Bill C-36 (Historical)

Anti-terrorism Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism

Anti-terrorism Act

[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.