

When I hear government members say that they had the time to look at the amendments, I must say there is something I do not understand.

As a lawyer, I have often wondered why the wording of acts is so imprecise, so vague and how it is that it can be interpreted in so many ways. Now we have the answer. I had the answer for the first time.

As a new MP and a lawyer sitting on the standing committee on justice, I have seen how it is done and I must say it is not just a matter of going over some things with a steamroller, but it is also that people do not understand these amendments. In this regard, I would have loved to put a few questions to the members who voted so recklessly. They accepted the government amendments but not the ones we had put forward and worked so hard on. We had worked hard to put forward sound amendments to strike a balance between security and freedom.

How can these members say today that they have studied the bill? How could they study the amendments? It was impossible except during the proceedings of the committee, which ended at 3 a.m.

You should have seen how quickly the vote was taken and how little time we had to look at each amendment and read it. Some amendments were several lines long and we only had three to four seconds to read them before we had to vote on material received at 4.15 p.m. We had a binder three to four inches thick full of amendments. How can we say that the impact of those amendments was considered?

Not only are we witnessing window dressing but things are being concealed in a bill of great importance. I am very disappointed with the kind of work done in committee. I was sure that through our involvement as members of parliament we would have a say. We tried to give these amendments serious consideration.

At one time, we were not even discussing the amendments. Those moved by the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party or the Progressive Conservative-Democratic Representative Coalition were all rejected. It was a charade.

I am disappointed as a citizen, as a lawyer, and most of all as a member of parliament. I thought we were seeking a balance between security and freedom. To enjoy freedom, however, we must maintain democracy, but this is not the way to build it.

What happened on September 11 was definitely a breach of democracy, but we are doing the same thing here in another way. What message are we sending to the rest of the world? This is but a facade: we keep hearing that ours is a democratic country, but it is completely false.

We would have liked to have a well thought out legislation that would have provided a balance between security and freedom. However, we are being deprived of any chance to ensure that this bill truly meets the expectations of Quebecers and Canadians.

When the government says that Canadians agree with what this bill is trying to do, that is completely false. In order to achieve that kind of balance, first the Minister of Justice would have had to do more than say “I will listen”. During oral question period in the House, she said “Yes, I am open to your ideas, I will listen. I will listen to the members, I will listen to the witnesses”.

More than 60 witnesses appeared before the committee, and it is not true to say that they were listened to. There was so little listening done that not even the Senate was not heard. The Senate put out a report that was not even followed by the government.

How are we supposed to take the government seriously? It cannot be taken seriously, and that is a problem. This is not simply about taking the government seriously; it is about our democracy, our institution known as the House of Commons, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is a complete stalling tactic, because the government is fooling people into believing that there was an opportunity for debate, but the debate took place before the bill was introduced in the House.

It gets worse. Yesterday was the first day of the report stage for the bill. After only three hours, notice was given that there would be a gag. Today, we voted on this motion. After only three hours of debate at report stage, a gag was ordered, not only for the report stage but also for third reading. It cannot get any more anti-democratic than that. It is really unbelievable.

I would like us to be really serious and examine the amendments. There is a problem when in committee we are told by senior officials and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice that demonstrators such as those in Quebec City would fall into the definition of terrorists.

We cannot allow this government to run roughshod over democracy and freedom.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to debate Group No. 2 in this very important Bill C-36.

As a member of the justice committee and as part of the process I must say that it was a long and arduous task in terms of the kinds of witnesses and groups that we heard from across Canada. Certainly we appreciated the calibre of their fine insights into this very important bill.

It seems to me that when we finally had the opportunity to review the clauses and take a look at the amendments being proposed from all sides, we had a very good opportunity to fully debate each and every one of the clauses. At the end of the day we were able to come together to present the bill that is now in the House at report stage.

It seems to me that we can take great heart in the fact that we listened to Canadians. We listened to people from all perspectives on the bill. I found it especially important that we did so through the lens of human rights and civil liberties, as well as national security. They were three important lenses for viewing the bill, and that is precisely what we did.

I was heartened to know and fully understand, as all members of the committee, who if they did not, should have, that the Minister of Justice wisely was able to take advice and come back in a way that brought the bill into even better sync with what Canadians value and believe is correct. That is really what we are here today to do. We are here to debate this further, to take a look at the fine amendments that have been brought forward and to move forward knowing that we have to put Bill C-36 in place because it is part and parcel of the anti-terrorism legislation that the government was very quick to introduce.

Now, having had a full debate, we are able to bring it to a conclusion. I think it is very important to move expeditiously at this point in keeping with the commitments we made not only to the Canadian people but to the wider international community as well.

I cannot emphasize enough that the Minister of Justice and this side of the House listened very closely to all people who presented. Specifically on Group No. 2 I think it is important to note that the motion being presented, while it is of interest and certainly worthy of note, cannot be supported. I will tell the House why.

The motion has to be rejected because a person permanently bound to secrecy is defined in subclause 8(1) of the Security of Information Act. We already know that. Furthermore, a person may become a person permanently bound to secrecy if the person is a current or former member or employee of a scheduled entity, or if designated by a deputy head and personally served with a notice to that effect. Those are important considerations in terms of where we are at specific to this motion. I should further add that the criteria for designating a person to be a person permanently bound to secrecy are twofold.

I am not telling the Speaker anything he does not know at this point. He knows that, first, the person has had or will have authorized access to special operational information and, second, it is in the interest of national security to designate the person.

Again it comes back to the lens of national security tempered with civil rights, human rights and the liberties that flow based on the charter of rights and freedoms. That is something that the committee took a long hard look at in terms of making sure we analyzed everything that we did consistent with the framework that we have taken as part of Canada's great value system, which is underscored by the charter of rights and freedoms.

I should further add that the new offences, specifically clauses 13 and 14 of the Seurity of Information Act, create a special regime for those persons who have privileged access to the most vital, special operational information and criminalizes on their part the unauthorized disclosure or purported disclosure of this narrow band of information going to the essence of Canada's national interest.

We need to ensure that is in place which is precisely what we have here. At the end of the day the national interest for Canada, the national security for Canada and the tools that enable us to maintain the national interest and national security is paramount. Canadians wherever they live in this great country understand that. They support the government knowing that the government is bringing forward these kinds of measures in the best interest of national security in a very meaningful way.

I should further add that the security and intelligence community has certain operational requirements that need to be fostered. These operational requirements include an ability to ensure secrecy and project to others that they have the ability to protect the information entrusted to them.

That too is fundamental to the gathering of intelligence, to ensure that peace officers and people who are involved in these kinds of processes are given the kinds of tools and legislative support, quite frankly, that enable them to do the job that is consistent with what we as a country under national security and for interest for Canada are able to give them and they are able to carry out and do.

We need to ensure that is the case, and we are doing that. I believe it is paramount that we carry on with this because it is what Canadians expect.

While I am on the point, I want to add that while the person is designated for life with respect to the motion in Group No. 2, the character of the information may change. The definition, for example of special operational information makes clear that it is information that the Government of Canada is taking measures to safeguard from disclosure.

There again that too underscores the commitment of our government to ensure the right processes are put in place to make sure we do the right thing to enable our people to gather that kind of information and not have to disclose it, to make sure that it is done properly and consistent with the charter and all the safeguards that Canadians take for granted in this very important area.

I want to take a moment to talk a bit about some of the concerns that were raised at the committee with respect to unlawful strikes and protests that could qualify as terrorist activity. That was a repeated theme.

The definition of terrorism, as we have now made it to be, as it was from the outset, and refined, and, more to the point, terrorist activity related to the disruption of essential service, was changed at the committee, as I said, fine tuned, to delete the word “lawful”. This will ensure that protest activity, whether lawful or unlawful, will not be considered a terrorist activity unless the activity was intended to cause death, serious bodily harm, endangerment of life or serious risk to the health and safety of the public.

We listened very closely to those people who ensured that they got their points across on this very important matter. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice made it very clear at the outset that the committee had its work cut out for it. The committee was to do its job. It was to listen very closely, carefully and consistently to witnesses who came in good faith and presented their testimony. That is precisely what it did. As a result we were able to bring forward amendments that reflected the representations made by individuals and groups. We did so consistent with the civil liberties, human rights and national security projections that we wanted to ensure were always there and we were able to do it consistent with what I believe are the great values of this country, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Another concern that was expressed was that expressing a political, religious or ideological belief could constitute a terrorist activity. For some people that was a very real thing. I want to take great pains right now to say that is simply not the case.

In order to make it absolutely clear, the government proposed an amendment in committee to add an interpretative clause to the bill. The clause states for greater clarity and certainty that an expression of political, religious or ideological beliefs alone is not a terrorist activity unless it is part of a larger conduct that meets all the requirements of the definition of terrorist activity.

What I am saying is that we at the committee listened to the witnesses and listened to people who brought forward very good ideas. We changed accordingly to make sure that at the end of the day this would be the best bill possible, and I can guarantee that it is.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do. I apologize if my speech wandered from the actual substance of Group No. 2, which I understand is a motion by the Alliance member for an amendment to limit the secrecy provisions for individuals working for a security agency to a maximum of 15 years. I was planning on getting around to that issue, but in framing the context of those criticisms or pointing out the shortcomings of the bill, I found it necessary to also point out some of the other shortcomings on behalf of the Canadian people.

We in our party feel that this is perhaps the most significant issue that we have dealt with since I became a member of parliament in 1997. No other bill has had the potential to have such a dramatic effect on the way we live as Canadians as Bill C-36 does. I think it is easy to understand the level and degree of interest. The number of letters, cards and phone calls that we are getting at our constituency offices is overwhelming.

The bill has captured the imagination of Canadians, partly because of the sheer horror of September 11, partly because of our very real desire to feel more secure in our own homes and our own country and partly because of the expectation Canadians have that our government will introduce meaningful legislation that will make us feel more secure about the fact that it is doing its job. As the Minister of Justice has pointed out, the primary obligation of the government is to deal with the security of Canadians. We are being challenged with that right now.

Therefore, we are finding ourselves faced with Bill C-36, this broad, sweeping piece of legislation, which will in fact change the way we live and the way that Canadians view themselves as a nation and as a people. We are finding ourselves limited in the amount of debate we can have. Even though those of us on the opposition benches have co-operated extensively to put forward meaningful amendments, we are finding that the ruling party, which did imply that it would listen to and entertain amendments, is in fact using closure to shut this down and move this bill forward even though, I believe, the bill has not matured or has not been thought through to the point that it should be.

I know that early on in the debate on Bill C-36 a recommendation was made because we know the bill will be challenged in the Supreme Court. The recommendation was that we should submit the substance of the bill to the court and ask for a ruling ahead of time or that we should do it in conjunction and have two parallel paths so that we would be debating the bill in the House of Commons and at the same time the courts could be ruling on whether or not there would be an acceptable challenge to the bill. Frankly, that would have served Canadians well. It would have been an expedited form of introducing the type of protection Canadians expect.

However, the government chose not to listen to that good advice. It was sound counsel. It was the member for Winnipeg--Transcona who asked directly why we could not have a dual, parallel path on the bill because it is of such importance. It is too important to play politics with. That is the opinion of the NDP caucus at least. We have discussed this in our caucus meetings. We do not seek to play politics with Bill C-36 because we are all concerned. Canadians are concerned. It is a disservice to Canadians to actually grind this thing down into one of those exchanges we have seen so many times.

I am glad to be able to speak to Group No. 2 of these motions. I understand that the amendment being sought by the member from the Canadian Alliance would limit the secrecy provisions on individuals working for security agencies to a maximum of 15 years. This seems like a worthy provision. It is obviously a thoughtful, heartfelt position taken by the member from the Alliance. I would hope that there would be flexibility on the part of government, if it is serious in moving forward with Bill C-36, to at least entertain the legitimate concerns brought forward, not just by the members of the opposition benches but by the many people who have made presentations at committee.

I know that the committee sat until three o'clock in the morning recently dealing with this. There is no question about the sincerity and the level of interest expressed on the government side and on the opposition benches. We realize how necessary the bill is. Canadians do as well and are coming to us asking for some satisfaction.

We found it necessary to speak against Bill C-36. I believe we are the only caucus in the House of Commons and the only political party that has actually voted against Bill C-36 at all the stages up to this point, although I understand the Bloc Quebecois has reservations about the bill as well.

We are not comfortable at this point. We would like to be able to say that we support the intent of the government to ensure the security of Canadians by tightening up bills and legislation in the aftermath of September 11. The NDP caucus would like nothing more than to be able to say we are acting in response to the legitimate concerns of Canadians, but we cannot support the bill at this time nor can we support the heavy handed actions of the government to limit debate at this time. Canadians are still following the debate with great interest and great concern. I am sure most Canadians are disappointed to see the House leader for the Liberal Party stand up and once again move closure on an issue of great national interest and concern.

We have heard questions and debate on the bill from virtually all the opposition parties, which are challenging the government with the legitimate questions that do arise when we infringe on civil liberties. To what extent should we infringe on them? For how long should we infringe on them?

Even though we are speaking today to Group No. 2 and the motion dealing with the secrecy provisions, we have to focus on the bigger picture. The bill in itself is so flawed that I do not believe any of the opposition parties can in all good conscience vote for it.

With regret, we are finding ourselves debating with a gun to our heads again because time allocation has been invoked. I do not believe that quality decision making can come from that process. I do not believe in the Stockholm syndrome, for instance, where people are thrown into a room and not allowed out until they come to a resolution. I do not believe that process would result in a quality piece of legislation. However, that is the position we find ourselves in again today.

It is with regret that we are critical of the government on this issue. It should be a non-partisan issue. Canadians would like to think we can all agree on this particular issue. The motions put forward by the opposition parties are worthy. They have merit and they deserve to be introduced into the bill so that we could adopt the bill unanimously. We do not sense that will be possible.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

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

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

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

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

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

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

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

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

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

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

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

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

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

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Speaker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved:

Motion No. 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing part here is that almost all the witnesses who appeared before the justice committee did so for absolutely nothing, because our justice minister, stubborn as usual, totally ignored the concerns of all these witnesses as well as their valuable and legitimate recommendations to improve the bill.

The minister has not only ignored their representations before the standing committee on justice, but she has also rejected out of hand the recommendations brought forward by the special Senate committee on Bill C-36.

For the information of our listeners, so that they can really understand how little the minister cared about the House and Senate committees and all Canadians, she stated this on October 18, in her introductory speech, at the first sitting of the standing committee on justice. I quote:

I also welcome consideration of possible refinements to the provisions you find in this bill. We must ensure that the bill is the most balanced and effective response possible.

And just before leaving the committee, at the end of the session, she added to this by stating:

On behalf of the solicitor general and myself, I also want to underscore how important it is for you to provide us with your best advice in some of these areas.

Therefore, it's going to be very important for you, in terms of the work you do, to help us make sure that we do have the most effective and fairest law. I know you will take up this challenge expeditiously and seriously

As for taking that challenge seriously, we have. Can the same be said of the minister? I am not so sure.

All of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois were based on the recommendations made by the large majority of the witnesses who came before the standing committee on justice, as well as those contained in the Senate report, of course.

Of all our amendments, just one was retained, but not in its original form. As for the other three opposition parties, their proposals suffered the same fate as ours. Considering that, the minister must take MPs for fools, when she makes a statement about being prepared to listen to us and benefit from the witnesses' expertise in order to improve her bill.

Besides, as regards promptness, again we can say mission accomplished. The bill we are debating is the most important one, in terms of curtailing rights and liberties, on the legislative agenda since the sad and famous War Measures Act of 1970.

According to projections, the legislative process should be completed before the Christmas recess. This shows how effective the government's steamroller is.

However, innocent people have become the victims of the biker war and, more generally, of organized crime in Quebec. Yet, Bill C-24, which deals with organized crime, is still waiting in the other place.

The situation is obviously urgent, but considering the impact of the measures considered, we had the right to expect something other than a slapdash legislative process.

Mark Fisher, a member of the Labour Party in the British parliament, said the following about the English anti-terrorist act, during the second reading stage last Monday. I quote:

When the House does something precipitous, it rarely acts wisely.

Referring to increased powers that the justice minister is giving to the officers of CSIS and to himself, the solicitor general simply said:

Canadians demand those measures.

We can question his sources of information, and I hope that it does not come from CSIS, because the facts are quite different.

I do not know if the solicitor general reads the electronic mail he receives, but if he is on the same mailing list as we are and nevertheless says a thing like that, there certainly must be someone in his office who is hiding information from him, because almost every message we have received expressed vigorous opposition to the provisions of Bill C-36.

Moreover, when a bill like this is called nonsense and act of treason, to quote only those two examples, there can be no doubt about the opposition of Canadian citizens to the state's interference with individual liberties.

I would now like to talk about the motions we have before us at report stage.

First, Motion No. 1 by the member for Lanark—Carleton proposes that the definition of terrorist activity be amended by eliminating any reference to political, religious or idealogical purposes. Members of the Bloc considered those references inappropriate and we certainly are ready to support Motion No. 1.

Motion No. 2 by the member for Calgary Centre would set out the criteria to be used by the solicitor general in recommending that an entity be placed on the list of terrorists. I think this is appropriate.

In the second paragraph of this motion, the member for Calgary Centre suggests that these criteria should be debated in the House before being adopted. We agree with that. However, I think that a vote should be held following this debate. I imagine that this is what the member for Calgary Centre wished, but I did not see it in the text of the motion.

As for Motion No. 3 by the same member, it would compel the solicitor general to give answers to the organizations listed. If he does not do so, with the present amendment, the organization will not have to pay to go before a federal court. There again, we consider that this motion is appropriate and that we will be in a position to support it.

As for Motion No. 4, I consider it superfluous since the right to a lawyer is already recognized. There is a paragraph added that reads as follows:

In any proceeding under this section, the presiding judge may appoint counsel to represent any person subject to the investigative hearing.

Notaries have a saying that if it is too strong, it won't break”. As far as I am concerned, this is the case here. We can obviously support it because it is already recognized.

These were my comments on the amendments before us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second reason deals with reviewing the legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He went on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's my strong belief—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism.

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

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will quote the subsection in question:

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

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

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

That is not relevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to spend time talking about the amendments before us at this stage of Bill C-36.

I agree with many of the comments made by my colleagues. I first want to reflect on some of the comments made by our Liberal colleague from Scarborough East who quite appropriately said earlier in debate that he has some concerns about the bill. He referred to not being happy with the amendments but being less unhappy with the bill because of the amendments that were coming forward. He freely expressed an opinion shared by many members of the House that the bill curtailed the rights and freedoms of Canadians in ways that needed to be further defined and that if left undefined, as is the case in the current state of the bill, it could lead to some serious problems not only now but in the future in regard to fighting terrorism.

Of course we all agree with the notion of fighting terrorism. I do not think there is a member in the place who would disagree with that concept. However there are members who disagree with the intent and direction of the bill in its current state and would suggest that it needs to be fixed. That is why the right hon. member for Calgary Centre brought forward some of the amendments in this current grouping.

One of main concerns he has brought forward is that criteria be put in place for how individuals would be listed as terrorists under the bill. It is an issue that came up in question period today. Basically the solicitor general told us, in not so many words, that we should trust him. He will develop the list and the criteria and we should not worry. Those are the kinds of comments that do make us worry because quite clearly there seems to be a lack of any coherent systematic list or criteria that individuals will be subjected to before being put on the list.

Once individuals are on the list, how would they get off it? How would they find out if they are even on the list? My colleague from Pictou--Antigonish-Guysborough made that point in question period. Is it that they have to go to the bank, try to use their bank card to find that their assets have been seized before they even receive knowledge that they are on the list?

It seems quite incomprehensible that the government would move forward without defining this aspect of the bill. This is what the amendments attempt to do. That is why I am personally supportive of them and obviously the PC/DR coalition is supportive of them, as are many members of the House.

The government has asked us to put our full and unfettered trust in it to fight terrorism. If the government had proven over the test of time that it was worthy of such trust, I do not think there would be a concern by members of the opposition. If we look over the past record of the government in other dealings, we see there is a reason to question aspects of the bill.

I point specifically to the notion of access to information. I know that the Prime Minister's Office has been involved in court cases with the information commissioner in relation to viewing the Prime Minister's personal logs and agenda books. The nub of that particular issue is not that the information be released, but that the information commissioner be allowed to look at the information to then determine whether that information should be released. The Prime Minister's Office is involved in a suit against the information commissioner on that particular point; this notion of guarding information.

In this case we have a bill which has been brought forward where civil liberties of Canadians will be put at particular risk in certain circumstances and there will be no opportunity for individuals to find out what criteria are put in place that would have them put on the list and, if they should end up on the list, how they might ever get off it.

Clearly the government can see that this is a problem and that if it does not address the question, it will lose support on the particular notion of support for the entire bill.

Members have been generally supportive of course but have reserved the right to question the government and to refine this legislation so that it addresses these points. If they remain unanswered and if the government members fail to acknowledge that the questions the opposition members and individuals across the country have are important, they do so at their own peril because they will not only lose support of some of the members of parliament, but they will lose support from those they represent, their constituents at large, the people of the country.

I dare say that Canadians would be willing to give the government free and unfettered access to imposing these kinds of criteria lists on individuals without some assurances that this absolute power, which is what in essence happens in our parliamentary system when a government has a majority government, is not used to the detriment of individuals across the country.

That is why we need the amendments that are in this group. We need to look at further amendments before the bill. It is dependent upon the government to listen closely to the concerns that are being raised. If it does not, I would say it would lose support not only from members on this side but from members of the government who have already stood in this place during debate on report stage of Bill C-36. The government members have mentioned some of those grave concerns that they have with the bill and how it curtails the rights and freedoms and civil liberties of Canadians.

It would be my hope that we could find a way to improve the bill. We sound a bit of an alarm bell on behalf of Canadians because of previous actions of the government. We would hope the government would prove us wrong, but to put our complete trust in a group that has proved untrustworthy in other instances before--

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in this very important debate on a number of motions put forward by various opposition parties to amend the antiterrorism bill.

Since the attacks on September 11, these events have been front-page news and have greatly upset people. The events themselves and the planned measures to counter terrorism have triggered various reactions. They have been contradictory or negative. However, one must stress the support for the bill.

Bill C-36 as it stands is not acceptable. In spite of a certain level of support, there are doubts as to the urgency of passing Bill C-36 as introduced by the Minister of Justice. Some say that it tramples civil rights and freedoms and that the fight against terrorism does not justify such legislation. On the other hand, others want legislation, but fighting terrorism through a bill like this one is not to their liking either.

Last week, together with our justice critic, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, I met with several groups in my riding. Several people voiced their opinion and, as a whole, they were against the bill as it stands now. Some told us that the situation in Canada does not justify such a piece of legislation. There is no real or feared emergency or threat and the current law, if properly implemented, is quite sufficient.

Moreover, an anti-terrorism act is very dangerous. It is a grievous attack on democracy and individual freedoms. The members for Berthier—Montcalm and for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert have worked very hard on this bill and put forward several amendments, 66 in all. However, we have decided not to move any amendment at this stage as it is very clear that the government does not intend to either support or follow through with the Bloc Quebecois' amendments.

We are very disappointed as the balance we were so eagerly striving for, a balance between national security and individual and collective rights, cannot be found in the bill put forward by the minister. The minister has not listened to what various witnesses had to say in committee.

There are currently a number of motions on the table, and we will support some of them. For example, we will support the motion that calls for greater transparency and Motion No. 5, which calls for entitlement to counsel. The Bloc Quebecois therefore supports some of the motions presented. These include the requirement for the solicitor general to act, because this is along the lines of the amendments sought by the Bloc.

The bill as presented by the minister is very likely to be passed before the holidays. A number of witnesses have told us of the need to rush the bill as presented through before the holidays gives us no opportunity to seek the support of the public. We can see how democratic this is, how important it is to the government and to parliament to get this bill through as is.

When all the ins and outs of the bill are explained, a number of people say they would oppose the bill if there is no respect for individual freedoms. The very broad definition of terrorist activity was drawn to our attention.

Motion No. 1 refers to the definition of terrorist activity, although the minister wanted to change the terms illicit and licit. Groups that are not licit would be covered by such a bill. That does not satisfy us.

The Bloc Quebecois must go beyond simple opposition. Our opposition is well known. This is why the Bloc voted in favour at second reading, although we had reservations. I knew very well we would be straitjacketed before Christmas to get a bill that does not have public support. This bill should have been explained more to the public. Doing so would have meant more time and putting off its passage as long as possible. We would like to have explained it more to the public.

This bill will not get at the root of terrorism. The government would do better to go after poverty, exclusion, globalization and the imbalance between countries.

We say we should deal with poverty, exclusion and globalization because we are aware of what is going on in conflicts such as the one in the Middle East. We know that young people who have no hope joined al-Qaeda because of the inequities experienced in the Middle East, in Israel in particular.

There is also the issue of the embargo against Iraq. It is a well known fact that depleted uranium bombs were used. I saw a documentary on what is going on in that country and its impact on the population.

When the people of the Middle East see Al-Jazeera media coverage and what the west has done to them, we can understand what happened, even if we do not approve of it. We can understand how these people may resent our interfering without repairing the harm done.

We hope that, in this conflict, we will help the Afghan people to recover so that they can enjoy some security.

This bill curtails civil liberties. We are very much disappointed by the government's lack of transparency in this bill and in the review process.

I recall the first speech I gave in the House on this issue. I indicated that the Prime Minister seemed to be saying that a sunset clause could be brought in by the Liberal government. I said I had my doubts about that. I recall how certain amendments were introduced and how the need for a sunset clause—to ensure that all the sections of the bill would have to be reviewed after a certain number of years, whether three, four or five years—was disregarded. We know that the government did not want to go that far.

The act could be renewed until it is decided that it is no longer needed in Canada. There is an urgency to act and I am very disappointed that the government persists in introducing a bill which disregards civil rights and liberties.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I called the attention of the Chair to the lack of public availability of the evidence adduced at the justice committee regarding Bill C-36. I note now with interest that the House website is in fact carrying the evidence of the justice minister given on November 20. Obviously the minister is in favour of the bill and we are glad to see that evidence is now there even after the cut-off time for the filing of amendments.

However, the evidence of many of the meetings where witnesses were critical of the content of the bill is still not published. It is highly unusual, I would suggest, that evidence is transcribed and published out of chronological order. On what authority is the evidence of these opponents or critics of the bill being withheld from the Canadian public?

We know that the government is pressing the House to expedite the bill, but why is precedence being given to witnesses who were in favour of the bill over those who are critical of the bill? Why are the normal practices being interfered with? Will the government not recognize that it is pushing the system beyond capacity and we need more time to consider Bill C-36?

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, that is not how question period usually works.

There are some provisions of the anti-terrorism bill that do put Canadians' rights directly at risk. Yes, there is a need for action from police to act quickly at times to prevent terrorism but with discretion and based on solid evidence. Bill C-36 creates the real possibility that individuals can be listed without due process on secret information. A person may not even know that they are listed until it is too late. Their bank account could be frozen. They could lose their job. Their reputations could be blackened.

With all the consequences flowing from a listing, could the minister explain how a person, if wrongly accused and unable to afford a lawyer, can get their name off the list?

Public Safety Act

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

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that there is no hidden agenda here. In fact, listening to some of the concerns expressed by witnesses and committee members on Bill C-36, we amended the definition of terrorist activity to ensure that demonstrations, lawful or otherwise, would not be unintentionally caught by this legislation.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who will remember that there was quite a bit of concern and still is about the potential in Bill C-36 to abuse or obstruct legitimate dissent. We see the same possibility in Bill C-42, the public safety act.

As the member in cabinet from Alberta, would the Minister of Justice tell us if this particular bill is intended for Kananaskis next year? Is the hidden agenda here to make sure the whole area can be declared a military security zone and protesters cannot get anywhere near it?

[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?

Anti-terrorism Act

[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.

[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.

[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”

Points of Order

[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.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister 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.

[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 House

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 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--

Privilege

[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 Order

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. government House leader has just confirmed that the government will be calling Bill C-36 at report stage. It has come to my attention that the transcripts from the justice committee are not available.

This is of serious concern in that other members of the House, including members of the government who are not members of that committee, have no ability to review and potentially prepare amendments to the bill. In fact the Chair will know that the deadline for the submission of amendments to the bill is 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Further adding to the difficulty is that the bill, as reported with amendment, is not currently available. In fact we are in the perverse situation where government officials have called opposition members' offices looking for the amendments so that they might have an opportunity to review these amendments.

This is an important issue for parliament. It is an important ability that all members of the House have in terms of their ability to prepare and amend government legislation. This bill, as the Chair and everyone here knows, is an extremely important piece of legislation. It is a bill to which the government itself presented over 100 amendments.

The evidence that was taken by the justice committee is currently not available to Canadians. Nor is it available to some members of the House. Until the evidence is published by the House, Canadians cannot find out the basis for which important decisions are being made. The people were represented but unable to make informed decisions or recommendations through their members of parliament when votes are to be taken on the bill.

I am asking the government House leader to agree to delay consideration of Bill C-36 until all the committee evidence is published or until it is made available to some. Certainly the bill, which is now placed on the table, should be available to all members of the House. Until it is, one can only be left with the conclusion that this bill, this process and this House of Commons is secret on an important piece of legislation involving anti-terrorism.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the House will not sit tomorrow as is the usual courtesy to a political party holding a national convention, in this case the New Democratic Party.

Our business for next week is fairly straightforward. First, we will deal with report stage and third reading of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation. When this is completed we will turn to second reading of the public safety bill that was introduced earlier this day by the Minister of Transport.

On any days next week, particularly in the early part of the week, should the debate on any of these items end earlier in the day, it would be my intention, then, on Monday to call for report stage and third reading of Bill C-27, the nuclear safety bill and, if time permits, second reading of Bill C-43, the technical legislative amendments bill which I introduced earlier this day.

If debate collapses on or after Tuesday, it would also be my intention to add to the list that I have just made Bill C-35, the foreign missions bill, at third reading.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-36 persons who believe they should not be on the terrorist list must ask the solicitor general to remove their names. If the solicitor general does not make a decision within 60 days, people must apply to the courts for redress.

Could the solicitor general assure the House that he will make his decision within 60 days so that innocent, wrongfully accused or wrongfully listed Canadians are not required to go to court to have their names removed?

Justice

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 is comprehensive legislation. It deals with many aspects of matters going to court and people being listed against the threat of terrorism. We have never in our criminal law had a policy of compensation for people who are accused, prosecuted and acquitted.

However if public officials behave improperly or with negligence, then they can be liable for civil action. This could be the case in this situation.

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-35, a bill introduced by the federal government to modernize in various ways the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

It should be understood that the legislator had no other choice but to modernize the act since it dates back to 1991. Increasingly, society is changing; there is more talk about globalization. Over the past ten years, we have seen a range of organizations being created and meeting on a regular basis all over the world. This caused the Canadian government and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to look at this new phenomenon.

Among the various international organizations created during this period, there is the OSCE, the G-8—which will meet in Western Canada next year—, APEC, which met here in 1997. We all recall the unfortunate events which marred this international meeting held here.

One should also realize that this international phenomenon has triggered protests all over the world. We are living in a democratic universe, or at least we are fighting to keep it that way, and increasingly these large diplomatic events are attracting demonstrators who come to voice their disagreement about these international meetings.

Before getting further into the debate on Bill C-35, I would like to draw your attention to the way our Liberal colleagues are behaving in general, which is becoming increasingly obvious.

Since the September events, this government has tried very opportunistically to take advantage of the situation to set in motion a steam roller with, as a sole purpose, the trampling of every civic right and every gain for which we have fought so hard here in the Canadian Parliament over the past few years.

Last Tuesday night, I did not have the time to take part in the proceedings of the standing committee on justice but I was able to take 30 to 45 minutes to watch them on television. As for the behaviour of the government across the way, I must say that it is increasingly more undemocratic, and that was obvious that night. You should have seen how the chairman of the standing committee on justice was pushing through the amendments and also how the Liberal members ganged up and voted against every single amendment moved by our party, and this during the all important debate on Bill C-36.

In Bill C-35, even though this legislation is needed, here again, we are taking advantage of the attacks on New York and Washington. We are trying to give the police and RCMP officers powers they do not need. Our legal system already has all the powers it needs for dealing with these kinds of events.

It is clear again that the situation is being exploited and that the RCMP are being imposed everywhere they can be. They are not only being imposed, but they are being given the authority to rummage around in the personal lives of Canadians and Quebecers. Furthermore, these laws are so important that a time limit on them is out of the question. So we are moving toward the creation of a police state where they will have powers that will allow them to do whatever they want. I do not agree with that.

I do not know what has happened since September 11. There must have been bills on the back burner because, ever since, excessive security measures have been implemented anywhere Canadians might want to show their dissatisfaction with global and globalizing tendencies that they oppose. Where are we going with this government?

Today, we are debating Bill C-35. My colleagues and myself are against clause 5. We will, therefore, vote against Bill C-35, even though at the outset we were favourable to the basic principle. Members have also heard our views on Bill C-36.

This morning the Minister of Transport has done it again with yet another bill. Once again, this is a bill that reduces the powers of the public. He is going to give an unbelievable amount of leeway to our police forces. When the events of September 11 have been settled—one has to remain optimistic—at the rate things are going, what is the Canadian government going to do with this series of measures with no time limits that it has steamrollered through? We will need three to five years to get back to where we were after years of effort.

I would like to point out as well that other countries' laws are often said to be better. That is certain. Once again, during the debate on second reading, the Liberals claimed that this codification of the powers of the RCMP concerning the security perimeter was fully justified and was inspired by similar legislation in Australia and New Zealand.

The Australian legislation, passed by the state of Queensland, is temporary in nature, not permanent as the people over the way would have us believe. It addresses security perimeters for a specific event only. The same holds true for New Zealand. It was for the APEC summit in Auckland in 1999.

As well, the New Zealand legislation set limits on the size of the perimeter, and how long it could be in place. Bill C-35 has nothing of the like. Absolutely nothing. This government functions—and the hon. members will understand this example—like a NHL team suddenly demanding that the league change the rules. Instead of having three forwards and three defencemen, they want four players on defence and one on offence. That would not produce much of a game.

With the bills the government is presenting, and with Bill C-35, this means we are going to turn into a passive democracy rather than an active one.

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-35 entitled an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

The title of the bill of course does not very clearly delineate the purpose of the bill which essentially can be broken down into two parts. The first one relates to more clearly delineating the role of the RCMP in providing security measures when Canada hosts international events and conferences.

The problem with the bill is the aspect of it with regard to diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity extends from the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations and it grants privileges and immunities to foreign representatives and members of international organizations. The bill would expand that immunity needlessly. It would expand it to delegates, to family members of officials and to staff. These would be people visiting our country for a few days to attend an international conference and they would have a licence to break whatever Canadian law they want while they are here. It makes no sense to expand that type of immunity to people who are temporary visitors to the country. Not only is there no need for it, there is no public interest in it. There has not even been a request from any foreign country or organization to expand the privileges of diplomatic immunity.

This really begs the question: Why is the government embarking on this venture when there is no appetite for it by the public? In fact, it is a cause for concern, especially in light of increased awareness and the need to clamp down on terrorists and criminals. Why would we be opening our doors to trouble? What this is, is an invitation to trouble.

The process that is set out in the bill would extend to the entire delegation that is coming from a given country to attend an international conference, so there is improper individual scrutiny. Individuals who would otherwise be barred from entering Canada could be given a special visa to enter our country and be exempt from our laws. Those special visitor visas would supercede the immigration minister's power to disallow potential visitors with criminal pasts from entering Canada.

The other inherent problem is that the bureaucrats in the Department of Foreign Affairs would be the ones making these decisions. Not only is the bill needlessly and irresponsibly empowering foreign affairs bureaucrats but it is potentially putting them in a conflict of interest. As the organizers of the event, they may have reasons for wanting specific individuals or groups to attend an international conference without regard to whether they have had a criminal past. I think it is very irresponsible to put that kind of power into the hands of those bureaucrats.

Furthermore, rather than expanding diplomatic immunity and creating a potential for trouble, the government should be focusing on the current loopholes in the immigration and refugee system that have been exploited by people with criminal pasts. In fact, in a five year period, I think 1993-98, 25,000 people who were issued deportation orders in Canada did not show up for their hearings and are on the loose in Canada. That is a great cause of concern. In light of that, why would the government be opening the door to further abuses of our laws by people who will be here for a very temporary period of time?

Over the past five years there have been 90 incidents of criminal misconduct by diplomats and their staff in Canada. We already have a problem. The government should be focusing on that instead of expanding the opportunity for more trouble.

The hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester, in the clause by clause stage at committee, proposed an amendment to the bill that would have required the annual reporting of anyone who claimed diplomatic immunity to be built into the legislation but the Liberal government voted against it. The member tried to reintroduce it in the House but was denied the opportunity to do so. What is even more disturbing is that this is yet another example of the Liberal government's tendency to hide information or not be as forthcoming as possible.

What possible harm could be done? The amendment proposed by the member for Cumberland--Colchester made good common sense. It would have given the House of Parliament and the Canadian public the right to know who had claimed diplomatic immunity. Not only was it common sense, it was responsible. It would have been a preventive measure, a method of monitoring warning signs so we could then bring pressure to bear on the embassy responsible for the individuals perpetrating the crimes. If this had been done perhaps the tragedy that occurred last January could have been prevented.

I am sure members are aware of the Russian diplomat who, by driving recklessly, killed a pedestrian. This caused a lot of public outrage. Even worse, that particular diplomat had a previous history of a series of criminal infractions. Had there been annual reporting of incidents of people who claimed diplomatic immunity, perhaps a tragedy like that could have been prevented.

This raises the point that when criminal acts are committed, there is usually a victim. We ought to be much more conscious and sympathetic to that. While there is a role for diplomatic immunity to be in place for foreign diplomats, it does not make any sense to extend that to delegates to a weekend convention or conference.

The Liberal government is actually enacting a double standard. On Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, the committee passed an amendment for the annual reporting of incidents of preventive arrest and investigative hearings. If the solicitor general and the justice minister see the need for implementing a system of annual reporting of incidents within their legislation, why does the Minister of Foreign Affairs not see the benefit? It is a clear and obvious double standard.

My point is that there is a role for diplomatic immunity. However, as evidenced by these 90 incidents of criminal acts in the past five years by existing diplomats, we should be focusing on that. A system of annual reporting is one way to accomplish that. Perhaps there are other ways we could tighten this. The concept of diplomatic immunity, if anything, should perhaps be scaled back, re-examined or made more accountable. It certainly should not be expanded in such an irresponsible manner.

As I previously mentioned, there is a good aspect to the bill, which is to provide clear authority for the RCMP to fulfill their security requirements at international conferences. Following the APEC incident, it is obvious that there is a need for greater clarity in the role of the RCMP to provide security measures and to be independent from political interference from the Prime Minister's Office. The clear parameters for the RCMP is one good aspect of the bill but it is overshadowed by the very flawed and irresponsible concept of expanding diplomatic immunity to delegates, officials, staff and families who attend weekend international conferences in our country.

We do recognize the importance of the concept of immunity for diplomats in carrying out their work in countries around the world, particularly in countries that do not have the same degree of respect for democracy and human rights that Canada has. While there is a role for it, if we think about Canada and the degree of our democracy and of our legal code and our criminal code, why would we need to extend diplomatic immunity to people who are coming to our country to attend a conference?

The same would go for Canadians visiting other highly developed countries. If a Canadian delegate to a conference goes to England or to the United States, what would be the need for them to be granted diplomatic immunity while they were there? It would be nothing more than a licence or an invitation to break the laws of that country which are fair, reasonable laws.

The use of diplomatic immunity in the bill is becoming distorted by the Liberal government. The concept of diplomatic immunity is intended to protect foreign representatives from arbitrary harassment in the legal conduct of their affairs but not to be an invitation to commit crimes. The bill is even out of step with the government's own agenda. On the one hand the government has Bill C-36 which is seeking to improve security measures and increase police powers. At the same time it has Bill C-35 which is a complete contradiction of increasing security and an invitation to more criminal acts, inviting people and granting them diplomatic immunity if in other circumstances they would not even be allowed to enter our country. It does not make any sense.

It certainly once again raises the issue of priorities of the government. We have a health care system that is very dysfunctional right now. Waiting lists are unacceptably long for surgery and for seeing specialists; and the equipment, it is an underfunded system. Yet the government went ahead with its firearms registry. It has been willing to pump $500 million so far, and that number is climbing every day, into a system to make hunters and farmers register their rifles but it is not willing to put that money into health care. While perhaps we do need to examine our transportation security measures, and the government is moving in that direction, at the same time it has this contradictory desire to expand diplomatic immunity to people who are not justified in having it.

Our country is faced with a $579 billion national debt. The interest on servicing that debt is $42 billion a year. This is highly irresponsible fiscal management. There is a complete lack of accountability on monitoring the expenditures of government departments. There are annual increases in taxes. And the government is bringing in a bill to expand diplomatic immunity.

There are all these problems. We have a crime problem. There is the fiscal situation in Canada with the low dollar and our struggling economy. Yet the priority of the government is to expand immunity to delegates to international conferences. It does not make any sense. It is contradictory to the government's own legislative agenda vis-à-vis the transportation security measures and the anti-terrorism measures. It is simply irresponsible.

I speak today in the most definitive terms in speaking against this legislation. The Minister of Foreign Affairs should take the bill, shred it and forget about it.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind members of the House that the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour of Bill C-35 at second reading because we support the principle of modernizing the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

Since the last review of this act, which was in 1991, the world has changed a great deal. There is now a whole series of international organizations that have been created, but not through treaties, which are therefore not covered by the old act. Given that diplomatic relations have changed, with summits as an example, whether it be the one in Quebec City or the APEC summit in Vancouver, it is important to broaden the definition of international organization and to ensure diplomats and foreign representatives who come here for this type of event are covered.

Nor did the old law cover missions here with international organizations. The International Civil Aviation Organization for example, with its head office in Montreal, has 40 different missions that are accredited with the organization, but that have not benefited from any status under the old law.

All of these provisions therefore, are extremely positive. We were quite surprised, at first, not to find any provisions to correct certain irregular situations, such as the incident in which a Russian diplomat used his diplomatic immunity to avoid answering for a crime related to an offence in which he hit a woman while driving his car in a state of intoxication. We were stunned that Bill C-35 contained nothing to correct this situation.

The explanation that was given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others during the committee hearings convinced us that introducing this type of provision in Bill C-35 would contravene the Vienna Convention. The directive issued by the minister to ensure that people who are considered persona non grata be removed, satisfies us.

From this perspective, Bill C-35 was a positive contribution to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and modernized it so that it would take into consideration new diplomatic relations and the new reality of these relations.

But the bill also includes clause 5. Since we supported the principle of modernizing the legislation, the hon. member for Mercier and I moved an amendment to remove this clause because, as I said, it is unclear, incomplete, dangerous and does not belong in this bill, since it is more a matter for the justice department than a foreign affairs issue.

Let me remind the House that clause 5 sets up a number of responsibilities for the RCMP. It purports to amend the foreign missions act so that the RCMP is the organization in charge of security of events, whereas it was traditionally responsible for the protection of individuals, foreign dignitaries in our land.

This is a very significant change. The RCMP could interfere with the work of other police forces, and it is not given any criteria. One witness who appeared before the committee stated that, if we want the RCMP to be the lead agency for security during international events, we should help it by establishing a series of criteria. Those in charge sometimes have to make snap decisions, and, if they to not have any criteria to go by, they might disregard fundamental rights.

This is all the more likely because this same clause 5 says:

—the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

This institutionalizes the creation of security perimeters, such as the one in Quebec City, which were the exception. Why institutionalize a practice which is the exception in legislation on foreign missions? This is a very serious question. Particularly as the RCMP would make its own decisions about the measures that were appropriate in the circumstances.

The RCMP is not limited in any way in establishing these security perimeters. As I have already mentioned, a Montreal lawyer challenged the existence of the security perimeter in Quebec City, saying that it violated his freedom of expression and his freedom of movement. The judge ruled that, while it violated his rights, this was compensated for by the fact that the perimeter was necessary to ensure the safety of the dignitaries visiting Quebec City.

So the RCMP already has the authority to establish these security perimeters under existing legislation. Obviously, court challenges are always possible. It is up to the RCMP to demonstrate the need for and appropriateness of these security perimeters. Now, with clause 5, it will be able to establish them whenever it wishes, without being accountable to anyone.

Subsection (3) says:

The powers referred to in subsection (2)...shall not be read as affecting the powers that peace officers possess at common law or by virtue of any other federal or provincial Act or regulation.

On the one hand, we are told that the status quo will not do, because clause 5 must be included and, on the other, we are told that this will not in any way change the existing legislation. This is hard to believe. I think that this parliament would have done better to pass the amendment put forward by the member for Mercier and myself.

Besides I was happy to note that all opposition parties supported the amendment aimed at deleting clause 5. On the other hand government members, somewhat by principle, insisted on keeping clause 5. But, as we know, certain Liberal members are not comfortable with this clause because it could lead to infringement of rights. They are ill at ease because the provision is not where it should be. These changes should have been put in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, not in legislation dealing with foreign missions.

These Liberal members even tried to submit a recommendation in the committee report pointing out to the government the dangers presented by clause 5. But in the end, everything was watered down. We would have wished that these members, when the moment came to vote on our amendment, had voiced their concern by voting in favour of the amendment.

For those reasons, since clause 5 remains in Bill C-35, we will have to vote against the bill, all the more so since it comes with another legislation that will be discussed in the days ahead, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act.

I fully agree with the previous speaker. We are now witnessing in Canada a dangerous shift with regard to civil liberties and a strengthening of tools of repression that can lead to major drifts with which we do not want to be associated in any way.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby--Douglas spent much of his time discussing Bill C-36, the terrorist bill and now the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has spent much of his time discussing Bill C-11, the immigration bill. However the bill we are discussing today is Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

This proclivity on the part of two members who usually exhibit some knowledge in foreign affairs to ignore the fact that we are debating at third reading stage Bill C-35, is beginning to impact negatively on my self-esteem. Not to sound petulant, but it is my job as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to try to bring forward a particular bill. My difficulty is trying to get some members to focus on that bill.

That said, I will attempt to reach to the hon. member's strong background and suggest that his idea that we should move out of the Vienna conventions and into an international court, perhaps the international criminal court of the treaty of Rome which has not yet received near the number of ratifications to bring it into existence, is naive. I say that most honestly. The Vienna convention is already established. Many nations participate. To tear that down and begin again as the hon. member is suggesting is something that is almost impossible to commence.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a point of debate which I intend to ignore completely because it is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is we are talking about a bill that deals with police powers. It is very much relevant to look at the broader context in which these police powers are going to be exercised.

We have already seen the extent to which the police are abusing their existing powers and perhaps testing out the powers that they do not even have yet under Bill C-36. We have seen that in the context of Quebec City and the abuse of police power there. We saw it just last weekend in Ottawa where the police waded into a crowd of peaceful, non-violent protesters and singled people out for preventive detention. They sicced unleashed German shepherd dogs on innocent, non-violent, peaceful protesters. It was a disgrace. And this same government wants to give them more powers? I do not think so.

As I was saying before I was interrupted by the hon. member, it is ironic that this week as well the House of Commons joined in celebrating the extension of honorary citizenship to Nelson Mandela. Under the provisions of that same anti-terrorism legislation, Nelson Mandela would have been very likely branded as a terrorist and those Canadians who supported his struggle against apartheid would have been branded as terrorists as well.

As Michel C. Auger wrote recently in the Journal de Montréal ,

The definition remains so broad that it still includes many unpopular or marginal political activities. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Twenty years ago, the present Vice-President of the United States, Dick Cheney, voted in Congress in favour of Nelson Mandela's being considered a terrorist. Today, Mandela is an honorary citizen of Canada. Today, we also have a Canadian Alliance member who described Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.

What is certain is that anyone who is a citizen of Palestinian origin, for example, who comes from a troubled area, will now have much more difficulty even discussing the situation in his country.

That is the context within which we have to look at these sweeping new powers that are being requested by the RCMP in this bill. We heard eloquent evidence from a number of witnesses, including Bill Sloan, the president of the American Association of Jurists, and Professor Wesley Pue from the University of British Columbia law school on this issue.

Professor Pue raised deep concerns about the scope of clause 5, proposed section 10.1. He pointed out that there are two major problems with clause 2 around the issue of security perimeters. First of all he noted that the police are given the power to create security perimeters only at international conferences and second, there is absolutely no guidance given to police officers in determining what is appropriate and in which circumstances. When the RCMP erect a security perimeter, this affects a whole range of the rights of Canadians, such as the right of free movement within Canada, the right of assembly and the right of free expression.

On the subject of freedom of speech, I wish to denounce in the strongest terms possible the shameful treatment inflicted by Radio-Canada on journalist Normand Lester. I call upon the government to ask Radio-Canada to cancel his suspension. That is unacceptable in a democracy.

There are other fundamental rights as well: the right to enjoyment of property, the right to work, the right to go lawfully about one's daily life without interruption or harassment by the police.

As Professor Pue notes, a security perimeter affects all of these rights among others. How long will it last? Whose property rights can be derogated from under this security perimeter? Are police required to give notice to affected parties? What is the extent of the perimeter? How big would the perimeter be?

Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has 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 protesters far enough away so that they cannot physically intimidate, they must be sufficiently close in order to politically castigate”. This legislation, Bill C-35, leaves wide open the question of whether indeed that will be the case.

For all of these reasons, because of the sweeping extension and unwarranted extension of diplomatic immunity, because of the removal of the provisions for ministerial orders in the case of those who would attend these international conferences who have criminal records, and finally and most important, because of the very dangerous extension of powers to the RCMP under clause 5 of the bill, my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party will be voting against this bill at third reading.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding, and certainly it is written in the House order for the day, that we should be discussing Bill C-35. I would ask that the hon. member constrain his remarks to that bill and perhaps look to another opportunity to discuss Bill C-36.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at the final stage of debate at third reading of Bill C-35 to speak on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus and once again to oppose strongly the passage of the legislation.

I regret that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Mercier at the report stage of this bill was rejected. That amendment was to delete clause 5 of the bill, a very dangerous provision.

However the House voted against the amendment of my colleague from Mercier and we are now at the point of reviewing the overall legislation.

I have to pick up on the comments of my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester. He asked quite eloquently why we even needed the legislation.

There are three major elements to the legislation. The first element which I want to touch upon is the issue of extending diplomatic immunity in a very sweeping way. We were told in committee that the reason for this was reciprocity and that we had to amend our legislation to extend, in a very dramatic way, immunity to people coming into Canada for a conference so that Canadians would be protected in other countries in similar circumstances. It might just be an informal conference between Canada and another country, but anyone associated with the meeting would have full diplomatic immunity.

When I asked in committee for the proof or evidence that there was a problem for Canadians attending conferences in other countries, the government ministers were silent. They simply could not answer the question. I asked them to give us a single example of a circumstance in which we had a problem at an international conference as a result of the absence of the reciprocity they were trumpeting. It did not exist.

What is the underpinning for this extension of diplomatic immunity? The Liberals can argue that this will only be the case for a conference and that people will only be here for a few days. However I think Canadians are more and more concerned about the whole nature of the sweeping immunities given to those who are considered diplomats and others attending foreign conferences in Canada.

That is the first point I want to make. We categorically reject those provisions of the legislation that would extend even further the ambit of that diplomatic immunity. Rather what we should be doing is promoting far greater awareness, accountability and transparency in the area of the existing diplomatic immunities.

My colleague from Cumberland--Colchester has proposed an annual report of the extent upon which these immunities are being relied by diplomats in Canada. That is an important step but it is one which unfortunately the government has rejected.

The issue came to the fore a few months ago with the tragic death of an Ottawa woman who was out walking her dog with a friend. A drunken Russian diplomat ran into her and killed her. This was not the first time this diplomat had been involved in drunk driving. He had been warned before and sent back. Why did it take the death of an innocent woman who was out walking her dog before the government finally tightened up the provisions on drunk driving by diplomats in Ottawa?

It is shameful that the government did not tighten this up significantly before then. The first time diplomats are involved in that kind of disgraceful conduct of drunk driving or refusing to take a breathalyzer, they should be given the boot and kicked out of the country immediately under the provisions of the Canadian law. They should not be given more opportunities to break that law. That is our first concern. We do not accept the extension.

The second concern is with respect to the issue of the permits under the Immigration Act. This issue is a straightforward one. As it now stands, participants who wish to come to Canada to involve themselves in international conferences, and who have a criminal record which otherwise would render them inadmissible to Canada, are required to get a minister's permit to attend that conference.

What is the problem with that?. Why should that not continue to be the case? Any other person who wants to enter Canada, who has that kind of criminal record, is required to have a permit. The law has worked quite effectively so far. It has not barred anyone. The example the minister gave was Nelson Mandela. My recollection is that Nelson Mandela came to Canada with no difficulty whatsoever.

Why should there be one standard for those diplomats or international officials who come here to attend conferences and another standard for everybody else? I do not accept that and my colleagues in the New Democrat caucus do not accept that double standard.

A minister's permit is a minister's permit and it does not unduly inconvenience those who would participate in these conferences whatsoever. But surely, if an individual has been involved in serious criminal wrongdoing, we have a right to ask that the person apply, just as any other person would apply, for a permit to be able to participate in these international conferences. That is the second major element that we oppose in the bill.

The third and by far the most important and dangerous provision is clause 5. It is a new clause that extends unprecedented sweeping powers to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to the issue of security for international meetings in Canada.

We are told that all this is doing is just codifying existing law. If that is the case, the obvious question would be why do we need this statute at all if it is not broadening the powers but simply codifying the existing powers? We do not need it at all.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, on which I have the honour to sit, took what is not an unprecedented but what is an extraordinary step. After passing the bill on division, with all opposition parties opposing the bill, a couple of members on the Liberal side of the House actually abstained in the vote. That is almost unprecedented as well. After the bill was reported, the same committee that heard the evidence submitted a separate report to the House on the bill. It virtually never happens that a standing committee that deals with legislation feels the necessity to submit a strong report to the government asking it to hold on because the committee has grave concerns about the bill.

I will quote from the report. I think Canadians have a right to know just exactly how concerned all members, including government members, were about the provisions of the legislation. The report submitted to the House said that whereas the testimony of expert legal witnesses before the foreign affairs committee on Bill C-35 has dealt with the issue of article 5:

--and has 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;

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.

That is a very strong signal from the foreign affairs committee that clause 5 in the bill, the heart of the bill in many respects, is not acceptable. When there is a unanimous report from the committee saying to look out, that there are some real reservations about the clause, instead of listening to that and voting to amend the bill by deleting that clause and sending the issue back to the government, what did the trained seals on the government side do? They stood up and voted against their own colleagues on the foreign affairs committee who said to watch out for that particular clause.

They said that rightly. We are looking at this bill in the context of other legislation, in particular in the context of Bill C-36, the government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation. It is very dangerous and draconian legislation. This week the Minister of Justice introduced some amendments to that bill, but it still falls far short of what is acceptable.

She did not touch the sections for example on the Official Secrets Act. She did not touch the sections on investigative hearings. She did not even subject them to sunset clauses. The definition of terrorist activity is still far too broad. Her so-called five year sunset clause in reality is a 10 year sunset clause because it can be extended by a simple majority vote in the House. That is not a sunset clause at all.

The fact is that the sun should never have risen on a number of the key provisions of that anti-terrorism bill. It is ironic that in the same week in which Nelson Mandela--

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to talk about Bill C-35, which we spoke about last night. I appreciate your indulgence.

The fact of the matter is that I find it rather strange that we have this contradictory situation. The Minister of Transport has just introduced a bill increasing security and is spending a great deal of attention on focusing on enhancing security in the transport system, and as well we have Bill C-36 which increases police powers and creates new arrest powers for police, and here we are talking about Bill C-35 which expands immunity from our laws. It seems we are going one way with the two bills we are discussing today, and with Bill C-35 we are going in a completely different direction.

Bill C-35 is an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. Essentially it expands immunity far beyond anything we have ever done. Most Canadians think of diplomatic immunity as applying only to diplomats. The bill expands it much more broadly so that it is not just for diplomats. The bill expands it in a whole new definition of people who would quality for immunity under our new laws.

I will quote from one newspaper, in which Greg Weston states about the bill that:

Under it, anyone showing up at international...[conferences]...that's delegates, officials, staff, families, bag-carriers, mistresses--would have diplomatic immunity to rape, steal, drive drunk and otherwise break Canadian laws with impunity, compliments of our national government.

The bill includes delegates, officials, staff, family, bag carriers, everyone, along with the diplomats, so it is no longer diplomatic immunity; it is immunity that covers everyone who attends an international conference in Canada. We think it is unnecessary and goes far beyond anything that is required.

The newspaper article continues with respect to how immunity would be determined. One foreign affairs official quoted in the newspaper states:

If we give (diplomatic) privileges and immunities for a meeting, then all of the participants we let in for that meeting will get it.

This direction is completely different from the one we have taken before with respect to diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity was always provided in order to avoid harassment of diplomats and to ensure that the senior diplomats were protected from harassment by foreign governments, and in any case this does not happen in Canada, but now we have expanded it to a wide range of officials, assistants and staff so that they can come to Canada, break our civil and criminal laws and completely disregard the laws because they can claim immunity, even though it is far more than diplomatic immunity now.

It is so ironic that Bill C-36 is imposing new penalties on Canadians, giving police new powers and even creating new laws against Canadians at the very same time that we are debating Bill C-35 in the House, which is giving diplomatic immunity to a whole new range of people who attend meetings in Canada. It is completely contradictory and makes no sense.

Yesterday one of the government members suggested that we needed this very desperately so we could allow conferences like the upcoming G-8 conference in Alberta to be held. I disagree. We do not need this for that purpose. I do not think we have ever had a complaint. No one has ever said “I am not coming to Canada because I do not have diplomatic immunity. I am not coming to Canada because I cannot break civil laws and criminal laws and get away with it”. We do not need this expansion of diplomatic immunity and we should not be doing it.

There is absolutely no transparency in the bill. It removes the accountability to parliament about who claims diplomatic immunity. There is no obligation for the Department of Foreign Affairs to tell Canadians or parliament or the foreign affairs committee who claims diplomatic immunity. There should be a clause in the bill which states that every year or twice a year or four times a year the government must come to the foreign affairs committee or to parliament and present a report on who claimed diplomatic immunity and why.

Furthermore, it puts Canadians at further risk. Instead of tightening up security, the bill reduces security and increases the risk to Canadians. Not having an annual report creates an enhanced opportunity for repeat actions, such as the awful accident that took place on January 27 last year and to which we refer quite often.

In that case, a foreign diplomat had repeat offences but no one knew about it except the department. No one knew about it because there was no requirement for annual reporting. Had there been a requirement for annual reporting, this diplomat who had a series of offences would have been well known to the public, to the parliamentarians and to the foreign affairs committee. I am absolutely convinced that if this knowledge had been available he would not have had the opportunity to offend one more time. However, it was not available and he did offend one more time.

The bill does nothing to address that. The same thing could happen again without an amendment which requires an annual reporting. It just seems like such a common sense amendment and it is very disappointing that the government has refused this amendment. Many other amendments have been proposed and turned down. In fact, to the best of my knowledge all amendments were turned down even though many of them were sensible and were not intended to distort the bill or change the direction of it in any way, shape or form. They were common sense, thoughtful amendments but they were just turned down on principle.

The whole purpose of the bill is to avoid inappropriate harassment and we do not have any examples of that in Canada. We do not have any claims about inappropriate harassment against diplomats so I do not know why we are expanding this to cover more people. Even the people who are now covered have never complained, to the best of our knowledge. Staff members, assistants or officials have never said they would not come to Canada because Canada does not have immunity for them, and so what if they did say they were not coming to Canada if they did not have immunity? If they need immunity to avoid our laws and our criminal and civil actions we do not want them anyway. I do not know why we are expanding this immunity to cover all these new officials. Broadening the scope of coverage for diplomatic immunity really distorts it and creates more security risks for Canadians. It does not deal with it in an appropriate way.

Again, at the very least there should be an annual report about who claims diplomatic immunity in the country. There is not one, so in effect there could be diplomats who have a series of offences and claim diplomatic immunity time and time again. No one would ever know and the action that could be taken if parliament and public knew would not be. Again, let me say one more time that there should be an amendment for including annual reporting.

It is not all negative. We support some aspects of the bill. Certainly one is that the bill provides greater clarity for the role of the RCMP. In the international conferences I have been involved with there was a lot of confusion about who was in charge, about whether it was the local police, the provincial police, the RCMP or whatever. The bill makes it very clear that the RCMP is in charge of security at international conferences and that is a good thing. However, that was generated perhaps to some extent by the Hughes report on the APEC conference in Vancouver, which was such a fiasco. That report also suggested that there should be regulations to prevent politicians from interfering with the RCMP and there is no condition or clause in the bill that requires politicians to not interfere with the RCMP in the course of its duties. That was a recommendation by the Hughes report which was not addressed, so although the RCMP clearly is now in charge there is no restriction on politicians interfering with the RCMP while it is doing its job.

Another aspect of the bill our party does not like is that it further centralizes within the bureaucracy the power to allocate immunity from the law. For instance, special visitors now have to apply to the immigration minister's office to come to Canada if there is some concern about whether they qualify to come here. If there is some concern about whether or not they qualify for a visa they can apply to the minister of immigration. That will go with the enactment of this bill. They would apply through officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs, whose job is probably to encourage the international meeting to take place in the first place. They may not be objective or they may be overwhelmed with applications from people who are coming to these conventions. As the newspaper article says, if we give immunity to one we have to give immunity to all, as a Department of Foreign Affairs official was quoted as saying.

Again, instead of having the department of immigration, which has expertise in this field, examine these visas and applications, it will be locked in with the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is most anxious to see these conventions occur and be well attended. Perhaps its officials will not analyze these applications. The foreign affairs official said that if we give immunity to one we must give it to all. It does not bode well. It does not give us any level of comfort that these immunity conditions will be granted with the proper authority and the proper consideration. We think they may be given too broadly. Even though the bill is broad, they may be expanded under the licence provided by the bill.

Again, the amendment our party proposed would have required annual reporting. Had that been in place there is a really good chance that the accident on January 27 of this year would never have happened. The diplomat had a track record of offences but no one knew about it. No one knew about it because he claimed diplomatic immunity, so there was no record. The public and parliament did not know that the man was a repeat offender. Had there been a public accounting annually, quarterly or even twice a year, parliament would have known. The embassy certainly would have been uncomfortable knowing that one of their diplomats was publicly named over and over again for offences. I believe that if the embassy involved would not have sent the diplomat home we would have insisted that he go home. However, we did not know about it because there was no requirement to report to parliament. This condition is still the same. The same thing could happen again. There could be a diplomat who is a repeat offender out there right now who we do not know about and never will know about. There is no requirement in the bill for an annual reporting on who applies for diplomatic immunity.

We hope that the minister will see the sense in this. It is interesting that Bill C-36 was amended by the attorney general to allow exactly what we are asking for in Bill C-35. The attorney general said that because of the opposition motions and the attention the opposition has put on this the government will have included in Bill C-36 a requirement for an annual report. This only happened two days ago, when she announced that the bill would be amended to include an annual report. Bill C-35 will still not have an annual report requirement, even though the same criteria and the same reasoning apply to Bill C-35. The government is going one way on one bill and another way on the other bill. There is no reason not to have annual reporting.

Another disconcerting part is the fact that the permission to come to Canada is transferred from the minister of immigration through special permits to the department. It is lumped in with many other aspects of the applications for the meetings.

These are our main concerns about the bill. Our party will not support the bill because of these very clear shortcomings. If the amendments were accepted we would probably support the bill, but instead of increasing security for Canadians it reduces it when everything else we are doing in the House is trying to increase security.

This morning the Minister of Transport tabled a bill to increase security regarding transport. The Minister of Finance said upcoming budget will focus totally on security. Bill C-36 is the anti-terrorism bill and is totally focused on security. Yet we have Bill C-35 in the middle, which expands immunity and allows people to avoid being held accountable under our civil and criminal laws. It is a complete contradiction to everything else the government is doing. Our party believes the bill should be sent back, as the amendment we are speaking to today refers to. The amendment asks that the bill be sent back to committee for reconsideration. Our party supports the amendment. If the bill goes back for reconsideration to the committee and is amended, then perhaps our party will change its position. If it does not, our party will not be supporting the bill.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw your attention and the attention of the House to the Journals of the House of Commons published this morning. Yesterday's Journals record that “A message was received from the Senate as follows”, which ordered:

--That, notwithstanding Rule 63(1), the proceedings on Bill C-33, An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which took place on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, be declared null and void; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons informing that House of this decision and that the Senate attends any message that the House of Commons may have regarding this matter.

The Senate has drawn our attention to a serious defect in our records and the probity of the message that goes from this House to the other house of parliament. I draw your attention and the attention of other members to an excerpt from the Senate Hansard dated Wednesday, November 21, wherein the Hon. Fernand Robichaud, deputy leader of the government, states:

Honourable senators, with respect to the first item on the Order Paper under Government Business, the copy of the bill currently before us does not faithfully represent the bill passed by the House of Commons. In fact, the amendments passed in the House were omitted. As this is not a true copy, we cannot continue debate on this item as it appears before us.

This is a fairly serious matter, I would respectfully submit. Twice the bill was corrected and twice it was found to be deficient. If this was a rarity one could look the other way, but it is clear from the Senate message that there is now considerable concern about our records, and records, as the Chair would agree, must be pristine, concise and always accurate.

This must be seen in the context of the work facing the House with respect to 100 amendments presented in the justice committee on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill that was just tabled in the House. When people are legislating in marathon sessions at three o'clock in the morning, we have a duty to know that the records will be accurate. If the government takes a decision to pursue such an action, we must ensure and be equally diligent in determining and ensuring that the resulting work is accurate and a reflection of the effort.

The Senate message is a serious warning. First, may I ask for assurances from the Speaker that no corrective action was taken or will be taken by officials to send a corrective message to the Senate until the House has clearly authorized such a message? Second, I want to reserve my ability to raise any question of privilege that may flow from this matter.

Finally, I would ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion, which would be seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester:

That the Message from the Senate concerning Bill C-33, An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Public Safety

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking the departmental officials who gave us a briefing this morning. I think they did their best to give us an indepth briefing of the aspects of the bill they thought were important. They did a good job.

This is a reactive piece of legislation. The government feels it must have something on the books so it has put this legislation before us. It is a number of half measures. It does not deal with the serious issues about which Canadians have expressed concern and with which the committee has been dealing over the last number of weeks.

The bill has 96 pages and 125 clauses. It deals with 19 current acts and would introduce one new act, the biological and toxin weapons convention implementation act.

Most of the major amendments would apply to only a couple of acts. The first one, the Aeronautics Act, has a number of half measures dealing with public security. As my colleagues stated previously, the bill does not deal with the issues Canadians were expecting it to deal with. It would give a lot of regulation making abilities to the government and the minister without being specific as to what they are. The bill seems to be another step toward removing parliament from the mix.

The bill would not create a new agency to take over airport security. It would give the minister the ability to take these measures. It seems to be another bill that transfers a lot of responsibilities and decision making power to the minister and bureaucrats while taking it away from parliament and the committees.

The thing that stood out when I was reviewing and listening to the presentation is that the bill would take away the authority of the House to tax. It would give the minister the authority to appropriate who would pay for the measures that would be taken.

Although the explanation by the department was that the bill was intended to apply only to airports and airlines and not to the public, it would apply to the public. It does not state that the public is not included. In essence the bill would give the minister the ability to lay taxation on the Canadian public. It was my understanding that was parliament's role, not the role of the minister or the executive branch.

The bill would allow the transfer of information to the passenger lists of foreign countries. As one of my hon. colleagues mentioned, it would not allow Canada to participate in the CAPPS program, which is, as we heard in the committee, an important part of intelligence sharing to prevent terrorists from accessing Canadian planes.

Although CAPPS is in the development stage it concerns me that in coming up with a new piece of legislation Canada is not in the forefront of the issue. It concerns me that we are not an active participant in this international passenger pre-clearance profiling system that can be effective if everyone participates. I am disappointed there was not more of an effort to make sure legislation was there to allow Canada to be in the forefront of the process.

Not only does the bill deal with the Aeronautics Act, it deals with an awful lot of other acts, 19 in total. Some of what the bill would do is good. For the first time under the National Defence Act, and I am sure my colleague who is defence critic will be interested in this point, the government is taking measures to protect reservists and make sure they are able to maintain their jobs if called for duty. That has been a long time in coming. It is nice to see the government addressing that.

I am concerned about the looseness with which it deals with the military being able to establish military security zones to protect personnel, property or things that the military protects. There was some concern that this would allow the military or the government to use the military in this instance for G-8 and G-20 meetings. Parliamentary oversight is definitely lacking in this piece of legislation.

We must be careful when we start talking about giving the Minister of Transport, the Minister of National Defence or ministers of other departments certain authorities to react quickly to emergency situations. There is always a need to have a parliamentary oversight ability to ensure that when decisions are made there is some recourse. There should be some followup to ensure that if a decision is made, which in many cases is good for a year, parliament can challenge the government on how it handled the situation.

There is a lack of parliamentary oversight in the legislation which gives some outstanding authority to various ministers. I wish that the government would have seen the need to include parliamentary oversight. The coalition addressed that issue when it tabled a long term proposal that addressed this need. It called for the creation of a parliamentary oversight committee. The government would be well advised to consider that not only in this legislation but in Bill C-36 as well.

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have followed closely the debate on Bill C-35. It is an important bill and certainly one the House should take time reviewing, which is precisely what we are doing today. Its proposed amendments to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act aim at modernizing the privileges and immunities regime contained in the existing legislation which was passed in 1991.

These amendments will enable Canada to comply with its commitments under international treaties and to respond to recent changes in international law. In addition, the bill amends the current act in order to correct several technical difficulties that over the course of time since 1991 have been identified. Certainly we want to enable us as a House to do it properly.

I listened to the member prior to me speak. There were a number of misconceptions, some misinformation and misconstrued ideas tossed about. It was a little disheartening to have to listen to him speak and in a cheap partisan way drag into play the name of Catherine MacLean. I thought dragging in Justice Hughes' report was inappropriate as well because it really had nothing to do with what we are talking about here today.

We need to correct the record when he talked about spies and terrorists coming here to, I think his words were, rape and murder and do all kinds of things. It is outrageous. It is pathetic really, extremism to the nth degree. It really is inappropriate in this House when we are really dealing with a very substantial piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is very serious and is one that commits the government to meet its international obligations in a manner consistent with the great ideals and the great values of our country.

Those misconceptions and half truths and everything else tossed aside, we can now proceed into a serious debate about what we are doing in Canada and what the bill really means and the impact not only on this great country of ours but also, as we play out on the international scene, the obligations our great country has in terms of foreign affairs.

I also want to correct the record. I was at the justice and human rights committee meeting until almost 3 o'clock this morning. It sat late last night and into early today. We dealt with Bill C-36. Bill C-36 and Bill C-35 in no way contradict each other. That too was mentioned and it is simply not true.

The member for Portage--Lisgar indicated that we are somehow putting Canadians at risk by what we are doing. That is absolute nonsense. On the contrary, more than ever, in light of not only events prior to September 11 but after, what we are doing is making sure that our towns, villages, neighbourhoods, cities and rural areas continue to be safe and secure in a manner consistent with the great values of Canadians wherever they live in this great country of ours. That is always the objective in trying to pursue a legislative agenda that makes sense and is consistent with those values in a meaningful way. That is precisely what we are doing with Bill C-35.

Going back to the events of September 11, those events in New York and Washington reminded us that the threats to public safety are of global concern. That is an obvious statement now. The recent trend of increasing violence at international summits for example has shed light on the need for appropriate action to be taken at international meetings. We have seen that Canada is repeatedly called upon to do its share and in some cases more than its fair share, for example, the G-20 meeting this past weekend in Ottawa.

Why? Because Canada, first, has professional policing services in place and security personnel and peace officers who know what they are doing in a manner consistent with not only Canadian values but the values of the international community when it comes to hosting these international meetings.

Canada will be called upon next summer, as well, in Kananaskis, Alberta with the G-8.

We have a great history and a great tradition of being able to host these meetings in a way that enables security and safety for everyone, the participants, even the protestors, the news media and others who are there, in terms of what is taking place.

We can be justifiably proud, not only in the House but also in this great country, to know that Canada has the ability to do these kinds of measures and do them in a reasoned, proportional way that is consistent with the values of Canada but, more important, ensures the safety and security of all concerned.

As the host of the G-8 next year, as I indicated, Canada has an obligation, which we take very seriously, to take all the steps to protect our international visitors and to ensure that the meeting is done in a safe and secure manner.

I think it is fair to say that never before has the need to respond effectively to security challenges been more acute. The time is ripe to clarify and underscore our duty to fulfill our obligations to protect international visitors.

When we look at the proud tradition of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the provincial police services, the local police and the regional police across Canada, we can be justifiably grateful that these men and women are there doing the kind of professional job that they do to enable us to all sleep better at night and, further, to let Canada do the kind of things that are important on the international scene, which is to host meetings and be the host for people from around the world, to enable us to carry on the great commitment that Canada has in this area and, furthermore, to enable Canada to carry on the proud tradition started by many people in the past who have brought us to this point.

Bill C-35 allows us to do just that.

I would now like to address the security provisions in the bill, what they will do, how they will be developed and how they will ensure that the basic rights and freedoms guaranteed by our great charter of rights and freedoms are in fact preserved.

The amendments would provide clear statutory authority to ensure security for the proper functioning of an international event hosted in Canada thereby promoting public safety and the safety of foreign delegations attending these events.

The amendments, contrary to the speaker prior to me, were carefully drafted in light of the common law and the statutory duties that the police already have to keep the peace, to protect persons attending an international conference from harm and to protect persons engaged in lawful demonstrations from unlawful interference.

Those are sacrosanct principles that we need to ensure are in place in Canada for the benefit of all concerned. For example, I want to point out that the Security Offences Act already gives the RCMP primary responsibility to protect internationally protected persons from being the target of criminal activity.

I would also like to assure members that the primary responsibility of the RCMP does not suggest that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will now be solely responsible for security at international events.

The amendments also accurately reflect the practical arrangements between the RCMP and the local police, either provincial, local or regional, in sharing responsibilities for security measures. That is the way the partnership works in Canada, to ensure that peace, order and good government prevails and that security and measured response are the order of the day.

As in the past, the RCMP would continue to share responsibility with the police forces of local jurisdictions and would continue to consult and co-operate with each police force to determine who will be responsible for specific activities.

That pattern will be repeated next year with the G-8 in Kananaskis. We have seen it before. We saw it in Quebec City. I want to commend those police and peace officers who did such a tremendous job at those events. Those are the kinds of security measures that will be carried on and carried forward because they work and they afford all concerned the protection that is so valuable in this kind of forum.

I want to indicate that it might be decided that a provincial police force would be responsible for keeping the peace around a perimeter and controlling access to that perimeter while the RCMP might be responsible for the protection of internationally protected persons. I give that as an example of how that kind of co-operation can take place. Each police force would make the call in its respective area of responsibility based on the kind of dialogue and pre-planning that goes into this kind of important event, pre-planning, by the way, that is already well in hand when we talk about the G-8 in Kananaskis.

The RCMP, for example, would retain the lead in ensuring that whatever police action is being contemplated will be geared toward ensuring the overall protection of international visitors and the proper functioning of the event.

With respect to the erection of a security perimeter, a fence or whatever else that might entail, I think we are all aware of the Tremblay case where the Quebec superior court held that the security fence erected at the Quebec summit was reasonable and justified and did not breach the charter of rights and freedoms. That is important because it underscores that the kind of planning and foresight which went into the security perimeter in Quebec City was in fact appropriate. More to the point, it withstood the test of the charter of rights and freedoms. That underscores the kind of good common sense that went into the planning of that particular summit.

Several years ago, in a case called Knowlton, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the establishment of a security perimeter at a hotel entrance during the official visit of the premier of the then U.S.S.R. was necessary and reasonable in light of the duty of the police to keep the peace.

Although some members of the House have described these amendments as vague, let me assure them that the terms “appropriate measures” and “reasonable in the circumstances” are well understood by the courts of the land. These are held to be those measures that the police believe they should and must do in order to ensure that an international conference can be carried out properly and safety, again in keeping with the values of Canada.

I would also like to emphasize that the security measures that these amendments authorize do not in any way restrict or infringe the rights that citizens enjoy under the charter of rights and freedoms. Those rights are guaranteed, as well they should be in a great democracy like Canada. They will be carried forward in a manner consistent with the wishes of Canadians wherever they live.

The police are and will continue to be liable for any excess use of force in managing the security at an international event. Moreover, any police measure that limits a charter right, such as freedom of expression or assembly, must be justifiable in a free and democratic society.

I mention those things because it is important to get on the record and to understand that there are certain obligations, rights and responsibilities that exist. In all cases we temper them in a tripod or three pronged lens. On the one hand, human rights. On the other hand, civil liberties. On the third side we have the whole issue of national security. These are fundamental lenses through which we look to see that all things are covered. I think it is in keeping with what we expect in our country.

I want to point out that Bill C-35 has amendments that fall into five broad categories. I think it is important to underscore these five, to get them on the record and to make sure that all members in the House present today understand the importance of what is being created here. Again, it is substantial, good legislation that is in keeping with commitments, not only in Canada but also on the international scene.

I want to point out that the amendments are needed to modernize the legislation, in order to comply with Canada's existing commitments under international treaties as well as to respond to important new developments in international law.

The exercise is simple. Canada is catching up with the new developments that are happening around the world. We are always modernizing. We are always making sure that we are in synchronization with other countries around the world, for example, by extending privileges and immunities to international inspectors employed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons who come to Canada on temporary duty to carry out inspections under the chemical weapons convention. That is an example of how this will be used, how we need to bring our legislation into focus to enable us to make sure that is carried out and carried out appropriately. These amendments would enable the inspectors to import specialized technical equipment without paying customs duties.

In a broad category are those necessary to correct deficiencies in existing definition of international organizations. The existing definition covers only international organizations of a formal, institutionalized nature based on treaty, such as the United Nations and not more unconstructed intergovernmental organizations such as the G-8 or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Another broad example of this are those designed to provide clear statutory authority to support security measures necessary for the Canadian police to fulfill Canada's international obligations regarding the protection of persons who attend high level meetings held in Canada for international organizations.

Those needed to clarify the provision granting immunity from immigration restriction and alien registration override the Immigration Act provision that prohibits the entry to Canada of inadmissible persons but does not override the Crimes Against Humanities and War Crimes Act. That is important because it underscores Canada's commitment in this very important area in a manner keeping with all other laws and regulations that we have in this great country.

I have already addressed the housekeeping measures to correct technical inadequacies that have been identified since 1991 so I do not intend to go into those now.

We have a very proud history of ensuring the safety and security of people who attend meetings, international conferences and other events. Bill C-35 is an act that would enable us to carry on that proud tradition.

In light of the things that have happened since September 11, it is even more important to ensure that is in place. I think it is fair to say that we now live in a different environment as a result of those events. We need to move in a manner consistent with what has taken place knowing that we need to commit to our international obligations consistent with what Canada has been able to do in the past and consistent with the repeated requests by countries and organizations around the world to ensure that we carry on that great and proud tradition, something for which all members of the House and all Canadians can be very proud.

As the host of the G-8 next year, it will be important for Canada to clarify its authorities and statutes to ensure the proper functioning of the international conference again in a manner that I believe will benefit us all and make us proud.

We on this side of the House will continue to work very hard to ensure that we meet our international obligations and make the right decisions when it comes to safety and security. We will do so consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for which all Canadians are proud. We will do so by meeting our obligations under human rights and civil liberties knowing that those carrying out the security measures, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the police services that exist around and across Canada, will follow due process and the rule of law.

Foreign Missions And International Organizations Act

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to further discuss Bill C-35 which would extend diplomatic immunity to a far broader number of people than is currently the case in our country and beyond the requirement of the Geneva convention on this subject.

It continues the government's tradition of extending far greater immunity to a member of the mission staff of another nation in Canada than is the case in most countries in the world with which we are allied. It puts far more people above the law when they come to Canada.

This bill deserves to be shredded. It is a bill that would restrict the rights of law abiding Canadians. It is one which the department wants to see in place for some unknown reason. It would extend immunity to potentially a vast crowd of foreigners who do not even work for embassies in our country.

As it quietly makes its way through the House it carries the mundane title of an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. It is anything but mundane in its effect.

Under the bill a delegate, official, staff member, family member or a bag carrier showing up for an international gathering would have diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity gives the person who comes here the right to rape, steal, drive drunk, and break Canadian laws without consequence and with impunity.

When a foreign affairs official was asked why this should be done, the comment was that we would not go through a list and say that this person can have immunity and that person cannot. The official further stated that if we give diplomatic privileges and immunities for a meeting then all participants we let in for that meeting will get in.

The same legislation gives the department the authority to issue special visas to conference delegates who might otherwise be barred from entering Canada. It puts interesting people such as known criminals not only in a position of being able to come into the country but of being able to break the laws without any consequence whatsoever.

The Canadian public is already sufficiently concerned by recent incidents involving law breaking diplomats that we do not need to add to the problem. I cannot understand how a government could possibly defend extending immunity to even more people when we have not even set up a mechanism to deal with the abuse of the current system.

There have been about 90 acts of suspected criminal misconduct by diplomats, their families and other personnel posted in Canada in the last five years. The worst case that comes to mind is that of the Russian diplomat accused of killing Ottawa lawyer Catherine MacLean last January while driving drunk.

These concerns were shared by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time who talked about getting tough on the issue. That has not been the case and the bill takes us in a direction quite contrary to the one that we should be going in.

The department has given a number of reasons as to why and some Liberals who participated in the debate, though very few, gave us some arguments which I would like to refute.

One member opposite stated that we must do this to keep up with our international allies. That is not the case. Research shows that our allies do not extend diplomatic immunity to the degree that we do in such a broad based way. They may extend immunity in part at times for some acts, for some responsibilities in the course of one's duties, but they do not give blanket immunity to people on mission staff, let alone people who visit their country for meetings.

The bill goes completely counter to the reality in the United Kingdom or the United States of America. To argue that we must do this to keep up with international trends is quite false.

Let us put that rumour to rest because there is no such international trend. It is quite the contrary. I would expect that since September 11 each of the countries in the western world would be taking a serious look at all aspects of security. This would be one of those aspects.

I would expect a tightening up of the security around international events when they are hosted, not an extension of blanket immunity to all who participate. The government's bill is completely out of touch with the reality of post-September 11. Frankly it is not really in touch with the reality of pre-September 11.

We are told we should support the bill because of the need for us to give reciprocity for Canadian diplomats abroad. It is suggested that we have to give blanket immunity to everyone who comes to Canada for a convention in order for our diplomats to be protected in other countries of the world. That is not true either.

There were only three incidents in the last several years where a Canadian member of a diplomatic mission was involved in any criminal activity whatsoever. Yet there were close to 40 times as many incidents where members of foreign delegations were involved in crime in Canada.

It is a specious argument to expect further immunity to be given and to create more problems when some problems have been clearly noted and not dealt with.

The argument that we need to have diplomatic immunity is a valid one. Diplomatic immunity is an old and well understood way of making sure that the diplomats who travel around the world are not beheaded when they give a message that the local ruler does not like. Rules governing diplomatic immunity are set out very clearly in the Vienna convention.

The Vienna convention was written back in 1961. Canada played a major role in the wording of the Vienna convention. We are not abiding by Canada's wording today. It says that complete diplomatic immunity is not given to any but the most senior diplomatic staff.

The government is not abiding by the Canadian compromise in the Vienna convention that was adopted in 1961. Our parameters are far more liberal as we go far beyond it.

Aristotle said, before Jesus Christ was born, that liberalism would grow until chaos reigns supreme. Some would argue such is the case today with regard to the policy of extending diplomatic immunity more broadly than is currently the case. We accept reciprocity for Canadian diplomats abroad to a degree. Such is the case today.

To accept that we must go further still and extend complete diplomatic immunity to people who come here for conventions and meetings of various kinds is of course illogical and not supported by the facts.

Another argument that is made by some is that the committee on scrutiny of regulations recommended that we adopt the bill. This is not the case. Those who are watching at home or who have been in the House much longer than I have know that the committee on scrutiny of regulations does not advocate for legislation to be adopted. It tells people when they are in violation of certain regulations and rules.

The committee on scrutiny of regulations has notified the Department of Foreign Affairs since 1991 that orders in council on the recommendation of the foreign affairs minister extending immunity to participants in international conferences were illegal. Each of the last four foreign ministers was notified of the problem.

The problem is not that we need legislation to legalize what is a questionable practice. The problem is that we have ministers who consistently adopt that questionable practice and need to stop. That is the problem.

Most Canadians, if they were privy to the facts as members of the House are, would question the adoption of legislation to legitimize this practice. The practice is totally illogical.

Passing the bill would legitimize the practice of extending diplomatic immunity to people who do not deserve it under the Vienna convention. It would give people the right to live above the law without consequence. That should not be done. It is totally wrong to do it. To suggest that the committee on scrutiny of regulations called for us to adopt it, as some have, is totally false and misleading. It is quite the contrary. What the committee pointed out was that the government was acting without regard to the law.

I question whether the bill should be adopted. It should not be adopted as a basis of fact because the scrutiny of regulations committee asked for it to be adopted. That is not true. The scrutiny of regulations committee does not advise the government on how to remedy problems which it identifies.

In this case the committee simply told the government that foreign delegates to international conventions were not to be among those included in the definition of who was eligible for immunity under current law.

The government has chosen to adapt the law to its practice when what it should do is adapt its practice to the law. What are the Liberals real reasons for doing this? I think they are two-fold. My colleagues in other parties have addressed some of them but I will certainly talk about just two very quickly.

I think the real reasons are tourism and a legacy. They want a legacy for the Prime Minister so he can be the senior statesman hosting a variety of meetings. That is nice. We are all proud of the fact that we can host meetings in this country.

However, the second is the tourism aspect. It is being suggested that we should pass this bill so we can attract more people to come to international conventions, and that is the other argument members opposite are making. The fact is we host many international meetings, more than our share, and Canadians pay the price for hosting them too.

The reality is that after September 11 the price for hosting international meetings has gone up because the security provisions that have to be taken are very costly. We have no trouble attracting international meetings. We just had the G-20 meetings here last weekend. We have the G-8 meetings coming to Kananaskis next year.

Over the last number of years, and increasingly so in recent months, we have had many other meetings where international diplomats, their families and entourages have come to Canada. Without telling them that they can come and be above the law, they come anyway. I would suggest they will continue to in the absence of this downright silly piece of legislation going forward because, as people at the American embassy told us in meetings we had with them, Canada has a reputation for being an excellent host to international events.

Today we do not need to tell people that they can come here and have no consequence under Canadian law for criminal acts in order to get them here. They come anyway. To suggest we need this as a tourism initiative is specious as well.

The arguments the Liberals make to advance this piece of legislation are specious arguments. They do not carry any significant weight.

Why are they putting this forward? Perhaps they are putting it forward so that a bigger category of people can be immune from criminal acts and therefore they can legitimize increasing the use of the RCMP at events. If that is the case, they should say so but no one has. Therefore, I cannot argue that that is their reason. I will not impugn their motives. However I do know that this seems to be the only legitimate motive that anyone can come up with when they read this legislation.

All of this would be just a fine little theoretical debate, if there were not consequences paid by Canadians for criminal acts by people who are given diplomatic immunity. The minister has said that it is an infrequent thing, that it rarely happens and so on. I will let Canadians be the judge of this, but in the last five years we have had close to 90 cases of crimes attributable to people given diplomatic immunity. That is more than one case per month where people have committed a criminal act and there has been no price or consequence to be paid. Each of those acts leaves at least one Canadian victim. We should be considering that.

In the past five years 13,000 foreign diplomats have been in Canada. If this bill is passed it would extend diplomatic immunity to visitors. I asked the department to estimate the number of people who would become eligible if this bill was adopted and it could not give me a number.

We can safely assume that the rate at which crimes are committed by people given diplomatic immunity will multiply the number of crimes because the number of people receiving it will have increased. Any basic student of psychology understands that when the consequences of an act are removed the likelihood of such an act is increased. When we remove the consequences of a criminal act from anyone, we must understand and accept the fact there will be an increased likelihood of conduct unbecoming. Such has been the case.

In Great Britain it took the event at a Libyan mission of people given diplomatic immunity before Britain woke up and said that it was ridiculous that it could not prosecute people when they murdered in its own country. During a protest in front of the mission, people were fired on and a British policeman was killed. Great Britain took a serious look at adopting measures, and did, restricting the bestowing of diplomatic immunity to people in its country.

Britain screened missions. It asked for lists in advance. It encouraged and successfully fought for the presence over the size of each mission to be relevant to the relations it had with that particular country. It exercised the controls it had to make sure that diplomatic immunity was not extended unnecessarily, without validity or without just reason or cause.

Exactly what they did in Great Britain, they are not doing here. In the United States the son of a Saudi diplomat raped a woman and then within an hour was released because he successfully claimed diplomatic immunity. He was followed to a bar where he bragged to his friends about his conduct. That is the reality of what happens when diplomatic immunity is given out like candy at Halloween. This government is proposing to do it again for people who visit Canada for meetings, and it is ridiculous.

Let us just chronicle these events because each of them has a Canadian victim. If the member opposite wants to speak to the families of those victims, I would encourage her to do that because I have. There have been five incidents involving Canadian diplomats in the same time period. She is fond of mentioning that we have to quid pro quo this and that if we limit in any way the extension of diplomatic immunity to people here that somehow our diplomats would be placed in great danger. There have been only five incidents where Canadian diplomatic people have violated the trust put in them by foreign countries in the last five years. There have been 90 incidents where people in Canada have violated that trust.

Let us talk about the victims for a second. Of these incidents: 19% involved impaired driving; 20% were assaults; 19% were sexual offences; and 5% involved shoplifting. There was an attempted bribery case. There was an attempted murder case. There was even a charge of keeping a common bawdy house. We cannot even prosecute people when we give diplomatic immunity to them.

There are 1,000 diplomatic households currently in Canada. Currently there are 8,000 people who qualify for diplomatic immunity. If we adopt this legislation, that number will escalate dramatically.

Next time an action is taken by someone who is given diplomatic immunity, there will be a consequence for a law-abiding Canadian person or family. When that happens, Canadians will ask what the government is doing about it, just as they did when Catherine MacLean was killed, and they should ask.

However, let us ask right now. Let us ask why we are extending this immunity more broadly than is currently the case, when the government has not taken a step to limit the harmful effects of diplomatic immunity, when people commit these acts.

During the five years before Mrs. MacLean's death, foreign diplomats in Canada have committed 76 criminal offences that we know of, including physical and sexual assaults and impaired driving. There were also instances of drug trafficking and smuggling of aliens. These are all serious crimes that constitute a danger for Canadians.

Diplomatic immunity was waived in just 3 cases out of 76, and Bill C-35 will make a bad situation even worse.

The reality seems to escape the members opposite.

I would like to move on and talk a little about the police power that we are expanding under the bill. This is something I know that concerns many people in the House. In fact a growing number of people on this side of the House, as they research the bill, have become more concerned about the powers of the police force and the implications that has for our country when increased powers are given to our police force without constraining the power of politicians to manipulate that same police force. That is the concern many people have.

The powers being granted to police forces in Bill C-35 run directly against the freedoms of all Canadians.

This bill tends to limit the right of Canadians to protest openly against initiatives they consider dangerous for them and those they want to protect.

It has allowed the RCMP to limit access to international events in order to protect participants. It is a flimsy argument to allow the RCMP to smother any protest to avoid offending foreign representatives.

This clause of the bill is contrary to the recommendation made in the Hughes report that protesters ought to have access to meeting sites.

I will read from recommendation 31.1.1 of the Hughes report, which states:

When the RCMP is called upon in future to police public order events the leadership of the Force should ensure, that: generous opportunity will be afforded for peaceful protesters to see and be seen in their protest activities by guests to the event...

Recommendation 31.3.1 states:

The RCMP should request statutory codification of the nature and extent of police independence from government with respect to:

1. existing common law principles regarding law enforcement; and

2. the provision of and responsibility for delivery of security services at public order events.

I will quote a small section of recommendation 31.3.2. which states:

--that (the RCMP) are to brook no intrusion or interference whatever from government officials as they meet the responsibilities of providing the agreed upon security services.

In short, what the Hughes' recommendations said was that the RCMP separation from politicians should be made clear. This act would do nothing about that. It ignores those recommendations and simply expands police involvement without limiting political intrusion, and this is wrong.

As well, the bill ignores the Hughes report recommendation that the RCMP be free of political influence by the Cabinet or the PMO.

The Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade defeated an amendment, which was supported by all members of the opposition, which would have made it an offence for there to be political interference into the affairs of the RCMP when international meetings were being held.

What is more, Bill C-35 makes it possible for the minister to unilaterally grant entry into Canada to delegates, regardless of their criminal background, and to put them above our laws, at the very moment Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, is threatening the rights of Canadians.

At the present time it seems both unjustified and unjustifiable to give foreign delegates rights that are being taken away from honest Canadian citizens.

Oversight is a concern as well. Parliamentary oversight would be lessened by the passage of the bill. Parliamentary oversight is an important principle we should support in Canada.

In the amendments proposed under the bill adjacent to this one, the anti-terrorist legislation Bill C-36, the minister has agreed to file annual reports when police forces expand their powers and use additional powers which may restrict the civil liberties of Canadians.

In other words the minister has agreed to give parliament a greater opportunity to debate and be aware of the concerns Canadians would justifiably have that the liberties they treasure are being infringed on unnecessarily. That is wise.

We proposed in the adjacent Bill C-35 that the minister file an annual report on the criminal conduct of people given diplomatic immunity in our country. He has promised to do this but has not. The Liberal majority on the committee defeated the amendment, which gives the lie to the minister's commitment and promise. That is too bad. It is a shame. I would hope if the minister were there he would have risen in his place and urged his colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Right now in terms of oversight we use the Immigration Act. In the current process the Immigration Act allows the minister to sign a certificate and let people come in who otherwise would not be admissible to Canada. The minister must report to parliament each year and say who was let in who would not have been let in, in any other way. That way parliament gets to know what is happening and to debate it.

Bill C-35 would transfer responsibility to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and remove the requirement to report to parliament. That is a shame because this is who will be let in when we sign the certificate.

We would not just be letting them in. Let us understand that. We would be giving them diplomatic immunity. That means we would let in these kinds of folks and tell them they could do whatever they want when they came here. We could not prosecute them. They could do anything they want. These are people whom we would not normally allow into Canada but the minister would be allowed to let them in.

I will quote from the act. It describes inadmissible persons as:

(e) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe

(i) will engage in acts of espionage or subversion against democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada,

(ii) will, while in Canada, engage in or instigate the subversion by force of any government,

(iii) will engage in terrorism, or

(iv) are members of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe will

(A) engage in acts of espionage or subversion against democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada--

Normally such people are not admissible to Canada and I think Canadians would say hear, hear. Bill C-35 would allow the minister to let them in with a signature. More than that, it would let the minister give them permission to be above Canadian law.

The government does not want to make it a crime for people to belong to a terrorist organization. That we understand. However to suggest the minister should have the right to let in people who he knows are members is another thing.

The bill would go further. It would not only say we have the right to let in people we know are members of organizations like that. It would allow the minister to say they do not need to abide by our laws while they are here. I can see that even you, Mr. Speaker, are in total agreement with me on this point.

It could be justifiably argued that people who engage in these kinds of activities should not be allowed into our country. This is blanketed by the more popular and current Bill C-36. If Canadians were part of the debate they would ask why in heaven's name the government would let a bunch of people into Canada who would not abide by our laws when we already have a problem with the ones who do. They would say we should not let in these types of people.

I will again quote from the act. It describes as inadmissible:

(g) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe will engage in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada--

(j) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe have committed an offence referred to in any of the sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act--

(l) persons who are or were senior members of or are senior officials in the service of a government that is or was, in the opinion of the Minister, engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or any act or omission that would be an offence under any of sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act--

Bill C-35 would remove these provisions. It would essentially say the minister has the right to let any of these people into the country that he wants. That makes no sense. It is hard not to get a little fired up about my opposition to the bill. Many of the people I talk to say it is so illogical it is no wonder I am fired up about it.

Catherine MacLean and her friend Catherine Doré went out for a walk in their neighbourhood 10 months ago. They went out for a walk on a nice winter morning. Around the corner came a car driven by a drunk. The drunk killed Catherine MacLean and seriously injured Catherine Doré who is still trying to recuperate.

The consequences of that act are nothing to the government. It has brought forward a piece of legislation which does nothing to address the problem. It would simply make it bigger. That is thoughtlessness. It disregards and disrespects the memory of Catherine MacLean. I am disappointed that the government would proceed with this legislation.

When Catherine MacLean went for her walk she could not have anticipated the consequences, but we could have. We knew the Russian diplomat was a drunk driver. We knew it. We knew it twice before and we still did nothing. We knew it after the fact. It is to the credit of the foreign affairs critic at the time that he raised the issue intelligently and forcefully. I thank him for doing that.

It is not enough to say we now have new protocols. The department has said it has new protocols. People would get one chance for drunk driving and the second time they would be out. That is fine. We will deal with the consequences of drunk driving after the fact. Is that the best we can do? I do not think so.

We can do better. We can develop foresight. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are committed to repeat their mistakes. The reality is that we should know better.

We saw what happened when we did not inform the House of the consequences of these acts. Now we are going in the wrong direction. We will not inform the House of whom we let into the country. If we adopt the act we will not inform the House of violations that occur. We will not know about drunk driving because the government will not have to report it to us. That is wrong.

I feel badly for Catherine MacLean. I feel badly that I have to raise this issue. However the government is ignoring the consequences of actions like that with the legislation it has brought forward. We all know and should know that the best way the government could have acted was to deal with the problems around diplomatic immunity and not bring forward a piece of legislation that expands the problems.

A better thing would have been to do nothing. Nothing at all would have been better than bringing this piece of legislation to the House.

Do hon. members know what happened when Mr. Knyazev, the Russian diplomat that killed Catherine MacLean and seriously injured Catherine Doré? The Russian people demanded an apology. The Russian embassy demanded an apology from the Canadian government for trying to hold the man. They got it. They got an apology.

We asked the Russians to waive diplomatic immunity. They refused. I say good for the minister for asking, but would it not be better if we did not have to ask? Would it not be better if we made sure through foresight and preparedness that these kinds of things did not happen again? Would that not be a lot better? Would it not be better for Catherine MacLean's family if we showed respect for her and acted accordingly?

There were two young teenage girls whom a Ukrainian diplomat tried to accost into his car with an anesthetic soaked rag. We could not charge him either. Would it not be better for the victims of these people if we could do something about it? We can. We can throw this bill in the garbage where it belongs.

When Catherine MacLean died, the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed sympathy and said that diplomatic immunity should not be used to shelter people who commit crimes that are not connected to the performance of their duties.

The minister said at the time that he had no sympathy for people who commit these acts outside the realm of their responsibilities. Yet immunity was given. The reality is that immunity is given by the government in a broad based way, not just to senior diplomats but to computer programmers and chauffeurs.

The minister promised several things. He promised he would look at the issue but there is no evidence he has. He promised he would put on the departmental website a complete list of all the violations. We have not seen it. He promised he would present quarterly updates of cases where diplomatic immunity was violated. That has not happened. There has been a litany of broken promises on this file. That disappoints me.

We all understand and respect that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has a tremendous burden to bear right now. However we cannot allow this piece of legislation to move forward and make him break his word to Catherine MacLean and her family just because his attention is elsewhere. That would be wrong.

We asked government members to consider a number of reasonable and thoughtful amendments. We asked that it be made an offence for government representatives to influence or instruct police on operational matters around protest sites at international meetings. They should not do this. The Hughes inquiry clearly spelled that out. It is against the best interests of the RCMP to impugn its motives and integrity. It should not be done.

We asked that the minister account to parliament for any foreign representatives he admits who would not be admissible under the Immigration Act. In other words, we asked that he tell us in a report whom he is letting into the country who would normally not be allowed in.

We asked that the minister be prohibited from granting immunity for criminal acts beyond what is required under the Vienna convention. To put it simply, we asked that he comply with the Vienna convention but go no further. All these amendments were rejected.

We asked that immunity be restricted for representatives at conferences. We asked that they not be given immunity except when it applied to the normal course of their duties. Giving them that degree of protection would comply with what the minister said he would like to see after Catherine MacLean's death. It would comply with what the Vienna convention says about the issue. It would comply with what our allies do, if they go that far at all. Many of our allies do not give immunity to people who come for international meetings.

My colleague from Cumberland--Colchester proposed a reasonable and well thought out amendment. I congratulate him on it. His amendment would have allowed the minister to keep his promise by publishing quarterly reports of crimes committed by those who are given immunity. It was a thoughtful amendment. We supported it as did every non-governmental member of the committee. The government of course used its majority to defeat the member's thoughtful and reasonable amendment.

There are some key reasons Bill C-35 must be defeated. First, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, contradicts Bill C-35. Bill C-35 would restrict the rights of Canadians and put foreign representatives above the law. At the same time Bill C-36 tells Canadians they should be willing to sacrifice their liberties and rights to be more secure.

Benjamin Franklin said some years ago that those who are willing to sacrifice security for liberty deserve neither and put both at risk. That is what we are doing here. Allowing the government to extend to people from other countries the right to come here and place themselves above the law would be a serious error in judgment.

Second, Bill C-35 would remove accountability. It would remove the reporting requirements from the government. It would remove the transparency from the bill that is there now which requires the immigration minister to report to the House when exceptions are made in giving people the right to come into the country. We need to have that kind of transparency. We need to know when those kinds of decisions are made by the government.

The government acts as arrogant majorities sometimes do. It acts as if it will always be arrogant and a majority. It may always be arrogant but it will not always be a majority. It needs to understand that the decisions it makes today are decisions which the country will have to continue to pay the price for.

The third key here is that we put Canadian security at risk. We know this when we let undesirable people into the country. We have done that. We already have an immigration department which is certainly under attack. Within the Liberal caucus I am sure there are some thoughtful members who have pointed out in closed door sessions the lack of integrity of the current system in terms of the loopholes, the way in which it encourages people to come into the country who should not be permitted in. It allows people to enter the country and escape detection thereafter. Those kinds of undesirable people should not be allowed into the country. Most important, they should not be put above our laws.

That is exactly what this bill does. It was out of step with global trends even before September 11 but it is especially now. Most of all, it is an insult to all the victims and their families of diplomats' crimes in the country. In particular it is an insult to the memory of Catherine MacLean.

I now propose an amendment to the bill. I move:

That Bill C-35, an Act to Amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, not now be read a third time, but be referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade for further consideration of clause 5, with due respect being given to recommendations 31.3.1 and 31.3.2 of the Interim Report of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, which call for greater independence of the RCMP from political influence; for further consideration of clause 3, with due respect being given to the view expressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that diplomatic immunity ought to apply only to acts committed in the course of diplomatic duties; and for further consideration of clause 3, with due respect being given to the principle that any admission into Canada of foreign representatives who would normally be inadmissible under Section 19 of the Immigration Act due to having engaged in, or being likely to engage in acts of violence, subversion, terrorism, crimes against humanity, and offences under the Criminal Code of Canada ought to be reported to Parliament; and, for further consideration of clause 2, with due consideration being given to the need for increased national security measures in consequence of the events of September 11.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say what a pleasure it is to sit beside the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

The amendments that she proposed to Bill C-36 were not only very helpful in securing parliamentary passage of her legislation but also help us in our campaign against terrorism which we are trying to pursue with our allies and with our coalition partners around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Prime Minister said that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Industry are sitting together so they can communicate well. I wonder if he could say the same thing for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the attorney general who also sit together.

Last night the attorney general amended Bill C-36 to include annual reports. Would she lean over and explain to the Minister of Foreign Affairs why annual reports are good and why he should apply the same amendment to Bill C-35?

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the controversial Bill C-36 received some minor watered down changes including a five year re-enactment clause on police powers, yet the sun will not set on the ability of the minister to hide information from Canadians.

An injection of judicial review for ministerial certificates is eclipsed by the controversial costly process. The Government of Canada still can deny the information for broad and potentially political reasons.

Why is the minister prepared to sunset increased police powers yet stubbornly refuses to subject her own information hiding to the same standards?

Business of the House

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member, the great member of parliament for Souris--Moose Mountain in Saskatchewan, for his kind words.

I only have five minutes but I want to comment briefly on each of the presentations that were made after mine. I will offer my comments in reverse order.

The member for Churchill River, the former NDP member who was elected on the principle of abolishing the Senate, now believes not only in sustaining the current institution but in creating a third institution. He thinks having it circular is somehow a good idea. I am trying to be a bridge builder. The hon. member should note that these two things can be accomplished. The United States senate sits in a semi-circular room and is elected on the triple E basis of equality for all states.

The member for Kings--Hants applauded the quality of work that has been done in the upper chamber by certain members of our Senate. There is no question that quality work gets done in the current Senate. I am thinking specifically of Bill C-36 and the amendments being made to it. The Senate has made a substantive contribution regarding the issue of drugs. It has done substantive work in debating how to go forward on the issue and whether to reform our current regime in the war on drugs.

Let us imagine that every member of the current Senate was elected and had the democratic legitimacy to talk about issues the House may not be talking about but on which it may want to slowly move the ball. Let us imagine Senators engaging in debates with vigour, putting forward legislation, aggressively amending legislation before the House and effectively working in the Senate chamber. It would have a remarkable impact for Canadians on the quality of legislation coming not just out of the House of Commons but out of parliament.

The NDP member for Regina--Qu'Appelle said the Senate should be abolished. He has held that view for quite some time. However it should be noted that his constituents in Saskatchewan would be left way behind.

The population of Saskatchewan is dropping by a point or two a year. There is talk about restructuring the seats in the House of Commons. Saskatchewan would not get more seats. It could not have fewer seats election by election but proportionately it would have a smaller and smaller voice in this place.

If we got rid of the Senate the views of Saskatchewan would have a weaker and smaller voice. Saskatchewan is dealing with health care reforms, a potential change of government coming down the pike where it is hoped Mr. Hermanson will become the next premier, and aboriginal issues as the proportion of its aboriginals rises dramatically relative to other provinces. Saskatchewan has substantive issues. For it to have a weaker and smaller voice in this place would do a total disservice to the home province of the hon. member.

The member mentioned the principle of a unicameral legislature. Unicameral legislatures work well in provinces but they do not work in large, vast countries like ours where we have diverse populations. Unicameral legislatures only work in unitary systems. Canada is a federal system with diverse needs and views which must be accommodated in a system that understands, respects and represents those views.

Last but not least, the almost right hon. member for Leeds--Grenville who was elected by a majority of 40 or 50 votes chooses his words carefully in this place. I will repeat my motion to remind Canadians what it says:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take measures to provide that the Governor General summon only fit, qualified and democratically elected people to fill Senate vacancies for provinces that have legislation providing for the election of Senators.

The hon. member said the example of Alberta in 1998 where it has Senate election laws would be unconstitutional. That is not true at all. All the constitution says is that the Prime Minister must appoint senators. It says nothing at all about the mechanism the Prime Minister uses to select the person he or she appoints. The motion is totally constitutional. It would put the power back into the hands of the public.

The member said it is great that more than 50 per cent of our current senators are women. That is not a virtue in and of itself. A greater virtue is the principle of democracy. We should strive for excellence and hope for equality, not strive for equality and hope for excellence. There are greater principles here. There is the principle of representation, the principle of democracy, and the principle of putting this House and the upper chamber back into the hands of Canadians where they belong.

Given that the hon. member for Leeds--Grenville is the only member who can prevent this from happening, and given that he was elected with only a 50 seat majority, I seek unanimous consent from the House to make private member's Motion No. 361 votable so we can have a full debate about the nature of democracy in Canada.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice.

Based on today's testimony, the minister has clearly ignored most of the unanimous recommendations from the special Senate committee on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. Those include ignoring the recommendations which would sunset the ability of the minister to control information and sidestep parliamentary watchdogs.

Why has the minister chosen to exempt these hide and seek certificate processes from those which would be sunsetted in Bill C-36?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who repeatedly said in the House that she would listen to the committee considering Bill C-36, that she would listen to the witnesses and respond to public opinion on this matter.

Could she tell the House why today, before the committee, she refused to listen to the many, many Canadians who came before the committee? They asked for a real sunset clause on more than just the two clauses that she has indicated will be subject not to a sunset clause but to some kind of twilight zone into which the minister wants to put these two amendments and which amounts really to a 10 year sunset clause.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the question is why that is true. Bill C-36 also fails to criminalize membership in proven terrorist organizations. Even though a court has in fact found that an organization's goal is to promote terrorism, there is no prohibition against joining that organization.

Could the minister explain why Canadians should tolerate membership in organizations whose only purpose is to destroy freedom and democracy in our country?

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 is a rehash of two predecessors, identified at the time as Bills C-8 and C-48. This raises the following question: why did the government not pass C-8? Why did the Liberals, in their third mandate, not pass C-48?

There are a number of reasons why. In the latter case, it is because the Prime Minister decided to call a hasty election in order to catch his adversaries by surprise, particularly the new leader of the Canadian Alliance. He put vote-getting ahead of a number of bills, and this one, along with 22 others fell by the wayside. I remember, because one of those was a private member's bill on shipbuilding.

Now we are only a few weeks away from the anniversary of that election call, at which time that bill on shipbuilding had gone through all the stages, second reading, clause by clause examination in committee and report stage. All that remained was third reading, but the Prime Minister preferred to call an election. I know that my bill was not the only reason; it was primarily to gain political advantage, one might say.

There is another question. If the government had not yet passed this bill on marine conservation areas, it is certainly not because it was a priority. If it was not a priority during the two previous mandates, is it really a priority now? I doubt it. I would tend to believe that the government does not have much to offer to the House in terms of a legislative agenda while the anti-terrorism legislation is still in the planning and consultation stages. In the meantime, it gives us this bill to discuss.

As I recall, when we were dealing with Bill C-8 and Bill C-48, on each occasion I took part in the debate and spoke against those bills for the very same reasons.

We in the Bloc Quebecois often bring up the fact that there is duplication between the federal and provincial governments. This is another case in point. Under the Constitution, natural resources and public lands come under provincial jurisdiction. It is a proven fact.

Nevertheless and in spite of warnings, in spite of the opposition, and in spite of the result of botched consultations, we have this bill before us. If an independent firm were asked to report on the kind of consultations that were carried out on the bill, it would not be very likely that the same company would be hired again. The data is not conclusive.

Moreover, this duplication is, I do not know how to say this, “intrafederal”. We are talking about creating marine conservation areas which would come under the Department of Canadian Heritage, but we already have marine protection areas under the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We also have marine wildlife areas under the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.

It bears repeating: marine conservation areas, marine protection areas, and marine wildlife areas.

This, as my father would say, is a lot of hogwash. It is incomprehensible. By trying too hard to protect natural resources, the government may actually harm them, and I wonder about their motives. Apparently conservation is what they have in mind, but conservation in terms of heritage. I suppose that fish could be admired for their beauty or like any other typically Canadian item.

But these things are related and, during the consultations, people said “Yes, but there is a very distinct possibility when there is a desire to protect natural species for heritage reasons in the same areas as fisheries and ocean's marine protection areas”. But fisheries and oceans officials want there to be more fish and fisheries products to feed us, as well as provide work for people in regions such as the Gaspé or the maritimes. The Department of the Environment is also concerned because all this is very closely related.

And precisely because it is closely related, should these three kinds of areas not come under the jurisdiction of one federal body? Imagine the situation for people in Quebec or in other provinces trying to manage projects or areas under the authority of one or the other of these three departments. The federal government is in the process of inventing a weapon by which it can attack provincial jurisdictions from three different angles. One would think we were in Afghanistan, so intense is the bombardment. This will not do. It is intrafederal duplication.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is laughing, but I know that he agrees with me. He too thinks it is ridiculous. But now, he can no longer say so because he is sitting with the Liberal majority. He is obviously forced to toe the party line. But when he was on this side of the House, he was in favour. Then, he was right to support the creation of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park.

Why was that a good project? Because there was an agreement between Quebec and the federal government intended not just to protect but to develop this beauty, which the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord could still develop.

I could give another example of co-operation that took place, but that is not moving as quickly as we would hope. I am referring to the St. Lawrence action plan, which concerns primarily the shores of the river. Many projects are waiting for funding and money. I saw the tremendous work done by priority intervention zones. The zone in my region is called the Zone d'interventions protégées de Chaudière-Appalaches. Several projects are waiting for money to develop and protect the environment, and to help the ecosystem.

But instead of that, what we have before us is a virtual bill, since it does not target a specific territory. This is an omnibus bill that would allow the government to get involved in jurisdictions that, again, belong to the provinces, this within a framework that does not include public lands alone, but also natural resources that belong to the provinces. This is being done after a rushed consultation process.

When we want a copy of the supposedly 300 pages on the outcome of these consultations, we are given 73. It is as if the protection of these areas were a military secret. It is almost forbidden to say where these areas will be located, as if this were a highly strategic piece of information. If this were a priority, the government would have included it the first time, in Bill C-8, and the second time, in Bill C-48. But it did not do so.

Now that things are quiet and that the government is not ready to go ahead with Bill C-36 because consultations are still going on, it is making us debate this issue in parliament.

I say that it is too bad for the Liberal government. Every time, we tell the government the same thing and say “You are getting involved in provincial jurisdictions. Instead of doing that, put money in your own jurisdictions, in national parks”.

Instead, a report from the auditor general talks about negligence and insufficient staff and funds, before adding that it is an ill-protected area. And the government wants to develop more areas. This just does not make sense.

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

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

My friend from the Liberal Party, the parliamentary secretary, wants her turn to speak. I cannot quite tell whether or not she is agreeing with what I am saying. Perhaps she might want to listen, rather than voice comments quietly under her breath.

I am simply making this point. Is the intent of this clause in the bill to be able to sweep under the rug the whole idea of the issuance of a special permit which the minister of immigration previously would have had to give to individuals with criminal records coming to Canada? Is that the intent of this part of the bill?

It seems quite contrary in the climate that we have with Bill C-36 that the government is extending the issue of immunity in the bill. It would seem to me that the government would prioritise the legislation it brings to the House. Is this the issue that is gripping our nation today? I do not think so. There are many other issues having to do with what happened on September 11.

I have made this point several times in the House and I will make it again. We have outstanding issues of trade. We have the ongoing softwood lumber debate. That is impacting on all of Canada, but particularly on my area of British Columbia. There is an outstanding issue that has not yet been resolved. We have border security issues and integration of our trade with the United States. Where are the pieces of legislation that would solve those issues that are top of mind for Canadians?

We need to correct our existing system before we extend immunity and privileges to even more visitors who would come to Canada. It just seems to make sense that we would do that first.

My colleagues have mentioned some of the cases that have come up over the last several years where individuals have committed criminal activities in Canada and diplomats have participated in that. The most high profile one has been mentioned by my colleagues as well: the tragic death of Catherine MacLean in Ottawa who was struck and killed by a Russian diplomat. We know that he is now being charged with careless driving in Russia.

I want to focus on an amendment that was brought forward by my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester. It is a very commonsense notion that was defeated by the government at committee. It is one that would effectively report to parliament the names of individuals to whom this immunity was extended.

Why not have that transparent clause in the bill so that we would know to whom this blanket immunity is being extended? In so doing the Minister of Foreign Affairs could keep his promise on this point. It should simply lay out to whom this extended amount of immunity is being given.

Unfortunately that was defeated in committee. I believe that would have gone a long way toward building confidence and trust among all parties that this immunity would not simply be a blanket immunity used by many who might break the law when they are in Canada.

The use of diplomatic immunity has become distorted. The concept of diplomatic immunity is intended to protect foreign representatives from arbitrary harassment in the legal conduct of their affairs and not to allow them to hide from criminality. The concept of immunity is not to give people a blank cheque when they enter our country to do whatever it is they might want to do. It is there to protect them in the commission of their jobs.

In the context of Bill C-36, when we are having more restrictions put on Canadian citizens and their rights and their freedoms here the government at the same time is extending through this wide ranging immunity the rights of foreigners who would come to our country and who may break the law. It is mind boggling how we could have both of those bills before the House at the same time. It is very contradictory.

I hope it is something the government will address. It has an opportunity to do so because the bill is still before us in this place. Why not report to parliament once or twice a year, as my colleague has suggested, who is covered by this broad, sweeping immunity? Why not put those accountability measures not only into this piece of legislation but into others that are before this place too? If the government would take this approach I think it would find in general more support for the initiatives it comes up with.

When the government is not willing to do so it sends a negative message, which is to the detriment of the government's own initiatives.

I will close by saying that the bill extends immunity when it should not. The government has refused not only in committee but now at this next stage of the bill in the House to be more accountable, to build in some mechanisms to report on who will be getting immunity. I think that is wrongheaded. It is a shame it is not taking this opportunity to build consensus with this legislation. It is certainly not the number one issue seizing the nation today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share many of the same concerns my colleagues have mentioned already on Bill C-35. As it made its way through parliament, as my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester mentioned, the bill seemed rather innocuous at first. However when we take a look at it we realize some of the outstanding contradictions in the bill as compared to Bill C-36. My friend from Surrey North mentioned that in his speech. Others have mentioned it as well, and I agree.

The government has quietly attempted to extend diplomatic immunity and privileges to a whole host of new foreign visitors that would come to Canada to attend international conferences. Special visitor visas would supercede the immigration minister's power to allow potential visitors with a criminal past to come to Canada. They could otherwise be refused entry because of a criminal record.

I have to ask this question. Is this intended to take the heat off the minister of immigration? It seems this clause supercedes the issuance of a special permit.

When I was on the immigration committee for two years we had all kinds of debates on issues about the whole idea of issuing a special permit to an individual who would come from abroad.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this legislation, although it is difficult to comprehend the logic of the government.

Bill C-35 is an insult to the victims of crimes perpetrated by foreign diplomats or their staff in Canada. In all fairness, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has done good work on the terrorism file. I simply do not understand what he can be thinking by insisting that the legislation become law. Many of the proposed changes in Bill C-35 are best suited for the shredder.

While I understand that the Vienna convention requires that certain immunities are necessary in order to maintain diplomatic relations with other countries, the proposals in Bill C-35 go far beyond what is necessary. It opens up an even larger possibility for crimes committed in Canada by foreign nationals protected by diplomatic immunity to go unpunished. This is not acceptable to Canadians and I am sure the minister knows it.

The most recent example of diplomatic immunity gone awry was when a Russian diplomat who allegedly was driving drunk killed Catherine MacLean. At the time the minister rightly said that he felt immunity should not apply to the Russian as the offence had nothing to do with his duties as a diplomat. The minister promised to study ways to prevent such abuses of immunity in the future. Instead he is ensuring that the possible abuse of diplomatic immunity will be extended to anyone coming into Canada for an international conference, including support staff. These people currently are not covered by immunity and therefore are subject to Canadian laws.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade reported recently that there have been 76 crimes listed as having involved foreign diplomats. The charges include such serious offences as sexual assault, assault, impaired driving, impaired driving causing death, alien smuggling, and drug trafficking to list just a few. These are not petty crimes. These are crimes for which Canadians and especially their victims expect to see justice carried out. Only three of the 76 cases had their diplomatic immunity waived. This means that 73 of these crimes saw no justice whatsoever.

Bill C-35 puts even more foreign representatives above Canadian law, thereby increasing the potential for abuse of immunity in the future. This cannot possibly be what the minister intends, so why not allow for changes to the legislation in order to ensure that justice can be carried out? Perhaps the minister should put himself in the shoes of the victims for a few minutes just to experience justice denied.

I find it shocking that Bill C-35 will give the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade a blank cheque to allow foreign representatives into Canada without proper security screening. Department officials and the minister will have free rein to allow anyone they want into the country with absolutely no accountability to parliament or to the Canadian public. With the simple stroke of a pen, an official will be able to allow foreign nationals possessing criminal backgrounds, human rights abuses or terrorist ties into Canada.

In the current post-September 11 climate the government is moving to restrict the rights of Canadians with Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation. It is mind-boggling that at that same time the same government is moving to allow potentially dangerous foreign nationals into Canada without any checks and balances. As it currently stands, when foreign diplomats seek entry into Canada for the purpose of a diplomatic function or an international conference, they are subject to our immigration laws. Individuals found to be inadmissible currently are required to ask the minister of immigration for a special permit. At the end of each year, parliament has the opportunity to scrutinize the number of permits issued, thereby establishing a degree of accountability, albeit a very small degree of accountability.

With Bill C-35 in place, Canadians will never know who is being allowed into the country. Even worse, if a visitor commits a crime, he or she virtually is guaranteed not to face Canadian justice. It is long past time for Canada simply to stop sitting at international trade tables with countries and leaders that perpetrate serious human rights abuses and condone acts of terrorism.Yet the Minister of Foreign Affairs is giving himself and his department carte blanche to invite whomever they please to come to Canada with little, if any, security considerations.

Furthermore the legislation will ensure that foreign despots will be spared from embarrassment by protesters. It is simply wrong for the government to extend diplomatic immunity beyond what international convention requires. It is wrong for the minister to be able to forgo our immigration laws to invite the likes of President Suharto and shield him from criticism. Is it so awful that someone like Suharto occasionally is reminded of his deeds?

I am discouraged to see that the government seemingly has learned nothing from the APEC experience in 1996. The legislation actually contradicts the Hughes report which recommended that “generous opportunity...for peaceful protesters to see and to be seen...by guests of the event”.

This legislation creates not only the authority but also the obligation for the government and the RCMP to repeat the 1996 APEC performance. Canada needs to lead by example by allowing Canadians not only to dissent peacefully but also to be seen by those they are demonstrating against.

Bill C-35 expressly states that our country should protect the dignity of foreign representatives. I suggest that if a foreign dictator comes to Canada, it is only his guilty conscience that would be troubled by peaceful protesters reminding him of his actions, not his dignity.

The advancement of Canadian values is supposedly the third pillar of Canada's foreign affairs policy according to the department. I fail to see how giving the minister a free hand to invite criminals into the country, how giving the police a blank cheque to restrict the movements of Canadians while at the same time failing to prevent government interference with police matters, advances Canadian values.

Diplomatic considerations such as the granting of immunity should never be allowed to override security considerations. Permission for individuals to enter Canada should remain entirely separate from the process of granting diplomatic immunity to foreign diplomats.

In conclusion, the government should not extend immunity from the criminal code beyond the requirements of international law and convention. The bill is deceitful. The Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act is not the appropriate place to legislate new statutory powers and responsibilities for the RCMP or to give the foreign minister new powers to override the Immigration Act.

The government is trying to slip these major changes through parliament by hiding them in an innocuous-looking act surrounded by mundane housekeeping provisions. No press release accompanied the tabling of the bill. No legislative summary or explanation was provided. The government is rushing the bill through the House to avoid scrutiny.

The Canadian Alliance has scrutinized Bill C-35 and as the official opposition we have highlighted the failures of this legislation. I hope the minister will heed our recommendations and do what is right by reconsidering some of the draconian powers being enacted by the bill.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. I am opposed to the bill not only because the premise is flawed but because its best before date expired 10 years ago.

Following September 11 trends regarding the granting of diplomatic immunity are headed toward restricting access rather than enlarging it. Bill C-35 would extend immunity far beyond what many other countries grant diplomats. Bill C-35 and Bill C-36 clearly contradict one another. Bill C-35 would render foreign diplomats above the law with a minister's permit. Bill C-36 would impose broad limits on the rights of law abiding Canadians.

Bill C-35 would allow the foreign affairs minister to overrule the immigration minister if he believed there was good reason for allowing foreign delegates into the country. This could mean foreign delegates guilty of criminal offences or terrorist attacks would be allowed into the country if the foreign minister thought it would further Canada's interest.

This shows that the government's priorities are confused and contradictory. Like many others I am left wondering where they are going.

Bill C-35 and Bill C-36 show that the government is headed madly off in all directions. Together they illustrate the inconsistency of the government which acts one way internationally and another way domestically. Internationally it promotes the image of Canada as an open society. At home it curtails the freedom of Canadians.

Returning to my first point, the staff of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations pointed out in 1991 that the external affairs minister's orders to extend immunity to delegates at intergovernmental conferences were illegal since these conferences were technically not international organizations. One proposed remedy was to redefine the meaning of international organization to include multilateral conferences.

During a 10 year letter writing campaign the minister in question indicated the willingness of the government to co-operate with the request of the committee in due course. The course was a long and tortured one but the government finally developed the will to act.

Bill C-35 is the result of 10 years' worth of pressure by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. Instead of being too little too late, the bill is too much too late. September 11 irreversibly altered the foundations of foreign policy debate. Viewed through this prism Bill C-35 is no longer appropriate to today's increased security needs.

The DFAIT report issued in May of this year stated that 90 crimes involving foreign diplomats in Canada were reported in the last five years. These included human smuggling, narcotics trafficking, impaired driving and sexual assaults. Bill C-35 would extend the same immunity abused by Knyazev, the Russian diplomat who killed Catherine MacLean while driving drunk, to an unknown number of people. It is still government practice to extend blanket immunity to support staff who are not entitled to it under the Vienna convention.

We are already losing our traditional role of diplomatic leadership in the international arena. For example, American officials have already said Bill C-35 would never fly in their country since it would extend diplomatic immunity further than they would be comfortable with.

We all remember the APEC conference in 1996 where protesters were pepper sprayed to save the Prime Minister from embarrassment. Nor has anyone forgotten how the government tried to make a scapegoat out of an RCMP sergeant for the whole incident. Rather than raise further embarrassment at meetings of the G-8, G-20, IMF, World Bank and so on, the Prime Minister is trying to ram the bill through as quickly as possible.

Bill C-35 would continue the government's habit of passing the buck to law enforcement. Not only has the government slashed its net financial commitment to the nation's police force. It is trying to enshrine in law additional responsibilities for officers who are already overworked and stretched to the limit.

Recently the Canadian Police Association said the government was playing a shell game with the security of Canadians. It said when it comes to security at our borders and airports Canadians should not be lulled into a false sense of security. It said the RCMP must steal from Peter to pay Paul. In countries like Australia and New Zealand the authority of police has been enshrined into the common law. Why not in Canada?

On a number of occasions I have pointed out shady dealings at our foreign missions. In dealing with foreign missions the bill has not addressed fraud and corruption. Our security begins at our foreign missions abroad because they screen people before they enter Canada. They are our first line of defence. However there is nothing in the bill that deals with the issue.

In light of this some RCMP officers and immigration officers who blew the whistle were crucified by the government and the investigation was covered up. Today at 12.30 p.m., about an hour from now, I will be hosting a presentation on whistleblowing in room 200 of the West Block. I invite all members as well as those who are watching to join us.

On another point, the roles of hundreds of international organizations and Canada's membership in them remain unaddressed in the bill. We the opposition members on the foreign affairs committee introduced excellent amendments that would have made it possible for me to support the bill. Some of the amendments sought to insulate the RCMP from political interference, limit the scope of the immunity of delegates and publicize cases where diplomatic immunity was invoked by foreign dignitaries.

The minister promised to post quarterly reports of crimes by diplomats on the DFAIT website but that has not been done. The Liberals voted against an amendment that would have entrenched the minister's promise into law.

The Liberals also ignored the recommendation of the Hughes report after the APEC inquiry that the independence of the RCMP and its role in providing security at international conferences be clarified in law. The government majority on the committee voted down those amendments.

The amendments would clearly have improved the legislation and could have helped smooth the passage of Bill C-35 through the House. Instead of fixing the hole in the fence or at least closing the gap the government seems determined to make it even bigger.

Bill C-35 would hide and neglect important and significant measures. I therefore register my vote to oppose it.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the name of my colleagues of the NDP to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mercier to delete clause 5 from Bill C-35.

I am very happy that the hon. member for Mercier has moved this amendment, in the name of the Bloc Quebecois, because clause 5 of the bill is very dangerous. I remember that during the second reading debate of this bill, I tried to underline the fundamental importance of this clause. I was against the bill. I said it was an attack against the democratic values of Canada, an attack against democracy itself.

My Bloc Quebecois colleagues had indicated that they would support the bill. I hope that now, after hearing the evidence in committee, they realize that the bill is dangerous. If the government refuses to delete clause 5, I hope that all the members will vote against Bill C-35.

I thank the member for Mercier, the foreign affairs spokesperson for the Bloc Quebecois, for bringing forward the motion that is now before the House. When we look at the provisions in the clause which is now before the House, we recognize how profoundly dangerous it is.

We heard compelling evidence in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in particular from two independent witnesses. We heard from William Sloan, the president of the American Association of Jurists from Quebec, and from Wesley Pue, a respected professor from the University of British Columbia. Both of them highlighted the dangers of clause 5.

Other provisions of the legislation also raised grave questions, one being the sweeping extension of diplomatic immunity to a whole range of people who are in Canada only for a very limited period of time. They come in for a conference, perhaps only involving two or three governments, and they are given the full range of diplomatic immunity. We certainly heard strong evidence against that in the committee.

When we look at the tragic impact of that sweeping diplomatic immunity and the failure to enforce criminal law in the area of drunk driving that led to the death of an Ottawa woman who was out walking her dog one morning, we recognize surely that we do not want to be expanding in any way those kinds of immunities. If anything, we want to make sure we tighten considerably the opportunity to avail one's self of those immunities.

My colleague from Joliette has read the provisions of clause 5 of the bill. We were assured by the officials that we did not have to worry about this clause because all it would do is codify the existing provisions governing police powers.

However, during the course of the committee hearings, it very quickly became clear that was not the case at all; it was a sweeping and dangerous extension of police powers. Why on earth would we want to extend those powers when we look at the serious abuses that have already taken place because of the existing powers of the police?

My colleague from Winnipeg--Transcona raised this issue yesterday in the context of the so-called anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36, which is seeking sweeping new powers for the police. He asked a question and he asked it eloquently. He wanted to know why we should be accepting the demands of the Minister of Justice for these sweeping new powers when we have seen such abuses of the existing powers.

We do not have to look back very far for evidence of those abuses. We saw it at APEC, in Windsor and in Quebec City: over 900 rubber bullets and over 5,000 tear gas canisters, many of them used against peaceful, non-violent protestors who were simply exercising their rights as Canadians under the charter of rights to speak out against the impact of corporate globalization.

Just this past weekend we saw it here in Ottawa. I was appalled at the scenes I witnessed on television of police officers, not all police officers but of a number of police officers who waded into a crowd of some 2,000 peaceful, non-violent protestors who were peacefully marching on Saturday morning from LeBreton Flats up to the Supreme Court of Canada. A number of police officers waded into the crowd, arrested people with some sort of preventive arrest based on what they looked like and, in some cases, sicced German Shepherd dogs on those people.

This abuse of police power was shameful and undemocratic. Why on earth would we want to codify in the sweeping form of clause 5 those kinds of powers in the context of international conferences?

Having heard the evidence, I was very pleased that at least two members of the Liberal Party who sit on the foreign affairs committee had the courage not to vote for the bill.

When it came time to vote on clause 5 and on the bill, those Liberal members were not prepared to support their own government's legislation. I certainly hope the government will accept the amendment to clause 5 and delete this very dangerous provision in the bill.

I mentioned Professor Wesley Pue. In Professor Pue's evidence before the committee he said that this was not only dangerous for Canadians who peacefully protest but that it was also dangerous for the RCMP. He said that under clause 5 the RCMP at all levels would understand this statute in its most natural meaning: that they could do anything they consider reasonable and appropriate but that what is reasonable and appropriate lies in the eyes of the beholder and that the touchstone there to be guided by is security alone.

He also pointed out that the legislation fails to provide guidance to the RCMP and that it leaves RCMP officers at all levels in a very vulnerable position, for example, if they get improper demands from foreign governments on security concerns.

He went on to point out that it was dangerously vague with respect to the issue of security perimeters. Just how far can the RCMP move in establishing those perimeters? Whose property rights can be derogated from in this way? What kind of compensation will be made available to those who are affected by these security perimeters? What about the fundamental rights of free movement within Canada, the right of assembly, the right of free expression and the right to enjoyment of property? The bill, and in particular clause 5, just tramples on all of them.

In closing, once again, I wish to thank the hon. member for Mercier for having moved this amendment. In the name of my colleagues of the NDP, I say that we will support this amendment. If the amendment is rejected by the House, we will vote against the bill, which is dangerous for democracy and the right of free speech in Canada.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Mercier for her amendment. This provides us with the opportunity not only for an important debate on Bill C-35, but also for one on the situation in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11.

It is my impression that Bill C-35, and Bill C-36 likely as well, are part of the tendency of a number of governments, including those of Canada and the U.S., to make use of the legitimate fears triggered by the events of September 11 among the population of many western countries, Canada and the U.S. among them, to concentrate more power on the executive, in order to ensure that they will have a whole series of means at their disposal to maintain what they consider to be the established order of things.

This bill, its clause 5 in particular, is imprecise, incomplete, dangerous and inappropriate. I must therefore thank the hon. member for Mercier for giving us the opportunity, those of us in the Bloc Quebecois, and members of all parties, the government in particular, to reflect a little on its scope before reaching a decision. Given the concerns voiced by certain Liberal MPs during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, there is some hope that the government will backtrack on its desire to get this bill, with clause 5, passed, and will remedy the situation.

I will quote clause 5 if I may, which amends a section of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act as follows:

The first paragraph stipulates that:

10.1 (1) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under this Act and to which an order made or continued under this Act applies.

This first clause goes way beyond current practice, as the RCMP has the responsibility to protect individuals and not events. This initial slip is of some concern, especially since a number of duties are shared among various police forces—the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec in Quebec and municipal police forces.

In the case of court action, and I use the example of the Quebec City summit—and this is public knowledge—the RCMP shot a lot more rubber bullets than all the other police forces. Had the Sûreté expressed its concerns over the excessive use of rubber bullets to the RCMP, could it have continued shooting rubber bullets at peaceful demonstrators citing this clause, which sets out its primary responsibility?

It seems to me this clause represents an exceedingly dangerous shift compared to practices set out in current legislation.

Subclause 10.1(2) provides that:

(2) For the purpose of carrying out its responsibility under subsection (1), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

The government is now institutionalizing a practice that was to be exceptional, that is, the setting up of security perimeters, not to protect individuals or dignitaries anymore, but to ensure the proper functioning of events. This is obviously something that represents a very significant threat to individual rights, especially in connection with sections 2 and 3 of the charter of rights and freedoms.

Is this in fact nothing more than the codification of existing practice as members of the government including the minister have said on a number of occasions? Is this the status quo or does this clause not in fact increase the powers of the RCMP? We think it increases them. It increases powers that are not limited and this is lamentable. What the government calls reasonable measures and terms in such circumstances can be interpreted in any number of ways.

During the summit in Quebec City, a Montreal lawyer, Mr. Tremblay, contested the security perimeter in Quebec City set up around the congress centre on the grounds that it infringed his rights.

The judge ruled that his fundamental rights had indeed been violated, but that the installation of this perimeter had been necessary to protect the dignitaries taking part in the event, the summit of the Americas in Quebec City. So, existing legislation permitted the installation of perimeters when justified.

Now, this bill is institutionalizing the RCMP's right to install perimeters not to ensure the safety of dignitaries and visitors to these important events, but to ensure that the events themselves can be held. This is a violation of individual freedom of expression because—and the RCMP commissioner pointed this out—these perimeters must allow demonstrators and protestors to be heard by dignitaries and those holding these intergovernmental meetings.

Given the current tendency for these perimeters to grow ever wider, this fundamental right to be heard would be violated by this second paragraph. Paragraph 3 of clause 10 says:

10.1 (3) The powers referred to in subsection (2) are set out for greater certainty and shall not be read as affecting the powers that peace officers possess at common law or by virtue of any other federal or provincial Act or regulation.

The question still remains: if existing legislation allows the RCMP to exercise its responsibilities, why include a clause such as clause 5 in Bill C-35? If it maintains the status quo, it is not necessary. If it does not, it must be clarified and further codified, which is what governments in other countries which have used similar legislation have done.

During the debate on this bill in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Australia and New Zealand were often held up as examples. A closer examination reveals that the legislation adopted by the province of Queensland in Australia was of temporary application and provided for the creation of a security perimeter for a specific event only, the APEC summit in 1999. This is a far cry from clause 5 of Bill C-35, which institutionalizes for all time the creation of such perimeters for whatever reason.

In the case of the New Zealand legislation, limits are set on the duration and size of the perimeter. There is also a requirement to show need.

Clause 5 of Bill C-35 contains no such provisions. The RCMP would be able to decide on the extent and duration of such perimeters with no legal obligation to show need of any sort.

As the member for Mercier said, this bill is being considered at the same time as debate on Bill C-36, in which the definitions of terrorist act and terrorism are extremely broad. The Bloc Quebecois will also be proposing a number of amendments to that bill. We would hope that the governing party will open its eyes and see fit to restrict the scope of the legislation.

However, as I mentioned at the outset, what we are dealing with here is an offensive by the Canadian executive, the cabinet, in an attempt to arm themselves with tools that have the potential to be extremely repressive and that could very well violate fundamental rights. This situation—which, as I mentioned, has also caused concern among some of the Liberal members—must be reversed. Some statements were made outside the House, but also among committee members. A certain number of members spoke of their concern about the scope of clause 5.

Incidentally, until quite recently, there had been a resolution, submitted by the parliamentary secretary. This resolution warned the government against using clause 5, and asked that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for further study. If this recommendation had been adopted by the committee as proposed, we might have believed that the government was shifting its position. However, this morning, something quite different was proposed.

So what we are witnessing, is a form of sectarianism, that is the word for it, of dogmatism, practiced by the Liberal government. Many of them know it, clause 5 is extremely dangerous. It is a very dangerous shift in the balance between fundamental rights and security.

I hope that there will be enough members of the House, as a group, who are reasonable enough to vote for the amendment moved by the member for Mercier, an amendment that will ensure that Canada remains a land of rights and freedoms. If not, all I can say is that we are shifting towards an unexplainable form of totalitarianism.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to speak to the bill today. Like so many bills, they sneak up on us and catch us by surprise. I thought this was fairly innocuous when I first heard about it. However, the more I learn about it, the more I realize that it is not innocuous. It is quite profound and should be reconsidered totally.

I moved amendments in committee and I tried to move amendments in the House, but even those amendments are short of what they should have been.

A paragraph from a precis on Bill C-35 states:

The current Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act fails to recognize those organizations which are not created out of an international treaty, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum (AEPC), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), or the G-8. As such, these organizations are not entitled to the benefits given to organizations established by treaty.

In other words, they are not subject to immunity. Why would they be? Why do people who come to Canada for these meetings have to be subject to immunity? Why are we granting people immunity from our laws?

The amazing thing is that while we are considering Bill C-35, we are also considering Bill C-36, which restricts the rights of Canadians. We are restricting the rights of Canadians, reducing their civil liberties and increasing the policing powers on Canadians. At the very same time, we are granting immunity to a whole new group of people from foreign lands. It seems to be totally ironic, inconsistent and contradictory that we would nail Canadians but release foreigners from any obligations to obey Canadian laws.

The more I read this, the more I realize the impact of the bill. I have come to conclusion that we had better put the brakes on this and stop and think about this some more.

There are so many issues in the bill that go against Canadians and restrict them, yet at the same time free up people who come to Canada for meetings. While here, they are not required obey our laws. It makes no sense. Why are we holding Canadians responsible but saying people can come to Canada and there is no obligation for them to respect our laws?

It is disrespectful to Canadians, especially since we are considering at the same time Bill C-35 and Bill C-36; one that restricts Canadians and the other that allows more freedoms for foreigners.

I proposed a simple amendment in committee and in here. It was turned down in committee and for some reason it was turned down in the House as being an allowable amendment. The amendment would have required the minister to report to parliament once or twice a year on those foreigners who had claimed immunity from civil or criminal actions in Canada.

What a simple and sensible request. If people claim immunity to get out of obeying our laws, all we ask is that this be reported every year. I do not understand why it has been turned down. The minister effectively acknowledged that it was necessary when he said that he would personally commit to report regularly on his website.

The report would include who used immunity or the number of immunity claims made in a period of time. The minister acknowledged the need was there, but he did not allow it into the legislation. Why? The only thing I can think of is he and his department want the flexibility to back out of this commitment. Probably when we will really want it, the commitment will be taken away because it is not in legislation. It is a commitment by the minister, not by the government. It is not a commitment to parliament, it is just an agreement.

If he agrees that it is necessary enough for him to say that he will produce this report, why is it not necessary enough to put the amendment in the bill that would require the government to report every year, or twice a year, listing those who claimed immunity under these laws? It makes no sense that the minister would say on one hand that it was necessary but on the other hand not allow it to be put into legislation.

This minister will not be the minister forever. He will probably be in another position in two or three years' time. He may not be in government; he may be in the opposition. There will be another party over there with another foreign affairs minister who has no obligation to produce this list. This is an obligation by this minister and it ends when the minister ends his term as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is wrong.

It is disrespectful to say to Canadians that we will restrict their rights but we will give an unnamed, unidentified wide group of foreign visitors to Canada total immunity from our civil and criminal laws. If this amendment had been in place and there had been a report on diplomats who had claimed immunity, the Russian diplomat who was involved in the terrible crash that killed Catherine MacLean would have been in the public record for repeat offences. Chances are that Catherine MacLean would be alive today had this diplomat been publicly named as a repeat offender, which I understand he is.

That is why I am saying the amendment is so important. Although I respect the wisdom of the Chair, I am disappointed that the amendment was not allowed in the House. It was allowed in committee but it was defeated by the Liberals even though many of them supported the amendment in principle.

The amendment I proposed is only asking for transparency. It is asking for common sense. We must know the people who are claiming immunity from both our civil and criminal laws. That is not a lot to ask. The amendment should be considered. Even at this late date the government should reconsider it and put the restriction or the condition back in the bill.

It says that the government, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs would report to parliament once a year and list the people, not the diplomats, who are claiming diplomatic immunity from our civil and criminal laws. If some individuals came to Canada for one of these meetings, not some officials but some assistants, and they did damage to property, there would be no action or ability to take action against them for compensation or restitution or anything else. There would be no restitution or justice if they harmed a family because they could claim diplomatic immunity.

The bill has been expanded dramatically to cover people and organizations that are not even named. We do not know who they are or who they will be. That would be decided upon application and we would never know in the House who those people are.

Currently they are people and organizations under the Vienna convention but we even go beyond the Vienna convention. The bill goes into unchartered waters and we do not even know what organizations they will be. This is a very serious subject because it deals with potential criminals that now do not have to obey our laws. It is amazing that we are passing a law which says the laws do not have to be honoured. It does not make sense and it has expanded dramatically now to cover people we do not even know.

I do not know where we can go with this. We are opposition members that know it is wrong. The Liberals know a lot of this is wrong and they have even turned down simple amendments. However we will continue to speak against it. We will continue to try to get the government to make changes that are appropriate. Even at this late date we will continue to press the government and do everything we can to demand that it respect the rights of Canadians.

It is amazing that people in Canada say we are prepared to give up some of our civil liberties in the interest of the anti-terrorism effort. We are prepared to make allowances we have never had to make before. Canadians are prepared to do that. We are demanding a lot of Canadians and we are not asking anything of these foreign visitors. Do we not at least owe Canadians the right to know the names of other people who come to Canada who are allowed to circumvent and not obey our laws?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-35 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Mr. Speaker, clause 5 of Bill C-35 before us is inappropriate.

Let us talk so that people can understand us. Bill C-35 is aimed at modernizing the legislation on foreign missions in Canada and the organization of international meetings. The Bloc Quebecois voted for it at second reading.

In this bill that amends an act that is already substantial, the government is introducing three sub-clauses that, totally out of the blue, will give the RCMP with no constraint, specifics or other directions whatsoever, powers that have all been opposed by all the witnesses. In fact, witnesses all said this was not a simple matter of codifying the common law, as the department and the minister claimed, but of increasing the powers given to the RCMP.

We are convinced these sub-clauses have no place in the bill. It is not that we are against the establishment of safety perimeters, but to say, as the bill does, that the RCMP may establish them as it sees fit makes no sense.

What we see here is that the rights and freedoms of citizens are affected and there are no controls such as those that were set in other countries. Either this clause on perimeters should, for example, be a temporary provision, or else the government should include very strict controls regarding how these perimeters should be defined.

What about the rights of citizens? The situation was so uncomfortable in committee that even government members proposed a resolution, and it was adopted with an amendment with which we did not agree. But it is a resolution that says in a different manner—it is not yet before us, but it will be—what witnesses said and what we are saying.

I feel all the more comfortable defending our amendment to delete clause 5 of the bill since many, if not all government members on the committee would have agreed to have these provisions go elsewhere, for example in the RCMP act or, after a review, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where some limits could have been established.

Clause 5 of Bill C-35 must absolutely be deleted, because it institutionalizes security perimeters in the legislation, without setting any controls for the RCMP in that regard. It is so imprecise that it could lead to abuse and go against fundamental liberties.

What about the rights of people whose homes are located inside the perimeter? The bill is silent on this issue. What about the obligation to identify oneself when a perimeter is established? The bill is also silent on this. These are just two examples, but there are many other situations.

Such provisions generate concerns. These concerns are magnified by the existence of Bill C-36, since we do not know what it will look like in the end, but we do know that it gives increased powers to police forces, for a time which, even though limited, is still significant. In other countries where the establishment of perimeters is provided in the legislation, controls or restrictions have been included, but there are no such controls in Bill C-35.

None of the witnesses who appeared before the committee supported this clause. It seems obvious to us that it should be deleted from Bill C-35. This does not mean that the RCMP will not be able to secure a perimeter, but it will have to do so using the powers it already has. It will have to take into consideration the fact that the Hughes Report into the APEC notes, for example, that protesters have the right to be heard by the people who are inside the perimeter and to whom they have come to deliver a message.

For all these reasons, we consider it fundamental and essential that these provisions be removed, particularly so because we do not feel that this reassures the international community at all; it only increases the concern for security matters during international meetings.

I should point out that the Bloc Quebecois supported this bill at second reading because we felt that the Foreign Missions Act should be modernized. However, clause 5 has nothing at all to do with the modernization process. Quite the opposite, it adds a certain inaccuracy to the bill and modifies an act that is essential to reassure Canadians and to make sure that Canada and Montreal play the role they should be playing on the international scene.

We agree that the existing legislation should be modernized, because it is outdated, but it is imperative that clause 5 be deleted. At one time, we thought it would be, because it is useless.

I asked the foreign affairs minister whether this clause was needed for public order and security purposes when we host the next G-8 meeting, and he answered no. So why the rush? Why are we amending three subsections that will become four, and why do we have four subsections on the RCMP in a 120 page legislation? It is absurd.

The upcoming resolution will confirm that members of the committee are uneasy about this, and I appreciate it, because they have been more or less coerced into passing this bill. I hope it will never be voted into law; although we had indications otherwise I hope the bill will be passed without clause 5.

Witnesses who appeared before us have emphasized not only the human rights issue, but also enforcement problems for the police.

In Quebec, we have the French civil law, but the common law prevailing in the rest of Canada is special in that it is defined by all the judicial precedents.

Witnesses have told us repeatedly that, to carry out their functions, police officers do not have the opportunity to know exactly the rights they have or do not have. Therefore, the bill makes their task more difficult instead of clarifying for them the way they should provide security.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, it is probably a hard concept for a minister of the government to understand but perhaps someday the Liberals will not be over there. Perhaps another party will be over there and it will have no obligation to follow this rule.

It is ironic that at a time when Canadians are being asked to surrender certain rights under Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-35 is expanding immunity to foreigners.

Will the minister put into legislation a requirement to report to the House on who claims civil immunity and criminal immunity under this new legislation?

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that most reasonable people would say that the police appointed themselves and conducted themselves admirably on the weekend.

The hon. member and I have engaged in this discussion before. I believe the definition of terrorist activity in Bill C-36 is clear. However I have also indicated that I am open to considering further clarifications to the definition that will deal with the concerns of the hon. member and others.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who has argued in recent weeks, in defence of Bill C-36, that September 11 changed the world.

Unfortunately for Canadians, who are worried about Bill C-36, they might be less worried if they felt that the government's attitude toward peaceful protesters had changed. Yet that does not seem to have been the case this weekend in Ottawa.

Is the minister not concerned about the treatment of some peaceful protesters on the weekend? Will she be asking for a report from those in charge and making a statement in the House as to how this supports her position on Bill C-36?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly can reassure the hon. member that I will consider suggestions for amendments from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Let me also indicate that the Prime Minister, last evening in Vancouver in his speech to a sold-out fundraiser for our party, did indicate that there will be amendments to Bill C-36.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the rush to draft anti-terrorism legislation, the government is terrorizing some Canadians.

The majority of witnesses before the justice committee, particularly those of Islamic faith, have stated that they fear repressive and legitimate loss of rights. The privacy and information commissioners have stated the same thing. The justice minister has stated that she is open to advice yet the Prime Minister has continually and arrogantly dismissed these concerns.

I want to give the justice minister the opportunity to provide her assurances that she will be open to honestly consider amendments from the opposition to improve Bill C-36.

Anti-terrorism Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I have made it plain since we introduced Bill C-36. This is important legislation and that is why we want to hear what the Senate committee, which has reported, and the House committee, which continues its work, have to say.

However, on the specific point in relation to the privacy commissioner's concerns, we understand those concerns and my officials and his officials will continue to work to clarify the matter and hopefully reach a successful resolution.

National Defence

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Prime Minister has established a committee of the cabinet that looks at security issues.

In the post-September 11 world we know the security environment has changed fundamentally and we have set about making changes. We have put $280 million into upgrades of many our systems. We brought in Bill C-36. There is more work that is still being done to ensure that we are responding to the needs of Canadians to ensure their safety and security and to ensure that we contribute to the anti-terrorism campaign internationally.

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Honourable Prime Minister and concerns Bill C-36.

The Prime Minister is recorded in the press today as being flexible when it comes to Bill C-36. We were worried last week that the government might be changing its mind with respect to openness, with respect to sunset clauses.

I wonder, in light of the report from the Senate and the flexibility reported on the part of the Prime Minister, can the Prime Minister say today that he is open to the committee coming up with some kind of sunset clause for Bill C-36?

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, 10 months ago an Ottawa woman, Catherine McLean, was killed by a Russian diplomat who was driving drunk. At that time the Minister of Foreign Affairs deplored the fact that the drunken diplomat was able to claim immunity from Canadian law.

Now under Bill C-35 the same minister proposes to expand the number of foreign representatives who are above Canadian law. This contrasts to Bill C-36 which asks Canadians to surrender their civil liberties in the name of security.

It is not true that expanding diplomatic immunity is necessary to catch up to the international community. Most countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom are very careful about not extending diplomatic immunity too far, no further than is required under international law.

There is no excuse for putting anyone above the law while asking Canadians to surrender their civil liberties. Bill C-35 should be withdrawn.

Yukon Act

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give qualified support to the government on this bill. We have questions that will come forth in committee but we look forward to getting the bill into committee so we can have those discussions.

As the minister knows, it has been a long time coming. It has gone on for a few generations. Certainly since the gold rush in 1898 there have been updates and changes made to it but this particular form of the bill seems to have taken a while to work its way through the labyrinth of parliament. I certainly look forward to the discussion. It is probably a really happy day for people in Yukon.

We have heard various members of all parties here say that the Yukon government and aboriginal groups are in favour of the bill. I am sure a lot of third party private exploration concerns are also in favour of it. It makes me nervous to think that things are going so well here that maybe this will get through and everyone is in favour of it. That is probably a testament to the fact that the minister realizes how important consultation is, not just a kind of phony, trite consultation but to really get in there and talk about it because we need to get the thing right in the first place.

It is good that we can look at some of the specifics of the bill but also see that there is a good spirit and a good intent for whatever groups to work together and say let us get this thing right and make sure it stays that way.

This will take effect at the beginning of April 2003. Going back 10 years we thought that the year 2000 would never arrive. All of a sudden here we are ready to go into 2002. Even for people who think this is still a long time coming, that is just a year this coming spring and many things have to be put in place before then. It is probably wise to have the time limit on it and the starting date.

On the Yukon northern affairs program devolution transfer agreement, it is a smart thing to start devolving powers. Yukon certainly is not just some young kid looking forward to adulthood. It has gone on its own for many years in terms of functioning as a territory. That is one thing in particular that makes the amendment in Bill C-39: that the words “the Yukon territory” will be replaced with “Yukon”. Some people may think that is a very small thing but it is important to notice that now it will simply be called “Yukon” and we will be able to celebrate that.

The legislation gives Yukon the power to make laws regarding exploration, development, conservation and management of its own non-renewable natural resources. Although in theory I am sure there has been a great deal of that going on over the last few years, this transfers that power and says “Yes, you really are you and yes, you really will have the power and the authority to make your dealings and look after your own land management, et cetera”.

It also allows the Yukon legislature to make laws regarding oil and gas pipelines located entirely within Yukon and the export of the primary production of non-renewable natural resources and forestry to other parts of Canada. In other words it is assuming and finally legislating on those things that have been going on in theory and perhaps some practice over the years but on which it always had to go to Ottawa for permission, to see if it was okay with big brother. It is certainly wise that Yukon be given the authority to sign these deals and have its own self-sufficiency. Of course we have been dealing with that lately in the Alberta and Saskatchewan land claims agreements to make sure that third party interests are protected, and in the Manitoba Act as well. This is one more in the chain.

The Auditor General of Canada will conduct yearly audits of the Yukon government and will report his or her findings to the legislative assembly. It is good for all of us to be held accountable financially. We think this is very wise.

The federal government will retain some administration and control of property in Yukon if it is deemed necessary for defence and security, creating a national park, settlement of an aboriginal land claim, et cetera. The federal government should continue to maintain those responsibilities.

What happened on September 11 seems to work its way into almost every piece of legislation, or everything that happens in the House.

When we talk about defence and security it certainly has a more poignant meaning to it now. When we look at the enormous borders in northern Canada we can see that it is something we need to be very concerned about in terms of defence and security.

Those are some positive things we see in the bill. I will talk now about some concerns, not just pros and cons but things that we in the coalition want to ask questions about. We want to make sure that everything is right on before the legislation goes through.

We have concerns regarding the federal authority that could perhaps be seen as maintaining a heavy hand in the legislation. The commissioner of the Yukon would be appointed by order of the governor in council. That makes it political in its own right without a free and fair election. We always need to be careful that it is not just the loudest person who says “I am the best. Vote for me”. In fact politically over the years when our party was the Reform Party, we said that the first five people who came running to us saying “Pick me, pick me” probably should get eliminated from the list automatically.

We need to make sure that we find a lot of really qualified people, not just those who have lined pockets or who have been appointed because it has been a good election year. It must be based on merit and merit alone to make sure that the commissioner is the very best person we possibly can find, because of course that commissioner would be doing an incredible amount of work and I suspect would be seen as a puppet of the federal government if the appointment was nothing more than a political one.

Under the legislation the commissioner of Yukon must follow any written instructions given to the commissioner by the governor in council or the minister. Again we need to be careful about sending out missives, memos and dear knows what all to say “Thou shalt do this”. The commissioner, if chosen by merit and if from the Yukon, would probably know at the ground level what is more practical, reasonable and workable for them rather than a missive in a memo from the governor in council or the minister.

However I do notice in the legislation that 10 years hence this clause will be repealed. That sort of sounds like a sunset clause. I find it strange that there would be a sunset clause in this legislation but not in another piece of legislation that is working its way through here, so it is not necessarily a sunset but a sunset if necessary. We need to be really careful, because if it is good enough in this bill to phase out something 10 years later we need to hold every piece of legislation up to that bar and say that there must be a mechanism for review, whatever we want to call it, that sooner or later down the road in every piece of legislation there will be a sunset clause, that federal powers would phase out somewhat, to be able to re-examine the legislation, whether it is in this bill, Bill C-39, or in Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation.

Another concern we have is that the governor in council could direct the commissioner to withhold his or her assent to any bill that has been introduced in the legislative assembly. The governor in council could disallow any bill from the legislative assembly within a year after it is passed. That is a bit of a hefty veto, for sure. If a law is legitimately passed in the Yukon legislature, an entire year later the minister would be able to slap a veto on it. That piece of legislation would have worked its way right down to the streets in the Yukon. To give the governor in council the power to disallow any bill from the legislative assembly within a year after it is passed would, I sense, cause some nervousness at the ground level. We would encourage the minister to make sure that would not happen for some political reason which may not have any practicality at all.

Bill C-39 would give the commissioner and the executive council the power to appoint an auditor general. It could be the Auditor General of Canada but does not necessarily have to be. We believe the entire legislative assembly should have the right to review qualified candidates for the position rather than the appointment being left to the commissioner and the executive council. Again the point is to get it right. If he or she is the best auditor general we can find then surely the ratification and the strength that would come from it, from the entire legislative assembly, would be nothing but healthy. Therefore it is a great idea to make sure that everyone ratifies this position. It is not that huge a task to make sure that someone is the best person for the job and that the appointment is based on merit and merit alone. Surely it should go past the legislative assembly, not just the executive council. It opens it up and frees it up. It makes the process more transparent and therefore more saleable down the road.

There are a number of questions regarding certain clauses in the bill. I look forward to having a chance to discuss those in committee. Bill C-39 in clause 18 gives Yukon the power to define what constitutes an intoxicant for the purposes of making laws on importation of those intoxicants into Yukon. I think we should define what they are ahead of time. Under the Northwest Territories Act and the current Yukon Act intoxicants are defined, but in Bill C-39 they are not. I would like to know, the coalition would like to know and I am sure the whole committee would like to know, including the Liberal members, why this definition has changed or why it has been omitted in Bill C-39. Intoxicants used to be defined. Now they are not. For people who will be using those intoxicants or for some who may try to traffic in those intoxicants, I think it is only fair and might be a really good idea to have that definition right up front so people would know the penalty involved.

Clause 190 amends the Judges Act to double the cost of living compensation for supreme court judges in the north from $6,000 to $12,000, maximum representational allowances for senior judges from $5,000 to $10,000 and for chief justices as well from $5,000 to $10,000. I will not necessarily squawk about the numbers or amending the Judges Act, however it would seem to me to be a really smart thing to amend the Judges Act and not necessarily the Yukon Act. We will be asking those questions in committee to make sure that everything lines up, that it is parallel and that it fits together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.

Subclause 48(1) gives the commissioner of the Yukon “the administration and control of all rights in respect of waters in Yukon” and then of course with the consent of executive council the power to exercise those rights “or sell and...dispose of them” while retaining the proceeds of the disposition. Starting to talk about water immediately sends out an emotional signal, so I think we need to be really careful in the bill in terms of what we mean by “the administration and control of all rights in respect of waters”. We have just been through something like that with the provincial government in Newfoundland talking about provincial rights to export water.

We want to be very careful here. I know of the environmental concerns of Yukon people. I know how important water is to them. We had better spell it out very clearly ahead of time rather than having some commissioner down the road who realizes he has absolute control of all rights in respect of waters. We do not want to get a bad egg in that position. We do not want someone who thinks he may be able to make a quick buck by transferring water and selling it. It seems to me we would be very wise to define exactly those “rights in respect of waters in Yukon”, because down the road somewhere in a financial crunch that renewable resource might look pretty profitable. I think we need to be very careful to have that spelled out ahead of time because, as we know, it is a lot more difficult to try to spell it out after the horse is out of the barn. We need to make those definitions, laws, legislation and regulations very clear up front.

There is a wonderful leader in Yukon now, Pat Duncan, and there may be an excellent commissioner coming after this one, but who knows what will happen and who will be there several years down the road? We would be a lot smarter to cut that off at the pass ahead of time.

Of course there are questions. Would this include the right to export Yukon's water? How does this affect the rights of aboriginals under the Yukon Indian land claims agreement? All those things need to be spelled out ahead of time so they are clear. Then we would not get into an emotional fracas down the road with people saying we did not tell them, that they did not know, and that they thought they had the exclusive right. Again, it is just human nature to try to push the parameters. We need to be very particular and put those safeguards in place ahead of time.

I look forward to dealing with this in committee. I thank the minister for bringing this forward and for the debate we have had on Bill C-39 today.

Independence of the RCMP

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to congratulate the Bloc member for the motion. As the previous speaker indicated the motion is very timely in light of the fact that we are presently considering Bill C-36. Bill C-36 gives tremendous power, power that in a free and democratic society under normal circumstances we would never, ever consider. It is a bill that is draconian in nature and one that is of deep concern, I am sure, to every member of the House. Therefore this motion is singularly timely.

Let us go back to the events of APEC in 1997. Flowing from those events, the activities of the police and the apparent interference of the Prime Minister and his office, there were two questions. The first question was about the actual conduct of the RCMP. As has been mentioned by the former ombudsman for the province of British Columbia, the member for Vancouver--Quadra, the point is that the public complaints commission established in 1986 indeed was the correct venue to be able to determine what happened, what the activities of the police were and indeed if they were appropriate, but there was an equally pressing second question that the government to this day has never answered. The question is, did the Prime Minister and his office interfere with the RCMP enforcement activities at APEC 1997?

I spent a fair amount of time at the hearings. In listening to the testimony of the people who came before the commission and in seeing the way in which the commission was actually started up, I saw that it was clear that there was the hand of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office, even through the public complaints commission, even through commissioner Heafy at the beginning of the public complaints commission process, to ensure that the people of Canada would never, ever receive an adequate or a true answer to the question, did the Prime Minister and his office interfere with the RCMP and its enforcement activities at APEC 1997?

We recall that at the beginning of the public complaints commission process there were three commissioners appointed, a chair and two commissioners, for a total of three people who were involved in that process at the beginning. What was very clear was that there had been interference. There was interference with the original chair of the public complaints commission. He said so himself. There is evidence that there was interference by the head of the public complaints commission, Shirley Heafy, into the process at that time. The question about that has never been answered: Why did she interfere with that process?

Let us fast forward to the end of this process, where commissioner Hughes has come forward with some innuendo, and that is all he can do, about the involvement of the Prime Minister in interfering with the RCMP. Why can he only do it by innuendo? Because that is the way the Liberal government set this up. It was to protect the Prime Minister. It was set up so that the public complaints commissioner himself, Hon. Justice Hughes, was incapable of getting to the bottom of the question of whether the Prime Minister and his office interfered with RCMP enforcement activities at APEC 1997.

Justice Hughes came forward with the portion of his report which has been noted by my Bloc colleague. Now the government says we must make sure that the commissioner and her reporting is unfettered by government interference. It is a little bit thick because in spite of the fact that she uses the words fair, impartial and independent, the fact of the matter is we know that at the beginning of the public complaints commission process she was not fair, impartial or independent because of the way in which the first three commissioners of this ended up crashing and burning.

We can fast forward to section 33.3.1 of Justice Hughes' report. Commissioner Zaccardelli of the RCMP was not standing up for the RCMP. He was being an apologist for the government. He was ignoring the involvement of the Prime Minister and the political aspect of the decisions that were made at APEC.

Colleagues before me gave a very good explanation of why he was doing this and I agree with them. He has to recognize as a top government official, the equivalent to a deputy minister, which side his bread is buttered on.

That is a very harsh thing to say and I am well aware of that. However it is my judgment that the Prime Minister of Canada got away with the fact that he interfered with the RCMP and its enforcement activities at APEC in 1997.

As a matter of principle there must be an absolute barrier between politicians and police in a free democracy. I say that as a politician, but as I take a look at other politicians, particularly people like the Prime Minister and other ministers of the crown in positions of authority who can directly influence the police without a clear line of delineation between politicians and police, they can continue to do that.

It is scary that Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, gives so many powers to the police. It tips the balance away from our free and democratic society, the very freedoms we are trying to protect. We are having to set some of those freedoms aside so that we can protect the freedoms we must keep. It is a terrible situation for us as politicians to be in.

I commend the Bloc Quebecois member for her motion. I consider it a crying shame that it has not been permitted to come to a vote. This is an action that the Prime Minister and the government should be bringing to the House, if only for good faith reasons, as part of Bill C-36 so that we would understand that there could never be a breakdown of the barrier between politicians and police.

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

Mr. Speaker, like it is for my colleagues on both sides of the House, it is a pleasure for me this morning to address Motion No. 391 put forward by my hon. colleague from Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert. As was noted the motion would set out in writing the independence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regarding its relationship to the government.

It has been four years since the riotous Asia-Pacific economic conference was held in Vancouver, an event that will forever be a black mark on the way our government interacts with our national police force. Despite the conclusion of a formal inquiry and various legal challenges, little has been done to change the intimate relationship between the RCMP and the government. In fact every effort seems to have been made to maintain the status quo.

It would be reasonable to expect that in a country such as ours there would be a very clear delineation between our politicians and our national police force. Therefore it would be unreasonable, one would assume, for a developed country to have its national police force influenced or controlled by elected politicians.

Likewise one would expect that in a developed country the rules regarding the control, interaction and scope of authority for the national police would be enshrined in legislation strong enough to prevent any future government from an abuse of power. Were this the case in Canada, we would not be having this debate.

The RCMP has earned a reputation as one of the finest policing agencies in the world. The men and women who wear the red serge do so with pride, and their professionalism and integrity serve as an example to all Canadians. This is a national institution that Canada should be striving to protect, not undermine.

As the national police force the RCMP will undertake duties within its scope and mandate. To enable it to do so effectively the mandate must be free from political interference. Regrettably the present accountability structure does not allow for this. The inherent difficulty in the accountability structure of the RCMP is that the commissioner reports to a single minister rather than to cabinet or to an oversight committee. It is here that we have a clashing of ideologies.

The commissioner of the RCMP is focused on law enforcement and national security, the core principles of any police agency. The minister, on the other hand, as an elected official is quite naturally concerned with re-election as well as the political impact the actions of agencies within his portfolio may have on the popularity of his party.

The introduction of politics is an intolerable situation. Any time the RCMP has to weigh the political impact of any decision it is called upon to make, its ability to do its job is undermined.

There are also reasonable concerns regarding the misdirection of the RCMP by the minister responsible. At present there are insufficient safeguards against the use of the RCMP for investigations which may find their basis more in political retribution than in fact, a potentially expensive undertaking, as Canadians discovered with the Airbus fiasco.

The RCMP is our single national police agency and as such cannot continue to be run as another branch of the civil service. It must be free from the influences of the government of the day. To be effective it needs to be independent. It is time for the government to examine its relationship with the RCMP and to draft rules regarding the nature of its relationship with the agency.

Previous speakers have talked about Commissioner Zaccardelli appearing before the justice committee. I was present the day he spoke to Bill C-36. He clearly identified one of the conflicts he has. On the one hand he is viewed as the deputy minister and on the other as the head of our national police force. To be quite honest I think it is an intolerable situation to place anyone in.

That is why I think the motion brought forward today is very appropriate, especially at a time when the country is debating Bill C-36 and where, by extension, there will be more powers given not only to the RCMP but to other police forces in the country, such as new powers to detain and to wiretap, and there is certainly at least the potential loss of privacy rights for Canadian citizens. Given all of that, I think it is appropriate that we are debating the motion today.

In conclusion, I am pleased to support the motion before the House as a means of increasing transparency and accountability. Again I congratulate my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for bringing this forward. It is extremely unfortunate that members will not have the opportunity to vote on it, which opens up a whole different can of worms in regard to how many times members take on issues and go through all the work of bringing forward motions and bills to the floor of the House of Commons only to see what we are seeing again this morning, a very worthwhile initiative that unfortunately will have one hour of debate and then in all likelihood that will be the end of it as far as the government is concerned. I say that is unfortunate.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this private member's motion. I congratulate the member from the Bloc for her initiative in the matter. I associate myself with the remarks not only of the hon. Bloc member but of the previous speaker in fully supporting the motion.

I will use my few minutes today to focus on three aspects: first, the findings of Commissioner Ted Hughes; second, the response of RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli; and third, what the RCMP has or has not learned as a result of the Hughes inquiry.

I have read the final report of the Hughes inquiry. It is clear that Commissioner Hughes pointed some pretty blunt fingers not only at the RCMP but at government officials. For the record I will go through some of those.

Mr. Hughes acknowledged in his closing observations that many of the examples of substandard performance reflected failures in the planning process. I will not go into detail but he referred to briefings and late buses at the UBC campus on November 25, 1997.

Referring to the open space in front of Green College, Hughes said there was a:

—failure to realize that the grounds of Green College located outside the secure zone were an obvious gathering place for those residents of Green College who had previously indicated a desire to protest, with the result that no contingency plans were in place to address the presence of protesters at that location.

Regarding the march to the fence which we kept seeing over and over on television, Mr. Hughes said there was a:

—failure to have anyone in a command role at the well publicized noon rally who was aware of the protesters' planned civil disobedience and was in a position to realistically evaluate late-breaking information of dubious credibility about the expected actions of the protesters.

I find this particularly significant. Mr. Hughes said:

My inability to determine who made the all important decision to allow protesters to have unobstructed access to the security fence tells a great deal about the state of readiness of the police to meet the challenges of the day. I will always believe that, but for that decision, based on dubious information, the events on campus from noon until 4.30 that afternoon may well have been non-violent throughout, though boisterous, noisy and challenging for the police. It was the violence that broke out at the flagpole at noon that set the stage for many of the subsequent events that unfolded over the remainder of the afternoon.

There are also references to the blockage of exit routes, the involvement of local RCMP detachments and the arrest of Jaggi Singh. Here Mr. Hughes said:

Had the UBC Detachment been properly integrated into the security planning process, I believe that Mr. Singh would not have been arrested on November 24 or at any other time for the November 7 megaphone incident. Had the UBC Detachment been required to consult on its plan to eliminate Mr. Singh from campus on November 25 with wise and seasoned heads with full knowledge of the background of the leaders' meeting, I believe that the plan would never have been implemented.

Similarly regarding the arrest of Mark Brooks, another frontline protester, Commissioner Ted Hughes said:

This was a precipitous arrest made in an atmosphere of crisis, directly attributable to the chaos that resulted from inadequate police planning to ensure the orderly and safe exit of the world leaders.

There were also negative references to the strip searching of all female protesters at the Richmond cells. Mr. Hughes was very condemnatory of the RCMP or police action at that time.

Mr. Hughes identified two areas where he believed the federal government acted improperly. The first was the removal of tenters from the grounds of the Museum of Anthropology that has been alluded to earlier. Mr. Hughes wrote:

I am satisfied that it was because of the government's intervention that the tenters were removed that evening. Were it not for that involvement, the contrary view of Site Commander Thompsett would have prevailed. As it happened, his view did not carry the day because of the acquiescence of other RCMP personnel, principally Supt. May, who had succumbed to government influence and intrusion in an area where such influence and intrusion were inappropriate.

Mr. Hughes was critical of the improper and inappropriate level of federal government involvement in the RCMP's provision of security with respect to the size of the demonstration area adjacent to the law school. He noted that the government's efforts did not prevail due to the intervention of others such as Site Commander Thompsett on behalf of the protesters. Had those intervenors not prevailed Mr. Hughes noted that the security challenges the RCMP faced on November 25 may well have increased.

In his final comments Mr. Hughes said:

It is inescapable that in most instances where I have found police conduct to have been either inappropriate to the circumstances of inconsistent with charter rights, the primary responsibility rests with those who held key offices in security planning for the APEC conference. That may go to the highest level of RCMP headquarters in Ottawa. This seems to have been the source of approval, if not direction, that security services on November 25 would be delivered by officers who were, at best, on the periphery of the two year planning process, while those intimately involved in that process were out of command from the moment the APEC conference opened.

Regarding gate 6, Staff Sergeant Stewart and the incident involving pepper spray, Commissioner Hughes wrote:

I feel very much the same way about the involvement of Staff Sergeant Stewart and those on site with him at Gate 6. He never should have been placed in the position of having four minutes to clear the road. Given the pressure he was put under, he made some unfortunate decisions but far more culpable, in my view, are those in positions of responsibility who allowed the Gate 6 events to develop and unfold as they did.

We need to point that out in the context of the former solicitor general's remarks in an unguarded moment a few years ago. In reference to Staff Sergeant Stewart he said “Hughie may be the guy who takes the fall”. It is pretty clear from the report of the commissioner that this goes right to the top in Ottawa. Staff Sergeant Stewart should never have had to take the fall. Nor has he as a result of the Hughes report.

I think Commissioner Zaccardelli is supportive of the report although, as has been noted earlier, he does not agree with Ted Hughes that there is a need for statutory codification. That is perhaps shortsighted on the part of the commissioner of the RCMP.

Commissioner Zaccardelli said a co-operative relationship between the police and peaceful protestors is essential. I would challenge Commissioner Zaccardelli and the current solicitor general to take that comment in the context of what happened in Quebec City several years after the APEC inquiry. They should tell that to the mostly young people who were detained arbitrarily for several days before either being charged or sent on their way.

Three young people from my riding of Palliser were in Quebec City. They insist they were doing absolutely nothing wrong. They were sitting on the grounds outside the perimeter fence and security area when they were arrested by the police.

Our caucus in its entirety was in Quebec City. We saw tens of thousands of peaceful protestors. Yes, we acknowledge that some were bent on violence and disorder. However the overwhelming percentage of people were there to protest a cause they felt strongly about. I am concerned that the RCMP learned virtually nothing from its APEC actions.

They will not follow through with the security at APEC because of the flaws that have been identified by Hughes and others but they have stepped up security a lot more. We have seen that with whatever WTO protest is involved. This is all even before Bill C-36, the bill on anti-terrorism.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on private member's Motion No. 391. I thank and commend the hon. member for bringing this motion to the House. To date the government has escaped criticism or questioning regarding the report released by Judge Ted Hughes.

Conveniently for the Liberal government, parliament was recessed when the findings and recommendations were released following the public hearings regarding complaints against the RCMP. Since the House resumed sitting on September 17, we have been preoccupied, and rightfully so, with the horrific events of September 11.

The unprecedented attack on America, and terrorism in general, has caught the attention of this country and the world. Canadians are anxious about the safety and security of our country and its people. They are concerned about the well-being of our friends and neighbours to the south as well. Therefore, all our efforts in the last two months have been focused on appeasing these concerns.

Despite this preoccupation, it is important that we address the issues raised by the Hughes report and discuss his many recommendations. Again, I commend the member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, Quebec for providing this opportunity. It was a pleasure for me to second this motion.

If enacted, the motion before us today would have the government set out in writing the nature and the scope of the independence of the RCMP in its relation with the federal government, as recommended by Judge Hughes.

In his report Hughes concluded that the federal role at APEC was improper and that the RCMP succumbing to government influence was not appropriate. Therefore, Hughes recommended that the federal government bring in legislation to spell out the RCMP's independence from government interference.

In section 10 of his report, Hughes said that currently the nature and extent of police independence is not clearly defined in Canadian law. Furthermore, he stated “there is no consensus, either in academic writing or in judicial decisions, as to what is the proper relationship between the federal government and the RCMP although it is generally agreed that the RCMP does enjoy a measure of independence”.

In fact, Hughes believes that the RCMP Act suggests that the force is not entirely independent of the government by stipulating that the commissioner of the RCMP is appointed by cabinet and controls the force under the direction of the solicitor general. Indeed, the commissioner of the RCMP is a deputy minister in this cabinet serving under the solicitor general.

After reviewing the English approach and the supreme court decision in R. v Campbell, Hughes stated “it is clearly unacceptable for the federal government to have the authority to direct the RCMP's law enforcement activities, telling it who to investigate, arrest and prosecute or other purposes. At the same time, it is equally unacceptable for the RCMP to be completely independent and unaccountable, to become a law unto themselves”.

Based on this conclusion, Hughes recommended, under recommendation 31.3.1 of his report, that the RCMP request a statutory codification of the nature and extent of police independence from government with respect to two areas: first, existing common law principles regarding law enforcement; and, second, the provision of and responsibility for delivery of security services at public order events.

Responding to the Hughes report, RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli dismissed this key recommendation saying that there was no need in his opinion for statutory recognition of police independence. To date the government has not embraced the recommendations, although it has accepted and is attempting to enact the second part of the Hughes report under Bill C-35.

Canadians must have confidence that the RCMP can do its job. That includes doing its job in respect to investigating the government in suspected cases of wrongdoing without the fear of there being reprisals or interference.

Canadians must also be confident that the commissioner of the RCMP, although a high ranking public servant, is not and does not simply become a puppet of the current government supporting its policies and programs even when it may be detrimental to our national police force and to the very frontline police officers.

A couple of weeks ago Commissioner Zaccardelli appeared before the justice committee as a witness in regard to Bill C-36. During his testimony and subsequent questioning Mr. Zaccardelli said:

Obviously, we are very pleased with the resources we have been given by the government. This is not just with respect to the terrorist activities--

The commissioner went on to say:

Could I use more? Yes, I could. The government, as I said, has been very responsive to our needs as we deal with this.

In direct contradiction to Commissioner Zaccardelli, the Canadian Police Association which represents 30,000 officers across Canada including some RCMP officers told the justice committee that the $9 million recently given to the RCMP as part of the government's anti-terrorism initiative was not enough to meet the exceptional demands placed on the Mounties since the September 11 attack.

The $9 million would only allow the RCMP to hire 72 new recruits as 2,000 officers are pulled off priority organized crime cases and frontline community policing duties.

While the commissioner said the RCMP could always use more staff, Michael Niebudek, Canadian Police Association vice-president, told us there clearly is a staffing shortage. He says there are insufficient resources for the RCMP to work on both terrorism and organized crime investigations and that the RCMP has shelved important organized crime work across Canada. Mr. Niebudek said:

Under this flavour of the month approach, enforcement resources are allocated based on shifting political priorities. We have been robbing Peter to pay Paul, and the shell game has to stop.

While the commissioner praised the government and said it had been responsive to RCMP needs, Mr. Niebudek said the government must move swiftly to repair gaping holes in Canada's security and enforcement capabilities.

In response to Mr. Niebudek's comments the solicitor general denied the RCMP was unable to do its job properly because it lacked money and staff. According to an article in last week’s National Post the solicitor general said:

What I've received from the RCMP Commissioner is that they are certainly able to fulfill their mandate.

While the top police bureaucrat and his boss say one thing, our frontline officers are saying something quite different. Clearly Mr. Zaccardelli is supporting or siding with the federal government when he should be supporting his frontline officers and defending the safety and security of our country's citizens.

It was only this spring that we brought witnesses to the justice committee in regard to a bill dealing with organized crime. We understood the severity of organized crime in Canada. We should not be shelving or putting on a back burner investigations that may lead to the apprehension of organized criminals, drug traffickers and other like-minded criminals.

We have a war on terrorism, unquestionably. However we have a war on organized crime as well. This war is a concern and it is bringing down our society as we see it. For the commissioner of the RCMP to be taking people off the organized crime file is irresponsible.

The commissioner of the RCMP should be fighting for the necessary resources so the RCMP can effectively meet the demands being placed on it because of the September 11 attack. For Mr. Zaccardelli to be doing otherwise and accepting the pittance provided to the force by the federal government demonstrates that he is a puppet of the solicitor general. This must be changed.

RCMP independence from the government must be statutorily codified as recommended by Judge Hughes. I therefore support private member's Motion No. 391.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, the verdict is in from the other place. Along with the majority of witnesses appearing before the two parliamentary committees, along with some ministers and MPs, the Senate also is extremely apprehensive about Bill C-36 going too far. This is evident in the major changes they have recommended.

Is the Prime Minister going to allow the necessary amendments as well as a free vote on this bill?

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 provides for the offence of terrorist activity which is broadly described to include facilitating, participating in, financing or directing terrorist activities.

The decision not to ban membership of groups is to overcome a major legal difficulty of proving membership. It also can have constitutional implications. The way of targeting anyone who takes part in terrorist activity or facilitates, participates in, finances or leads it is a much more effective way of catching those who are responsible.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 allows the Government of Canada to implement more than 12 international conventions dealing with terrorism. Many of those provisions allow for extraterritorial charges to be laid and proceeded with in Canada, but also provide obligations for extradition where appropriate.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we have provisions now in the Immigration Act, section 40, which allow for the deportation and removal of people who have been suspected of terrorist activities. We have mutual legal assistance treaties with many countries. We have extradition treaties with many countries.

Bill C-36 also addresses the issue of people who facilitate terrorist activity as described. These people can be detained and they can be extradited or deported in the appropriate circumstances.

Privilege

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize you have important guests so I will try to be brief on my question of privilege. Opinion is divided on whether or not this is a question of privilege. I am told by some that it is and some that it is not. It is however an important matter to bring to the attention of the House as it pertains to the right or opportunity of ordinary MPs to have access to government officials.

It is something that has arisen in exceptional circumstances. We will need your decision on whether it is a question of privilege, or even has the aura of a question of privilege, to decide whether or not it should be considered.

I will remind everyone that in the House we are a company of equals. When I stand or sit at my place I am exactly equal to the Prime Minister in his place. Every colleague is equal to every other colleague, be they ministers, parliamentary secretaries, members of the opposition or otherwise.That is why all our desks are exactly the same.

That is why, I might add, Mr. Speaker, you sit in an elevated chair, not because you lord it over us but because you are our servant. You are the one who makes sure that we do act as equals in the Chamber and indeed on Parliament Hill because as members of parliament we serve the public equally. We do many things by common consent. We decide who is the government. We set up rules in the House. Everything functions in the House by common consent.

I have an instance that appears to be outside the rules of parliament. No rules exist to cover the situation that occurred to me as an individual MP. I am referring to attempts last June by a group of members of parliament to set up a special committee to examine an issue of immense public interest.

The special circumstance was that it was summer and the House was not sitting. We thought we had a deadline. We wanted to present a report before a bureaucratic task force that existed on the Access to Information Act. We thought it was very important that we do this as soon as possible during the summer months.

Part of our plan was to receive briefings from government officials. We sought out those government officials and we had a work plan. We lined them up and many of them agreed to appear before our group.

We were going to hold meetings for the record in the open on Parliament Hill with all the attention to detail of a normal standing committee. However, and this is so important, we were not a standing committee. We were a group of MPs from all sides of the House who were not part of government and who were concerned about an important public issue.

To our surprise, the government suddenly ordered the officials we had lined up not to appear before our committee. The order extended not only to the government officials that we lined up but also to officials from crown corporations. It was every official in government. We had also hoped to talk to some very junior people with respect to access to information.

The issue is not the reason why the government decided to do this. We recognize that the government has certain powers that we by common consent give to it. One of those powers is the right to determine when public officials appear before members of parliament.

What is different in this particular case is that a situation occurred where backbench members of parliament were not carrying out ordinary business. They were carrying out exceptional business, in the sense that the law we were looking at was a law that was quasi-constitutional and affected all members of parliament. Ironically there is a direct analogy with Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation that is before the House because this is a piece of legislation that affects civil liberties. Consequently it affects all members of parliament.

There are situations which occur in which backbench members of parliament or ordinary members of parliament, if you will, might find an absolute necessity to receive briefings from government officials. This is not trivial. It is not as though this was just a casual incident where a group of MPs wanted a briefing from government officials. I think we would all agree that the government would be correct in determining when and where it was appropriate to do this. This was an exceptional circumstance. The government said no and the officials were unable to come.

Mr. Speaker, the guidance I seek from you is that I think there are exceptional circumstances where members of parliament are acting in the most absolute interest of the public, in which the government needs some guidance from parliament, some guidance where it recognizes there are exceptional instances where there should be some sort of mechanism whereby the MPs who are seeking these briefings from officials, briefings in public I might add, can go to perhaps you, Mr. Speaker and say “Mr. Speaker, this is an exceptional circumstance. Will you advise the government on whether this is an appropriate request?”

Mr. Speaker, what I am asking is if you feel that I as an individual have had my work compromised as a result of this decision of the government.

I have before me the report of this committee of MPs who were studying the Access to Information Act which was presented to the public today. It is entitled “A Call for Openness”. It is an excellent effort on the part of backbench MPs to examine a very important issue. Mr. Speaker, I regret to tell you that although I think it is an excellent report, it is less than what it could have been because we were unable to receive briefings from public officials whom we had asked to appear and had no opportunity to question them.

It seems to me that this strikes to the very heart of the privileges of a member of parliament. Whether we are prime minister or backbench MP, when we set out to examine a policy issue that is in the deep public interest, we must have access to the officials whom we need to have access to. It cannot be left absolutely to the government to decide that issue. I am not saying that on a day to day rhythm of things that the government should not have this say, but there are exceptional instances and I believe this report “A Call for Openness” is an exceptional instance.

This report contains 11 recommendations. It is a clarion call for more transparency on the part of government. I have to say that it is a unanimous report by 12 backbench MPs covering most of the major parties. The contribution was entirely non-partisan. I want to particularly mention the Bloc MPs, the member for Saint-Jean and the member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, who made a particular contribution that we all applauded. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not want you to think that this was not an entirely joint effort.

I do not know what the answer is. I think the government acted the way it thought it should act. I think it was perhaps afraid that if backbench MPs can call government officials, that this might happen all the time. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it would happen only rarely. I think every one of us on the committee still believes in partisan politics. We were no less members of our parties because we were acting in a non-partisan way. It was a very fine example of the kind of co-operation that can occur in the House.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider my remarks. What I would like to do is that if you feel that there is a prima facie case for a breach of privilege here, I would like to suggest that I would move a motion that the matter be referred to the appropriate committee of the House to give guidelines to the government on how to deal with these very exceptional instances where backbench MPs might feel they have to gather in a non-partisan manner, and I mean non-government MPs, to consider a major issue. Mr. Speaker, I do thank you.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister is conveniently ignoring the fact that Bill C-36 is a particular threat to visible minorities and that is why there is a split in this caucus.

If the Prime Minister refuses to listen to Canadians, perhaps he can listen to his colleagues. They are worried about this bill and its potential for abuse. Instead of bullying them, perhaps the Prime Minister could start listening to them.

Why will the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice not act on their advice and commit now to a sunset clause?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are joining our call for a sunset clause in Bill C-36, the Canadian bar, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Newspaper Employees' Guild, Canadian Civil Liberties, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the Special Senate Committee and others.

It is time for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to send a clear signal that they will support a sunset clause. Will they do that today?

Air Canada Public Participation Act

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

Madam Speaker, today's debate on Bill C-38 is in connection with Air Canada's demands for a review of the ceiling on individual ownership of shares.

The Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-38.

Of greatest concern are the speeches by the Minister of Transport and the representative of the official opposition on the future of Air Canada and airlines in Canada.

Bill C-38, a simple bill with only three pages, repeals section 6 of the act. I will read it for the men and women of Quebec. The Air Canada employees watching us surely understand it. The act contained, and I quote:

1. (1) provisions imposing constraints on the issue, transfer and ownership, including joint ownership, of voting shares...to prevent any one person, together with the associates of that person, from holding, beneficially owning or controlling, directly or indirectly...voting shares to which are attached more than 15% of the votes that may ordinarily be cast to elect directors of the Corporation—

What the Minister of Transport is proposing in Bill C-38 seems thoroughly harmless. It would, however, allow a single shareholder to hold more than 15% of shares. It would be this shareholder other shareholders or entities who would hold the shares. They would thus have the right to take over control or to take part in the control of Air Canada's board of directors.

Is this desirable? It is what Air Canada is asking for. It is thought that investors could be interested. Citizens and companies across Canada will probably want to buy Air Canada shares, ensuring with colleagues, friends or related corporations that they have a certain degree of control over the board of directors so as to be able to play a greater role in the company's decisions, to perhaps be able to run it better and turn a profit. This would surely allow them to make some sort of return on their investment.

What this means is giving Canada's business community a free hand to control, to continue to control and to increasingly control this national company, Air Canada.

This is cause for concern, because the minister has told us quite candidly what our neighbours to the south have done. He has told us in all sincerity that the Americans provided massive assistance to the airline industry, over $15 billion he tells us, and that was the figure. Five billion dollars in direct aid and $10 billion in loan guarantees. A choice was made. In the wake of the sad events of September 11, the Americans decided to invest heavily. The minister was quite open about this. The Americans invested heavily, he told us, and that is so. The figure mentioned was $15 billion to revive the airline industry.

Other countries in the world suffered, such as Switzerland's Swissair, which sought bankruptcy protection. Switzerland decided to invest heavily in a company called Crossair, a regional airline in Switzerland. This company will soon buy up Swissair's shares and revive the airline industry. Switzerland has made a choice. It decided to invest heavily in Crossair, which will soon take over the defunct Swissair. This is a choice as a society.

What is saddening to hear today is that Canada has decided to give the market free rein and not to make any massive investments to kick start the airline industry. Anything it does do is on a bit by bit basis. Canada's approach is a piecemeal one. At the outset, the minister announced investments to meet high insurance costs.

As a result of the sad events of September 11, the airlines were faced with astronomical hikes in insurance costs. Some carriers were no longer even able to insure themselves. The government therefore decided to compensate them for the astronomically high premiums they were being charged for insurance.

It then reimbursed expenses. Since the air space was totally closed down, all companies' equipment was grounded. The Government of Canada decided, still within its piecemeal approach, to announce one week later that it would offer compensation and assistance, reimbursing the airlines' losses that were the result of the six day closing of Canadian air space.

This assistance was in dribs and drabs. After that a loan guarantee program was announced, followed last week by another loan guarantee to Canada 3000 of $74 million.

The minister refers to a business restructuring. He spoke of massive staff reductions. Once again the minister helped out Canada 3000 once it had restructured and, in particular, made massive staff cuts.

The minister has told us very candidly that the government can help the five major carriers in Canada, including Air Canada, Air Transat, WestJet and Canada 3000. He said very candidly “once they have restructured”. Downsizing is an important part of the restructuring of any company.

This is a message to the employees of all these airlines in Canada and Quebec, saying “In the end, you are the ones who will pay for the September 11 events. We will help—as was the case with Canada 3000—once your company has restructured financially”. And the minister adds “once your company has reduced its staff”.

In order to get help from the federal government, airlines must absolutely restructure. They must submit a restructuring plan that includes staff reductions. This is very hard to accept for airline industry workers, because what happened on September 11 was not their fault. It is not their fault if their industry suffered such setbacks but they are the ones who are paying for this.

Again, this applies to four airlines at the exclusion of Air Canada. In the agreement and in the various acts, very important guarantees were demanded for Air Canada. Such guarantees were demanded by the Bloc Quebecois, which questioned the government in debates on the various acts establishing Air Canada as we know it today, and by others. Why? To protect the rights of workers.

Air Canada is the largest airline, with 80% of Canada's air traffic. Therefore, it is important that it be afforded some protection. When Canadian was integrated with Air Canada, we made sure that workers would not lose. As the minister said, we made sure that small municipalities would be served. This has always been a requirement in the original legislation that is now being amended. These requirements have not changed. Protecting the rights of workers and serving small municipalities are still requirements under the acts that established Air Canada and French in the skies.

It is sad to hear speeches such as that of the Alliance member in a country where there are two founding peoples, anglophones and francophones. Members will understand why, with such speeches, that sovereignty is not dead in Quebec. If we were to hear speeches like that of the Alliance member every day, I am sure sovereignty would take off for the pure and simple reason that francophone rights must be protected.

And the law provides for the protection of French in the air.

What is harder to accept is the fact that 136 complaints are before the commissioner of official languages. They were lodged against Air Canada because French is not respected in the air. This is the harsh reality.

It is hard to hear the representatives of the Canadian Alliance say, today, that it is time to stop protecting French in the air, a practice established by one of the two founding peoples, thanks to representations by the Bloc Quebecois, among others. Air Canada is Canada's largest airline, carrying 82% of the volume.

Obviously we must carry on and make sure that the rights of travellers are protected. As regards service to small municipalities—I am using the minister's expression—it must be protected. That is what the minister said earlier.

There are no large or small municipalities. Canada was built from communities that diversified their approaches. Communities were established around natural resources. Cities—this is the term we should use and not small and large municipalities—were established across Canada.

No law makes a distinction between towns and cities in Quebec. They are cities. There are no large and small cities in the Quebec Loi des cités et villes. There are cities. Obviously, there are cities in the regions and there are cities near major urban centres, and the law must protect and continue to protect service to cities in the regions.

Canada owes its existence to its natural resources and continues to be very much a country of natural resources. The future is very important for all regions of Canada. Such is the diversity of Canada, what makes it great. We are one of the largest countries in the world in which the decision has been made to allow the market to operate freely.

That is where the problem lies. In such a vast country, a country of such diversity, the strength of which depends in large part on the natural resources located in distant regions, the government has a duty to intervene in order to ensure that transportation services are maintained, including the most rapid means of transportation, air service, so that regional cities are connected with the major urban centres.

That is why it was hard to swallow today the statement in the minister's speech saying that, with Bill C-36 which merged Air Canada and Canadian, we obtained and included protection for service to small municipalities.

I hope he will rethink his choice of words. Cities in the regions have as much right to air service as major urban centres. That is reality. Just as Canada's francophone air travellers have as much right to service in their own language as anglophones.

I am proud that the act which created Air Canada protects the use of French in the air. I hope the rumours that Air Canada wants to abandon Air Canada Regional precisely because the use of French in the air is a constraint on the expansion of all the businesses that make up Air Canada Regional, are not true.

Apparently they want to abandon these businesses, sell them or transfer a part of their routes. That is the current rumour. This is an attempt to improve the bottom line and to avoid having to respond to the 136 complaints received by the official languages commissioner against Air Canada regarding the use of French in the air.

It is difficult and it is a hard fight but we must continue to fight to protect the rights of workers under the statutes that created Air Canada as we know it today. We must continue to protect service to cities in the regions, and not small municipalities as the minister said, and protect the use of French in the air.

This bill only changes the percentage of individual or group participation in the share capital of Air Canada. It only amends this clause.

The Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-38 for the simple reason that the rights of workers at Air Canada will still be protected, as will service to cities in the regions, and the use of French in the air.

We must continue to fight so that cities in the regions of Canada and Quebec are better served and that the use of French, the language of one of the two founding peoples of Canada, is better protected in the air.

This is a commitment which the Bloc Quebecois is determined to defend in the House.

It is sad to see the federal government deciding to put its faith in the free market in something as important throughout Canada as the airline industry. This is a position strongly backed by the Canadian Alliance, which would like to go much further. It would be a disaster for Canada's entire airline industry for the good and simple reason that this great country of Canada, and of Quebec, needs flights linking cities in the regions with major urban centres. They do not all have the same number of inhabitants and are so diversified that we must support them. In my view, the Government of Canada would do well to do as Switzerland or the United States have done and provide massive aid to the airline industry. It is a vital part of our economy.

Companies such as Bombardier were able to create markets in aeronautics because we in Canada were heavy users of air services. The entire aeronautics industry is supported by the airline industry and we must encourage this industry and its workers. They should not have to pay for what happened on September 11. They should not bear the brunt of industries' losses through the loss of their jobs. We are condemning entire families to poverty just because the government decided to give the market free rein.

I call on the minister to rethink his position on this issue. I call on the federal Liberal government to start looking at the larger picture and to send out a clear message. I hope the Minister of Finance will understand and that in his next budget he will announce heavy investments to support Canada's airline industry. As in the United States, Switzerland and other countries, this industry needs significant government support right now, until business picks up. We all hope that business picks up in the airline industry. Only time will tell.

Working on security is a good example. I support the Minister of Finance with respect to the Government of Canada's investments in security.

The problem is that we did not do enough before September 11. This is why we now have to invest so massively in security. We did not do it before. In 1987 the government decided to move the RCMP out of all Canadian airports. The RCMP was responsible for monitoring and supervising security at airports. It is not just the Liberal government that made this type of decision. That decision was made by the Conservative government and was supported by the current Liberal government. Why? For reasons of economy.

The government delegated to so-called non-profit organizations the responsibility of managing and administering some of the duties relating to security at airports.

Today we are seeing some of the results of that decision. There has not been much investment. Instead, cuts were made. The government tried to transfer the burden of security to airline companies which, over the past 20 years, have undergone major changes, including bankruptcies and the merging of Canadian Airlines International and Air Canada. Meanwhile, it was asking airlines to pay for security.

It did so by investing as little as possible. Since 1987 Transport Canada has been responsible for security at airports. This is a civilian agency which over the past 15 years has been much busier dealing with disputes about the costs to airline companies compared to the services provided by non-profit organizations set up by the Government of Canada to transfer its responsibility. They tried to make it as inexpensive as possible and now we can see the results.

Today we are being forced to make massive investments and the Liberal government is now afraid that it will not have enough money, for the simple reason that we do not know exactly how much the security bill will cost. In the meantime, we are not investing in the airline industry, we are saving our pennies to invest in security and protect passengers, users and all Canadian.

This is a choice we as a society made, and today the airline industry is paying the price. The federal Liberal government does not want to invest like the Americans have done. Once again, I thought the minister's statement was quite frank when he said that the Americans had provided massive support for the airline industry, $5 billion in direct assistance, $10 billion in loan guarantees; $15 billion in all.

Switzerland made a choice, following Swissair's filing for protection under the bankruptcy act, when it decided to invest massively, with the purchase of 38% of the shares of Crossair, which will take over from Swissair in January. So, it is a societal choice.

In Canada, all that is being promised, all that is being offered to employees in the airline industry, which supports the aviation industry, airplane manufacturers, et cetera, is Bill C-38. The world's leading companies in aviation and aeronautics are here, there are manufacturers and companies that produce parts, and all that we can promise them today is Bill C-38.

We agree that individuals should be able to have more than a 15% control of shares if they want to. If this finally allowed a major investor to control Air Canada's board of directors and try to jump start the company and get it on track, this is a societal choice that the government of Canada has made.

We must think about the workers in the airline industry, in all the companies, and not just the five major ones. There are regional companies as well. This afternoon, Air Alma was mentioned. There is Air Inuit and all the other regional carriers, which were hit with the reduction in air traffic across Canada and around the world. They are not being helped by the measures the minister announced yesterday.

This afternoon in oral question period, the minister told us candidly that revitalizing the major companies was likely to give the smaller regional carriers a boost. This represents a choice not to support the regional companies, which are often family operations, and letting them go adrift. When they hit really hard times and are within inches of seeking bankruptcy protection the government might agree to guarantee loans for them, if things are really going bad.

No plan is in place to help the airline industry. They will deal with things piecemeal, day by day. They put out fires. That is how security was dealt with. When problems arise, they deal with them. Otherwise, they try to save as much as possible in security. This is the way they have operated since 1987.

They are making massive investments because there is a security problem but the passengers on the airlines are paying the cost in Canada. Today they have nothing more to sink their teeth into. They have a bill that will enable private investors to participate more in Air Canada in an attempt to revive it.

I hope and we will demand that the context in which today's Air Canada was established will be maintained. In other words, Canada and Quebec need a strong airline that respects travellers' rights, that serves the cities and the regions and that uses French in the air, for both founding peoples.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, recent public comments from certain cabinet ministers showed a real concern for possible civil liberty infringements found in Bill C-36. There is reason to fear that excessive party discipline may stifle contrary opinions from within the Liberal ranks.

In these uncertain and challenging times, Liberal members of parliament should be free to speak up without reprisals from the Prime Minister.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to allowing for free votes both in the House and in committee on this extremely important legislation?

Supply

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that fits in with what I said when I spoke on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act.

I said then that the money the government was promising today goes only for military sanctions. No money is provided to fight destitution and poverty, the root causes of this war. As long as there is destitution and poverty, the freedom that we are advocating will never be, and the war which is raging now will never cease.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear such comments but, as I said earlier, we need more than words on the part of the government, we need action.

Allow me to read the text of the motion once again so members can understand that humanitarian aid is not frivolous but is necessary and vital:

That this House calls upon the Parliament to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially increasing the funds available to Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the level of its aid for development to 0.7 % of GDP, as recommenced by the United Nations.

I also wish to quote paragraph 1 of the Vienna declaration and program of action on the occasion of the World Conference on Human Rights of 1993:

Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings; their promotion and protection are the first responsibility of Governments.

It has been several years since the protection and promotion of fundamental needs of human beings were reaffirmed as the responsibility of governments but unfortunately the government has done very little in this regard. This is unacceptable.

The idea of allocating 0.7% of GDP to international aid was first raised in 1969. However, this principle was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations only in 1990. At that time, Canada voted in favour of this principle. Since then, our country's contribution, far from reaching this objective, has been reduced, from 0.48% in 1990 to 0.25% today. This is totally unacceptable. It is therefore easy to conclude that there is a wide gap between the government's intentions and its actions.

This is all the more shocking when we remember that the Prime Minister himself said in this House, on April 30, 2001, that our aid to developing countries would continue to rise. What actually did happen? The opposite, as we have just seen.

The Prime Minister also said that Canada as a country is among the best positioned to make rich countries aware of the needs of poorer countries. When will Canada itself become more aware?

There is a real concern in the country about the situation of refugees. The situation of the Afghan refugees is really tragic and something has to be done immediately. Military support is not enough in the current context. We have to ensure that innocent people are not paying for what their government has been doing, particularly because of the events that unite us in this fight against terrorism. This is in essence what Kofi Annan said in his September 27 press conference at the UN headquarters.

The United Nations takes the issue very seriously and we should do the same. We have a responsibility to help the UN, as we promised to do more than 10 years ago. We have to keep our engagement to offer humanitarian aid of 0.7% of GDP. What more evidence do we need?

The United Nations should lead the diplomatic, political and, above all, humanitarian actions since it is in a better position to evaluate the consequences of this crisis and not only the military actions.

And what is this crisis all about? There is a continuous influx of Afghan refugees in the neighbouring countries, in the wake of the military strikes. Over 2,000 Afghan refugees gathered at the Iranian border in the last couple of days, for a total of 4,000 refugees in this camp alone. The United Nations high commission for refugees is concerned for their security.

The high commission also fears that the Taliban will recruit within refugee camps. There are also grounds to believe that over 300,000 refugees are massing at the Pakistan border to escape the bombings, adding to the numbers already there.

It is worthy of note that, even before the military strikes, the Afghans were the largest refugee group in the world, surpassing by far those from Iraq, Burundi or Sierra Leone. The Afghan people are therefore in urgent need of our assistance, because the situation is only getting worse.

What are we to do? This is what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing. In the absence of any clear federal policy on bilateral development assistance provided directly to foreign governments, it would be appropriate to put in place a specific plan aimed at attaining the objective of 0.7% of GDP, the target set by the UN.

Second, such a bilateral policy would ensure that funds are not misappropriated by regimes in which corruption is systematic.

Third, in the short term, we propose the injection of an additional $3 billion into international humanitarian aid.

Fourth, it is urgent to provide a positive response to the request for monetary aid from United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan, for $US 585 million to deal with the Afghan crisis. It is unacceptable that Canada has so far contributed only $16 million for all humanitarian organizations. Let us keep in mind that this is the $16 million that had already been announced, not an additional $16 million. It is still the same amount. This is totally unacceptable.

Fifth, in the long term, the Bloc Quebecois believes that the root causes of the scourge of terrorism must be eliminated: poverty, despair and war. These are the real issues behind any conflict that leaves countless innocent victims in its wake.

Sixth, we must review our military objectives because destroying the organization of Osama bin Laden will merely eliminate the threat it represents. It will not eliminate terrorism, which will exist for as long as abject poverty continues to exist.

Seventh, the Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that the federal government must review its foreign policy, which emphasizes the commercial aspect of international relations. One must realize that human rights also need to be taken into consideration.

The Bloc Quebecois demands that the federal government attain the 0.7% of GDP objective, as recommended by the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation and the North-South Institute. These are all organizations which can see the results of this crisis and bear witness to it.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, governments are mainly responsible for protecting the rights and freedoms of any human being. Canada, which boasts about being a rich and privileged country always willing to help poorer countries, has a duty and an obligation to take concrete financial measures in this regard.

The Bloc Quebecois proposes concrete and feasible solutions. Now it is up to the federal government to take action to honour the commitment it made 10 years ago to Quebecers, to Canadians and above all to Afghan refugees.

Not long ago, during the debate on Bill C-36, I said that I hoped the funds allocated for the fight against terrorism would not be used only for sanctions but also to fight poverty, which would help solve the terrorism problem.

Today we have an opportunity to pursue this discussion and to see to it that our words are supported by concrete actions. Bombs are not enough to curb terrorism. We also need to provide support to the innocent population and to take concrete steps within the country.

The Bloc Quebecois proposes short and long term solutions. Let us not kid ourselves, terrorism will continue to have a hold on disadvantaged nations as long as the root causes of this scourge exist and these nations remain without a voice to express their feeling of helplessness.

It is incumbent upon us to give them the tools they need to advance toward democracy, and that is what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the Minister of Transport with contempt. The minister has brought the authority and dignity of the House into question and has breached the new procedure that was established by the adoption of the first report of the modernization committee.

On Thursday, October 25, while the House was in session, the minister held a press conference to announce a $75 million bailout for Canada 3000. While this brand of disrespect is not uncommon for the Liberal government, I believe that this is the first time that such an act has occurred since the adoption of the first report of the modernization committee. At page 4 of that report the committee states:

Concerns have been expressed that government announcements, regarding legislation or policies, are increasingly made outside the House of Commons. While this is by no means a recent phenomenon, it continues to be a source of concern. The Committee is recommending two initiatives to address it.

First, it is important that more ministerial statements and announcements be made in the House of Commons. In particular, topical developments, or foreseeable policy decisions, should be made first—or, at least, concurrently—in the chamber. Ministers, and their departments, need to be encouraged to make use of the forum provided by the House of Commons. Not only will this enhance the pre-eminence of Parliament, but it will also reiterate the legislative underpinning for governmental decisions.

The committee recommended that the government make greater use of ministerial statements in the Chamber and that the House leaders be advised in advance of these statements.

I was not advised of this announcement. When I stood in the House on Thursday and asked the Thursday question, the government House leader had the opportunity right there and then, but failed to do so.

There was no reason why the Minister of Transport could not have advised the opposition and there were no procedural difficulties preventing the Minister of Transport from making his announcement in the House. I am certain that all parties would have extended every courtesy to the minister if he had chosen to respect the House and make his announcement here.

It is important to know that the House adjourned early on that day for lack of business. It adjourned early last Monday and Friday and it adjourned early on Friday, October 19, and on Monday, October 22, so wherein lies the problem with debating these issues on the floor of the House? A $75 million bailout is no small change. Where does the minister think the authority to spend the $75 million comes from?

The government and its departments are continuously making a habit of mocking the parliamentary system in this manner. We have had the deliberate leaking to the media of contents of Bill C-15 and, more recently, of the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36.

One of the reasons the modernization committee felt it necessary to address the issue was that in the last two parliaments the government got away with mocking the legislative process at every turn, belittling the role of members of parliament. I will cite a few of the more serious examples.

On Thursday, October 23, 1997, the government announced that provincial and federal governments had constituted a nominating committee to nominate candidates for the new Canada pension plan investment board. The nominating committee was provided for under subclause 10(2) of Bill C-2. The House had not yet adopted Bill C-2.

On January 21, 1998, the minister responsible for the wheat board met in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of directors to the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, as proposed in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4 tabled at report stage by opposition members were scheduled for debate in the House. While the House debated how many directors should be farmer elected versus being government appointees, the minister was holding meetings as though the bill was already law.

When the Canadian millennium scholarship fund was being established, a published article in the Toronto Star announced that Yves Landry had been named as the head of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Mr. Landry was quoted as saying “I am only one member of the board and my job is to be a facilitator”. There was no legislation before the House setting up the foundation, nor had the budget announcement allocating $2.5 billion in revenue to the foundation been adopted.

The Minister for International Trade announced on March 30, 1998, the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group. At that time, the House had not set up a Canada-China interparliamentary group.

Finally, the date of the last budget that was delivered in the House, so long ago we have probably forgotten, was announced by the Prime Minister outside the House.

Each disrespectful act we allow to stand unchallenged becomes a precedent that serves afterwards to justify more acts of disrespect. The modernization committee recognized this and felt it necessary to make a statement.

The adoption of this report outlined what standard the House expected from ministers in this regard.

On page 119 of Erskine May there is a reference regarding a select committee that was appointed to inquire into the conduct and activities of members and to consider whether any such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House and whether any such activities were:

--conduct...inconsistent with the standards the House was entitled to expect from its Members.

The minister cannot claim ignorance because the House pronounced itself on this issue through the adoption of the modernization committee report. When the Minister of Transport made his announcement outside the House on Thursday, October 25 while there was still an opportunity to make it inside, his conduct was clearly inconsistent with the standards the House was entitled to expect from him. As a consequence the minister is in contempt of the House.

The other related parliamentary tradition that the government likes to forget about is the issue of and respect for the doctrine of ministerial responsibility.

The Minister of Transport and the rest of his colleagues, and particularly the Minister of Justice, should review the definition of ministerial responsibility from page 63 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May. It states:

—ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament—

Where can we find the truthful and accurate information regarding the decision to hand out $75 million to Canada 3000? Not in Hansard of Thursday, October 25. Where it was found was in the Globe and Mail of October 26.

I am beginning to think that being held in contempt in the House is of little concern to the government. Let us look at the example of the Minister of Justice who was held in contempt for leaking to the media the contents of Bill C-15.

When I appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to review another charge of contempt involving the minister, I pointed out that we no longer respect, to the same degree as in the past, the principle that ministers have a duty to parliament to account and to be held to account for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments.

I cited the example from 1976 involving the Hon. André Ouellet, the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs. Mr. Ouellet made a comment on the acquittal by Mr. Justice Mackay of the sugar companies accused of forming cartels and combines. As a result, Mr. Justice Mackay cited him for contempt of court. He was found guilty of the charge and resigned his cabinet post over the incident.

A charge of contempt by the House should be considered just as serious, if not more serious, as a contempt charge in a court. Unfortunately the Minister of Justice chose not to take responsibility in the time honoured tradition of ministerial accountability, as did Mr. Ouellet.

Getting back to this case, I will conclude my remarks by saying that had I had an opportunity to respond to this announcement by the Minister of Transport I might have asked the minister why he can justify giving Canada 3000 $75 million but cannot spend one dime on the softwood lumber industry that lost millions of dollars over a trade dispute with the United States. Thousands of people are out of work as a result and thousands more are expected to lose their jobs.

Also, what about the farmers who suffered through this summer's drought?

These are some of the questions we might have asked if the minister had given us an opportunity, but we did not. The minister might want to talk about timing, about how the House was not sitting. It was not sitting because the government chose not to have it sitting. It adjourned early. We have adjourned early too many days over the last little while.

Certainly I saw the minister on television that night at 7 p.m. The House adjourned early,and I cannot remember if it was 3 p.m. or 4 p.m., but surely he must have made the decision earlier in the day. He could have spoken to the government House leader and made sure it was put on the agenda so that we could have done it in the House and it could have been done properly.

Mr. Speaker, if you find that we have a case of privilege, I am prepared to move the proper motion.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the concerns of some Canadians about civil liberties, some groups have called for exemptions from Bill C-36.

Could either the minister of Indian affairs or the justice minister tell us whether native people across Canada will be exempted from the provisions of Bill C-36 as some of their leaders are calling for? A simple yes or no would suffice.

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

Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that the definition as found in Bill C-36 provides any unnecessary or unreasonable impediments to prosecutors. We see those qualifiers as an important part of the definition to ensure we are not sweeping up organizations, groups and individuals who should not be included.

Access to Information

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

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is not a private lawsuit. The taxpayers are footing the bill.

Time and time again the government has turned its back on concepts of openness and accountability. In Bill C-36 the justice minister's sweeping new powers will indefinitely, if not permanently, hide information from Canadians while sidestepping government watchdogs. Powers of arrest and intercept are expanded, rights are suspended and safeguards against excessive use are minimal.

Given the sense of alarm, will the minister accept sunset clause amendments for intrusive sections of the bill to protect Canadian rights from a cabinet information clampdown?

Anti-terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, the United Kingdom and the United States, the two key players in the war on terrorism, understand that enhanced police powers must be coupled with stronger checks and balances. Both countries have passed provisions for compensation of people whose property or whose person is arrested wrongfully through new anti-terrorism laws.

If the government will not allow for a sunset clause as a way to protect Canadian civil liberties, will it amend Bill C-36 to guarantee full financial compensation for any Canadian who may be wrongfully detained in the new anti-terrorism dragnet?

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings up a good point and that is the advice coming from the Senate and the House committees looking into Bill C-36. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have said in the House repeatedly that the government, while it has put forward preferred options, is willing to consider all reasonable advice coming from those committees.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government and the Minister of Health are bungling when faced with a potential emergency, and their actions show that they feel they can break the law.

At the same time, parliament is working on anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36, and a number of voices are condemning the abuse that could result from this legislation.

Since the government is clearly showing that it overreacts in a crisis, is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to make major amendments to Bill C-36 and include, among other provisions, sunset clauses?

Customs Act

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

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.

We cannot separate trade from security in our relationship with the United States. Eighty-four per cent of our trade is with the United States. Every truck, every shipment, everything that goes across the border involves security. Many aspects of Bill S-23 deal with allowing trucks to flow freely back and forth without inspection at the border by arranging for prior inspections. This is absolutely contrary to the atmosphere now in the United States and in Canada. We are not talking about expediting transportation now. We are talking about increased security. That is just the opposite.

Many aspects of Bill S-23 were to allow for electronically transmitted information and pre-clearance based on profiling and audits on previous business and things like that. We have to come to an understanding with the United States on whether or not it is going to accept that philosophy prior to passing any bill, either Bill S-23 or the proposed omnibus bill that we hear hints of from the government, which will deal with transportation issues. It is supposed to be the second bill after the terrorism bill, Bill C-36. We understand it is coming, that it is being drafted now. We have not seen it yet, but many aspects of it will impact on Bill S-23.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's watchdogs have clearly indicated that the new anti-terrorism bill goes too far in denying disclosure of information to Canadians and that it is open to abuse. Both the privacy and information commissioners were clear and forceful in condemning the attempts at secrecy by the government.

Proposed amendments to Bill C-36, to the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act give the government overreaching powers to, without explanation or oversight, refuse to disclose. Without sunsetting, this bank of information will be permanently lost.

Why is the government now using the security threat to try to justify a clampdown on the free flow of information?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bisson's comments were directed specifically at that portion of the bill that relates to the communications security establishment. He quite clearly indicated that his use of the word exorbitant was in the sense of being out of the ordinary and not excessive. In fact, I have a written letter from Mr. Bisson who supports the amendment in Bill C-36 for the communications security establishment.

Supply

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say I agree with the Leader of the Opposition insofar as I do believe that we on this side of the House do look at people in general as being good people.

However we are not naive and we have put in place these kinds of measures with respect to security in Canada, not only with customs and immigration but also with respect to CSIS and the RCMP.

For example, I just came from the justice committee of which I am a member. We listened to Commissioner Zaccardelli and Mr. Elcock talk about the kinds of measures being taken in this all important area. It is now a different world as a result of what took place on September 11. As a result we need to take extraordinary measures. That is exactly part of what Bill C-36 says.

It is important that we as a government, in a balanced and fair approach, with a measured response and with the kinds of responses necessary in keeping with the charter of rights and freedoms, maintain the kind of system that has, I believe, Canadian values at the core.

What I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition, however, is this: Does he think there is anything to be gained by fearmongering as he and his party are doing? Does he think there is anything to be gained by pitting people against people, group against group, province against province, as he often does? I would be interested in hearing his response, because what he always does, it seems to me, is try to stir up fear when really what we should be doing is taking a calming approach and making sure that we approach this problem with dignity and with the kind of steady response that I believe the government has given. I would be interested in his response.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

moved:

That, as part of a continental perimeter initiative to secure Canada's borders and protect the security of Canadians and our neighbours, and to protect our trading relationships, this House calls on the government to:

(a) provide both Immigration officers and Customs officers enhanced training and full peace officer status to allow them to detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border;

(b) move Customs border officers out of the tax collection agency and into a law enforcement agency;

(c) detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing without proper documentation until their identities are confirmed and they have cleared proper health and security checks; and

(d) create a list of safe third countries, including the United States and member states of the European Union, from which Canada will no longer accept refugee claimants.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present the official opposition's motion on some of the steps necessary to create a continental security perimeter.

The Canadian Alliance supports the concept of a security perimeter. We have talked about it at length. It has also been proposed by others and by the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Mr. Paul Cellucci. Those of us who have proposed this have done so for several reasons.

First and foremost, we believe the perimeter concept is the best way to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

Second, it would help ensure the safety and security of our friends and neighbours in the United States.

Third, it would help ensure that the vital flow of trade between Canada and the United States, which is some $1.3 billion per day every day of the year, continues.

Fourth, by enhancing our ability to protect ourselves and our economic arrangements we enhance our own sovereignty. We become less subject to those who would abuse our openness and generosity and we increasingly become masters of our own destiny, truly maîtres chez nous.

In recent weeks we have proposed that a federal-provincial summit be held to study the feasibility of this security perimeter. The Liberal government in its arrogance has, of course, reminded us that in its vision of Canada, which is out of touch with reality, the provinces have no place in decision making on this.

Yet, as far as public safety and security are concerned, Quebec and Ontario have their own police services. As far as immigration is concerned, Quebec and Alberta have a say. Rather than always perceiving provincial involvement as a threat, the Liberal government would be better off seeing it for what it is: an essential input from which everyone stands to benefit.

A North American security perimeter would mean harmonizing our borders and immigration policies with our neighbours, sharing common standards.

The perimeter involves harmonizing customs and immigration policies among Canada, the United States and perhaps Mexico to ensure that there are common and regular standards on our external frontier so that we do not have to slow down internal trade and we do not have to excessively infringe upon the rights of our own citizens domestically. Harmonizing does not mean giving up our controls. As a matter of fact, it would mean increasing control of our own territory and entering into an arrangement where we would be certain that our neighbours at the same time would be monitoring their borders with proper controls also.

This may involve certain things, for example, creating a common list of countries that we regard as safe countries. I will talk further about that in a moment. It may involve joint customs inspections at airports, both in North America and abroad. It may involve border stations where the United States and Canadian agents work more closely together. At a very minimum, any effective security perimeter will have to involve measures like the ones we propose in our motion.

Canada customs officers and immigration officers will have to be designated as full peace officers with the power to detain and arrest suspected criminals and terrorists. This will require that they have enhanced training and enhanced equipment.

Second, customs officers in particular have requested that they be removed from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. That agency is at root a tax collection agency. These customs officers should be placed in a designated law enforcement agency, perhaps an enhanced border control, that would fall under a law enforcement oriented department, such as the solicitor general.

Next we will need to have a firmer policy at the border so that surprise arrivals, who spontaneously claim refugee status at airports or at border crossings without proper documents such as passports or identity cards, should be detained, and not as the minister says “for a while” or “while certain checks are done” but until their identity is established and it can be determined that they do not present a health or security risk to Canadians.

Finally, there are a number of countries, including the United States and the member countries of the European Union, which are in compliance with article 33 of the Geneva convention on refugees. That means that these countries, like Canada, which are free and democratic and which are civilized and have an established history of protecting the human rights and interests of all people in their countries, are called safe countries according to that Geneva convention because they do not persecute, threaten or torture people for religious, political or other reasons. No persons in these countries deemed safe, such as Canada, could legitimately claim that they would be tortured or persecuted because of religious, political or other reasons.

People arriving from countries deemed as safe should not be accepted as refugee claimants. Persons arriving from these countries, countries like Canada, Sweden and Holland, who try to claim refugee status saying that they would be tortured back in the country from which they came should be put on the next plane or bus and sent back to the safe country from which they came.

In short, the motion presented by the Canadian Alliance today particularly addresses providing our customs officers with enhanced training, ensuring that those who turn up at our airports without identity papers are detained until they are identified and we are sure that they do not represent a threat to our security, no longer accepting refugees from the United States or member states of the European Union, and if such people turn up at our borders claiming refugee status, deporting them immediately.

To most members of the general public, these would sound like basic and common sense proposals.

Our customs and immigration officers should have the tools and training they need to do their job. Canada should not accept refugees from first world safe nations or those who are trying to identify themselves as such.

I am sure in the debate today we will hear members of the government claim that these are radical policies, Draconian or un-Canadian. This is the inevitable Liberal reaction to any ideas which originate from the Canadian Alliance.

It was the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, who once said that all truth goes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed; then it is violently opposed; and then if it is truth, it is accepted as self-evident.

That has been the pattern of so many of the policies presented by Canadian Alliance members and members before us on this side over the years. When we talked about reducing and getting rid of deficit and debt, we were called extreme; it was violently opposed; and then it was accepted by the Liberals. So many of our policies followed this pattern.

I have no doubt that some speakers on the government side today will express a mixture of ridicule and violent opposition to our proposals. However, I have no doubt that in a few months, the Prime Minister will agree to a very similar list of the proposals that we are presenting today. He will do that in a press conference, probably with President Bush, likely claiming that these were obvious ideas which he had supported all along. Watch for that to happen. This has been the pattern of the federal Liberal government since the beginning of the response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.

As early as September 15, I and others spoke to the House about two great imperatives in the response to these terrorist attacks. I said that Canada would need, as our British and American allies already had, comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation. I said that Canada should not hesitate to fulfill our obligation under article 5 of the NATO treaty to provide military assistance to our friend and ally, the United States.

At first, the government response was that these steps were an unnecessary overreaction and that there was no need to adopt such extreme measures. However, barely five weeks later, the government has now tabled anti-terrorism legislation that has many of the very suggestions of the Canadian Alliance in a motion that the Canadian Alliance tabled and the government voted against on September 18. Thankfully, the government has finally committed to military support in the U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan; it was deemed not to be an overreaction.

I have no doubt that whatever the government talking points tell members to say today, and however the whip tells Liberal MPs to vote this evening, in a short period of time, in either the second round of anti-terrorism legislation or at a Canada-U.S. or Canada-U.S.-Mexico summit, we will see the government proudly introducing measures along the lines we are suggesting today.

I would ask the government members who will reply to the opposition supply day motion today to be very careful in what they say about our proposals and to remember the words that Prime Minister Trudeau wrote on his question period briefing book: “May my words today be soft and tender for I may have to eat them tomorrow.”

The focus of the motion is on providing a safe and secure border for Canada.

The government has gone to extreme and far reaching attempts in proposing to reach into the lives of Canadians with criminal justice legislation. Bill C-36 will provide for new and unprecedented powers, like the right to make preventive arrests, the ability to shut down websites for content that it may deem to be hateful and the ability to permanently lock access to information on national security or diplomatic grounds without even offering the possibility of review to the information commissioner.

Some of these new powers may well be necessary, and the government will argue for that. We will listen, we will take part and we will support where we feel that is necessary. Some may, indeed, be overdue additions to the new law enforcement arsenal that is required. However, there are some matters in Bill C-36 which will raise valid concerns about civil liberties.

The one question that keeps coming back to my mind is: Why has the government been so hasty to introduce legislation which will infringe, perhaps justifiably, on the rights of Canadian citizens domestically, but it has done almost nothing to prevent the arrival of potential terrorists here from abroad? I do not understand this contradiction.

If Canada presented a solid frontier at the border and terrorists and criminals knew they had little chance of making it in, then there would be no need for some of the powers the government is bringing in under Bill C-36. We need wiretap powers because over 50 international terrorist groups are known to operate in Canada. With very few exceptions, almost every one of the suspected terrorists originated from another country. If these groups had been prevented from establishing themselves here in the first place, we would have no need to provide new sweeping wiretap powers.

Sergeant Philippe Lapierre of the RCMP's national security and intelligence section, the counterterrorism unit, spoke at the international conference on money laundering in Montreal last week. He pointed out that terrorist groups operating in Canada follow a common modus operandi. I am being careful to say that he was talking about terrorist groups and potential terrorists. That is who we are talking about, not all refugee claimants. We will be very upset if we get accused of that again today. We are talking about suspected terrorists.

This is what the distinguished member of the RCMP said:

Some people are sent here with a mission and some people come here on their own and are recruited. But once here, they all have the same MO (modus operandi).

He said that first they would claim refugee status, allowing the claimant to remain in Canada while their case worked its way through the system, which as we all know can take years. Then they would apply for benefits in Canada, welfare and health cards that provided an income stream while they got established. Next they would link with other criminals and terrorists to commit petty theft, economic fraud and other supposedly invisible crime. Then they would launder the money through legitimate businesses which then could be used to finance terrorist operations in Canada or abroad.

The pattern is common and the RCMP have seen it at work in different cities with different terrorist groups across Canada. Again I repeat it is not all refugee claimants. It is different terrorist groups across Canada. If we can break the cycle, we can do much to break the influence of terrorist groups in Canada. That is why I believe we can win this war if we fight it properly. The place we have to start is with tougher enforcement at the Canadian border.

In reference to Bill C-36, the Minister of Justice has said that its sweeping powers are necessary because we have to stop terrorists before they get on planes in Canada. She went on to say that when they got on planes intending to commit hijackings and killings, it was too late. We agree with that. The best way to ensure that terrorists do not get on our planes on our soil is not to allow them off the planes arriving in Canada in the first place.

Let me focus on one area of this debate which I believe will prove to be contentious. I have said in the House on several occasions that I believe people who arrive in Canada and spontaneously claim refugee status without proper identification or under suspicious circumstances, and I am not talking about all refugees, should be detained until their identities can be confirmed and until they have passed security clearance to ensure that they do not pose a danger to Canadians.

The minister of immigration, who is not known for using words which are soft and tender, said that this proposal of ours, which most Canadians would call common sense, was in fact “one of the dark moments in Canadian history”. She also said that it was nothing less than a proposal for penal colonies in Canada. We have never suggested such a thing and that is a departure from rational debate for her to even suggest that. Unfortunately, this reaction is only too typical of this minister who resorts to fearmongering and name calling in too many situations only to hide the weakness of her own logic and inaction.

When children are in schoolyards and their schoolmates call them names, they react with the chant: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me”. Unfortunately, in politics name calling can hurt. The Canadian Alliance knows only too well that a common and underhanded strategy of the government is to name call when it is losing the debate or when its reason is lacking. We also know that name calling can hurt because unfortunately it is easier to report than the substantive argument that triggered the irrational insult.

Even though we know that names can hurt us, we also know that the sticks and stones of an exploding building or a falling skyscraper can do more than break bones. It can cause death and destruction. We will run the risk of being politically hurt, through this reported but irrational name calling, and press on to propose the things that we know will make our nation a stronger and more peaceful land than it is already today.

The minister assures us that Canada can and does detain any people that immigration officers deem to be a security risk. Therefore, there is no need to detain the thousands per year who show up here without proper documentation. In saying this she contradicts her own department's admonitions about the very limited conditions under which they can resort to detention.

The government's detention policies state clearly that detention is considered only as a last resort and that even people with criminal records are not necessarily to be detained unless there is substantial reason to believe that they will reoffend while in Canada. I am sorry but when it comes to predicting criminal behaviour or who might reoffend the government has a hopeless record. It needs to have laws which detain those who might be a menace to our security.

Imagine a 25 year old man arriving in Canada from a country in the Middle East or North Africa where there are active terrorist groups, which have been named by CSIS, the United States and British governments and which are not declared to be safe under article 33 of the Geneva convention. The person says he wants to claim refugee status, that he does not have a passport because he used false documents to get to Canada and that he destroyed the documents on the plane. If there is no evidence to tie such a person to specific criminal activities, it would be hard under the current refugee detention guidelines for this person to be detained. It is unacceptable. We must have the power in place to detain such individuals.

Between now and the time in which legislation will finally come in, how many people with terrorist or criminal intent will walk away from our border points when they could have and should have been detained?

I respect the Liberal MPs who in 1998 recommended in a committee the very same things we talked about today. I ask them to consider the integrity of their loyalties. I understand the politics of following what a cabinet minister wants, but this is about more than the aspirations of a future cabinet minister or the fear of the whip. It is about doing the right thing. It is about something that could be a matter of life and death. It is about the only too real possibilities of what shameless and evil terrorists might do.

In 1998, when Liberals recommended the very things that we are asking for today, there was not much North American evidence of just how evil terrorists could be. Today, in a devastated crater in New York City, there are at least 6,000 reasons to motivate us all. I encourage all MPs to vote tonight on the side of what is right and just; on the side of peace, protection and freedom.

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my valued friend and colleague. I will refrain from making any reference to this mantra of free speech or any reference at all to the ability to speak our minds because I think my friend, more than anyone in the House perhaps, has come to appreciate this a great deal.

He spoke about the possible interference within government agencies, particularly the RCMP. We see that time and time again, even on a bill as important as the new anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36, where at the outset of the bill going to committee, both here in the House and in that other place, the Prime Minister made comments from outside the country as to the outcome of the deliberations with respect in this instance to the sunset clause.

My friend also alluded to government becoming too large and interfering,particularly in property rights. I am reminded of an expression I heard that any government that is large enough to give us everything we want is certainly large enough to take everything we have. I think that expression ran through his speech as well.

Would the member expand further on this concept of parliamentary ability to do its work? The government and the Prime Minister, in particular, through his office and through his reach, which we have seen at APEC where Jean Carle was doing his bidding and through the Shawinigan affair where the BDC was called upon to make certain interventions, all of that is very indicative of a government that does not respect parliamentary democracy. I would encourage my friend to comment further.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate my friend, the member for Cumberland--Colchester, on his efforts in bringing together the Israelis and the Palestinians. As he probably knows, he has taken on a Herculean task. Nevertheless, every effort helps and at some point will be able to break the camel's back or one more straw will destroy the enmity between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

It is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-35. I want to continue down the same path that my friend from Crowfoot started down. Not long ago he gave an excellent speech in this place about some of the concerns that we have about the separation between the people who enforce the law, the RCMP, and the government.

When there is a real embarrassment facing the government, if it had the opportunity, the temptation would be to use the RCMP or any police force to try and cover up that embarrassment. I will not suggest that this government is prepared to do that, but there have been concerns in the past and we all know that. I am speaking of the APEC affair or the airbus affair of which my friend spoke. There was enough evidence in the APEC affair to warrant our concern about that possibility. In the airbus affair, we saw evidence that the government did what it could to pursue a former prime minister to the point where it cost Canadian taxpayers $3.4 million.

In Canada we have taken our freedoms for granted. For a long time we have lived in relative peace. We have never really been in a situation, not since Confederation, where our personal liberties have been seriously threatened. There have been times when there have been bumps along the road and at various points Canada has entered into great conflicts. Canadians have always valued their freedom, but unless they are threatened, after a period of time people tend to take their freedom for granted.

One of the greatest innovations of modern times is the idea of limited government. It is important to remember that for a long time in history the normal course of events was for the monarchy, or the government or the church to have all the power while individuals had none. Over the last 800 or 900 years we have seen that change. We have seen more and more rights accumulate to individuals. We should value those rights.

As somebody once said that government is not reasoned. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. I believe that is right. That is founded on what we know from history. Governments at various times have intervened in the ability of individuals to pursue their lives as they wished.

Any time a piece of legislation comes along that suggests that more power should accumulate to the government, in this case via the RCMP, we should be concerned. We should watch and make sure that we are not giving away freedoms frivolously or without going trough them to ensure that there is not some other way that we can deal with this. I submit that there is a different way that we can deal with this.

One of the things that legislators in general would be happy to see would be a government that recognized there was concern about its connection to the RCMP and security forces and that it would take some steps to ensure that there was, on the one hand, oversight, but on the other hand, eliminate some of the possible ways that, in this case, the Prime Minister's Office could interfere via security forces to try to cover up some kind of an embarrassment. There are ways to do that.

One way would be to involve this place, through our committees, to ensure that there would be some kind of an oversight capacity. Some people have suggested that we could set up our own committee to specifically deal with those types of things.

Perhaps it would be a subcommittee of the justice committee. It is a good idea to have some committee empowered to ensure that our security forces are not politically interfered with in some way. That is a critical point because at this point we almost leave it solely to the discretion of the ministers in charge as to whether or not they can get involved in some way. We really count on their good will.

I am not suggesting that every day it be challenged in some way, but there are times when governments could be tempted to intervene and in so doing start to limit the freedoms of individuals. At a time of crisis we need to be aware particularly of that possibility.

One possible option would be to set up a subcommittee or committee to have oversight to ensure that if some of these issues arise we have a way to look at them and deal with them.

I heard it said in this place by the justice minister today that there were concerns at this time about whether or not the government would interfere in the rights of individuals, or something like that. There have been many times when the government has interfered with the rights of individuals in Canada. I could point to Bill C-68 and suggest that the government absolutely and completely interfered with the rights of individuals when it brought in that legislation. It completely interferes with our right to private property.

Preceding Bill C-68, and I believe as a part of it, the government through order in council confiscated people's legally obtained firearms without compensation. That is completely contrary to the idea of property rights and the basic freedoms we have established over a long period of time.

Many people believe our basic freedoms were only defined in 1981 with the charter of rights. That is completely wrong. We had hundreds of years of common law tradition before then which really laid down the ground rules for our basic freedoms. Mr. Diefenbaker brought in a bill of rights which put those rights down on paper. I argue that the government violated those rights when it brought in Bill C-68 and started to confiscate firearms.

I argue that when it comes to endangered species legislation the government is on the cusp of interfering with our most basic property rights, again because it is not prepared to offer full compensation for land that is taken out of production in the hope it can somehow protect an endangered species. We have no problem with endangered species legislation, but we believe the government should ensure that the basic rights of people are protected.

There is no more fundamental right than property rights. Some people may question that, but I argue that every right is a property right. My friend from Hamilton nods his head, but every right is a property right. In fact there is only one right and it is the property right: the right to the security of ourselves, the right to control our actions, the right to acquire things. There is but one right and that is a property right in oneself.

When abolitionists were trying to get rid of slavery they used to call it man stealing because people were stealing someone else's person. I argue there is but one right and every other right flows from it: the right to property. The first right we have is the security of our own person. The right to freedom of speech flows from that. The right to freedom of association and the right to keep what we have produced with our hands and our minds all flow from the same source: the right to private property in ourselves.

When we set down laws at a time when we are concerned about having security of our person breached by forces outside our borders, we have to be careful that we do not at the same time breach them by empowering our government to do too much. That is my primary concern with Bill C-35 and actually with Bill C-36 as well, while we are talking about bills presently before the government.

There are other examples of how government has breached our rights even since I have been a member of parliament.

One thing that was most frustrating to me as an MP, as someone who comes from the west, was when the government lost a court case over the Canadian Wheat Board and moved very quickly to plug a loophole through order in council which effectively ensured that the government could stop farmers from the great crime of selling the wheat they had produced on their own land, selling it in that case to someone in the United States.

Even in Canada farmers are not allowed to sell their own wheat. It all has to pass through the Canadian Wheat Board, which is completely contrary to the--

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to talk to Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. My distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, has covered much of the law enforcement aspects of the bill and the member for Saanich--Gulf Islands has addressed the international trade issues on behalf of the opposition coalition. I will, relatively briefly, bring up a few issues that are of concern to me.

First, some people refer to this as a housekeeping bill. I have a hard time accepting it as a housekeeping bill. This would affect a lot of different aspects of the way we do things, who does what, who is allowed to do what, the actions of the RCMP and so on. Although it would really correct or update our domestic laws to meet our international commitments, it does define a new or a more explicit role for the RCMP and in that way I find that it is a little more than just housekeeping.

Although I understand the philosophy and the purpose of the bill, I think it would create a double standard. It is a slippery slope that the government is getting on, it seems to me, where it would be establishing two sets of rules. It is saying that Canadians would be subject to the law of the land but foreigners often would not. It would expand that level of immunity and quite dramatically extend who would qualify for the immunity.

Under the bill, new organizations and new groups that are not clearly defined would qualify for immunity from certain aspects of our laws. In the other bill we have before us, the terrorism bill, Bill C-36, I notice a line which states that foreigners might not necessarily have to follow the rules of the firearms control act. I find this a little strange because Canadians obviously have to abide by these laws. It seems like the government is going from one bill to another and establishing a dangerous precedent, so we would have one set of rules for Canadians and another set for many foreigners. This would go far beyond what we have done before in allowing different groups and organizations to be recognized for these benefits.

Another concern is that the government had an opportunity here to address the issue of foreign diplomats who commit crimes or offences while under the influence. We are all very much aware of the awful tragedy that happened in Ottawa when a Russian diplomat ran over two pedestrians, killing one and severely injuring the other. Nothing has happened about that. There has been no accountability. This person had a long record of alcohol offences. Nothing was done to prevent the accident and nothing has been done to hold this person accountable. He was whisked away to Russia very quickly. When our government demanded an investigation and accountability, the Russians said if we wanted that we would have to pay them to send their investigators from Russia to Canada to investigate it. I did not see a lot of commitment on behalf of that foreign government to address this concern that outraged many Canadians.

It will be a long time before we have another opportunity to address these issues. The bill could have done that but it definitely does not. It does not address any of those issues that raised a lot of concerns. It just seems so unfair. People were outraged about the accident. Again, the bill, which reorganizes the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, could have dealt with that but did not.

Certainly Canada has to encourage organizations to come to Canada to have their meetings, like the G-8, APEC and so on, and perhaps some of the immunity aspects have to be extended to them. Previously these immunities have been extended only to organizations and nations with which we have treaties, not just organizations that are non-structured or mobile and move around. This makes me wonder what other organizations would qualify for this immunity from taxes and our laws and who could actually commit crimes and not be held accountable. It is just a little scary.

I agree that we have to be in a position to attract these organizations. We are a well respected country and an appealing country for these types of meetings, being relatively safe and secure. We have to be able to provide the amenities and competitive immunities.

However, it seems to me that the bill goes a little too far and is not defined enough on who could qualify for these issues. For instance, it is not clear about interparliamentary meetings and things like that. Under the bill would all these members be immune from criminal prosecution or taxation et cetera?

Another aspect of the bill would change the process for allowing someone with a criminal record to come to Canada. Currently the minister has to provide a minister's permit to allow a person who has a criminal record to come to Canada. The outstanding example of this is Nelson Mandela. Not one of us in the House, I think, would ever question Nelson Mandela's right and privilege to come to Canada, speak with us and meet with us in parliament, but he has a criminal record and he required a minister's permit to allow him to come here. That would no longer be necessary because the permit would be issued under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and would no longer require the minister's permit.

Another part of the bill that was dealt with by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough was the RCMP aspect. It is a very important aspect because it very clearly defines who would be responsible when international guests are here. Many people in Canada were outraged about the violence and protests during recent meetings in Vancouver and Quebec. There always was confusion about the chain of command, about who ordered the police to do what and when, whether it was political, RCMP, local or provincial police or what. The bill would correct that.

It would remove that question and would allow a lot of us to have a little more peace of mind when we are inviting meetings to Canada. I hope it would help us and help them if there would be just one police department involved with the protests. We hope they would better understand the rights of protestors to protest and demonstrate. They do have a right to protest and demonstrate, but with the confusion over who was in control of the meetings and who was responsible for policing and law enforcement, I think things happened at the meetings that should never have happened. I believe having one group in charge would be a positive move. The huge report on APEC pointed out the need for clear parameters in order for the RCMP to be able to police these meetings without having to answer to political bosses, provincial police forces and so on.

It would be a very positive step and I hope the RCMP will take advantage of the opportunity to better understand how people can be allowed to protest and demonstrate legitimately without encouraging violence or demonstrations that turn into anything other than demonstrations.

The legislation appears to cover three general types of international organizations. There are international organizations originating by treaty, for instance, NATO and the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal. They are currently covered under the immunity, which would be extended to a second category, the new international organizations with headquarters in Canada, like the IOC, the environmental secretariat and different NAFTA bodies, which are growing steadily.

The third one is stand alone organizations that move from country to country, like APEC and the G-8. I am not satisfied nor am I comfortable with how that is defined and what groups could be included. Could groups involved with the chambers of commerce and things like that come under that umbrella of immunity? We are anxious to get the bill to committee to analyze it and see if there are extended immunity rights that were never meant to be part of the bill.

There is no question that our country should be in a position to play host to these organizations. I think Canada is an attractive destination for them. Recently we moved the meeting of finance ministers to Canada because it could not be held in India. That is just an indication of what we have to offer.

To wind up, I am concerned about the double standards between Canadians and non-Canadians. The bill would extend immunity and taxation exemptions to a number of groups. It seems to ring a bell to me with extending the immunity or exemption from the firearms control act to non-Canadians whereas Canadians have to follow those rules. We need more clarification.

On the upside, the bill ensures that Canadian diplomats receive the same privileges and immunities that their representatives in Canada receive when our diplomats are in foreign countries. It has an enforcement clause and that is a good aspect in it.

We support both the purpose and philosophy but we hope there will be amendments that deal with some of the concerns which I and my colleagues have raised throughout this debate.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that we should trust him to conduct a legislative review of Bill C-36 in three years.

I wonder if we could just examine the record on this. Criminal code amendments regarding mental disorders should have been reviewed five years ago by the government. They have not been. Criminal code amendments pertaining to sexual offence proceedings are overdue by a year. Employment Equity Act amendments should have been reviewed by a similar committee. They are also overdue by one year. The Referendum Act should have been reviewed six years ago and the government has still not reviewed it.

Given that the government continues to honour these things only in the breach, why should we trust it now?

Bill C-36

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who has said repeatedly that she wants to listen to the advice and recommendations of the committee but she knows that the committee will not be giving advice or making recommendations. The committee will either be amending the legislation, Bill C-36, or not.

Is the minister prepared to say in the House that she will accept amendments coming from the committee that have to do with sunsetting certain controversial clauses of the bill? That is what the House and the committee needs to know.

Privilege

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the government House leader does not want us to raise our point. Is he hiding something? Does this bother him?

In short, the Minister of Justice and officials from her department did it again in a meeting this morning. Notwithstanding the complexity and the importance of this bill, it is, at the very least, peculiar that nobody at the Department of Justice requested simultaneous interpretation for their briefing session on Bill C-36 this morning. For more than one hour at the beginning of this briefing, the minister's officials provided information solely in English.

Assistants of members of the Bloc Quebecois were present at that meeting and were unable to obtain the information in their native language, despite the complexity of the bill.

The right to service in the language of one's choice is guaranteed under section 133 of Canada's constitution as well as under the Official Languages Act.

In view of the complexity of this bill and taking into account the language barrier, it becomes very difficult for parliamentary assistants and for the members themselves to form an informed opinion about such a bill.

The reference book entitled House of Commons Procedure and Practice says on pages 66 and 67, and I quote:

Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege”--

I could also refer to Erskine May, who said the following, and I quote:

The privileges of Parliament are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers. They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.

Let me now quote from Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , second edition, chapter 2, page 13:

If someone improperly interferes with the parliamentary work of a member of parliament--i.e. any of the member's activities that have a connection with a proceeding in parliament--in such a case that is a matter involving parliamentary privilege.

In conclusion, my right to receive information in my native language, through my assistants, was violated this morning by the Minister of Justice.

Considering these facts, I submit that my privileges as a parliamentarian were also violated.

Should you rule that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of privilege relating to an event that occurred during oral question period but, rather, a question of privilege that results from a briefing session on Bill C-36 given this morning by the Department of Justice.

I want to put this question of privilege in its proper context and to stress once again the indifference shown by this minister and her department toward the members of this House and their right to information, which is a priority. We saw the Minister of Justice's way of doing things with Bill C-15, which resulted in a question of privilege on the part of the hon. member for Provencher. That question was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons amended the directives for members of the Privy Council Office.

As regards Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, a lot of information was released even before the bill was introduced in this House on Monday. One simply has to read the October 13 edition of the National Post , which included whole parts of the bill and which came out before the briefing session organized by the Minister of Justice on Monday morning, the day that Bill C-36 was introduced in the House.

Our right to information as duly elected members of this House, which is a priority, was once again violated. This leak about Bill C-36 in the National Post was the subject of a--

Anti-terrorism Legislation

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday when Bill C-36 was tabled in the House it was not the first time that the country heard about the legislation. Documents relating to Bill C-36 were leaked to the Toronto Star and the National Post .

Canada is at war. The Prime Minister says so. Parliament says so. President Bush says so. NATO says so. These are confidential, delicate matters and delicate information.

What is the justice minister doing to ensure that national security is preserved and these sorts of documents are never, ever leaked again?

Anti-terrorism legislation

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the privacy commissioner is excluded from Bill C-36. This means that no one, no organization, not the commissioner, not parliament, not the justice system will be able to control the actions of the government.

Does the minister consider this acceptable in a free and democratic society?

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for her question, because it gives me an opportunity to elaborate and clarify this aspect of the bill.

By itself, within the context of Bill C-35, this aspect of the bill would already raise some concern. We could certainly be concerned to see the RCMP being granted, through this bill, the power to organize by itself all the security aspects of international activities or conferences held in Canadian territory.

We have seen it in the past. We only have to think of the APEC Conference in British Columbia, when the RCMP, and indirectly the federal government, were asked to plan the security of this conference. Is seems--and it has not been denied yet--that there would have been a close relationship between the two as far as the conference security, the so-called security, was concerned. We are therefore justified in being concerned about the new provision in Bill C-35.

But when this provision contained in Bill C-35 is combined with all the provisions in Bill C-36 on combating against terrorism, then we become really concerned, as I indicated earlier in my speech.

We will recall that one of our colleagues from the Liberal Party suggested that the provisions of Bill C-36 might be interpreted in such a way that protesters at the last Summit of the Americas in Quebec City could have been considered as terrorists.

With the Royal Canadian Mounted Police solely responsible for security in such a context, it would be all the more reason to be concerned. If the past tells us what the future will be, the government will have to bring clarifications on this disturbing provision in Bill C-35 as well as on the other provision contained in Bill C-36.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes speech is silver, sometimes silence is golden.

It is unfortunate that our colleague from Lanark—Carleton decided to use the time he had left, although that is his right, to complete his presentation. It is not that we do not recognize his erudition and his eloquence, but it had, I believe, been agreed among our various colleagues to allow the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who unfortunately had a plane to catch, to speak for a few minutes to this bill. He really wanted to and will not be able to, unfortunately, under the circumstances.

I know this is not common practice in this House, but I would like to mention, for the constituents of my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester and the people of Nova Scotia, that he wanted to speak in this House on the bill, but circumstances prevented him from doing so.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-35, in part because I have fond memories of my stint on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade as the former Bloc Quebecois critic in the matter. I refer to the act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

I would right off like to congratulate our colleague from Mercier on an excellent job in this matter.

This bill sets out the privileges and immunities enjoyed by diplomats and international organizations in Canada. It sets out Canada's obligations under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations that took effect in 1963.

I would first say a word on diplomatic immunity. It has, let us not fool ourselves, had bad press. We recall the death of Ottawa lawyer Catherine MacLean and the injuries suffered by her friend Catherine Doré. They were struck in March by a Russian diplomat posted to Ottawa, Andrei Knyazev, while he was unfortunately intoxicated. Mr. Knyazev escaped prosecution because of his diplomatic immunity. Russia, in a gesture I cannot support, refused to waive the immunity.

Members will recall that the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced at the time that he would do something so that foreign diplomats arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol would never drive again in Canada. I am surprised that the bill before us makes no mention of this. We will certainly have an opportunity to question the minister on the matter in committee.

People have trouble understanding that some people are above the law simply because they have diplomatic status. If a poll were taken today, I would not be surprised if a majority of the population said they were against diplomatic immunity. It is for this reason, curiously, that I come to its defence today.

Diplomatic immunity is essential for the success of international relations. In many countries of the world, arbitrary decisions take the place of the law. In some areas, there is no freedom of religion. In others, criticizing the government is a crime. If the diplomats we post to these countries were not protected by diplomatic immunity, they could be imprisoned at a moment's notice, or even executed for the slightest criticism or indiscretion.

In such conditions, without diplomatic immunity it would be difficult for the Government of Canada, and even for the House of Commons, to take action vis-à-vis these countries without endangering the lives and the safety of the Canadian diplomats posted there. It would be difficult to intervene at the UN General Assembly. Without diplomatic immunity, our diplomats would have trouble coming to the assistance of Canadians in troubled regions around the world. In short, it would be difficult for diplomats to play their role fully. And the role that diplomats play abroad is an important one.

One has only to read the Vienna Convention to realize this. Diplomats are responsible for representing their government, defending it, negotiating on its behalf, promoting economic, cultural, political and scientific relations and finally, protecting its nationals. Without diplomatic immunity, these functions could be interrupted as soon as there was unrest in the country to which they were posted. And it is at these precise times that diplomats’ functions are most essential.

Diplomatic relations between states or sovereigns have always existed. What is more recent are the diplomatic duties performed within international organizations. These functions really took off with the creation of the United Nations, after World War II. But it is not just the UN. Progress in the transportation and communication sectors have helped the development of international organizations. Some, but not all of them are created by treaty.

In addition to these international organizations, we also have major international meetings and summits that are not always under the aegis of organizations, but nevertheless play an important role in international relations.

The current Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act is ill-suited to this new situation, hence Bill C-35, whose principle is supported by the Bloc Quebecois.

Still, several provisions of the bill raise questions and even serious concerns. We will see in committee how these concerns can be lessened. It is too early to say whether we will support the bill at third reading.

The definition of international organizations found in the existing act is very restrictive. In order to be considered as such, international organizations must be established by treaty. However, a number of organizations, including the OECD and the G-8, are not established by treaty.

The definition of diplomatic mission is also very restrictive. Indeed, the existing act only recognizes embassies or consulates accredited to Canada. Diplomatic missions accredited to international organizations are not recognized. There is a need to adjust the legislation to the current reality, where international institutions play a major role.

Quebec's international reputation, and particularly that of Montreal, is well known. This is especially true in cultural and educational areas, in the environmental sector, and in the aviation industry, where Montreal is known worldwide through ICAO, among others, the International Civil Aviation Organization.

There are already 70 international organizations in Montreal, including 40 that are recognized through agreements with the Quebec government. Seven of these organizations are made up of states and would be covered by Bill C-35. Under Bill C-35, diplomatic missions accredited to these organizations will enjoy the same privileges and immunities as diplomatic and consular missions accredited to the government.

The presence of these international bodies in Montreal has a direct economic impact in excess of $185 million, as well as over 3,300 jobs. On top of that, there are the international meetings attracted by their presence in Montreal. This is another aspect of Bill C-35 which will help Montreal develop its international role. Major international meetings participated in by other countries, might enjoy privileges, taxation ones in particular, under this bill.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Quebecois is extremely perplexed by certain clauses in this bill, as I have already said.

First, the definition of international organizations. In the present act, an international organization is defined as any intergovernmental organization of which two or more states are members, while Bill C-35 adds “whether or not established by treaty”, which is a good thing. However, the French expression “regroupant” (bringing together) has now been changed to “formée de” (made up of) several states. Why?

Does this mean that an international organization of which several states are members, but also federated states or provinces, would no longer be recognized? I am thinking here, of course, of the Francophonie, and also of other organizations in which Quebec will be sure to participate, because they deal essentially with matters over which Ottawa really does not have much, if any, jurisdiction, such as culture, education or health.

The bill has as little to say about interparliamentary associations. These, as we know, are becoming increasingly important. Some even have a permanent secretariat here. I am thinking in particular of COPA, the Parliamentary Association of the Americas, one which is very familiar to you, moreover, Mr. Speaker, and is headquartered in Quebec City.

These parliamentary associations may have foreigners on their staff. They are not comprised of states, but rather of parliaments. The bill does not mention this, and thus affords them no particular tax status. Here we have an excellent opportunity to proclaim the importance of the international role of parliamentarians. It would be a pity to miss it. We are entitled to question such matters, and will do so in committee.

Second, clause 4 of Bill C-35 has an impact on the recognition of delegations of what the bill calls, and I quote, “an office of a political subdivision of a foreign state”. This in fact refers to federated states, or provinces.

I will take the trouble to cite the legislation, because the issue is subtle, but very important. Section 6 of the existing legislation provides that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs may decide jointly, and I quote:

—for the purpose of according... treatment that is comparable to

(a) extend any of the duty and tax relief privileges provided for in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations that have been granted to that office of the political subdivision of the foreign state, and to any person connected therewith;

In addition, the act provides that the minister may also grant to the offices and archives of these political subdivisions any of the immunities accorded to consular premises and archives by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Bill C-35 limits this. The duty and tax relief privileges are still there, but the immunity of premises has disappeared? Why?

And even with respect to tax privileges, the act provides that the minister may grant them only if he is of the opinion that, and I quote:

—the office of the political subdivision of the foreign state performs, in Canada, duties that are substantially the same as the duties performed in Canada by a consular post as defined in... the Vienna Convention—

This is a condition that is not in the existing legislation.

Federal states, particularly in countries consisting of more than one people, are playing an increasingly large role in international fora. The example of Belgium comes to mind, but there are others. Not all countries are like Canada, which uses every means possible to prevent the people of Quebec from bypassing Ottawa's filter and communicating with the other nations of the world.

Decisions taken in international forums now affect all areas, including some that do not come under federal jurisdiction. The role of federal states in these international forums will only grow.

Why then does Bill C-35 limit privileges, when the times we now live in would seem to require that they be broadened instead?

The Vienna Convention is based on the rule of reciprocity of treatment. If Canada reduces the privileges accorded delegations of foreign federal states represented here, the odds are that foreign governments will be tempted to want to reduce the privileges accorded Quebec delegations abroad accordingly. I have trouble understanding this restrictive clause, slipped into a bill the purpose of which is to be more open.

Quebec has 31 foreign offices: six general delegations, one delegation, seven offices and 17 sub-delegations on every continent.

These Quebec representatives abroad deal with co-operation, immigration and economic development. They play an essential role.

In passing, I would like to highlight one of Mission Quebec's successful economic missions last year, in which they came back with a one billion dollar Spanish investment, in the riding of my colleague from Mercier, to be specific.

Such success would have been more difficult without the presence of Quebec representatives abroad. We must not make things harder for them. Indeed, we must assist them. And one would think that this is the role of the federal government, as long as Quebec is a part of confederation.

Yet we know how much the federal government likes throwing wrenches in the works of Quebec when it comes to their international presence. We know how hard they work at erasing Quebec's presence in the international arena.

Much has been said about the federal government's little book for diplomats posted abroad on how to deal with separatist officials. We recall as well that one African country, Mali, was threatened with having all of its development aid cut if it invited Quebec to participate in a meeting of the Francophonie in the 1960s.

France had to intervene to solve the conflict, which in the end enabled Quebec, the only francophone state in North America, to become a member of the Francophonie. Such events make us suspicious. The government should reassure about clause 4 of Bill C-35.

My third concern, and I will end on this, regards the powers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This aspect of the bill already concerned me. Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act that was just introduced, increases my concerns.

Bill C-35 adds another section to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. It basically adds a new element that did not exist in the current legislation, that of security at intergovernmental conferences.

Indeed, the bill specifies that the RCMP, or the mounted police, as the Prime Minister calls it and as we used to call it 50 years ago, is responsible for the security of intergovernmental conferences.

One wonders what this clause has to do with the immunities and privileges granted to diplomatic missions and international organizations. This clause has nothing to do with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that the bill on foreign missions and international organizations will implement. Moreover, subsection 3 of this clause reads, and I quote:

—shall not be read as affecting the powers that peace officers possess at common law or by virtue of any other federal or provincial Act or regulation.

If this clause does not have any effect on existing laws, then why include it? I do not understand. Let us keep reading. The same clause provides that:

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under this Act.

In the past, that responsibility was jointly assumed by the RCMP and the provinces, as we saw during the last summit of the Americas held in Quebec City in April, when RCMP and QPP officers fully co-operated together. The presence of the QPP was indispensable and beneficial in maintaining order.

We can all think of this somewhat ridiculous situation where unilingual anglophone RCMP officers would ask in English unilingual francophone protesters to disperse.

In order to be effective, security measures must be applied jointly.

But let us continue reading clause 10. subsection 2 specifies that for the purpose of carrying out its responsibility under subsection (1):

the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

This clause institutionalizes the security perimeter. It legitimizes any measure that the RCMP may want to take to ensure the security of international meetings. It gets the parliament's approval regarding measures that may be taken without parliament being involved, even indirectly.

It is not normal to close off cities, barricade neighbourhoods and fence off downtown areas so that heads of state can meet. I understand that it is necessary sometimes, but it is not normal. In fact, it is indicative of some discomfiture in the operation of international organizations, a lack of democracy and transparency and a lack of sensitivity to people's needs. This can only give rise to frustrations and then demonstrations.

This therefore is an abnormal situation that can be only temporary. These measures are exceptional and must be treated as such. There is no reason to institutionalize them, especially in legislation that will be permanent, since its function is to ensure the permanence of international relations. This is an important distinction.

As my time is running out, I will conclude. It is clear that this clause is drafted to measure for the G-8 meeting in Alberta next July. It is clear that it is intended to apply parliament's stamp to the security measures the police are preparing to take, which will be, as we may expect, extraordinary. We must avoid doing so. At the very least, we must avoid doing it in the context of legislation on diplomatic relations.

It is, however, all the more distressing, when we consider the context of the G-8 meeting. The anti-terrorism bill will have been passed by that time.

I point out that the definition of terrorism in the bill is so vague that a Liberal member went so far as to say that, under Bill C-36, the demonstrators at the Quebec summit could have been considered terrorists. We must bear this in mind when we consider Bill C-35. We must be extra cautious.

Freedom of expression, of association and peaceful demonstration are fundamental rights. They are in large measure what distinguishes democratic countries from totalitarian ones.

The Bloc Quebecois will have many questions for the minister about the appropriateness of putting this clause on the security of intergovernmental conferences in Bill C-35.

As can be seen, the Bloc Quebecois is raising numerous questions and concerns. Those questions will have to be answered and our concerns will have to addressed during consideration of the bill.

Nonetheless, we acknowledge the need to modernize the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. Diplomacy is no longer practiced the way it was 30 years ago nor is it in the same forums.

Consequently, despite all the reservations that I mentioned, the Bloc Quebecois will support the principle of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing quite like a two week break in the middle of an impromptu speech to allow one to gather one's thoughts. I had the opportunity over the two week break to spend a bit of time curled up with the material and actually read the bill, something I had not done at the time of my first comments on it. It was fascinating reading. I am glad it is a short bill, unlike Bill C-36.

I will confine my remarks to clause 5 which deals with police powers and freedom of assembly. I will deal with some of the issues raised by these provisions.

When dealing with the question public assemblies we can start with the notion of an assembly of a small number of people for an innocuous purpose and work our way up to something which is a threat to public order and safety. There is a spectrum or range of actions but I will go through the bill and lay out some of the stages to make a point that relates to section 5.

The least aggressive or least intrusive form of public assembly is a gathering of people to discuss political action. The general public may not even be aware of it. This is the most clearly understood form of freedom of association and the one most clearly in need of fundamental protection.

Moving up the scale a bit, one may imagine a gathering which aims to draw attention to a concern or grievance but which is known about only by those who choose to pay attention. It may be a voluntary gathering to promote public awareness but only those involved in the issue would pay much attention.

Bumping it up a bit more, one might see a slightly more forceful gathering to draw attention to an issue. Perhaps people would gather in a public place where they know others would see them and where they would expect to be reported on the news and draw the attention of the public to their cause. Under normal circumstances this is both defensible and admirable.

Moving on from that, a gathering could draw attention through some form of preapproved and consensual interference with the regular routine of business; for example, a demonstration for which a permit has been received. A street could be closed off and the demonstrators could move down the street and disrupt the normal flow of affairs, but in a manner understood and accepted by those in positions of authority.

Provisions are written into municipal laws to permit this sort of thing. Indeed, sometimes it is ritualized in the form of political events we hold on a regular basis. What comes to mind is Remembrance Day when traffic is closed off in part of the downtown core so we can honour our fallen soldiers through a political action.

Moving it up a bit more, we might see an action or demonstration that directly interferes with the conduct of regular life in a way that is not fully consensual and does not have everyone on board. An example might be a picket outside factory gates which is not merely for the purpose of handing out leaflets but for obstructing the flow of traffic in and out. As used to happen in the United States, a demonstration may block the entrance to a prison and thereby make the carrying out of an execution more difficult. This slides over the edge into a bit of illegality but is not as serious as some of the examples that will follow.

Some demonstrations damage property. These are sometimes connected with strikes, strike breaking activity and some political demonstrations. A bit higher on the scale are demonstrations or gatherings that threaten personal security and safety. These move into what could be described as riots.

Finally, at the extreme end of the spectrum we may find forms of demonstration or collective action that threaten life. This is clearly the kind of public demonstration for which there can be no toleration in society.

The traditional legal description and manner of dealing with such assemblies can be found in sections 63, 64, 65 and 66 of the criminal code. I will read part of that if I might. Section 63(1) reads:

An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or

(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Subsection (2) states:

Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.

Section 64 goes from unlawful assembly to imagine the stage of the spectrum I described as a riot:

A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.

The law then anticipates different punishments for those who participate in a riot or unlawful assembly. Section 65 states:

Every one who takes part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Section 66 refers to those who participate in unlawful assembly. It states:

Every one who is a member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The law has traditionally made a distinction between lawful and unlawful assembly. As members will notice, individuals who participate in lawful assembly are not merely not punished by law; their rights to assemble freely are protected by law. The charter of rights and, before it, the bill of rights clearly laid out such protections. The American bill of rights also lays out protections for lawful and peaceable assemblies.

We see a range, then, from completely legitimate and protected actions which the government may not interfere with to those which the government must necessarily interfere with for the benefit of society. This is a spectrum.

The law takes into account that at the same place and time there may be people who are legally demonstrating in a manner that is protected by the law and the constitution; people who are engaged in unlawful assembly and are subject to summary conviction; and people who are engaged in riotous behaviour and could be punished by up to two years in prison. This could all be going on at the same place at the same time.

The law is designed to provide incentives so that those who are assembled lawfully do not choose to move into an unlawful assembly and those who are engaged in unlawful assembly may resist the temptation to slide into riotous behaviour.

In general these are pretty good practices. They are longstanding conventions in the law and have served our society, American society and other societies in our legal tradition very well indeed.

I will turn from these general comments to clause 5 of the bill under consideration today. I will read it if I might. Clause 5 would amend section 10 of another act and make the following additions. It starts at subsection 10.1(1):

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under this Act and to which an order made or continued under this Act applies.

Subsection 10.1 (2) states:

For the purpose of carrying out its responsibilities under subsection (1), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

Subsection 10.1 (3) states:

The powers referred to in subsection (2) are set out for greater certainty and shall not be read as affecting the powers that peace officers possess at common law or by virtue of any other federal or provincial Act or regulation.

This would include the earlier acts I have read.

This part of the law as I understand it is intended as a response to the kind of anti-globalization demonstrations and actions that took place in Quebec City, and before that, outside our jurisdiction, at the so-called battle of Seattle. Demonstrators at the Seattle conference a couple of years ago engaged in a range of actions from peaceful protests, to what is the American version of unlawful assembly, up to what everyone would agree was riotous behaviour with full battle gear in some cases, gas masks, bricks and all kinds of paraphernalia that allowed them to be quite disruptive and violent.

Looking at the example of Quebec City which is directly relevant to this part, I have some friends, including the man who ran against me for the nomination in Lanark--Carleton and with whom I have remained on very good terms, who were in Quebec City and protested against globalization in a peaceful manner. However there were others who were engaged in the worst sort of violent behaviour. Policemen were struck by bricks. Private property owners had their property destroyed as part of these unlawful protests.

There was a range between brick throwing hoodlums and those who were there acting under the protection of our constitution. We should be quite specific that the goal of those who were on the violent margin of all that was to have the effect of causing so much chaos at one of these assemblies that it would become impossible to carry on their function. What is going on is the assumption that they cannot win the debate against globalization, or whatever the issue happens to be, through the normal democratic means, that they cannot do it by convincing people through democratic, open and legal assemblies and therefore they will use those as a cover for illegal actions. That is reprehensible. To the extent that the legislation deals with that, it probably is a positive thing.

I note that clause 5 makes an attempt to deal with this by stating that the RCMP clearly will be in charge of security at all such conferences. The logic here is that in Seattle for example the local police were in charge of security. They had no idea what was coming. They had no specialized training for it and in addition they had no practice for that sort of thing. At first they underreacted which allowed the city to be put into chaos. Then they overreacted and beat up people who were completely innocent, dragged away people who had done nothing wrong along with those who had, and as a result were able to create sympathy for the illegal protesters in a manner that surely was completely unintentional. To this extent this part of the legislation probably is positive.

The one great caveat that has to be put on all of this is that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police unfortunately is becoming increasingly a politicized agency. This is done because the commissioner of the RCMP has the status of a deputy minister and effectively is now part of the regular civil service. This is a problem that generally is true in our semi-independent agencies in government. It is a very unfortunate thing. We saw the interference of Jean Carle for example in what was going on in Vancouver at the APEC conference five years ago.

It seems to me what would give greater security here would be if this particular legislation or other legislation were to try and re-establish the kinds of separation between the executive government and the political masters in the Liberal Party who do have a certain stake in ensuring that justice is not administered fairly. It is unfortunate that this is occurring. It could be corrected. With goodwill on that side of the House and in the government it would be entirely possible.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice informed us that Bill C-36 was carefully drafted to exclude lawful protests from the definition of terrorist activities.

Will the minister confirm whether or not she considers spontaneous demonstrations that have not obtained an advance permit from the appropriate authorities lawful protests?

Anti-terrorism Act

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have some brief remarks as we enter the final stages of this piece of legislation. After much deliberation and travail, the government saw the wisdom of listening to the opposition and splitting the bill. The legislation we now have before us is not controversial and not opposed by the opposition. It will proceed through the House at an expeditious pace.

The legislation will not be held back by the fact that it was originally tied to other pieces of legislation which were controversial in some parts of the House. Those pieces of legislation are now being dealt with separately. We notice that sometimes after much persistence the opposition does get its way. I am glad the government listened in this case. We applaud that fact.

Even though there was merit in rushing the legislation through, one of the downsides was that we could have heard from more witnesses than we did on some of the more technologically and legally complex issues having to do with the Internet, et cetera. We heard from some witnesses on that, but had we been able to do it at a leisurely pace we could have learned more. I regret we were not able to do so.

We know that the justice committee is not only seized with Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B but it is also seized with Bill C-36, the anti-terrorist legislation. We cannot always give a piece of legislation the kind of attention we might otherwise want to give it in a different context.

The issue of luring on the Internet, with which the government and all of us will have to deal at some point, was raised. Other members may have already referenced the whole question of age of consent. We have this glaring loophole in the law that would permit 40 year olds to exploit people who are 14 or over on the Internet because we do not have a law which is adequate to the circumstances that can now be created on the Internet.

We have to do it sensitively because we do not want to criminalize certain behaviours between people, particularly teenagers who are close in age. There must be a way to look at this issue with sensitivity in mind, but nevertheless laws must be created that would prevent or at least punish that kind of activity.

There is one caveat I would enter and one concern I would register, presumably along with other members. Provincial ministers of justice, the justice committee and the government should look at recommendations regarding the age of consent. I hope that some day we will deal with the issue of age of consent in the House.

What we have before us is good legislation. Some of the legislation is long overdue, but nevertheless better late than never. Let us get it into law and see how it works, and we can fix it after that if it needs further attention.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add to what is becoming a rather lengthy debate. A lot of things have been said by different members of the various parties in the House on this bill. It is a bill which of course is very important.

I will briefly underline a few things which I think are very important and necessary for us to combat terrorism in the country. I also want to add a bit of a personal perspective to this whole debate.

I would first like to say that the government has taken a necessary step in the right direction. I commend it for that. I listened with interest on numerous occasions to the Prime Minister and other ministers who said that this was an issue far beyond politics and that we should put political considerations aside. I agree with that.

In passing, though, I find it strange that when members of the finance committee, and I will not mention which party it was because I want to be non-partisan, put forward a motion to get this thing underway, the government used very strange tactics to prevent that motion from being put. Then it used strange tactics again for that motion not to be carried and, again, used strange tactics for it to come forward.

I would venture to say, and will do so as kindly as I can, that there was a lot of politics in the way that was handled in our committee. I really regret that. I believe that was a moral failure on the part of the government at the time. This is a time when, more than ever in the history of this parliament, parliamentarians ought to be able to act on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of all Canadians.

It is really quite interesting, and I will put it that way, that the government voted against our motion the second day parliament sat after the atrocities of September 11, but some two or three weeks later came forward with legislation that largely included those things for which we had asked.

What I want to do today is have the members on the government side actually respond to the conjecture in my speech as to why they voted against it at that time since it was very urgent, but I am not sure if they will. However, at the same time I would like to commend the government for taking action, fairly expeditiously, to move legislation forward.

I would also like to thank the government for including in this legislation the right to create and publish a list of known criminal activity with respect to terrorism. I wish the legislation in Bill C-36 were a little stronger requiring the government to publicize these names instead of just giving them the right to make a list. I feel that is a little weak but certainly a step in the right direction.

I remember when the finance committee was studying this Bill S-16, which originated in the Senate. It proposed to remove charitable organization status, and hence the right to issue tax receipts for charitable donations, from any charity which directly or indirectly raised funds for terrorist organizations. That would indirectly mean that collectively the taxpayers of this country would then be funding terrorism.

A motion was brought forth regarding this proposal in committee. I spoke against that motion for the very simple reason that I was opposed to only removing the charitable organization status from any charitable organization found to be funding terrorism. It was too soft.

I am pleased to see that fundraising for terrorism, directly or indirectly, is an illegal act under Bill C-36, which is what I proposed in the committee. This is a very good measure. Probably this has been mentioned in some of the debates when I was off the committee, but I have not heard that one in the House before. I wanted to emphasize that. With the passing of the bill, that type of fundraising would be banned.

Echoing some of the concerns that have been expressed with respect to the human rights and freedom that we have come to enjoy, I also emphasize that we need to be very diligent and not indict organizations that are unwittingly drawn into the trap.

For example, one can argue that benevolent organizations which collect money to provide food for those who are starving reduce the costs of the governments in foreign countries where they work. Indirectly then, they could provide that government with more money for the production of arms and tools of terrorism. That is stretching it. I hope we are very judicial in how we apply that law to charitable organizations. However, where there is a clear and direct link, they will face criminal action, and rightly so.

I also congratulate the government for finally affirming what it should have done a long time ago, and that is that it will ratify the international convention on the suppression of the financing of terrorism. That should have been done automatically and immediately when it was presented here. The government dragged its heels on that.

Finally, on the plus side, the legislation provides that it would be a crime to participate in any terrorist training or inciting terrorism. Again, that is moving in the right direction. It is incredible that it was not done years ago. It should have always been on the law books of Canada.

I remember many years ago when it was against the law to counsel someone to commit suicide. How come we did not have anything that said it was against the law to counsel an act of terrorism?

There are a couple of things that I think the government should have done.

First, there should be a prompt extradition of foreign nationals who are charged with acts of terrorism. That is not in this bill. I think I know the reason for this. I am only guessing, though, because I do not have any Liberal friends close enough to me who actually told me why they voted against this. I think most of them did so because it was a Liberal whipped vote. You may recall the day that you were the whip, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the Liberals through their whip would give such an instruction.

In any case, I think this is probably the nub of the reason for why the Liberals voted against it. Our motion on September 18 recommended that any foreign national charged with an act of terrorism should be extradited forthwith, even if that foreign national faced, in his designated country, a possible death penalty.

The Liberals cannot bring themselves to recognize that under certain circumstances there is not a penalty severe enough. I would put into that category the individuals who knowingly helped to train and motivated the people who hijacked those airplanes on September 11, and who caused so much havoc, pain, death and damage. Those individuals are clearly guilty. If we were to find some of those individuals in Canada, who aided and abetted that action, and if there were another country somewhere that said to extradite them because they were their nationals, not Canadians, that they belonged in their country, not Canada, and that in their country they would face the death penalty, then I would say, off they go.The bill fails to provide for that.

I greatly regret that my time has elapsed because I have several more points to make. I am looking forward to the bill going to committee. I hope the amendments we make will be given due consideration by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act. I want to make it clear that the Bloc Quebecois agrees that we need anti-terrorism legislation, but it must respect our freedoms and our democracy.

What the terrorists most want is to destabilize our free and democratic society. They have managed to do so with base and bloody acts of destruction. However, in legislating, we should be able to respect the very foundation of our society, which is freedom and democracy.

With respect to Bill C-36, which goes back to the very definition of the expression “terrorist activity”, the Bloc Quebecois is advocating that this legislation include a sunset clause. This is a very serious situation, and the legislation we are adopting, the anti-terrorist act, has been conceived for such a serious situation. The Bloc Quebecois proposes that it apply for three years, as is the case in the United States, where similar legislation was passed by the American Congress.

Let us not allow the terrorists to do what they set out to do, namely to destabilize our freedoms and our democracy. We are also proposing that this bill be reviewed on a yearly basis.

What is incomprehensible is that the minister who tabled and approved this legislation is acting as though she had hidden motives to appropriate certain freedoms granted to the citizens of Canada by the Constitution of 1982.

Quebec has the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, Canada has the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and this is the type of society in which Quebecers and Canadians want to live, a free and democratic society.

Every time there is the slightest risk of threat to the rights of the citizens of Quebec and Canada, it is our duty to take a reasonable period of time--not unlimited or indefinite--but a reasonable amount of time to hear from all of the groups, associations and interest groups, whether it be the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, all interested groups that have questions on the content of the legislation.

We repeat that, in order to pass anti-terrorism legislation quickly, and to have some control on this legislation to ensure the respect of our free and democratic society, we hope and wish for a three year sunset clause. This is why it is called a sunset clause. This legislation absolutely must be reviewed every year, to ensure that those who are responsible for its enforcement are not abusing the situation to settle disputes or to interpret it for purposes other than those for which this legislation was drafted.

Finally, this leads me to quote the definition of terrorist activity that will be covered by Bill C-36. It says:

--is committed for a political, religious or ideological purpose and threatens public or national security.

So, an act committed for political, religious or ideological purposes that threatens public or national security would now be called a terrorist activity and would be liable to criminal sanctions, whether this activity involves killing, of course, or causing serious bodily harm or endangering a person's life, causing substantial property damage that is likely to result in serious bodily harm or to cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system.

In this regard, I go back to the question asked by my colleague of Terrebonne--Blainville: could some nurses who decide to defy regulations or legislation for the purpose of making union demands be charged with terrorist activities, since they are causing interference with or disruption of essential services? This is what the bill before us implies.

This leads me to the comment that we ought to reread section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which guarantees rights and freedoms, and section 2, which gives the fundamental freedoms in this country, namely freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief and opinion, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. These are the fundamental freedoms of Canada, and of Quebec, because they are also to be found in the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms.

Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees these rights and freedoms to be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

It is a cause of concern to be told by the Prime Minister “If you are ever dissatisfied with the way Bill C-36 as introduced is being interpreted, all you have to do is challenge it before the courts, right up to the Supreme Court”.

We know very well that, with section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the legislation that will be passed justifying a free and democratic society, this will give judges all the reasons in the world to tell anyone wishing to challenge Bill C-36 once passed that the procedure is ultra vires, as is the case with the municipal mergers in Quebec and elsewhere. This week again we have seen municipalities trying to bring before the courts an act that gives full authority to the provinces to determine the fate of Canada's municipalities. They are doing this because the Constitution allows them to.

We always have the right to challenge, and to spend the money that it takes, but the result is always the same. That is how it was 30 years ago, that is how it was 20 years ago, that it how it was 10 years ago, and that is how it is today. A court challenge is possible, but it is a lost cause, because the Canadian constitution allows the provinces to adopt standards or to govern the municipalities, just as the Canadian Constitution enables the government to pass an anti-terrorism bill that could endanger the rights we enjoy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, gives government the authority to draft such legislation. It will allow the government to tell those who want to challenge the validity of Bill C-36 before the courts “Section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, gives us the authority to enact laws subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by Canada law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

We think that the definitions of terrorist and terrorist activity must be revised so that we can protect the rights of our citizens, the people of Canada and Quebec. Once the bill is passed, it will be too late.

Those who have to enforce the law, for example the police, the RCMP, the intelligence services and all those who have to carry that burden, will be able to invoke BillC-36 and, since they often apply laws more liberally than literally, they could infringe upon the rights of some people who, by virtue of their right to freedom of association, are entitled to make claims, give their opinion and go out on to the streets to protest or speak out. We could be jeopardizing this freedom we now enjoy.

I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois supports the anti-terrorism bill. All we want is a sunset clause that will put an end to it three years from now, and the possibility to review it every year to make sure that we do not lose and the terrorists do not win because, once again, all they want is to destabilize our free and democratic society. Let us enact legislation that will end at one point in time and let us review it every year to protect the freedom of every citizen of Quebec and Canada.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 is a groundbreaking bill which potentially will radically change the face of Canada, our rights and our security.

I want to discuss what September 11 was and what it was not. September 11 was an act of urban terrorism on a grand scale. The war in Afghanistan, although necessary to go after the cells of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, is more for domestic consumption in the United States to show that something forceful is being done. That had to happen. Only a military option is going to be effective in going after the terrorists who have said that they are not going to negotiate, that they are going to blow up the negotiating table. That is what they have done.

Let us also deal with some myths. Was this an issue of American foreign policy? Those who claim that are dead wrong. American foreign policy was not responsible for what took place on September 11. It was an act of murder by people who are interested in power. It is true there are religious overtones to it but that is not what Osama bin Laden and his groups are after. They are after the removal of western influence from Arab states and Muslim dominated states. They want to ensure that those countries become in what their vision is nirvana, which would be a country like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Under the Taliban the people are worse off than they were before, even under the horrible conditions the Afghanis have endured for many years. The fundamentalist Islamic regime as supported by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, as represented by what happened under the Taliban in Afghanistan, represents the worst that possibly could happen and the worst perversion of the Islamic faith in a country. That is what he wants to do. He wants to make sure it happens in Arab states.

This was not an issue of poverty. Osama bin Laden is a man with millions of dollars. The Taliban is a corrupt group that has been raising money with drug profits from the sale of heroin for years, furthering their efforts and guerrilla warfare.

We also have to understand that the most pervasive element of the war on terrorism is not what is happening in Afghanistan. The most important war is the war on urban terrorism. That is the insidious war we are faced with. This will be a long war and that is why the bill is important. The long war on terrorism is a war on urban terrorism.

We know that 11,000 people have been trained by bin Laden and his groups in the art of mayhem, anarchy, bombings, killings and maimings. We know that those people have been installed all over the world. Mr. Ressam, who was caught with bombs to blow up Los Angeles airport, spent four years in Montreal before being called up. The bombers in Kenya and Tanzania had been installed underground in those countries for years before they were called up. The terrorists have been imbedded into societies all over the world to be called up at a moment's notice to kill innocent civilians and create chaos in the hope of influencing the foreign policy I mentioned before. They hope to remove western influence from Arab states and I might add, turn moderate Arab states to the fundamentalist vision they hold so dear.

We cannot allow that to happen. It violates the basic principles of humanity. We also have an obligation to protect Canadian citizens. The bill goes a long way toward that but we have significant concerns. The bill must strike a balance between our individual freedoms and our security. If necessary we must tilt toward security and the protection of life. If that is necessary, then an infringement on our personal securities to the minimum extent necessary will be required.

The problem with the bill is it does not provide the parliamentary and judicial oversight required to ensure the bill does not go too far, that the pendulum does not swing too far in the imposition and restriction of human rights. People have given their lives to ensure we have those rights in Canada today, rights that set us apart from draconian countries like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

We must protect those rights but we must do it judiciously and with the understanding that the right to human security and life is of paramount importance. We want to ensure that the bill does not impede or impose on our individual rights.

How do we defeat terrorism on a larger scale? We have to give CSIS and the RCMP the tools to do the job. They must have the resources and powers to investigate, engage in surveillance and apprehend those individuals within our midst today who would commit terrorist activities.

We must also give our defence forces the resources to engage in the domestic and international obligations we have. Unfortunately our defence forces have been gutted by political interference, mismanagement, neglect and the removal of budgets. The government has been warned about this problem since 1993. The Canadian Alliance has warned the government about cutting the number of soldiers and military personnel down to 53,000 and about the cuts to the budget. Our soldiers no longer have the tools to do their job and cannot fill their international and domestic obligations.

The Canadian public would be interested to know that our military today cannot meet or muster the forces necessary to help us if we have a significant domestic emergency. That is a serious problem.

On a larger scale, our foreign policy effort, as a country we must work with our partners in a new era of foreign policy. I firmly believe that today we are in an unprecedented state of building a new and more secure world.

After World War II there was a chance to build peace or to make the world less secure. The allies chose the peaceful path by introducing the Marshall plan that brought a Germany that was on its knees into the fold so that it could engage and integrate with western civilization peacefully. We have the opportunity today to bring the Arab world closer to the west. We have the opportunity to diffuse a nuclear threat in Pakistan and to influence it to engage in peace talks with India.

We know the war in Kashmir, which has the potential of spiraling out into a nuclear conflict, has been going on as a serious conflict for decades. Even now it is actually spiraling up.

While we have Pakistan leaders as a partial ally in the war on terrorism, we must work with them and put coercive pressure on them to diffuse the conflict.

The Arab world must also take responsibility. No longer can Arab leaders turn a blind eye to the egregious moves by their own brethren. They cannot turn a blind eye to Saddam Hussein who kills marsh Arabs and Kurds in the north. They cannot turn a blind eye to Islamic fundamentalists who murder innocent civilians in Algeria and assassinate Anwar Sadat in Egypt. They must speak out against this because the threat of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is a threat against modern Arab states. They cannot let blood be thicker than water. They must side with human rights, peace and the right thing for their people.

In the building of this coalition, if we build diplomatic initiatives, economic ties through the removal of trade barriers and debt for many of the countries, integrating conditions upon the debt removal and in diplomatic initiatives, then we can build a more secure world. Never has Canada had a greater chance to take a leadership role than it has now in the year 2001. We must not let this slip through our fingers. We must take the bull by the horns carpe diem and begin to build the bridges while we have the opportunity.

If we can do this, a more secure world is before us. If we fail to do this, then a less secure world is before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to talk about certain aspects of the terrorism circumstances we find ourselves in these days. Today we are talking about Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act which affects, among others, seven laws: the Criminal Code of Canada; the Official Secrets Act; the Canada Evidence Act; the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act; the National Defence Act, the Access to Information Act; and the Registration of Charities Act. It is hard to determine the impact on all those acts just by referring to Bill C-36. It is very complicated and it is going to take quite a while to go through it.

When I first learned of the reaction of the government by bringing in the bill, I was pleased with the idea and I still am. It is the right thing to do. But the bill is very complicated and it appears that the government moved a little too hastily in drafting it.

All of us recognize the very definite need to balance civil liberties with terrorism actions. In certain circumstances specifically, it seems that the government really missed the boat on the bill with respect to restrictions on civil liberties. Ordinarily I would probably be arguing the other way, that there is not enough attention to controlling terrorism and the criminal code directions and changes. In this case, some things are quite alarming and disconcerting to me. I am not a lawyer but I can read and I do find things in Bill C-36 which I do not like.

As a member mentioned previously, the definition of a terrorist activity is “an act or omission that is committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public” and so on.

It is far too broad. I can think of lots of circumstances which are legitimate protests, demonstrations and actions by people that sometimes may be cumbersome and a nuisance, but they are part of our civil liberties and part of our right as Canadians to speak our mind and raise concerns.

Under the Canada Evidence Act changes, the bill states:

A minister of the crown in right of Canada or other official may object to the disclosure of information before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information by certifying orally or in writing to the court, person or body that the information should not be disclosed on the grounds of a specified public interest.

That means the minister can say that evidence cannot be made available because it affects a specified public interest. That could be anything from a political interest to a government agency or even a golf course. That is one clause we will be looking at to have changed and to focus on more closely in committee.

Under the Firearms Act, one of the clauses states:

Subject to subsection (4), the governor in council may exempt any class of non-residents from the application of any provision of this act or the regulations.

Canadians are required to comply with the Firearms Act but that clause says that non-residents may be exempt based on whatever reason they may come up with. I take exception to that.

With respect to the Registration of Charities Act, I get involved with this quite a bit. There are a lot of charities in all of our ridings that apply for special tax exemptions and incentives to attract donations to charitable organizations. This really homes in on the charitable organizations and certain things about it make me uncomfortable. It says:

The certificate and any matters arising out of it are not subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with--

That is a scary statement. Another clause states:

Notwithstanding subsection (2), the applicant or registered charity may apply to a judge for an order directing that the identity of the applicant or registered charity not be published--

If someone objects to a charity, that charity cannot even find out who is making the application to stop it from being a charity. I do not think that is the way we do things in Canada.

Another clause states that an order is not “subject to appeal or review by any court at the instance of a party to the application” and that the Minister of National Revenue may hear all or part of that evidence or information in the absence of the applicant and any counsel representing the applicant.

So many aspects of the bill seem to be secret and there is no opportunity to contradict or defend the statements that are being made. The decisions are not subject to appeal. The information is not subject to access to information. People who are challenged cannot find out who put forth the challenge and they have no access to the information afterward. It seems a lot of the information and regulations are contradictory to our way of thinking.

The bill states that the determination of the court is not subject to appeal or judicial review. The other day I read that the Canadian Bar Association said that the failure of legislatures to guarantee any review of circumstances and processes is unprecedented, unnecessary and inconceivable.That is exactly what this does. Over and over again the bill says that these decisions are not subject to review, not subject to appeal or any other avenue of reconsideration.

There are a lot of aspects about Bill C-36 about which we do not approve. Although it has obviously been rushed into existence, I am glad that the government has acknowledged that it has to go to committee. It will be reviewed there and perhaps the government will be more open to amendments than in the usual cases. It is important that issues dealing with civil liberties be addressed and protections be included for people who are challenged by unknown parties, unknown countries or unknown individuals.

Our position is that we support the concept of the bill. However, it will take a lot of work to amend it and we are glad it will be going to the justice committee.

Other aspects of the terrorism response by Canada concern me. One is that until recently the government continually stood and said that we have not yet been asked to participate, that we have not yet been told what to do. The government actually said that.

The government should be deciding what to do. The government should not be waiting for the Americans to tell us what to do. It should not be waiting to react. We should be a part of the plan. We should have been in on the planning from the beginning. Instead we got this incredible response by the Prime Minister who said that we have not yet been told what to do. To me the government has made a fundamental mistake in not being involved with the planning of the response to the terrorist actions on September 11 right from the very beginning.

The bill will be followed by another bill focusing specifically on transportation. That will have to address a lot of different aspects of our borders, our transportation, our safety and everything to do with our relationship with the United States in particular. We look forward to that bill to complement the bill that is before us today.

In any case, when this bill goes to committee we will ensure there is a balance between protection of civil liberties and an appropriate response to terrorism and that our law enforcement officers are given the appropriate tools to work with. We look forward to that.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset I would like to say that, when I got elected in June 1997 and when my constituents renewed their confidence in me in November 2000, I never expected that, as a member of parliament, I would have to take part in a debate on the security of Canada and Quebec.

On September 11, the terrible attacks on the United States have changed the worId. Since that tragic day in our contemporary history, the people on the North American continent and those of the major allied countries involved in the fight against terrorism are worried. American media broadcast 24 hours a day images and news programs reporting on the fragility of world peace.

Here, in parliament, our work has changed. We now have to devote more time to House proceedings. On that subject, I have been very clear with the people of my riding of Lotbinière--L'Érable, when I told them that the time split between my riding and Ottawa had changed in response to that historic situation.

As a federal member of parliament, I find it important and even essential to take part in all proceedings, to debate and vote on every decision taken here in this House to combat terrorism.

First, I want to reiterate the position of our party following the September 11 events. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois said, and I quote:

We must remember that the attack on September 11 is an attack not only on the United States, but on democratic values, on freedom and on every country that defends these values. It is an attack on all peoples of the world who aspire to justice, freedom and democracy, and especially those living under the yoke of tyrants and cranks, such as the people of Afghanistan, who face the totalitarian terror of the Taliban daily.

He also said:

A response is required—

The response must reflect and respect our democratic values. We must not fall into the trap of a civilization or religious war.

Already back then, our party was saying that a response and some measures were required. It asked the government to legislate to combat terrorism.

Our party also supported the efforts made by the federal government to freeze the bank accounts of groups or individuals directly or indirectly connected to the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups supported by bin Laden.

The Canadian government, like the governments of all the countries affected by the September 11 events, just introduced a bill, Bill C-36, which seeks to provide tools to fight terrorism more efficiently.

I want to say that I will support the principle of the bill at second reading. However, there are several irritants in this legislation.

First, can anyone say how long this conflict will last? The bill sets a rigid three year period, and this is dangerous. At a time when the situation is changing by the day and even by the hour, it is very important that parliament legislate with a degree of flexibility, so as to adjust to the daily or monthly changes of events.

We are currently in a crisis and we know that. However, Bill C-36 must not go against everything that was done to protect the fundamental rights that relate to individual freedom.

I am very concerned about this issue. This morning, I read in the newspapers that arrangements are already being made to ensure that the Senate begins its review of the bill at the same time as the House of Commons.

A special Senate committee was formed yesterday, before the Minister of Justice had even appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice. This is a departure from the normal procedure in the passage of a bill. It is a sign that the government means to move quickly.

I realize that this is an urgent situation, but the legislator should not take advantage of this context to make amendments the ramifications of which we will have to live with for years to come. I get very worried when I see that the Senate has already begun looking at the bill. There are fewer and fewer agreements reached with the other side of the House and now we see the federal government fast-tracking. I know that legislation is required. But we must take the time to analyze the situation.

There are a number of irritants in this bill. However, the best thing would be if we began right now by at least saying that we will introduce this bill for one year. At that end of that period, it will be brought back to parliament, analyzed and the necessary amendments made.

As I mentioned earlier, no one knows how long this conflict will last. Could the present strikes and the economic action being taken against terrorist movements produce results more quickly? If they could, so much the better, but the Canadian parliament will be stuck with a rigid piece of legislation cast in stone for three years. It makes no sense to proceed in this way.

Furthermore, according to this morning's edition of Le Devoir , there was even dissension on the other side of the House. The newspaper reported that:

--the member for Mount Royal, an ardent defender of human rights, expressed certain concerns about the new powers of investigation the legislation will confer: “Preventive detention and mandatory court hearings are two of my concerns, and perhaps a sunset clause is needed for provisions such as these--”

That is where the hon. member for Mount Royal stands. Some members opposite have at least enough courage to speak out. We are proceeding too fast with Bill C-36. While being fully aware that this is a matter of urgency, we must take the time to listen to experts and to ensure that we are not giving too much power to the Minister of Justice and this government.

If the bill, as drafted, is ever passed at third reading, history will deal harshly with Canada, and its parliament, because it will be said that, contrary to other countries, in order to benefit from an exceptional situation, it sacrificed some vested rights to protect Canadian citizens.

I was a reporter for 16 years and I know how important it is to know the meaning of the words we use. But I am very nervous when I look at the present definition of terrorist. It is so vast that it makes no sense. Right now, Bill C-36 does not have a clear definition of terrorist.

This is why the political party I belong to is supporting Bill C-36 in principle, but has serious reservations about several irritants that are included.

In conclusion, let me say that once we have studied and debated this legislation, we will have to deal with what is at the root of terrorism.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-36. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom as Thomas Jefferson once said. Members are correct to be concerned about the implications this legislation has for civil liberties.

I will point out that over 6,000 people died in the attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and flight 93 which crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. This means that as legislators we should be prepared to take steps to ensure that Canada is not in any way open to those sorts of things in the future. We must do whatever we can to stop the scourge of terrorism in the world.

We are happy to see that the government has reacted in some way to some of the issues that the Canadian Alliance raised in the past. Government members will acknowledge that the Canadian Alliance on many occasions pressed some of these issues. We have made known our concerns about the lax screening of refugees and the inability of the government to keep track of what was happening to refugees who were denied refugee status in Canada. After raising these concerns we were roundly condemned and people accused us of having all kinds of motivations that simply were not true.

We pointed out that Canada had an inadequate military to protect its own sovereignty or our allies. This is what is happening now. When we raised these issues many people said they were unnecessary. It would be irresponsible if I did not point out that we have already raised these concerns.

We suggested that if these concerns were not dealt with they could have an impact on our ability to trade with our American neighbours. This is a very important relationship for the prosperity of Canada. Eighty five per cent of our exports go to the United States and NAFTA. This accounts for approximately 33% of our total wealth as a country and our trade relationships around the world.

If Canadians are to feel secure in allowing our border with the United States to stay open then they want to know we are doing a good job on the perimeter. The government has to ensure that people with malicious motives do not get into Canada and use our country as a launching ground for attacks on the United States.

These issues were pointed out in the past and were dismissed by the government. I am willing to overlook this, but I expect that from now on when we raise these concerns they will not be dismissed. It should not be suggested that we have other motives for raising these issues.

I take issue with some of the comments made by the previous speaker from the NDP. He mentioned that he was a civil libertarian. He should know that civil libertarians do not believe that one should be cast in chains and sent to prison for the crime of selling one's own wheat. That is what the NDP believes. It believes that upholding the wheat board is more important than upholding the individual rights of people to sell their own property. I point out that inconsistency which my friend raised a few minutes ago.

The civil liberties concerns are real. I am a member of a party that believes in individual freedom. We believe in the long history of common law and the establishment over a period of 900 years of some very basic and important rights such as habeas corpus and property rights. We have to raise some of those concerns and point out that while we may feel we are in a time of emergency it does not mean that the government has carte blanche to trample over individual freedoms.

The member from the NDP pointed out some examples that we have seen in the past where the government has gone too far in trying to protect the public, to the point where it has trampled individual liberties and has gone over the line.

I acknowledge that it is always difficult to know where the line is but I am personally concerned about the idea of preventive 72 hour detention without the usual protections afforded in law. I think we should try to find some way of going to a judge ahead of time and having to meet some kind of evidentiary standard in order to get a judge to give us the go ahead to make those kinds of arrests. It is a 15 minute process, that is all, but it would ensure that someone outside the political system, outside the police, makes a judgment about whether or not somebody's fundamental rights are being trampled on. I am concerned about that. I raise that and want the House and the government to note it and take it into account so that when we go into committee those sorts of things can be addressed.

Other people have suggested sunset clauses for certain components of the legislation so that when this period of crisis has passed and things have settled down we can revisit whether or not that 72 hour preventive detention aspect of the legislation is completely necessary.

Because the legislation was drafted quite quickly, we may find other problems within the legislation. It may overstep the bounds of individual liberty. If that is the case, then I think the government should be prepared to revisit the legislation and take away some of the more odious aspects of it. We probably will not know that for some time because it was drafted very quickly and we have not seen all the consequences of what is entailed in the legislation.

Having said that, I also want to point out to members of the Bloc and NDP who have been pretty reluctant about some aspects of Canada's involvement in what amounts to a war in Afghanistan, that it is critical that Canada stand by its ally, the United States, and do what it can to support it in this war against terrorism.

That does not mean we should rubber stamp every decision that the United States makes with respect to going to battle or its own security. Not at all. I do think we have an obligation as right thinking people to stand by the U.S. in the face of an attack on its country. We need to root out people like Osama bin Laden and, frankly, the Taliban people who support him. We must send a powerful message that this cannot happen again. That means devoting some of our own troops to the cause. We know that in the past the Americans have stood by us, going back to the second world war. We know they have stood by us when we have needed them. We have to be with them in their hour of need.

There are reasons beyond just the moral imperative for doing this. We also have a huge trade relationship with the Americans and they have to know that we will be with them all the way, no matter what. They need to know that we are prepared to secure our borders so that people who come to North America with the intent of reigning terror on the continent cannot just waltz through lax security at the Canadian perimeter. If the Americans have that assurance then this very profitable trade relationship that we have with them can continue.

If it was not for our ability to trade with the U.S., Canada would be in dire straits indeed. It is because we have this wonderful relationship that Canada is a relatively prosperous country. We must not forget that.

I say to the government and the foreign affairs minister that they should not be so dismissive of the idea of having a secure perimeter. They should not call it simplistic. It may not be sufficient but it is necessary.

We need to have a secure perimeter, one that has laws similar and harmonious to those of the United States, if we are going to keep that border between Canada and the U.S. open.

In closing, I will simply say that the official opposition supports these efforts of the government but with the caveats that I have mentioned. I encourage my friends in the NDP and the Bloc to be mindful of our moral obligations to our friends within the NATO alliance and certainly below the Canada-U.S. border.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important debate on Bill C-36. If we were to poll members of the House and ask them if they would want to ensure that at the end of the day we have struck an appropriate balance between eliminating terrorist activities and the protection of civil liberties, the vast majority of members on all sides of the House would say yes. In other words there would be no substantial disagreement on that point.

However there would probably be some difference of opinion between where we find the appropriate balance between ensuring that Canada is doing everything that it needs to do to keep the undesirable terrorist elements out of the country while protecting the liberties that we have come to enjoy, respect and expect in our country.

I heard in the last few minutes some things that would suggest the balance might be difficult to find. I heard concern from the member from the Bloc Quebecois about the need for parliament to examine this law earlier than three years, which is what is being proposed.

I heard concern from the Conservative Party that the Minister of Justice would be the one responsible for dealing with all elements of access to information. I believe that raises a bit of caution. My colleague from Saskatoon--Wanuskewin repeated yet again that Canada is known around the world as a safe haven for terrorists. It was noteworthy this morning to have heard Ward Elcock from CSIS saying before the immigration committee exactly the opposite, that it was not only unhelpful but untrue to characterize the country as a safe haven for terrorists.

I suspect the balance will not be all that easy to find and some of the critics of the bill have not been shy about coming forward and saying that this is a gross overreaction to the situation we have. They point to things such as preventive detention. While it is not as draconian as some, it moves Canada well along that road.

When I walked over to the House today I noticed the large demonstration that was taking place on Parliament Hill by Air Canada employees who were concerned about their future, partly in the wake of September 11 and partly by the problems that existed well before September 11.

One wonders whether in the future and after the bill becomes law those kinds of protests would be able to take place as freely and as openly as we would want to see happen and should happen.

I would be concerned for farmers, who have publicized their concerns about what has happened to the farm economy over the last few years by taking up protests and slowing traffic down on highways. Is that something that will continue to be allowed?

We have also had roads blocked in rural parts of Canada by environmentalists preventing lumber companies from going into the forests. One has to be concerned about the balance and how far the legislation would go. I am not trying to get people excited but we do have to be cautious. Other people are being very good in pointing out some of those potential concerns.

The definition of terrorism or terrorist activity, because terrorism is not defined in what is proposed, is both vague and impossibly broad. It states that any action taken or threatened for political, religious or ideological purposes that causes property damage or disrupts an essential service facility or system would be considered a terrorist activity, and the police would have the power to arrest or detain anyone it believes may have information. This is a significant change from where we are now and where we have been for many years in this country.

It has been stated that the potential for abuse is high. For example, a former employee of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada was released after September 17 because he had the same first and last names as those suspected in either the terrorist attacks of September 11 or was on an FBI or Interpol list. That individual has not been reinstated. The company is not talking at all to the media or to anyone else. These are the kinds of problems we need to be very concerned about.

Bill C-36 suggests that police and other law enforcement agencies in Canada do not have sufficient powers to arrest. The civil libertarians who are speaking out against the bill remind us that is simply not true.

Will the curtailment of certain civil liberties win the fight against terrorism? I would point out that recent history is not particularly kind to those who hold that view. I reference the experience of the British and the Irish Republican Army in the mid-seventies and thereafter when the forces against terrorism continued in ever increasing amounts but the bombing continued.

It was only after the government went on a different course of action to find a political solution that it began to find a better solution to what transpired over the last 25 or 28 years in Northern Ireland and the U.K.

I consider myself to be a civil libertarian. There have been highly emotional and charged times when certain citizens in Canada had their civil liberties curtailed to a very large degree. I am speaking of the Ukrainians after the first world war; the Japanese Canadians before, during and after the second world war; and the militants in Quebec in 1970.

I was at an event in Toronto in 1970. Then Solicitor General of Canada Jean-Pierre Goyer demanded that the audience, who was very hostile to the introduction of the War Measures Act, name one person outside the province of Quebec who had been detained or had his or her civil liberties infringed upon as a result of the introduction of the War Measures Act.

There was no question that there were many thousands of people in the province of Quebec whose civil liberties were definitely violated at that time. We were able to point out to the solicitor general that there were indeed people in Ontario and other provinces who had problems in that area.

Whether they are Ukrainians, Japanese Canadians or Quebecers, as Tom Walkom from the Toronto Star pointed out yesterday:

In all cases the general public applauded these actions at the time. In all cases the general public decided later that the country had made a terrible mistake.

It is important that the bill go now to committee and be appropriately studied to make sure that at the end of the day we have a bill which protects the country and Canadians against terrorist activities but at the same time guards our civil liberties to the greatest extent possible.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will open my remarks by saying I am disappointed that I have to stand in the House today to speak to this piece of legislation.

We know, and it is a well worn phrase unfortunately, that since September 11 our lives have changed, our country has changed and our freedoms since then have changed as well. It is a reality, unfortunately, that we have to look at ways of being able to protect ourselves, ways of being able to put forward laws and legislation that would prevent these types of things from happening in this great country of ours.

Prior to September 11, I think we took for granted the rights and freedoms that we had in this great country. We took for granted our ability to travel not only throughout the country but throughout the world. As of September 11 that has changed. We had a splash of cold water thrown on us, one that we have to deal with.

However I would also with some caution suggest that there is a balance in how we as Canadians react to the circumstances of today. We should react to it, absolutely, as we have, and I will talk to Bill C-36, but we also should be cognizant of the fact that we cannot overreact. There is still a life that we have to live, that my constituents have to live, that my family and members' families have to live and we should make sure that we continue to be able to practise those freedoms that we have. There is a fine balance, not only in our own lifestyle but also in the legislation before us now.

The events of September 11 dealt with and have made us focus on quite a number of areas that perhaps we did not focus on. Earlier I mentioned security, not only that of our own families but of our nation. We have heard about immigration issues in the House many times and we do know that there is immigration legislation coming forward. We know that now the focus has also been put on food security, something that we have taken for granted in our country in the past. Now we look at food security as a very major issue. It is something that we have to look at not only as parliamentarians but certainly in our own lives.

Trade has been impacted substantially. We recognize now in the global world we have, and I know in my field of some expertise with respect to agriculture, that without having open, globalized trade, our producers would not be able to produce what they do at the present time. They would not be as successful as they are. That trade has been impacted because now we have some issues with respect to open trade and open borders.

We have talked about customs services in the House. It has been impacted, with the focus placed on border crossings that I have in my constituency, that others have in their constituencies which have been closed or if not closed certainly impacted to the point where the access to those borders has been lessened.

I do not have to mention air travel in the House. The majority of members here travel from their constituencies to Ottawa on a fairly regular basis and I know that they have recognized and certainly have identified certain issues with respect to travel, whether it be by air or even by other modes of transportation that have been impacted by what happened on September 11.

To say the least, there is the impact on the economy. Every day now since September 11 when we turn on a television set or look at any of the markets around the globe we recognize that there have been impacts on the economy, on businesses and on the employees of those businesses.

The point is that there are a lot of issues that have now come into a very clear focus because of what happened, but as I said earlier we must put it all in balance. Part of that balance is the legislation we have before us today, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation that has been brought forward.

First, I congratulate the government in bringing forward the legislation. I think that Canadians must recognize that there was a substantial amount of effort put forward by the government and the staff of the department in order to bring the legislation to the House today in the form in which it has been presented.

This does not just happen. Literally hundreds of people and thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of man hours go into the presentation of this type of legislation. It was done on a fairly limited timeline. Perhaps we should have had a more extended term but we did not have that luxury. It had to be done and brought forward on a fairly concise timeline. Because of that there are certain areas we must look at fairly carefully before we send this piece of legislation through the House and Senate and make it law.

Let us talk about Bill C-36. It is 175 pages. I am not a lawyer, thankfully. However there are a number of lawyers in the House and elsewhere who will help us wade through the legislation. It is 175 pages and it affects 28 acts. I have never seen such an omnibus bill. In my experience, which has not been terribly extensive, I have not seen a bill of this nature come before the House. We must tread carefully and softly with it.

My colleague in the opposition coalition, the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, is an accomplished individual. He is a lawyer and he is responsible for making our coalition cognizant of the issues in the legislation. I have a lot of faith in and respect for the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. I will be taking his lead as to where we in the opposition coalition should be heading with the legislation.

Canadians and parliamentarians know that after the debate and second reading the bill will go to committee. There will be an opportunity for members of parliament and all individuals in the country to come before the committee as witnesses to put their views forward. This will be absolutely mandatory. The legislation would impact on our rights and freedoms. That must be brought out. We must know what we are dealing with in the legislation.

A pre-study is going on in the Senate which will look at all the nuances of all the clauses in the bill's 175 pages. It will look at how Bill C-36 would interact with the 28 other acts being affected and how that may or may not impact Canadians.

I talked about the need for balance. Let us not overreact to the point where we cannot live our lives the way we did prior to September 11. We not only need balance in our lives, we need balance in the legislation. As Canadian citizens we must make sure we are protected but we must also make sure our rights are protected.

I suspect there will be charter challenges. The Minister of Justice has already indicated that she believes the legislation will be able to withstand any charter challenges. That is yet to come and we will wait to see.

There are still questions which will need to be raised by my colleague and others. One of them is what the definition of a terrorist is. There is no real definition of terrorism in the legislation. There are clauses that indicate what cannot happen with respect to the terrorism component. It is important that we look at those.

Under Bill C-36 the Minister of Justice would be given absolute power with respect to the Access to Information Act. I have concerns about this because I use the Access to Information Act. Some ministers are unfortunately not terribly forthcoming with information. The Minister of Justice would have absolute power. There would be no opportunity for anyone else to adjudicate. Canadians run a severe risk by putting such power into the hands of one minister. This in itself would be difficult for the House to do.

I agree with the bill's preventive arrest measures. Perhaps I do not understand them as well but I know there are safeguards. We must make sure those safeguards are in place and that ability to extend detention from 24 to 48 hours has safeguards with respect to judicial access. That clause is important.

In closing, I thank the House for bringing forward this piece of legislation and ask all Canadians to please take a deep breath. We will get through this as we should. We Canadians offer all the people of the United States, particularly in New York City, our best wishes and sympathy for the events of September 11.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the bill before us. We do want to get it into committee so that we can have it addressed there and move things along.

I will remind both our viewing audience and other members here, who are probably well aware of it, that the bill picked up on some good ideas from other parties, some from our Canadian Alliance. I think that is the way parliament should work. Many of the recommendations were made by the Canadian Alliance on our supply day not so long ago, recommendations such as providing for the naming of terrorist organizations, the ratification of the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism and a ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism. It is great when the House works that way and we are able to bring the pressure to bear on the party in power such that we get some of the legislation, some of the good stuff in there. I believe the bill is a direct result of that kind of pressure that we have been able to bring to bear on the government.

The minister emphasizes that the bill meets the reasonable test of the charter of rights. We feel that the emphasis should be on whether the legislation protects Canadians from terrorism. As the minister says, it should meet the reasonable test of the charter of rights, but more important, it should actually and practically do something to protect Canadians from terrorism with very concrete and specific measures rather than just offering feel good assurances.

As a caveat, the legislation will be of little value if the Liberals do not provide the adequate resources to our frontline forces in the fight against terrorism. It might be so much fine rhetoric and look good on paper, a nice piece of legislation to have sitting there, but we cannot actually do anything with it without resources. We cannot implement it and follow through if in fact we do not have the resources applied. There are plenty of areas where there is waste and squandering of money and those dollars could be set aside and prioritized for this very crucial fight against terrorism.

The Liberal government failed to ratify both the suppression of terrorist financing convention and the suppression of terrorist bombing convention until now. We have been after them. We were saying prior to this that it should have been done. It is regrettable, in a sense, that it took a tragedy of this proportion to finally get to the point now where these have been ratified and we are moving on to other things in the fight against terrorism.

If government had listened to frontline workers, to those who are out there day by day and know what kind of threats we face, if it had been listening to those workers who protect Canada from the terrorist threat and have over the years, but without adequate legislation and without the proper tools, this type of legislation would have been enacted quite some time ago. The United Kingdom legislation was enacted in July 2000. There is a good democracy in the world that often we follow when we see what good things it is doing. We should have been much quicker on the uptake.

Unfortunately, the legislation does not ban membership in terrorist organizations. We are basically hearing minister and others say that as long as people are not too active they can have a membership, that they can even acknowledge that they have a membership, but as long as they keep inactive and not do it a lot, then that is quite okay. However we believe that if these are known terrorist organizations membership in such bodies should be banned outright.

We have called on the government to put in place laws which would ensure that criminals are extradited promptly and without reservation to countries that respect the rule of law. We are talking about countries that honour rule of law as we do. There may be some things that we can quibble about in terms of their laws being written slightly differently or even in terms of things like capital punishment and so on, but that should not be a reason not to extradite to those countries.

Bill C-36 does nothing to address that problem. As a result, Canada is now being regarded internationally as a safe haven for criminals, even though members on the other side may protest. It is a known fact that many people regard Canada this way, especially as our laws in respect of these things are not as tough as those of some of our neighbouring countries. Canada would be the place of refuge or the haven to come to as they plan and prepare for terrorist acts.

Another concern we have and which we want to have pursued and addressed in committee is that it seems the minister and her department have been sneaking in provisions limiting access under the Access to Information Act. This is of concern. We often have complaints because we are denied certain information that in our role as members of parliament we want to get at and need access to. That is bad enough, but it is especially bad when it comes to this area as to why the government cannot proceed or move on something. We would be denied access to the information by way of some of the provisions limiting access that have been snuck into the bill.

Compared to some other jurisdictions, Canada's bill simply falls short. The United Kingdom legislation provides a list of names of banned organizations. We think that should be done. Canada does not do it. It is a little too open, general and generic. We should providing at least a starting list of names and it could be filled out, amended or have additional names added to it by regulation along the way. We think our legislation should be that specific and that it would be more helpful for law enforcement and those who will have to be on the front lines in the fight against terrorism.

The United Kingdom legislation also provides for compensation where private rights are interfered with or property is taken and an owner is not convicted of an offence. Canada does not do that. We believe that is a safeguard. Authorities may with reasonable grounds pursue a threat with respect to terrorism and yet it may be found out in the aftermath that they overreached and did not have a thorough enough basis, so we think there should be something of an offset or compensation or way of making it up to those who have been in some way unduly interfered with. The process would be better if compensation or recompense could be given to those people. Canada's legislation does not do that and we like to hold up the example of the United Kingdom legislation which has that provision. We think is a reasonable one.

The United States legislation places extensive stress on deportation issues and Canada has long been lax in this. Canada has not addressed the reality that it has become a safe haven for those seeking to avoid the death penalty. People may commit some very heinous crimes, but by getting up into Canada quickly afterward they are out of reach of these other countries where the crimes may have been committed. We do not think that is right. If there is the general rule of law with good standards and so on, we should not forbid or prevent extradition to those countries.

The American legislation also requires the administration to commit resources. I mentioned that before. I think any reasonable common sense person would say that if we have some fine sounding words and rhetoric on paper and yet there is no backup, no follow through and no resources then it is so much wind. It is just that, rhetoric, and it does not actually create the result that we want. We believe that the Liberals need to make a concrete and specific commitment in terms of resources and actually follow through and get some of this stuff done. It may sound very good on paper but does not amount to much if in fact there are no resources.

In the days ahead it will be the bounden duty of the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, to point out those shortcomings. We will be pressing in committee to try to get a good piece of legislation so that we can combat and defeat terrorism. We should do it together. I am grateful for the comments that other members have made and we will as a party press these issues and point out those shortcomings to in the end improve the legislation.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I get at the heart of the matter, I want to say that our thoughts, our prayers and our wishes for peace are with the Afghan women and children who are trying to find refuge at the moment in various countries—we saw this on television this morning. In many places, the borders are closed and they are unable to find refuge. My thoughts are with these women and children. I sincerely hope that they find refuge, food, shelter and, most important, decent care through this terrible crisis.

I believe we must be very realistic about Bill C-36. The winds of panic have blown around the world and I think we as legislators and elected representatives must spread a message of calm and logic in all this. It is true as well that we would never have thought of having to pass legislation on terrorism but we have to deal with the situation.

However the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, must not change the principles guiding the way we live and do things. This would be the ultimate victory for the terrorists because we would have given in to terror.

We must, in our reactions, strike a balance between heightened security and freedom, which occupies a central and vital place in our society. We must protect ourselves, that is true, but to sacrifice our freedom would be to capitulate because freedom is something completely different. Our choices will not be about security. They will be about our society too, and it is in the context of this balance that we must analyze the bill.

We agree on the principle behind C-36. However, we have asked and continue to ask the government not to rush the bill through committee. It is an exceptional bill. It is new to the House, although we regularly vote on bills, but this one is not like the others and must not be treated like the others.

Yes, we must pass anti-terrorism legislation to deal with this crisis situation. However, we must also be logical. We must be sure that we are not violating the democratic rights of other groups. Let me give an example. If Greenpeace decided to stage a protest during an international conference taking place in Ottawa, and this law affected its democratic right to do so, and protesters were arrested based on provisions in Bill C-36, then it will not work. We must continue living in a democracy as we have done for years.

Yes, we must take exceptional measures, but once again we must respect the democratic rights of people, of the men and women who are here and who are law-abiding.

This being said, we are calling for a sunset clause. We want this legislation to be reviewed every year, if possible. Things will evolve. We do not know how the situation will change. We cannot tell what will happen tomorrow. We do not know if there will be biological attacks. We do not have any idea. There is a wind a of panic blowing right now.

Clearly, everyone is becoming a bit paranoid. However, I believe that in time, calm will return. We must be careful. We do have to deal with the situation. However, this bill must not be carved in stone. A war should not last 100 years. I expect, I hope this situation is temporary. I hope we will find some solutions.

We are asking that the legislation be reviewed every year and that after three years it be brought back before the House for review and amendment, if need be. Things may evolve in a way that we cannot imagine today. Legislation such as this must not be left on the books indefinitely.

There could be a change of government. All sorts of things can happen. Therefore the act should automatically be brought back before the House so we can review it and make improvements, if necessary.

As we know, when we pass an act it is not always perfect. It is when we implement it that we can see whether it works or not. Therefore, we must make sure that we do not adversely affect the rights and freedoms currently enjoyed by people and groups of people.

In other words, we must continue to live normally while also protecting ourselves. If we have reasonable doubts concerning an individual or a group of people, we must be able to stop them before they commit terrorist acts.

I fully agree with that but we must also not go to the other extreme. A degree of balance is necessary and it could be achieved through a specific act within a well defined framework.

I suppose we will conclude second reading today and then the bill will be referred to the committee. What is worrisome is that the minister is already prepared to appear before the committee, this afternoon I believe, to discuss the legislation. Witnesses will be invited to submit briefs on this issue, but these people have not really had any time to prepare for this.

We know that preparation is important and that this is an exceptional act. It is unusual for us to make such decisions. We must give witnesses and the public time to properly examine the bill, and we must make the necessary amendments to protect the public and to protect democracy, because this is very important in a country like Canada or in a province like Quebec. We must absolutely be able to continue to live freely, while also making sure we can react quickly to terrorist groups or to specific terrorist acts.

I noticed in today's edition of Le Devoir that some Liberal members are also concerned about this bill.

We must be careful. Objections are already being raised, even on the government side. Members do not necessarily object to the bill, but there certainly is some resistance to it.

The bill should be amended and I hope that, for once, the government will listen to members, to its experts. These people know what they are talking about, many of them being lawyers, people who know the law. They say that we need a sunset clause because there is a concern. The bill must be in force only for a set number of years. Again, we must make sure not to carve this in stone. We must be able to react rapidly, to make changes.

Consequently, if many government members are prepared to put forward important amendments to the bill, the government may have no choice but to finally listen.

In conclusion, I hope that this bill, which seems to be unanimously supported in the House, will be much improved and that the proposals made by the Bloc Quebecois will be taken into account, because they are crucial to democracy and freedom.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we return today to speak on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation that the government has brought forward. Members of the Canadian Alliance have made it clear that we will support every effort to put in place legislation that is effective, efficient and does the job of reducing and containing the threat of terrorism in the country.

We know the effects are widespread. Today on the lawn in front of the House of Commons we have Air Canada employees at a special rally dealing with the tremendous impact that the terrorism has had on our airline industry. The Air Canada employees are seeking answers and solutions from the government. They not only want to know about the safety and security of the airline industry, they also want to know about their jobs and the impact on their families.

I will speak for a few minutes about Air Canada.

The government pushed forward the merger of the two airlines. Every time the government tries to do something in the area of running a business and making business decisions, it always seems to come back and bite it in the back end. What has happened this time is that Air Canada's debt is so massive and it has so many problems, partly resulting from the merger, that it could possibly result in bankruptcy.

In addition, when the government became involved, Air Canada ended up signing an agreement with their employees guaranteeing no layoffs for four years. No business would sign agreements like that except one that is tied in with the thinking that the government will forever take care of things. That is crazy.

My last point before I go directly to Bill C-36 is the situation with the Air Canada pilots. I have many Air Canada pilots living in my riding. They have pointed out that they have suffered and will continue to suffer as a result of merging the two pilot lists. It is totally unfair to the Air Canada pilots who have developed their careers and signed to work under certain situations, then, as a result of government actions, find it has been to their disadvantage.

I point this out because the terrorist acts have had a negative impact which has exaggerated the miscues of the government in that key sector of our economy.

I have a major concern with Bill C-36 is terrorists living in Canada. Certainly CSIS and the RCMP should provide intelligence gathering information on potential terrorists and make arrests at the appropriate time. There is a problem though.

I have noticed when Mr. Elcock has appeared before a committee, his position has been that he is an advisor to only the government and not to committees or anyone else. I find it strange that CSIS takes this position. Why can he not be more forthright with members of parliament who are also responsible for this anti-terrorism legislation?

Another area I have a concern with is the issue of the extradition of terrorists who are wanted in other countries and what the response of Canada will be to this, particularly when there is capital punishment in the country in which the terrorist has been charged.

The legislation does nothing to remedy the current extradition situation resulting from the Supreme Court of Canada decision referred to in the Burns v Rafay case. Since that decision, Canada has become a safe haven for criminals, including terrorists, who would seek to avoid the death penalty. The legislation is really needed to address this issue.

I do not know if the government fully appreciates the seriousness and the level to which we are open to terrorist attack in Canada. We have seen it around the world. Some countries have been living with it for years with events such as car bombings. These are the kinds of things terrorists do.

I do not know if the government is concerned to the point of bringing in legislation that is really required. Dealing with the issue of extradition is one on which we have to be black and white. A terrorist is a terrorist. If the evidence and charges are in another country, Canada should extradite the terrorist to stand trial, no matter what the penalty is, including the death penalty.

The legislation also has problems in guaranteeing reliable and long term funding for frontline workers in the war against terrorism. The frontline workers are the security people at our transportation points such as airports, railways and buses. We also have many people in the intelligence services of CSIS and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I noted this morning that in the United States, and it may not be a terrorism issue, a bus was hijacked.

The second thing I would like to talk about briefly is Canada's food supply. I am the chief agriculture critic. This perhaps has not been spoken about to this point in any great depth, However, in the fight against terrorism, the United Nations FAO, food and agriculture, recently stated that it would put in place a rapid response type team to assist countries to immediately respond to bioterrorism in the world's food supply. This is not just for individual countries. Canada has the food supplies for our population. However, there are some countries that are not as fortunate. Whenever we have asked the agriculture minister what he is doing, we get a non-answer, and Hansard refers to that.

I will bring up the issue of our federal veterinarians, and I am sure the agriculture minister is listening to this. They have gone for years without a contract. If we have a bioterrorism attack against our livestock industry, has the government done anything about arranging for an agreement with veterinarians in the cities, who have cat and dog type services, to go where the main terrorism act would probably take place, and that is on the livestock industry?

These are questions that are not security sensitive in the sense that they cannot be released to the general public to reassure them that the government is taking good and proper action and is prepared.

It is time that the government was more forthright with Canadians and members of parliament on this whole terrorism issue.

Criminal Code

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since the tragic events of September 11 we in the federal New Democratic Party have condemned in the strongest possible terms as crimes against humanity the terrorist attacks of September 11. We call for the perpetrators to be brought to justice before an international tribunal to be established by the United Nations Security Council and approved by the UN General Assembly.

We have also been clear in opposing the federal government's decision to commit Canadian military support to the U.S. led military action, particularly given that the U.S. has indicated that it may be prepared to expand its attacks to other countries beyond Afghanistan.

We have also supported calls to work in the longer term to eradicate the conditions from which despair, violence, hatred and discord arise.

We have also urged the federal government to lead all Canadians in fighting against the rising tide of intolerance and racism in the aftermath of September 11, particularly directed at Muslims and Arab Canadians. That is the focus of my remarks in the House tonight.

Canada is one of the most ethnically mixed and multicultural nations in the world. My own riding of Vancouver East, which I am very proud to represent, is one of the most diverse in the country.

While we can all be proud that the very meaning of Canada is about diversity and respecting differences, we must also come to terms with the fact that nearly 275,000 Canadians were victims of hate crimes last year according to Statistics Canada. Sadly since September 11 the number of racist incidents in Canada has been on the rise. We have heard of them as they have been reported in the media.

In Cold Lake, Alberta, Canadian born Muslims got phone calls telling them that all Arabs should be killed. In Oakville, Ontario five students were assaulted for being Arabs. In Ottawa a young Arab teen was beaten unconscious by two other teenagers.

We can only begin to imagine the human pain and suffering that this causes, particularly for young people who are trying to come to terms with what is going on.

We also know that according to the police in Ottawa there has been a doubling of racist incidents reported in our national capital since the attack on the World Trade Center Other cities are also reporting a significant increase.

We in the NDP have called on the federal government to take urgent action to fight racism and discrimination. We have urged the federal government to adopt an action plan that would include public discussion and education and clear enforcement of the criminal code sections concerning racism. We have called on the government to appoint a task force to monitor the reported incidents of racism and to monitor police investigations and prosecutions.

We also call on the Liberal government to reaffirm Canadian values and support for multiculturalism that was introduced as Canadian policy in 1971 by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Back in 1971 the New Democratic Party welcomed that commitment. Our leader of the day, the Hon. David Lewis, clearly stated:

The diversity of cultures across (Canada) is a source of our greatness as a people...in every society a minority has a problem, the problem of survival, the problem of keeping alive its history, its language, its traditions, its songs, its legends, its identity. When the majority in a society is as cruel as majorities have often been, not only are minorities crushed but the spirit of that society, the soul of that society, is destroyed.

We need to heed the words of Mr. Lewis today. We need to reaffirm our commitment to the observance of human rights and civil liberties, particularly as we now debate Bill C-36 on anti-terrorism and respect civil rights in this country.

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since September 11, all governments on this planet have been faced with a problem that is, if not entirely new, of a scope never before known.

All countries are today faced with new terrorist threats, which are creating something akin to panic in the population at large. Anthrax and other types of alerts are keeping emergency services constantly in response mode. Without wishing to be a prophet of doom, I feel we are far from seeing the end of this.

The danger we face--over and above the attacks or, in certain cases, the supposed attacks--is the gradual paralysis of the economy, of democratic institutions, and of the way we live within society.

All heads of state without exception--at least all those we have heard from--are calling upon us daily to continue to live our lives as normally as possible, as otherwise the terrorists will have accomplished their objective.

Our governments have, as far as they are able, tried to react so as to reassure their population. We are told this over and over. We are told that all steps have been taken to ensure public safety. Nevertheless, people everywhere are showing how insecure they are feeling. They are still extremely fearful.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has just introduced Bill C-36, which would, as its title indicates, amend the criminal code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts. This is known by the short title of the anti-terrorism act.

We agree with this bill in principle. We agree that terrorism must be fought against and also that we have to equip ourselves with the means to do so, and consequently must amend legislation so that we can do a better job of it.

We humbly submit, however, that we need to avoid falling into the trap that lies before us, that is to act too hastily, to pass new legislation which would far exceed its objective and would open the door to all manner of abuses.

Periods such as the current one can easily lead to excesses. Canada's recent history is not exempt from such abuse. Remember what happened during the second world war. Some serious abuse took place in the past in spite of the fact that we lived in a democracy. Citizens were stripped of their rights, even though they had not committed any crime.

Notwithstanding the current situation, we want to maintain our fundamental rights. We want to remain free. We do not want our democracy to be tarnished again by abuse. We must be cautious and take the time necessary to examine all the repercussions that could result from the passage of Bill C-36.

The September 11 terrorist attacks and the continuing threats at present have reached an extraordinary level and created an extraordinary context. Bill C-36 must therefore be an extraordinary piece of legislation to deal with an extraordinary situation.

Should the terrorist threat diminish, several of the measures being considered through Bill C-36 would become unacceptable and the balance between security and freedom would have to be readjusted.

In a democracy, this is always a fragile balance. We must not forget that. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to include a sunset clause whereby certain provisions of the bill would no longer be in effect after three years, unless of course the House decided otherwise at that time and the need to extend such provisions was demonstrated. We are also asking that this act be reviewed on a yearly basis.

There are other aspects of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, that raise concerns. It seems to us that the definition of a terrorist act goes too far. It is much too broad and could lead to abuse against groups or individuals who have no connection with terrorism.

We had a very good example of this in the House today when it was suggested that certain groups of protesters at the Quebec summit be deemed to have committed terrorist acts.

The bill would enable the attorney general to withhold information by not applying the Access to Information Act, this without an evaluation by the privacy commissioner and without a judicial review.

This means that the attorney general, or Minister of Justice, is giving herself the authority to withhold information from the public, to remove elements of information, this without any consultation with the information commissioner.

Another element which appears to carry some risk and which deserves to be studied further is that the Minister of National Defence could intercept international communications simply by making a written request to the Communications Security Establishment.

This means that the Minister of National Defence could claim the power to intercept international communications between two groups, individuals or businesses simply by asking the Communications Security Establishment in writing.

A number of other questions could be raised and some of them already have been raised by the media. Doubts have arisen.

Hopefully the bill will be carefully examined before being passed. As elected representatives, it is our duty to ensure that the bill attains the objective for which it was created. As elected representatives, it is our duty to ensure that the bill does not go too far and violate the freedoms of the citizens who elected us.

In my remarks, I also wanted to remind members that the best way to fight terrorism is by preventing it at the source. As a democracy and as a society, we must ask ourselves what the real issues are and try to come up with satisfactory solutions to them.

It is by fighting poverty and misery, as we have repeatedly said, that we will best succeed in changing things. It is by educating and teaching that we will best be able to fight blindness and loosen the grip that dictators have on poorly educated populations. It is by sharing knowledge and resources that we will best succeed in creating conditions that will prevent terrorist groups from springing up. It is also, and most importantly, by restoring assistance to developing countries that we can best intervene. It is a long term process that we must undertake immediately.

Military strikes are not enough to eradicate terrorism. Nor is tough legislation. These are short term measures. What is needed is a new world order where human beings are held in greater value.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-36 this evening. I add my voice to the many voices from all sides and corners of the House that have spoken of the importance of the bill which is meant to address incredibly foundational issues touching our democracy at this time.

I will talk a bit about the Canadian response, the challenge of facing terror in a democracy, the measured response the bill presents and the areas of review we will be entering into in the House and in committee.

The Canadian response to the evil of September 11 has been widespread and has unified us as a country although we have heard different expressions of how we should respond. I and my constituents in Vancouver Quadra join all Canadians in expressing our horror and deep felt sympathy for the families of the victims.

Our response, starting with the some 30,000 passengers diverted from American flights to Canada on September 11, has been extraordinary. That has been recognized across the United States and around the world. Canadians did not know at the time whether the planes harboured terrorists, had bombs on board or were a threat to Canada but we willingly opened our skies and airports to take those people in.

On September 14, 100,000 Canadians met on Parliament Hill to express their deep concern and sadness over the evil event. Within a day of the horror of September 11, ministers across a whole range of departments were working to add new resources and expedite and tighten up security measures to deal with the new reality.

In the House we have had more than 60 hours of debate on various aspects of the terror and our response to it. In all the debate there has been a common cause: to ensure we reach a proper balance in our democracy between security and freedom in the face of this type of terror. That is the challenge in front of us. It is a challenge Bill C-36 tries to address.

The balance is a delicate one. There can be no democracy without security. There can be no freedom without security. If we have only security we are imprisoned. There can be no security unless we have freedom, otherwise we have anarchy. This delicate balance must respect the reality of the times, and the times have changed for us all as the reality of September 11 has struck home.

It is the section 1 limits of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we must turn our attention to in Bill C-36. Our rights and freedoms are subject to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. We must always keep that limitation in mind as we measure our response.

Bill C-36 is complementary to a whole range of other initiatives and pieces of legislation. It would complement and add to the criminal code which covers the whole range of offences a terrorist might commit. However it specifically focuses on terrorism. It would supplement and build on the initiatives set out in Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation passed by the House in the spring.

Bill C-36 would add breadth, strength and definition to the provisions of the United Nations Act which allows us by regulation to implement United Nations security council resolutions. It would also build on the Immigration Act and give more definition to the provisions of Bill C-11 on immigration.

In terms of our international responsibilities and our responsibilities to our neighbours in the United States, Bill C-36 would allow us to ratify and implement the last two international conventions on terrorism: the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings and the international convention for the suppression of terrorist financing. This would bring us into the position of having ratified and implemented all 12 UN conventions on terrorism. That is immensely important.

It is also important that Bill C-36 would build on the hate propaganda provisions of the criminal code. It would make hate propaganda a crime and allow it to be deleted from public Internet sites.

Bill C-36 would build on the money laundering and proceeds of crime legislation we have in place to deal with criminal organizations. This legislation deals mainly with enterprise crime but could clearly be focused on terrorist organizations.

Bill C-36 is a measured response and an immensely important part of the democratic exercise we are involved in. Its balance is shown by a whole range of ministerial responsibilities. We would need the permission of the attorney general before initiating the investigative hearings, the preventive arrest provisions or the Canada Evidence Act certification which would allow the CSE to intercept communications which are targeted at foreign sources but enter Canadian airwaves.

The listing provision would need the recommendation of the solicitor general and the approval of cabinet. It would need to be reviewed every two years and could be challenged by the courts in judicial review.

As well, judicial oversight is woven into the whole bill. Investigative hearings reviewing the listing and preventive arrest provisions within 24 hours of being brought before a judge would provide effective judicial oversight.

Most important, the legislation comes out of the collective wisdom of the House as expressed over the last 30 days. There are issues that are still open for serious debate, and the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice have indicated their intention and desire that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights review these concerns in detail and provide further advice.

These will touch in particular on the important new provisions regarding preventive arrest, investigative hearings, the whole process of listing and delisting, parliamentary review, and the definition of terror. This is the first time terror has been defined and it is an immensely important centerpiece of the legislation.

It has been suggested in the House that some of the provisions, particularly the new ones, be made sunset clauses. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be considering ways in which the legislation can be properly tracked over the next short period of time to consider whether it is achieving its objective, whether there are unintended consequences or whether there should be amendments.

I am confident in supporting Bill C-36 that it responds to the common objective and common cause of every member of the House: to deal with the horror and evil of terrorism in our democracy in a way that finds the proper balance between security and freedom.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I say with hesitation that I will be supporting Bill C-36.

I am going to go back in history a little to the period 1993 to 1995. When I first came to the House, I said then what I say today, that the foremost responsibility of any government is the safety and well-being of its legal law-abiding citizens. Today I listen to some of the talk on both sides of the House. I can well remember standing in the House and warning about the flaws in our immigration policy, the flaws in our refugee system and how it had to be tightened up. I can well remember being called a racist. I can well remember being called a bigot. I certainly can well remember being called a fearmonger for stating exactly what happened.

A member asks what has changed now. A Liberal member still has the audacity and stupidity to ask that question. It is more rhetoric from a jackass, pure and simple. September 11 changed the minds of those on that side of the House too yet we still hear the same thing from them. It is unbelievable. They will say anything to try and change what they never addressed in the first place. They were well warned, not only by us but by their organizations. CSIS warned them. The RCMP warned them. We read from the reports and they still never accepted it. They laughed them off. It was a joke. Well it is no longer a joke.

Today I hear the talk, the worry and the concern about human rights. It is a legitimate concern but is it concern about human rights or should it be about human lives? I for one would sooner have the RCMP rounding up and detaining suspected terrorists than rounding up and taking the families of victims of terrorists to the morgues. I think the families, relatives and friends of the people who died on September 11 would have the same feelings. We do not even have to ask. That is the feeling.

Why do I have concerns? We know about Assam Raheem. We have stood in the House and asked the questions about Raheem. The minister stood and said that they knew about it, that they worked hand in hand with the American intelligence services and police forces to capture this man, that the Canadian government was well aware this man came into Canada with a false French passport. They say they were following his activities, tracking him and helping the RCMP so they must have known this man was building a bomb in the city of Vancouver. The minister was watching him. That is what was said in the House.

They know then that he also loaded this unstable bomb into the trunk of a car, drove past some of our schools and hospitals, drove past the public and drove onto one of our ferries that was loaded with people. He was allowed to transport the bomb down to the States. The minister knew what he was doing. Again they are just trying to cover their mistakes. If they did know about this and allowed a terrorist to build a bomb in the city of Vancouver and transport it on our highway system, they should be held accountable. That is why I have concerns.

I have grave concerns about what they will do with Bill C-36. When it goes to committee will some of the recommendations and concerns put forward not only by this party but by other parties in the House be heard? Will the government finally listen and implement them?

The concerns we are addressing here are not our individual concerns. They are the concerns of our constituents. In my constituency a great number of people who voted for me and who are members in our party are first and second generation immigrants. They left their countries because of the terrorist acts that go on there. They come to us with their problems and the threats they receive from some of these organizations. Yet when we bring them up in the House, the government turns a deaf ear. It tries to label us. I find that disgusting.

They say we should all work together on this and I agree. But some of us have long memories. Some of us well remember what was said to us when we brought these issues before the House. Some of us well remember what was said during the election campaign. I remember what the minister of immigration said. Has there ever been an apology? No.

I hear concerns now that we cannot harmonize with the Americans because we are likely to lose part of our identity, that the Americans would want to control our immigration if we were to harmonize with them. I hear concerns not only from the government side but from other members in the House. I want to remind people that the United States of America was built on immigration, just as our country was. Legal law-abiding immigrants came to Canada but they also went to the United States and made that a great nation, the same way they helped to make Canada a great nation. I find those questions very distasteful.

Members must remember what the great country of France sent to the United States of America: the Statue of Liberty. There are words on the Statue of Liberty that welcome all immigrants to that country. We welcome immigrants too and proudly so. But does that mean we should not have concerns? Does that mean we should not tighten up the system? It does not. We have been reminded of that in an extreme way.

Yes, we will work with the government. However no one should think for one minute that the memory of some of the things that were said is ever going to go away, things that were said about individual members on this side of the House and also about our party. This is not the time. For the right of law-abiding citizens of this country it is time we did the right thing. We cannot hesitate. We have to get rid of that idea. If members think bin Laden is the only terrorist in the world, I have news for them. There are a lot more out there who are just as dangerous.

It is time we started to crack down. It is time for the public to demand the House to have an open and honest debate on capital punishment with regard to some of these issues. It is time to have a debate on deportation issues. We still do not deport people from Canada for murders they committed in another country. I do not understand that. We want other countries to respect our laws, why should we not respect theirs?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-36 is possibly the most important piece of legislation the House will deal with in the life of this parliament. Therefore it needs a great deal of scrutiny from both sides of the House.

All Canadians have been victimized by those terrorists. Some Canadians have special burdens because of their origins, but we should make no mistake that we are all victims of September 11.

Prior to September 11 there was no way that Bill C-36 would ever have seen the light of day. No lawyer in the justice department or indeed no minister of justice would ever have certified that such a bill would meet charter requirements. No one with even a passing familiarity with the charter would have countenanced such an encroachment on the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. However that was then and this is now.

Watching television last night I was struck by the eagerness of some Canadians to trade their rights and freedoms for security. It was both surprising and disheartening to me to hear caller after caller be prepared to give the government and parliament a blank cheque. It was also disheartening to hear Canadians make wild and outrageous links between immigrants, refugees and security. When people are afraid they say things that they would never otherwise say. They think things that they would never otherwise think, and they do things that they would never otherwise do.

It will be a test of our nation that has a reputation for stability and tolerance to deal with these fears. Otherwise the terrorists win. They win because neighbours turn on neighbours. Instead of reaching out we turn inward. We walk away from our rights for which previous generations have fought and died. The challenge is not to let terrorism win and to break this cycle of victimization where victims in turn victimize. I am hopeful that the justice committee will carefully scrutinize the bill.

I would like to look at one section of the bill that deals with the listing of terrorists. At the risk of simplifying, a group is a terrorist group because we say it is a terrorist group. The director of CSIS would prepare a list of terrorist groups. He would hand it to the solicitor general who in turn would share it with his cabinet colleagues. The cabinet would gazette an organization and it is now a terrorist organization.

I know that I am telescoping clause 85, but it is not that much fancier than that process. I appreciate the solicitor general must have reasonable grounds, but what are reasonable grounds?

Are reasonable grounds that which is beyond a reasonable doubt, as one would have in a criminal court of law? Are reasonable grounds evidence that is on the balance of probabilities such as one would have in a civil setting? Will evidence that would be otherwise inadmissible be accepted as evidence? Will we be operating on speculation, rumour, gossip, hearsay and ambiguities?

The truth of the matter, as I see it, is that reasonable grounds would be whatever the CSIS director thinks are reasonable grounds. May I remind members what was unthinkable prior to September 11 will become reasonable grounds after September 11. God forbid that there should be any other incident, because what we think are reasonable grounds today will be further diluted.

Or will the reasonable grounds be whatever the CIA or the British intelligence service MI5 tells us are reasonable grounds? Will we merely photocopy the lists of other intelligence services and hope that they did a thorough job? What independent analysis will we apply to reasonable grounds to determine whether in fact these lists have some basis in law?

It is trite but true that intelligence gathering is far from precise. It relies on all kinds of sources, some of which clearly are not reliable, some of which leave a lot to conjecture, in order to conclude that an organization, an entity or a person is a terrorist. This is not a science; some would even say it is not an art.

I am perfectly prepared to concede that the top 10 organizations the solicitor general puts forward for his cabinet colleagues will be fairly easy to identify. Even in this room there will be virtual unanimity among colleagues that the top 10 would in fact be terrorist organizations.

Reasonable people might argue quite vigorously among themselves about the next 10 organizations that are on the list. There may well be honestly held differences in views as to which should or should not be on the list. And what about the 10 after that? There may well be wild variations of opinion, but because the director of CSIS says there are reasonable grounds and the solicitor general believes there are reasonable grounds, then they are terrorist organizations and they will be gazetted.

If they are labelled, what are they going to do? The 10 top will not care. I do not expect that Mr. bin Laden is going to be overly fussed about being labelled a terrorist in Canada. The next 10 may be upset and they may or may not do something. The last group however may be very upset. Its members may feel that their rights to carry on an activity which they perceive to be either charitable or political has been infringed and there may be some basis for their concerns.

The bill does provide for some form of redress. The solicitor general must notify the entity within 60 days of being gazetted. As I said, it is not likely that Mr. bin Laden's group is going to be overly upset, nor is the PLO or the Hamas or any of those other fine and noble organizations which we read about in the newspaper. But there are going to be groups that are upset and the likelihood is that by the labelling and gazetting, 98% of the damage will have already been done. They cannot get back their reputation once they have lost it.

After the 60 day notice, a judge will convene a hearing. The judge will read the real evidence and the judge will hear the real evidence from a representative of the crown. Neither he nor the solicitor general has to tell them about the evidence. They only have to give a summary of the evidence. By the time the judge decides that the group should not have been gazetted, it will be all over for that entity. The organization will be in ruins, its reputation destroyed and its members despised by their neighbours.

I appreciate that there are needs for confidentiality. These are extraordinary times and people do feel insecure, but once something like this happens, we can never get it back.

As I say, I am not overly worried about the bin Ladens of this world. I am worried about the entities which would not be regarded as anything other than a collection of cranks or nuts other than in these times, let alone that they were not given an opportunity for a full and fair defence. The bill deserves a lot of scrutiny by the House.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are obvious basic philosophical differences between the Liberal Party and the Canadian Alliance. The Liberals tend to be reactive, not proactive. The legislation in front of us today should not have been handled and developed as emergency legislation.

The Canadian Alliance and the Reform before it have been calling on the government to recognize the shortfalls and the shortsightedness in the funding of military, police and protective services for years.

Having said that, this is a case where we have to pull together for Canada. I will support Bill C-36, but I will point out some of the things that I believe are flawed.

The Canadian Alliance put forward a motion on September 17 which called for the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada. We asked for a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism and provisions for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations. We asked for the immediate ratification of the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism and for the creation of specific definitions of crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or inciting terrorist activities abroad from Canada.

We asked for the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism even if the charges were capital offences. We asked for the detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who were linked to terrorist organizations.

The legislation in front of us, which I will support, addresses some of those issues. I do believe, however, that we have room for improvement. The legislation does nothing to remedy the current extradition situation resulting from the Burns and Rafay decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada. Since this decision Canada has become a safe haven for criminals. That is beyond denying. It has been happening for years.

It allows for consecutive sentences for some terrorist related crimes. Life sentences, however, are exempted. This creates a 5,000 for one price on terrorism. A person is allowed to kill 5,000 people and pay the same penalty as if only one life was taken. That is unjust and unfair, and it needs to be addressed.

The legislation does nothing to guarantee reliable and long term funding for frontline people who are working against the war on terrorism. It will be ineffective unless those frontline people are given guaranteed resources to enforce the provisions. That means it must be addressed through a budget and it must become a priority of the entire House, not just the Canadian Alliance.

The legislation will raise civil liberty concerns. The increased stability of our police and security agencies to pry into the personal lives of Canadians will set off alarms from civil liberty agencies and groups. Preventive arrests in investigative hearings will surely be challenged by the charter.

I agree that it is necessary for us to take these steps at this point in time, but I would like to see us take a very long and sober look at putting in place a measure that would allow us to look at it again in the near future. The minister attempted to give the House her word that things would go well and that this would be reviewed. She said that we should not worry about minor details. These are not minor details; they are very major details.

For members who wonder why I have a lack of trust I will point to a few pieces of legislation. The Income Tax Act was a temporary measure put in place many years ago. It was to fund the war effort and then disappear. Not only has it not disappeared. It has increasingly taken more and more money out of the pockets of everyday Canadians. That is one reason I am not trusting at this point in time and I want to see something stronger.

We also had the very strong election promise from the Liberal government to do away with the GST and it was ignored entirely after the election.

I am concerned that under this piece of legislation one would be forced to testify against oneself. In the case of terrorism I am fully supportive of that. One should be forced to testify and to give answers to questions asked by our personnel. However there is not a case in point where there is a timeline when this would elapse or when we would have an opportunity to bring it back.

I do not want the legislation in front of us, which I will support, to turn into something like the Income Tax Act or any other piece of legislation that has never come back before the House and has lived a long life with no sign of its demise or end.

The amendments to the Access to Information Act are troubling. It would appear that the Liberals are using this critical time as an opportunity to implement restrictions on access to government information by Canadians. I hope that is untrue but that is the way I view it at this time.

As a member of parliament trying to access information through the current channels is next to impossible. It takes forever. I have tried to access information for my constituents. They wonder why as an MP I have to jump more barriers than are necessary to get information. It is something that is very important and that we need to address.

The legislation does not name any specific terrorist groups operating in Canada. This information is readily available from CSIS and the RCMP. When those questions were asked we were told that for reasons of security the information could not be disclosed in the House. That is a very difficult explanation to swallow.

I am disappointed the government has made most of its announcements regarding terrorism at press conferences rather than at meetings with all members of the House. There are 301 members who were elected to the House to represent the people of Canada. We should not leave the decisions to a small handful of 12 who sit in cabinet. It is unfair and undemocratic. It is a practice that must stop.

Written codes of practice on the seizure and retention of property and silent video recordings are required. Interviews of detainees by police must be audio recorded in accordance with the code of practice. Canadian legislation has no such safeguards.

The 170 page document has been a great deal to absorb in a short period of time. It has been very difficult to absorb. It is not what I would recommend as nightly reading. I have relied on my colleague from Provencher for advice, discretion and the ability to answer questions that I am unable to answer.

I want to make certain this is not another case where we do not get an opportunity to openly debate legislation. We must have a say in how this happens. We must listen to the voices of the people whom we represent. The people in my constituency of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys have e-mailed, written and telephoned me. Their concerns are wide ranging but the biggest concern is the secrecy behind how all this was put together. I have tried to explain parts of the act to them but it is difficult for me to do so.

The government needs to be more open. We need a better understanding of what is in front of us and for once the House needs to act as a team. We are all on the same team. We are looking to protect Canadians, our homeland and our neighbours.

The act limits the power to grant bail to certain higher court judges, thus limiting instances in which bail would be given. Canadian legislation does not close the loophole. American legislation places extensive stress on deportation provisions. We are not doing that.

I will support the legislation. I give the government points for trying its best to put things together, but I urge it to listen carefully to what members on both sides of the House have to say and to put together something that benefits all of Canada.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to express my total support for Bill C-36 and the fight against terrorism. I would also like to take a moment to congratulate our Prime Minister for going to Halifax to bid farewell to our soldiers. I hope when everything is said and done they will all come back safe and sound to their families and loved ones. I also hope they will come here one day so we can honour them in the House of Commons.

Over the last couple of days we have had many discussions. During one of the discussions a colleague from this side of the House mentioned the fact that any time we have a demonstration that turns violent it is a terrorist act. Someone else from the other side mentioned that it is not a terrorist act but rather a free expression of will.

As far as I am concerned, I do not think we can come up with a scientific definition of what the word terrorism means.

I will give an example. In the 1950s Nelson Mandela, the leader of the African National Congress, was a terrorist for the white supremacist government in South Africa. I am glad to say that he was here a couple of years ago and will be here again to receive an honorary citizenship for Canada.

To re-emphasize the point I made earlier, there is no scientific definition for the word terrorism.

However, having said that, there is no justification whatsoever for anyone to engage in terrorist acts, especially the ones that happened on September 11 which killed over 5,000 innocent people working in their offices.

I want to focus my next few minutes not on the bill alone. I would like to say that to fight terrorism is like having a chair. It needs four legs to have balance.

I think the Minister of Justice is doing a fantastic job on the legal end of it. However what is missing in our fight against terrorism here, and especially in the United States, is the intelligence aspect of it.

As we all know, the Middle East is a hotbed of international problems. In the early 1950s attempts were made in Iran to overthrow the shah. The CIA was involved. It brought back the shah but it failed to protect its interests in the Middle East in 1979 when the shah was thrown out by Ayatollah Khomeini. I think we have regretted that from that time onward to this day because we were not able to predict what was going to happen following the shah's fall . Then we had the Iran-Iraq war.

We then had the Lebanese civil war in 1983 where 241 U.S. marines were bombed by terrorist acts. Again, the Americans were not able to get the intelligence required to defend themselves or prevent these terrorist acts.

In the late 1980s the U.S.S.R. fell. It was the biggest empire in the world. Everybody was afraid. It was a powerful nation for over 1,000 years but nobody knew it was crumbling from within.

The CIA and the FBI have a $28 billion budget. If they could not figure out what was happening in the Soviet Union for the last 50 years, then I am really concerned about what will happen in the next 50 years.

What happened on September 11 was, I think, an intelligence failure. The U.S. knew full well that the same place had been bombed by terrorists 10 years ago. Obviously they failed, and I am glad, but they should have failed this time around too. The U.S. knew this thing was coming up.

In history there are many situations that could have been prevented if we only had good intelligence. We have failed to have that.

The bombing of a U.S. navy ship in the south Yemen Sea was due to an intelligence failure. The African embassy bombing two years was also due to an intelligence failure.

We had many warnings that our intelligence system was failing us but we never took the time to review the status of our western intelligence.

Over the last few weeks there were quite a few documentaries on CBC telling us about the failures of our intelligence system, the American intelligence system and the whole western intelligence system to prevent the attack that took place on September 11.

If I may say so, I think this discussion should focus on improving our intelligence system so we can prevent further attacks.

To describe what is happening now, I would describe it as a snake. The snake's head is in Nigeria.

The House may recall three or four years ago that the foreign affairs committee had a delegation of Algerian parliamentarians here on an exchange program. The people in that country had a coup d'état against the democratically elected government. It was in the news, on TV and in newspapers over the last couple of years. Individuals were concerned that Muslim fundamentalists were taking power from the democratically elected government. From that time on things have changed. All disguised fundamentalists have now congregated in Afghanistan.

The hotbed of this conflict is of course the Middle East. One does not have to say anything more when they say Middle East because everyone knows what has been happening there over the last 50 years, and more intensely over the last year or so.

I believe that by bombing Afghanistan only part of the problem has been solved, not the whole problem. We have to go to the root of the problem. No matter how many laws we pass in this place, there will not be a final solution to terrorist acts.

As far as I am concerned, rule number one is intelligence. Rule number two is more intelligence. Rule number three is even more intelligence to fight terrorism.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it pleases me to be able to speak to Bill C-36. I want to congratulate the Minister of Justice and her team who put together such a comprehensive piece of legislation to deal with the terrorist threat here in Canada. It is a most impressive bill.

Bill C-36 finds the delicate balance of protecting our charter rights and our civil liberties, indeed protecting the essence of a democratic society, while ensuring greater security for our country and ourselves.

What we have before us is a strong response and one that effectively deals with the increased threats of terrorism within our borders. The full implementation of the bill will go a long way to see that terrorist operations are shut down within Canada.

With this new bill, we will be able to strike at the roots of terrorism. Bill C-36 would permit a court to order the removal of any hate propaganda from any public place or computer. This is a valuable tool in restricting messages which may incite others to commit violent acts based on any hate on another group of people.

Police agencies would have great ability to monitor the communications of terrorist factions and would be no longer constrained by the last hope clause and by the previous 60 day limitation on wiretap. They have been removed so we will be better protected from planned acts of terrorism.

We will also have the ability to cripple these terrorist organizations financially with the amendment to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and the enactment of the charities registrations act. Preventing terrorists from accessing funds prevents them from committing acts of terror.

Terrorist acts are also being added to the criminal code. Collecting funds for terrorists, knowingly harbouring terrorists, participating in terrorist activities and instructing others to commit terrorist activities are soon all to be added to the criminal code as offences. These are serious crimes and they will carry serious penalties, up to life in prison. These sentences would ensure that those involved are incarcerated for a long period of time, no longer part of the loop of terrorist organizations to which they belong and hopefully it will no longer exist.

Even though overall I find the bill to be a formidable response to a challenging situation, I do have some matters that I hope the committee will address and provide guidance. These relate to the preventative arrest clauses of the bill. I am certain that the implementation of the preventative arrests will be an important tool for police officers to have in putting a halt to terrorist activities, and for that I am glad that these provisions are included in the bill.

I am concerned of the possibility of its implementation in the situation where no terrorism is planned. I am aware that the bill defines what is terrorist activity and what is a legitimate protest. However, as we have seen before, it is possible for a protest to escalate and suddenly once a peaceful gathering becomes filled with violence, all the result of the actions of a few individuals.

While I cannot stand here and say that violent protests are desirable or should be encouraged, I fear that the measures within the bill could run over and unwittingly implement themselves at one of these protests.

I do not believe that a protest, violent or otherwise, is a terrorist activity. I worry for the innocent people of which there are many within these protest groups. As I have stated it is a very small group that incite violence. However, it seems that all members of the larger group, in which the smaller one dwells, face the potential of suffering merely because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is not a new issue for Canada and it is one that will not go away. Because this is the case, we must ensure that the charter rights of the individuals who are no more than bystanders to the melee that is taking place beside them are protected. They should not see their democratic rights disappear because of this bill.

We must be vigilant to ensure that there are no provisions for them to be automatically arrested and detained for a minimum of 24 hours merely as preventative measures. There is nothing to prevent for the vast majority of the people. They are a peaceful lot who only wish to make their views known to others.

There are many cases where, as one mother said to me, they are among the best and the brightest. They have chosen to show up in support of a cause, not to incite violent or criminal acts and certainly none of them have terrorism on their mind.

I do not want to see the provisions of the bill used wrongly in a protest situation or the police easily exploit them. Even with the provision that the attorney general needs to approve of a preventative arrest, one hopes that no police officer can inappropriately circumvent this and seek the approval of the attorney general after an arrest is made.

Knowing that at any time they can be taken into custody by a police officer merely on the suspicion that they could involve themselves in a terrorist act is frightening many people. The bill would ensure legal protection for these people to go out and protest by themselves or with others. It is our responsibility to ensure that procedures are in place so that they do not risk a situation where they lose that right.

It is my hope that the committee will examine closely the amendment to section 83 of the criminal code. I have full confidence in its ability and I trust it will remove any remaining doubt concerning the definition of terrorist activity that may exist in relation to the protesting being swept in with this definition.

Time will perhaps be the truest test of what will happen with Bill C-36, and I am very pleased that the opportunity exists three years after royal assent to review the bill and its impact on society. I share some of the concerns expressed by others that the committee may see fit to implement a sunset clause on some of the provisions.

I hope that I am still an active member of the House when the time comes so that I can look back on the three years that Bill C-36 would have been in existence. I also hope that the Department of Justice and the committee takes not only a proactive role in recording the uses of these laws, but perhaps even considers a required reporting procedure for law enforcement officials.

With requirements such as these, we would be accurately able to see what impact these laws have on Canada and that they were not abused in any way.

When I sought election to this office for the first time in the fall of 2000, I could never have anticipated the awesome responsibility that I would find myself in as part of this body: the responsibility of balancing security and freedom and the responsibility of ensuring that our children continue to live in a free and democratic society that provides opportunities for all of its citizens.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address this very important anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36. I happen to believe that this is historic legislation and certainly one of the most important we will deal with in this the 37th parliament.

Many people have said, and I very much agree with them, that society and the world have changed as a result of the events on September 11. We watched in horror as 6,000 people lost their lives. We watched in horror at the kind of terrorist attacks that were perpetrated on our friend, neighbour and ally to the south, the United States. We all wondered what was going to happen next.

I was pleased to see, in concert with my constituents in Waterloo--Wellington, that there was a kinship of grief around the world that developed in concert with the victims and their families in New York, Washington, D.C. and the surrounding states, as well as Pennsylvania.

I believe that in our effort to deal with grief we pass through a number of stages. I think it is fair to say that sadness and despair, fear and anger are some of those stages but after a while we come to resolve, and I think that is where we are now at.

One of the ways to deal with tragedy, especially in this fashion, is to become determined and resolved to make sure it never happens again. That is why I thought the Prime Minister spoke very well the other day when he talked about getting together the kind of resolve necessary to carry forward in a very meaningful way and to act on behalf of all Canadians in concert with what they believe are fundamental and core values, not only for this country and the people of this great country but for other freedom loving people around the world.

As members know, the member states of the United Nations have joined in a common purpose, and that is to shut down terrorism. Canada, like our international partners, must move on all fronts. It is important to note that we are prepared to do that.

In recent days we have seen increased security measures adopted at our airports. The assets of Osama bin Laden and his associates, the people who have brought about such destruction, have been frozen. The United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution on September 28 calling on states to work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, including increased co-operation and full implementation of the important and relevant international conventions relating to terrorism, such as the convention on the financing of terrorism.

In response, the Canadian government has acted and acted with caution, noting full well that we need to think through our actions, and has implemented new regulations to target terrorist financing. The proposed anti-terrorism act that we are debating today further criminalizes the act of contributing to terrorist groups.

I said that it is essential to act on all fronts if we are going to defeat terrorism, and I meant that. Where do legislative strategies fit into this picture? We need new and more focused tools to allow the justice system to fight terrorism. We are not dealing here with ordinary criminals. We need to build a new legal framework that will disable terrorist networks and prevent them from developing the capability of financing, planning and carrying out their attacks on society and, by extension, on democracy.

The proposed anti-terrorism act that we are debating today implements the international convention on the suppression of terrorism and the international convention on the suppression of terrorist bombings. These are important measures in keeping with our international obligations.

New criminal code offences are created for participating in, facilitating or carrying out terrorist activities. Procedures are established for the seizure, the restraint and the forfeiture of property belonging to terrorist groups. We mean it when we say it. That is the point. We are getting tough because we need to. We need to act accordingly because that is what Canada needs to do to defend the precious system that we have.

Bill C-36 also proposes criminal code provisions to establish, by establishment and by regulation, a list of terrorist entities.

This measure will allow identification of entities that are clearly involved or associated with terrorist activities. The notion of listing terrorist organizations has its precedent in the United Nations and, indeed, Canada's United Nations Act already adopts lists of terrorists and terrorist organizations identified by the United Nations last year, including those of Osama bin Laden. The point is that we have the precedent and we are acting accordingly.

I want to go into this listing procedure a little more if I may, because this measure is one of the most important elements of the bill. I urge all members of the House as well as the members of the justice committee to examine this measure closely.

The placing of any organization or purpose on the list of terrorist groups is a very elaborate procedure, as it should be. Section 83.05 of the criminal code as proposed in Bill C-36 provides that the ultimate decision to add a name to the list is made by the governor in council. There must be “reasonable grounds” to do so, to believe that the entity, a group, a person or whatever, either “has carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity” or has acted “on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with” such an entity.

Thus the clear focus of this procedure is on establishing that the group or individual has been engaged in terrorism. This is how it should be, because this clarifies in a way that is consistent with what I believe to be the values of Canada and consistent with the values of the great charter of rights and freedoms that we in this country enjoy.

I want to emphasize too that additional safeguards are built into this process. Before the governor in council makes a decision the solicitor general must first be satisfied, again on reasonable grounds, that there is such terrorist activity occurring. Furthermore, a group that wishes to challenge its presence on the list may apply to the solicitor general to have its name removed. If the solicitor general does not remove the name, the group can apply to a judge for a review of that decision. Mechanisms are also established to address cases of mistaken identity. In any event, the solicitor general must review the list every two years in order to recommend that a listed entity remain on the list or in fact be removed.

It should be noted also that the bill also contains a detailed definition of terrorist activity and a specific offence related to participating in, facilitating, harbouring and instructing terrorist activity. Again, I urge my colleagues to look closely at the details of this definition since it is at the very heart of what the bill does. Expressed another way, Bill C-36 is premised on a clear focus on terrorist crimes and it breaks new ground in Canadian law in its willingness to embrace a distinct set of definitions. It is important, therefore, that we find consensus on these very important concepts.

A terrorist activity as described in proposed section 83.01 includes acts that would amount to an offence under one of the international anti-terrorist conventions to which Canada is committed, but it is also defined as “an act or omission” inside or outside Canada that is committed “in whole or in part, for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause”. It is evident that having such a religious or ideological purpose should not in itself be an offence. It is only when this purpose is linked with an intention to intimidate the public or a segment of the public with regard to its security and is also linked to an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm by the use of violence that it becomes a terrorist activity. There are also other factors that come into play, including an intention to endanger a person's life or to cause substantial property damage with serious harm resulting to a person.

Finally, I would like to return to my original question: What is the role of our laws in fighting terrorism and increasing our sense of security from terrorists? I suggest that the law, or more precisely the rule of law, is an important reference point for Canadians in assessing what needs to be done to protect our society from those who indeed do not respect the law or civilized values.

At the end of the day, Bill C-36, the bill we are debating today, is an effective measure that should be looked at closely and in fact will be looked at closely at the justice committee. There may or may not be amendments based on what the members think and the witnesses say, but when it comes down to it, I hope we will act as one, as the Parliament of Canada, in a way consistent with the values not only of the charter of rights and freedoms but the values of all Canadians.

We will do so in the best interests of this great country of ours, based on safety and security for the citizens of Canada and for those in the wider world and in that community who believe in the fundamental rights of liberty, freedom and democracy.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very impressed at having the opportunity to speak to Bill C-36. When we were elected last year, we were all given the mandate to represent our fellow citizens. I do not think anyone here in this House expected to be carrying out this type of debate. We have a heavy responsibility in doing so.

This is the debate on second reading. It is important to bear in mind that, at second reading, the debate focuses on the principle of the bill, What is involved, then, is the balance between the battle against terrorism and the defence of human rights, between the security that must be in place and freedom, the respect of the right of citizens in this society to act, and their protection in their dealings with the machinery of government and the justice system.

This is, therefore, a very important substantive debate. It is also one that leads us to much consideration of the matter of good faith. Today the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have both admitted that this bill may have been prepared a little hastily and that there may be some elements that will need to be looked at in the committee and report stages.

The bill includes elements of interest. We will have to listen very carefully to the witnesses who come to tell us what they think of this legislation. People such as members of the bar, for example, may deal with the bill's implications and impact, and with the protection of human rights. Others will also address the issue of security and the importance of having an anti-terrorism act.

In light of the September 11 events, I think we agree on the need for strong and decisive action. We must eradicate terrorism and one of the tools at our disposal is the proper use of legislation. We have a duty to ensure the protection not only of the public, but also of its rights. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has adopted a very responsible attitude.

Many aspects of this bill deserve to be examined very thoroughly. I am thinking, for example, of the definition of a terrorist activity. Because of the need to act quickly, we may have a definition that will lead to abuse. We will have to ensure that there a proper balance is struck between police forces' ability to act and the assurance that all honest citizens in our society will nevertheless be protected. This is a very important aspect that needs to be thoroughly examined in committee. This issue is not an easy one. We must give it very careful consideration.

Another very important element is the fact that we are faced with an exceptional situation. We would not want our society to have to take such strong action as a matter of course. We are faced with a urgent problem which we all hope will disappear over time.

Therefore, perhaps we should consider having an act that will be in effect for a limited time only. This would ensure that when the threat of terrorism no longer exists, when we are in control again and when public security is ensured, there will be a time limit so that the government will not use on a permanent and regular basis means that we do not wish to see used in our society. So, we should determine whether this bill could include specific provisions that would lapse over time and not be of a permanent nature. Are there others provisions that deserve to be of a permanent nature?

For example, numerous aspects of the international conventions that were signed should be maintained. However, there may be other elements for which this is not necessary.

For instance, if access to information mechanisms are retained, is what we are asking acceptable, if the government approves revocation of the powers of the privacy commissioner in order to take them over itself? I do not think anyone in the House would dare introduce such a proposal under normal circumstances. The question will have to be asked if the measure is to apply. Is it to apply to the medium term and is it renewable? The government should perhaps make sure that certain elements have a time frame in the legislation and that, as we have asked, there will be an annual review of the law.

The bill provides that the review will be at the end of three years. In this area, a lot of things can happen in three years. A lot of bad things can happen. I think the government would do better to pay careful attention, that is have an annual review.

The bill will be passed soon, this fall, before the Christmas holidays, and then, in the coming year, action may have to be taken. There must be follow-up in committee. Next year, when parliament resumes, we would have to assess whether we did what had to be done, whether government had gone far enough and whether certain things should be corrected. These elements are important.

I would also like to speak to the question of wiretapping. Today, in question period, it became clear that simply defining which laws cover this aspect is not clear. Things are not entirely clear. Does it mean issuing a blank cheque and permitting things, which, after a while, could be used for something totally different from terrorism surveillance? These questions must be asked. It is a matter of responsibility to do so; it has nothing to do with impeding the work of parliament.

In examining this bill, I believe that the Bloc Quebecois has had a very responsible attitude. We have not blocked the bill. We believe that we must take time to study the bill seriously and carefully. There are many elements to consider.

Perhaps it is of less importance, but Bill C-16 on charities, a bill with some substantive problems, has been integrated into the bill. We must use the opportunity to examine these issues carefully at committee in order to see if improvements can be made in this area.

Once again, this is extraordinary legislation for a society that should normally be able to function without this type of legislation. We agree that Canadians must know that steps are indeed being taken to fight against terrorism, but that we will ensure there will be a balanced approach at the same time.

Given all of these points, I think we must proceed with care. The committee must be allowed to do its work as well and as seriously as it can, and must hear advice and ensure balance at all times.

The debate at second reading is on whether or not this bill should be studied in committee. According to Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice , and I quote:

--passage of the motion for second reading simply implied that the House had given preliminary consideration to the bill and that, without any commitment as to the final passage of the bill, it had authorized its reference to a committee for detailed scrutiny.

Particularly important bills such as this test the entire system. They test our parliamentary procedures. This is a bill which merits careful attention. It is a bill which asks us to consider the good will of the parties in the House.

The Prime Minister said that this bill deserved serious consideration. We expect that, when it returns from committee, there will be suggestions for amendments which could make it much more effective and bring it more sharply into line with the stated objectives.

When the committee has done its work, it will be up to us to say whether or not the new form it sends us is acceptable. We will also have report stage to evaluate the result of the committee's work and, finally, debate at third reading.

Throughout this process, the Bloc Quebecois considers it very important that it be possible to improve the bill at each stage in order to make it acceptable, useful and desirable to our society in the present special context. We must not forget that it is also a piece of legislation that may have an impact on human rights legislation for a long time to come.

The international crisis we are now experiencing will have repercussions not just on security, but also on the protection of rights for the future. We must devote whatever time and energy is necessary to make this the best legislation possible. We must be attentive to the requirements submitted so that we end up with a balanced bill.

This must be our objective: a bill that strikes the right balance between the fight against terrorism and respect for human rights. This is what I hope we will do together, with a minimum of partisan politics, so that ultimately we have an opportunity to produce an excellent tool to help in the fight against terrorism and the defence of human rights.

Terrorism

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the definition of terrorist activity in Bill C-36 has been very carefully crafted to ensure that we do not apply these provisions to lawful protest activity.

I would ask the hon. member to keep in mind that the activity we are focusing on, the centre of this legislation, the objective of this legislation, is to attack activity, the motivation of which and the purpose of which is terror.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, our fears about the danger of agreeing to overly vague and sweeping definitions in Bill C-36 were confirmed. One of the minister's cabinet colleagues compared the demonstrators at the Quebec City summit to terrorists.

With an example like that, does the minister not realize that all manner of abuses are possible and that she should tighten up the definitions in her bill?

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-36. These are particularly dangerous and fragile times not only for us as Canadians but internationally as well. We are witnessing a United States led bombing campaign in Afghanistan which, in my view and the view of my colleagues, is in breach of international law. The response to the September 11 terrorist attacks should be under the framework of the United Nations.

These are also very dangerous and difficult times on the domestic front. Thomas Berger wrote an eloquent book on the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. He called it Fragile Freedoms and indeed the freedoms that Canadians have are fragile, particularly those set out in the charter of rights and freedoms.

It is precisely at times such as these that those freedoms are potentially under the greatest assault. We recall during World War I the internment of Canadians of Ukrainian origin, and in World War II the internment of Canadians of Japanese origin and the confiscation of their property.

Of course in 1970, the War Measures Act was invoked and 400 Quebecers were arrested without any evidence, incarcerated for several weeks and then released.

I am very proud of the fact that at the time the NDP was the only party to say “No, this is not acceptable; this is an abuse of power”.

Before we invoke the kinds of sweeping new powers contained in Bill C-36, it is critically important that the government demonstrate to Canadians that the existing powers in legislation accorded to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to CSIS, to the Communications Security Establishment and to the Canadian armed forces are inadequate to respond to the terrorist threat. If we are not in a position to ensure that is indeed the case and if we are extending sweeping new powers, they risk violating the most fundamental rights and freedoms set out in the charter of rights. I believe that in a preliminary review of this legislation there are a number of provisions of the legislation that risk violating the charter of rights and freedoms.

I have a particular personal interest in that charter having been a member of the constitution committee that drafted the charter of rights back in 1980-81. I believe I am the only sitting member of the House who was in fact a member of the committee that wrote the charter of rights and freedoms. I recall the minister of justice at the time was the member for Shawinigan, today's Prime Minister. We wrote that charter for a very specific reason. It was to ensure, particularly at times of widespread popular sentiment that might risk assaults on fundamental rights and freedoms, that the judiciary would be in a position to say “No, you are going too far”. I believe that we risk going too far in this legislation.

Certainly the internment of Canadians of Japanese origin was popular. The proclamation of the War Measures Act was very popular. However they were both profoundly wrong. When I read for example the definition of terrorist activity in this legislation none of us have any concerns about the incorporation of the various United Nations conventions. My colleague the member for Winnipeg--Transcona, the New Democratic Party justice critic, spoke earlier on this legislation. He pointed out that there was no issue with respect to that or indeed a number of other provisions of this legislation that we would be prepared to support.

However the definition of terrorist activity I believe goes too far. It refers to political, religious or ideological purposes. It talks about causing serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy. Consider for a moment the possible risks of this and what this could be applied to. There are many examples of this, some historic, some current.

The African National Congress in its fight against the brutal and racist apartheid regime in South Africa would clearly have been caught by this legislation, as would any Canadian who supported the African National Congress in its fight against apartheid. I see the member for Edmonton--Strathcona. I know he was a long time opponent of apartheid. He probably even sent a dollar or two to assist in the struggle against it. Had this legislation been in effect, he, as well as I and others, would have risked imprisonment for that. I do not want to see us bringing in legislation that would imprison people who are supporting those who are fighting tyrannical, brutal, repressive regimes.

I recall the freedom fighters in East Timor fighting against the genocidal Indonesian regime. I remember the Sandinistas fighting against Somoza in Nicaragua. I remember the FMLN in El Salvador. Those are some of the historic examples. As Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said, “It is one thing to say we won't countenance people assisting dictators against democrats, but why shouldn't Canadians be free to assist democrats against dictators?” This bill would appear to criminalize that activity.

Today we know that there are people around the world who are engaged in struggles. Whether Canadians agree or disagree with them, do we want to define as terrorists those who support self-determination for the Tamils, for the Chechens, for the Kurds or the Kashmiris? I think here particularly of the Kurds who have been tortured, villages that have been destroyed by the repressive Turkish regime, and member of parliament Leyla Zana who has been imprisoned. For those of us who wish to support them in their struggle against that repressive regime, would we be subject to this legislation?

Here in Canada would environmentalists or labour activists who were engaged in protests be subject to the sweeping powers under this bill?

My colleague from Winnipeg--Transcona has pointed out as well the provisions on preventive detention and investigative questioning, the sweeping new wiretapping provisions, the new unprecedented powers to the Communications Security Establishment, the powers for ministers to override the freedom of information legislation by executive fiat.

I will say in closing that I would support sending the subject matter of the bill to committee, and sending it to committee urgently, but I cannot support the bill in its present form. I believe that the powers that are in the bill constitute potentially a very grave abuse of civil liberties.

There must be a sunset clause as well, not simply a review after three years but a sunset clause, to ensure that the many draconian provisions of the bill in fact are not extended beyond a one year period.

I voice my deep concern about the legislation and in closing point out the words of Clayton Ruby who has reminded Canadians that once these extraordinary powers are brought in, they are not rolled back. As Fred Kaufman, a former judge of the Quebec Court of Appeal, who was appointed by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to prosecute people after the 1970 FLQ crisis, said, “One has to be careful because emergency legislation drafted in haste stays on the statute book”.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-36. It is an important bill which will be going before the justice committee. Canadians will be comforted to know that it is a very important bill and that it will undergo rigorous scrutiny by the House, both at second reading and in committee. Representatives from all parties will have an opportunity to address witnesses, including the minister, departmental staff and anybody else they feel has relevant information, because the bill is an omnibus bill and touches a number of important aspects related to terrorism.

Many members have already put on the record a number of the provisions of the anti-terrorism bill. I will leave it at that. There were a couple of aspects though that I did want to deal with. It is important that the definition of terrorism or terrorist activity is understood in the context in which the bill deals with it.

Terrorist activity is defined as an offence under one of the 10 UN anti-terrorism conventions or protocols as defined in another jurisdiction or where for political, religious or ideological purposes one threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people, or by interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system.

It is very important that we are focusing on and dealing with terrorism. The definition is crafted to make it clear that disrupting an essential service is not a terrorist activity. There has been some concern about whether or not this application would be too broad. It is not a terrorist activity if it occurs during a lawful protest at a work site or is not intended to cause serious harm to persons. There is within the definition this clear focus on truly defined terrorist activities.

The bill was introduced yesterday. Constitutional experts will be looking at charter issues and criminal lawyers will be looking at a number of the subtleties.

Two issues have come up that I thought would be of interest to dwell on. One is called the preventive arrest, which Canadians should know about. We are talking about individual rights and freedoms and the extent to which these things would be appropriate, given the circumstances of September 11 and the challenge that free and democratic countries face now.

Preventive arrest is a process whereby something similar to a grand jury would allow people, where there was a suspected or alleged risk of terrorist activity, to be taken into custody. During this process they would be subject to the rules of perjury. In other words, if they lied or it was shown that they had lied in their responses, they could be subject to the laws relating to perjury. They would not be able not to answer questions in that hearing. If they did not answer, like in any other judicial proceeding they would be held in contempt according to contempt laws.

Interestingly enough in this process nothing that they would say could be used against them in the event that they were ultimately charged. It is a separate process. It is a new instrument that I wanted Canadians to be aware of.

As a result of a preventive arrest, the outcome could be that the people would simply be released because the judge was satisfied. They could also be charged as a result of the information developed by the investigation. They could even be released with certain conditions, similar to a peace bond situation. This is mutual and Canadians would want to inform themselves and watch the development of this issue.

The second one I thought was interesting is a process called the investigative hearing. This is something similar to a process whereby people would receive a subpoena to appear before a hearing in which they would be asked certain questions related to their activities. This may lead to other things. However it is another tool which would help to achieve the objectives of the bill to allow those who are responsible for detecting and preventing terrorist activities from occurring to be able to deter terrorist activity.

The bill contains a number of other aspects. Members have very eloquently described the extension of wiretap provisions and the impact on other jurisdictions, police forces and provincial integration.

In looking at this issue I thought about the ongoing process and discussions of the post-September 11 attacks. It has to do with the allegation by some that Canada is a haven for terrorists. This is a very serious allegation and a very serious indictment and Canada should strongly respond to the myth of that statement.

This act will be one of the tools we can use to dispel that myth. It would be quite legitimate to suggest that if Canada did not have an effective anti-terrorism piece of legislation comparable to the legislation in place in other jurisdictions such as the United States, Great Britain or elsewhere it would be the weakest link. Canada would in fact become that haven. It is very important for us to know what is going on internationally to make sure that the provisions under this act work and work in the same realm of effectiveness we see in other jurisdictions.

I want to finish off with something that concerned me a bit today. There was a speech on the bill by the Leader of the Opposition in the House. As usual, the discussion always seems to slip into immigration and refugee issues. We talk about new Canadians and how we will toughen up the Immigration Act because of criminals coming into Canada or what will we do about it.

No issue has been stressed more by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and members of our caucus than the importance of understanding this is not a war against Afghanistan. There are terrorists who happen to be in Afghanistan. We cannot let this become a cultural or a religious bias. I do not think anyone in Canada would say that anyone of Afghani background should be suspected of being a terrorist.

I remind Canadians of what the Prime Minister said last night in the debate and today in question period. We have taken every step possible to ensure that the rights and freedoms of Canadians and all those on our soil who are protected by the charter of rights have been fully taken into account. Those rights and freedoms will be unaffected substantively by this legislation.

There is no question that we, as a small country with a baby boomer situation and an aging society, will depend very heavily on the immigration system over the next 20 years to provide us with people to support our population base and our economic base.

We welcome immigrants. We welcome new Canadians to the best country in the world. Those rights and freedoms that the Prime Minister was so instrumental in bringing to Canada are rights and freedoms that we are going to protect as part of this bill.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Madam Speaker, our attention has been turned upon a changed world since the New York and Washington, D.C., terrorist attacks of September 11. A paradigm shift has occurred, like no other that most of us will ever see. I do not believe we will ever erase the impact of these tragic events on our personal lives, on the life of our nation and indeed on that of our global village. We have had a wake up call like few others in our history.

I have been very proud of the leadership of our Prime Minister and of the tremendous competence exhibited by our cabinet ministers as the government responded quickly, responsibly and carefully to the new challenges of making our neighbourhoods, our country and our world safer for everyone.

I have also been very impressed with the calm and caring response of my constituents and Canadians from coast to coast who refused to rush to justice. I believe the vast majority of my constituents and Canadians, as they express their support for our American neighbours, want us to deal firmly, effectively, thoroughly, but justly, with the threat of terrorism everywhere, not only through this terrible episode but in the future as well.

As we debate Bill C-36, a bill to combat terrorism, let us first review some of the many challenges that seized the attention of our leaders and the government over the past month.

There was the whole general area of security, especially airport security. I remind members that each one of these security matters entailed tremendously complex issues to be resolved and they were resolved quickly and effectively with the assistance of a tremendous public service. There was border security. As we all know, we share the longest unprotected border in the world with our U.S. neighbours. Included with the issue of border security was making sure that cross-border commerce would soon return to some semblance of normality. I would like to mention that the president one of my constituent businesses, Manitoulin Transport, contacted me and asked for our best efforts to make sure that cross-border commerce would return as soon as possible. I am sure every effort will be expended to achieve that goal.

The Prime Minister and all of us have been seized with trying to get life back to normal, making sure that tourists were travelling and that small businesses were trading not only among themselves in this country but across the border.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been seized with refugee and immigration issues, and of course the media attention, especially in the early days, really put a tremendous amount of pressure on her and the government. I appreciate how it was handled. Her response, along with the responses of other ministers, resulted in great confidence across the nation.

More recently there have been issues of bioterrorism, but we do not know the outcome yet. There is also the issue of money laundering.

Of course there is the need to respond in a military way to the call of our U.S. neighbours and allies to deal with terrorism. We can only express our pride in and appreciation for our military personnel, land, air and sea, for their willingness to be prepared and to, when needed, enter into dangerous situations on our behalf to make sure that we, our children and grandchildren can look forward to a more peaceful world.

The public has noted with approval the support of both sides of the House for the involvement of our military in Afghanistan and here at home and for the need for an appropriate military response. It has been refreshing. Partisanship has for the most part been set aside during this difficult time. I do know that the public appreciates that.

November 11 is the day that we cherish each year to remember the members of our military from past wars and peacekeeping. We have come to count upon our legion branches across this country to make sure that we never forget the terror and tragedy of war. It is very comforting that at this time we have those elders among us to make sure that we continue with measured steps over the weeks, months and years ahead. There are many lessons that we can learn from our legion members. I want to express thanks to them for what they have done for us. I know that we will be counting on them considerably in the future.

I would like to very briefly mention that I think the government's response to the September 11 attacks has been clear and concise. Canada's anti-terrorism plan has four major objectives. The first is to basically stop terrorists from getting into Canada in the first place and to protect Canadians from terrorist acts. The second is to bring forward tools to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. The third is to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists and impacting on the Canadian economy. We count on that Canada-U.S. trade. The fourth is to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and address the root causes of such hatred.

More specifically regarding Bill C-36, we must give some credit to the great number of public servants who spent intense hours and days in a large group effort to bring forth legislation that I believe will withstand the test of time. However, with the assistance of the justice committee it will no doubt be made even better. We commend them for their efforts.

Bill C-36 includes defining and designating terrorist groups and activities to make it easier to prosecute terrorists and those who support them. It includes tougher sentences for terrorism offences. It would make it an offence to knowingly participate in, facilitate or contribute to the activities of a terrorist group. It would make it an offence to instruct anyone to carry out a terrorist activity or an activity on behalf of a terrorist group. It would be an offence to knowingly harbour a terrorist. Also, it would move us forward in cutting off financial support for terrorists and would make it a crime to knowingly collect money or give funds either directly or indirectly in order to carry out terrorism. It would make it easier to deny or remove charitable status from terrorist groups under the Income Tax Act and easier to freeze and seize their assets. Of the 12 UN conventions, of which Canada has already ratified 10, the last 2 are ratified in the bill.

I hesitate to use the word war. I prefer the word campaign, because I think our efforts here are about making peace. However, sometimes making peace requires a firm hand and a firm resolve to deal with people who would abuse the freedoms of others. This is not a campaign against an ethnic group nor is it one against a country or a religion. It is a campaign against terrorists, who are essentially criminals seeking to destabilize our society for their own ends. Regardless of how they would rationalize those ends, in the eyes of the vast majority of the people on this planet those ends are not justifiable. Not only have they hijacked planes for their terrible cause, they have also hijacked a great religion, Islam. Indeed, the roots of Judaism, Islam and Christianity are the same. I am sure no amount of terrorism will deter us from finding peace some day for the entire world.

As I wish our military bon voyage, safe travel and a quick return, I will conclude by expressing my hope that the co-ordinated efforts of the countries of world at this time to deal with terrorism will in due course turn to dealing with the other great challenges of this planet, such as poverty, environmental pollution and other forms of crime.

I am pleased to have a chance to speak tonight. I only hope we will see the end of all this soon.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I rose in the House to speak with respect to our Canadian forces and the deployment of over 2,000 of them with respect to the campaign against terrorism. Today I rise to speak about the legislative changes in Bill C-36 as they affect the defence portfolio.

One of the objectives of the government's anti-terrorism bill is to eliminate the obstacles to the security of our country.

The proposed anti-terrorism legislation will amend the National Defence Act to align it with changes in the criminal code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security Information Act. For example, the National Defence Act would incorporate the definitions of terrorist events, terrorist activity and terrorist group. This is to bring the military justice system, which is a separate system, completely in line with the civilian system.

A second set of amendments contained in this package would provide additional authorities to the Communications Security Establishment or CSE. This organization has an important role to play in the campaign against terrorism since it is heavily involved in intelligence information gathering and analysis. Not only does it intercept and analyze foreign communications it also helps to protect the government's information systems and networks.

The world is changing and so must CSE. The organization needs to sharpen its focus on critical trends, on national issues and, most important, on terrorism. These new authorities would enable it to meet the requirements of the new environment and provide the kind of foreign intelligence that Canada, working closely with our key allies, will need in the coming months and years. This new framework would help CSE work more effectively to help protect our own federal government computer systems and networks.

The intelligence needs of the government have changed greatly since the end of the cold war.

At the same time, advances in technology have radically changed the way the world communicates. These changes have made it increasingly difficult for CSE to operate effectively within existing authorities. Currently in its information gathering the CSE is focused on foreign entities. It can only pick up information in foreign countries, not in Canada. Under section 184 of the criminal code it is unable to pick up any communication that either starts in Canadaand is sent to a foreign country or is sent from a foreign country to Canada. If two terrorists are communicating in foreign countries, we could pick it up. If one of the terrorists moves into Canada, we cannot. Therefore we are stymied in an attempt to deal with the terrorist problem. This unduly constrains the effectiveness of the Communications Security Establishment.

We know that terrorists and those who support them communicate with people in many different countries and they do communicate with people in Canada. However, under the criminal code, if CSE is targeting a known terrorist abroad and that individual then communicates with somebody in Canada we cannot intercept the communication.

This constrains our intelligence collection apart from that of our closest allies. We are working closely with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Those countries have had the legal framework in place since the second world war, and that is what I am asking that we do through Bill C-36.

It is also important to understand that the proposed amendment would not authorize CSE to focus its collection effort on Canadians. The effort must continue to be focused on foreign entities and not on Canadians. The proposed amendment states that CSE's activities would not be directed toward any person who is a Canadian. It would simply enable CSE to intercept the communications for foreign intelligence targets located abroad when their communications go in or out of Canada or to an unknown location.

CSE also requires additional authority, which that it does not presently have to protect our own federal government 's computer systems and networks from any mischief, unauthorized use, hacking or interference.

Monitoring systems are indispensable tools in assessing the vulnerabilities of our networks. Under its current legal framework CSE is restricted in its ability to monitor the computer systems or networks of the government.

The proposed amendment would therefore authorize it to perform in a more effective monitoring fashion. This measure would help to assure the protection of government computer systems. I am sure that is what Canadians want. They want to have their government protect its systems and its networks into the future, particularly when more government services are going online.

An important point here is privacy. Let me assure the House that the privacy of Canadians remains paramount and that it would continue to be protected through an effective control regime in the conduct of CSE's operations.

As Minister of National Defence, before authorizing CSE to collect foreign communications which originate or terminate in Canada for purposes of foreign intelligence, I would have to be satisfied on four counts: first, that Canadians and persons in Canada would not be targeted; second, that the intelligence resulting from this collection could be reasonably be obtained by other means; third, that the value of the intelligence would justify the means of interception; and, fourth, that a private communication would only be used or retained when it was essential to the advancement of Canadian interest, defence or security.

I should point out that CSE has an unblemished publicly available record of compliance with similar kinds of controls in the regime it has already operated under for a great many years. Over the past several years both the privacy commissioner and the CSE's own commissioner, a retired judge from the court of appeal in Quebec, have examined CSE's handling of information involving Canadians. They concluded that it was done in compliance with Canada's legal framework, including the Privacy Act and the charter of rights and freedoms.

I have confidence that this would continue if CSE operates under these proposed new authorities. The commissioner's own mandate is strengthened in this legislation to ensure that it does so.

Good intelligence is one of the most important contributions that Canada can make to the campaign against terrorism we are waging with our allies. The proposed amendment enhances Canada's foreign intelligence capacity by allowing CSE to intercept communications that may have a direct bearing on terrorist operations.

The proposed amendment will be welcomed by our allies as they already have this authority. It will be welcomed by them as evidence that we are committed to remaining an active and contributing member of our close intelligence partnerships. It will also enable us to more effectively protect the computer systems and networks of the Government of Canada.

I believe the additional authorities provided to CSE and the changes to the National Defence Act I have outlined would give us better tools to fight terrorism effectively in the long run.

I therefore recommend that we support them.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate, particularly because the government moved so quickly. Much of the work that went into the bill should have been done years ago but nonetheless it is before us now.

A few years ago the Royal Canadian Legion had a motto “If you can't remember, think”. There are many people in the House today, and no doubt many people watching, who cannot remember certain events in our history. I remember very well the events of September 3, 1939. I remember September 10, 1939, when Canada declared war. I was only a boy. At the time I heard some of the funniest statements one would ever want to hear, but none as vicious as a statement I heard on September 11, 2001, on Canadian television. I will get back to that later.

On December 7, 1941, a Sunday morning I remember like yesterday, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Do members know what I heard in this country? I heard that the United States had it coming. I would like members to recall that date in 1941. Canadians and we in the House had better thank God we had the United States as an ally. If not, we would probably not be sitting here enjoying the freedom we are enjoying this very day.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, my Ottawa office staff phoned me and said they had been asked to leave. They told me to turn on my television. As I sat having breakfast with my wife, I said that before the day was over I would hear some of the same crapola I heard following December 7, 1941. Sure enough, all day long on September 11, 2001, and in the days that followed I have heard that the United States had it coming.

The statements were not made by anyone in the House because the House was not in session. However the CBC carried some programs that made me sick to my stomach. They defamed our partner and ally through two world wars. They blamed the whole thing on the United States.

There are people in the House who say the United Nations should take the lead role rather than the United States. I am sorry, but one of our UN nations admitted the other day that it had within its borders many of the same people whose names are on the list for terrorism. Sweden, a member of the United Nations, said it could not do anything about it until these people broke a law.

We do not need to worry about the bill going too far because it will not need an examination in three years. It will need to be expanded before then. I do not think for one moment that we have seen the last of the war on terrorism. There is a whole lot more coming. If there is one theme I would like to leave the Chamber with it is this: No one's rights can ever exceed the nation's right to security.

We pick up the papers and read all these things about sweeping rights. We read that lawyers and civil rights people have concerns. No one's rights can ever exceed the right to have a secure nation. We must be cognizant of this fact: We did not have the charter of rights during World War II but the security of the nation was utmost in everybody's mind.

We came a lot closer to having war on our very soil on September 11 than we did during those five years of conflict. Canadians were killed not many miles south of the border.

We have this hogwash in Canada that to be a true Canadian one must somehow hate the Americans. It is generated. When I listen to certain university professors, and everyone probably knows the one I am referring to, I wonder what kind of message they are sending our students and young people who attend university. It is shameful. It is disgraceful for the nation.

Let us look at our charter for a moment. Let us look at what happened in Seattle. Do we have freedom of assembly? Yes, we do. Do we have freedom of expression? Everything is freedom of expression in this country but who gets all the attention? Was the Operation SalAMI meeting a legal meeting? Yes, it was. Were the protesters given legal rights? Yes, they were. The same was true in Quebec. However we must always put our weight on the ability of security forces to protect a legally constituted meeting.

We need to re-examine some of these things. We hear people in the House, mainly members of the NDP, say we should not get involved in the campaign against terrorism. We should not get involved? The Minister of National Defence knows full well that any boat could pull into Toronto harbour undetected and blast away. It is possible. We need to think of the security of the nation more than we need to think of individual rights. This is terror.

I represent a rural constituency. This morning at 9 o'clock some people picked up their mail from a small post office in my riding. They took it home and opened it and powder was in the envelope. They were not ready for that. Neither was the RCMP. After nine hours someone finally came and picked up the envelope. A lady is now receiving precautionary antibiotics.

We need to state clearly to the Canadian people that this is not the end of the crisis. Canada is subject to attack in any place and at any time. The question is not so much whether we must go back and re-examine Bill C-36. The question well may be whether we must strengthen its measures for greater security. That may sound a bit rough for some people. However let us not worry about our individual rights. Let us worry about the security of our country.

In our country and in my province we have terrorism of a different sort. Bill C-36's definition of terrorism fits what is happening in some of our cities. Homes are being raided and destroyed. People are being molested. That is terrorism, even as defined by Bill C-36. The powers of the bill, which some call wide and sweeping but which I call common sense, could be applied to the domestic scene as well.

I am proud to support the bill but there is one thing I want to see forgotten. I want to see Canada take a far different approach through its media, the CBC and its town halls. We must stop thinking that to be Canadian we need to defame the United States.

It is about time. We enjoy our security because of our partnership with the United States. We do not enjoy any misdoings of United States events as our allies in World War I or World War II. It is time now that Canadians realize that.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first, this bill will be important to our law enforcement and security agencies. They need the bill because we need to stop terrorists from getting into Canada and need to protect Canadians from terrorists.

As a nation we must be prepared to ensure our safety and security. We need more and more powerful tools to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists and those who support them.

The legislation would give our law enforcement, security agencies and courts the ability to do so. Our allies also need the bill. If we truly want to be a leader in the international effort to deprive terrorists of sanctuary, to shut off their funding and leave them nowhere to turn, we must have strong anti-terrorism laws.

We must ratify the international conventions on the suppression of terrorist financing and suppression of bombing and the convention on the safety of United Nations personnel. We must be part of the solution.

This is especially true for our common border. The free flow of people, goods and services between Canada and the United States is absolutely essential for both of us. We must prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists. If we do not then the terrorists will have won.

As the House will know, the nature of terrorism is constantly changing. Terrorist operations are decentralized and terrorist cells are made up of highly motivated and skilled individuals.

Canada, the United States and countries around the world are adapting to dealing with new and emerging terrorist threats and methods of operation. We are constantly re-examining and improving what we do and how we do it.

The Government of Canada has already taken significant measures to enhance our ability to fight terrorism and will continue to take any and all necessary measures to ensure the country remains safe and secure.

Last week the Government of Canada announced a series of measures to improve airport security and improve RCMP capacity to fight terrorism, especially in joint operations with our neighbours to the south, to tighten up immigration procedures and freeze assets of terrorists.

A full $250 million in new funding is being invested immediately, and just last year we allocated $1.5 billion to the RCMP, CSIS, CIC and other public safety partners to ensure that they continue to have the tools they need to do their jobs effectively.

Through the special committee chaired by my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we continue our review of laws, policies and procedures. As the Prime Minister has said, what we need to change will be changed.

It is evident that Canada and the United States have a long record of close co-operation in fighting terrorism and transnational crime. No two countries work more closely together on law enforcement.

The whole point of our anti-terrorism plan, which includes this legislation, is to deter and disable terrorists. In this regard, our efforts and those of the United States will be complementary.

RCMP, CSIS, local police, customs, immigration and transport officials work closely with their American counterparts each and every day in their ongoing efforts to ensure the safety and security of our citizens.

Joint investigations and operations and the sharing of information and intelligence show how close the relationship is between our two countries.

These activities are possible thanks to the seamless co-operation that exists at every level of our national law enforcement, intelligence, security, customs and immigration agencies.

When I was in Washington two weeks ago to meet with attorney general John Ashcroft he told me the United States government was impressed. He thanked me for the co-operation it had received from CSIS and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He said that before the U.S. could ask Canada for help we were already co-operating to do the things we knew to be necessary so we could succeed and bring the terrorists to justice. That is high praise. It is true that while we protect Canada and Canadians we also help protect our American friends and other allies.

To defeat terrorists we need to choke off their money supply. Bill C-36 goes a long way toward achieving that. It would designate certain groups as terrorist groups, make it easier to freeze their assets, prosecute those who give them financial support and deny or remove charitable status for designated groups. It would cut off financial support for terrorists by making it a crime to collect or give funds either directly or indirectly to carry out terrorism.

There is no doubt that some of the measures we propose are extraordinary. That is why we have included significant checks and balances. Canadians want the measures but they also want safeguards to ensure the measures are targeted to terrorists and those who support them.

Yes, we will give police more tools to investigate and prevent terrorist activity. Yes, we will make it easier to use electronic surveillance against terrorist groups. Yes, we will take steps to protect security information and detain terrorists. Yes, we will take measures against groups that abuse our registered charity system to raise funds for terrorists.

Simply put, a nation must be prepared to protect itself to ensure its safety and security. That is exactly what we are doing. The murderous attacks of September 11 showed the world that terrorists have no regard for their victims or themselves. If we are to prevent terrorism and save lives we need the tools in Bill C-36.

The bill's measures are targeted directly at terrorists but it is also important that the principles of judicial review and due process be respected. Bill C-36 has found that balance. It is consistent with the charter of rights and freedoms and it responds to the situation we face following September 11.

I hope all members of the House will support Bill C-36. The bill would provide our legal system and police officers with the important tools they need to do the job of making sure Canada remains the peaceful and safe place it has been for many years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my comments to those expressed earlier on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, by my coalition colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough.

Before I begin my comments on the bill itself, I would like to extend a sincere thanks on behalf of my constituents in Prince George--Peace River, and perhaps on behalf of all Canadians, to the architects of the anti-terrorism bill, who dropped everything and began working I suspect around the clock in order to have this bill ready for presentation to the House yesterday.

One can only imagine how onerous this task must have appeared during the first few meetings on those first few days. Yet the challenge was met with a level of confidence and professionalism of which all Canadians should be greatly proud.

Sadly it is often the case that the work and sacrifices of these dedicated individuals goes unnoticed or unappreciated. I would like to assure everyone involved in the drafting of this legislation that the entire country has taken notice of their work and thanks them for their sacrifice.

As a member of the opposition, it is not very often that I find myself in the position of agreeing with something that the government has done or that it has made a commitment to do. The fundamental differences in our values and beliefs are what keep us on opposite sides of the House.

However there are occasions such as yesterday, when the government supported our supply day motion condemning the attacks of September 11, affirming our support for the men and women of our military headed overseas and the joint meeting of the defence and foreign affairs committees, where the government finds itself supporting the opposition or conversely the opposition supporting the government.

The international war against terrorism is one such occasion. I commend the government and the Minister of Justice for undertaking the introduction of this important new piece of legislation.

The bill represents an important step but not the only step in the development of a national strategy to address a threat that until recently we believed to be a problem inherent in countries elsewhere in the world. That perception of the world, perhaps somewhat misguided, some might even say naive, was a reflection of the world that Canadians want to live in, the Canada that we want to protect.

I struggle now to ensure that the reaction that we undertake as parliamentarians and as Canadians is an intricate balance between our desire to ensure that we are protected from harm and our desire to ensure that we do not fundamentally change the way life that has been carefully nurtured and protected by previous generations of Canadians.

This is the balance that I know was in the minds of the drafters, lawyers, advisers and countless others who contributed to the bill. It is a balance that I believe has been fundamentally achieved. Of course the devil is in the details. However I am confident that any concerns that we, the PC/DR coalition, may have will be adequately addressed during the review of the bill by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

As I mentioned previously, the bill represents only one of a number of important elements in the fight against those determined to undermine our confidence and democracy and our way of life. The passage into law of the anti-terrorism act will provide us with a way to deter, disable and dismantle terrorist activity, but having the means by which to undertake these activities is equally important.

As with any law, it is essentially useless unless we have someone to enforce it. Manpower, the human element in counterterrorism activities is an area that has suffered considerable neglect in recent years. It is an area that we can ill afford to continue to ignore. Year after year for the past decade the budgets of the Department of National Defence, CSIS and the RCMP were slashed. Entire departments in some cases, such as the Canada ports police, were eliminated.

Frontline security duties, such as airport security, were privatized. The focus at our borders was shifted from security and enforcement to revenue generation and cash collection, all without due consideration as to the long term effects these cuts might have on our national security.

The aftermath of the events of September 11 have shown that we cannot continue along this route. Canadians are tuning in to the fact that the increased police presence at airports, nuclear power plants and even on Parliament Hill is a redeployment of existing officers and that redeployment means less coverage somewhere else. The practices of underfunding and understaffing are being noticed and Canadians want something done about them.

Last week, in keeping with the government's approach of tell the world before it tells parliament, Canadians were subjected to a national parade of cabinet ministers clambering over one another to make the next announcement of a new government initiative for what can only be described as a full court press in a game of catch up. In the world of public relations I believe it is called damage control.

As mesmerizing as it was to watch minister after minister after minister and sometimes three at once announce new funding, it was a completely redundant exercise since the Minister of Foreign Affairs had previously announced that a meagre $250 million would be made available as an immediate response to the deficiencies identified in our national security network.

Despite attempts to generate enthusiasm for the one time expenditure, it is readily apparent that this cannot be the full extent of financial resources devoted to improving national security. As it is, the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada only receives an annual budget of $1.5 billion, which has to cover all operating costs of both CSIS and the RCMP. Even if the full amount of the additional spending were allocated exclusively to the solicitor general, it would only represent an increase of 16.63% in the national security budget.

Given the recent public opinion poll supporting an increase in spending on national defence of $3 billion to $9 billion, one could conclude that Canadians would also be receptive to spending much more than the $1.75 billion on intelligence and national policing.

It is also apparent that to have any meaningful impact the funding of our armed forces and national policing agencies must be increased on a long term basis to ensure that the agencies responsible for national security have the ability to sustain operations at the desired levels. Now more than ever it would be irresponsible for the government not to introduce a budget outlining to Canadians how it intends to finance our war on terrorism over the long term.

I would like to return at this point to the specifics of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act. While I have nothing further to add with respect to my comments on what the bill sets out to accomplish, I would like to add one comment with respect to what I consider an intricate component that is not contained in this bill.

Part 5 of the bill is devoted to the amendment of other acts and proceeds to introduce amendments that are deemed necessary to ensure that this bill integrates properly with existing Canadian law and to allow the new act to achieve the desired objective.

What I find surprising in this amendment to other acts section is that there is no amendment to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act that would broaden the mandate of CSIS to include conducting international and covert information gathering operations as part of its normal operations. I question how we will participate in the international fight against terrorism without giving our intelligence service an international mandate. It would seem to me that this is a question that should be considered by the committee when the bill has been referred for its consideration.

I hope that the introduction of the bill represents the beginning of the government's fight against the threat of international terrorism and not the end. There is much work to be done if we are to rid ourselves of this evil and providing that we are given the opportunity to participate through debates and information briefings, I am certain the government will find itself with all the support it needs during these challenging times.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express my support for the government's anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36, and for Canada's participation in the international effort to bring to justice the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of September 11.

There are no words adequate to describe the horrors felt by people around the world at the slaughter of thousands of innocents and the images of passenger planes crashing into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Over six thousand innocent people were slaughtered. Thousands of widows, widowers and orphans were created. Children lost parents and people lost friends and co-workers. No one was untouched. People who did not lose a relative or a friend lost their peace of mind.

In combating terrorism we are acting in concert with our NATO allies, which have all agreed to invoke article 5 of the NATO treaty. It states that an aggression against one member country is considered an aggression against all. Our actions are consistent with the United Nations convention on the suppression of terrorist bombing and the right of a nation to defend itself against aggression.

The anti-terrorism act has four objectives: to stop terrorists from getting into Canada and to protect Canadians from terrorist acts; to bring forward tools to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists; to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists; and to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and to address the root causes of such hatred. The bill accomplishes these objectives. These measures are in keeping with the actions of our allies.

As a nation we must be prepared to ensure our safety and security. The bill is not perfect and I hope that committee will recommend a sunset provision. I also expect that other improvements will be proposed in committee. It is incumbent upon free and democratic countries to send a clear message to those who perpetrated the horrible acts of September 11. Therefore we must act. The message is that those who have chosen the path of terror to achieve their political ends will be apprehended and brought to justice.

Governments of countries that support terrorists are equally responsible for the actions of those terrorists. Efforts toward eradication of terrorism will be long term and multi-dimensional and to this end we must dedicate ourselves to eliminating the conditions that breed terrorism. We must strongly censure countries that act in their own military, political or economic interests to support terrorist, fascist and extremist factions in other countries. Their actions cause political destabilization and undermine the integrity of the social, physical and economic infrastructure in those countries. Too often this leads to disenfranchisement, poverty and oppression of people in those countries. The deep rooted resentment and hatred they feel toward those who are seen to have caused their misery is a breeding ground for terrorism.

Canadians want the root causes of terrorism addressed. The inequities in affluence between the west and the rest of the people in the global village must also be addressed. Our safety and well-being are not only rooted in creating and supporting political and social conditions and institutions that are sustainable and have the confidence of the people they are intended to serve; we in the west will also have to provide increased resources for human development in troubled societies if we are to be effective in combating terrorism.

The Prime Minister said in his address to the NATO parliamentary assembly on October 9 what we can never repeat often enough, that Canada and its coalition partners:

--have no quarrel with the people of Afghanistan. And they have no quarrel with us. Our dispute is with the terrorists and the Taliban regime that insists on giving them safe harbour.

The people of Afghanistan need our support. They have suffered horribly because of years of drought and war in their country. To this end, Canada and its allies have significantly increased contributions of humanitarian aid for Afghan refugees.

Our fight with terrorism does not represent a conflict between religions or cultures. Terrorist acts are in no way supported by the morals, beliefs or practices of Islam. Like all faiths, Islam is about peace, justice and universal brotherhood and encourages harmony among all people. Muslims in Canada and around the world have joined us in condemning terrorism.

We are engaged in an armed conflict so we must be particularly vigilant in protecting the rights and security of all our ethnic minorities. It is unacceptable and offensive in a democratic, pluralistic nation such as ours that even one act of intolerance would be perpetrated against our fellow citizens.

We have many fellow Canadians who are Muslims, Christians and Jews who are from the Middle East or are of that ancestry and other Canadians who look like they might have come from there. It is important to remember that Judaism, Christianity, Islam and all other religions abhor the terrorism that has taken place. This act was carried out by a small group of fanatic extremists. We must fight any expression of xenophobia by reaching out to our fellow Canadians and speaking out against hate and intolerance.

I am very pleased to see the strong and consistent efforts made by all parliamentarians and by our government to allay the tensions and fears felt by minorities in our country. Our present actions contrast most favourably with the dark days of our history when the government was the leading force in carrying out acts of intolerance, a past where we interned those we considered dangerous during our wars and whose only sin was being different, the most grievous of these being against Canadians of Japanese descent, thousands of whom were forcibly repatriated to Japan after the last war.

However, we have evolved. Canada has evolved into a country that is made up of people from all over the world representing every religion and ethnic group. We have come together in this country to build one of the most prosperous and inclusive societies. Canada shines as a beacon of hope in the troubled world too often torn by ethnic hatreds and intolerance.

Bin Laden, the Taliban and all terrorists feed on hatred and intolerance. It is in their interest to promote hatred so they can carry out their terrorist acts. Every Canadian and every individual concerned with terrorism can join the war against terrorism by working for an inclusive society at home and abroad. We can do so by reaching out to people and respecting their different religions and cultures and their humanity. We will not tolerate any expressions of racism in our communities. The anti-terrorist legislation, Bill C-36, strengthens our laws on hate crimes.

In closing, I would like to express my support for and gratitude to the courageous men and women of our armed forces. I believe that I can speak for everyone in the House in wishing them a safe return to their homes and families after they complete their tour of duty in making our country a safer place.

Privilege

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Kitchener--Waterloo. A few weeks ago following the terrorist attacks in New York City on September 11 we met in the House to debate a motion that called on our government to introduce anti-terrorism legislation as soon as possible. I am pleased to see that the minister and her staff have been able to respond this quickly.

I want to express my strong support for Bill C-36, a made in Canada legislative response to the problems of terrorism. It is a response that we hope will be effective, while being drawn up in such a way as to be respectful of the constitutionality of the protected rights of Canadians.

This legislation gives expression to our common resolve as Canadians to ensure that those persons who plan or direct terrorist attacks and those persons and entities that play a role in supporting them financially, or otherwise provide them with the material support which facilitates such acts, are denounced as criminals and brought to justice no matter where they may be found.

Canadians believe that all acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable and that they should be condemned as such. We are confident that by enacting such legislation we are joining other like minded countries around the world in efforts to prevent the commission of similar crimes in the future.

Canadians would agree that the objective of enacting effective anti-terrorism legislation is laudable and necessary. Canadians would also want us to reflect in a sober and critical fashion on the nature of such legislation. I do not believe they would agree that it is necessary to abandon our values, which make Canada a free and democratic society, to fight terrorism.

I am pleased that the preamble to the bill contains language through which parliament recognizes that the requirements of national security and the need to combat global terrorism must be carried out with due regard to the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian charter so that we can be true to the values of our society even as we battle this terrible thing.

Canada has worked in concert with the international community for many years to pursue initiatives that are intended to reduce the threat posed by international terrorists. It should be noted that Canadian diplomats played a leading role in the negotiation of the two most recent international counterterrorism conventions, namely the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombing and the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

I want to comment on the specific aspects of Bill C-36. When the Canadian government signed these international counterterrorism agreements it was seen as a commitment by Canada to move toward their ratification at some time in the future. Unfortunately that time has arrived.

The draft legislation contains measures that would allow Canada to implement three international conventions, two of which concern the fight against terrorism. The most recent of these is the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism, which would outlaw fundraising activities in support of terrorism and create provisions for the seizure and forfeiture of the assets belonging to the terrorists or placed at their disposal.

It would also give effect to United Nations security council resolution 1373 of September 28 that requires all states to take action to prevent and suppress terrorist financing.

Bill C-36 contains measures to implement the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings that Canada signed in 1998 in response to an increase in recent years of terrorist attacks directed against civilian and government targets by means of explosive devices or biological and chemical substances. In one of these indiscriminate attacks in November 1996 a Canadian woman was killed in a terrorist bombing of a Paris subway station.

The bill would implement the convention on the safety of United Nations and associated personnel. While this convention is not regarded as a counterterrorism agreement it does cover acts of violence directed against the official premises, private accommodation or means of transportation of United Nations or associated personnel. It recognizes that there is a need for appropriate and effective measures to prevent attacks against the United Nations and associated personnel.

The implementation of each of these conventions requires amendments to the criminal code to ensure that the crimes identified in each of these agreements are offences under our law and to extend the jurisdiction of Canadian courts over terrorist activities abroad.

A person alleged to have committed a convention crime abroad may be prosecuted in Canada if after the commission of the offence he or she is found in Canada and is not extradited to another state that could also claim jurisdiction over the offence.

Similarly under the amendments proposed in Bill C-36 a person responsible for a terrorist bombing of a public transportation system in another country in which a Canadian was killed or injured could be extradited to Canada to stand trial here for that offence.

Canada has taken these steps to ensure that terrorists are brought to justice by effectively denying them sanctuary after the commission of a terrorist crime. There should be no safe havens for terrorists. The terrorist attacks in the cities of New York and Washington on September 11 demonstrated to all of us that there is an urgent need for the international community to act together in concert to ensure that each has effective legislation in place to choke off fundraising efforts for terrorists and to enact the necessary legislation to implement the entire series of international and anti-terrorism agreements.

I congratulate the Minister of Justice and all those who worked so hard and so very quickly to bring forth Bill C-36. Bill C-36 contains the additional measures that our law enforcement and security services require to meet the threat posed by terrorism. It is simultaneously focused, effective, broad reaching and reflective of Canadian values.

Members will have an opportunity to do some work on the bill in the justice committee. There are issues that we all share. For example, should there be a sunset clause? How do we protect against abuse of powers? These are issues that will certainly be dealt with in committee.

It will also provide the opportunity for all of us in the House to air our concerns and to make sure the legislation gives the authorities the tools they need to protect the civil rights of all Canadians.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the important debate on Bill C-36, the government's anti-terrorism act.

There is without question deep concern among Canadians across the country about the horrific acts that took place on September 11. As we begin to come to terms with what happened and determine what kind of responses there need to be, we in the New Democratic Party have stated clearly every day in the House that our response should be undertaken through the United Nations and in accordance with international law. It should be a response that promotes peace and justice rather than further violence and militarism. The NDP has articulated that position very well even if it is not popular to do so these days.

In addressing the bill before us today in terms of the measures we are prepared to take and the powers we should confer upon law enforcement agencies, there may be a rush to get the legislation through. However it is incumbent upon us as members of parliament and upholders of the public interest to have a sober analysis and review of the bill.

I have heard a lot of talk in the House today that the bill would provide the necessary tools to law enforcement agencies. A lot of members have remarked on that. I and my colleagues in the NDP want to make sure those tools do not become sledgehammers that undermine or crush civil liberties and freedoms.

In speaking to the bill we must be circumspect. We must be thoughtful and look at what its impact would be not only in the short term but in the long term. I have been reading through various opinions of experts and lawyers and look forward to the opinions of witnesses who will go to the committee. One opinion in particular struck me. The president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers’ Association was quoted in the media today as saying that to turn Canada into a police state in the name of liberty is bizarre.

As we examine the bill we must look at each and every clause to ensure that the broad powers and measures it contains will be used in a way that ensures continued public accountability, transparency and due process of law.

There was an interesting article in the Globe and Mail today which said that most Canadians would not be terribly inconvenienced by the justice minister's proposals. It said the costs would instead be borne by people who find themselves targets of police suspicion because of their ethnic background, radical political views or association with immigrant communities that have ties with groups deemed to be terrorist fronts.

It was an interesting commentary. It may well be that most Canadians support the legislation because they do not see that it would have an impact on them. They see it as powerful tool to deal with their legitimate fears about terrorist attacks.

However we must examine what the measures are and how they would be applied. One thing I am concerned about is how the measures in the act would be targeted to certain groups in our society. Are there adequate protections in the bill to ensure that the strong measures and broad powers it contains will be targeted, as the member for London West has said, to people who are engaged in terrorist activities and not merely members of this or that group? Will the legislation have an application and political weight that begins to take on a broader net?

Today in the House during question period I raised the issue of students from other countries who come to Canada to study. It has been confirmed by the RCMP that such students are being questioned and investigated, particularly if they are in engineering or scientific programs and courses. While there may be reason to do this, why do we single out a group of people based on their ethnic background, country of origin or what they are studying? This may have an important impact on Canadian students of colour who may be of Arabic background or Muslim students who begin to feel they are being targeted in some way.

This is disturbing. A commentary in the Globe and Mail said that many of us will not be inconvenienced by the act. It said we will go about our business as usual and not feel targeted in any way. Given the backlash that has already taken place in the country we must be terribly concerned about the bill's impact in terms of targeting visible minorities, political activists or even labour activists.

I will focus on three specific areas of Bill C-36. As others have mentioned, it is a massive bill. It contains about 170 pages and 146 clauses. None of us have had time yet to go through it thoroughly. We hope that will happen at committee. However it struck me that there are three things we must look at carefully in terms of the balance between our need to protect civil liberties under the charter of rights and freedoms and our need to protect safety and security.

First, the definition of terrorist activity concerns me. Bill C-36 defines a terrorist activity as an action in or outside Canada that is taken or threatened for political, religious or ideological purposes and threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people, or interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system.

The definition is carefully circumscribed to make it clear that disrupting an essential service is not a terrorist activity if it occurs during a lawful protest or work strike and is not intended to cause serious harm to persons. The Minister of Justice addressed this in the House today when she was asked about it.

However we must closely examine this definition of terrorist activity and ask a substantive question: Have activities taken place in Canada that could be characterized as terrorist activities under the proposed legislation? There are several that come to mind.

Recently in B.C. members of a health care union participated in illegal strike activity. They walked out on a rotating basis. It was not a lawful protest or work strike as defined in the legislation.

This brings to mind that even Canada has historically developed anti-trust laws which were meant to prevent corporate monopolies from controlling goods and services but which in actual fact were used against labour unions to prevent them from organizing. The anti-trust laws were used against unions to take away people's right to organize.

These historical references are very important. I have a very serious concern about the definition that is being used. While I appreciate the fact that the government lawyers and the government side have gone to some lengths to try to come up with a definition that is specific, it seems to me that the way it is written is very problematic. It raises the question with me as to how broadly that could be applied.

I, along with my colleagues, participated in Quebec City at the summit of the Americas. We participated in the protests. To reiterate the remarks of our House leader in debate earlier today, he made it quite clear when he said that lawful sounds good, but there were a lot of young people who thought they were engaged in lawful protest in Quebec City way beyond the perimeter who did not challenge the wall or engage in property damage or anything like that. There were people who did participate in other forms of more direct action. How would those activities be characterized under the legislation, perhaps not in the next few months or in the next year, but what about several years from now, or if this legislation is still around, a decade from now? The definition of terrorist activity is of much concern.

Second, the other area I have a lot of concerns about is the whole notion of preventive arrest. This is something that is quite a new feature in terms of Canadian law and gives enormous powers to law enforcement agencies to arrest and detain people on the suspicion that they are about to commit a terrorist activity. While on the one hand I think that may make people feel safe and secure, it is demanded of us as parliamentarians to ask what kinds of protections there will be in this legislation to ensure that this very broad power is not abused and that people are not simply picked up willy-nilly all over the place for whatever activity might be deemed to be suspicious or somehow related to a terrorist activity. As I say, these are only a few of the things that jumped out at me as I read through the bill in a very summary way.

Third, there is the whole notion of an investigative hearing. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this is really very new in Canadian legal undertakings, this idea that the police could compel persons to come forward with information before a judge even though they may not themselves be charged with something or they may not know what investigation is underway. In fact one senior federal official was quoted as saying that we remove the right to silence. To me this was another flag going up in terms of how and how broadly that would be applied.

Those are three areas that I think are very problematic with this bill. The other aspect I wanted to speak on is the permanency of the bill. I listened to the news last night and heard the comments made by Mr. Clayton Ruby, a very well known criminal lawyer and advocate of civil rights in Canada. I think he is an outstanding member of the legal community. I was very interested to hear his remarks. He reminded us of our history in terms of when legislation like this is brought in how permanent it will be.

Presumably it is permanent. We know it will go through a review in three years, but even when our House leader today raised the possibility of the notion of having a sunset clause, it seemed to me that the government was very reluctant to respond to that and basically shuffled it aside.

Mr. Ruby basically characterized this legislation as war measures legislation. I do believe we have to look at our history. We have to look at what it is that we are embarking upon. This weekend in Ottawa at the federal council of the New Democratic Party we had a very extensive debate about what took place on September 11, what the party's position has been and what it should say as events continue to unfold. I will quote part of the resolution that was passed by our federal council and brought forward by our international affairs committee.

The resolution states:

--at this critical time it is very important that Canadians be vigilant to protect against unwarranted attacks on fundamental civil liberties and human rights as part of the comprehensive response to terrorist attacks, bearing in mind the history of internment of Japanese Canadians and the proclamation of the War Measures Act in similar circumstances.

I can already hear some people asking why we would drag that up, saying that this is a different situation, but I really wonder if it is. Again, I believe it is incumbent upon us as members of the House who uphold the public interest to look at our history and consider that when these actions were taken, the War Measures Act, the internment of Japanese Canadians, there was also a political climate of wanting to take strong retaliatory action. In hindsight now, in the one case 50 years ago and the other case 30 years ago, there is a serious questioning as to whether or not those particular policies were things that actually needed to be done. I suppose we can say that hindsight is always perfect and we can always look for ways to criticize something that was done.

However, surely we can learn by examining the legislation that took place then and what its impact was on civil society and civil rights, and the singling out of identifiable people, in one instance Canadians of Japanese origin and in the other instance political activists. Our whole society was impacted by that in a very negative way.

I took Mr. Ruby's comments very much to heart as a sobering reflection on what the House is poised to do in terms of bringing in the legislation, which from all that we have been given to understand, will be permanent. What impact will that have on our civil liberties in the longer term? What kinds of powers are we giving to law enforcement agencies that will begin to turn us more and more into a society where more control is given to law enforcement agencies?

Some people may argue that is good and that is the price of fighting terrorism, but I think we have to examine that. We have to weigh that balance between civil liberties and the need for security. We have to ensure that we do protect civil liberties and rights and freedoms in Canada.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was genuinely interested in hearing amendments and feedback as this goes through committee. I hope that is true because to remove the protection for civil liberties is something that we are possibly on the brink of doing.

I have serious reservations about the bill. As it continues to go through committee some of those issues will come forward. I hope that members of the House will not be in such a rush to pass this legislation that will deeply offend the basic values of democracy and civil liberties in Canada in order to do what they believe is politically expedient and because there is public concern in regard to passing legislation.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, stands as the fulfilment of the government's continued commitment to combating terrorism, a commitment that we have practised since our election and which was exemplified in our capacity to respond immediately to the horrific events of September 11.

To further extend the response capability and capacity of our country, we have introduced the bill with the intent to provide further tools to our law enforcement and national security agencies. The bill would aid in the task of rooting out terrorist organizations, and that will curtail future threats to the health and well-being of our citizens.

As such, the proposed act, while extending the powers of our security agencies to combat hate crimes, is consistent with and predicated on the word and spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is of central importance that while finding an appropriate response to the current situation we act in accordance with the principles and values for which this country stands and which, as representatives of our respective communities, we must uphold.

Bill C-36 is designed to help us do exactly that. The new anti-terrorism plan has four key objectives: to stop terrorists from entering our country and to protect Canadians from terrorist acts; to bring forward tools to identify and prosecute terrorists; to prevent our borders from being held hostage; and to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and impact the root causes of such hatred.

The bill would help protect our borders economically and, just as important, it would protect the principles of openness and acceptance that are fundamental to the Canadian spirit. These are difficult times that require difficult decisions.

I have a message for my constituents in Hamilton West and my fellow Canadians. It is for them to go about their daily business and their daily lives as usual, to understand that we must now live in a state of heightened awareness. The bill is a response to and an expression of that heightened awareness.

In the fight against terrorism, there are many weapons in the Canadian arsenal. Some of these weapons are legislative, such as the bill before us today and some include the skills and commitment of our local and national security agencies and the capacity of our armed forces.

However there is another weapon that is often overlooked. It is the strong character of our country's pride in our commitment to cultural diversity. With this pride resides the confidence that hatred and violence will never find a home here in Canada.

It is from the wellspring of this pride that our Prime Minister recently asserted that “Canada will not use the justification of national security to abandon our cherished values of freedom and tolerance. We will not fall into the trap of exclusion”.

One of our country's most enviable features is its reputation as a land where individuals are free to practise their cultural activities and commitments as they see fit, a land where peace loving individuals from around the globe can come together in friendship and share their rich and diverse traditions. No other country can claim the same degree of success or commitment to multiculturalism.

It was back in 1971 that the Liberal government of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau made Canada the first country in the world to adopt an official policy of multiculturalism. We cannot doubt that in such multiplicity we as a nation are made strong. However we must also not doubt that our commitments to strength through diversity are also in danger of being hijacked by the purveyors of hatred and terror.

In my remarks to worshippers at a Hamilton mosque last week I said “I am proud to be the son of an immigrant. My father is proud to call himself Canadian”.

We are collectively a nation of many diverse cultures brought together by a common goal of peaceful coexistence and equality.

We must under no circumstances allow the world's terror merchants to export their hatred to Canada. We must not allow them to undermine the mutual respect that Canadians of all faiths and backgrounds have nurtured for 150 years. We have worked diligently to firmly establish the basic principles, values and shared beliefs that hold us together as Canadians.

In the wake of the tragic events of September 11 it is important; no, it is absolutely necessary, for Canadians to reaffirm the fundamental values of our charter of rights and freedoms: the equality of individuals of every culture, religion and ethnic origin. Our way of life and system of values has made us proud of our country and provided us a tremendous bounty of freedom, tolerance and justice.

It behoves us to protect ourselves through an awareness of what is at stake in our response to recent events. We could inflict damage on terrorists the world over by exporting our deeply rooted Canadian values abroad. If our values can act as nutrients to the growth of a country such as our own, surely enacting them in our foreign policy and allowing them to guide our future international relations can be of benefit to the global community.

As we act in immediate and necessary co-operation with our allies to attack the threat of terrorism, it is perhaps time to consider how the principles that make us strong might themselves weaken the roots from which such hatred grows.

I will close by raising this fraught question: Is it too soon to debate the history of international relations and foreign policy in a broader context? Is it too soon to enter into dialogue about the responsibilities of each of us as global citizens?

If we are to defeat terrorism we need to discuss and confront the root causes of terrorist activities, namely the inequities that breed discontent. We need to recognize the political and economic disparities that have promoted social, cultural and physical starvation in certain regions of the world. While today we are taking one of the many necessary incremental steps in the battle against terrorism and terrorist activities at home and abroad, we should recognize that this broader question must also be addressed.

In closing I will join what will certainly be a chorus of voices in this place in thanking the many public servants who have worked diligently and quickly to produce the bill. It was a huge undertaking. The bill contains 146 clauses affecting more than 20 acts of parliament. At the conclusion of this debate the all party justice committee will have the formidable task of scrutinizing the bill and quite possibly suggesting solid amendments to have it carried, we hope, unanimously.

I for one have every confidence that each and every member of parliament on the committee will address the legislation with an eye to reaffirming Canadian values and ensuring that our country's renowned respect for diversity and justice is reinforced.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike many of the debates that we have in this place, this is an issue that Canadians are fairly seized with. The number one question that most Canadians would ask is: How will this affect me? Will this bill give broad sweeping police powers to the state and interfere in my everyday activity, or is this a bill that will provide safety and security for me and my family?

It is important that we discuss this bill in the context of both of those questions. Bill C-36 is in fact an anti-terrorist bill. It is not an anti-immigrant bill, anti-refugee bill, anti-Muslim bill, anti-Afghani bill, anti-Pakistani bill, or anti any of those things because if it were it would truly be anti-Canadian. Unfortunately the debate around this entire issue is in some quarters, mostly the media, focused on this aspect.

There have been many times in this place when my friends opposite and I have disagreed, sparred and had vociferous debates. However this is a time when parliamentarians an all sides of the House have shown that their number one concern is for the safety of Canada.

I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and the other leaders of the opposition, even the leader of the NDP. Even though we may not agree with her particular position on this matter, there is a constituency within Canada that shares her viewpoint. This democratic place called parliament is the place where those kinds of countering viewpoints need to be put forward.

I am interested in some of the suggestions made by the previous speaker regarding sunsetting. There is a section of the bill that requires it to be revisited and redebated in three years time. Whether it is an automatic review in three years or a cancellation of certain policies, unless they are reaffirmed in this place they are all issues that can be fairly and effectively dealt with in committee. They are technical aspects as to whether or not certain search and seizure aspects of the law should be continued or discontinued.

Should there be a wiretap that lasts one year instead of 90 days? Should there be intrusive abilities to monitor situations within this country, abilities that we would probably not have supported on September 10 of this year?

Since September 11 we have had to look at life through a different prism. Canadians are frightened and justifiably so. However, what concerns me is some of the hysteria that has literally thrown gasoline on an open flame.

I refer to recent allegations in the media last week which said that 50 refugees from Afghanistan and Pakistan had been allowed into the country without any security checks whatsoever. I can say that the switchboard, if we want to call it that, in my constituency office lit up. People were concerned and outraged as to how this could happen.

I too was concerned as to how we would allow someone in, particularly today but at any time in our history, without a reasonable security check and so I investigated. What did I find? I found that there was not one refugee from Afghanistan or Pakistan.

On that given day at Pearson airport there were indeed 29 people who applied for refugee status, which is not an unusual occurrence. The largest volume of refugees come through Pearson airport. Each and every one of those people was fingerprinted, photographed, checked through CSIS and cross-checked through the RCMP. No one was allowed to enter the country without a security check.

I will not be critical of anyone in particular in this case. However some members have said that when refugees come to this country and are a security risk or a flight risk, meaning they will not turn up for their hearing, then they should be detained. They are detained if those determinations are made.

I can take anyone who wants to go to a number of motels in the Brampton-Mississauga community that have been acquired as detention centres by the federal government to see families languishing. If there is a problem in our refugee system, and there is, it is in the length of time it takes to process the applications to provide a fair hearing.

We believe that Bill C-11, which will be before the House after it passes through the Senate, would help in that regard because it would allow single person panels instead of the three people needed to hold the hearings now. That should triple the number of hearings and should speed up the process dramatically. That is a case of human rights that need not interfere with this bill or any bill that targets anti-terrorism.

I wholeheartedly support Bill C-36. It is a response that our government has put forward in a timely, thoughtful and well researched way which says to Canadians that the government will fight terrorism with its friends in America, Great Britain and around the world. We will stand united as members of NATO as we have in other conflicts in the world.

A clause was invoked as part of our agreement with NATO known as article 5. Article 5 states that when a member of NATO is attacked all members are attacked. It is an all for one clause. If any Canadian falls through the cracks of discrimination in our zealous attempt to fight terrorism, the attack on that individual Canadian citizen is an attack on all of us. I caution that it can and does happen.

Let me share with the House the experience of a gentleman by the name of Mohamed Abdel-Aziz Attiah who was an engineer on contract with AECL at Chalk River. He was a Canadian citizen for 27 years. He is married to a Canadian citizen and has four children born in Canada. He moved from Mississauga to work at the Chalk River facility.

He was interviewed recently by CSIS and the RCMP for 90 minutes after which there were no charges, but because his name was Mohamed Abdel-Aziz Attiah they remained suspicious. They were concerned about security. There were no charges laid against the individual but after he went out for lunch and arrived back at the facility that he had worked at for some time, and at which he was being offered a permanent position, he found that his security card had been cancelled with no explanation and no reason. Today he languishes without a job, without an income and with a wife and four children, trying to understand.

Is it because of his name and heritage that he was fired? He asks what he did wrong. They trusted him before September 11. He wants to know why they do not trust him now. Is it because his name is Mohamed?

I know no one in this place would support that, yet it is a current case. It is an unjust case and in passing an anti-terrorism bill we must ensure that people like Mohamed and others are not discriminated against. This is not McCarthyism in the 1950s. It is clearly a united attack against terrorism that can come in any nationality, any skin colour and from anywhere in the world, even right here in Canada.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 4 the Minister of Transport appeared before the transport committee. In the course of his opening presentation he referred to a ministerial directive he had written requesting that cockpit doors of Canadian aircraft be locked for the duration of the flight.

I advised him I had flown on Canadian aircraft since the time the directive had apparently been written and had seen cockpit doors open on several occasions. The minister's response to that was that “On the question of cockpit doors, I have to say that if you have been on flights where this is the case, you have an obligation as a member of parliament to report that to me or my officials, the date, the time”.

I further asked the minister if he would be willing to table any ministerial directives issued to the department on airport security since September 11. His response to this request was as follows, that “Most government documents are available under access to information. If we can make them available to you, we will”.

That is not acceptable. On one hand the minister is stating that I have an obligation as a member of parliament to report any observations I make that contravene his directives. On the other hand he is advising me that I would have to rely on access to information to find out what that directive is. This is not unlike the situation that occurred in the case of Bill C-36 which is now before the House. The government provided information to the media before providing that same information to MPs.

In the case of the minister's departmental directives, he states that we need to report observed breaches of his directives without ever having been informed by the government of their existence. In such cases we are to rely on material acquired from access to information, and if we are, how are we to know that the material even exists to ask for or what we are supposed to ask for? Does the minister expect us to rely on reports in the media, which is how we got our initial information on Bill C-36?

I submit that the minister, by creating directives which he then claims MPs have an obligation to be in compliance with and by not providing those directives to MPs, has caused a breach of parliamentary privilege in that he has created an obligation for specific performance by MPs and then prevented MPs from fulfilling that obligation.

I ask that this be remedied by requiring the Minister of Transport to table all ministerial directives issued to his department on airport security since September 11.

Anti-terrorism Act

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

Mr. Speaker, a short version of that is more money but when.

Certain provisions of Bill C-36 raised questions regarding the overextension of ministerial discretion. The bill allows the minister to authorize actions which could be subject to abuse. There are broad powers to limit public access and possibly civil rights.

Will the minister commit today to include not only a fixed sunset clause but also an oversight committee that we likely have in CSIS and the RCMP to avoid political interference and to avoid the possible undermining of political or police impartiality?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, would provide police officers with sweeping new powers that need to be properly understood in order to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected. This will mean the retraining of thousands of police officers across the country.

With many of these officers working for cities, municipalities and towns that are already cash-strapped due to federal downloading, will the solicitor general please tell us when he intends to announce the details of this retraining and how he intends to pay for it?

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

Yes, gangsterism. The bill defines terrorist activity by referring to conventions. About terrorism or terrorist activity it says that it is as an act committed for “a political, religious or ideological purpose”, which threatens the public and national security because it “is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to a person”, “to endanger a person's life”, “to cause substantial property damage”, and might “cause serious bodily harm” as a result of “serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system”.

This is just one part of the definition. I did not mention the ten conventions that make reference to certain definitions of what may constitute a terrorist activity.

Just the part of the definition that I mentioned deserves a closer look. More than ten or fifteen minutes are necessary before adopting this clause. Experts are required, and no one in this House has the expertise to really be able to say whether or not this is going too far.

There may be members who have some expertise, but it is tinted by the party line of their political formations, and that includes myself, so outside experts are required to take a hard look at these definitions and tell us if we are right to be concerned about a possible violation of certain freedoms.

We could discuss this issue for a long time. I could talk about such a bill for hours, but since time is always a consideration I will deal with the core of the issue.

Another point that raises concerns is the whole question of electronic surveillance. Under the criminal code it is possible to use electronic surveillance by obtaining a warrant if surveillance is carried out for a specific time period, but the person being monitored must subsequently be informed of the fact.

Now all of this has been turned upside down. The monitoring period has been extended. The minister now has direct input. It will all be very vague. The way it will really operate is unclear. We do not know what limits there will be.

When more powers are granted to the police, as is the case here, whether it be preventive arrests, arrests without a warrant, or the Attorney General of Canada suspending the Access to Information Act whenever he pleases if he believes that national security is threatened and there is no one to oversee what he is doing, no one to question the minister's decision, this is of concern to me.

The fact that this law would not be reviewed for three years is also cause for concern in my opinion.

Why does the minister, and this is the question I asked her yesterday in the House, not promise to have this law reviewed or make it possible to have this law reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights after one year?

With everything that is happening on the national and international scene, I am convinced that following its adoption Bill C-36 will be more or less widely applied throughout Canada, depending on the case.

Over the course of the year, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights could properly examine what has been done and determine if there has been any abuses. What we need to keep in mind is that we must prevent any abuse in applying exceptional legislation such as this.

As I have run out of time, I am prepared to answer any questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that parliament has before it, as we often say, an exceedingly important bill. I really think it is the most important bill the House of Commons will pass. This bill responds to an event that occurred on September 11 and to much more than that as well. The bill, the way it is drafted at the moment, goes perhaps a bit too far.

Let me explain. If there is one thing we must make sure of it is that the House does not improvise in passing the bill, not with a bill like this one. We must take time to examine every angle of the bill. As many people as possible and the experts must be consulted in order to produce a law that meets our objective of fighting terrorism effectively.

The attacks on New York and Washington must certainly not change anything in the way we live and do things in Canada, but neither, given that the laws are passed here, must anything be changed in Quebec's approach either. To succeed in getting us to change and alter our practices would be the supreme victory for the terrorists. They would know we are afraid and would change the way we live and deprive our fellow citizens of their freedoms in exchange for security on paper.

In our reactions and attitudes we must look primarily for balance between heightened security measures and the need to keep freedom in the central and vital space it occupies in our society. We must protect ourselves, but we must also be aware of the fact that liberty will always be fragile whatever we do and whatever legislation we may pass in this House so long as there are men and women prepared to die for a cause and through hatred. No legislation will be able to stop them.

We can, however, have legislation that will enable us to prevent attacks such as the those that have recently taken place. We can have a bill that will help us gather information on terrorists, on the people we really want to target with such a piece of legislation, but caution is required.

We must not have just any old law to stop such people. Legislation is needed, but not at the expense of our collective and individual rights and freedoms. Sacrificing our freedom would in fact be capitulation, because freedom is, more than anything else, what defines life in a democracy. The choices we will be making are not, therefore, only choices for security, they are choices for society. Such choices, informed choices, cannot be made overnight. A sense of balance must inform our analysis of Bill C-36.

At the present time, looked at as a whole I believe the bill's purpose is laudable. The bill as a whole will be applied in conjunction with other existing Canadian statutes. The criminal code will continue to apply, as will the anti-gang legislation. Hon. members will recall that Bill C-24, now in the other place awaiting royal assent, enables police officers to commit illegal acts.

With the anti-gang legislation and this bill, Bill C-36, which amends over 20 Canadian statutes and a series of regulations, the powers of the police force appear out of balance with the liberties we enjoy.

I know it is not mentioned in the bill, but at some point the police, thanks to the anti-gang legislation, will be able to commit illegal acts under the law and perhaps break it. This was certainly not the government's aim, but we must not lose sight of the fact that these two laws apply concurrently. Neither blocks the other.

By allowing a police officer to act illegally under Bill C-24, we cannot be sure he will not use this part of the act to do things that are illegal under Bill C-36. Yet he would be justified in doing so for purposes of national security. Is this just rhetoric on my part? I hope so.

I do not think it is rhetoric to say that because it is important to watch what is going on and to try to produce the best legislation. I think this is what the people of Canada and Quebec expect of us.

A look at the federal government's anti-terrorism plan and its objectives reveals four major objectives. There is no reason to oppose them. Perhaps the way it goes about achieving them in the legislation gives us the right, in a country like ours, to question them.

The first objective is to prevent terrorists from entering Canada and to protect Canadians against acts of terrorism. I have no problem with this objective. I would certainly not defend the terrorists or say that their rights were protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was saying on the subject of gangsterism and organized crime, that it is not true the charter exists to protect them. I say the same thing about terrorists. However, the rights and freedoms honest people enjoy at the moment must not be denied them.

The second objective involves providing the tools to identify terrorists, bring them to justice, sentence them and punish them. This needs no explanation and there is no doubt that we support this objective.

The third objective is to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being taken hostage by terrorists, which would have repercussions on the Canadian economy. That is obvious. Moreover, this is not the first time the Bloc Quebecois has questioned the work being done by customs officials on the borders of Canada and Quebec.

As far as money laundering is concerned, for at least five or six years now the Bloc Quebecois has been saying over and over that the borders between Canada and the United States are as full of holes as a sieve and that Canada enjoys the wonderful international reputation of being a country where money laundering is easy and where there may be the least monitoring of this.

I know that this is being corrected. I know that we have not been a voice crying out unheard in the wilderness for those five or six years. I know that the government has amended some laws in response to overtures by the Bloc Quebecois. I know that as far as Bill C-36 is concerned the criminal code is also being amended, with a far more specific objective: terrorist groups. This is a good thing.

I do not, however, think that the wake up call of the events of September 11 was necessary for this to happen. Actions could have been taken back when we started talking about the situation, back when we began to address the problem represented by Canadian customs and the Canada-U.S. border.

The final objective is to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and address the root causes of their hatred.

We can see that these are four praiseworthy objectives. On that basis one could not be opposed to a bill to implement provisions to attain those objectives.

However, the questions that arise have to do with the text we have before us. The bill is more than 170 pages in length and contains dozens, even hundreds, of amended sections and expanded definitions regarding the threat to national security among other things. There are increased powers conferred to some members of the cabinet. The Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of National Defence would all have increased powers when it comes to electronic surveillance, for example. They would be able to decide if an individual will be monitored. It is the minister who would be responsible for the final decision. Have they gone too far? That is a tough question.

Are we asking enough tough questions? I hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I emphasize the words human rights, will do just that in a calm manner with all the time it needs and that this bill will be carefully examined.

If Canada had pursued these four objectives by ratifying international treaties that it has already signed, by making them law, then in all probability I would not be standing here right now giving a 20 minute speech on this subject. In order to attain its four objectives, the government included two conventions in this bill.

The first one is the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. It freezes terrorists' assets by preventing the use of assets belonging to a person who is involved in terrorist activities and in preventing the provision of property and financial or other related services to terrorists. These measures enable a Federal Court judge to order the freezing or seizure of property used to support terrorist activities.

This is the convention that had been signed but never had force of law in Canada. This convention is included in Bill C-36.

In order to achieve the objectives I outlined earlier, there is no problem with this approach and I applaud the government on this. Indeed, the government should have done this before September 11. This was its responsibility. It failed when it came to implementing the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

Frankly, I imagine that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service knew before September 11 that there were people raising funds for terrorism in Canada. I certainly hope it knew. If it did not, I have my doubts about the effectiveness of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. If it did, why was it waiting to tell somebody? If it did pass the information along, why did the solicitor general or the Minister of Justice do nothing when a convention had been signed to that effect? There is a problem somewhere.

The other convention is the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings. This convention contains provisions on the targeting of places of public use, government facilities, infrastructure and transportation systems for attacks using explosives or other lethal devices, including chemical or biological agents.

Here again, I hope that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was on some sort of trail in Canada while groups were on Canadian soil and had certain similar objectives. It is perhaps not as clear as in the first convention, but I hope that CSIS, with the millions of dollars, close to a billion, which it regularly receives to manage its affairs, had a good idea of what was going on.

These two conventions are therefore implemented by Bill C-36. Once again we have no problem with this.

There is one point about which we have some legitimate concerns and I think that anyone interested in individual and collective rights and freedoms must share those concerns.

A large number of sections in the criminal code are amended and many new ones are added to deal with terrorism.

I invite hon. members to read the definition of terrorist activity; it is not a simple definition. It refers to ten conventions that Canada signed and implemented over the years. It is a definition that makes reference to other sections, to international conventions, to a large number of possibilities.

Terrorism as such is not defined, just like the federal government refused to define the notion of criminal activity--

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Sarnia--Lambton gave us a pretty good explanation of this legislation. I enjoyed listening to his comments. I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-36, which will put the government's anti-terrorism plan into place.

Quite clearly the bill is aimed at terrorist organizations and it seeks to strengthen the investigation, prosecution and prevention of terrorist activities at home and abroad. The bill has two primary objectives: to stop terrorists from getting into Canada and to protect Canadians from terrorist acts.

Canada has been fortunate to have a very peaceful history, unlike our neighbour to the south. September 11 is one more horrible example of that, but it has probably made Canadians question if we will continue to have a peaceful history without threat. We know now that Canada is in a position of being threatened. Our safety and security as a nation and as individual citizens of this nation have been threatened. It is important that the bill be in place to help protect Canadians from any possible terrorist acts.

The bill brings forward the tools necessary to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. As my colleague from Sarnia--Lambton noted, the bill seeks to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage or under threat by terrorists, which would have a very deleterious effect on the Canadian economy.

Since I have been working with the Minister for International Trade, this brings home much more clearly the importance of the Canadian--American border in our trading relationship. We see that nowhere more clearly than in southwestern Ontario.

In my home community of London, Ontario, people regularly cross the American border either at Sarnia Port Huron or Windsor-Detroit. It is as simple as going to see a ball game or a hockey game and returning that same evening. Thousands of people cross the border daily to go to work. There is also an enormous amount of trade across those two border points.

We need to reflect on the fact that the twoway trade between Canada and the United States now stands at $1.4 billion every day of the year. We need to reflect on the fact that there are some 250 million crossings at the border by individuals, be it for recreational purpose or work.

It is very important the legislation be in place to restore the confidence that has been somewhat shaken in Canadians and Americans. They want to continue to live in a society that has been free and open. The openness of our border is a good example of that.

Therefore it is very important that all these steps be taken to re-establish the confidence that we normally have had between our two countries, where individuals can travel and move safely across the borders and where business can continue in an unhindered way. The statistics I just mentioned show the enormity of this two way trade. Something like 87% of our exports go to the United States.

The bill creates a situation whereby Canada will be working with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and to address the root causes of such hatred. In that regard I want to put forward a suggestion for the minister's consideration and I intend to take this up with her individually.

This suggestion comes from leaders in my own community, particularly Muslim leaders in London, Ontario, who consistently condemn the terrorist attacks of September 11. They have proposed the idea that perhaps Canada is an ideal country to host an international forum on terrorism. Perhaps we are the perfect country to say that we should, as an international community, gather and discuss the terrorist threat and discuss very basic questions like who is a terrorist and what is the proper definition of a terrorist. There have been some very famous people in history who have been considered terrorists. Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist in his own country and he went on to lead his nation. He is obviously one of the outstanding individuals in history in recent times. This suggestion has some merit. Perhaps Canada would be well advised to take a lead in looking at the whole issue of terrorism and working with our international partners. I am happy to put that suggestion on the record and I will pursue it individually with the appropriate persons.

The proposed anti-terrorism act includes measures to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. These include: defining and designating terrorist groups and activities to make it easier to prosecute terrorists and those who support them; making it an offence to knowingly participate in or contribute to or facilitate the activities of terrorist groups or to instruct anyone in how to do any of those activities; making it an offence to knowingly harbour a terrorist; creating tougher sentences and parole provisions for terrorist offences; cutting off the financial support of terrorist groups; making it an offence to knowingly collect funds for or contribute funds to any such group. It would also ratify the two UN anti-terrorism conventions, the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism and the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings, as well as the safety of United Nations and associated personnel convention.

I believe Canadians overwhelmingly support the legislation and the need for it. Some valid concerns have been raised. Certainly they have been raised with me, about the fact that we do not slip in a draconian series of measures that would somehow infringe unnecessarily on our rights as individuals. I think the bill strikes the proper balance between the need to fight terrorism and the need to protect of our civil liberties.

The bill has several safeguards which I will mention briefly. There will be a parliamentary review of the anti-terrorism legislation in three years. As the Prime Minister noted in his speech last night, the minister is committed to requesting and supporting such a review sooner if it is deemed to be warranted.

Clearly defining provisions so that they are targeted at terrorists and terrorist groups would allow obviously legitimate political activism and protest which are so much a part of our democracy and which we witness every day outside on the steps and the lawns of parliament. I am very proud as a Canadian that I see those groups. I do not see them as a nuisance. They are here demonstrating peacefully about causes that are important to them. They cover everything from an individual priest here day after day expressing his strong pro-life views to groups like the Falun Gong. They have been out there recently demonstrating about activities they feel are discriminating against them in China.

It is very important that we have this balance and that the safeguards are there. They are important and good safeguards. The burden of proof, the onus, is on the state, as it should be. In other words an individual would still be innocent until proven guilty even if he or she is accused of a terrorist activity. That is fundamental to our democracy.

There are other safeguards built into the legislation that I do not have time to enumerate right now. Suffice it to say that I think the bill is very important.

I know that my constituents overwhelmingly support the bill. My constituents have some concerns about not having this legislation go too far. The bill addresses those concerns very well and I am pleased to support it.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for London--Fanshawe.

I am pleased to speak about our national response, as embodied in the bill, to the events of September 11. In particular I want to talk about parts 1 through 5 as presented in Bill C-36 because I think Canadians expected, wanted and are supporting a toughening, a codification or a creation of a number of new offences that come as a result of a closer examination of terrorist activity in the world. The world is becoming a much more sophisticated place and the means of creating terrorism and chaos in our society, as we have seen, is happening in new and previously unimagined ways.

From that perspective I think Canadians would support us on parts 1 to 5 and at the same time would expect us to move in tandem with other countries, particularly the G-8 and under the banner of the United Nations, which collectively are moving to eradicate those who would create chaos and who in fact are terrorists.

I would refer to four objectives of the bill, particularly in parts 1 through 5, the criminal provisions of the bill. Those objectives include stopping terrorists from getting into Canada and protecting Canadians from terrorist acts. One is a corollary of the other. Of course to do that police and other security forces need the tools to identify, to prosecute and above all to punish those who would commit these acts.

The third objective would be to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists and impacting on the Canadian economy. As someone who represents a border community, I can say that what occurred on September 11 has had a very direct impact, and not only on our regional, provincial and national economies, but it has had a very tangible result in terms of lines at the border in both directions, outbound and inbound.

Of course the fourth objective is to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and, most important, to address the root causes of such hatred and venom as expressed by these people.

I think there is great support from the Canadian public for the bill, which would define and designate the terrorist groups and their activities. We would make it an offence to knowingly participate or facilitate the activities of terrorist groups. We would make it an offence to knowingly harbour or hide terrorists. We would create tougher sentences for terrorist offences and tougher parole provisions for terrorists.

Cutting off financial support and making that a criminal offence is a very important part of this. Of course as I said at the outset, moving in tandem with other UN signatories to certain provisions and conventions is very important. It is very important that it not be a unilateral action on the part of Canada but in fact a collective action of many countries.

Once again I will say that I think the public knows and expects that we have to make it easier in certain very specific conditions for authorities, those being police forces, the local forces or RCMP or CSIS or whatever, to collect the kind of evidence that is necessary. It is necessary to have electronic surveillance. It is necessary in certain very limited cases to compel disclosure of information that may be held by people. It is also necessary to amend the Canada Evidence Act so that we can collect information and not disclose it in a public forum that would be detrimental to the country.

Canadians are fully supportive of all of those provisions. I also think the bill contains an excellent provision, the three year review provision, because we are caught in the middle of a whole series of events which assume a particular state of mind both nationally and internationally. We do not know the nature, the extent or the duration of this matter, so we have enacted laws which are fitting and proper under the current circumstances. At the same time the three year review allows us to consider the effect of these laws and the conditions in three years' time so that we may determine then whether these laws are enough, too much or not enough. It is very important that laws be considered in a timeframe, both current and short term, but not entrenched forever. In that respect I know that Canadians are quite supportive of this, that they expect it and support it.

What I would now like to talk about is what is referred to as part 6 of the bill because we have heard a great deal of talk about balancing rights, a lot of talk about the charter and a lot of talk about rules of natural justice. I want to point out that part 6 is not about criminal law but civil law. It is about, in this international year of the volunteer, those people who have another element to them, that is, they wish to help others, whether in this country or in other countries. It is about the provision of charitable acts by people in this country to those both in and out of this country. Let us be clear about part 6. It is not about criminal law. It is about civil law and it is about charities.

We have heard a great deal of talk about the rules of natural justice, one of which is this one: Who is my accuser, who is making an accusation against me, what is being said specifically against me and do I have the right to question and to meet that person making the accusation? I point out to members present that part 6 was before the House prior to the summer recess. At that time it was called Bill C-16. It was referred to a committee of the House after first reading. I would point out, far be it from me to say, that it was widely rejected by that committee. It was not a question of one party rejecting it. It was a question of everyone on that committee being disturbed by it.

Some excellent points were made before that committee in terms of what part 6 is about, so as the bill proceeds from the House to the justice committee I would invite the committee to revisit what was said about part 6. All Canadians will support parts 1 to 5, but I think part 6 has some disturbing elements, the principal point being that when one examines that provision one sees that nobody would know who is making the accusation, what specifically is being said or in fact who is saying it. It would be fed through the sieve called CSIS, which would then provide a summary of perhaps what was said, or more properly, of what the allegations were, but little or no detail.

This would have dire consequences for those people in this country with a long tradition of helping others, and this is international year of the volunteer. Part 6 does not meet that fundamental rule of the rules of natural justice, that is, who is making the accusation, what is being said and do I have the right to meet that person and question them?

Finally, I would also point out that part 6 of this law imposes an absolute liability on a charity.

It has nothing to do with anyone's intention. One can imagine some very innocent occurrences where people believe they are doing the right thing when in fact, through misfortune or lack of attention, the money is diverted to somebody who has less than honourable intentions quite innocently by those paying it. Effectively, the result under part 6 would be the end of that charitable cause. That is unfortunate.

When the bill goes to committee, I would ask that the members pay very close attention to part 6 and all the provisions thereof.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for splitting his time. It makes it possible for me to speak earlier in the day rather than later.

I think the government is taking the right step by moving in the direction of introducing Bill C-36. However, as my colleague asked so clearly, why did it take so long? I also recognize that the bill was probably put together very quickly on very short notice. Apparently people seemed to think there was no need to do anything like this.

Now we have legislation that is omnibus in nature and covers a variety of other acts that are to be amended by this bill. Perhaps some of the safeguards that need to be included in the bill have not been thought of or have not been adequately dealt with. I will focus on a couple of them.

I refer to a particular phrase that the hon. minister stated in her address to the House earlier this day. It had to do with dealing with the root causes of hatred. Perhaps the issue here is not so much hatred as it is fear.

What happens in terrorist operations is that terrorists use fear as their weapon. It is one thing to destroy property or to destroy human lives, but hatred is a motivator, as I think we all know and have experienced. It gets the adrenaline flowing.

In the game of hockey adrenaline can really run high. People do not really hate the opposition, but by golly they sure get boiled up every once in a while and sometimes perhaps there is an element of that. When a player can strike fear into and intimidate the opposite team member, the team member will avoid the other player. Damage does not have to be done because the fear is debilitating.

What is happening in our country right now is that we are not acting as perhaps we ought to do. The threat of terrorists is to intimidate to the point where it incapacitates the individual. That is a much more subtle effect than simply destroying someone, because it affects everyone.

It is one thing to take down two towers in the centre of New York City. It had a terrible effect. We feel very sympathetic to the families involved. However it is affecting all of us. It is affecting our celebrations.

On Saturday I was at a wedding ceremony where candles had been ordered to be part of the table setting. They were delayed and got there an hour before the reception was to take place. Why? They had been ordered six months ago. They had been held up because of the September 11 events in New York City.

Every one of us is affected. It does not bother some a great deal, but others are fearful. There are people, for example, today who refuse to get on an airline because of the fear of what will happen to them and whether it is safe to travel. That is the fear I am talking about. That is the effect it has on our economy. I suggest we really look at the effectiveness of terrorist acts at striking fear into the hearts of individuals, rendering them almost incapacitated.

I will move on to another point. The definition of a terrorist act causes me some concern. I do not think I have time to read everything, but I will refer to the overall section referring to an act that is committed:

--in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government, or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada...and that is intended...to cause death...and that is intended to cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that does not involve an activity that is intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of the clauses.

The hon. minister took great pains this morning to emphasize this, so I would like to ask the members as well as the committee members who will meet to discuss the bill to consider the example of what happened in Vancouver when the transit system was incapacitated by a strike for more than six months. It was not the express intention of the union or the group of people that brought about the strike to cause severe difficulty, but the strike did so and it was not unknown that it did.

If the intention is the issue but the result is immaterial, I think that to separate them is perhaps misleading. Not only must we intend to do something bad, but if we do something bad whether we intended to or not the act itself becomes a bad one. It is not that this is not what should be done in the act. The caveat here, what ought to be so strong, is that it does not mislead the public and allow certain freedoms to be exercised at the expense of others.

On the balance side of this position is the intrusion, if you will, by the power of the state through its police officers and other peace officers to, on the suspicion or belief that a terrorist act is about to be committed, charge and detain someone without particular evidence in place, to simply put someone aside because it is believed that person will be doing something such as intimidating people or destroying property. In some cases it would be correct and I think the police should have that power, but there ought to be clear safeguards as to what kinds of things would support that belief that someone might engage in such activities.

There are some things in the bill that ought to be fixed. I do not want the minister to go away from this thinking we are totally opposed to the bill. We are not and I certainly am not, but we ought to be very careful about civil liberties and at the same time not open the door to certain other opportunities that might cause us other difficulties.

With the time I have left, I would like to make one more point with regard to the operation of CIDA. This morning a column in the National Post written by Diane Francis makes a very interesting case. She asks the question: Should CIDA, a taxpayer funded organization, support organizations like Minga, which is operating in Colombia?

It is not quite clear. I certainly do not know the details of what is going on there, but the implication of this column is that it is not clear whether Minga is aiding and abetting the operation or the function of three groups: the National Liberation Army, the Revolutionary Armed Force of Colombia or the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia.

If Minga is in fact doing that, then it actually is in collaboration with organizations that have been put on the list of terrorist organizations by the United States of America. If she is right we ought to take a very careful and serious look at it. I know the bill suggests that we should not fund any terrorist organizations and I am sure the Government of Canada would never think of doing that, but it could be that unless there is a clear and careful audit of how moneys like those from CIDA, for example, are spent and applied such moneys might find their way into organizations such as these.

I really would ask this question and I would ask the minister to ask the Minister of Finance and the minister in charge of CIDA to look at where the money is going, how it is being applied and whether it in fact finds its way indirectly to terrorist organizations.

With that, I would like to suggest that the committee look very carefully at this legislation and that we in parliament support the principle of the legislation, surely, but let us look at the details in such a way as to look after our civil liberties and deal with the real issues.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-36. As I mentioned in the House a number of weeks ago, this debate should have taken place months ago. Although we commend the government for bringing the legislation forward to parliament, we wonder why the government waited such a long time and why it took such an alarming wake up call to mobilize the government into bringing forth these necessary legislative initiatives to immediately ensure the security and safety of Canadians and of our nation, Canada.

On that note I quote an article appearing in yesterday's Toronto Star by James Travers. He said:

As the federal government begins to tear down walls protecting terrorists operating in Canada, it has some dirty little secrets of its own to hide. For years, the Prime Minister's cabinet has been receiving increasingly worrisome reports that this country is a prime and easy target...The evidence is overwhelming that the federal Liberals knew a lot and did very little. In confidential yearly cabinet briefings, in dozens of documents sent to specific government departments and even in some public statements, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) repeatedly warned that Canada, along with the U.S. is among the world's pre-eminent terrorist targets. Those threats were documented in CSIS reports that government sources say became noticeably more specific--and frightening--after 1996. Following a surge in refugees, the intelligence agency identified a lengthening list of organizations and 350 individuals active here...In fact, the federal government should have recognized the threat to this country as far back as June 23, 1985, when Air India Flight 182 was bombed killing 329 passengers and crew. Until the attacks on New York and Washington, that was the most deadly terrorist attack in modern Western history. Now the federal government is desperately trying to respond by bringing forward legislation and introducing security measures that for years have been relegated to the bottom of the agenda. It clearly hopes that the current flurry of activity will somehow mask years of inaction.

On September 18 during our supply day the Canadian Alliance called upon the Liberal government to bring forward anti-terrorist legislation. Within that legislation we asked that there be a provision for the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada.

At first glance it would appear that Bill C-36 falls short of that recommendation. Subclause 83.05(1) provides for the establishment of a list on which:

--the Governor in Council may place any entity if, on the recommendation of the Solicitor General, the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that (a) the entity has carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity; or (b) the entity is acting on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with an entity referred to in paragraph (a).

I do not see anywhere in the legislation authorization for the publication of that list unless I am missing something in the bill, although under subclause 83.05(7) there is authorization for the solicitor general to publish in The Canada Gazette notice of any person no longer a listed entity.

Publication of the names of those who are known terrorists or who have terrorist connections would effectively warn lending institutions and others not to do business with those individuals or groups.

I also point out the use of the word may as opposed to the word shall in subsection 83.05(1).

Without the word shall effectively there is no obligation for the establishment of a list. Bill C-36 provides discretionary power to the governor in council to set up a list. Furthermore, under clause 83.05 there is to be a review of the list two years after the establishment and every two years thereafter to listen and to determine whether there are still reasonable grounds for an entity to be listed.

Why is the government contemplating delisting a terrorist who, according to the definition carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorism activity? Why has the government suggested the absurd notion that criminal records should not follow a person through life?

In criminal law now we can have a pardon after a number of years. After perhaps five years a person can apply for a pardon, but a terrorist could be delisted after two years after carrying out such atrocious acts.

Bill C-36 makes participating in, facilitating, instructing and harbouring terrorist groups an indictable offence for which a person is liable to imprisonment for variable maximum terms.

Although I fully support and commend the government for finally proscribing these activities, as it is obligated to do under the UN convention, I would hope it is receptive to amending this section of Bill C-36 to provide for minimum sentences.

Without a prescribed minimum sentence a person arrested and convicted for knowingly facilitating a terrorist activity could receive a conditional sentence. Clearly the magnitude of any and all forms of terrorist activity warrants a stiff period of incarceration.

With regard to sentencing I would also hope the government is willing to amend clause 83.26 of Bill C-36 to allow for consecutive life sentences. It is absolutely abhorrent to think that a person convicted of a terrorist act in which there were multiple deaths is eligible for parole after 15 years because the Liberal government has repeatedly failed to eliminate section 745 of the criminal code which unjustifiably grants killers a chance at early release.

Again at first glance there appear to be no provisions within Bill C-36 allowing for the deportation of alien terrorists. The United States anti-terrorist legislation, which I would like to point out was introduced within eight days of the September 11 attack on America, makes membership in terrorist organizations reason for exclusion from that country. Furthermore, it permits the deportation of aliens if sentenced to more than five years in prison. I would highly recommend that the Canadian government follow suit. In the next couple of weeks as Bill C-36 is moved through committee and as we take a look at it in greater depth, I am sure other omissions will become apparent.

Before closing, I encourage the Minister of Justice to stand firm in her resolve to balance the rights of Canadians with their security. I know in the next week the Canadian Bar Association and others may challenge Bill C-36 as going too far and unnecessarily restricting civil liberties. However, the time has come when we must determine whether or not the right of many to be safe and secure justifies an infringement of some basic individual rights and freedoms.

A poll conducted between October 2 and 4 by the Globe and Mail , CTV and Ipsos-Reid revealed that 80% of those surveyed were willing to surrender some freedom in exchange for tighter security. A high percentage of respondents would support submitting themselves to providing fingerprints for a national identity card which they would be required to carry at all times and show on request to police or security officials. Fewer, but still a majority, would support letting police stop them at random and search their vehicles without reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence.

Far too often the courts are making new laws in their rulings. Judges are substituting their judgments over the elected representatives of the people and of parliament. According to university Professor Jane Hiebert:

Since the Charter's introduction the judiciary has passed judgment on the constitutionality of a breathtakingly broad range of political and social issues from the testing of cruise missiles in Canadian airspace to euthanasia...Effectively, the Charter offers a convenient refuge for politicians to avoid or delay difficult political and moral decisions. Elected representatives can insulate themselves from criticism, and political parties can avoid risking party cohesion by ignoring controversial issues--

I urge the minister not to abdicate her responsibility by clearly articulating within this legislation the intent of parliament to effectively balance liberty against greater security. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kelowna.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the government's anti-terrorism plan as outlined in Bill C-36, the new anti-terrorism act. The main purpose of the bill is to give us better tools to address and better protect ourselves from terrorism.

As the Minister of Justice noted this morning in the House of Commons, the new legislation contains the following measures: first, measures to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists; second, measures to provide new investigative tools to allow enforcement in national security agencies to better undertake their work; and third, measures to ensure that Canadian values of respect and fairness are preserved and the root causes of hatred are addressed through stronger laws against hate crimes and propaganda. It is these last measures I wish to address today.

Since the apocalyptic events of September 11 the Government of Canada has been firm in its resolve to stand by the values of tolerance, respect and equality. I would like to take this opportunity to remind members of what the Prime Minister said in the House on September 17. He said “Today more than ever we must affirm the fundamental values of every race, every colour, every religion and every ethnic origin”. The Prime Minister also noted on that day that we will not give into temptation in a rush to increase security, to undermine the values that we cherish and which have made Canada a beacon of hope, freedom and tolerance to the world.

It is important to remember that our plan to fight the rise of terrorism in the world must include action to fight against the rise of intolerance in our midst. Expressions of hate have no place in Canadian society. They undermine the very fundamental values of respect, equality and security and cause damage to a multicultural, tolerant and law-abiding society.

Last night the Prime Minister reminded us once again that Canada is a land of immigrants, a place where people from almost every nation and faith on earth have come to find freedom, respect, harmony and a brighter future. Therefore as part of its anti-terrorism act the Government of Canada is proposing changes that address the root causes of hatred, reaffirm Canadian values and ensure that Canada's renowned respect for justice and diversity is reinforced.

These measures would include the following: first, amendments to the criminal code that would allow the courts to order the deletion of publicly available hate propaganda from computer systems; second, amendments to the criminal code which would create a new offence of mischief motivated by bias, prejudice or hate committed against a place of religious worship or associated religious property; and third, amendments to be made to the Canadian Human Rights Act to extend the prohibition against hate messages beyond telephone messages to include all communications technologies. I will continue to elaborate on these measures.

It is important to remember that Canada, along with other like-minded countries, has embarked upon a war against terrorists and terrorism. Unfortunately, because recent acts of terrorism are associated with people of a certain faith, some regrettably and wrongfully view it as a religious war. Osama bin Laden himself, in his pre-taped message the day after the United States attacks, actually called upon the Muslim world. He is the one who is inciting that hatred. More unfortunately, here in Canada some Canadians of Muslim faith have been made the targets of the anger Canadians are feeling against those whom they feel are responsible.

At the same time as we take measures to protect ourselves from terrorist activities, we want to ensure that Canadians of any origin do not become a target for hatred. We want to make sure that everyone in the country in all circumstances will continue to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this context the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by section 2(a) of the charter takes on particular importance. The criminal code already protects any group distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin from statements of hatred directed against them.

In fact, it is an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes when an offence is motivated by hatred. The Canadian Human Rights Act already protects any person from repeat communications by means of telecommunications of any matter that is likely to expose that person to hatred or contempt by reason of this person being identified on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

I previously noted that the bill includes additional measures to better protect from hatred those who have become vulnerable because they belong to a group distinguished by factors such as race, religion or ethnic origin. The bill would create the offence of mischief motivated by hatred in relation to places of religious worship or objects associated with religious worship found in such a place.

The harm done by a mischief against a religious property goes far beyond the physical damage to the property. The greatest harm comes from the message of hatred that is conveyed by the mischief. Such mischief would create fear among worshippers of a specific religion and divert them from the practise of their religion. It is because we recognize these far reaching implications that we want to create an offence of mischief that is related to the purpose of the property damage, regardless of the value of that property.

The offence of mischief in relation to religious property would be a very serious offence. It would be subject to a maximum penalty of 10 years when prosecuted on indictment or 18 months when prosecuted on summary conviction.

In addition, the government is proposing two provisions that respond to the fact that the Internet is now an easily available and efficient means of communication of hatred. The Canadian Human Rights Act would be amended to clarify that communicating by computer hate messages against a person identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination is a discriminatory practice. In addition to any other penalty, persons found responsible for these messages could be required to cease and desist from this practice.

The criminal code would be amended to authorize the court to order deletion of publicly available online hate propaganda when it is stored on a server that is within the jurisdiction of the court. This procedure is independent from prosecution. It would allow the material to be deleted in cases where the person who posted it is unknown or is outside the country. The person who posted the material would be given an opportunity to be heard before the judge would decide to order deletion of the material.

The criminal code already provides for the seizure and forfeiture of copies held for sale or distribution of any publication found by the court to be hate propaganda. This procedure would parallel in the cyberworld a procedure that is available in the material world.

Protecting minorities from discrimination and hatred is a value that is well established in Canadian law. For more than 30 years the criminal code has protected from hatred identifiable groups, which are defined as any group distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. The communication of statements in a public place inciting hatred against an identifiable group is an offence when it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The communication of statements other than in private conversations that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group is also an offence. Advocating or promoting genocide, whether in public or in private, is an offence.

More recently we have made it an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes when there is evidence that the commission of an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on factors such as race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour or religion.

For almost 20 years the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has protected our fundamental liberties and provided for equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on factors including race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religion.

The Canadian Human Rights Act, which applies to the private sector under federal jurisdiction, prohibits discrimination based on factors that include race, national or ethnic origin or religion.

Finally, it is important that we have the legislative means to defend ourselves against terrorists, but it is also equally important that we do that without discriminating against Canadians of minority religion or ethnic origin.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to this debate on Bill C-36. This is a very important bill.

I would indicate at the outset that members of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition are generally supportive of this legislation and enthusiastically supportive of the need to bring about changes in our internal security measures and the way in which we deal with terrorism in this country.

I begin my remarks by saying that this debate has taken a very constructive tone. It has been representative of the recognition by all members of the House of the desire on the part of Canadians to plug some of the legislative gaps that exist to address the issue of terrorism head on. I think in fairness that this legislation is an attempt to do just that.

Ideally in every sense we would like to see laser guided precision when we deal with issues such as this, of public security. I hope that my remarks will be indicative of a genuine desire to improve and buttress this legislation in some way.

It is encouraging to see that the government has taken decisive action. Following September 11 there was a public need, a very anxious nervousness that direction and leadership be displayed by the government. After one month this legislation is here. In fairness I believe that it is a good bill. It is a bill that attempts in a broad way in an omnibus form to address some of the holes that are there and which have been exploited by international terrorists.

There are some shortcomings. There is room for improvement. In particular this legislation needs to be given greater detail. The legislation needs to be put under the microscope and the lamp not only by members of parliament but by those who will be affected. As the minister herself indicated in her remarks, this is not the be all and the end all. There is going to be a need for further legislative changes in the areas of immigration, border security, economics and trade and customs and excise. All of these areas have been affected in a profound way by this horrific event which was the pinnacle, in our generation, of aggression brought to bear in North America. It is a time for measured and introspective action but action nonetheless.

Elements of this legislation that will improve upon our internal security measures include the announcement that police will be able to carry out preventive arrests, that is, arrests of individuals without charge under strong suspicion of activity related to terrorism. There is a subtle but important change in that bar, that standard that is to be applied by CSIS agents which is now afforded to the RCMP. That is to say they can arrest on reasonable suspicion as opposed to reasonable grounds. It is of such importance when dealing with terrorism that police should be afforded that standard.

I would argue there is more that can be done. The issue of preventative arrest is something that is going to cause a lot of jitters and nervousness among the communities. There are safeguards in place which we are quick to acknowledge. The individuals brought to justice must appear before a judge within 24 hours. They can be detained a further 48 hours, bringing it to a total of 72 hours in custody. Yet they must have this appearance before a judge and there must be reasons given. During that time in custody it is good to see it enunciated that they will be able to afford themselves charter rights, that is, right to counsel, right to disclosure, reasons for being held in custody. All of those traditional rights will still apply and those safeguards should apply.

This type of pre-emptive strike on the part of police officers is a response to the seriousness and the grave implications that can flow from terrorist activity.

The use and implementation of investigative hearings is an important step that we find in Bill C-36. The police can take a person into custody and deduce information and question a person with respect to terrorist activity. The person appears before a judge and is required to answer questions. The individual cannot be forced to incriminate himself or herself but may be forced at least to respond to questions about his or her activities.

How compromised would their individual rights be? That remains to be seen. The return to a power that used to exist in Canada and still exists in the United States, for example the process of grand juries, would be an interesting experiment but one upon which we must embark in our efforts to deal with terrorism.

Increasing the powers of the Communications Security Establishment is an important step. Currently the CSE is only allowed to monitor communications outside Canada. Under this legislation CSE would require only the authorization of the Minister of Justice before monitoring discussions between a foreigner and someone in Canada.

With regard to monitoring, Bill C-36 would allow police to obtain one year surveillance warrants for suspected terrorists. While benchmarks and criteria would need to be met, police would have an increased and expanded ability to monitor and conduct surveillance on communications that relate to terrorist activity.

Currently police can perform this type of surveillance for only 60 days. The efforts of the bill to expand that ability are important. It also makes an effort to streamline and expedite the ability to get warrants and wiretaps. The current process is extremely onerous and is an impediment to the ability of police to monitor criminal activity. There is a need to expand this in the general context of police work.

I would have liked the bill to set out a clear definition of terrorism as we have seen in the United Kingdom, however, I commend the government for including a definition of terrorist activity. This was taken from many sources.

I am told there are 190 definitions of terrorism in legislation around the world. Bill C-36 defines terrorist activity as action taken for a political, religious or ideological purpose that threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing property damage likely to injure people, or disrupting an essential service or facility.

The definition does not state that terrorist activity does not involve lawful activity such as protests and strikes. There is therefore concern, as has been mentioned by my colleague from Winnipeg--Transcona and others in the debate, that legitimate political protest might fall under a rather broad umbrella.

Bill C-36 is defined in such a way that judges applying common sense criteria would not find that legitimate forms of protest or activities deemed counter to the government would fall under this ambit. However, even before this legislation came into being there was a politicized element to protests such as those we witnessed in Quebec City.

When students in bandanas and ripped jeans who carry signs are cracked down on by police in a violent and forceful way it causes concern, almost paranoia, in the minds of many. We must be cognizant of that. We must also be cognizant, as was mentioned by the Alliance critic, of the political interference or politicization of RCMP and security measures. We know that the Prime Minister's surrogate son, Jean Carle, involved himself far too heavily in police activity in Vancouver.

That was a serious concern. It was examined by a judge, Judge Hughes, who came out with strong recommendations and repudiations regarding the RCMP. We cannot ignore such politicization. As was suggested, it calls for a greater firewall between the solicitor general and the commissioner of the RCMP to prevent the guiding hand of the PMO from playing a role in the way security is carried out. Governments sometimes have a vested interest in suppressing that type of activity, as we have seen at the APEC inquiry.

I would support a list of terrorist organizations and individuals being put together on the recommendation of the solicitor general and an order in council. This would be a legitimate attempt to identify those who have participated in fundraising or any activity that could be connected to terrorism.

Having a list available to be shared among security services would be an important step toward controlling and, it is hoped, preventing action on the part of those enumerated. It would allow for legislative tracking. It would allow for cross-references with various organizations including CSIS, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Interpol and other international partners in our security services attempts to curtail terrorist activities.

There would be safeguards. Groups that appear on the list could appeal. They could appeal to the solicitor general and the list would be reviewed every two years.

The more substantive measures in the bill entail changes to the criminal code and the creation of new offences. The criminal code offences would deal with instructing or soliciting support for a person to carry out a terrorist act. Maximum penalties of life imprisonment would be attached to such activity.

This is all being done against the backdrop of the horrific events that occurred in the United States on September 11 in various locations including New York City and Washington. With such life altering and life taking implications these criminal code offences take on a poignant meaning. Knowingly facilitating the activities of a terrorist group would be punishable by 14 years. Harbouring a terrorist would be punishable by 10 years. Fundraising for or participating in a terrorist group would be punishable by 10 years.

There will be heated debate over the practical implications of Bill C-36. Further definition of what it means to participate may be required. However let us keep it in the proper context. The legislation does not go as far as that of the United Kingdom where even passive support for a terrorist organization can result in criminal charges.

Bill C-36 would allow for and encourage the freezing and seizing of assets of terrorists and their supporters. That is a welcome and necessary step. As has been noted numerous times, assets are the lifeblood that keeps terrorist organizations alive.

We know they are here in Canada. CSIS has produced a list that clearly identifies 50 terrorist cells operating in the country and 350 individuals who are involved in the cells. They are here and they are active. Cutting off their lifeblood of financial assets and resources is one important step in eventually eliminating, curtailing and capturing those who engage in terrorism.

Introducing consecutive sentences is a welcome step but it does not address another shortcoming in the criminal code: the anomaly that allows mass murderers to avail themselves of early release. Through provisions of the criminal code they can avail themselves of statutory release. This is one of the ridiculous anomalies that exist in our criminal code.

Bill C-36 would change sentencing provisions to make terrorists ineligible for release until they have served half their sentences, but they could still avail themselves of early release provisions that exist under the National Parole Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There will be further discussion and examination of this at the committee.

Someone who exhibits such a blatant lack of respect for human life is unlikely to avail themselves of rehabilitation. For that reason I am encouraged by the harsh sentences outlined in Bill C-36. However the parole eligibility may lessen and blunt the instrument of justice in this regard. At the very least there must be a clear and unequivocal statement of denunciation when it comes to terrorist activity.

Some of the anticipated fallout or backlash against Bill C-36 from groups concerned about civil liberties is addressed in the substance of the bill. It calls for the strengthening of laws against hate crimes by punishing the destruction of churches or mosques with sentences of up to 10 years. It would also take steps to make it easier to remove hate propaganda from the Internet.

Concerns have been raised about this by Internet service providers, particularly smaller ones who make legitimate efforts to monitor their systems. In many instances service providers do not have the capability or resources to fully complete that task yet they are good corporate citizens. They are concerned that criminal liability will attach to them because they are providers or facilitators of the communication of hate propaganda.

Nonetheless I endorse the attempt to dissuade anyone from facilitating, aiding or abetting the distribution of hate propaganda. In this heated and extremely troubling time there has been a backlash against certain communities. It is encouraging that the legislation includes provisions to prevent people from lashing out at religious organizations and followers of the Muslim faith who are often the antithesis of those who engage in violence or terrorist activity.

The bill's amendments regarding the Official Secrets Act are meant to counter espionage by taking into account new computer technologies and the need to fight intelligence gathering activities by foreign powers and terrorist groups. This is a recognition that the means of communication have changed substantially. We need to update ourselves and use new methodologies to monitor new forms of communication. That is what Bill C-36 would allow the law enforcement community to do.

The bill would also amend the Canada Evidence Act to protect information obtained by foreign intelligence agencies when used in Canadian courts. It would amend the Firearms Act to allow air marshals, mainly from the United States, to fly into Canada. These amendments are a clear common sense recognition that the world we live in has changed substantially and that we need to accommodate changes that have taken place in countries like the United States.

I encourage all members to support these provisions. Members of the coalition will be reviewing Bill C-36 at the committee level and supporting the majority of them. The bill's provisions would allow police, CSIS and others that provide security to develop a more effective methodology for combating terrorism.

My greatest concern, which has been expressed numerous times, is about the resource allocation that would be required to implement these changes. The bill's provisions for new powers of arrest, investigative techniques, investigative hearings and use of warrants would all require additional resources and training.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has referred to $250 million in new resources. When that is spread out over time and we allow for the bureaucratic assistance that goes with law enforcement, the actual impact on person power and frontline policing will be fairly minimal when one considers the task. We will be pressing the government for more specifics in that regard.

There are concerns about the bill's powers of arrest and detention. Those matters will be pressed at the committee level and further meat will be put on the bones with respect to details. If the legislation is enacted it will be up for review in three years. A sunset clause of greater duration may be necessary.

The Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative coalition will be supporting the legislation in its first instance while looking for improvements at the committee level and providing an indepth examination. I look forward to that process taking place, as do all Canadians, and the speedy passage of Bill C-36 into law.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to address Bill C-36 and to put on the record the concerns of the New Democratic Party.

I want to begin by saying a few words about the context in which we are having this debate. Obviously the context is set primarily by the events of September 11 and the need that follows from those events for Canada to consider whether or not its current legal regime is adequate to prevent terrorist activity here in Canada or prevent Canada from being used as a place where terrorist activity in other countries can be financed or in other ways supported.

This drive for new and better anti-terrorism legislation is driven by the legitimate concerns and the legitimate fear that have arisen out of September 11. It arises also out of the motion passed at the United Nations subsequent to September 11 which calls on all nations of the world to implement anti-terrorist legislation and to implement UN conventions with respect to the prevention of terrorism within 90 days. The government is moving to do that. That is a good thing and something which we welcome regardless of what particular concerns we might have about the legislation that is now before us. That is part of the context, i.e., September 11. However, we are not doing this in isolation. Unfortunately we also are considering this legislation in the context of the last few years here in Canada.

What I mean by that is the events that happened, for instance, at the APEC meeting and subsequently in Quebec City. They are on the minds of many people. The government might say that is an entirely different thing. The question is whether or not the bill is designed in such a way to make sure that the kind of protest activities that took place in Vancouver at the APEC meeting, in Windsor at the OAS meeting and in Quebec City at the FTAA meeting will be treated differently from the kind of activity which is addressed in this particular legislation. That is one of the concerns we bring to the table, because we know that it is a concern out there within a certain constituency in the Canadian public.

In the end, all of this is really a question of trust. It is really a question of not what the legislation says and not what the government says, but whether or not Canadians trust that the spirit and the letter of the law will be followed and not in some way or another abused. That is really what is at stake here. No amount of citing the relevant clauses of the bill and saying that something cannot happen will do. If people believe out of their own experience or from reading or learning about the experiences of others that either the government or the police have an inclination in some circumstances to abuse powers and to treat as unlawful that which is lawful, then they find themselves in a position of not being able to give the kind of approval they would otherwise probably like to give.

All Canadians feel there are things that need to be done, particularly in the parts of the bill that have to do with the ratification and implementation of the UN conventions. That is not something that anyone is taking any issue with at all. There are other things in the bill that are more problematic and which need to be further discussed, explored and explained in committee.

We need to hear from Canadians who have concerns about particular aspects of the bill. We want to have a good process in committee where time is taken to hear from these Canadians so they can put their concerns on the record and so that we might even be able to amend the legislation, if necessary, if that is the will of the committee.

I would like to deal with the issue of trust. The definition of a terrorist activity, not the one that comes out of the UN conventions but the one which the government has put into the bill, in section 83.01 states:

(b) an act or omission, in or outside of Canada,

(i) that is committed

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

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

(ii) that is intended

(A) to cause death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) to endanger a person's life,

(C) to cause a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

(D) to cause substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of the clauses (A) to (C) and (E), or

(E) to cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that does not involve an activity that is intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C).

These are the clauses having to do with death or serious bodily harm, endangering a person's life or causing a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public.

At first reading one might be tempted to think that pretty well covers it because the government has said that as long as it has to do with lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work and does not involve these other terrible things then everything is fine.

However, there are a couple of problems I would like to explore further in committee. I am not making a final judgment on the particular clause. For example, it does raise the question of what is lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work.

If it were clear as to what was lawful and what was not, then there would not be a problem. However there is such a thing as an unlawful stoppage of work or an illegal strike. The law is now able to deal with them, but it would be a legitimate concern that illegal stoppages of work might somehow fall under the ambit of this if other criteria were met. These are the kinds of things I hope to ask the minister and others about in committee.

What is lawful? Lawful sounds good but a lot of young people thought they were engaged in lawful protest in Quebec City way beyond the perimeter and not challenging the wall or engaging in any property damage or anything like that. They were just sitting around, talking to each other, when all of a sudden they were tear gassed, fired upon with rubber bullets and treated as if they were doing something unlawful.

This comes back to trust and I think it is regrettable. I would prefer that we were dealing with anti-terrorism legislation in a context of trust where all Canadians could feel they did not have a government that was careless about their civil liberties and right to lawful protest. Instead we are unfortunately not just dealing with the context of September 11, which should be the overriding concern, but the backdrop for this in the minds of a lot of Canadians is APEC and Quebec City.

One thing the government has to do is persuade those Canadians who have scepticism arising out of those experiences that this is entirely different and that this would not be used to harass legitimate protestors or get in the way of legitimate protests.

That brings me to the next concern that my party has which deals with the notion of preventive arrest. It is just a concern at this point. We know that in certain circumstances over the last few years certain people who were known to be participating in protests were all of a sudden charged with something, detained, and were not able to be at the protest. I will not mention any names but this is a known fact.

The minister said in her speech, and it is stated in the legislation, that the preventive arrest issue is not arrest without warrant forever and ever. The person would have to appear before a judge after 24 hours and could be detained for another 48 hours. It is only a judge who can order further detention and then only if the person is unwilling to meet the conditions laid down by the judge.

I understand all of that. That does not mean to say that in the wrong hands this could not be used as a way to harass people who were planning on attending certain events and suddenly find themselves the object of this provision.

I know the minister said the legislation is not intended for that sort of thing at all, and I hope it is not. I even believe that it is not in the minister's mind. I am trying to convey the spirit of scepticism that exists among a great many people arising out of the experiences over the last few years. There would not be any more need to trump up charges against anybody because this provision in Bill C-36 could be used.

Another concern I have was raised by the member for Provencher. It deals with the use of the phrase anything damaging to “international relations” as a reason for non-disclosure when it pertains to information made available in the context of various investigations, hearings or determinations by the government.

The member for Provencher said that this was a very broad category. Almost anything could be construed as damaging international relations. We experienced this in the past when the government felt obliged to uncritically accept the views of other governments with respect to activity happening in Canada.

I remember controversies some years ago when the Sikh community in Canada found itself at odds with the government because it was taking the view of the government of India as the uncritical truth about what was happening there or the uncritical truth about what was happening within that community here.

As long as we have communities in Canada that are concerned about struggles and conflicts in other countries, there will inevitably be a divergence of opinion in many circumstances between what people here believe and what the government there believes. It does not mean that either of them are particularly malevolent in this respect. It is just a fact of life that there will be a divergence of opinion.

What this could possibly suggest is that for any disclosure of information that would be found unacceptable or unfriendly to a foreign government with which Canada wanted to maintain good relations, we could not disclose it in the context that the bill is describing. That is another concern which we will have to explore at committee because the views of other governments are not always pristine, balanced or objective, or certainly they may be different from views held in Canada either by a particular group of Canadians or by Canadians in general.

There has been much said about preserving the balance between liberty and security. We must not just respect Canadian values in this regard. We need to respect Canadian values as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government claims that it has done this. We will want to hear evidence about this in committee and perhaps debate among ourselves whether this bill meets that challenge.

In fairness to the government and to the charter, the charter has already had its effect on this legislation. My understanding is that the bill does not go as far as the British anti-terrorism legislation. This is because we have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Britain does not. That may well be the reason for the difference. For example, intellectual support for terrorist groups or causes associated with terrorism, or even membership in certain organizations, is not proscribed by in Bill C-36.

The charter has already done its work in changing what might otherwise have been brought before us by the government. It is still legitimate to ask whether or not what we have before us is not so much charter proof but whether it corresponds to what the charter demands of us.

I suggest to the government that it consider whether or not the bill should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada at the same time as it is being debated and studied in the House of Commons and pre-studied in the Senate. As we know, the Senate will begin to study the bill at the same time as the House is seized of it, which is an unusual procedure, but it is being done so that the bill can be passed expeditiously.

Why would the government not consider referring the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada for an urgent judgment, not at its leisure but within the same framework of time as the House is dealing with the bill? If the House can deal with it and the Senate can deal with it, surely the supreme court could deal with it. Then we would not need this debate about whether or not the legislation meets the requirements of the charter.

Another matter I would like to raise and which I hope we will be able to consider in committee has to do with the whole question of whether or not certain aspects of the bill should be sunsetted. The bill provides for a parliamentary review after three years.

We live in extraordinary circumstances. It might be advisable to consider that what seems acceptable today to the government, to a majority of the House or perhaps to everyone ultimately, might not seem acceptable or necessary in a year or two.

Therefore, because I have seen these parliamentary reviews before and they tend not to mean very much, there might be some need to consider looking at a sunset clause instead of having a parliamentary review.

Finally, we need to consider the whole matter of resources, because all of this will be for naught if we do not give the agencies charged with these responsibilities the resources they need. In that respect we have to redress the damage that has been done to the public sector in so many ways by the government ever since it took office in 1993.

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

Madam Speaker, as we all know we have been asking the minister to introduce legislation that will allow Canada to fulfill its international commitments in the fight against terrorism for some time now.

It is therefore understandable that since the events of September 11 we have been looking forward to this bill on terrorism. Now that we have it, the question is whether or not it lives up to our expectations.

First, we can only applaud the fact that the minister has finally introduced legislation that truly outlaws activities that finance terrorism. Whether it be for organized crime or terrorists, money is the lifeblood of war.

By starving an organization of its sources of financing, we greatly reduce its striking power. Furthermore, by adding seizure and freezing of assets, we can begin to take seriously the government's claim that it wants to wage war against terrorists.

Unfortunately, from part 6 on, the bill contains, word for word, Bill C-16, the bill on funding charitable organizations. What we thought we could call the late lamented Bill C-16, has risen from the tomb. Apart from a few cosmetic changes, it is to be found in Bill C-36 almost in its entirety.

On April 30 I summarized Bill C-16 in the following terms: suspicion, discretionary power, enigmatic proof, and lack of control. Six months later, I have no choice but to reiterate these same comments about part 6 of this bill on terrorism.

We do not deny that it is appropriate to protect the integrity of the charities registration system by preventing their use as a cover for terrorist organizations. What we dispute is the way the government wants to go about achieving its ends.

This spring we criticized the fact that it went against too many principles of justice for it to pass royal assent. To let this happen would constitute a dangerous precedent in terms of the violation of procedural guarantees. However, yesterday the minister slipped the same bill, give or take a comma, under our nose. Worse yet, the inquisitional procedure established by Bill C-16 now applies to a body that wants its name removed from the list of organizations involved in terrorist activities.

Now under the bill before us the governor in council will be able to establish by regulation a list containing the name of any entity that might be associated with terrorist activities.

What does that mean, exactly? In both cases, the entity and the charity appear before a judge who can reach a decision from evidence submitted in camera and without the party or parties being present.

In even clearer terms, let us suppose that a charity loses its charitable status following the signing of a certificate by the solicitor general or the Minister of National Revenue. The organization will be allowed to ask the judge to quash the certificate. However, it is possible that the judge will base his decision on information that the organization will never have access to.

The same goes for a group that wants to see its name struck from the list of organizations associated with terrorist activities. That group will have to go before a judge, who will determine whether or not to remove the group's name from the list. However, this could take place without the applicant ever knowing why his name first appeared on such a list.

By violating such fundamental and elementary rules of evidence as the disclosure of evidence, the government is ignoring the contradictory nature of our judicial system. All the more worrisome is the fact that the evidence adduced will be based on information provided primarily by CSIS. Knowing the practices used by CSIS and its difficulties in striking a fair balance between national security and rights and freedoms, this might be cause for concern.

With such provisions, we can legitimately ask two questions. Either the information is not circulating between ministers or else the government has simply decided to turn a deaf ear to the representations made by countless witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance when it reviewed Bill C-16, which at the time was sponsored by the solicitor general.

Since it is hard to imagine that the Minister of Justice was not informed of what went on during the proceedings of that committee, the only plausible assumption is the second one. Considering all that went on with the young offenders bill, could this be a habit with the minister?

In the same vein, during the first sitting of the Standing Committee on Finance, which took place on May 16, the solicitor general and the Minister of National Revenue tried to explain to us why Bill C-16 did not include the definition of the term terrorist. The solicitor general said, and I quote:

If you are aware, the courts have indicated that it is not necessary to define terrorism.

He went on to say:

When you evaluate around the world to find an exact definition for terrorism, it is about impossible.

As for the Minister of National Revenue, he specified the following:

Merely coming up with a definition or defining parameters would basically, at the end of the line, end up taking away tools or options that we would like to have in this bill.

Yet, to cite just two examples, the U.K. terrorism act and the French penal code have successfully done what these two ministers felt was impossible at the time they were defending Bill C-16 before the committee. The British legislation reads as follows:

In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where:

The use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and,

The use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

As for the French penal code, terrorism is defined as follows:

Certain criminal offences are considered terrorism when the acts are intentionally linked to an individual or group whose purpose is to cause a serious disruption of public order through intimidation or terror.

This is followed by a list of the criminal offences considered acts of terrorism. I will spare members that, however. We can see that there has been a sort of attempt in Bill C-36 to define the terms terrorist activity, terrorist group and terrorism offence.

Considering that the term was virtually undefinable, according to the two ministers, one might well think that the Minister of Justice has done nothing to simplify things. Bill C-36, instead of providing a definition along the French or British lines that states right off what is involved forces us to constantly jump from one reference to another, and we have almost forgotten what we were looking for by the time we get to the end of the chain of searches. Fortunately the basic content is there, but the form needs more work. In actual fact, there is no definition of terrorism, just definitions for act, action or omission.

In addition, as we have been seeing for some time now, law enforcement officials are demanding a considerable increase in their powers, but must the powers of the various government bodies responsible for security be increased in order to mount an effective campaign against terrorism? Well might one wonder. In the October 6 issue of La Presse , journalist Yves Boisvert wrote:

Nothing useful will be accomplished without effective information services and an intelligent police community.

What constitutes an effective information service? One thing is certain, that is, it is certainly not by keeping tabs on groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the Anglican Church, the United Church and the Raging Grannies that we are going to dismantle a major terrorist network. Yet considering that some fifty or so organizations and approximately 350 individuals are already being watched closely by CSIS as part of its anti-terrorist program, there is no lack of genuine terrorist threats. We may therefore conclude that if the resources and energies were concentrated in the right place, part of the problem would resolve itself.

Furthermore, in order to be intelligent, must the police be authorized to commit criminal offences as provided for in the organized crime legislation? By placing above the law those who are supposed to enforce it, such measures can only succeed in institutionalizing crime within law enforcement agencies.

Must we also bend the rules of evidence in order to compensate for deficiencies or errors in a case before the courts? Since a police investigation can have a tremendous impact on an accused, the work of law enforcement officers must be guided by rules imposing maximum rigour.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the primary mission of police officials is to protect public safety. This is not some contest to make a maximum number of arrests leading to charges, particularly if these charges are the result of bungled investigations. Not only will the public not be better protected, but in fact it will be even more vulnerable to possible abuses of authority. This would be to replace one threat with another. If such guiding rules are limited, there is a good chance that corners will be cut.

Bill C-24 opened a door that will be very difficult to close and its long term impact could be catastrophic. By allowing a peace officer to detain a person following an arrest without a warrant, Bill C-36 just opens another door. If there are sceptics, just think of what happened during the October crisis with the War Measures Act: there were hundreds of arbitrary arrests and heavy handed searches without warrants, undoubtedly the worst case of abuse of power ever known in Quebec.

It is fine to introduce anti-terrorism legislation, but let us not forget that this is merely a legislative tool that cannot be effective in and of itself. The best legislation in the world is useless if there are not competent people with a good head to implement it and ensure compliance with it. This includes police authorities, intelligence services and customs officers.

In the case of customs officers, there is still a lot of work to do to change their approach, which remains much more focused on alcohol and cigarette purchases. I made a quick trip to the United States after the September 11 events and when I came back to the Canadian border, the only reflex of the customs officer was to ask me what I had bought that day.

This speaks volumes about the concerns of those who normally should be the first line of defence of our national security.

On the issue of possible abuse, the minister is also grabbing relatively extraordinary powers, since her bill gives the attorney general the authority to unilaterally suspend in a totally arbitrary fashion the application of the Access to Information Act, through powers usually reserved for the commissioner.

Once again, this type of political interference is a cause for concern, particularly since the government has been severely criticized recently, both here and elsewhere, for its policy of silence.

If we look at the amendments to the Firearms Act, we see that the governor in council can exempt any category of non-residents from the provisions of this bill.

According to information received yesterday morning from departmental staff, the amendments to the Firearms Act would apply solely to air marshals responsible for ensuring on board security on international flights.

If this is the objective the minister had in mind, it would be worth her while to say so clearly in her bill. Given the circumstances behind the creation of Bill C-36 and the government's policy of being reactive rather than proactive, we understand that this bill was drafted hastily. We hope, therefore, that we can count on the minister's co-operation when the time comes to propose the necessary amendments to fill in the gaps.

Given the urgency of the situation, the government must not be allowed to use the crisis situation as a pretext for sneaking its bill through. At any rate, the damage is already done, and the situation could hardly be worse, considering the state of psychosis that reigns just about everywhere

If we are to equip ourselves with such a significant tool, such a restrictive and invasive one as an anti-terrorist bill, then we might as well take the time required to make sure we have the best legislative framework possible. The committee stage must not be glossed over. We are certain that many people will want to be heard and we cannot afford to not take advantage of the valuable contribution of their expertise.

There is one more point we feel it is important to raise. At present, the bill specifies that a thorough examination of its provisions and application must be carried out within three years of its enactment. At this point, we feel it would be wise to reduce that three year deadline to one year.

Considering the fact that these are exceptional circumstances and that we are presently debating measures that are equally exceptional, we cannot afford to wait three years before reassessing this legislative framework that is taking us into uncharted territory. We must prevent any opportunities for mistakes and a shorter review period is the best way to make adjustments if the circumstances so require.

To close, as the Prime Minister so wisely stated, we must be vigilant and prudent in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

When it comes to mistakes of the past, we have no doubt that the Prime Minister knows what he is talking about, since he was a minister in the Trudeau cabinet during the October crisis of 1970.

There is no magic bullet when it comes to terrorism, as I have already said. At first glance Bill C-36 appears harsh and invasive. However, it would be inappropriate to remain passive in circumstances such as these.

Basically we will have to take the necessary time to ensure that this bill will allow us to fight terrorism effectively while minimizing the inconveniences to citizens.

In short, we must be sure that Bill C-36 will do more good than harm.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. I am pleased to take part in the debate today regarding the long anticipated anti-terrorism legislation. I am pleased to see the new found enthusiasm of members on the Liberal benches to fight terrorism. After years of inaction and denial the light finally went on over there, especially in view of the circumstances of September 11.

The bill being tabled today is an important step forward and reflects many of the issues the Canadian Alliance has been raising over the past years. The bill echoes many recommendations made by Canadian Alliance members of parliament, including the identification of terrorist organizations, the ratification of international obligations to suppress terrorist bombings, and banning fundraising activities that support terrorism.

As recently as September 18 our party introduced a supply motion putting forth a number of the same elements Bill C-36 introduces. The motion unfortunately was voted down as the government accused the Canadian Alliance of playing politics or trying to score political points.

It is disappointing that the government has chosen to disparage the opposition for raising legitimate security concerns, not only in the past month but over the past number of years. It is even more disappointing that the government has forced Canadians to wait so long before finally introducing the same measures it previously disparaged.

The United Kingdom has had strict laws banning terrorist fundraising and other terrorist activity for a year and a half, and the United States has had such laws in place for a number of years. However Canada has not taken any legislative action in this area until now. It appears that government members have finally acknowledged the gravity of the situation now that the tragedy of September 11 has forced them into action.

Although some positive and necessary measures are being announced in the proposed legislation, in the days and weeks to come members of the Canadian Alliance will be urging the minister to take further steps to improve the provisions of the bill.

One issue that needs to be raised and debated is the failure of the government to ban membership in organizations that are clearly identified as terrorist organizations. If the purpose of an organization is to engage in terrorist activities, what possible justification can there be for permitting individuals to continue to belong to the organization?

The Liberal government has argued in the past that such a provision might be considered unconstitutional. However, making it illegal to participate in a group proven to be a terrorist organization is a reasonable limit on freedom of association and other freedoms in the charter.

When the primary, if not the sole, purpose of such an association is to commit illegal terrorist acts, the safety and security of all citizens may reasonably supersede the individual rights of the persons participating in the organizations or conspiring to commit the acts. If the courts do not believe our citizens are deserving of this protection they should tell us so, but the government should have the courage to include that in the bill.

Contrary to the suggestions found in justice department publications, the provision would not make participation in a terrorist organization illegal unless it could be proven that a person had the intention to facilitate illegal actions for the organization. This is the same misleading characterization that was in the government's previous organized crime legislation. People need to understand that the provisions make clear the additional responsibilities a prosecutor would need to demonstrate in a court of law.

Another concern is that the bill does nothing to address Canada's new status as a haven for terrorists seeking to flee the consequences of their crimes in other countries. The Canadian Alliance has called on the government to put in place laws to ensure terrorists are extradited promptly and without reservation to countries that respect the rule of law. However the bill fails to address this serious concern.

The Supreme Court of Canada's United States v Burns decision of February 15, 2001, created a safe haven in Canada for violent criminals, including international terrorists, regardless of nationality, who come to Canada to escape lawful punishment in the United States or any other democratic country.

The anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996, passed by the United States congress, makes terrorism a federal crime punishable by death. Any suspected terrorist who travels from the United States to Canada to escape prosecution may therefore not be extradited unless assurances are given by the U.S. that the person would not face the death penalty.

It is troubling that if the criminals involved in the New York City or Washington attacks made their way to Canada to avoid prosecution the Canadian government would be prohibited from extraditing them pursuant to United States v Burns unless there were undefined exceptional circumstances. These circumstances are required by the court, so the law becomes the policy playground of unelected judges who define such circumstances on a case by case basis.

These are not simply the comments of members of Canadian Alliance or opposition members. In a related case last February, the day after I stood in the House and said the United States v Burns case was creating a safe haven for terrorists in Canada and the Minister of Justice stood and denied it, her own lawyers on behalf of herself and the Minister of Immigration expressed their concern to the supreme court in precisely the same words. They said its decision could create a safe haven for terrorists.

They cited the case of Suresh and Ahani, suspected terrorists from Sri Lanka and Iran respectively who have claimed refugee status in Canada and are using charter rights to appeal against deportation. Canadian Alliance members have asked the minister to reopen the Suresh arguments. The Supreme Court of Canada has not yet delivered its judgment but the minister is entitled in exceptional circumstances to request that the case be opened.

Given the events of September 11, these are clearly exceptional circumstances. The Minister of Justice has refused to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to reopen the Suresh case. Accordingly it is unlikely that she will be able to extradite foreign terrorists after the court makes its ruling.

In extradition and deportation cases Canadian laws must ensure that terrorists are expelled from Canada promptly and without reservation to face the consequences of their acts. I would ask the minister to reconsider adding such provisions to the legislation. Canadians require legal certainty, not vague assurances by the minister or unelected judges. The security of Canadians is too important to be the policy plaything of unelected judges.

Another worrisome issue is that the bill fails to deny parole to terrorists convicted of multiple murders. Under the anti-terrorism bill sentences would be served consecutively for a number of offences. However sentences of life imprisonment are excluded. In other words, if a terrorist commits murder he or she would be eligible for parole yet for lesser offences the sentences must be served consecutively.

In light of the fact that terrorists attempt to indiscriminately kill and take as many lives as possible, it is self-evident that those who kill in this fashion should never be released from custody. A second opportunity to participate in a mass murder should never be provided, and certainly not provided by the House.

Another concern I draw to the attention of the minister is the joint prosecutorial authority afforded by the legislation. It is clear that both the provincial attorney general and the federal attorney general may initiate prosecutions under the legislation. However I submit that in view of the international scope of terrorism prosecutions should remain in the hands of the federal attorney general.

I agree there should be co-operation with the provincial attorneys general, but the scope of these investigations and the involvement of CSIS and the RCMP require federal direction.

My real fear is that this provision was included simply to download financial responsibility to the provinces and to allow the federal minister of justice to escape political heat whenever she or he did not want to take authority for a prosecution.

We have seen before where the federal government downloads responsibilities after passing a law. The burden of the prosecution and the financial cost associated with those laws then remain on the province. This legislation is a matter of national security. It should be dealt with by the federal attorney general and resourced through parliament.

Many Canadians have serious and legitimate concerns that civil liberties may be sacrificed in the government's attempt to quash terrorist activity. Regardless of the gravity of the security threats facing our country all citizens must be assured of legal protection from the arbitrary exercise of state power. That is why it is so important that the legislation clearly spells out the rights of police and security agencies. We want to provide police and security agents with this authority but not on any terms. The terms must be carefully and clearly delineated in the legislation.

Canadians want to see evidence that the federal government is taking strong and effective legislative measures to improve national security. I do not think these measures need be at the expense of personal freedoms.

The legislation is raising and will continue to raise civil liberty concerns in the course of this debate and beyond. The preventive arrest and the investigative hearings provisions of the bill will surely come under charter scrutiny. The new power of preventive arrest would allow a peace officer to arrest a suspected terrorist if there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the person was about to commit a terrorist activity. The section on investigative hearings would compel material witnesses to disclose information relating to terrorism to a judge even without a formal trial.

It appears that both these measures are reasonable, especially in the context of the investigative hearings where there is protection from self-incrimination. However, the due process that is imported into the investigative hearings may in fact prevent the timely disclosure of information necessary for action against pending or imminent terror activity.

We have to balance those due process concerns with the ability of our authorities to get timely information. In view of the fact that there are no penal consequences as a result of the investigative hearing both processes could be sped up because there are no criminal consequences to that and we need to bear that in mind.

Some of the amendments to the criminal code regarding hate crimes are also of concern. For example, under the bill courts may order an Internet provider to delete an item from the computer system if it were deemed hate propaganda. The courts may also order the custodian of the computer system to provide any information relating to the whereabouts of the person who created the hate propaganda.

The increased abilities of our police and security agencies also need to be carefully considered. It is important to remember that our laws dealing with national security have not kept up with advances in technology in terms of proposed changes to laws governing wiretapping procedures. Criteria for obtaining warrants and electronic surveillance orders to monitor terrorist activity should have been streamlined and modernized years ago. Our frontline workers need to be able to respond to the virtually unlimited resources, funds and technology of terrorist organizations.

The analogy can be made in the context of organized crime. It seems that terrorist organizations and organized crime have unlimited funds. Our police and other security agencies do not. As my colleague pointed out yesterday in question period, the government seems to put its priority on registering the shotguns of duck hunters rather than providing our security services with those resources. Spending $100 million a year on registering the shotguns of duck hunters for no bona fide criminal activity is an absolute disgrace. If the government wants to find money to prevent crime, let it do so by abolishing this very ill conceived national long gun registry.

Another concern is the very close bureaucratic relationship between our federal police, the RCMP, and the solicitor general. If we are giving police this broad power and if it is justified under the charter in order to accomplish these security needs, then we have to take steps to divide that close relationship between the solicitor general and the commissioner of the RCMP.

The commissioner of the RCMP is a deputy minister in his own department. It is wrong for a national police force to have that kind of relationship with the minister. There needs to be protection so that the police work is separate from the political work or the possibility of political interference in that police work.

My colleagues in the NDP have raised the issue that the legislation may suppress bona fide political dissent. That too is a legitimate concern. One of the ways to address that issue is not by diluting the legislation, but by putting a proper reporting system in place so that the heads of the RCMP or other security agencies do not report to the solicitor general but to an independent committee of the House made up of non-partisan members of the House or members from both sides of the House. This is a very important step that we can take in order to ensure that police powers are properly used.

The unprecedented terrorist attacks of September 11 will certainly influence the courts' rulings on security matters. We must allow the courts to do their work after we have considered and passed this legislation.

As the Minister of Justice said, the courts read newspapers, so they know what is going on. It is too bad the minister could not have supplemented that knowledge by expanding the arguments against Suresh. The minister missed a golden opportunity in these exceptional circumstances to make a clear stand against terrorism by indicating very clearly the arguments that need to be made to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Over the course of the past month the Canadian Alliance has drawn attention to the fact that although Canada signed the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism almost two years ago, it has not ratified the convention because the federal government failed to put into place the necessary legislation to stop terrorist fundraising.

Now that the legislation has been introduced, it appears that the justice minister was less than frank with the House and Canadians when she implied in the House in response to questioning that she could seize money under subsection 3(2) of the United Nations Act. This section has been amended by new legislation on goods, wares or merchandise; in the very section that she said would allow her to seize those assets, including money, those words have been deleted and replaced with the word property.

Although the minister implied that this section, as it was then, gave her the authority to seize assets, the Canadian Alliance consistently said that the government did not have the legislative authority to do so. It is now clear that this is in fact the case.

It is unfortunate that ministers of the crown would spend their time in question period being vague and less than frank in order to make up for legislative and policy failures, however, I welcome the new provisions that would allow the government to ratify the UN convention and to take this long needed action to suppress the essential financial resources needed by terrorist organizations.

There are a number of amendments to other acts in the bill, including the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, the National Defence Act and many others. We must be diligent in ensuring that all amendments to these acts strike the appropriate balance between national security and the right of the public to be informed of government business. The leader of the PC/DR coalition has been especially vigilant in respect of this disclosure. He has mentioned it in various questions and other statements, as have other members of the House.

Some of the amendments to the Access to Information Act are troubling. For example, the bill would allow the attorney general to prohibit the disclosure of information for the purpose of protecting international relations, national security or defence. This sweeping provision could potentially restrict the information available to Canadians to a great extent. Information about the deficiencies of the Sea King helicopters may not have been revealed if the attorney general could have used the blanket prohibition of protecting national security to prevent such information from being released.

The bill should not be a cover to allow the government to continue to evade its security responsibilities as it has done over the last number of years. These types of amendments to the Access to Information Act need to be very carefully considered.

The government also claims that the bill clarifies the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment. Currently the CSE is a government agency that provides guidance in the area of information technology. However the mandate extended to the CSE in the bill gives considerable legal authority to the agency. For example clause 102 of the bill allows the Minister of National Defence to authorize the CSE to intercept private communications for the sole purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence. This amendment to the National Defence Act is a major shift of the responsibilities of the CSE and should not pass through the House without due consideration of its implications.

Along the same lines I also have concerns about amendments to the Official Secrets Act. Secrecy legislation is primarily designed to protect the security of the state from espionage. However, the broad wording of Canada's Official Secrets Act means that it may be used to sanction the unauthorized release of almost any information held by government.

We must be mindful of this when considering any amendments to the act. In view of the answers we have heard provided to the House by ministers of the crown, for example the solicitor general, matters that routinely are given to members of the press in the United States by the American government are denied access here in the House. The minister simply stands and says that it is a matter of national security and cannot be disclosed. If the minister is taking that position on the basis of the existing act, we can imagine what the minister would do with enhanced powers. We need to clarify the powers that the ministers may have in denying Canadians the right to information that does not undermine national security.

The last but perhaps most important concern I would like to raise today is the matter of resources. The legislation, as good as it is in its various aspects, will be of little value if the Liberal government does not provide adequate resources to our frontline forces in the fight against terrorism. The government consistently says it gives a certain amount of money over a number of years, but when we divide that money over those number of years and subtract the money that has been taken out of the security budget and look at what actual money is going to frontline police and security services, we realize that the money certainly is less than adequate. Again I only need make reference to the kinds of boondoggles into which the government has been willing to put money, like registering the shotguns of duck hunters.

The United States passed legislation in 1996 that requires the government to commit resources to support a wide range of security measures. The Canadian bill has no such requirement. It is the responsibility of the government to provide adequate resources to our frontline police and security agencies in the fight against terrorism. Without this support Canadian security cannot be assured.

The government has taken some important steps. Although we will be considering the provisions of the bill very carefully, it is imperative that the legislation move forward as quickly as possible. I therefore thank members of the House for the increase in the number of hours for debate to raise concerns and move the matter along.

All Canadians are entitled to live in peace and security. While the government has finally moved to respond in a meaningful way to the threat of worldwide terrorism, much remains to be done. Members of the Canadian Alliance, the opposition, are committed to working with the government to ensure that the steps necessary to achieve peace and security in Canada are accomplished.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations between House leaders and there is unanimous consent for the following motion which I would like to put to the House. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall be taken up this day and the House shall sit after 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering Bill C-36, provided that the House shall adjourn at 10:00 p.m., and provided that, if no Member rises to speak before that time, the debate shall be adjourned and the House shall be adjourned and during such debate the Chair will not entertain motions for unanimous consent.

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

moved 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 read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank members for the opportunity to rise in the House this morning to speak in support of Bill C-36, the Government of Canada's anti-terrorism act.

Before commenting on specific measures, I would like to highlight this government's commitment to the fight against terrorism. This bill represents an important component of the federal government's comprehensive strategy to strengthen national security.

The horrific terrorist acts of September 11 created suffering, fear and uncertainty. These events challenged Canadians' sense of safety and security and it is this that we must address as our first priority.

Terrorism seeks to undermine the rule of law and human rights. Terrorism seeks to undermine our values and way of life. Terrorism tries to turn one community against another, religion against religion, and race against race. Terrorism seeks all these things but it will achieve none of them, not here in Canada. This government has been clear but it is worth repeating over and over again: this is not a war against any one group or ethnicity but a war against terrorism.

The measures contained in this bill target persons and activities that undermine the security and welfare of Canadians. Our efforts are directed against terrorist acts, not against the members of a specific community, ethnicity, or religion. Diversity is one of Canada's greatest strengths and we are taking measures to protect it.

We are marshalling our resources against the forces of terror while still maintaining our commitment to the enduring values of democracy. Striking the proper balance has always been the challenge of democratic governments. This has never been more true than it is today. We are protecting our values and defining the threat that terrorism poses to free and civilized nations everywhere. These values receive an important part of their legal expression in the charter of rights and freedoms. We will protect the very thing that terrorism seeks to disrupt, namely, maintaining the balance between an open and just society and a safe and secure one.

Bill C-36 is one element of the Government of Canada's comprehensive action plan on Canadian security, a plan whose objectives are to stop terrorists from getting into Canada and protect Canadian citizens from terrorist acts, to bring forward tools to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists, to keep our borders secure and to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and address the root causes of hatred.

In developing this legislation we have paid close attention to what other democratic countries are doing in their fight against terrorism. It is important that we act in a way that is consistent with the approach of other democratic nations and in conformity with international law.

The world changed on September 11 in a way that changed our collective sense of safety and security. Reviewing our legal framework was one component of a more thorough review undertaken by the federal government to strengthen our national security. Be assured that all democratic nations have undertaken a similar re-examination.

Canadians have much to be proud of and much to protect. This bill strikes a balance between our desire to maintain the values of freedom and individual rights and our collective determination to protect our citizens.

Canadians can rest assured that we kept in mind the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter when drafting our proposals.

The bill reaffirms the equal right of every citizen of whatever religion, race or ethnic origin to enjoy the security, protections and liberties shared by all Canadians.

Amendments to the criminal code would allow the courts to order the deletion of publicly available hate propaganda from computer systems such as an Internet site. Those who post material will be provided the opportunity to convince the court that the material is not hate propaganda. The provision would apply to hate propaganda that is located on Canadian computer systems regardless of where the owner of the material is located or whether he or she can be identified.

Further, criminal code amendments would create a new offence of mischief, motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, committed against a place of religious worship or associated religious property.

In addition, the Canadian Human Rights Act will be amended to clarify that communication of hate messages using new technology, such as the Internet, constitutes a discriminatory practice. While such communication is already interpreted to be discriminatory, these amendments will add certainty and clarity to the law.

I should like to describe the approach we have developed in Bill C-36. The proposed legislative package focuses on three elements. Bill C-36 targets terrorist activity and those who would carry out or support such activity. The three main objectives of the new measures are as follows: first, to suppress the very existence of terrorist groups; second, to provide new investigative tools; and, third, to provide a tougher sentencing regime to incapacitate terrorists and terrorist groups.

The bill seeks to identify, dismantle, prosecute and punish terrorist activity. Bill C-36 includes criminal code amendments to ratify the remaining two United Nations conventions and protocols related to terrorism. The suppression of terrorist financing convention concerns the freezing of terrorist property.

It would prohibit dealing in any property of an individual involved in terrorist activities and it would prohibit making available funds and financial means or services to terrorists. These measures would allow a federal court judge to order the seizure and forfeiture of property used in or related to terrorist activity.

The suppression of terrorist bombings convention contains provisions relating to the targeting of public places, government or infrastructure facilities or transportation systems with explosives or other lethal devices including chemical or biological agents. The term explosive or other lethal device is defined broadly to include toxic chemicals, biological agents and radioactive substances. Ratification of these two conventions would reflect Canada's commitment to work together with the international community.

Let there be no doubt. Whether we are in North America or somewhere else in the world, terrorism represents a global threat, the force of which reverberated in the cities of New York and Washington on September 11. We shall take all legitimate means necessary to undermine the forces of terrorism. We must without hesitation work with our neighbours and with our allies to ensure that those who seek to terrorize the innocent and support terrorists understand that we will cut off their money. We will find them and we will punish them for their acts of violence.

The legislation before the House would provide a definition of terrorist activity for the first time. This definition is critical, as many of the legal implications under the bill are tied to the concept of terrorist activity. The first element of the definition outlines the offences that are established in the 12 international conventions related to terrorism, all of which we have signed.

Equally important, however, is a general definition that refers to acts or omissions undertaken for political, religious or ideological purposes and which are intended to intimidate the public, force governments to act and cause serious harm.

We have carefully restricted the definition to make it clear that property damage and disruption of an essential service are not in and of themselves sufficient to constitute a terrorist activity. The action taken must also endanger lives or cause serious risks to the health and safety of the public.

This is an important issue about which some of my colleagues have expressed concern. To respond to their concerns let me assure the House and all Canadians that this definition shall in no way include legitimate forms of political dissent. It would not impinge upon the lawful activities of legitimate political groups or lobby organizations. In addition, the legislation would permit the designation of groups whose activities meet the definition of terrorist activity.

I will speak now to the issue of new offences as laid out in the legislation and as targeted to acts of terrorism. Comprehensive new terrorism offences under the criminal code have been created. These include offences relating to participating in, facilitating or instructing terrorist activity and harbouring others who carry out terrorist activity.

These offences would criminalize a full range of activities related to terrorism. For example, a person who helps to train another person in an otherwise legal activity such as flying an aircraft would commit a crime if the trainer knew it would help the other person carry out a terrorist activity. This would be the case regardless of whether the trainer knew when, where or how the terrorist activity might be carried out.

The new offences related to direction of or instruction in terrorist activity would allow us to go after the leaders of terrorist organizations. The most severe penalties, up to life imprisonment, are attached to these offences.

I have spoken about the effort demonstrated in the bill to maintain a balance between a firm commitment to eradicate terrorism and the protection of civil liberties for all Canadians. There are safeguards built into these new terrorism offences throughout the bill. Notably the required proof includes specific intent or actual knowledge in relation to the prohibited conduct.

We are all aware that the lifeblood of terrorist organizations is money. Bill C-36 proposes new measures under the criminal code to combat the financing of terrorism. It includes measures related to the seizure, restraint and forfeiture of terrorist property. The new measures related to financing would allow us to effectively go after the heart of terrorist financing networks.

For example, it would be an offence to collect or provide cash knowing that it would be used to facilitate or carry out an offence that constitutes terrorist activity. It would be an offence to provide financial services knowing that they would be used to facilitate or carry out terrorist activity or to benefit a terrorist group. Persons in the financial services industry who knowingly engage in transactions related to terrorism could find themselves charged criminally.

These measures are also subject to safeguards including substantive and procedural requirements governing seizure, restraint and forfeiture. Third party interests including those of the innocent families of those involved would be protected.

I should like to turn now to the element of the bill that would provide for preventive arrest as a way of assisting law enforcement officers to disrupt terrorism acts. The September 11 events heightened our awareness of the highly sophisticated nature of terrorist activity.

Sophisticated communications, modified organizational structures and an ability to evade traditional investigative methods require us to examine what other tools may be available to help security and enforcement officers carry out their investigations. The preventive arrest is one such tool.

If an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a serious terrorist offence is about to take place and suspects that the arrest of a particular person would prevent it, then that person can be detained and brought before a judge. These measures would only be available under strictly defined conditions and would be subject to numerous procedural safeguards.

The consent of the attorney general would be required as a prerequisite, save for emergency circumstances. The person would be brought before a provincial court judge within 24 hours or as soon as possible, and a maximum further period in detention of 48 hours would be possible if a judge so orders.

The object of bringing the person before the court is for the court to consider whether conditions should be imposed upon the person's movements and associations. The court may impose such conditions or may release the person without conditions. If the person refuses to accept conditions the court may commit him or her to prison for up to 12 months.

The bill also amends the proceeds of crime or money laundering legislation. Fintrac's mandate would be expanded to gather, analyze and disclose information on terrorist money laundering. The safeguards built into the Fintrac process would be maintained.

The charities registration act would be enacted as part of the bill to allow for the denial or removal of charitable status from organizations that provide resources directly or indirectly to terrorists. This would be subject to both ministerial and judicial review.

Bill C-36 would also provide for investigative hearings under the criminal code. These hearings would permit the gathering of evidence in investigations of terrorism offences prior to the laying of charges. There is an existing procedure under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act that allows us to do this for other countries, but there is nothing comparable for our own investigations. The United States has investigative grand juries that perform a similar function.

This investigative hearing would not be a trial of an offence. Evidence given could not be used afterward in criminal proceedings against the person. The right to counsel would apply, as would the rights of privilege and other rights of non-disclosure under the law.

The bill would also amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to clarify its mandate and enable it to investigate threats to Canada, including those arising from religious or ideological objectives in addition to political causes that it now covers. As we have seen, terrorists may be driven by motives other than the purely political.

The bill would amend the National Defence Act to continue and clarify the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment, CSE, to collect foreign communications. The CSE's functions of collecting foreign intelligence and of protecting Government of Canada communications systems are particularly important in the context of action against sophisticated terrorist networks that use computers and satellite telephone systems.

Subject to strict conditions the bill would empower the Minster of National Defence to authorize interceptions in limited circumstances. Safeguards to ensure the privacy of Canadians are built into the legislation.

Other provisions of the bill include the updating and refinement of the Official Secrets Act. This act would be renamed the security of information act and would better address national security concerns.

The amendments cover threats of espionage by foreign powers and by terrorist groups, espionage against Canada's national security, defence, international relations and economic interests. They also address the intimidation and coercion of any émigré community in Canada.

The Canada Evidence Act would be amended to allow for better protection of sensitive information during legal proceedings. One of the key reasons we need this improved protection is to be able to assure our allies that sensitive information they provide to us can be protected from release.

The Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and Personal Information Protection Act would be amended to allow the Attorney General of Canada to issue certificates prohibiting disclosure of information for the purpose of protecting national security, national defence or international relations. This would be consistent with Canada Evidence Act provisions respecting the protection of such information in court proceedings.

I want to say a few words about the sentencing regime. The bill would implement an aggressive sentencing and parole regime for terrorism offences including a maximum of life imprisonment for many offences and restricted parole eligibility. Those who instruct anyone to carry out a terrorist activity would be subject to a maximum of life imprisonment.

In addition, the criminal code would stipulate that sentences imposed for terrorist offences are to be served consecutively to any other offence imposed relating to the same activity or event.

These are the main elements of our legislative proposals. Legislation alone is not the complete answer to the security challenge we are facing. Rather, it is one element of the government's plan to deal effectively with terrorists and those who support them.

It is incumbent on us to ensure that our laws meet our present day needs. As such, this package includes a three year parliamentary review clause because we acknowledge the fact that our needs may change in the weeks, months and years ahead.

Today I want to reassure Canadians that their government has listened to them and acknowledged their desire for action. It is responding with a legislative package that I believe meets their expectations not only in relation to combating terrorism but in its commitment to protecting individual rights and freedoms.

Our world changed dramatically on September 11 but not in the manner that the terrorists who planned and carried out the horrific attacks had hoped. They aimed to frighten us, disrupt our lives and force us to question our most basic democratic values of freedom and liberty. They did not succeed. Our commitment to democracy is stronger than ever. Together all Canadians are committed to increasing public security while maintaining our core values.

Bill C-36 represents an appropriate legislative balance to reflect Canadian values. Though our allies may have designed different legislative means to suit their legislative and constitutional frameworks, we nevertheless share a collective goal: to provide our citizens with security for themselves, their families and their communities.

I welcome review of the legislation by the House. I encourage all members to participate in the review and to support passage of the legislation.

Privilege

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

moved:

That the matter of the media receiving information on the contents of Bill C-36 before members of parliament and before the bill is tabled in the House of Commons be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(Motion agreed to)

[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.