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

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to address Bill C-36 and to put on the record the concerns of the New Democratic Party.

I want to begin by saying a few words about the context in which we are having this debate. Obviously the context is set primarily by the events of September 11 and the need that follows from those events for Canada to consider whether or not its current legal regime is adequate to prevent terrorist activity here in Canada or prevent Canada from being used as a place where terrorist activity in other countries can be financed or in other ways supported.

This drive for new and better anti-terrorism legislation is driven by the legitimate concerns and the legitimate fear that have arisen out of September 11. It arises also out of the motion passed at the United Nations subsequent to September 11 which calls on all nations of the world to implement anti-terrorist legislation and to implement UN conventions with respect to the prevention of terrorism within 90 days. The government is moving to do that. That is a good thing and something which we welcome regardless of what particular concerns we might have about the legislation that is now before us. That is part of the context, i.e., September 11. However, we are not doing this in isolation. Unfortunately we also are considering this legislation in the context of the last few years here in Canada.

What I mean by that is the events that happened, for instance, at the APEC meeting and subsequently in Quebec City. They are on the minds of many people. The government might say that is an entirely different thing. The question is whether or not the bill is designed in such a way to make sure that the kind of protest activities that took place in Vancouver at the APEC meeting, in Windsor at the OAS meeting and in Quebec City at the FTAA meeting will be treated differently from the kind of activity which is addressed in this particular legislation. That is one of the concerns we bring to the table, because we know that it is a concern out there within a certain constituency in the Canadian public.

In the end, all of this is really a question of trust. It is really a question of not what the legislation says and not what the government says, but whether or not Canadians trust that the spirit and the letter of the law will be followed and not in some way or another abused. That is really what is at stake here. No amount of citing the relevant clauses of the bill and saying that something cannot happen will do. If people believe out of their own experience or from reading or learning about the experiences of others that either the government or the police have an inclination in some circumstances to abuse powers and to treat as unlawful that which is lawful, then they find themselves in a position of not being able to give the kind of approval they would otherwise probably like to give.

All Canadians feel there are things that need to be done, particularly in the parts of the bill that have to do with the ratification and implementation of the UN conventions. That is not something that anyone is taking any issue with at all. There are other things in the bill that are more problematic and which need to be further discussed, explored and explained in committee.

We need to hear from Canadians who have concerns about particular aspects of the bill. We want to have a good process in committee where time is taken to hear from these Canadians so they can put their concerns on the record and so that we might even be able to amend the legislation, if necessary, if that is the will of the committee.

I would like to deal with the issue of trust. The definition of a terrorist activity, not the one that comes out of the UN conventions but the one which the government has put into the bill, in section 83.01 states:

(b) an act or omission, in or outside of Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

(ii) that is intended

(A) to cause death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) to endanger a person's life,

(C) to cause a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

(D) to cause substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of the clauses (A) to (C) and (E), or

(E) to cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that does not involve an activity that is intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C).

These are the clauses having to do with death or serious bodily harm, endangering a person's life or causing a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public.

At first reading one might be tempted to think that pretty well covers it because the government has said that as long as it has to do with lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work and does not involve these other terrible things then everything is fine.

However, there are a couple of problems I would like to explore further in committee. I am not making a final judgment on the particular clause. For example, it does raise the question of what is lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work.

If it were clear as to what was lawful and what was not, then there would not be a problem. However there is such a thing as an unlawful stoppage of work or an illegal strike. The law is now able to deal with them, but it would be a legitimate concern that illegal stoppages of work might somehow fall under the ambit of this if other criteria were met. These are the kinds of things I hope to ask the minister and others about in committee.

What is lawful? Lawful sounds good but a lot of young people thought they were engaged in lawful protest in Quebec City way beyond the perimeter and not challenging the wall or engaging in any property damage or anything like that. They were just sitting around, talking to each other, when all of a sudden they were tear gassed, fired upon with rubber bullets and treated as if they were doing something unlawful.

This comes back to trust and I think it is regrettable. I would prefer that we were dealing with anti-terrorism legislation in a context of trust where all Canadians could feel they did not have a government that was careless about their civil liberties and right to lawful protest. Instead we are unfortunately not just dealing with the context of September 11, which should be the overriding concern, but the backdrop for this in the minds of a lot of Canadians is APEC and Quebec City.

One thing the government has to do is persuade those Canadians who have scepticism arising out of those experiences that this is entirely different and that this would not be used to harass legitimate protestors or get in the way of legitimate protests.

That brings me to the next concern that my party has which deals with the notion of preventive arrest. It is just a concern at this point. We know that in certain circumstances over the last few years certain people who were known to be participating in protests were all of a sudden charged with something, detained, and were not able to be at the protest. I will not mention any names but this is a known fact.

The minister said in her speech, and it is stated in the legislation, that the preventive arrest issue is not arrest without warrant forever and ever. The person would have to appear before a judge after 24 hours and could be detained for another 48 hours. It is only a judge who can order further detention and then only if the person is unwilling to meet the conditions laid down by the judge.

I understand all of that. That does not mean to say that in the wrong hands this could not be used as a way to harass people who were planning on attending certain events and suddenly find themselves the object of this provision.

I know the minister said the legislation is not intended for that sort of thing at all, and I hope it is not. I even believe that it is not in the minister's mind. I am trying to convey the spirit of scepticism that exists among a great many people arising out of the experiences over the last few years. There would not be any more need to trump up charges against anybody because this provision in Bill C-36 could be used.

Another concern I have was raised by the member for Provencher. It deals with the use of the phrase anything damaging to “international relations” as a reason for non-disclosure when it pertains to information made available in the context of various investigations, hearings or determinations by the government.

The member for Provencher said that this was a very broad category. Almost anything could be construed as damaging international relations. We experienced this in the past when the government felt obliged to uncritically accept the views of other governments with respect to activity happening in Canada.

I remember controversies some years ago when the Sikh community in Canada found itself at odds with the government because it was taking the view of the government of India as the uncritical truth about what was happening there or the uncritical truth about what was happening within that community here.

As long as we have communities in Canada that are concerned about struggles and conflicts in other countries, there will inevitably be a divergence of opinion in many circumstances between what people here believe and what the government there believes. It does not mean that either of them are particularly malevolent in this respect. It is just a fact of life that there will be a divergence of opinion.

What this could possibly suggest is that for any disclosure of information that would be found unacceptable or unfriendly to a foreign government with which Canada wanted to maintain good relations, we could not disclose it in the context that the bill is describing. That is another concern which we will have to explore at committee because the views of other governments are not always pristine, balanced or objective, or certainly they may be different from views held in Canada either by a particular group of Canadians or by Canadians in general.

There has been much said about preserving the balance between liberty and security. We must not just respect Canadian values in this regard. We need to respect Canadian values as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government claims that it has done this. We will want to hear evidence about this in committee and perhaps debate among ourselves whether this bill meets that challenge.

In fairness to the government and to the charter, the charter has already had its effect on this legislation. My understanding is that the bill does not go as far as the British anti-terrorism legislation. This is because we have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Britain does not. That may well be the reason for the difference. For example, intellectual support for terrorist groups or causes associated with terrorism, or even membership in certain organizations, is not proscribed by in Bill C-36.

The charter has already done its work in changing what might otherwise have been brought before us by the government. It is still legitimate to ask whether or not what we have before us is not so much charter proof but whether it corresponds to what the charter demands of us.

I suggest to the government that it consider whether or not the bill should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada at the same time as it is being debated and studied in the House of Commons and pre-studied in the Senate. As we know, the Senate will begin to study the bill at the same time as the House is seized of it, which is an unusual procedure, but it is being done so that the bill can be passed expeditiously.

Why would the government not consider referring the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada for an urgent judgment, not at its leisure but within the same framework of time as the House is dealing with the bill? If the House can deal with it and the Senate can deal with it, surely the supreme court could deal with it. Then we would not need this debate about whether or not the legislation meets the requirements of the charter.

Another matter I would like to raise and which I hope we will be able to consider in committee has to do with the whole question of whether or not certain aspects of the bill should be sunsetted. The bill provides for a parliamentary review after three years.

We live in extraordinary circumstances. It might be advisable to consider that what seems acceptable today to the government, to a majority of the House or perhaps to everyone ultimately, might not seem acceptable or necessary in a year or two.

Therefore, because I have seen these parliamentary reviews before and they tend not to mean very much, there might be some need to consider looking at a sunset clause instead of having a parliamentary review.

Finally, we need to consider the whole matter of resources, because all of this will be for naught if we do not give the agencies charged with these responsibilities the resources they need. In that respect we have to redress the damage that has been done to the public sector in so many ways by the government ever since it took office in 1993.

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

Madam Speaker, as we all know we have been asking the minister to introduce legislation that will allow Canada to fulfill its international commitments in the fight against terrorism for some time now.

It is therefore understandable that since the events of September 11 we have been looking forward to this bill on terrorism. Now that we have it, the question is whether or not it lives up to our expectations.

First, we can only applaud the fact that the minister has finally introduced legislation that truly outlaws activities that finance terrorism. Whether it be for organized crime or terrorists, money is the lifeblood of war.

By starving an organization of its sources of financing, we greatly reduce its striking power. Furthermore, by adding seizure and freezing of assets, we can begin to take seriously the government's claim that it wants to wage war against terrorists.

Unfortunately, from part 6 on, the bill contains, word for word, Bill C-16, the bill on funding charitable organizations. What we thought we could call the late lamented Bill C-16, has risen from the tomb. Apart from a few cosmetic changes, it is to be found in Bill C-36 almost in its entirety.

On April 30 I summarized Bill C-16 in the following terms: suspicion, discretionary power, enigmatic proof, and lack of control. Six months later, I have no choice but to reiterate these same comments about part 6 of this bill on terrorism.

We do not deny that it is appropriate to protect the integrity of the charities registration system by preventing their use as a cover for terrorist organizations. What we dispute is the way the government wants to go about achieving its ends.

This spring we criticized the fact that it went against too many principles of justice for it to pass royal assent. To let this happen would constitute a dangerous precedent in terms of the violation of procedural guarantees. However, yesterday the minister slipped the same bill, give or take a comma, under our nose. Worse yet, the inquisitional procedure established by Bill C-16 now applies to a body that wants its name removed from the list of organizations involved in terrorist activities.

Now under the bill before us the governor in council will be able to establish by regulation a list containing the name of any entity that might be associated with terrorist activities.

What does that mean, exactly? In both cases, the entity and the charity appear before a judge who can reach a decision from evidence submitted in camera and without the party or parties being present.

In even clearer terms, let us suppose that a charity loses its charitable status following the signing of a certificate by the solicitor general or the Minister of National Revenue. The organization will be allowed to ask the judge to quash the certificate. However, it is possible that the judge will base his decision on information that the organization will never have access to.

The same goes for a group that wants to see its name struck from the list of organizations associated with terrorist activities. That group will have to go before a judge, who will determine whether or not to remove the group's name from the list. However, this could take place without the applicant ever knowing why his name first appeared on such a list.

By violating such fundamental and elementary rules of evidence as the disclosure of evidence, the government is ignoring the contradictory nature of our judicial system. All the more worrisome is the fact that the evidence adduced will be based on information provided primarily by CSIS. Knowing the practices used by CSIS and its difficulties in striking a fair balance between national security and rights and freedoms, this might be cause for concern.

With such provisions, we can legitimately ask two questions. Either the information is not circulating between ministers or else the government has simply decided to turn a deaf ear to the representations made by countless witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance when it reviewed Bill C-16, which at the time was sponsored by the solicitor general.

Since it is hard to imagine that the Minister of Justice was not informed of what went on during the proceedings of that committee, the only plausible assumption is the second one. Considering all that went on with the young offenders bill, could this be a habit with the minister?

In the same vein, during the first sitting of the Standing Committee on Finance, which took place on May 16, the solicitor general and the Minister of National Revenue tried to explain to us why Bill C-16 did not include the definition of the term terrorist. The solicitor general said, and I quote:

If you are aware, the courts have indicated that it is not necessary to define terrorism.

He went on to say:

When you evaluate around the world to find an exact definition for terrorism, it is about impossible.

As for the Minister of National Revenue, he specified the following:

Merely coming up with a definition or defining parameters would basically, at the end of the line, end up taking away tools or options that we would like to have in this bill.

Yet, to cite just two examples, the U.K. terrorism act and the French penal code have successfully done what these two ministers felt was impossible at the time they were defending Bill C-16 before the committee. The British legislation reads as follows:

In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where:

The use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and,

The use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

As for the French penal code, terrorism is defined as follows:

Certain criminal offences are considered terrorism when the acts are intentionally linked to an individual or group whose purpose is to cause a serious disruption of public order through intimidation or terror.

This is followed by a list of the criminal offences considered acts of terrorism. I will spare members that, however. We can see that there has been a sort of attempt in Bill C-36 to define the terms terrorist activity, terrorist group and terrorism offence.

Considering that the term was virtually undefinable, according to the two ministers, one might well think that the Minister of Justice has done nothing to simplify things. Bill C-36, instead of providing a definition along the French or British lines that states right off what is involved forces us to constantly jump from one reference to another, and we have almost forgotten what we were looking for by the time we get to the end of the chain of searches. Fortunately the basic content is there, but the form needs more work. In actual fact, there is no definition of terrorism, just definitions for act, action or omission.

In addition, as we have been seeing for some time now, law enforcement officials are demanding a considerable increase in their powers, but must the powers of the various government bodies responsible for security be increased in order to mount an effective campaign against terrorism? Well might one wonder. In the October 6 issue of La Presse , journalist Yves Boisvert wrote:

Nothing useful will be accomplished without effective information services and an intelligent police community.

What constitutes an effective information service? One thing is certain, that is, it is certainly not by keeping tabs on groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the Anglican Church, the United Church and the Raging Grannies that we are going to dismantle a major terrorist network. Yet considering that some fifty or so organizations and approximately 350 individuals are already being watched closely by CSIS as part of its anti-terrorist program, there is no lack of genuine terrorist threats. We may therefore conclude that if the resources and energies were concentrated in the right place, part of the problem would resolve itself.

Furthermore, in order to be intelligent, must the police be authorized to commit criminal offences as provided for in the organized crime legislation? By placing above the law those who are supposed to enforce it, such measures can only succeed in institutionalizing crime within law enforcement agencies.

Must we also bend the rules of evidence in order to compensate for deficiencies or errors in a case before the courts? Since a police investigation can have a tremendous impact on an accused, the work of law enforcement officers must be guided by rules imposing maximum rigour.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the primary mission of police officials is to protect public safety. This is not some contest to make a maximum number of arrests leading to charges, particularly if these charges are the result of bungled investigations. Not only will the public not be better protected, but in fact it will be even more vulnerable to possible abuses of authority. This would be to replace one threat with another. If such guiding rules are limited, there is a good chance that corners will be cut.

Bill C-24 opened a door that will be very difficult to close and its long term impact could be catastrophic. By allowing a peace officer to detain a person following an arrest without a warrant, Bill C-36 just opens another door. If there are sceptics, just think of what happened during the October crisis with the War Measures Act: there were hundreds of arbitrary arrests and heavy handed searches without warrants, undoubtedly the worst case of abuse of power ever known in Quebec.

It is fine to introduce anti-terrorism legislation, but let us not forget that this is merely a legislative tool that cannot be effective in and of itself. The best legislation in the world is useless if there are not competent people with a good head to implement it and ensure compliance with it. This includes police authorities, intelligence services and customs officers.

In the case of customs officers, there is still a lot of work to do to change their approach, which remains much more focused on alcohol and cigarette purchases. I made a quick trip to the United States after the September 11 events and when I came back to the Canadian border, the only reflex of the customs officer was to ask me what I had bought that day.

This speaks volumes about the concerns of those who normally should be the first line of defence of our national security.

On the issue of possible abuse, the minister is also grabbing relatively extraordinary powers, since her bill gives the attorney general the authority to unilaterally suspend in a totally arbitrary fashion the application of the Access to Information Act, through powers usually reserved for the commissioner.

Once again, this type of political interference is a cause for concern, particularly since the government has been severely criticized recently, both here and elsewhere, for its policy of silence.

If we look at the amendments to the Firearms Act, we see that the governor in council can exempt any category of non-residents from the provisions of this bill.

According to information received yesterday morning from departmental staff, the amendments to the Firearms Act would apply solely to air marshals responsible for ensuring on board security on international flights.

If this is the objective the minister had in mind, it would be worth her while to say so clearly in her bill. Given the circumstances behind the creation of Bill C-36 and the government's policy of being reactive rather than proactive, we understand that this bill was drafted hastily. We hope, therefore, that we can count on the minister's co-operation when the time comes to propose the necessary amendments to fill in the gaps.

Given the urgency of the situation, the government must not be allowed to use the crisis situation as a pretext for sneaking its bill through. At any rate, the damage is already done, and the situation could hardly be worse, considering the state of psychosis that reigns just about everywhere

If we are to equip ourselves with such a significant tool, such a restrictive and invasive one as an anti-terrorist bill, then we might as well take the time required to make sure we have the best legislative framework possible. The committee stage must not be glossed over. We are certain that many people will want to be heard and we cannot afford to not take advantage of the valuable contribution of their expertise.

There is one more point we feel it is important to raise. At present, the bill specifies that a thorough examination of its provisions and application must be carried out within three years of its enactment. At this point, we feel it would be wise to reduce that three year deadline to one year.

Considering the fact that these are exceptional circumstances and that we are presently debating measures that are equally exceptional, we cannot afford to wait three years before reassessing this legislative framework that is taking us into uncharted territory. We must prevent any opportunities for mistakes and a shorter review period is the best way to make adjustments if the circumstances so require.

To close, as the Prime Minister so wisely stated, we must be vigilant and prudent in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

When it comes to mistakes of the past, we have no doubt that the Prime Minister knows what he is talking about, since he was a minister in the Trudeau cabinet during the October crisis of 1970.

There is no magic bullet when it comes to terrorism, as I have already said. At first glance Bill C-36 appears harsh and invasive. However, it would be inappropriate to remain passive in circumstances such as these.

Basically we will have to take the necessary time to ensure that this bill will allow us to fight terrorism effectively while minimizing the inconveniences to citizens.

In short, we must be sure that Bill C-36 will do more good than harm.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. I am pleased to take part in the debate today regarding the long anticipated anti-terrorism legislation. I am pleased to see the new found enthusiasm of members on the Liberal benches to fight terrorism. After years of inaction and denial the light finally went on over there, especially in view of the circumstances of September 11.

The bill being tabled today is an important step forward and reflects many of the issues the Canadian Alliance has been raising over the past years. The bill echoes many recommendations made by Canadian Alliance members of parliament, including the identification of terrorist organizations, the ratification of international obligations to suppress terrorist bombings, and banning fundraising activities that support terrorism.

As recently as September 18 our party introduced a supply motion putting forth a number of the same elements Bill C-36 introduces. The motion unfortunately was voted down as the government accused the Canadian Alliance of playing politics or trying to score political points.

It is disappointing that the government has chosen to disparage the opposition for raising legitimate security concerns, not only in the past month but over the past number of years. It is even more disappointing that the government has forced Canadians to wait so long before finally introducing the same measures it previously disparaged.

The United Kingdom has had strict laws banning terrorist fundraising and other terrorist activity for a year and a half, and the United States has had such laws in place for a number of years. However Canada has not taken any legislative action in this area until now. It appears that government members have finally acknowledged the gravity of the situation now that the tragedy of September 11 has forced them into action.

Although some positive and necessary measures are being announced in the proposed legislation, in the days and weeks to come members of the Canadian Alliance will be urging the minister to take further steps to improve the provisions of the bill.

One issue that needs to be raised and debated is the failure of the government to ban membership in organizations that are clearly identified as terrorist organizations. If the purpose of an organization is to engage in terrorist activities, what possible justification can there be for permitting individuals to continue to belong to the organization?

The Liberal government has argued in the past that such a provision might be considered unconstitutional. However, making it illegal to participate in a group proven to be a terrorist organization is a reasonable limit on freedom of association and other freedoms in the charter.

When the primary, if not the sole, purpose of such an association is to commit illegal terrorist acts, the safety and security of all citizens may reasonably supersede the individual rights of the persons participating in the organizations or conspiring to commit the acts. If the courts do not believe our citizens are deserving of this protection they should tell us so, but the government should have the courage to include that in the bill.

Contrary to the suggestions found in justice department publications, the provision would not make participation in a terrorist organization illegal unless it could be proven that a person had the intention to facilitate illegal actions for the organization. This is the same misleading characterization that was in the government's previous organized crime legislation. People need to understand that the provisions make clear the additional responsibilities a prosecutor would need to demonstrate in a court of law.

Another concern is that the bill does nothing to address Canada's new status as a haven for terrorists seeking to flee the consequences of their crimes in other countries. The Canadian Alliance has called on the government to put in place laws to ensure terrorists are extradited promptly and without reservation to countries that respect the rule of law. However the bill fails to address this serious concern.

The Supreme Court of Canada's United States v Burns decision of February 15, 2001, created a safe haven in Canada for violent criminals, including international terrorists, regardless of nationality, who come to Canada to escape lawful punishment in the United States or any other democratic country.

The anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996, passed by the United States congress, makes terrorism a federal crime punishable by death. Any suspected terrorist who travels from the United States to Canada to escape prosecution may therefore not be extradited unless assurances are given by the U.S. that the person would not face the death penalty.

It is troubling that if the criminals involved in the New York City or Washington attacks made their way to Canada to avoid prosecution the Canadian government would be prohibited from extraditing them pursuant to United States v Burns unless there were undefined exceptional circumstances. These circumstances are required by the court, so the law becomes the policy playground of unelected judges who define such circumstances on a case by case basis.

These are not simply the comments of members of Canadian Alliance or opposition members. In a related case last February, the day after I stood in the House and said the United States v Burns case was creating a safe haven for terrorists in Canada and the Minister of Justice stood and denied it, her own lawyers on behalf of herself and the Minister of Immigration expressed their concern to the supreme court in precisely the same words. They said its decision could create a safe haven for terrorists.

They cited the case of Suresh and Ahani, suspected terrorists from Sri Lanka and Iran respectively who have claimed refugee status in Canada and are using charter rights to appeal against deportation. Canadian Alliance members have asked the minister to reopen the Suresh arguments. The Supreme Court of Canada has not yet delivered its judgment but the minister is entitled in exceptional circumstances to request that the case be opened.

Given the events of September 11, these are clearly exceptional circumstances. The Minister of Justice has refused to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to reopen the Suresh case. Accordingly it is unlikely that she will be able to extradite foreign terrorists after the court makes its ruling.

In extradition and deportation cases Canadian laws must ensure that terrorists are expelled from Canada promptly and without reservation to face the consequences of their acts. I would ask the minister to reconsider adding such provisions to the legislation. Canadians require legal certainty, not vague assurances by the minister or unelected judges. The security of Canadians is too important to be the policy plaything of unelected judges.

Another worrisome issue is that the bill fails to deny parole to terrorists convicted of multiple murders. Under the anti-terrorism bill sentences would be served consecutively for a number of offences. However sentences of life imprisonment are excluded. In other words, if a terrorist commits murder he or she would be eligible for parole yet for lesser offences the sentences must be served consecutively.

In light of the fact that terrorists attempt to indiscriminately kill and take as many lives as possible, it is self-evident that those who kill in this fashion should never be released from custody. A second opportunity to participate in a mass murder should never be provided, and certainly not provided by the House.

Another concern I draw to the attention of the minister is the joint prosecutorial authority afforded by the legislation. It is clear that both the provincial attorney general and the federal attorney general may initiate prosecutions under the legislation. However I submit that in view of the international scope of terrorism prosecutions should remain in the hands of the federal attorney general.

I agree there should be co-operation with the provincial attorneys general, but the scope of these investigations and the involvement of CSIS and the RCMP require federal direction.

My real fear is that this provision was included simply to download financial responsibility to the provinces and to allow the federal minister of justice to escape political heat whenever she or he did not want to take authority for a prosecution.

We have seen before where the federal government downloads responsibilities after passing a law. The burden of the prosecution and the financial cost associated with those laws then remain on the province. This legislation is a matter of national security. It should be dealt with by the federal attorney general and resourced through parliament.

Many Canadians have serious and legitimate concerns that civil liberties may be sacrificed in the government's attempt to quash terrorist activity. Regardless of the gravity of the security threats facing our country all citizens must be assured of legal protection from the arbitrary exercise of state power. That is why it is so important that the legislation clearly spells out the rights of police and security agencies. We want to provide police and security agents with this authority but not on any terms. The terms must be carefully and clearly delineated in the legislation.

Canadians want to see evidence that the federal government is taking strong and effective legislative measures to improve national security. I do not think these measures need be at the expense of personal freedoms.

The legislation is raising and will continue to raise civil liberty concerns in the course of this debate and beyond. The preventive arrest and the investigative hearings provisions of the bill will surely come under charter scrutiny. The new power of preventive arrest would allow a peace officer to arrest a suspected terrorist if there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the person was about to commit a terrorist activity. The section on investigative hearings would compel material witnesses to disclose information relating to terrorism to a judge even without a formal trial.

It appears that both these measures are reasonable, especially in the context of the investigative hearings where there is protection from self-incrimination. However, the due process that is imported into the investigative hearings may in fact prevent the timely disclosure of information necessary for action against pending or imminent terror activity.

We have to balance those due process concerns with the ability of our authorities to get timely information. In view of the fact that there are no penal consequences as a result of the investigative hearing both processes could be sped up because there are no criminal consequences to that and we need to bear that in mind.

Some of the amendments to the criminal code regarding hate crimes are also of concern. For example, under the bill courts may order an Internet provider to delete an item from the computer system if it were deemed hate propaganda. The courts may also order the custodian of the computer system to provide any information relating to the whereabouts of the person who created the hate propaganda.

The increased abilities of our police and security agencies also need to be carefully considered. It is important to remember that our laws dealing with national security have not kept up with advances in technology in terms of proposed changes to laws governing wiretapping procedures. Criteria for obtaining warrants and electronic surveillance orders to monitor terrorist activity should have been streamlined and modernized years ago. Our frontline workers need to be able to respond to the virtually unlimited resources, funds and technology of terrorist organizations.

The analogy can be made in the context of organized crime. It seems that terrorist organizations and organized crime have unlimited funds. Our police and other security agencies do not. As my colleague pointed out yesterday in question period, the government seems to put its priority on registering the shotguns of duck hunters rather than providing our security services with those resources. Spending $100 million a year on registering the shotguns of duck hunters for no bona fide criminal activity is an absolute disgrace. If the government wants to find money to prevent crime, let it do so by abolishing this very ill conceived national long gun registry.

Another concern is the very close bureaucratic relationship between our federal police, the RCMP, and the solicitor general. If we are giving police this broad power and if it is justified under the charter in order to accomplish these security needs, then we have to take steps to divide that close relationship between the solicitor general and the commissioner of the RCMP.

The commissioner of the RCMP is a deputy minister in his own department. It is wrong for a national police force to have that kind of relationship with the minister. There needs to be protection so that the police work is separate from the political work or the possibility of political interference in that police work.

My colleagues in the NDP have raised the issue that the legislation may suppress bona fide political dissent. That too is a legitimate concern. One of the ways to address that issue is not by diluting the legislation, but by putting a proper reporting system in place so that the heads of the RCMP or other security agencies do not report to the solicitor general but to an independent committee of the House made up of non-partisan members of the House or members from both sides of the House. This is a very important step that we can take in order to ensure that police powers are properly used.

The unprecedented terrorist attacks of September 11 will certainly influence the courts' rulings on security matters. We must allow the courts to do their work after we have considered and passed this legislation.

As the Minister of Justice said, the courts read newspapers, so they know what is going on. It is too bad the minister could not have supplemented that knowledge by expanding the arguments against Suresh. The minister missed a golden opportunity in these exceptional circumstances to make a clear stand against terrorism by indicating very clearly the arguments that need to be made to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Over the course of the past month the Canadian Alliance has drawn attention to the fact that although Canada signed the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism almost two years ago, it has not ratified the convention because the federal government failed to put into place the necessary legislation to stop terrorist fundraising.

Now that the legislation has been introduced, it appears that the justice minister was less than frank with the House and Canadians when she implied in the House in response to questioning that she could seize money under subsection 3(2) of the United Nations Act. This section has been amended by new legislation on goods, wares or merchandise; in the very section that she said would allow her to seize those assets, including money, those words have been deleted and replaced with the word property.

Although the minister implied that this section, as it was then, gave her the authority to seize assets, the Canadian Alliance consistently said that the government did not have the legislative authority to do so. It is now clear that this is in fact the case.

It is unfortunate that ministers of the crown would spend their time in question period being vague and less than frank in order to make up for legislative and policy failures, however, I welcome the new provisions that would allow the government to ratify the UN convention and to take this long needed action to suppress the essential financial resources needed by terrorist organizations.

There are a number of amendments to other acts in the bill, including the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, the National Defence Act and many others. We must be diligent in ensuring that all amendments to these acts strike the appropriate balance between national security and the right of the public to be informed of government business. The leader of the PC/DR coalition has been especially vigilant in respect of this disclosure. He has mentioned it in various questions and other statements, as have other members of the House.

Some of the amendments to the Access to Information Act are troubling. For example, the bill would allow the attorney general to prohibit the disclosure of information for the purpose of protecting international relations, national security or defence. This sweeping provision could potentially restrict the information available to Canadians to a great extent. Information about the deficiencies of the Sea King helicopters may not have been revealed if the attorney general could have used the blanket prohibition of protecting national security to prevent such information from being released.

The bill should not be a cover to allow the government to continue to evade its security responsibilities as it has done over the last number of years. These types of amendments to the Access to Information Act need to be very carefully considered.

The government also claims that the bill clarifies the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment. Currently the CSE is a government agency that provides guidance in the area of information technology. However the mandate extended to the CSE in the bill gives considerable legal authority to the agency. For example clause 102 of the bill allows the Minister of National Defence to authorize the CSE to intercept private communications for the sole purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence. This amendment to the National Defence Act is a major shift of the responsibilities of the CSE and should not pass through the House without due consideration of its implications.

Along the same lines I also have concerns about amendments to the Official Secrets Act. Secrecy legislation is primarily designed to protect the security of the state from espionage. However, the broad wording of Canada's Official Secrets Act means that it may be used to sanction the unauthorized release of almost any information held by government.

We must be mindful of this when considering any amendments to the act. In view of the answers we have heard provided to the House by ministers of the crown, for example the solicitor general, matters that routinely are given to members of the press in the United States by the American government are denied access here in the House. The minister simply stands and says that it is a matter of national security and cannot be disclosed. If the minister is taking that position on the basis of the existing act, we can imagine what the minister would do with enhanced powers. We need to clarify the powers that the ministers may have in denying Canadians the right to information that does not undermine national security.

The last but perhaps most important concern I would like to raise today is the matter of resources. The legislation, as good as it is in its various aspects, will be of little value if the Liberal government does not provide adequate resources to our frontline forces in the fight against terrorism. The government consistently says it gives a certain amount of money over a number of years, but when we divide that money over those number of years and subtract the money that has been taken out of the security budget and look at what actual money is going to frontline police and security services, we realize that the money certainly is less than adequate. Again I only need make reference to the kinds of boondoggles into which the government has been willing to put money, like registering the shotguns of duck hunters.

The United States passed legislation in 1996 that requires the government to commit resources to support a wide range of security measures. The Canadian bill has no such requirement. It is the responsibility of the government to provide adequate resources to our frontline police and security agencies in the fight against terrorism. Without this support Canadian security cannot be assured.

The government has taken some important steps. Although we will be considering the provisions of the bill very carefully, it is imperative that the legislation move forward as quickly as possible. I therefore thank members of the House for the increase in the number of hours for debate to raise concerns and move the matter along.

All Canadians are entitled to live in peace and security. While the government has finally moved to respond in a meaningful way to the threat of worldwide terrorism, much remains to be done. Members of the Canadian Alliance, the opposition, are committed to working with the government to ensure that the steps necessary to achieve peace and security in Canada are accomplished.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations between House leaders and there is unanimous consent for the following motion which I would like to put to the House. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall be taken up this day and the House shall sit after 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering Bill C-36, provided that the House shall adjourn at 10:00 p.m., and provided that, if no Member rises to speak before that time, the debate shall be adjourned and the House shall be adjourned and during such debate the Chair will not entertain motions for unanimous consent.

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

moved that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank members for the opportunity to rise in the House this morning to speak in support of Bill C-36, the Government of Canada's anti-terrorism act.

Before commenting on specific measures, I would like to highlight this government's commitment to the fight against terrorism. This bill represents an important component of the federal government's comprehensive strategy to strengthen national security.

The horrific terrorist acts of September 11 created suffering, fear and uncertainty. These events challenged Canadians' sense of safety and security and it is this that we must address as our first priority.

Terrorism seeks to undermine the rule of law and human rights. Terrorism seeks to undermine our values and way of life. Terrorism tries to turn one community against another, religion against religion, and race against race. Terrorism seeks all these things but it will achieve none of them, not here in Canada. This government has been clear but it is worth repeating over and over again: this is not a war against any one group or ethnicity but a war against terrorism.

The measures contained in this bill target persons and activities that undermine the security and welfare of Canadians. Our efforts are directed against terrorist acts, not against the members of a specific community, ethnicity, or religion. Diversity is one of Canada's greatest strengths and we are taking measures to protect it.

We are marshalling our resources against the forces of terror while still maintaining our commitment to the enduring values of democracy. Striking the proper balance has always been the challenge of democratic governments. This has never been more true than it is today. We are protecting our values and defining the threat that terrorism poses to free and civilized nations everywhere. These values receive an important part of their legal expression in the charter of rights and freedoms. We will protect the very thing that terrorism seeks to disrupt, namely, maintaining the balance between an open and just society and a safe and secure one.

Bill C-36 is one element of the Government of Canada's comprehensive action plan on Canadian security, a plan whose objectives are to stop terrorists from getting into Canada and protect Canadian citizens from terrorist acts, to bring forward tools to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists, to keep our borders secure and to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and address the root causes of hatred.

In developing this legislation we have paid close attention to what other democratic countries are doing in their fight against terrorism. It is important that we act in a way that is consistent with the approach of other democratic nations and in conformity with international law.

The world changed on September 11 in a way that changed our collective sense of safety and security. Reviewing our legal framework was one component of a more thorough review undertaken by the federal government to strengthen our national security. Be assured that all democratic nations have undertaken a similar re-examination.

Canadians have much to be proud of and much to protect. This bill strikes a balance between our desire to maintain the values of freedom and individual rights and our collective determination to protect our citizens.

Canadians can rest assured that we kept in mind the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter when drafting our proposals.

The bill reaffirms the equal right of every citizen of whatever religion, race or ethnic origin to enjoy the security, protections and liberties shared by all Canadians.

Amendments to the criminal code would allow the courts to order the deletion of publicly available hate propaganda from computer systems such as an Internet site. Those who post material will be provided the opportunity to convince the court that the material is not hate propaganda. The provision would apply to hate propaganda that is located on Canadian computer systems regardless of where the owner of the material is located or whether he or she can be identified.

Further, criminal code amendments would create a new offence of mischief, motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, committed against a place of religious worship or associated religious property.

In addition, the Canadian Human Rights Act will be amended to clarify that communication of hate messages using new technology, such as the Internet, constitutes a discriminatory practice. While such communication is already interpreted to be discriminatory, these amendments will add certainty and clarity to the law.

I should like to describe the approach we have developed in Bill C-36. The proposed legislative package focuses on three elements. Bill C-36 targets terrorist activity and those who would carry out or support such activity. The three main objectives of the new measures are as follows: first, to suppress the very existence of terrorist groups; second, to provide new investigative tools; and, third, to provide a tougher sentencing regime to incapacitate terrorists and terrorist groups.

The bill seeks to identify, dismantle, prosecute and punish terrorist activity. Bill C-36 includes criminal code amendments to ratify the remaining two United Nations conventions and protocols related to terrorism. The suppression of terrorist financing convention concerns the freezing of terrorist property.

It would prohibit dealing in any property of an individual involved in terrorist activities and it would prohibit making available funds and financial means or services to terrorists. These measures would allow a federal court judge to order the seizure and forfeiture of property used in or related to terrorist activity.

The suppression of terrorist bombings convention contains provisions relating to the targeting of public places, government or infrastructure facilities or transportation systems with explosives or other lethal devices including chemical or biological agents. The term explosive or other lethal device is defined broadly to include toxic chemicals, biological agents and radioactive substances. Ratification of these two conventions would reflect Canada's commitment to work together with the international community.

Let there be no doubt. Whether we are in North America or somewhere else in the world, terrorism represents a global threat, the force of which reverberated in the cities of New York and Washington on September 11. We shall take all legitimate means necessary to undermine the forces of terrorism. We must without hesitation work with our neighbours and with our allies to ensure that those who seek to terrorize the innocent and support terrorists understand that we will cut off their money. We will find them and we will punish them for their acts of violence.

The legislation before the House would provide a definition of terrorist activity for the first time. This definition is critical, as many of the legal implications under the bill are tied to the concept of terrorist activity. The first element of the definition outlines the offences that are established in the 12 international conventions related to terrorism, all of which we have signed.

Equally important, however, is a general definition that refers to acts or omissions undertaken for political, religious or ideological purposes and which are intended to intimidate the public, force governments to act and cause serious harm.

We have carefully restricted the definition to make it clear that property damage and disruption of an essential service are not in and of themselves sufficient to constitute a terrorist activity. The action taken must also endanger lives or cause serious risks to the health and safety of the public.

This is an important issue about which some of my colleagues have expressed concern. To respond to their concerns let me assure the House and all Canadians that this definition shall in no way include legitimate forms of political dissent. It would not impinge upon the lawful activities of legitimate political groups or lobby organizations. In addition, the legislation would permit the designation of groups whose activities meet the definition of terrorist activity.

I will speak now to the issue of new offences as laid out in the legislation and as targeted to acts of terrorism. Comprehensive new terrorism offences under the criminal code have been created. These include offences relating to participating in, facilitating or instructing terrorist activity and harbouring others who carry out terrorist activity.

These offences would criminalize a full range of activities related to terrorism. For example, a person who helps to train another person in an otherwise legal activity such as flying an aircraft would commit a crime if the trainer knew it would help the other person carry out a terrorist activity. This would be the case regardless of whether the trainer knew when, where or how the terrorist activity might be carried out.

The new offences related to direction of or instruction in terrorist activity would allow us to go after the leaders of terrorist organizations. The most severe penalties, up to life imprisonment, are attached to these offences.

I have spoken about the effort demonstrated in the bill to maintain a balance between a firm commitment to eradicate terrorism and the protection of civil liberties for all Canadians. There are safeguards built into these new terrorism offences throughout the bill. Notably the required proof includes specific intent or actual knowledge in relation to the prohibited conduct.

We are all aware that the lifeblood of terrorist organizations is money. Bill C-36 proposes new measures under the criminal code to combat the financing of terrorism. It includes measures related to the seizure, restraint and forfeiture of terrorist property. The new measures related to financing would allow us to effectively go after the heart of terrorist financing networks.

For example, it would be an offence to collect or provide cash knowing that it would be used to facilitate or carry out an offence that constitutes terrorist activity. It would be an offence to provide financial services knowing that they would be used to facilitate or carry out terrorist activity or to benefit a terrorist group. Persons in the financial services industry who knowingly engage in transactions related to terrorism could find themselves charged criminally.

These measures are also subject to safeguards including substantive and procedural requirements governing seizure, restraint and forfeiture. Third party interests including those of the innocent families of those involved would be protected.

I should like to turn now to the element of the bill that would provide for preventive arrest as a way of assisting law enforcement officers to disrupt terrorism acts. The September 11 events heightened our awareness of the highly sophisticated nature of terrorist activity.

Sophisticated communications, modified organizational structures and an ability to evade traditional investigative methods require us to examine what other tools may be available to help security and enforcement officers carry out their investigations. The preventive arrest is one such tool.

If an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a serious terrorist offence is about to take place and suspects that the arrest of a particular person would prevent it, then that person can be detained and brought before a judge. These measures would only be available under strictly defined conditions and would be subject to numerous procedural safeguards.

The consent of the attorney general would be required as a prerequisite, save for emergency circumstances. The person would be brought before a provincial court judge within 24 hours or as soon as possible, and a maximum further period in detention of 48 hours would be possible if a judge so orders.

The object of bringing the person before the court is for the court to consider whether conditions should be imposed upon the person's movements and associations. The court may impose such conditions or may release the person without conditions. If the person refuses to accept conditions the court may commit him or her to prison for up to 12 months.

The bill also amends the proceeds of crime or money laundering legislation. Fintrac's mandate would be expanded to gather, analyze and disclose information on terrorist money laundering. The safeguards built into the Fintrac process would be maintained.

The charities registration act would be enacted as part of the bill to allow for the denial or removal of charitable status from organizations that provide resources directly or indirectly to terrorists. This would be subject to both ministerial and judicial review.

Bill C-36 would also provide for investigative hearings under the criminal code. These hearings would permit the gathering of evidence in investigations of terrorism offences prior to the laying of charges. There is an existing procedure under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act that allows us to do this for other countries, but there is nothing comparable for our own investigations. The United States has investigative grand juries that perform a similar function.

This investigative hearing would not be a trial of an offence. Evidence given could not be used afterward in criminal proceedings against the person. The right to counsel would apply, as would the rights of privilege and other rights of non-disclosure under the law.

The bill would also amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to clarify its mandate and enable it to investigate threats to Canada, including those arising from religious or ideological objectives in addition to political causes that it now covers. As we have seen, terrorists may be driven by motives other than the purely political.

The bill would amend the National Defence Act to continue and clarify the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment, CSE, to collect foreign communications. The CSE's functions of collecting foreign intelligence and of protecting Government of Canada communications systems are particularly important in the context of action against sophisticated terrorist networks that use computers and satellite telephone systems.

Subject to strict conditions the bill would empower the Minster of National Defence to authorize interceptions in limited circumstances. Safeguards to ensure the privacy of Canadians are built into the legislation.

Other provisions of the bill include the updating and refinement of the Official Secrets Act. This act would be renamed the security of information act and would better address national security concerns.

The amendments cover threats of espionage by foreign powers and by terrorist groups, espionage against Canada's national security, defence, international relations and economic interests. They also address the intimidation and coercion of any émigré community in Canada.

The Canada Evidence Act would be amended to allow for better protection of sensitive information during legal proceedings. One of the key reasons we need this improved protection is to be able to assure our allies that sensitive information they provide to us can be protected from release.

The Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and Personal Information Protection Act would be amended to allow the Attorney General of Canada to issue certificates prohibiting disclosure of information for the purpose of protecting national security, national defence or international relations. This would be consistent with Canada Evidence Act provisions respecting the protection of such information in court proceedings.

I want to say a few words about the sentencing regime. The bill would implement an aggressive sentencing and parole regime for terrorism offences including a maximum of life imprisonment for many offences and restricted parole eligibility. Those who instruct anyone to carry out a terrorist activity would be subject to a maximum of life imprisonment.

In addition, the criminal code would stipulate that sentences imposed for terrorist offences are to be served consecutively to any other offence imposed relating to the same activity or event.

These are the main elements of our legislative proposals. Legislation alone is not the complete answer to the security challenge we are facing. Rather, it is one element of the government's plan to deal effectively with terrorists and those who support them.

It is incumbent on us to ensure that our laws meet our present day needs. As such, this package includes a three year parliamentary review clause because we acknowledge the fact that our needs may change in the weeks, months and years ahead.

Today I want to reassure Canadians that their government has listened to them and acknowledged their desire for action. It is responding with a legislative package that I believe meets their expectations not only in relation to combating terrorism but in its commitment to protecting individual rights and freedoms.

Our world changed dramatically on September 11 but not in the manner that the terrorists who planned and carried out the horrific attacks had hoped. They aimed to frighten us, disrupt our lives and force us to question our most basic democratic values of freedom and liberty. They did not succeed. Our commitment to democracy is stronger than ever. Together all Canadians are committed to increasing public security while maintaining our core values.

Bill C-36 represents an appropriate legislative balance to reflect Canadian values. Though our allies may have designed different legislative means to suit their legislative and constitutional frameworks, we nevertheless share a collective goal: to provide our citizens with security for themselves, their families and their communities.

I welcome review of the legislation by the House. I encourage all members to participate in the review and to support passage of the legislation.

Privilege

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

moved:

That the matter of the media receiving information on the contents of Bill C-36 before members of parliament and before the bill is tabled in the House of Commons be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(Motion agreed to)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation. To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone. In this case it is clear that information concerning legislation, although denied to members, was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House. I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.

This matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee concluded:

--the protocol of the Department of Justice whereby no briefings or briefing material should be provided with respect to a bill on notice until its introduction in the House of Commons should be adopted as a standard policy by all government departments. We believe that such a policy is respectful of the House of Commons and its members. It recognizes the legislative role of parliament, and is consistent with parliamentary privilege and conventions of parliament.

The committee noted that the adoption of such a policy should not be viewed as preventing the provisions of courtesy copies of government bills on a confidential basis to opposition critics shortly before their introduction. The committee went on to say:

--this incident highlights a concern shared by all members of the committee: apparent departmental ignorance of or disrespect for the role of the House of Commons and its members. Even if the result is unintended, the House should not tolerate such ignorance within the government administration to undermine the perception of parliament's constitutional role in legislating. The rights of the House and its members in this role are central to our constitutional and democratic government.

The committee heeded this warning:

Failure to adopt appropriate measures could lead to a reoccurrence of this problem in which case the House would have to consider using its power in a more severe way. The acceptance of an apology will not necessarily be considered a sufficient response.

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

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

Anti-terrorism Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities, in order to combat terrorism.

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

International Actions Against Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Prime Minister stated that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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