Bill S-3 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions)

This enactment replaces sections 83.28 to 83.3 of the Criminal Code to provide for an investigative hearing to gather information for the purposes of an investigation of a terrorism offence and to provide for the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person to prevent them from carrying out a terrorist activity. It also provides for those sections to cease to have effect or for the possible extension of their operation.

Criminal Code

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-537, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of conscience rights in the health care profession).

Mr. Speaker, this conscience clause private member's bill would prohibit coercion in medical procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that human life is inviolable. The bill seeks to ensure that health care providers will never be forced to participate against their will in procedures such as abortions or acts of euthanasia.

Canada has a long history of recognizing the rights of freedom of religion and conscience in our country, yet health care workers and those seeking to be educated for the health care system have often been denied those rights in medical facilities and educational institutions. Some have even been wrongfully dismissed.

The bill would make those conscience rights explicit in law and would safeguard the fundamental human rights of health care workers.

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

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

moved that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the chronology presented by my friend opposite appears to be an appropriate chronology. I may quibble with the details of the rationale that he was addressing, but the chronology is correct.

I think one of the reasons that this House voted overwhelmingly against these provisions was that in fact some of the concerns, that the committees had expressed in the reports that had been provided up to that point, were not taken into account in the simple renewal for three years, the resolution that was presented by the government.

I am pleased that the government now has taken into account several of the recommendations and has made improvements to this legislation. Therefore, although no one takes comfort in necessarily wanting to have these kinds of provisions as law, the fact is that in the kinds of times we are living in, sometimes we have to take difficult decisions to maintain peace in the country.

I believe that these provisions are appropriate, they are required, and they are now improved by the amendments that have been made in the way the legislation has been presented.

We take the issue of safety of Canadians very seriously. We also take the issue of liberty of Canadians very seriously. I believe that this improved legislation attempts to present that balance between those two sometimes competing and contending requirements and needs of any society like Canada.

Before I get into those changes, the member opposite on the government bench did actually provide a reasonable summary of the legislation. I believe that the legislation has been improved, and I will come to some of those changes.

First, any time an individual is to be detained by peace officers on the suspicion, on reasonable grounds, that he or she may be planning a terrorist activity, in order to prevent that, the individual obviously may be apprehended and presented to a judge.

I think one of the improvements that has been made in this legislation is that when we present that individual for detainment or at least released on bail with conditions possibly, the basis on which the detention is to be now ruled upon has been narrowed.

The scope of the grounds for detention by the Senate amendments has been narrowed and, therefore, the general clause on reasonable and just grounds that a judge may be able to detain the individual has been eliminated and the specific grounds that are only reasonable in the circumstances have been retained in this particular legislation.

I believe that improves this legislation and takes a certain degree of arbitrariness out of the hands of the presiding judge.

The second particular improvement that has been made by the amendments or the improvements that have been presented by the government is that in the previous legislation it was implicit and clear that the same judge who may have first heard the matter with respect to possible detention or bail would have to hear the matter.

Now in fact, as the legislation is presented, it makes room for any other judge of the provincial court to be able to hear the matter so that the matter can be dealt with expeditiously, and I believe that is very important.

One of the other amendments that has been made is the ability of any person ordered to attend the investigative hearing to deal with past terrorist activity or future potential terrorist activity. That person may retain counsel prior to the hearing, prior to the commencement of the hearing, or at any stage in the course of the hearing. That right to counsel, one of the fundamental rights that has been guaranteed all Canadians by common law and by charter, is now clearly mentioned and provided to those who may face investigative hearings, or of course the issue of detention.

These are unique and extraordinary remedies. When a person is picked up and asked to attend before a judge for an investigative hearing, it is only reasonable that the police officers involved should have made all reasonable efforts and attempts to actually get at the information they require through other regular means.

That requirement is now clearly placed in this legislation so that when police officers take a particular individual with the crown before a judge for an investigative hearing, either for past activity or potential future activity, one has to satisfy the judge that all of the reasonable efforts that could have been made to obtain that information without the use of this extraordinary remedy have been made.

I believe that actually provides some guarantee to individuals who may be asked to attend investigative hearings that the crown and the police have to make all reasonable efforts to get the evidence otherwise.

The new reporting provisions that are now in this legislation are that every year both the public safety minister and the attorney general, the minister of justice of Canada, have to provide annual reports to Parliament, and therefore to Canadians, indicating whether or not there is a continuing need to retain these provisions in the Criminal Code.

I believe that guarantees a certain degree of transparency and due diligence on the part of the government for Canadians, because Canadians need to know that these are extraordinary remedies and they are not being left on the books unnecessarily, that there is a continuing need. I think that is a very important change.

I believe that before the end of five years, before the sunset clause takes effect, there is now a mandatory provision for a review of both of the clauses in the Criminal Code with respect to bail and investigative hearings by both Houses of Parliament.

Either committee of either House, I believe, can complete that review. That is very important because this indicates that before we come to a situation as we did in the spring of last year where these decisions were made, where the government made no effort to change anything or take into account any of the recommendations that had been made by that date, that situation would not reoccur.

There is an obligation on the part of the House and the Senate, both or singularly, to actually engage in a mandatory review of these clauses and provide that report to Canadians and to the government.

Based on the four or five annual reports that would have been provided by both of the ministers and the last review before the end of five years, the government then can take those into account and determine whether or not these clauses ought to be renewed in the Criminal Code, and if they ought to be reviewed. Then the government would have all of the ammunition, so to speak, in its hands to be able to persuade the House and persuade Canadians that this is appropriate.

I believe there are several other changes that have been made that are very appropriate. One of the things that was heartening for me was to read the results of the reference that went to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to one of the clauses that is under discussion, and that is the investigative hearing clause.

I believe the Supreme Court in 2004 in that reference held that the clauses as they were, and they have now been further improved, did not infringe anyone's charter rights and did not violate the charter. They were within the four corners of the charter and they complied with the charter.

That is important for me because the charter is paramount. It is important. It defines and enshrines in our Constitution the rights of all Canadians, ordinary or not. It is important that we are always cognizant and mindful of the importance of the charter. Therefore, I am heartened to be able to read that decision from 2004 and see that all of those provisions, which are now being improved upon, are compliant with the charter.

Another thing I think is worth pointing out is that when the government brought these provisions in, in the first place, after 9/11, the government could have gone the route of invoking the Emergencies Act or the notwithstanding clause of the charter. The government did not do that.

The government wanted to ensure that these provisions were compliant with the charter and they were placed in ordinary legislation in the Criminal Code. I think that is a very important distinction.

That is why my reference to the Supreme Court review of 2004 is all the more important. It is important because when we try and seek extraordinary remedies to ensure the public safety and security of all Canadians, we try and do it within the four corners of the charter and be compliant with the charter.

I believe this bill commends itself to all members of the House. It is important. These are difficult decisions. For someone like me who comes from the background of civil liberties and human rights, it is very difficult sometimes to look at clauses like this and determine whether or not we need them.

I looked at the debates in the House that went on around the time of the original legislation, the presentations that were made to the committees, both for and against the continuance of these provisions, and in fact the current bill that is before us. Having looked at all of that and deliberated very conscientiously, I have come to the conclusion that these are important provisions, unique though they are, extraordinary as they are, nonetheless, they are absolutely, fundamentally important to maintain the safety and security of Canadians in extraordinary times that we are living in.

Other countries, Australia, U.K., and others, have similar remedies in their legislation. Their remedies are much more stringent and perhaps one might say that to some of us they may not be acceptable because they are so stringent.

Our remedies are stringent, but they are not too stringent and they are compliant with the charter. They are in conformity with our traditions, with the traditions of our charter, and the traditions of those who framed the charter and the common law traditions of liberty, freedom and justice of a country. It is important that we keep all of that in mind when we vote on it.

Having said that, I want to commend the work of the Senate in shepherding this legislation through in a way that was cooperative and collaborative on its part. The Senate ought to be credited with having made some of the changes that makes this bill much better than when it was first introduced in the Senate.

Therefore, I commend this bill to all members of Parliament. I stand in support of it.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ensuring balance in the legislation is one of the issues of concern to all of us in the House. Given the work that was done at the Senate, it meets a lot of our benchmarks.

Does my colleague have any concerns about the possible misuse of this legislation? We have not had to use it, thank goodness, and I hope we never need to. Is my colleague confident that there is a balance in the legislation that would protect people from having their constitutional rights abused? I would appreciate it if the hon. member could address that.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with tough laws, like the Criminal Code, there is absolutely no question that the system is not perfect and that there is always a danger of somebody somewhere doing something erroneous that one should not do.

However, I am comforted by the fact that in the five years that this law has been on the books in the Criminal Code, it has never been used, which means that all of the other tools were sufficient enough to deal with some of the issues that may have arisen. However, that does not mean that we will never have situations that will require the use of these extraordinary remedies, but I hope we never do. I am comfortable with all of the changes that have been made.

I believe there are enough checks and balances in the legislation so that when a judge is asked for an investigative hearing and the person is presented before a provincial court judge, the judge has no right to refuse any questions the individual might want to ask.

Initially, for an investigative hearing an individual could make an application ex parte, which is without notice, but the attorney general of the province had to give consent for that ex parte application. If no consent was forthcoming, the application had to be made with notice. Once there was notice, the individual could retain counsel.

It is similar for police officers who pick someone up without a warrant or with a warrant and take them before a provincial court judge and have him or her detained or released on certain conditions. The judge would have wide discretion under the new legislation to actually impose conditions upon release, which tells me that there may be fewer cases where there will be a need to detain an individual. We could actually be releasing individuals on bail with a wide variety of conditions.

The kind of discretion and the kinds of checks and balances that are clearly laid out in the legislation provide very little room for abuse. So far these provisions have not been used, which comforts me because that tells me that police officers and law enforcers are wise enough not to use these remedies in an ordinary fashion.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question.

Could he give me just one example of a situation where a person should be brought before a judge to sign a recognizance in order to prevent a terrorist act from being committed? Such a thing could be handled better through regular application of the Criminal Code, especially the provisions authorizing a peace officer to arrest without warrant anyone he or she believes is about to commit an indictable offence.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we deal with hypotheticals and abstract issues, it becomes rather difficult. Under the ordinary Criminal Code provisions, I believe that the threshold is very high for someone to be arrested. These provisions have, implicit in them, serious terrorist activity, which is not like a regular criminal activity. Sometimes these are conspiracies that may be in the initial stages and we want to, if I might say, nip them in the bud. I believe these powers are extraordinary and that they will be useful under those circumstances.

I think it would be foolish of me to conjure up particular situations where it might or might not be used, but I can guarantee my colleague, who was the attorney general of Quebec when I was the attorney general of British Columbia, so we go back a long way together in these areas, that these are unique and extraordinary powers that may be useful. One never knows what will happen. So far, Canada has been generally blessed with peace. We have had our share of problems but we know Canada is on the hit list of terrorist organizations. I do not want our police officers and our law enforcement agencies to be without the use of these tools.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before us now is very similar to the one that the House of Commons rejected some time ago. In fact, the changes are technical, and I believe there are three of them. As a result, our arguments for opposing Bill S-3 are essentially the same as those we made for excluding these provisions from the Anti-terrorism Act.

We are here because these provisions were part of a sunset clause, which said that these provisions would disappear if these powers were not renewed within five years. Since the House refused to renew them, the government wants to reintroduce them, this time through the Senate. The bill reproduces almost entirely the provisions that the House refused to renew.

What is more, the House's arguments against the provisions are simple, and we must stand firm. These provisions are completely useless in the fight against terrorism, particularly when we want to arrest someone, bring them before a judge and make them sign a recognizance. But these provisions could be used by a government that would like to discredit political opponents.

They also put the people who are meant to sign the recognizance in a terrible situation. They are arrested or receive a summons and are brought before a judge based on mere suspicions that they might be involved in a terrorist activity. If the judge believes that the suspicions are reasonable, that is, that there is reason to believe that a serious crime would be committed, the judge can force a person to sign a recognizance. He can imprison the individual only if that person refuses to sign the recognizance, which is valid for one year.

I imagine that this would not help with the arrest of a very dangerous terrorist, since he would immediately be released. However, for the danger we want to prevent with these other provisions, the Criminal Code states that a police officer can arrest a person without a warrant if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is about to commit an indictable offence. He can therefore interrupt the crime. The individual is arrested and brought before a judge. The judge can refuse bail if he believes there is a real danger and that this person could commit a serious crime if he were released. In this case, the judge cannot do that. The judge can only ask the individual to sign a recognizance.

However, the person who was arrested, as an accused, can eventually defend himself and say that the police officer did not have reasonable grounds and that the individual had no intention of committing a crime. This person can present a full defence and be acquitted, or perhaps have the charges withdrawn, because the Crown would realize that the person had not committed a crime. This person could continue to participate in society, as he was doing before.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of someone in this situation. It is difficult for us because, as parliamentarians, we have reached a certain standing in society. Before, we also had careers that likely put us above these types of suspicions. But let us put ourselves in the shoes of an ordinary citizen, a young union activist who speaks out against injustices. But other people also speak out against these same injustices, but would rather use violence to change society.

The police could think that since this young man keeps company with people who have terrorist objectives, he could be involved in terrorist activities. Accordingly, they could make him appear before a judge and ask him to sign a similar recognizance. This young man could deny everything and swear that his actions are purely democratic, even though he knows those other people. If the judge finds that reasonable, under the law, relative to the severity of the terrorist act that could be committed, the judge can force him to sign a recognizance.

First of all, this individual will of course not go to prison. He will choose to sign the recognizance and be released. However, how will he be able to prove later on that those suspicions were completely unjustified? He will have no way to do so.

Let us consider the consequences of such a decision on that individual for the rest of his life. Does anyone believe he will be allowed entry into the United States if he tries to cross the border, having been the subject of a legal ruling forcing him to sign a recognizance in a context where there were concerns about possible terrorist activity? I am sure that individual would be denied entry. And what if his employer learns that he had to go to court to sign such a recognizance? In any case, these proceedings would likely be public. He would probably lose his job and have a hard time finding another one. Furthermore, I am convinced that he would appear on the no fly list, not only in the United States, but here too. He would have a hard time travelling to any other country.

This person would be stigmatized because a court ordered him to sign a recognizance to swear he will not carry out an act of terrorism. No one here has ever signed such a recognizance. The fact that someone is judicially forced to sign such a recognizance places a stigma on him that he will have to carry his whole life.

If anyone believes that these fears are unjustified, let us consider our past.

We had our own terrorists in the 1970s. They were not as dangerous as those we fear today, but they nevertheless caused the death of one person. Naturally, the killing of a minister horrified the population and also created tremendous fear. More than 500 suspects were jailed in one fell swoop. Five or six years later we had to compensate all of them. They included a popular singer, Pauline Julien, and her husband, Gérald Godin, who later became the minister of immigration and cultural communities and one of the best ever in Quebec. He was also a poet.

With the exception of one or two, all candidates in upcoming municipal elections who were members of FRAP were arrested. The parents, brothers and sisters of these people were detained.

There are times when we lose our reflex to defend a free society by respecting the freedoms of all and we feel obligated to restrict the rights of certain individuals.

I completely understand that the current international terrorist crisis and its consequences are worrisome. Yet I have not heard anyone reconcile the stigma that would be attached to the persons who have to sign these recognizance orders and the effectiveness of the fight against terrorism.

What do we think makes the secret service suspect that an individual is about to commit a terrorist act or will be involved in one? Judge O'Connor gave us a good example in the Maher Arar affair. It was believed that Maher Arar was involved in terrorist movements because he was seen walking in the rain, umbrella in hand, with someone who was also a suspect.

Apparently it is more difficult, even impossible, to record conversations when people are walking around under an umbrella. It has never occurred to me to criticize secret agents for operating on suspicion. Foiling terrorist plots is their job. Since these are secret organizations, these agents try to remain inconspicuous and analyze suspicions. It is normal for them to have suspicions.

However, they do not do surveillance on everyone. They target people of interest. A person of interest can be an individual who lends his car to a suspected terrorist, or people who take part in democratic organizations to denounce such injustices.

I am not criticizing these agents for having suspicions, but those suspicions must not have legal consequences. Those consequences happen because of suspicions; that is the criterion.

I want to say a few words about what the member before me said. He compared the degree of certainty we must have to arrest someone who is about to commit an indictable offence with the degree of certainty of our suspicions—can suspicions really be certain?—or rather the degree of knowledge or fear that pushes someone to make an individual appear before a judge to sign such a recognizance. In order to arrest someone without warrant because he is about to commit an crime, one must have reasonable grounds. It is true that this requires a little more than reasonable suspicion.

How do the police come up with their suspicions? By watching the people the individual spends time with. It is inevitable that some of the people who spend time with a person under police surveillance have nothing to do with terrorism. Therefore, it is also inevitable that people who have nothing to do with terrorism will be under suspicion.

I understand that surveillance of those people will continue. I understand, for example, that there may have been a good reason to keep Maher Arar under surveillance. The mistake made in the Maher Arar case is that he was clearly designated as a person of interest. A person of interest is not someone believed to be involved in the terrorist movement, but a person who has been observed among the entourage of those who are suspected, to be more precise, of being part of terrorist movements. That is the difference.

Now, instead of reasonable grounds, reasonable suspicion is enough. It is true that it is a small detail. However, I hope everyone grasps the potential stigma that could result from such a ruling by a court that orders someone, under the threat of imprisonment, to promise to comply with a number of conditions, including to stop participating in terrorist plots, of course.

When the police suspect someone is about to take action, to the point that they would make that person sign the recognizance, it is usually after wiretapping or something more substantial than just a suspicion. That being the case, the police probably have proof of a plot or the beginnings of a plot. And the plot, as well as its preparations, are considered criminal offences.

If it is important to intervene to prevent these plots from being carried out or ensure that the preparations are not completed, to the point that the individual is arrested and taken before a judge, it must mean that we have enough evidence to lay charges.

Yet laying charges allows the individual to go through the legal system and be acquitted, if that person is innocent. In the current situation, that person will carry the stigma of having been closely linked to terrorism and for the rest of his life will face all the major problems this could entail, given international travel these days.

I wanted to talk about something, but I have forgotten what it was. I will probably talk about it another time. I have been getting ready to give this speech since Monday, but it has been postponed repeatedly. About 15 minutes ago, I was told that I would be speaking now, but I do not have my notes.

Another thing that strikes me is how reluctant the rest of Canada is to look at what we are doing in Quebec. I am saying this to many nationalists whom I respect and who are not yet sovereignists. I was not born a sovereignist, I became one, as many others have done. I still understand that many Quebec nationalists in this House often look on Canada as an ideal. With two different cultures—we have two different languages and therefore different backgrounds—two sources of inspiration, two sources of reasoning, we could have a wonderful society built on the two languages that have played such an important role in the civilization we enjoy today. I understand those people. But I would have thought that both parties would benefit as a result. One party, inspired by the successes of the other, could take a page from the other's book, and the other party could learn from mistakes that were made and avoid repeating those mistakes. However, for many years now, it seems that successful initiatives in Quebec that could serve as a model for federal legislation have been systematically and completely ignored.

A good example of this was given here when a bill was introduced to amend the Young Offenders Act. The youth crime rate in Canada was 50% higher than in Quebec. Quebec had taken very seriously the old law, which was concerned with rehabilitating young offenders. In fact, the chief justice of the youth court in Quebec had summarized in a few choice words the Quebec courts' approach to young offenders: the right measure at the right time. Today, when he talks to me about the new law, he says that we used to judge a young person who had committed an offence; today, we judge an offence that was committed by a young person.

I know that in the west, for all sorts of reasons, people were terribly afraid of young offenders. People said that all they get is a slap on the wrist. The government decided to make a change and create a completely objective system that, in my opinion, does not produce the results Quebec had gotten.

Here, we have yet another example. We experienced terrorism and the reaction it elicits from those in power. Once again, we are unable to learn from those who lived through it.

I was a young lawyer at the time. In the 1970s—you can imagine that I was much younger than today—we had legal assistance. The difference between legal assistance and legal aid is that we were not paid. The young members of the Bar defended people. I defended many people accused of terrorism.

I learned a thing or two and I am realizing that these provisions could very well be used when the government panics. It has not done so in the past five years and that is a good thing. However, when such provisions are put into the Criminal Code, someone will find a way of using them eventually. In turbulent times, it could become a weapon used by a government to discredit its adversaries.

I believe that I have proven that not only is this bill futile, it is also dangerous. The risks of this bill outweigh by far its supposed advantages.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say for the member across the way that I was 23 years old in 1970 and had yet to become a member of the New Democratic Party. In 1970 the New Democratic Party stood up against the War Measures Act because it was invasive of the rights of Quebeckers and those of the rest of Canadians. In my opinion, it was an affront to democracy as we know it.

I want to speak a little more about what the member was saying with regard to what I would refer to as natural law: the fact that people have a right to know what they are accused of and the right to know the evidence against them. We have seen the move by the government to prevent that. It was drawn to mind with what occurred yesterday with the so-called Toronto 18 when a number of them had the charges against them stayed. That is just an example of a system that took some time but did work.

However, in my opinion, these provisions are terrible and take away that sense of natural justice in Canada. Would you agree with that?

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I remind the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek to address his questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this issue. I do not think I used the words “natural law”. Indeed, what I had in mind was the natural tendencies of humans, who need limits.

There is a minority in Canada that clearly understood. We are very similar to the NDP, except for our views on the sovereignty of Quebec and, generally speaking, the usefulness of the current Constitution. Otherwise, we are very similar. One must have lived through that time, however, to have felt the strength of the popular movements that called for punishment and were ready to dispense with all the principles of law to which we were accustomed.

It is to the credit of the member who asked the question, and to those around him, to be aware of that and have the courage to stand firm before an opinion, which I feel sometimes verges on hysteria.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak against Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions). I think I will be making some of the points that have been made by my colleague who spoke just before me.

I am proud that the NDP is once again taking a stand against the Conservative government for going too far. It is not being proud to take a stand against the government, but I will take a stand against a government that I think has gone too far in pursuing its national security agenda. We all believe it is important, but it is being done at the expense of civil liberties.

Ensuring public safety is essentially about protecting Canadians' quality of life. Quality of life can be defined in many ways. If we talk to our family members or next door neighbours, they would define quality of life in a variety of ways, perhaps by where they live, where they work, by their environment, whatever that might be.

In deeper conversation, though, I think two things would come out. There is the importance of finding a balance between security and freedom.

Security means feeling safe, feeling that our country and our communities are safe, feeling that we can safely go out on the street, and feeling that the federal government, our country, is protecting us. As well, Canadians want to see that security balanced with freedoms, because freedoms are something that Canadians hold dear as a principle of being Canadian.

There are the freedoms to which we are entitled, the freedoms which people have fought for and the freedoms which we enjoy on a daily basis and often do not even take the time to perhaps think about or make a list of or talk to people about. Although if we turn on the television most evenings, we would certainly be able to see countries in which many or most of those freedoms are not available to people.

For some reason, the Conservative government is either unwilling or unable to find that balance, as it has proven by introducing Bill S-3 and by the security certificate legislation that we debated in this House in January, which has some similarity to this legislation.

With both of these pieces of legislation, the Conservatives are taking the wrong approach, or an unbalanced approach, to fighting terrorism in Canada. Do we need to fight terrorism in Canada? Of course we do, but there are many tools at our disposal currently in the Criminal Code that could be used as opposed to introducing yet another set or piece of legislation.

Our country already has many appropriate mechanisms in place for charging people, for trying people and for punishing those suspected of participating in terrorist activities. These mechanisms are contained in the Criminal Code of Canada, a very significant piece of legislation which ensures that our country is protected, as I said earlier, from those who seek to do harm to others while ensuring fundamental rights are protected.

The NDP always has opposed and always will oppose any attempt to undermine those fundamental rights and freedoms upon which our judicial system was founded. Our system was founded on responsibility and freedom, which go hand in hand.

That is why we oppose the security certificate legislation. That is why we are opposed to Bill S-3. I do not think we are alone in this at all.

Many Liberals, and even some Conservatives, may privately admit that Bill S-3 is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. Certainly we saw many Liberals saying that over Bill C-3. However, knowing that this bill is fundamentally flawed and fundamentally wrong-headed did not stop the Conservatives from introducing Bill S-3 through the other door in the Senate, so to speak, the back door in the Senate, and it will not stop the Liberals, I expect, from allowing the legislation to pass.

Once again, the NDP--and I believe the Bloc, as I have just heard some of the comments--is left as the voice of reason, fighting to protect Canadian values that some other parties only pay lip service to.

Let us look at one key component of Bill S-3: the establishment of investigative hearings. These hearings would force an individual we suspect--we do not know anything, we just suspect--might have information about terrorist activity that has happened, or may happen, to testify before a judge. It forces individuals against whom we have no charge to testify before a judge.

This marks a major shift in Canadian law, which is based on a right to remain silent.

If the individual refuses to speak, he or she will be arrested and sent to prison for as long as a year, on no charge except that he or she might, we think, based on something somebody else said, know something. I am not sure whether most Canadians would consider that to be a balance between freedom and security.

As I say, the individual might go to prison for as long as a year. To some people this may not seem unreasonable at first glance. Certainly the NDP believes that anyone with knowledge of terrorist activity should be investigated and questioned. We would not deny that at all. However, we already have provisions in place under the Criminal Code of Canada for questioning those involved in criminal activity. Otherwise, we would have nobody brought before a judge and nobody arrested.

We do have the means within the Criminal Code to question people involved in criminal activity. If people think someone is involved in a terrorist activity or that something might happen or they might know that something is criminal activity, I would suggest that we have within our system a way to deal with that.

We do not need a special provision for interrogating witnesses that has a one year prison sentence as a consequence for appearing uncooperative. An individual goes before a judge. He or she may not have any information whatsoever or may wish to remain silent. Let us say that somebody says the individual appears to be or is uncooperative. We then have the right to send him or her to jail for up to a year.

That is outrageous. That is not acceptable. It is indeed acceptable to question under the Criminal Code people suspected of terrorist activity. It is not acceptable for people to be placed in jail for a year with no charge whatsoever because they appear to be uncooperative.

This undermines our current judicial system, which ensures that those who have knowledge of crimes but refuse to divulge that information face criminal charges themselves. That is what our criminal system says. Those who have knowledge of crimes and refuse to divulge it will face criminal charges.

Investigative hearings would grant new powers outside of what is normally allowed under the Criminal Code. It is an extraordinary tool that is subject to dangerous misuse. We can all stand in this House and say that it would never be misused. I do not know how often we have stood in this House or in other places of government or in our communities and said, “That is not how we meant it to be used”. It is there and there is the possibility for misuse.

Denis Barrette of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group appeared before the Senate committee examining Bill S-3 and spoke of the possible dangers involved in investigative hearings. He pointed out that investigative hearings allow for the compelled testimony of individuals involved in protest or dissidence entirely unrelated to our everyday understanding of terrorism. It may not be the intention, but it allows for that.

Mr. Barrette is right. Bill S-3 exposes many law-abiding Canadians to frivolous harassment and possibly even incarceration. It is a very slippery slope and one which the NDP will not condone.

This is not the only problem with investigative hearings. When the Supreme Court of Canada studied investigative hearings in 2004, it was clear that testimony gathered during the proceedings must not be used against the witness. I need to repeat this. Testimony gathered during the proceedings must not be used against the witness.

Bill S-3 does not follow the Supreme Court's direction. The legislation currently before us states that information gathered in an investigative hearing cannot be used in a criminal hearing, but the Supreme Court was clear that information gathered through an investigative hearing cannot be used against the individual in any kind of proceeding, criminal, extradition, or otherwise.

It is unclear, given this obvious disregard for what the Supreme Court of Canada has said on this matter, whether Bill S-3 would survive a challenge, as we have said about Bill C-3, but whether or not Bill S-3 is constitutional is not the issue being debated today. I call on my colleagues in this House to join with the NDP and defeat this legislation so that a Supreme Court challenge is never required. That is part one of Bill S-3.

The second part is recognizance with conditions. This is a very controversial part of Bill S-3, recognizance with conditions, or what is called preventive detention.

I am extremely disappointed to see preventive detention included in this legislation because it violates a basic tenet of our justice system, as I said earlier, that a person must be proven to be guilty of doing something or plotting something in order to be detained. That is not the case in Bill S-3.

Recognizance with conditions would allow law enforcement officials to arrest and hold people with no evidence against them. Furthermore, upon release, these individuals would be subject to conditions similar to a peace bond, but unlike a peace bond, the individuals released with conditions may have done nothing wrong. The purpose of this provision, we are told, is to allow law enforcement--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I hate to have to interrupt the hon. member, but she will have about four minutes left when this bill comes back before the House.

The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to Bill C-13.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #90

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the amendment lost.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

moved that Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief against educational or other institution) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I will be speaking today about my private member's bill C-384 at second reading. This is my first ever private member's bill in the House, and I am very proud of what it contains and its message. I am sure that my distinguished colleagues will understand the importance and scope of this bill and that, ultimately, they will support it.

Bill C-384 amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence to prohibit hate-motivated acts of mischief against an identifiable group at an educational institution. The term “educational institution” would cover a range of institutions or community places, such as a school, daycare centre, college, university, community centre, playground, sports centre and many others.

There are two fundamentals elements we must take note of. The first is the fight against hate crimes. The second is the protection of places recognized as belonging to identifiable groups. In my opinion, these are two very laudable goals that will benefit all of our communities both on the social and cultural level.

I want to start off by saying that we live in a society known for its openness to the other and to difference. Our tolerance is the envy of the world. It is reflected in the social harmony underpinning all of our communities. However, there will always be people or groups seeking to disturb that social harmony, to spread base, degrading intolerance.

In general, they carry out their plans using the vilest, most reactionary ideas and actions imaginable. Studies have looked at hate crime activity nationally. One of these, the Department of Justice's 1995 study, showed that 61% of 1,000 hate crimes reported to police were perpetrated against racial minorities. That same proportion showed up again in another study conducted in 2002.

Offenders' second favourite target is religious communities, and these crimes are typically committed by anti-Semitic groups.

The third and fourth most common motives for hate crimes were sexual orientation and ethnic origin. According to several studies, individuals' reasons for committing hate crimes are varied.

I am more concerned about some of these reasons because they can easily result in mischief against educational institutions. Many people consider minorities to be scapegoats for ills that befall people and society. Others express their resentment of a minority's economic success. Some have inherited hatred and animosity from previous generations. Sadly, mischief-makers think that they have their society's tacit consent.

Nevertheless, we already have some legislative provisions to counter this kind of harmful behaviour. Initially, the definition of hate crime could be found in the sections in the Criminal Code on hate propaganda, sections 318 and 319, to be precise, which address advocating genocide, inciting hatred and wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group. The definition of “identifiable group” includes any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

In 1996, section 718.2 was amended to allow the courts to increase a sentence where an offence was “motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor”. Thanks to this amendment, the courts can now consider hate an aggravating circumstance.

Section 430(1) of the Criminal Code pertains to the general offence of mischief and prohibits damage to property. Section 430(4.1) covers a subcategory of the offence of mischief: mischief relating to religious property such as churches, mosques and synagogues. But is this enough to protect identifiable groups?

Some might be tempted to believe that hate crimes against educational or cultural institutions are infrequent or are committed by only a handful of individuals in a specific area.

But when we read the headlines, we see that more and more acts of violence are targeting schools and community centres.

I would like to share three recent examples with my colleagues.

On August 28, 2007, the Euclide-Lanthier elementary school in Aylmer was the target of a hate crime when one or more vandals covered one wall of the school with two anti-francophone and homophobic messages. The parents were shocked and disappointed that people would write such things on their school. They rightly believe that their children do not need to read such crude language.

On July 18, 2007, the third fire in two weeks broke out at a Jewish summer camp in Val-David, adding to the group's concern. One or more suspects broke into five homes in this community and tried to set them on fire. They succeeded in completely destroying one and damaging at least two others.

On September 3, 2006, a Molotov cocktail was thrown into a Jewish school in the Outremont area of Montreal. For the second time in less than two years, a Jewish school in Montreal was the scene of a criminal act. In April 2004, a youth had targeted the library of the United Talmed Torahs elementary school in the Ville Saint-Laurent area of Montreal.

My colleagues will notice that I am using examples from Quebec to show that even a society as multicultural as ours, which has a low crime rate compared to the rest of North America, is no exception to the rule. Thus the need to create an additional offence specifically to address mischief against certain categories of buildings used or occupied by an identifiable group of persons.

Citing all the incidents that have occurred across Canada could have been a speech in and of itself, but that is not the purpose of my speech. I want people to understand the need to create this new offence against the educational institutions of identifiable groups. In my opinion, this would add another building block to tolerance and respect for our differences.

Second, the relevance of my bill is not just based on facts alone. It comes from a specific request from a number of organizations that defend identifiable groups. I am referring in particular to the Canadian Jewish Congress, which has been calling for this change to the Criminal Code for five years.

The need for this change has resulted in widespread support for my bill from groups and agencies from all walks of life. Promoting hatred against people is denying them a certain value as human beings and denying them the respect and dignity they deserve.

I want to acknowledge the support I have received from the Canadian Jewish Congress, whose director of intergovernmental relations, Éric Vernon, told me that more than 1,000 acts of anti-Semitism were committed in 2007 alone; Laurent McCutcheon, president of Gai écoute, who indicated that the gay community is still the target of aggressive behaviour and vicious comments; the president of Médias Maghreb, Lamine Foura, who pointed out that the Muslim community is a regular target of violence by certain individuals, as evidenced by the deplorable acts of vandalism committed in January 2007 against a Muslim school in Montreal; Dan Philip, president of the Black Coalition, who would like stronger legislation to allow all minority groups to live in peace without fear of threats and violent actions committed to intimidate them; and finally, Algonquin Chief Stephen McGregor, who told me about a sad incident involving an aboriginal cultural centre in Maniwaki, which was the target of racist graffiti.

But apart from organizations that defend the rights of identifiable groups, I am pleased to have received the support of two members who are well known for their fine contributions to the work of Parliament, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I greatly appreciate their support, which demonstrates the solidarity that parliamentarians can enjoy when a cause deserves to be moved forward.

This strong support surrounding the need to amend the Criminal Code to combat hate crimes more effectively says a lot. It shows us that we need to act as quickly as possible so that the Criminal Code can reflect the needs of our communities as much as possible. I would remind the House that, basically, hate crimes cause disproportionate harm to the individual and the entire group he or she identifies with. Let us imagine for a moment all the psychological harm caused by the destruction of a community space linked to one's identity.

This largely demonstrates why crimes motivated by hate are often more violent than crimes committed with other motives.

Most importantly, hate crimes invariably cause collateral damage to our communities. That is perhaps the most devastating consequence, because it leads to division within our communities.

As I was saying earlier, in a society like ours, we expect all groups to live together in harmony and equality. From that perspective, hate crimes are an abomination that literally deny all the fundamental values we espouse.

I will close by reiterating that Bill C-384, by creating a new offence involving mischief against educational or other institutions, will send a clear message that our society does not tolerate acts of violence against places that are occupied by or used by identifiable groups. That goes for all groups, without exception, including homosexuals, Muslims, Jews or any other group.

In short, we will send a message that we, as parliamentarians, will not tolerate violent acts motivated by the hatred of one group or community. This new offence will allow us to punish not only the material damage to the building, but above all the morally unacceptable nature of the feeling of hatred that motivated such action towards an identifiable group.

Moreover, Bill C-384 provides a perfect opportunity for the Conservative government to turn words into action. Recently, I was reading some of the Minister of Public Safety's news releases. Every time he visited an institution which was the target of a hate crime, he expressed his indignation and his sympathy for the affected community. Unfortunately, his government has not yet done anything to curb this kind of mischief.

The time is now. He should take this opportunity to act on his ideas. My bill addresses the problem he himself has condemned. All I am asking for is his government's strong support in order to move this bill through the legislative process quickly.

Communities whose educational institutions have been affected by malicious people will always be able to count on the Bloc Québécois and its members to understand their concerns and fight for them.

I would therefore invite all of my colleagues and all parties to wholeheartedly support my bill. This is a step in the right direction. It supports our sense of openness and confirms loud and clear that we believe in the benefits of harmonious social integration.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this evening to speak to Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief against educational or other institution), a private member's bill introduced by the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

Bill C-384 proposes to add a new offence to the mischief portion of the Criminal Code. Specifically, it would propose to add the existing mischief provision to make it a specific offence, with increased penalties, when the mischief is committed against an educational or recreational institution that is used exclusively or principally by an identifiable group.

This new provision would apply if it could be established that the perpetrator's mischievous act was motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred.

This new provision would apply if the mischief occurred in relation to the property, that is, the building, that is used exclusively or principally by that group and as included, this would apply to an educational institute, including a school, a day care, a college or a university; a community centre; a playground, an arena or a sports centre; or any other institution with an administrative, social, cultural, educational or recreational function; or in relation to an object associated with an institution; or on the grounds of that institution.

In 2001 an offence of religious mischief was added to the mischief provision of the Criminal Code. Subsection 430(4.1) was enacted to respond to vandalism and threats against religious property, mostly Muslim, that followed the terrorist events of September 11, 2001.

That 2001 offence, subsection 430(4.1), made it a specific crime to commit mischief in relation to property, that is, a building or structure, or part thereof, primarily used for religious worship, including a church, a mosque or a synagogue, or a cemetery, where the commission of the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour, nationality or ethnic origin.

The new offence proposed by Bill C-384, like the 2001 offence of mischief against religious property, calls for an increased penalty over and above what exists in the current legislation. The proposed amendment would increase from 6 to 18 months the maximum penalty on summary convictions for mischief against the property listed in the bill.

Additionally, it would increase the maximum penalty, when prosecuted by indictment, from a maximum term not exceeding 2 years to a maximum of 10 years for property that is under the value of $5,000.

The objective of the bill would seem to send a message to all Canadians that we do not tolerate acts that are directed toward institutions in Canada that are used by what is defined in subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code as an identifiable group.

There are of course other initiatives under way that work toward promoting diversity. One of them is Canada's action plan against racism. This initiative is a concerted and coordinated effort by federal departments and agencies to combat racism. The action plan is designated and designed to contribute to the long term goals of strength in communities and the realization of economic potential for all Canadians.

The action plan includes new and expanded initiatives to be undertaken by a number of departments, including Canadian Heritage, Justice Canada, Citizenship and Immigration, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and Human Resources and Social Development.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has a lead on Canada's action plan against racism and is responsible for reporting to all Canadians through the annual report on the operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Activities undertaken under the action plan support the values and principles embodied in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

Canada's action plan is an example of work that the federal government is doing to promote equality before the law, and equality and respect for the people who make up our rich and diverse nation.

In Canada, we do not tolerate acts that are motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred, and we should continue to work together to ensure that all of our laws fully respect this fundamental value.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate. I would like to congratulate my colleague for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for her valiant effort in bringing this bill before the House. The objective of the bill is praiseworthy and necessary, particularly as we approach the fourth anniversary of the bombing of the United Talmud Torah elementary school in Montreal. Hate attacks against cultural communities in Canada continue. Allow me to provide an overview of certain recent incidents.

In September 2006, the Skver-Toldos Orthodox Jewish school for boys in Outremont was firebombed a few hours after the end of the school day.

In January 2007, the Jeunes Musulmans Canadiens (JMC) school in the Saint-Laurent—Cartierville borough was vandalized. Twenty windows were broken and a school bus damaged. That was not the first time the school had been vandalized.

In June 2007, the Kitigan Zibi cultural centre was vandalized and damaged. White supremacist symbols and slogans were painted on the walls of this Algonquin cultural centre.

In March 2008, vandals covered the door to the gay lounge at Ryerson University with homophobic graffiti, including the slogan “Gays must be exterminated”. The incident occurred one month after a gay student was attacked on campus.

I will not read out quotes to the House on the hate crimes reported in Canada, since I think my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant painted a good picture.

I would, however, like to bring up a point about these statistics and data. Usually the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics collects data on hate crimes. Unfortunately, since the 1999 study, there have been no national data on hate crimes. The centre has not collected any data on the subject, so we have only partial data. We get information from police forces or cities that collect data on hate crimes. I think it is very important to update our data on hate crimes.

In its 1999 report, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics established the important link between data collection on hate crimes and the fight against hate crimes. To be successful, we need to have reliable data on the people in question, the facts of the situation, the circumstances, the location of the crimes, the frequency of the crimes, the number of victims and the perpetrators of the crimes. The data will define the problem, the target and the causes, and will help ensure the law is obeyed. Answers to these questions are important to evaluate the needs of victims and communities and to determine what action the police should take.

The 1999 study came to three major conclusions. First, hate crime victims are less satisfied with the actions taken by the police than those who were victims of other types of crimes. Whereas 29% of victims of other types of crimes were dissatisfied with police responses, the proportion jumped to 47% for victims of hate crimes.

Second, young people are the main targets of hate crimes. Persons between the ages of 15 and 24 had experienced hate crimes the most, with a rate twice that of the next highest age group.

Third, 30% of incidents targeted public institutions, often educational institutions.

Legislation is required to address these issues, to increase the consequences of hate motivated crimes, to deter potential criminals from targeting our cultural communities.

We need to demonstrate that there are serious consequences for hate driven acts of mischief, and Bill C-384 accomplishes just that.

Racist, xenophobic or homophobic acts of vandalism represent more than simple mischief. They are traumatic assaults not only on the victims of crime, but on society at large. Thus, by increasing penalties for hate motivated mischief, Bill C-384 represents an important step in bringing justice to those who violate not only the laws of the land but also the values of pluralism and tolerance that all Canadians hold dear.

Bill C-384 would make it an offence to commit an act of mischief against an identifiable group of persons at an educational institution, including a school, day care centre, college or university, or at a community centre, playground, arena, or sports centre.

It expands upon legislation which, as my colleague from the government side mentioned, was passed in 2001, which made it an indictable offence punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Currently those convicted of mischief or vandalism against educational institutions can face sentences of only up to two years. This bill, by grouping these vicious attacks in the same category as attacks against religious buildings or cemeteries, would increase the maximum sentence from two years to ten years.

In its present form, the bill only addresses acts of mischief rooted in ethnocultural, sexual, racial and religious prejudices. It might be appropriate to amend the proposed legislation so as to include hate targeting linguistic minority communities. Amending the bill to include discrimination based on language would send a strong message of support to our linguistic minority communities across Canada.

The relevance of including our official languages linguistic minority communities is that this very week the Regional Association of West Quebecers received an email from a group which threatened to put, and I quote, “lead in their heads”, in French, “du plomb dans la tête”.

In addition to increasing punishment for acts of mischief against identifiable groups, there is also a need to help vulnerable groups protect themselves against attacks. This would require the government to offset the increased security costs incurred by vulnerable communities in guarding their institutions against hate crimes.

The current government has created a pilot project which is financed with some $3 million. This is good. It is a step in the right direction, but it is a small step.

In 2004 Canada's principal Jewish organizations estimated that it would take approximately $8 million to undertake minimum investments to upgrade the security of their infrastructures, schools and community centres.

Officials from the Taldos Yakov Yosef school, which was attacked in September 2006, had to launch an appeal to raise $150,000 for repairs and security enhancements to that private Orthodox Jewish school.

It was precisely because of my concern with these increased costs incurred by victims of crime, who through no fault of their own were having to fork the bill to ensure the security of their institutions, that in 2004 I wrote a letter to the then prime minister, to the then deputy prime minister, and to the then minister of justice recommending the creation of a national fund for security infrastructure and training for communities with a high risk of victimization by hate crimes and terrorist attacks.

I am proud that last week the Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, announced that a Liberal government would invest $75 million in a fund designed to protect at risk communities. That announcement represents the culmination of vigorous study and consultation by the Liberal Party's task force on cultural communities at risk, which was chaired by my colleague from Thornhill. The task force consulted with the communities that are most at risk at being victimized by hate crimes.

In conclusion, I support Bill C-384.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Hochelaga on a point of order.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, without taking too much of the time of the House, might I ask a question, with the unanimous consent of the House, on a point of order?

I do not understand the government's position on the bill we are debating. Could the member for Peace River simply state, yes or no, if he intends to support the measure before the House?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

At this time we are in the period of debate. Questions may only be directed to the member moving the motion.

I know that the hon. member for Hochelaga is quite diligent. There will be other presentations by other members of the front benches. I hope that at that point he will have a better understanding of the government's position.

In the meantime, the hon. member for Outremont has the floor.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the NDP about Bill C-384, put forward by my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

The purpose of this bill is to improve and update existing provisions of the Criminal Code. These provisions already state that if an act is committed against a place of worship, the penalty can be increased. This was in response to a number of tragic events throughout Canada, and particularly in Quebec.

What we are doing here is broadening the scope. It would apply not only to places of worship, but also, for example, schools or possibly sports centres. It could even include libraries or other places patronized by members of a group specifically referred to in existing regulations, also known as identifiable groups.

I am going to pick up the pass from the Bloc member who asked a question. We had the opportunity to hear from the person who tabled the bill, the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, supported by the NDP and the official opposition. They made their points clearly.

Even though, as you stated, Mr. Speaker, we are not allowed to ask questions or make comments at this stage to a government member, I can still say that I am not very far away from the member in question. I spoke to the member for Peace River after his presentation, because I too did not understand whether or not the Conservatives were going to support the bill. He replied, with a little smile, “You will see.” So, I was not the only one, nor was the Bloc member who just spoke the only one who was unsure whether or not the Conservatives were going to support the bill.

I can say that we will be watching the Conservatives very closely. All things being equal, the support of the official opposition, the Bloc and the NDP should be more than enough to win the vote. But recent events concerning sexual orientation have made us very wary of the Conservatives' attitude.

I held a press conference with a gay man from Malaysia who was facing possible deportation. According to Amnesty International, which is helping us with his case, the penal code in Malaysia orders up to 20 years in prison and in some cases even lashings for one's sexual orientation. Despite that, the Conservatives proceeded with his deportation, even though he had been in Montreal for years. He was not a risk to anyone, he contributed to society and could have been an excellent citizen.

Then there were the clearly homophobic remarks uttered by a Conservative member. The response was: “That was a long time ago. He has since changed his mind. He said he was sorry.” True, but the fact remains that that is part of a bigger picture.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Outremont, being a member in good standing, certainly cannot stand here and say that homophobic remarks were made by a member of the Conservative Party. I was in the House that day. I heard no homophobic remarks. I did see the member for Outremont go a little wild and climb over desks, but I did not hear any homophobic remarks and I do not believe that is parliamentary language in any sense.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am standing so that means the hon. member for Outremont sits. I doubt that the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London is rising on a point of order. It is more a point of debate. We will go back to the hon. member for Outremont, who I am sure is going to steer back to the debate at hand.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the remarks made by one of his colleagues that made the headlines last week. And I am not talking about the remarks made by his colleague when he interrupted me in the House, but the clearly homophobic remarks that his other colleague made several years ago. He apologized, but they are nevertheless part of the issue we are debating here this evening. Indeed, we are discussing a legislative amendment aimed at protecting groups that are identifiable because of their minority status. The bill aims to increase sentences not only in the case of places of worship, but also for example in the case of a school or sports centre, or anywhere identifiable groups get together.

I was simply summarizing recent events here. The member in question, who just rose in error, as was so rightly pointed out, alluded to the fact that when I was defending the rights of that gay man who was to be deported to Malaysia, I was constantly interrupted by shouts from the Conservatives, which is another indication of what they really think about this.

Back to what I was saying. Hatred is already considered an aggravating factor in sentencing, and places of worship are already protected. The New Democratic Party supports the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant's proposal because it broadens that protection. What remains to be seen is whether the Conservative Party, which is currently Canada's minority government, will vote in favour of or against this bill.

The only answer I was able to get from the member for Peace River was, “We will see”. That is not very reassuring. What we have seen up to now is not very reassuring for identifiable groups. Therefore, we will wait, because he told us we would see, but we will be keeping a very close eye on the Conservatives.

They say that one is judged not by one's words, but by one's actions. It is one thing to say that homophobic statements made years ago by a sitting member of Parliament no longer represent that member's thoughts, and that he is sorry. It is one thing to say that we have a neutral immigration policy when people are being deported to countries where they will be in real danger because in those counties, it is illegal to be homosexual. That is what the Conservative government is really doing, and I highly doubt it is mere coincidence.

Sometimes people ask me how things work here. I often tell them that the only thing I see that they do not see when they watch the debates on television is the behaviour of the members in the House. When the Conservatives have an opportunity to amend a long-standing Canadian policy in order to request clemency for Canadians sentenced to death in other countries, I watch their reactions in the House. They are handling these files in a way that will keep their political base happy. They know exactly what they are doing. The member for Peace River's sardonic smile says a lot about the Conservatives' real attitude.

All I am asking is that the Conservatives prove me wrong by voting. I hope that they will support Bill C-384, which, as I said, has the support of three of the four parties here. Today would be a very good day if we could agree on this. As the member said, we will see.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to congratulate my colleague for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant who is introducing her first bill. You know that I am very much in favour of private members' bills. I wish we had two hours of debate each day. When we introduce a private member's bill, we do so because of our personal convictions or, of course,—and often for both reasons—the interests that we wish to promote for our citizens.

I doubly congratulate the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, who is making an important contribution that is cause for celebration to all those in this House—and there are many—interested in human rights.

I also appreciated the speech by my colleague for Outremont. It reminded me of when I was in this House, in 1996, and my colleague Svend Robinson, member for Burnaby at the time, introduced a bill that the Conservatives did not support. The Conservatives were the official opposition then.

My colleague Svend Robinson introduced a bill, referred to as the hate crimes bill, to amend s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which sets out the aggravating circumstances enabling a judge to impose a harsher sentence for individuals who engage in reprehensible conduct. At the time, sexual orientation was to be added. In major Canadian cities, including Montreal and Ottawa, gays had been beaten up just because they had a different sexual orientation.

Section 430, of course, and section 434.1 which covers places of worship, were added. We were at the juncture of two phenomena. The first was the protection of religious freedom guaranteed by the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter. The Supreme Court supported a subjective view of religious freedom. This means that it is not necessary to worship by adopting the practices of the religion to which one belongs; it is enough to profess a sincere and genuine expression of faith.

Today, the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant is taking it one step further not only by protecting religious freedom but also by protecting places of significance to identifiable communities. I will come back to that.

These places of special significance are, of course, educational institutions, daycare centres, colleges, universities, community centres, playgrounds, arenas and sports centres. The member was wise to broaden the protection, because these are all potential gathering places for various identifiable communities.

Even though Canada and Quebec have a long tradition of peace, respect and tolerance for all sorts of social, sociological and historical reasons, the fact is that, year after year, certain groups are singled out. Certain cultural communities are more likely to be targeted than others. In Montreal and other cities, synagogues have been set on fire. Certain cemeteries have been desecrated.

When a bill is as important as this one, all partisan considerations should be set aside. That is why I am concerned, shocked and disappointed that this government has not found a way to state clearly, during this first hour of debate, that it will support the bill. My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has suggested an amendment, and we are open to that. It does her credit that she is trying to improve the bill.

Under certain circumstances in Parliament, our opinion may not be final. We may want to hear witnesses and steer the debate in one direction or another. Personally, I feel it is extremely sensible to suggest that we also consider linguistic groups that may be targets of abuse or mischief.

I find it troubling that, on a human rights issue, a government, a group that is responsible for running the country, is not able to stand up in this House and state clearly that it will or will not support the bill for a given reason.

I cannot help noting that I have been a member of this House since 1993 and that there have been nine separate votes involving the homosexual community. With a very few exceptions, the Conservative members have voted against the rights of this community on nine separate occasions. I therefore cannot understand why they are keeping quiet and are unable to say whether or not they will support this measure, which recognizes that people are targets of abuse and mischief in public institutions and says that, as a society, we condemn that.

We do not accept that people should be mistreated because of their race, sexual orientation or identifiable characteristic. In my opinion, this bill should not cause any controversy and we should be unanimously in favour of it. In my opinion, there are very few arguments that could convince us that this bill is not legally sound, since it is a bill that addresses human dignity. All hon. members who believe in human dignity and certain inalienable rights must stand up in this House and support this bill.

I repeat: I find it extremely embarrassing that the government has not found an opportunity to make a firm statement on this. I do not know if we have enough time left to hear from another speaker from the government side, but I hope this situation will be remedied.

I cannot help but note that this government has a mixed record on human rights. My colleague from Abitibi mentioned to us that this government refused to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is rather troubling that, despite the Erasmus-Dussault commission, and despite a number of extremely important bills on aboriginal rights, in major international forums like the United Nations, this government has not found a way to take a clear position.

I also want to commend the hon. member for seeking to increase the sentences and ensure that we take into account that, whether prosecution is summary or by indictment, the sentences will be increased, which will contribute to sending an even clearer message that hate-driven motivation and behaviour are not acceptable.

I see that I have only a minute left and I do not want to stop heaping praise upon the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, who wants to add this building block to the edifice of human rights. The Bloc Québécois has always been an extremely enterprising architect when it comes to human rights. I cannot imagine any hon. member in this House who believes in human dignity and equality not supporting this bill. I could not look government members in the eye if, at the end of this debate, any of them do not support this bill. I dare not imagine such a situation. This is a chance for them to show that they believe in human rights. I hope they will take the opportunity being extended to them by the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

I wish my colleague all the best.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today on private member's Bill C-384, introduced by the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

Bill C-384 proposes to amend the Criminal Code by adding a new offence to the existing mischief provisions.

The Criminal Code mischief provisions state:

Every one commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or damages property;

(b) renders it dangerous, inoperative, or ineffective;

(c) obstructs, interrupts, or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

The amendment would make it a specific offence, with increased penalties, when the mischief is committed against an educational or recreational institution, or any related object, that is used exclusively or principally by a group identifiable by its colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

The bill, specifically in lines 12 to 15 about sentencing, states: “being motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour”. When I read that, I know that some of the existing provisions in the Criminal Code about mischief allow action to be taken by the judge.

The new provision would apply when it could be proven that the act of mischief was motivated by prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

I understand the rationale behind the proposal. It seeks to send a clear message to Canadians that we do not tolerate acts motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred. I noted the examples pointed out by my hon. colleague from the Bloc, who talked about the schools and the things that were done in Outremont to the Jewish school and the library.

In particular, it seems that the intention of the bill is to send a message to potential hatemongers that we do not tolerate acts that are directed toward institutions in Canada that are used by what is defined in subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code as an “identifiable group”, or in other words, a group identified by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

My question when I read the bill is about motivation and whether in existing law this is not covered. Does the judge not have the ability to define that aggravating factor when they look at the sentencing provisions?

As we heard in our throne speech last year:

Canada is built on a common heritage of values, which Canadians have fought and died to defend. It is a country that continues to attract newcomers seeking refuge and opportunity, who see Canada as a place where they can work hard, raise families and live in freedom.

We are a diverse nation and our laws recognize and protect that diversity.

The report tabled by Statistics Canada earlier this month also reflects this diversity. The results of the 2006 census shows that the ethnocultural diversity of our population is growing and will continue to increase. In fact the census indicates that there are more than 200 different ethnic origins.

The 32 million people living in Canada make up a cultural, ethnic and linguistic mosaic that is found nowhere else in the world.

Canada welcomes many immigrants a year from all parts of the globe, who continue to choose Canada drawn by the quality of life and its reputation as an open, peaceful and caring society that welcomes newcomers and values diversity.

Canadians need to continue to respect and value one another regardless of their colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. As the member pointed out, unfortunately when there are differences among people, there is the possibility of conflict between them.

And when conflict leads to criminal behaviour, the criminal justice system must be able to respond appropriately.

As a nation, we will not tolerate hate-motivated acts that are based on a person's colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. We are making great efforts to be a nation where peace reigns. Canada was founded on the principles of peace, order and good government.

Canadians value this and a place where they can feel safe. Today, rightly, they worry about their safety and security. There is no greater responsibility for the government than to protect this right to safety and security.

Canadians can be proud of their country and its achievements. Working together, we have built a nation that is prosperous and safe, a place where people from around the world live in harmony.

I personally had some reservations about the wording and how effective the bill may be when under its provisions crimes are brought before the court. Will it really be effective, especially given that we all see in our ridings at all times the tremendous amount of general mischief against public buildings, private buildings and public and personal property today?

Having said that, I am sure that all members of the House will commit to continuing to work together to ensure that all Canadians have a justice system that reflects our values as a nation, including standing up for vulnerable communities.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Shefford for 10 minutes. However, he will have only five minutes this evening. He would be wise to save his good arguments for the next time.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-384, which was introduced by my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. This bill is innovative. Before this bill, it was a matter of only two locations: places of worship and cemeteries. With the passage of this bill, it will henceforth be prohibited to attack a school. Why? Because that is just as important.

When children go to school in the morning and see their school covered with hateful graffiti, that enters into their subconscious minds and stays with them. It is all well and good to tell these youngsters that people should not do such things, but it can by psychologically disturbing for them.

Even teachers are shocked by this when they arrive for work in the morning or when they see this near a day care centre. They must also take their children to the day care centre and see graffiti on the way. Their children will ask them questions, wondering why there are hate messages and why someone would write that on a school, or anywhere for that matter. These questions will be asked.

I want to share a story. At one point in my life, I was a union representative. A worker once came to me to say that he would like to be able to finish high school. He had worked hard and completed three years of high school in the evenings. Having a job and going to school is very hard work, but it is something that someone who wants to succeed must really make an effort to do.

One Friday, this person went to his supervisor to ask for an afternoon off because he had to take two exams to finish high school, and the diploma would help him move to a new position or a new job. In fact, all companies require a diploma. His supervisor asked him why he wanted to get his high school diploma and if he did not like his current job. The employee replied that he would like to improve his life and earn a decent income to raise his family. The supervisor pointed out that he was black, and that blacks were meant to work in factories and not to hold senior positions, such as supervisors. He did not grant permission, and the worker had to find another way to take his exams and get his high school diploma. The supervisor did not think it was worthwhile to get the diploma because a black person was not meant to hold a senior position.

A grievance was filed against this supervisor, and I do think the employee won.

This bill also includes colleges, universities, community centres and playgrounds. Is it not bad enough that, in the summer, when children go to the playground they go to every day, they see graffiti saying that society should get rid of all blacks—or any community—that nobody should see them and that children should not play with them? That is not what we want to teach our children. We teach them that they have to be kind to one another, that every person is different, and that we have to accept those differences.

What message is graffiti like that sending to children? It might bother them and, as they grow up, they will begin to think that there is a colour difference, a difference they can exploit. I do not see why we should tolerate such things.

My colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant is on the right track. This is perfect timing for this bill. All parties in the House of Commons, the NDP and the Liberals, agree. Recently, the champions of law and order proposed a new bill to curb auto theft. What is more important, auto theft or hate crimes against people? People are much more important.

I see that my time is up, but I know I will be able to continue next time.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and Bill C-384 is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

When we return to the study of this bill, the member for Shefford will have five minutes to complete his remarks.

The House resumed from April 16 consideration of the motion.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).

I should note that the bill was originally introduced as Bill C-13 in the first session of the 39th Parliament. It passed all stages in the House of Commons, was sent to the other place and is back here now with some amendments, which I and my colleagues believe enhance the bill. I will be supporting the bill, and I expect my colleagues on this side will as well.

We support the bill because it would a number of positive things to improve and enhance our criminal justice system. Some of these matters are quite procedural and technical in their nature, but, nonetheless, they are very important to ensure the system in the country works efficiently, effectively and brings justice to all.

Some of the aspects of the bill, for example, increase the maximum fine that can be imposed for a summary conviction offence from $2,000 to $10,000. The $2,000 limit had not been changed for some 30 years. The bill also calls for the suspension of a conditional sentence order or a probation order during an appeal. That enhances this law as well.

The proposed bill also provides the power to delay the sentencing proceedings so an offender can participate in a provincially approved treatment program. That is very important. In many cases we can lock people up and throw away the key, but eventually they will get out and have to be functioning and responsible citizens of our country. Therefore, if we can help someone deal with drug or alcohol abuse or some other social problem, this is to be very much encouraged.

In the case of a person serving a youth sentence who has received an adult sentence, the bill clarifies that the remaining portion of the youth sentence is converted to an adult sentence. This follows through on some of the changes that were made previously to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and something I think many Canadians often do not fully comprehend.

There is an impression that young people can commit crimes at will, flaunt the system and do not receive the types of sanctions that many Canadians think they should. However, we need to understand that if we put young people in jail, they can become hardened criminals. If they are not rehabilitated or given the appropriate treatment, in jail they will become even worse criminals. When they get out, they will offend again.

It is important that all criminals be rehabilitated while they are serving their time. At the same time, the youth criminal justice changes we made when we formed government allow a judge, at his or her discretion, to sentence a young person as an adult if, in the view of the judge, that young person deserves to be sentenced as an adult.

If I recollect correctly, the cutoff is age 14, and that is a very young. When people tell me that the age should be reduced further, I tell them that it is not something I would advocate. In fact, 14 is young enough. I think many judges would not be inclined to impose an adult sentence on someone of those young years unless the circumstances warranted it in the view of the judge. Nonetheless, it is important to have that provision so a judge can have the flexibility to do things like that.

One aspect that is not in the bill, although I hope it will come at some point in time, is an initiative that our government started. After two years of serving as government, I am surprised the Conservatives have not really acted upon it. It has to do with the modernization of investigative techniques.

I notice in the bill there are amendments which call for the use of telecommunications to forward warrants for the purpose of endorsement and execution in a jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction where the search warrant was obtained. Therefore, there are measures in the bill dealing with telecommunications, but we still do not have legislation to modernize investigative techniques for our law enforcement personnel. Let me describe what that is.

If we look at our Criminal Code today, if law enforcement officers can convince a judge that there are significant grounds, the judge can execute a search warrant. However, the search warrants and the wiretapping warrants are tailored to technologies that have been superceded, although not completely, and replaced by other types of media, other types of technology.

For example, wiretapping warrants on our books today, in terms of law, deal mostly with land phone lines. We know criminals today use wireless devices. They use cellphones, computers and the Internet. The problem is our laws are archaic in the sense that the police cannot tap these types of technologies. The problem, again, is criminals have moved ahead of law enforcement. In fact, some criminals will make a few calls on a cellphone and then chuck it away. They will do the same for other kinds of wireless devices.

When we were the government, we began a process to modernize these investigative techniques. It raised some concern in certain quarters that this was calling for a change in the ability or the power of the police to seek out a wiretap. The reality is it changed nothing in that regard. Law enforcement would still have to convince a judge that the wiretap was necessary. The only thing that it would do is it would allow the wiretap to be executed against a cellphone number, or a BlackBerry, or an Internet account, or some other telecommunications device.

While there is some confusion and some angst among citizens and others about what this type of legislation would do, in fact, it would do nothing more than what is on the books right now. It would not give the police the power or the authority to wiretap someone's line without a duly executed warrant by a judge.

The Conservative government talks about how it is getting the job done and how there has been 13 years of inaction. Here is something upon which the government should be acting.

There are a couple of other issues with telecommunications companies and servers. There are costs associated with adapting this technology or being in a state of readiness. If a warrant is executed by law enforcement officers, they need to have the capability and capacity, the technology within their own shops. There are costs associated with that.

There are also costs on a going forward basis if we require these telecommunications companies, like a server or mobile phone company, to retrofit to ensure their technologies are capable of putting these wiretaps on this technology. If this law were passed, companies would have to ensure the technology was engineered in such a way that if a warrant were executed, they could implement the wiretap on a cellphone, or on a BlackBerry, or on an Internet account. I believe this is holding the government back from doing something on this initiative, and that is a wrong reason.

Why should we be compromising the safety and security of Canadians because some telecommunications companies are anxious and nervous about the costs they would be faced with to adapt and execute this type of technology?

When we were the government, there were a lot of discussions and negotiations back and forth. My recollection is that there was some compromise, some meeting of the minds, as to how to move forward in this particular environment.

If my memory serves me correctly, these companies indicated a willingness on a going forward basis to build in the technologies and infrastructure needed so they would be in a state of readiness for warrants like this to be executed. I am not sure where those discussions went finally, but it is a matter of negotiation.

As for retrofitting, that is a bigger issue. It is a question of making the law come into force so the companies would have to retrofit all their technology, which is a big ticket item, and that is a matter for negotiation with the government.

However, I am surprised that it has taken two and a half years to negotiate something that would be reasonable in the circumstances. With the passage of time, the safety and security of our citizens have been put at risk. I do not think that is acceptable.

In fact, when we had the new civilian Commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Bill Elliott, come to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I asked him if the tools he needed to deal with this type of technology were there to make sure we were up to date with the technologies the criminals were using. He indicated that it would be an improvement if enabling legislation were in place so that we could beat the criminals at their own game.

Therefore, I encourage the government to bring forward legislation such as this, which would modernize our investigative techniques and give the police the same tools that criminals have. Does it make any sense for police officers to be using land line phones when the criminals are using not land lines but other technologies? It seems to me that this is an initiative that could have been incorporated into this bill, but it was not. I do not know where that particular item is.

We find in this bill that there are some improvements in the process that deal with our justice system. As I said earlier, I think some of them are more housekeeping in nature, but it is important housekeeping. It is something that I would encourage this House to support.

As an example, the amendments say that a summary conviction trial with respect to co-accused can proceed where one of the co-accused does not appear.

Another feature introduces changes to the process with respect to the challenge of jurors to, among other things, assist in preserving their impartiality.

It also brings in other amendments with respect to language rights provisions of the Criminal Code. This is a very important part of this legislation.

It means that an accused is informed of the right to be heard by a judge or a judge and jury who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused, or both official languages of Canada. The amendments to this bill codify the right of the accused to obtain a translation of the information or indictment on request.

These are very important elements. We live in a bilingual country. We value our bilingualism. It is part of our national heritage. It is part of our strength as a nation. We also respect the right of individuals to be heard and listened to in the official language of their choice, one of the official languages of this country. I think that is also a very important part of Bill C-13.

I encourage the House to get on with this bill. It has been here before, it has been in the other place and it is back. Again, while sometimes the members in the other place are criticized, or that institution itself is criticized, there are many fine and competent people over there who can add value to legislation. In this case, I think they have done that.

I would encourage members of this House to support Bill C-13 in its current form. I certainly will be voting for it.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will resume with my discussion about recognizance with conditions. I ended my remarks by saying that it is a basic tenet of our system that a person has to be proved guilty of doing something or plotting something in order to be detained. Arresting and holding people with no evidence against them is totally unreasonable.

Furthermore, on release these individuals would be subject to a peace bond, but unlike those subject to a peace bond, these people may have done absolutely nothing wrong. The purpose—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I am sorry, but we have a point of order from the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-13. I believe the member is speaking to Bill S-3.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I thought we were resuming debate on Bill S-3.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

We are debating Bill C-13. Is there anybody who would like to rise to speak to Bill C-13?

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from April 16 consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

When the House was last debating this matter, the hon. member for Surrey North had the floor. She has five minutes left, which I presume she wants to exercise.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, forgive my eagerness to speak to the many flaws in the bill.

As I say, this bill supposedly has a provision for the arrest of a person involved in an imminent terrorist threat, thereby disrupting the terrorist activity. We support the idea that we should disrupt an activity like that, but if someone is planning a terrorist act, the Criminal Code already allows for him or her to be arrested and held for up to 72 hours.

The bill also says that persons will have a peace bond for something that they may not even have done. We have never seen this before with peace bonds. Why do we need this? Under the Criminal Code mechanism, if no evidence is found leading to charges against the person, he or she must be released. That is what the Criminal Code says.

However, Bill S-3 goes one step further, and that is the problem. These individuals are released under conditions. There could be a variety of conditions. They may be perfectly reasonable for somebody who is convicted of being involved in terrorism, but not when there is no evidence of doing anything wrong.

It is extremely unjust. As Craig Forcese said, “One would imagine that a peace bond is likely to be ineffectual in relation to a suicide bomber”.

The last point I would make about this, and civil liberty groups have sharply criticized this as well, is that if a person is detained, a file is opened on that person. If a file is opened, it stays with that person and impairs his or her freedom to travel and apply for a job. It is a negative stigma that stays around the individual.

Let us keep in mind that we are talking about people who may have done absolutely nothing wrong. New Democrats will not and cannot support a bill that will punish people who are not guilty of any criminal activity.

As I mentioned earlier, many members of other parties in this House are also opposed to this legislation. I am speaking now specifically for my Liberal colleagues, as many of them took a very principled stand and voted against this legislation when it came to the House earlier in the session. They did the right thing. They stood up, but what will they do now?

I expect that they may do what they have done all along since the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville won the leadership of the party. They may sit on their hands. I find it particularly egregious that Liberals would support the bill when I know many members of their caucus share the same concerns I have voiced here today.

Voting for Bill S-3 is not like voting for the budget as a strategy to avoid an election. Standing shoulder to shoulder with the Conservatives and voting for Bill S-3 is giving approval to major changes and it strikes at the heart of Canadian values. I am calling on my Liberal colleagues today to do the right thing and vote with the NDP against the legislation.

I understand that members of the Bloc Québécois are on the same side of the issue as we are expressing, so a Conservative-Liberal alliance will be what it will take to pass Bill S-3. I hope Liberals have the courage to take a stand. As I have already said, ensuring public safety is about protecting quality of life. A good quality of life depends on a balance between freedom and security.

The investigative hearings are flawed. They do not accommodate the guidance of the Supreme Court of Canada. This is vulnerable to misuse. The recognizance with conditions provision is fundamentally opposed to a core value in our justice system: that a person must be guilty of doing or plotting something in order to be punished.

Therefore, both provisions of Bill S-3 are flawed beyond repair, but the NDP's main reason for opposing the legislation is that in point of fact it is unnecessary. The Criminal Code can be used to attain the goals that I have spoken of today.

Many groups have spoken to the standing committee. I think we will be hearing from other speakers later in the day who have talked to Muslim and Arab groups, who know there are particular people who may be more vulnerable to these kinds of conditions under Bill S-3, just as they were under Bill C-3.

It is simply unacceptable to take something that has been a core value of this country for so long, which is that one must be guilty of something for us to punish that individual, and throw that away and say no, we just have to think that someone might think about doing something. It is unacceptable to say that we do not actually know that someone will do something, but we are still going to find that someone guilty and punish him or her by placing conditions upon that person.

It is simply unacceptable. It hits at our core values. As Canadians and as parliamentarians, we should absolutely reject any kinds of changes that go down what is a very slippery slope toward taking away the freedoms of Canadians.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if she could tell us what are the consequences, in her opinion, for individuals who may be condemned—if we can say that—to having to sign a recognizance with conditions? What are the consequences, in today's world, that an individual will have to live with afterwards and, if the suspicions about them were completely unwarranted, what means are available to remove this mark from their file?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think many people will look at the conditions in the bond and sign it but not understand what the conditions will mean in what they are able to do in their lives.

Let us think for a minute. People frequently travel back and forth across the border between Canada and the United States. They will get to the border, the border officials will check their name and they will find they have a peace bond against them. They will likely be refused. They may have family in Europe, the continent, India or wherever. Many people go back and forth to visit family. I have, as others have. They will be refused.

They need to make a living. Will this be reported to their employer? When they go to change jobs and people do proper reference searches, which they should do, of course, what will show up is that the person has been detained and has had to sign a peace bond to be out in the community. For employers, who may have a variety of people to pick from, and certainly in many areas they do, then the person with the peace bond will, most likely, not be selected. It has now affected his or her employment.

What if this is a mom who is in the hospital delivering her baby. She may require some medical assistance, assistance from social services around parenting or a public health nurse. If people look at her file and find that she has a peace bond against her, will that influence the way that people hover and watch the way she raises her child, although potentially she may have done nothing wrong?

My colleague raised a very important question about travel and employment. If people do have a peace bond, I do not think that many of the people who will be doing a reference check or a check for medical or social services will wonder whether the person was really innocent even though she or he has a peace bond. Most people will assume that the person is guilty and that she or he has done something wrong. That negative stigma and that file will stay with the person.

What can people do about it? My understanding is nothing. Actually, they can go to jail for a year by refusing to say anything, but in that case they would not find themselves with the peace bond. However, their only other option is to say nothing and potentially go to jail for a year. They do not have an appeal process. They do not know why they have been picked up and detained. As in Bill C-3, they have very little recourse to protect themselves.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague relating to Bill S-3.

We are watching the erosion of civil liberties. She has really articulated the connection of the individual impact but also how it will relate to their employment and their family, which has greater consequences for us. Living on the border, I deal with that on a regular basis. Even with mistaken identity, where people are often assumed to be someone else, that has affected their clean record to get across the border.

We have been clear on our strategy about this. Why does the member believe the Liberal Party is backing away or splitting on this issue when it really has significant consequences? A lot of time and money has been wasted in the House with regard to failed bills in the past and this one seems to be setting itself up to be a failure.

I would like to hear her comments on that.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can only speculate. I would hope that some of the Liberals who are in the House today will be standing to speak on behalf of the bill. From the calls I have had to my office, I know they must be getting the same calls from people concerned about the bill.

When bills have failed before around Conservative-Liberal alliances, it may have been because some of those times the Liberals have agreed with the Conservatives. They would applaud that I am sure.

It seems to me that much of this is about strategy. I understand that political strategy is a consideration as we think about voting, although I would hope in the end never the consideration. However, for it to cause an election and to take away basic rights and freedoms that Canadians have always had in order to forestall facing the voters would chop away at the whole underpinning of Canada and Canadians and what people in this Parliament have striven to put in place for a balance between freedom and security.

We have seen quite a bit of political strategy on the part of the Liberal opposition. They are not standing up to vote on matters that seem pretty clear and ones they would normally vote on. I think the public is beginning to understand that is not what their constituents are telling them. They only seem prepared to talk about their right to govern.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the member would share her thoughts on what the Liberals' position is on the bill.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we will not know their position until the bill comes to a vote.

I was pleased that the Liberals supported it when it was in the House before so I would expect them to support it this time. My understanding, from speaking with people, is that they will not be supporting the bill. Perhaps I will be surprised. They stood before to support it and they may stand again to support it. It will be a busy world.

I will be surprised if the Liberals stand in support of this legislation. Since there has been no change and since they supported before, I expect they will support it again. However, my understanding is that they will not be supporting it, although that is not official as I have not heard it from their leader. We will wait and see. If they supported it before and there is no change, and they do not support it this time, it will be very clear to everybody, including their constituents, why they have not supported it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to address hon. members in this House on the importance of the powers contained in Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).

The investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions provisions are tools that were designed to assist law enforcement agencies and strengthen their ability to prevent acts of terrorism.

I would also like to note that I chaired the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security which reviewed the anti-terror bill. At this time I propose to describe in some detail what these two provisions achieve. I will then address how this bill responds to the interim report of the House subcommittee that tabled that report in October 2006, and the Senate's special committee report that was tabled in February 2007.

First, I will talk about the investigative hearing.

The investigative hearing provision would allow the courts to compel a witness who may have information about a terrorism offence to testify and provide information about the offence. The process relating to this provision works as follows.

With the prior consent of the Attorney General, a peace officer investigating a terrorism offence that has been or will be committed may apply to a judge for an order requiring a person who is believed to have information concerning the terrorism offence to appear before the judge to answer questions and/or produce something.

If a judge believes there are reasonable grounds that a terrorism offence will be committed in the future, that the person has direct and material information and that reasonable attempts have been made by other means to obtain the information, the judge may make an order for the gathering of information.

It is important to note that this investigative hearing provision and the process were found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004. The reason this provision was found to be constitutional lies in the safeguards that are intimately attached to the exercise of this power. I will note those safeguards.

First, only a judge of a provincial court or of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction can issue the order to hold an investigative hearing.

Second, before an application for the investigative hearing order can be made, the Attorney General of Canada, or the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province, needs to consent to making the application for the order.

Third, the person ordered to attend at the investigative hearing has the right to retain and instruct counsel at any stage of the proceeding.

Fourth, any incriminating evidence given by the person at the investigative hearing cannot be used against him or her in a further criminal proceeding except for prosecutions for perjury and giving contradictory evidence. This prohibition also applies to derivative evidence, that is, evidence that is found or derived from the evidence initially gathered in the context of the investigative hearing.

Fifth, the Supreme Court of Canada has also ruled that through the use of this provision there is a constitutional exemption against self-incrimination that precludes testimonial compulsion where the predominant purpose of the proposed hearing is to obtain evidence for the prosecution of the person. In other words, a person cannot be brought before a judge and be compelled to provide evidence if the predominate purpose is to gather evidence against that person to lay charges against him or her.

Sixth, the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of the provinces were and continue to be required to report annually on the use of the investigative hearing provisions.

Finally, it is to be noted that the Supreme Court of Canada held that the protection against self-incrimination in investigative hearings carried out in the context of criminal investigations also extended to deportation and extradiction matters.

At this time I would like to move on and talk about the recognizance with conditions provision.

This provision would give the court the power to issue an order requiring a person to enter into an undertaking whereby he or she accepts to respect certain conditions imposed upon him or her to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity. The purpose of the provision is to create a mechanism that would allow the authorities to disrupt the preparatory phase of terrorist activity rather than act after the fact.

The provision is not designed to detain a person, but rather to release the person under judicially authorized supervision. The process by which the recognizance with conditions operates is as follows:

With the prior consent of the Attorney General, a peace officer who reasonably believes that a terrorist activity will be carried out and who also reasonably suspects that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions or the arrest of a person is necessary to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity, may lay an information before a provincial court judge. That judge may then cause that person to appear before him or her or any other provincial court judge. In very limited circumstances the peace officer may arrest that person without a warrant in order to bring him or her before the judge.

In any event, a person will be brought before a judge within 24 hours, or as soon as possible, if a judge is not available within this time period. If the person is detained to protect the public or to ensure his or her attendance at a subsequent hearing, the matter may be adjourned for a maximum of 48 hours. Thus, generally speaking, the person can only be detained for up to 72 hours.

If the judge determines that there is no need for the person to enter into a recognizance, the person will be released.

If the court determines that the person should enter into a recognizance, the person will be bound to keep the peace and respect other specified reasonable conditions for a period not exceeding 12 months.

Only if the person refuses to enter into such a recognizance can the judge order that he or she may be detained for up to 12 months.

As in the case of the investigative hearing, the recognizance with conditions is also subject to numerous safeguards. These are:

The consent of the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general or solicitor general of the province is required.

The peace officer could also only lay an information before a judge if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that a terrorist activity will be carried out and suspects on reasonable grounds that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person, or the arrest of a person, is necessary to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity.

The judge receiving the information would have a residual discretion not to issue process, for example, where an information is unfounded.

A warrantless arrest of a person could only be made in very limited circumstances, for example, where the grounds to lay an information exist, but by reason of exigent circumstances, it would be impractical to lay the information, and the peace officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the detention of a person is necessary in order to prevent a terrorist activity.

If a person is arrested without warrant, the officer must either lay an information before the judge, generally within 24 hours, or release the person. Before laying the information, the peace officer must obtain the consent of the relevant attorney general.

A person detained in custody must be brought before a provincial court judge without unreasonable delay and in any event, within 24 hours of arrest, unless a judge is not available within that period, in which case the person must be taken before a judge as soon as feasible and the hearing must be held within 48 hours.

A judge must be satisfied on the evidence adduced that the peace officer has a reasonable suspicion that it is necessary to have the person enter into a recognizance with conditions before ordering that the person enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and to comply with any other reasonable conditions for a period of 12 months.

Only if the person refuses or fails to enter into the recognizance can he or she be jailed for up to 12 months.

The person entering into a recognizance has the right to apply to vary the conditions under the recognizance order.

Federal and provincial attorneys general would continue to be required to report annually as appropriate the use of this power, while the Minister of Public Safety and the minister responsible for policing in each province would continue to be required to report annually on the arrest without warrant power.

I have focused my remarks on two well-designed tools that are meant to aid law enforcement agencies in their efforts to prevent the commission of a terrorist activity, tools that are also dressed with robust safeguards. One of the provisions has already been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

How much better can it get? One would think that there is no need to make changes to the wording of the original provisions considering the above, but as always, this government continues to strive to make our laws better and to do so in cooperation with all members of the House and the Senate. For that very reason, our government has responded favourably to a good number of the recommendations of the House subcommittee and the special Senate committee that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act. Both of these committees made a number of recommendations in relation to these two powers.

Here are the amendments to the original provisions that the government either proposed or accepted, and that are now found in Bill S-3:

Subparagraph 83.28(4)(a)(iii) was modified by adding a safeguard to the section dealing with past terrorism offences. Under the proposed legislation, an order for an investigative hearing may be issued only if the judge to whom the application is made is satisfied that “reasonable attempts have been made to obtain information” by other means. In this context, “reasonable” means that, where possible, police will have tried other sources for obtaining the information they seek before resorting to the use of investigative hearing.

Previously, a similar but narrower provision had applied only to future terrorism offences, not past ones. This new wording also applies to future terrorism offences, as can be seen in subparagraph 83.28(4)(b)(iii).

The bill also caps the maximum detention time for a witness brought in under an investigative hearing order by specifying in subsection 83.29(4) that section 707 of the Criminal Code, which sets out the maximum period of detention for an arrested witness, applies to investigative hearings.This is meant to address the concerns that were expressed by the House subcommittee that it was unclear to what extent release mechanisms elsewhere in the code applied to the investigative hearing process. Technical wording changes were also made to address various recommendations made by the House subcommittee.

Finally, proposed subsection 83.31(1.1) would enhance the reporting requirements by the Attorney General of Canada with respect to the investigative hearing provisions. The Attorney General of Canada would be required to provide his or her opinion, supported by reasons, as to whether these provisions continue to be necessary. This change implements part of recommendation 17 made by the special Senate committee.

As can be noted in regard to the investigative hearing provision, Bill S-3 effectively incorporates many of the recommendations made by the House of Commons and the Senate. The one substantive proposal that the bill did not incorporate was the recommendation of the House of Commons subcommittee that the investigative hearing power be limited to the investigation of imminent terrorism offences and not past terrorism offences.

The government could not respond favourably to this recommendation and there are many reasons why this is so. To begin with, this proposed limitation would forestall entirely the possibility that the investigative hearing could be used in relation to the ongoing Air-India investigation.

This recommendation would also prevent the use of an investigative hearing to gain information about a terrorism offence after the offence has already occurred, even in the very recent past. For example, if a terrorist attack were to occur in Canada similar to the attacks in the U.K. on July 7, 2005, the police, on the day after the attack, would not be able to use this power, since the attack would have already taken place and despite the fact that it may be a prelude to a further terrorist attack.

This recommendation implies that terrorists will only ever commit one terrorist offence. The better view is that after a terrorist group has committed an offence, whether it is participating in a training camp, fundraising, or an act of violence, the justification for the use of the investigative hearing is even more compelling. This is because, aside from the need to bring the perpetrators to justice, there is a requirement to prevent the group from continuing with its activities.

To adopt this recommendation would have the effect of preventing the use of an investigative hearing to gain information about a terrorism offence after the offence has already occurred, even an offence that has occurred in the very recent past.

This government believes that a terrorist activity, be it past or future, unquestionably merits the same tools as they both respond to a specific need expressed by our law enforcement agencies in their fight against terrorism. To do otherwise would be unacceptable.

Moving on with the other amendments that this government agreed to make in response to the committee's recommendations, though largely unchanged from its previous incarnation, the recognizance with conditions provision in Bill S-3 brings about an additional annual reporting requirement that was recommended by the special Senate committee on the Anti-terrorism Act.

As for other changes brought to the original legislation, the House of Commons Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act recommended that both provisions be extended for five years, while the special Senate committee recommended that they be extended for three years subject, in both instances, to the possibility of a further extension following resolutions passed by both houses of Parliament.

What Bill S-3 proposes is to allow Parliament to extend the existence of one or both provisions for a period of five years. While the original legislation made it clear that a resolution could be tabled to extend both provisions, it was not clear from the wording whether a resolution that would extend only one of the powers could be tabled. The new wording would explicitly permit the extension of either or both of these provisions.

Other changes made by the Senate will be referred to by other hon. members who will also speak.

As has been made clear in my remarks today, there is no question that the government has given proper consideration to the various recommendations made by the House of Commons and the Senate and that, in doing so, we have improved both the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions provisions. Given this, I invite all members of the House to support this bill and reinstate these two important tools.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has to be addressed is that this is a Senate bill and there is an important element to that. We are talking about a bill that nobody can deny is going to change civil liberties in this country. It is going to create another procedure that is different, that limits rights and limits the ability for people to even defend themselves in the context of our current laws. That is even acknowledged by the Canadian law society and others that have advocated for different amendments, because it deals with things such as personal information that could be exposed not only internally but externally and the legacy that could leave on a person's life.

I would like to ask my colleague how he feels about this bill originating in the Senate. His party has been saying that there needs to be Senate reform, despite the fact that the Conservatives appointed a member to the Senate, a cabinet minister, and the Prime Minister has been critical of the Senate in the past. At the same time, when it comes to seeing significant changes in Canadian democratic law, they come from the Senate, which is not accountable.

I would like the member to address that issue. It is a quandary. This issue which is so important for our democratic rights in Canada is coming about by a group of individuals who are not accountable.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member expressed some concerns about the content of the bill. There are safeguards built into this bill. The fact is that members from his party and all parties in the House were members of the subcommittee. There was the special Senate committee as well. They spent many hours working to try to improve these provisions. They were built into the committee reports.

I encourage the hon. member to read both the Senate committee and House subcommittee reports. The fact is there is accountability. The hon. member will have an opportunity to stand in his place and have a say on that. It originated in the other house, but so many of the attempts by this government to get legislation through have been slowed down in committees and have continued to be stonewalled.

In terms of the democratic opportunity, the hon. member will have an opportunity in the House to stand either way on this bill.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand in the House and compliment my colleague, who has had a very active part in a lot of this legislation. He has taken a very active role and has a keen interest in it. I recognize his interest purely as a Canadian to start with, but he certainly has some border crossings in his area and these issues are important to him.

Equally, I know that he is also concerned about the rights and freedoms of Canadians. I would like the member to tell us if it has been tested as far as the constitutional correctness to hold investigative hearings. Have the courts had a look at it?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that back in June 2004, in reference related to the Air India prosecution, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of this provision. In a companion case, the court held that there was a presumption that investigative hearings should be held in open court. Although upheld as constitutional, a hearing was never convened, but the fact is that this has been tested in court. It has been upheld as being constitutional.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many concerns about this legislation, that this legislation compromises many fundamental and key principles of our justice system.

One of the concerns about investigative hearings is that upsets the usual practice of the courtroom. It upsets the usual role of a judge in those circumstances. It actually puts the judge and prosecutors into the role of investigators, something that is not their normal role in the judicial process in a court hearing, and something for which many people believe they do not have a particular background or training to play that kind of role in our judicial system.

I wonder if the member might comment on that fundamental shift in the role of judge and prosecutor.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member to read those reports, but the fact is that these are extraordinary powers. These powers would only be used in extraordinary cases where Canadians' safety was at risk.

I believe that Canadians want to have some protection. They want to know that their law enforcement agencies have the ability to keep them safe in a time of a potential terrorist attack.

We have heard that Osama bin Laden has Canada on the list as a potential target for a terrorist attack. We have seen other countries that he in fact mentioned have been subject to terrorist attacks and many people have been killed.

Does the government believe that it is important? We will see what happens in the vote. The fact was that the majority of members of the subcommittee that I chaired, which ended its work about a year ago, actually recommended that these go ahead and we have seen them upheld in court. Therefore, I think that this is something that Canadians would like to see.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague about what other countries are doing.

The reason I would like to know this is obviously the world has changed since 9/11 and sometimes countries have to prepare for these eventualities rather than just simply sit around and sift through the rubble, as I have heard the minister say.

I wonder if my hon. colleague, who has in fact done a lot of work on this and I congratulate him for that, could identify or even suggest if there are any other countries that are doing similar work to protect their citizens.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that fact is that the committee did look at what was going on in other countries. One of the countries that was recently attacked of course was the United Kingdom. In the U.K. the police may arrest without warrant persons whom they reasonably suspect are terrorists.

The maximum time that a person could be held in detention without charge under the power that the U.K. has had since 2000 was from 7 days to 14 days and now it is 28 days. This is quite a bit more than what we have in Canada, but I go back to once again, that Canadians are looking for law enforcement to have the tools to help keep them safe. I will be supporting this. I know members of the government will be supporting this and I know Canadians will be behind them in that.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my previous question the member said that these were extraordinary measures and that we expected that people would use them judiciously and with caution. I am not quoting him exactly but he implied that this was his feeling about this.

My first response is that we all know which road is well paved with good intentions and I think we have to be cautious, when we extend these kinds of broad powers, and very careful about the potential when they will be used. There is no sense putting a law in place that we do not expect to be used some day.

Right now, under the Criminal Code of Canada every crime that I can think of that would be related to terrorism is already treated as a very serious crime under the Criminal Code.

Can the member tell me of any crime that is not covered by the Criminal Code that might be part of a terrorist activity? Certainly murder would be one as well as conspiracy to commit a terrorist act like exploding a bomb, all those kinds of things would currently be covered under the Criminal Code of Canada. Why is something more than the Criminal Code of Canada necessary to protect us from acts of terrorism?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's passion on this.

The fact is that the committee did spend a lot of time considering the importance of human rights and the potential of abuses, and they are addressed. The safeguards are built into this legislation, into investigative hearings, and into recognizance with conditions.

I know that he is concerned about some of the potential offences there, that he was looking for other ones, but the fact is that this is designed to help prevent a terrorist activity or to prevent another one that may be happening after one happens. The fact is that law enforcement has been looking for this and other governments have been looking to have this. We saw that the Air India inquiry was looking for this.

Parliament actually did not extend the provisions back in February of 2007, but the bill is now before us and the member will have an opportunity to have a say on it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, Telefilm Canada.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Davenport.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is little doubt that the bill we are debating today, Bill S-3, remains a very divisive topic for Canadians and parliamentarians.

We are dealing with a bill which proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that would reinstate anti-terrorism provisions that expired under a sunset clause in February 2007.

These provisions would essentially bring individuals who may have information about a terrorist offence before a judge for an investigative hearing. It would deal with recognizance with conditions and preventive arrest to avert a potential terrorist attack.

These provisions have gained the interest of the general population and many groups have voiced their opinions on these extraordinary measures.

The first measure deals with the provisions to bring a person before a judge by subpoena or by arrest who, perhaps, on reasonable grounds, has knowledge of the whereabouts of someone who may be suspected of being involved in terrorism activity.

The second portion is equally extraordinary because it deals with the detention and recognizance of someone who is suspected of having something to do with a terrorist activity. As we know, to arrest somebody we need reasonable grounds under our current system.

When we look at that provision, which is the most litigated part of the Criminal Code, we see there is a great difference between suspicion and belief. There is a significant line there and this is why this legislation has raised such interest and concern for Canadians.

Since the terrible attack on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, which was a crime against humanity, states throughout the world have changed their domestic laws in order to respond to the new realities of terrorism. Canada of course is no exception.

In the United States, the patriot act was passed with wide margins in both houses of Congress, and has since then been criticized by civil liberties groups as fundamentally weakening human rights. Canada also enacted a legislative response to the events of September 11, 2001, through the Anti-terrorism Act.

Both statutes were speedily enacted and intended to address the threat posed by the attack and designed to give government agencies additional tools and powers to prevent and combat terrorism. However, there are key differences between the Canadian and the American legislative approaches.

Prior to the coming into force of the Anti-terrorism Act, the Canadian Criminal Code did not contain a definition of terrorist activity. To date, the Supreme Court has made several important rulings on the need to balance human rights and national security. One important one that comes to mind is the decision in the case of Cherkaoui and security certificates.

Another very important one is Suresh v. Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada discussed this balancing approach in relation to a decision to deport a suspected terrorist from Canada on assurances that he would not be tortured if returned to Sri Lanka.

The court noted that the balance to be struck in this situation was between Canada's interest in combating terrorism and the deportee's interest in not being deported to torture, taking into account the circumstances or conditions of the potential deportee, the danger that the deportee presents to Canadians or to the country's security and the threat of terrorism to Canada.

The Supreme Court concluded that this balance will usually come down against expelling a person to face torture elsewhere with the result that deportation should generally be declined where on the evidence there is a substantial risk to torture.

As Suresh v. Canada illustrates, the balancing process involved, where removal is contested on human rights grounds, is tested further in the context of state responses to terrorism.

It is important to note that after September 11, the United Nations has, on numerous occasions, called upon states to bring to justice to those involved in terrorist activities through the process of extradition or prosecution while, at the same time, reminding states that any anti-terrorism measures must comply with international human rights law.

If we go back to 2001, the sunset clause, originally introduced in the Anti-terrorism Act, states that these provisions would cease to apply at the end of the 15th sitting day of Parliament after December 31, 2006, unless they were extended by a resolution. As of February 2007, no investigative hearings have been held and no reported use of the provisions on recognizance with conditions.

It is important to note that while the provisions introduced today are similar to those that expired in February 2007, they are not identical. Some of the key changes in the bill include: placing an emphasis on exhausting all reasonable attempts for the collection of information about potential or prior terrorist activity before the ordering of an investigative hearing; and requiring the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to issue separate annual reports with their opinions as to where these provisions should be extended.

If we look back to the month of February 2007, the government put forward a motion to extend the measures without amendments for three years. This was eventually defeated in the House by a vote of 159 to 124. Even with ominous threats from the Prime Minister to trigger an election if amendments were made to the bill, the Liberals still pushed to have additional safeguards to these provisions. As such, I am pleased to find that these safeguards, which were also recommended by both the House and Senate committees, have been added to the bill.

These provisions include: an increased emphasis on the need to have made reasonable attempts to obtain information with respect to both future potential terrorist activity and such activity in the past; the ability for any person ordered to attend an investigative hearing to retain and instruct counsel; the flexibility to have any provincial court judge hear a case regarding a preventive arrest; and a five year end date unless both Houses of Parliament review and resolve to extend the provisions further.

However, the fact is the Prime Minister still refuses to listen to the democratic majority and, instead, dictates to the House that no amendment should be made to this bill or, once again, it might trigger an election.

Even the Supreme Court of Canada suggests that the bill be amended on a number of issues. I will not go into all the recommendations made by the court, but I must point out that the government has once again chosen to ignore its important recommendations.

As I have already mentioned, these provisions have attracted the interests of academics and the general population alike. This has been evident in both the House of Commons and the Senate committees that have studied this issue. In fact, these committees heard from a broad spectrum of witnesses, who have voiced opinions on these extraordinary measures.

On the one side, some feel that these provisions do not violate rights, that, in fact, they reduce potential threats and address them in a practical manner. Some would also argue, such as Gary Bass, deputy commissioner for the RCMP, that these “renewed provisions will assist with those who might otherwise be reluctant to testify”.

Mr. Bass maintains that with these provisions, witnesses would no longer have any choice but to testify truthfully. On the other side, people have argued against this view and expressed the opinion that such provisions could be counterproductive and detrimental to witnesses.

In fact, Yvon Dandurand, a criminologist at University College of the Fraser Valley, British Columbia, argues that compelled witnesses are still exposed to potential retaliation from those who expect them to lie if compelled to testify.

Also, some have felt that the Anti-terrorism Act represents a substantial departure from Canadian legal traditions and fear that use of these provisions might eventually extend beyond terrorism offences to other more generic Criminal Code offences. Such provisions also make it clear that those who volunteer information to the authorities could find themselves subject to an investigative hearing, preventive arrest or a charge for a terrorism offence.

Canada historically has been a leader in maintaining balance between human rights and public safety. I believe all of us want Canada to remain a safe and secure country. I also believe Bill S-3 could potentially cross an important thin line and violate the rights of Canadians and compromise civil liberties.

I am reminded of the famous words that were uttered, after September 11, by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the archbishop of Washington, in a mass on September 12, 2001, for the victims in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack on the U.S. He reminded us all that:

We must seek the guilty and not strike out against the innocent, or we become like them who are without moral guidance or direction.

Although Bill S-3 has had attached to it new safeguards in comparison to the original provisions, I feel it must be sent to the House committee again to be thoroughly studied and debated so Parliamentarians can make the right and educated decision on this controversial matter.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague across. I know he is very passionate about his comments, and I appreciate that.

Has he spent any time talking to his colleagues who were on the committee and who dealt with this over a considerable length of time? I understand his concerns are about the innocent, but has he given consideration to how the police can function in a society when we deal with terrorism?

I believe the rules are in there to protect the innocent and to protect Canadians in the broadest sense, and it has been determined to be constitutional. However, has he directed his mind as to how Canadians can be protected against terrorists using the existing laws? If he has spent time in talking to his colleagues who were on the committee, did he not talk to them about those issues dealing with terrorism and the protection of Canadians?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to speak to my colleagues on this side of the House. Many of them have assured me of some of the provisions within this legislation. I have also have an opportunity to speak with many human rights groups that also have concerns about what could happen.

I have always believed we have to listen to the different groups to ensure the legislation we bring forward is in fact balanced. I am proud to live in Canada, a country where we respect the rule of law. I know the rule of law and the laws that we make here as parliamentarians are extremely important, both in how we assess civil liberties and human rights and how we protect the safety and security of our citizens, which is one of the major responsibilities we have as parliamentarians.

I take that job very seriously. It is one of the reasons why, even though I have some concerns and reservations about the bill, I have asked that we at least send it to committee, have it studied, listen again to the different groups out there and then make a final decision when it comes back. I will make a final decision when it comes back for third reading.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the measures we are being asked to enact require a couple of things.

The first one is that we have complete trust in our judicial system, and I do. I am not questioning the ability and the independence of our judicial system, although there have been murmurs from the government about the meddling of our judicial system and correspondingly, appointments that may reflect a certain bent. However, that is not the question.

Would my colleague agree that the same kind of trust, if we are to adopt these measures, would be required of our national police?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my hon. colleague on the issues of trust, both in our judicial system and in our police.

The Supreme Court has made several rulings, which are worthy to be considered since September 11, and I think I alluded to a couple of them, the Suresh decision and the Charkaoui decision. The court has talked about the balance between human rights and national security. It is always a struggle for parliamentarians to get the legislation right in terms of that equal balance.

I believe very strongly and passionately that our judicial institutions do an amazing job in protecting the human rights of Canadians. I have full respect and confidence in their decisions and rulings, as well as our police forces, which have called for these additional tools as well so they can combat security risks.

There is always a struggle between human rights and national security, but they are not incompatible. There is no question that they can coexist.

Our party, which brought in the Anti-Terrorism Act after September 11, really did try to look at the balance and put in sunset clauses to bring about that balance as well. We have struggled, but we balanced it quite well.

We have done better than most other countries in western European. We certainly have much more broader legislation with respect to rights in Canada than there is in the Patriot Act in the U.S. Our legislations in Canada have been much broader and more respectful toward civil liberties than many of the countries in western Europe.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that different lawyer associations and groups have raised is that some personal information could exit this country and could then be used against individuals. As we know from the enactment of the Patriot Act, Canada has yet to have a privacy agreement. We need a treaty to understand what happens to the Canadian information, where it goes, how it is used and so forth.

This issue has not been addressed in the bill, and I will ask the hon. member about that situation. I know we have had a series of problems in my constituency with regard to tracking the direction of personal information.

Also there are very serious cases, like the Maher Arar case wherein information was shared with another government's officials and departments. We do not know where that information goes. The Patriot Act prevents access to that type of knowledge and also the ability the scrub that information. It also has other consequences, for example, where individuals cannot get themselves taken off a no fly list.

Could my colleague tell us if those issues have been addressed by the bill?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the hon. member. It is an issue of great concern, and the sharing of information is something I have raised in the House.

As the hon. member is probably aware, I have spoken as well against the no fly list, but the U.S. is demanding it of our country, which is a violation of our sovereignty.

The sharing of personal information is something that greatly disturbs me, specifically how that information is used. I would like to see in committee how this issue could be addressed. The committee stage is a good opportunity to deal with an issue as important as this.

I did not get a chance earlier, but I will take this opportunity to state that Canada is not immune to terrorism. We had a terrible terrorism act in Canada with the Air-India bombing.

Canada has always tried to balance human rights and national security. Getting it right is very important to parliamentarians. It is a struggle I will have to go through as we debate the bill at second reading and at committee stage. When it comes back to the House for third reading, I will make a decision whether I will support it.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today in the second reading debate of Bill S-3. I would like to focus my comments more specifically on the amendments themselves as made by the Senate to the bill. I want to assure this House, though, that the people of Cambridge and North Dumfries in my riding wish me to support this bill, so I am happy to speak in favour of it.

I would like to mention, too, that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake.

Some people may think that my riding of Cambridge is one of those communities that is not on the terrorist list and would wonder why I would be up in the House speaking to this issue, but my riding has one of the busiest highways in all of Canada, the 401, going right through it. We have an urban area of about 110,000 to 113,000 people, divided into nice little communities that we used to call Hespeler, Preston and Galt.

Within 45 minutes of Cambridge, there are three airports and the riding itself is actually very diversified. One of the largest veal producers in North America is in my riding. Eighty per cent of the satellites that circle this world have parts from COM DEV in my riding. A statistic that shocked me is that there are 150 million people living within an eight hour drive of my riding, so I think it is exceptionally important for the folks in my riding that we concern ourselves with the threat of terrorism.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to debate, at second reading, Bill S-3. I will limit my comments to the amendments made to the bill by the Senate.

When the Minister of Justice appeared before the Senate special committee on December 3, 2007, the committee questioned the constitutionality of the wording that was used in section 83.3, which deals with the recognizance with conditions provision.

The concern raised flowed from the 2002 judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called R. v. Hall. In the Hall case, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the specific wording in the bail provisions, wording which was replicated in actual fact in Bill S-3.

Specifically, the Supreme Court found that paragraph 515(10)(c), the third ground for denial of bail, was unconstitutional under sections 7 and 11(e) of the charter, in particular because of its use of the words “any other just cause and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, that...”.

As I said, as introduced, Bill S-3 had also proposed the use of the same wording in the recognizance with conditions provision.

The government obviously agreed that this needed to be corrected. The amended version of paragraph 83.3(7)(b)(C) now begins with the words “the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice”, and it goes on from there. I refer my colleagues to lines 28 to 30 of page 6 where they will find that the wording has been corrected and is now quite constitutional.

The second amendment addressed inconsistencies in the wording that appeared in clause 1 of the bill. Subsection 83.28(4) contains two paragraphs. The first one focuses on past terrorism offences. The second one focuses on future terrorism offences.

As introduced, however, there was an inconsistency in the use of the terminology between the two paragraphs. The former referred to “a terrorism offence”, whereas the latter referred only to “the offence”. The French version suffered the same defect.

The special Senate committee therefore amended subparagraph 83.28(4)(b)(ii) to ensure consistency in the wording in both provisions and of course in both official languages.

Finally, the third amendment made by the Senate to Bill S-3 was to subsection 83.32(1.1). This subsection originally proposed that a review of these two powers proposed by Bill S-3 be made at the discretion of Parliament. The Senate amended this particular provision to make the parliamentary review of these powers mandatory.

As we can see from the summary of the Senate amendments, these were slightly technical although very important amendments and they did not alter the essence of Bill S-3.

The proposals in Bill S-3 provide law enforcement agencies with the proper tools. I will point out that the committee met with a number of law enforcement agencies that deemed these tools to be necessary to help them do their jobs in addressing the ever present threat of terrorist attacks. They also include safeguards required to help preserve the safety and security of all Canadians, as well as to protect their fundamental rights, the right of hard-working Canadian families to play, to feel safe at night and to live their lives in peace.

I am asking all hon. members in this House to hear the facts of this bill and understand the need for such important legislation. I ask them to join me and support it.

I urge all members of this House to support Bill S-3.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's speech today he talked about his home constituency of Cambridge. I went to Wilfrid Laurier University, which is in Kitchener-Waterloo, just outside of Cambridge. It is a very beautiful community, one with a lot to be proud of, and is very diversified. He mentioned the 401 and concerns. Everybody in Canada really is concerned about terrorist attacks.

My riding actually has the busiest international border crossing in the world. In fact, more than 30% of Canada's entire trade to the United States goes through my riding on a daily basis, including more trade than all of Canada's to Japan. There are actually four crossings, but the main crossing is the Ambassador Bridge.

On that bridge, there is a system right now whereby someone drives on and does not actually get checked until getting to the other side. As well, the only real plan for security, for appearances and so forth, is to rent a police officer once in a while who goes underneath the bridge. This is a four lane bridge that obviously is very important for the economy, connected right to this member's community.

Given the fact that these are the government's criteria for security, I would like to ask the member whether he thinks that is sufficient. Why have there not been, in this private enterprise, the mandated improvements to make sure? There are 24 international bridges and tunnels between Canada and the United States. Only two are privately held. This is one of them. I would like to hear from the member as to whether he is satisfied with that type of security provision from this private operator.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very good point. In fact, he is not mistaken. Regarding the Ambassador Bridge, I have heard numbers indicating that $1 million a minute of trade goes across that privately owned bridge. I cannot account for how that bridge ever became private. I suspect that it was done before I was born, which was not that long ago, just to be clear.

With all due respect, though, the fact is that the member is looking at this single bill as the be-all and end-all of this government's agenda to fight terrorism and to make Canadians safe. The truth is that this is only part of the government's anti-terrorism efforts. I know that there is a front away on our infrastructure funding of $33 billion to improve that border crossing. Part of that will obviously include increased border security.

I would like to suggest that the previous government had an idea of putting an inspection ground on the American side. Of course the Americans said that not in their lifetimes were they going to have our vehicles come into the country and then be inspected.

I know that our government is looking at putting inspection 15 miles away from that bridge, for example, so that we can in fact increase the security of that border, which in my opinion is actually an economic security as well. I appreciate the hon. member's question, but I want the hon. member to rest assured that this is only one piece of this government's anti-terrorism actions.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my good friend and colleague speak on this important amendment and bill. I would like him to expand a bit, but it is important to understand why we need anti-terrorism laws, why we need this legislation and where this began.

We know about 9/11 and we know that the United Nations passed a resolution requiring all its member nations, thus most of the world, to begin to enact measures to defeat terrorism or to protect their citizenry and the world against terrorism. Canada, of course, being the good member of the United Nations that it is, took upon itself the need to have anti-terrorism legislation.

I wonder if the hon. member might expand a bit on that and other items concerning this legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member cannot expand very much because there are only 20 seconds left.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The sad truth is that terrorism is still alive and well in the world and we cannot sit back, put our heads in the sand and deny that it exists. We have to step up to the plate.

The number one job of a government is to keep its citizens safe. We will do what we have to do and that is what we are doing.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).

Today I will focus my remarks regarding Bill S-3 on these provisions and how they compare with the provisions found in the anti-terrorism legislation of other major democratic countries. I will do so in order to show that the provisions in this bill are either similar to or in some cases narrower than those of other countries.

Let us first turn to the proposed investigative hearing procedure. Other democratic countries have similar procedures.

The United States has a grand jury procedure. A federal grand jury can compel the cooperation of persons who may have information relevant to the matters it is investigating. It can subpoena any person to testify under oath. If the individual fails to appear or refuses to answer, or fails to produce evidence or documents in his or her possession, he or she may be held in contempt absent a valid claim of privilege. If a witness or the custodian of a document asserts a valid privilege, he or she may be provided with use and derivative use immunity and then be required to comply with the subpoena to testify or produce evidence.

Investigative hearing provisions roughly equivalent to those proposed in this bill are also found in Australia and South Africa. The United Kingdom goes even further.

In 2001, the U.K. amended its Terrorism Act 2000 to create a crime of withholding information relating to a terrorism act. Specifically, a person commits a crime who fails to disclose information to the police which he or she knows or believes might be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism or in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of someone for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of a terrorist act. Punishment for this crime is up to five years' imprisonment.

Also, the U.K., through the Terrorism Act 2006, applied to terrorism investigations the disclosure notice procedure that was created by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Under that legislation, an investigating authority such as the director of public prosecutions, can have a disclosure notice issued to a person. The notice could require the person to answer questions relevant to the investigation, provide information or produce documents.

Let me now turn to the recognizance with conditions provision. First, the arrest without warrant power found in this provision would be, as before, very limited in scope, for example, where pressing exigent circumstances make it impractical for a peace officer to go before a judge and have the judge compel a person to attend before him or her. Where the person is arrested without warrant, the peace officer would have to bring that person before a judge within 24 hours or, if not feasible, as soon as possible thereafter.

If the judge decided to adjourn the hearing and detain the person until then, the adjournment would be for no more than 48 hours. Thus, under the recognizance with conditions power, the maximum period of time for which a person could be detained until the hearing takes place would generally be for no more than 72 hours.

However, the United Kingdom has a much broader arrest without warrant and detention power. Under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the police may arrest without warrant a person whom he or she reasonably suspects is a terrorist. The maximum period of time that a person can be held in detention without charge under this power was extended from seven days in 2000 to 14 days in 2003 and was increased again to 28 days in 2006. In January 2008, the United Kingdom government introduced a new counterterrorism bill which, if passed, would extend this period of detention, in extraordinary cases, for up to 42 days.

The U.K.'s Terrorism Act 2000 also contains other police powers not found in our Criminal Code, such as the power of a senior police officer to designate a cordoned area where considered “expedient for the purposes of a terrorist investigation”. This allows the police to, for example, order a person to leave the area or not enter the area, and failure to obey the order is an offence. The police may also be authorized to search premises in the area.

There is another power that allows a senior police officer to authorize a uniformed constable to stop and search a vehicle or pedestrian in an area set out in the authorization where the officer “considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism”.

As well, in 2005, the U.K. put in place a system of control orders which may be imposed on a person, citizen or non-citizen alike, to prevent terrorist attacks. There are two kinds of control orders that may be imposed, those that do not derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights and those which do derogate from the convention. The latter would, arguably, apply in cases of house arrest.

Some of those non-derogating control orders that had imposed lengthy, daily curfew periods were successfully challenged in the lower courts and these decisions were appealed to the House of Lords.

In the fall of 2007, the House of Lords ruled that a number of control orders that had imposed an 18 hour curfew violated the right to liberty under the European Convention on Human Rights, rendering these orders null. However, it upheld control orders that imposed 12 or 14 hour curfews.

Australia has also enacted legislation that creates a system of control orders and preventive arrests of terrorist suspects. The Australian federal police may apply for an order for preventive detention for up to 48 hours of a terrorist suspect where there has been a terrorist act or where a terrorist act is imminent. Additionally, Australian states and territories have enacted legislation allowing preventive detention for up to 14 days.

To summarize, Bill S-3 proposes a maximum period of detention of generally 72 hours in relation to the recognizance with conditions power. In contrast, a suspected terrorist in the United Kingdom may currently be detained without charge for up to 28 days. In Australia, states and territories allow for preventive detention for up to 14 days.

It is obvious that in contrast to the United Kingdom and Australia, the power to detain persons in Canada to prevent terrorist activity is far more narrow in scope. The investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions were drafted with due regard for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They help to protect Canadians from the scourge of terrorism in a manner consistent with human rights. As the comparison with other democratic countries show, they have been crafted with restraint.

We must also not forget that these powers can serve to respond to our international obligations to prevent and suppress terrorism. In this regard, it should be noted that United Nations Security Council resolution 1373 states in part that state parties are to “take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts”.

These provisions are necessary to prevent the commission of terrorist acts and therefore they respond to the international obligation set out in resolution 1373.

For these reasons, I will be supporting this bill and I urge all hon. members in the chamber to do likewise.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake for enlightening us on the law that is being debated here today. In particular I want to expand on what he mentioned a few moments ago with regard to the United Nations requiring its member nations to begin to enact the anti-terrorism laws and to begin to fight the global war on terror.

Some high school students were in to see me last weekend. With regard to human rights and what is occurring around the world vis-à-vis countries using children to do some very improper things, such as strapping ammunition or explosives to their bodies and sending them into places where people are shopping, et cetera, I reminded them of what a late great world leader said. She said that this war between us and our foes will end when the enemy begins to love their children more than they hate us.

However, we are discussing the Anti-terrorism Act today and in particular some of the issues surrounding it. I want to ask my friend, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, what are some of the safeguards in respect to investigative hearings that are currently in this law?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100% with what the member said about the need to protect our citizens in Canada, that we have some international obligations to carry this out. Definitely, Canadians right across the country expect the government and this Parliament to initiate these types of measures to ensure that terrorism can be disrupted.

When we know a terrorism undertaking may be happening, we need our police officers and our judges to have the tools they need to execute the necessary measures to disrupt the planning process. We need to be able to hold people, investigate what they are doing and, hopefully, charge them under the Criminal Code for their activities.

We need to remember there are a number of safeguards to protect the rights of these citizens we are so concerned about, especially when we talk about investigative hearings. We need to remember that this does not just involve the federal government. It also involves the provincial jurisdictions. The peace officers, of course, will be the ones carrying out the investigations, looking at the situation and then making their recommendations to the court but they will need to come forward with a pretty strong case.

First, they will need to get the consent of the attorney general of either Canada or of the respective provinces to go ahead with the application. A judge will then need to look at the information that is presented, weigh it off against the rights of the individual, along with the information as presented, and then will need to exercise his or her authority as to whether an order will be provided for the investigative hearing. Therefore there is that safeguard.

It also is important to note that both federal and provincial crown attorneys general would be required to report annually on the use of any of these investigative hearings.

This is a five year process that we are undertaking here right now with the legislation, with the review after 2011, and these annual reports will help set the tone, I believe, on ensuring the process does work, that it does protect Canadians, and that it looks at the overall scope of how this whole process was applied through the investigative hearing.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions) or, as I prefer to call it, the investigative hearings and preventive arrest.

This bill is a follow-up to Bill C-36, which went through the House of Commons and through the Senate in time for the provisions of investigative hearing and preventive arrest to be continued because they were sunsetted and were about to end in February 2007.

At that time there were some discussions and agreement that perhaps some enhancements could be made. The Senate has considered some enhancements to what was Bill C-36. At least the bill was passed in time for these provisions not to lapse. Now we have before us an improved former Bill C-36 in the form of Bill S-3.

I will comment in a moment on the enhanced provisions, but I would like to set the stage for a moment. It is my own view, and I think largely the view of this side of the House and our caucus, that this bill is needed for a few reasons.

First, the threat of terrorism is still with us. The threat of terrorism has not subsided. We saw not too long ago in the newspapers and other media a case in the United Kingdom where a cell of alleged terrorists had been plotting to blow up aircraft that were destined for Canada and the United States. Admittedly, they will be facing those charges in court, but there have been terrorist events preceding that.

I think we need to be ever vigilant. In fact, in Canada we should be somewhat proud that we have had a regime in place that perhaps has been successful in thwarting any attempts to compromise our national security. Having said that, we need to be ever vigilant because the terrorists do not sit idly by. It is known that al-Qaeda has Canada on its list of targets. It is no secret that our troops are in Afghanistan and that causes some consternation among certain parties. I believe this anti-terrorism regime and these provisions are still needed because terrorism is still around us and still a threat.

I also believe these provisions are needed because I do not subscribe to the argument that because we have not had a terrorist event in Canada since the original Anti-Terrorism Act was enacted that we do not need these provisions any more. To me, it is sort of tantamount to saying that if one's house has not burned down one does not need fire insurance. I think that is folly for an argument and we need to have these provisions in place to ensure we do not have a fire in our home.

Third, I think the concerns of some, when these original provisions were enacted, that they would be used in a less than judicious way by the law enforcement agencies, has proven to be wrong. The fact is that they have never been used but that should not mean that we do not need them because we do. We need to have this tool in the toolkit of our law enforcement people in Canada so that if the day comes, and hopefully it will not, they can resort to it.

There is no greater responsibility of a government than to protect and safeguard its citizens. This always needs to be carefully balanced with the civil rights of its citizens. It is a very delicate balance. I do not think anyone would be as naive or as vain to think that we always have the balance right. It is never an easy task but we need e to deal with it and that is why this bill is before this Parliament. As parliamentarians, we need to wrestle with these issues and deal with them.

We have a group in Toronto that was rounded up a couple of years ago, the Toronto 15. There is some confusion I think among Canadians about how these people were charged and rounded up. The fact is that provisions of the Criminal Code were used to arrest these people.

One could argue that if we used the provisions of the Criminal Code there, why could we not always use provisions of the Criminal Code? It is a good point but it is not a compelling argument because in this particular case the police had informants. They had information and certain evidence.

At the end of the day, of course, these people are being tried and dealt with by the prosecutors, the courts and the police. Some of them have already been released. If they were completely innocent, it is unfortunate that they had to be incarcerated for a period of time. I am not sure if some of them got out on bail but it is always an unfortunate event if people are arrested and then not subsequently charged. However, in this particular case, the police had sufficient evidence and arrested them under the provisions of the Criminal Code.

This type of situation does not always exist. We know that terrorists communicate, sometimes in encoded ways, sometimes electronically, sometimes in various shapes and forms, and our investigative forces, law enforcement and other security forces in Canada, have ways of tracking this type of communication traffic. There will be a time, and perhaps there has been already one that we are not aware of, when the law enforcement agencies will pick up something that indicates that perhaps a terrorist event is about to be committed but they do not have sufficient evidence to lay a charge or to have these people arrested.

I had the good fortune and honour to serve on the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We investigated, exhaustively, the anti-terrorism legislation in Canada when it was up for review after five years. I will never forget the testimony of a gentleman who came from the United Kingdom. I forget his exact title but he was responsible for overseeing the anti-terrorism provisions in the United Kingdom.

The analogy he used was that if the police pick up information that a bank is about to be robbed, what they can do in a case like that, and they often do, is stake out that particular site. If the crime is perpetrated, then the police are there, they arrest the criminals and that is it. However, we cannot do this with a terrorist attack.

People move, and we see it all the time in various shapes and forms, different guises, perhaps with munitions strapped to them and it is often impossible to stake out. We could stake it out but then the terrorist event could happen and innocent people could lose their lives. Therefore, it is not really susceptible to that same type of action by law enforcement agencies.

I want to talk briefly about what the Senate has done to improve these provisions of preventive arrests and investigative hearings.

First, the Senate amendment calls on law enforcement to convince a judge that all reasonable attempts for the collection of information about potential or prior terrorist activity has been done before an investigative hearing is ordered.

An investigative hearing would be when the police bring together a group of people to seek out information about a possible terrorist activity. In my own judgment, I am more interested in the proactive view of how these provisions would be applied. I am not that interested in how they could be applied retroactively because I think the whole idea of the anti-terrorism legislation is to prevent a terrorist event, not go back in time, but, nonetheless, I know there are others in this House who feel differently about it. However, we need to at least have the provisions that would look forward to any proposed or possible terrorist event in the future.

What these amendments do is say that law enforcement must have to convince a judge that all other reasonable efforts have been made to deal with this, without having an investigative hearing. At an investigative hearing people are rounded up and asked to come before a judge and there are questions, and it is somewhat of an infringement on civil rights.

Nonetheless, a judge is involved within 24 hours. In other words, a hearing has to be conducted in a very swift fashion, and the same applies to preventative arrests. In fact, the people under the provisions of our law have to be released within 24 hours, and as others in this House have pointed out, these provisions are actually less onerous than those in countries like United States, United Kingdom and Australia. These amendments in the Senate call for that.

Also, another important change is that the bill now has narrower wording stipulating the grounds on which an individual may be detained. It is useful and responsible for legislators to be precise and to not leave it open to misuse. This bill and the amendments that are placed in it allow for that.

There are other provisions that call for the review of this legislation, in fact, making it mandatory to review these provisions. Rather than as an elective, Parliament is required to review these provisions at the appropriate time and interval.

These enhancements improve these measures. We never like to infringe on the civil liberties of our citizens, but at the same time we have to have measures in place that adequately safeguard our citizens. We are blessed in this country that, although I know some would argue the other way, our law enforcement people act responsibly and we have to have continuous oversight.

The RCMP has been under the public microscope lately and I am sure it has some improvements to make. This is not a police state, and we want to make sure it never even comes close to that, but our law enforcement people generally will use these tools only when they have to.

I recall at the subcommittee we had a panel. We looked at the provisions of the former Bill C-36, and this was particularly in the context of the security certificates. Even though security certificates are outside the scope of the anti-terrorism legislation, the subcommittee was tasked with looking at the provisions of the security certificates.

There was an official who came from the Department of Public Safety and National Security with a brief and a dossier on an individual who was an alleged Iranian assassin and who was being detained under a security certificate. Of course, some of the material in the dossier had to be whited out to protect allies who had provided various information and sources of information, on the grounds that it would compromise our national security. The dossier was nonetheless a very thick dossier and the official took the subcommittee through this file, indicating why this person was being detained under a security certificate.

On that same panel, there was a representative from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. I remember turning to him at that point in time and asking whether, after hearing the profile of this particular gentleman who is being detained under a security certificate, would he like to have this person as a next door neighbour. It was kind of a risky question, but I thought it was a reasonable question to ask. In response, he said that he would not. If anyone heard this dossier, they would say that no reasonable person would want this person as a next door neighbour.

He was opposed to these kinds of provisions. I asked what the problem was and he replied that it was the process. We agreed that the process needed improvement and that is why, with respect to security certificates, that was enhanced.

We need to understand that citizens of this country want their government to have a balanced set of measures that would keep their families and themselves safe and secure in their neighbourhoods, and would have the optimal balance between those requirements while protecting the civil liberties of Canadians, which is equally important. Balance is something that we must continue to strive for in the House.

Bill S-3 provides a very good balance between those two competing elements and I certainly will be supporting it.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill S-3, there will be four minutes left for debate for the hon. member for Etobicoke North and 10 minutes of questions and comments.

The House resumed from April 17 consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions). This bill raises some very important issues and fundamental questions about our justice system and our respect for civil liberties and human rights. I believe that this legislation compromises key principles of our justice system.

I want to begin with a quotation cited by Yusra Siddiquee, a representative of the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, when he appeared before the Senate committee studying this bill. He quoted Justice Binnie of the Supreme Court of Canada, who said:

The danger in the “war on terrorism” lies not only in the actual damage the terrorists can do to us but what we can do to our own legal and political institutions by way of shock, anger, anticipation, opportunism or overreaction.

It is important to keep this in mind. We have to remember that these provisions and ones similar to them in many other countries grew out of the period immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, a period when all of us were concerned for our security and anxious and fearful.

There are two major provisions in the bill before us, one for investigative hearings and the other for preventive detention. These were part of the Anti-terrorism Act that was passed in the period immediately following September 11, 2001. In that original legislation, these particular provisions sunsetted after five years.

Under the terms of the sunset clause, the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act relating to investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions were set to expire on March 1, 2007 unless extended by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. A government motion to extend the measures without amendment for three years was defeated in the House of Commons on February 27, 2007 by a vote of 159 to 124, and the provisions ceased to have any force or effect.

That was the right decision. I am glad that the House took that decision. Now the government has reintroduced these provisions in this new legislation and that is the wrong decision. Both of these measures fundamentally compromise key principles of our justice system.

Let us consider first the provisions for investigative hearings. These provisions force someone to testify before a judge if he or she is suspected of having information about terrorist activity that has already occurred or that might occur. This provision directly compromises the right to remain silent, one of those fundamental principles of our justice system.

The refusal to testify at an investigative hearing can lead to one year of jail time. This can also reduce the right to silence for persons who are questioned by the RCMP or CSIS, in that if they are uncooperative with a police investigation, the possibility of having to go to an investigative hearing can be used to compel cooperation and compromise their right to remain silent.

Not everyone who chooses to remain silent is guilty. People may have very legitimate fears and concerns, such as fears and concerns about their own personal safety, for instance. Given the broad definition of terrorism in the Anti-terrorism Act, this provision is a problem, and the definition has come in for criticism over the years as well.

Many members who support this bill have said in debate that these are extraordinary measures that will be used in only the most serious of circumstances. I appreciate what RCMP Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell said before the Senate committee. He stated:

First, and most importantly, the RCMP recognizes that these provisions were intended for extraordinary situations and, as such, we approach them with restraint.

My preference would be to not go down that road until it is proven clearly that the measures already at our disposal are not effective in dealing with the challenges of terrorism faced in our country. Those good intentions are noble, and I believe the commitment made by the assistant commissioner is sincere, but as the expression goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

These provisions represent a very serious departure and in reality could be used against people who are legitimately protesting or are viewed as dissidents by our society. They could be used to harass or even imprison such people.

This provision also puts a judge in the position of having to oversee an investigation. This is not the practice of our justice system and is not something that most judges have any experience with. This is a major departure, since investigations in our system are undertaken by police authorities.

Jason Gratl, the president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, put the concern this way:

The primary difficulty with investigative hearings is that they distort the functions of the judiciary and the Crown. In essence, the course of order-making power of the judiciary is brought to bear on an investigation. That power places prosecutors in the role of investigators, which is unlike their usual role. It also places the judiciary in the position of presiding over a criminal investigation.

The other provision, preventive detention or recognizance with conditions, is the other key part of this bill. Again, this compromises a key principle of our justice system: that one should be charged, convicted and sentenced in order to be jailed.

This provision would allow the arrest and detention of people without ever proving any allegation against them. It could make people subject to conditions on release, with severe limitations on their personal freedom, and again, even if they have never been convicted of any crime.

Jailing people because we think they might do something criminal is very problematic, to say the very least, and it is easily apparent how such a measure can be easily abused. It is very similar to the provisions of the security certificate legislation in our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Under that legislation, five men remain either in jail or subject to incredibly strict release conditions, house arrest conditions, even though they have never been convicted of any crime in Canada.

Hassan Almrei remains in jail at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, a double maximum security prison. He has been there for almost seven years now, ever since just immediately after September 11, even though he has never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime.

Adil Charkaoui, Mohamed Harkat, Mahmoud Jaballah and Mohammad Mahjoub are prisoners in their own homes, guarded by their spouses and others. These situations are very unjust. It is wrong for this to be included in the immigration legislation. It is wrong to include this same kind of measure in our anti-terrorism legislation.

These measures open very serious files on individuals, files alleging that they have some connection to terrorism. These files are opened on people who have never been convicted of any crime. They can be based on allegations that have never been proven. How do they defend themselves in such circumstances?

In this corner of the House, we believe that the Criminal Code is the best way to deal with issues of terrorism. The NDP justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, in his minority report on the Anti-terrorism Act review, said the following:

There is no act of terrorism that is not already a criminal offence punishable by the most stringent penalties under the Criminal Code. This is obviously the case for premeditated, cold-blooded murders; however, it is also true of the destruction of major infrastructures.

Moreover, when judges exercise their discretion during sentencing, they will consider the terrorist motive as an aggravating factor. They will find that the potential for rehabilitation is very low, that the risk of recidivism is very high and that deterrence and denunciation are grounds for stiffer sentencing. This is what they have always done in the past and there is no reason to think they will do differently in the future.

I can think of no offence related to terrorism that is not already included in the Criminal Code. I can think of no circumstance of a crime committed as part of an act of terrorism that would not be dealt with in the strictest, toughest way by our courts.

For instance, counselling to commit murder is already an offence under the Criminal Code. Being party to an offence is also a crime.

The crime of conspiracy is well established under the Criminal Code and deals with the planning of criminal activity. Let us be clear. In the conspiracy category, no crime actually has to be committed for someone to be found guilty of conspiracy under the Criminal Code.

We also have hate crime legislation that outlaws the promotion of hatred against a particular group.

It should also be noted that peace bond provisions already exist in the Criminal Code and can be exercised when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person's life or well-being is threatened by another person. This provision has similar power to preventive detention, but more significant safeguards are built into the Criminal Code provision. No one has demonstrated to my satisfaction that this existing provision will not meet the needs of dealing with terrorist activity.

As Denis Barrette, spokesperson for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and la Ligue des droits et libertes has said:

—Canadians would be better served and better protected if the authorities rely on the standard provisions of the Criminal Code. The use of arbitrary powers and the lowering of the standard of proof are no substitute for police work carried out in compliance with the rules. Indeed, these powers open the door to miscarriage of justice and the significant likelihood of damaging the reputation of individual citizens...

If our police and intelligence authorities do not have the resources they need to investigate potential terrorist acts and to charge those responsible, then we should review their needs immediately.

We cannot consider the bill without considering the question of racial and religious profiling. Racial and religious profiling is a problem in terrorism related investigations and prosecutions. It is a reality for many Canadians, especially those in the Arab and Muslim communities, but also to other people in other racial minority groups.

The provisions of Bill S-3 do nothing to reduce such concerns or to protect Canadian citizens from such profiling. We have to struggle with the experience of Arab and Muslim communities in Canada in the post-September 11 period.

Imam Zijad Delic, the national executive director of the Canadian Islamic Congress, and formerly the Iman of the mosque in my community, brought some of the concerns of Canadian Muslims before the Senate committee. He noted their position that the Criminal Code could deal fully with terrorism-related crimes and that it best balanced security with human rights. He also noted that ensuring all Canadians participated fully in our society without having to be regarded with suspicion was very important. He said:

Education, engagement, participation and institutional integration through inclusion are far better alternatives....moving forward with good faith will create the atmosphere of trust, cooperation and engagement we need to make progress.

He also made a very direct plea at the committee when he said:

On policies and practices, profiling Canadian Muslims is an issue on which the Government of Canada and Canadian Muslims differ significantly. Muslims cannot accept that we are profiled as a security threat to our own country. If government policy is not engaged in profiling, its actual operational practices speak differently, as evidenced by many cases in Canada. Please do not give our law-and-order people more power without appropriate accountability....Canada does not need laws that will prevent its citizens from feeling accepted, embraced, safe and secure. Canada needs to rethink its approach toward this bill and to focus on bridge-building between government and the many communities and groups that make us the unique mosaic we are.

There is an important message in his statement. We must pay clear attention to the effect that legislation like Bill S-3 and its extraordinary provisions have in our communities, the effect that it will have on some law-abiding, honourable Canadians. If the legislation increases their insecurity, if it does not promote their safety, how can we believe that somehow it adds to the overall protection of Canadian society?

J.S. Woodsworth, the first leader of the CCF, once said, “What we desire for ourselves we wish for all”. We would be well advised to struggle with the meaning of that in the context of developing anti-terrorism and security measures that are experienced positively by all those Canadians who seek peace and justice, respect the law, promote values of equality and oppose terrorism.

I should point out that the NDP has a proposal to address racial and religious profiling in Canada in Bill C-493, which I tabled in the House. The original version of this bill was tabled by the member for Vancouver East and after consultations with members of the Arab, Muslim, black, aboriginal and South Asian communities, it was revised and re-tabled as Bill C-493.

That bill states that enforcement officers from the RCMP, Canada Customs, Canada Revenue Agency, the immigration department, Canada Border Security Agency, those operating under the Aeronautics Act or CSIS must not engage in racial or religious profiling. Those agencies must collect data to ensure this practice is not engaged and must put in place explicit policies and procedures to prevent it and to respond to complaints. They must also undertake an analysis of racism and how it functions in the context of the particular agency.

Racial and religious profiling is hugely detrimental to the stability and success of Canadian society. It must not be tolerated in any form. We must be explicit in our condemnation of it and ensure it is prohibited in law.

Denis Barrette also stated at the Senate hearings on Bill S-3:

These laws are used in emergencies, where fear and panic are at the forefront—somewhat like what happened at the time of September 11, 2001.

Fear is never a good adviser. It is rather in moments of peace and quiet that the importance of preserving rights and freedoms should be rationally assessed. It is obviously important to defend them in difficult times, but we must plan for how to protect them in difficult times.

It is easy to protect rights and freedoms in peaceful times. We must provide for the unpredictable and ensure that, in a moment of panic, legislation does not result in innocent victims because it was poorly conceived or because it was dangerous or useless.

I say clearly that I am opposed to Bill S-3 and the revisions it makes to the Anti-Terrorism Act, to reintroduce investigative hearings and preventive detention. We should instead let the Criminal Code of Canada do the job, a job it is fully capable of doing. We must also ensure that our police and intelligence authorities have the resources they need to carry out their investigations effectively and with respect for all Canadian citizens for human rights and for civil liberties.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague across the way.

What happens when an individual is a suspect and then ends up being found not guilty? What happens then? Does the bill provide for any compensation or anything else? What happens to that person who was labelled and whose reputation was tarnished by accusations that turned out to be untrue?

Could the member tell me, and everyone listening today, whether there are any provisions in this bill that provide something for those individuals who were suspected and turned out to be innocent?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the legislation provides anything in that regard, and this is a serious problem. The legislation opens the door to people being subjected to extreme penalties, like detention, like having severe limitations put on their everyday activities, based on allegations that have never been proven in a court of law. That is one of the most unjust things a society can do to anyone.

The fact one can have allegations that are never tested by our rules of evidence, that are never tested in a court of law and that this can determine whether a person is free to move in society is extremely unjust.

Yesterday during the debate, we heard one member talk about his experience in a standing committee. I believe a representative of CSIS brought in an example of the kinds of dossiers it had on some people who were of concern to it. The member described this as being a very significant document, which outlined many very serious concerns. He said that he found it very disturbing.

He said that he put a question to a representative from the Civil Liberties Organization. He asked if the person wanted to live next door to a person like that. He said that the answer was no, that the person did not want to next door. I would have to look at the context of that discussion and question.

However, if I were to answer that question, I would consider the document provided to be a large dossier of allegations and until the day it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, that person deserved to live in my neighbourhood, or anybody else's neighbourhood. When we begin to make judgments about our fellow citizens, based on unproven allegations, we have gone down a very slippery slope to a place where I think most Canadians would have very serious concerns about human rights and civil liberties in our country.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Burnaby—Douglas on his speech. I know that he is a parliamentarian who always prepares his speeches carefully.

This bill raises a number of concerns. In fact, it is giving grey hair to all the parliamentarians in this House who are concerned about human rights.

We are discussing provisions that the House did not vote for and that someone is trying to bring back to life. I would like our colleague to tell us how many objectionable provisions there are in this bill in terms of the major constitutional guarantees provided by the charter, for example, the presumption of innocence and the right to remain silent.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hochelaga is absolutely correct. Those of us who are concerned about civil liberties and human rights in Canada are very concerned about the legislation, and it causes significant worries for us. We have to be very clear.

The House did something proper, at the time the provisions were about to be sunsetted, in voting down an extension of these provisions. It is very clear that there has been no demonstrated need for them in Canada. We have good Criminal Code legislation that makes it very clear. Any of kinds of criminal activity associated with terrorism are of the most serious kinds of crime and they have some of the harshest penalties associated with them. The Criminal Code provides for processes of long-standing that balance the need to protect individual freedoms and the security and the needs of the state. There have been many years, centuries even, of jurisprudence to get us to that point in Canada, where we have a system that balances those concerns. It is very important we show respect for that system.

I am not convinced extraordinary measures have been necessary. In fact, they have never been used when they existed in that five-year period. It does not seem they have been part of what has been necessary to protect us in the circumstances that exist in the world today. We have to be vigilant about these kinds of provisions that would take us to a different place, that would suspend some of the basic rights that we have.

I think if we told many Canadians that we currently had someone in jail in Canada for seven years who had never been charged or convicted of a crime, they would find it unbelievable and shocking and would want to know how that was possible in Canadian society. However, we already have this with the security certificate legislation and with the situation of Mr. Almrei, who is in the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. This is a very draconian legislation and is currently being used in Canada.

Despite assurances that extraordinary measures are not to be used or are only to be used in very extreme or difficult circumstances, here we have someone who has been detained for that period of time without any possibility of being released. It looks very bleak in that sense right now, given the extension of the legislation.

We have to be very vigilant about our commitment to human rights and civil liberties, to the principles of the charter and to ensure we judge this legislation in that light before it comes to a vote in the House of Commons.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the speaker is raising unnecessary concerns that these provisions will somehow be abused. In fact, there are many safeguards with respect to the recognizance conditions.

First, I should point out that the consent of the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general or solicitor general for the province has to be obtained.

Second, it is only if the person refuses to enter into the recognizance that her or she can be incarcerated, and that is an important point. Also, the person who enters that recognizance has the right to apply to change or to vary the conditions under the recognizance order.

It seems to me that many of the concerns he has raised are unnecessarily raising fear among Canadians that this will somehow be abuse.

Would he respond to those comments?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, why would we put someone in jail who has never been convicted of a crime in Canada, which is what this provision would do? Why would we put extreme limitations on people's personal freedoms when it has never been proven that they have committed a crime or posed any threat to Canadian society?

The problem with the legislation is that it takes those kinds of cases out of our usual justice system and makes an exception. It basically says that allegations have been made against a person, even though nothing has been proven in a court of law that the person has actually done anything, and we need to restrict the person's freedom in order to protect society.

We already have the possibility of doing that under the Criminal Code. Conspiracy is a crime under the Criminal Code, as is plotting a criminal activity. We should use those provisions and subject the person to the rigours of the Criminal Code, and the state to the rigours of the Criminal Code in those instances as well.

I see no excuse for short-circuiting that process. No one has been able to show that this has been necessary in the five years since September 11. We have charged people with offences related to alleged terrorist activity but we did not use these kinds of provisions to do that.

I think it is very dangerous to have this kind of extraordinary sweeping provision on the books when we already have legislation in the Criminal Code that can deal effectively with any situation that might arise and also balances the need for security and respect for human rights and civil liberties in Canada.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to mention that yesterday marked the departure of the head of parliamentary interpretation, Monique Perrin D'Arloz, who worked at the House of Commons for 35 years. On behalf of all parliamentarians, I want to thank her for being our voice. I attended the reception in honour of her departure. I thank her for being so dedicated to all the members of this House.

It is rather troubling to talk about Bill S-3. To understand this bill, you have to start with the 2001 terrorist attacks, which showed us that there was a connection between civil societies and terrorism. There were many expressions of solidarity from Canada. In his memoirs, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien talks at great length about the close historical relationship between Canada and the United States. President Kennedy once told John Diefenbaker, “Geography made us neighbours. History made us friends.” We have a special relationship with the United States that sometimes has advantages and sometimes disadvantages.

All Quebeckers and Canadians were shocked and saddened to see the twin towers collapse, because they felt for the people involved.

Nevertheless, a few months later, Anne McLellan, who would become the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, but was then the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, acted with some haste. Certainly, those were troubling times. No one in this House wants to minimize the events of September 2001.

But now we have had time to look back on things. The Anti-terrorism Act that was introduced was studied, clause by clause, by a special legislative committee. If I remember correctly, our colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and the current defence critic, the member for Saint-Jean, represented the Bloc Québécois on that committee.

There was a certain collective anxiety and very strong pressure from the Americans, who had passed the Patriot Act. I do not want to talk about that American legislation, which goes much further than the Canadian legislation, but there was a sort of collective psychosis that may have led us to ignore human rights and major civil liberties a little too easily.

That does not mean the Bloc Québécois is minimizing the risk terrorism presents to society. The Bloc Québécois has long been interested in the entire issue of organized crime. An entire generation representing this House followed the work of CIOC. I was eight when the work of CIOC began, but others will remember quite clearly the tainted meat scandal. Many Quebeckers followed the CIOC proceedings. This was an opportunity to see that organized crime was not just a theory, but that it had taken root in the community.

Then there was a period of calm. In the 1990s, unfortunately, organized crime began to run rampant again, especially in large cities like Montreal. There was a fierce battle over the drug market. In my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, this battle resulted in the car bomb attack that took the life of young Daniel Desrochers on August 9, 1995. This led us, and all parliamentarians in this House, to wonder how effective the measures in the Criminal Code were for dismantling major organized crime networks.

Today we are going a little further: we have to deal with terrorism.

Terrorism, in its contemporary form, attacks civil society through what are called undifferentiated attacks. It can be bombs in a subway, where groups, not individuals, are the target. When public buildings are attacked, no one in particular is targeted. Civil society is under threat. It is more serious and more difficult for law enforcement agencies to foil, investigate and dismantle terrorist networks that have a much broader scope than organized crime ever did.

I recently read a piece by Charles-Philippe David, the brother of the leader of Québec solidaire. He wrote that the driving force behind terrorism in the 21st century has largely, but not exclusively, been based on religious considerations. No country is safe from terrorism, but some countries are targeted more than others. In political science and history classes, we learned that the United States was the world's police officer. Their interventionist international policy obviously makes them a bigger target.

I do not want to leave out an important component of the historical background. Shortly after 2001, the Liberals introduced a bill that the Bloc Québécois did not support. There was a lot of pressure at that point in time. The Bloc Québécois did not support the bill because we questioned how effective it would be. We did not want to downplay the potential for a terrorist attack. We knew that it was a real possibility, and we wanted emergency measures and plans to be in place. I know that the civil protection people were working on this. However, we did not believe that the measures proposed at that time were the right ones.

For example, there was the possibility that people might be arrested without charges. And that goes against a fundamental principle of our justice system. When we want to bring people before the courts, we have a constitutional obligation to present evidence in order to charge them. If it is a serious matter, we proceed by way of indictment so that we can bring the entire justice system into play, with a defence lawyer and a crown prosecutor. We present the evidence. If it is a very serious matter, we proceed with a jury, and a trial will follow.

Former minister McLellan's bill twisted the administration of justice in two ways. When Anne McLellan's bill was introduced in the House, it contained a sunset clause. At the time, we were told that the provisions of the act would expire after a certain period of time, following which a parliamentary committee would study them and we, as parliamentarians, would decide whether it was appropriate to extend them. I would point out that the House did not consider it appropriate to extend provisions in the Criminal Code concerning sections 83.28, 83.29 and 83.3. Accordingly, we voted against it, and most members of the House decided to allow the provisions to expire. The feeling was unanimous among members of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. If I remember correctly, the Liberals were divided and the government was unanimous.

What are we concerned about? First, we are concerned about the so-called investigative hearings. This is all based on allegations. No charges have been laid, nobody has been convicted; nobody has even been put on trial. The government is getting ahead of the justice system and once again, it wants us to support sections 83.28 and 83.29 of the Criminal Code. These are what they call investigative hearings.

Let me explain because this is somewhat technical and I would like our fellow citizens to understand what it is all about. A peace officer—a police officer to put it simply—may make an application to a provincial court judge—in Quebec, warrants are issued by provincial court judges—or a superior court judge with the prior consent of the Attorney General. It is correct to say, as our friend did earlier, that the consent of the Attorney General is required for an order for the gathering of information to be issued.

A peace officer or his agent may go before a superior court judge or a provincial court judge and explain that he would like to gather more information on a given individual because he has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual in question may have terrorist connections.

I remind the hon. members that we are talking about information in a context where no charges have been laid and no trial held, and that such an approach is totally arbitrary. The individual is required to appear before a judge. Hopefully, he or she will be notified in writing. The individual would be ordered, for example, to report to the Montreal courthouse next Tuesday, at 10 a.m., for an examination and to face justice. We are talking about an examination before a judge, where the individual will be required to answer questions. He or she may not refuse to answer.

In addition, the general principle whereby one has the right not to incriminate oneself does not apply under sections 83.28 and 83.29. The only exception, of course, is a person who has privileged information, for instance someone working for Criminal Intelligence Service Canada. These people are never required to disclose privileged information, the same way that police officers are never required to divulge their sources.

So, the examination is held before a judge, and the individual is required to answer the questions. Naturally, one might want to trivialize this. I heard earlier a government member say that the Attorney General was certainly necessary and that the person has the right to counsel. But do members not realize that we are talking about a situation where no charges have been laid against the person, yet he or she had to undergo questioning before any formal judicial process has been initiated? That is worrisome.

I must remind the House that this is similar to what happened with security certificates. That is another issue, but it follows the same logic. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration along with the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada can sign a certificate ordering that an individual be arrested, tried and convicted, without having any access to the evidence that led to his or her arrest.

At the time, it was my colleague, Michel Bellehumeur, member for Berthier—Montcalm, who is now a member of the judiciary, given his talent and experience, who had raised this issue. When we of the Bloc Québécois said this was somehow detrimental to justice and showed a lack of respect for fundamental freedoms, at the time, the Liberals refused to accept our arguments. The case went before the Supreme Court of Canada and, in January 2006 or 2007, the whole thing was of course declared unconstitutional. The government had to go back to the drawing board and introduce another bill. But we are not satisfied with that bill, because it designates a kind of amicus curiae, a friend of the court, who would have access to the evidence. Yet that friend of the court, who would be defending the accused, cannot share the evidence with his or her client.

Thus, we see some logic that is completely twisted and completely inexcusable with regard to some major constitutional guarantees. I would be willing to bet on this, even though I am generally quite cautious. I am not a man of great wealth, which is why I tend to be cautious. But I would be willing to bet that these provisions will find their way to the Supreme Court of Canada and that the government will lose again regarding the drafting of this bill.

It would be even more surprising given that sections 83.28 and 83.29 of the Criminal Code have never been invoked. Law enforcement organizations never used these sections once over a six or seven year period, that is from the time they were passed until the day of the failed vote to extend the sunset clause.

Why? Because there are other provisions already in the Criminal Code. As we learned in our law courses, pursuant to section 495 of the Criminal Code, a peace officer may arrest an individual and bring him before a justice of the peace if there are reasonable grounds to do so. Naturally, there must be some basis for this action. In fact, anyone can do this. For example, if I have reason to believe that my neighbour will rob a bank, I can go before a judge and lay the information. This person may be summoned to appear and may have to enter into a peace bond.

Naturally, these provisions apply to the issue of terrorist networks. We could not understand why we needed a new law when such provisions were already in place.

As for investigative hearings, they provide a means of obtaining information about individuals who have not even been charged. They may be brought before a judge and undergo an actual examination, even though they may have legal representation, without ever having been charged.

The second clause of Bill S-3, which seeks to bring back the two clauses which expired after the vote in the House, pertains to section 83.3 of the Criminal Code, which deals with recognizance and preventive arrest and detention.

The scenario is as follows. Again with the consent of the Attorney General, who is generally the Minister of Justice, a peace officer who believes that a terrorist act will be committed can require that a person sign a recognizance with conditions or ask that the person be arrested, if necessary, to prevent a terrorist act from being committed. This peace officer will lay an information before a provincial court judge. The judge will order the person to appear if the judge is convinced that this is necessary. According to the bill, the person will have 24 hours after the information is laid to appear. A show-cause hearing will then be held to determine whether or not the person should be arrested or whether conditions should be imposed on the person. Generally, these conditions pertain to the person's movements and contacts with certain people.

In short, the difference is that this person can be formally arrested.

It is true that the Criminal Code already contains section 810, which, if memory serves, was adopted when we studied the first anti-gang bill. The Bloc Québécois won that battle, which resulted in an anti-gang law. I clearly remember that at the time, senior officials wanted to bring down organized crime using the conspiracy provisions. They had a hard time understanding that we were facing a new situation where people were very well organized into networks and formed a veritable industry that terrorized big cities like Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto.

Consequently, there are already provisions whereby individuals can be required, preventively, to keep the peace or not have contact with certain people. For example, in cases of sexual assault, the person must not be allowed to have contact with victims. Here, though, we have a situation where people can be arrested preventively, without being charged or tried.

Clearly, this bill is rather disturbing. I do not believe that the Bloc Québécois can support this bill, and we invite all members to reject it.

I will close by saying, once again, that the Criminal Code contains everything needed to intervene; we do not need these provisions.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the Bloc for his intervention.

The concerns that we have had on this side have been about due process. We have heard from the government and others regarding due process, suggesting that all is well and that the Conservatives have the right balance somehow. They have taken a piece of legislation, which they believe was riddled with problems, but nonetheless, enough was done to repair the concerns.

I am particularly concerned about due process, the provision of evidence and what happens when someone does give a statement and what happens to that.

I would like the hon. member's take on the concerns he might have as a member of Parliament, as a legislator. Does he believe that the balance is right? We have certainly heard from his speech the concerns he has, but could he elaborate on that, particularly concerning evidence and due process?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not believe this bill is balanced. First, as we have said, there are at least two constitutionally recognized rights being ignored in this bill, namely the right to remain silent and the right not to self-incriminate. When we start talking about preventive arrests, there is little room for those rights to be respected.

We also do not understand why these provisions are needed when sections 495 and 810 of the Criminal Code already include everything we need to lay charges when necessary.

This is not a balanced bill. It only addresses the allegation stage. There is no room for proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, which is generally the threshold in criminal law. There is reason to be worried about the potential adoption of these provisions.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague and I am very proud that he is taking an interest and trying to uphold the rights we have acquired over the years.

I know that my colleague is very young, so he likely does not remember that an entire society, Quebec's francophone society, was put on trial in October 1970. I was 20 years old, six and a half months pregnant, and I was a victim of and witness to the war measures unjustifiably instituted simply because a few people had misstepped and committed crimes. But an entire society was put on trial and things went too far. Hundreds of people were unjustly accused, without even being told what they were accused of.

This experience traumatized me for a long time. Now, when I hear about provisions that could infringe on rights and muzzle me, I have to question whether they are appropriate or legitimate. I wonder if my colleague thinks the government wants to include these provisions in the bill so that it can move forward with its right-wing agenda, its right-wing ideology.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. It is true that I was eight years old in 1970. I vaguely remember it. We can remember certain things, even from when we were eight. My parents also told me about the tanks on the streets of Montreal at that time. And they certainly remember the artists, the people who were targeted for arrest.

Imagine that in 1970 we suspended habeas corpus, a provision of the law whereby people cannot be arrested without a warrant. The Charter did not exist then; there was only the Canadian Bill of Rights. As for all of the abuses described by my colleague, which were traumatic for both individuals and society, we were not protected because there were not enough legal rights.

Even though there are charters in Quebec City and Ottawa, they still want to regress in terms of ensuring human rights. My colleague is right in making this comparison, and yes, we should be worried.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud my colleague's eloquence. As a new member elected in 2006, I have looked to him as a model. I am inspired by his very clear way of explaining the issues surrounding such an important bill—a bill the Bloc Québécois will not support.

I am not an expert in legal matters, but what I would like to understand is, does this bill include a section or a clause that explains what happens to the individual, the man or woman, who is under suspicion, is taken in for questioning and who is thereafter stigmatized and labelled and suffers the consequences because the community knows about it, even though the suspicions or allegations against that person turn out to be unfounded? What does this bill say about that? I would like my colleague to explain that. What is there in this bill for an individual who was under suspicion and turned out not to be guilty?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

In the case of preventive arrest, during the judge's questioning, an individual can find out on the basis of which allegations he or she has been brought before the judge. The member is right: this bill, combined with what we know about the security certificate process, means that individuals will not have access to the evidence or to the normal process that is supposed to be followed for a trial. The only way for an individual to find out what he or she is accused of is through questioning, through interaction with the judge who questions him or her.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).

People listening to us need to understand that the Bloc Québécois opposes the principle underlying Bill S-3. The Bloc Québécois has taken a responsible approach to analyzing this issue. All legislative measures concerning terrorism must strike a balance between safety and respect for other basic rights.

That was the principle guiding the Bloc Québécois in its involvement in the review of the Anti-terrorism Act and its application, a review called for in the act itself. Between December 2004 and March 2007, the Bloc Québécois heard witnesses, read briefings, and interviewed specialists, civil society representatives and law enforcement agencies.

During the Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act's specific study of the two provisions in Bill S-3, the Bloc Québécois made its position on investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions clear. The Bloc Québécois felt that the investigative process needed to be better defined.

In our opinion, it is clear that “this exceptional measure should be used only in specific cases in which it is necessary to prohibit activities where there is imminent peril of serious damage, and not in the case of misdeeds already committed”.

We were also firmly opposed to section 83.3, dealing with preventive arrest and recognizance with conditions. Not only do we feel that this measure is of little, if any, use in the fight against terrorism but, more importantly, there is a very real danger of its being used against honest citizens.

The Bloc Québécois finds that a terrorist activity deemed dangerous can be disrupted just as effectively, and in fact more effectively, by the regular application of the Criminal Code, without the harmful consequences that a preventive arrest can trigger.

Therefore, we recommended abolishing this approach, and we won our point on February 27, 2007. Today, our position has not changed.

The investigative process should only be reinstated if major changes are made to it, which Bill S-3 does not do. Moreover, preventive arrests have no place in the Canadian justice system, given their possible consequences and the fact that other provisions which are already in place are just as effective.

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions) was introduced and read for the first time on October 23, 2007. This bill seeks to reinstate two provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act that were abolished when their sunset clause was allowed to expire. The vote on the sunset clause took place on February 27, 2007.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in 2001, when we passed the Anti-Terrorism Act, which provided for a five-year review. It is during that five-year review that the vote on the sunset clause was held, again on February 27, 2007, and that is when Parliament decided not to extend that clause.

Sections 83.28 and 83.29 of the Criminal Code, which were abolished following the vote on the sunset clause, dealt with investigative hearings. Under these provisions, a peace officer could, after obtaining the attorney general's prior consent, ask a provincial court judge, or a superior court judge, to make an order for the gathering of information.

If granted, the order required the person named therein to appear before a judge, to be questioned and to produce everything in his or her possession. The person named in the order had the right to retain a lawyer, and was supposed to answer questions put to him or her, but could refuse if answering a question would disclose information protected by any law relating to non-disclosure of information or to privilege. The presiding judge was to rule on any refusal to answer. The person was not to be excused from answering questions or producing things on the ground that it might incriminate him or her. Essentially, individuals were to be deprived of their right to remain silent.

However, no information or statement obtained during an investigative hearing could subsequently be used directly or indirectly in any other criminal proceedings, other than a prosecution for perjury or giving contrary evidence. Investigative hearings were not useful. They were never even used, thus proving that section 83.28 was not necessary.

Moreover, as part of a regular investigation, the police can already question witnesses and carry out search warrants to obtain documents.

Bill S-3 seeks to reintroduce this mechanism, section 83.28, which was abolished by the vote against the sunset clause, in a nearly identical form.

With respect to recognizance, arrest and detention, section 83.3 of the Criminal Code addressed recognizance with conditions, with the prior consent of the Attorney General. A peace officer who believed that a terrorist activity was about to be carried out and who suspected that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person, or the arrest of a person, was necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity, could lay an information before a provincial court judge. The judge could order the person to appear before him or her. A peace officer could arrest the person without a warrant if the arrest was deemed necessary to prevent the terrorist activity from being carried out.

The person detained was to appear before a provincial court judge within 24 hours or as soon as possible thereafter. Then a show-cause hearing was to take place to determine whether the person should be released or further detained. The hearing could not be delayed longer than 48 hours.

If the judge determined that it was not necessary to have the person sign a recognizance, the person was to be released. If, however, the judge determined that the person did have to sign a recognizance, then the person was required to keep the peace and comply with the other conditions that had been imposed for up to 12 months. If the person refused to sign the recognizance, the judge could order that the person be incarcerated for up to 12 months.

This provision was never used. Section 83.3 was added to the Criminal Code but, five years later, when it was abolished, it had never been used.

That is not surprising, because police officers could and still can use other Criminal Code provisions to arrest someone about to commit an indictable offence.

Section 495 of the Criminal Code states:

(1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant

(a) a person...who, on reasonable grounds, he believes...is about to commit an indictable offence;

Section 495 already existed. There is a good reason why the police never made use of the new provisions in section 83.3, which is why it was allowed to expire in 2007.

The dissenting opinion in the report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security gives the following explanation with regard to section 495 of the Criminal Code:

The arrested person must then be brought before a judge, who may impose the same conditions as those imposable under the Anti-terrorism Act. The judge may even refuse bail if he believes that the person’s release might jeopardize public safety.

Section 495 already enables the police to make preventive arrests. There was therefore no need for section 83.3.

The dissenting opinion goes on about section 495 of the current Criminal Code:

If police officers believe that a person is about to commit an act of terrorism, then they have knowledge of a plot. They probably know, based on wiretap or surveillance information, that an indictable offence is about to be committed. Therefore, they have proof of a plot or attempt and need only lay a charge in order to arrest the person in question. There will eventually be a trial, at which time the arrested person will have the opportunity to a full answer and defence. The person will be acquitted if the suspicions are not justified or if there is insufficient proof to support a conviction. It seems obvious to us that the terrorist act thus apprehended would have been disrupted just as easily as it would have been had section 83.3 been used. However, it is this provision that is most likely to give rise to abuses. It may be used to brand someone a terrorist on grounds of proof that are not sufficient to condemn him but against which he will never be able to fully defend himself. This will prevent him from travelling by plane, crossing the border into the United States and probably from entering many other countries. It is very likely that he will lose his job and be unable to find another. One could compare this situation to that of Maher Arar upon his return from Syria before he was exonerated by Justice O’Connor...If this new and temporary provision of the Criminal Code were used, it would be a judicial decision to impose conditions because of apprehended terrorist activity. The general public would see that person as almost certainly, if not definitely, a terrorist. Terrorist movements often spring from and are nourished by profound feelings of injustice...The fight against these injustices is often conducted in parallel by those who want to correct the injustices through democratic means— The former made a positive contribution to the transformation of the societies in which we live today. They are often the source of many of the rights that we enjoy.

It is inevitable that political activity will bring the first and second groups together. Very often, the former will not even be aware that the latter are involved in terrorism. The planning of terrorist activity is by its nature secret.

...

In order to determine whether a person is part of a terrorist network, security officers make use of electronic surveillance, but, as we saw in the Arar case, they also monitor the contacts of someone—

Now, to be able to order incarceration and, subsequently, the imposition of conditions of release, it is sufficient that the judge be convinced “that the detention is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including the apparent strength of the peace officer’s grounds...and the gravity of any terrorist activity that may be carried out.”

In other words, the apprehension of serious terrorist activity and grounds that appear founded will suffice—

It should also be noted that the person arrested need not be the one that is thought likely to commit a terrorist act, but only and simply a person whose arrest “is necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity.”

There is an important nuance there that is both astonishing and disturbing. It can include innocent people who are unaware of the reasons for which terrorists are soliciting their aid in a planned activity while concealing the real reasons they are asking for aid.

Some see in the reference to section 810 of the Criminal Code an indication that our criminal law already uses a procedure similar to that set out in section 83.3. While there is a similarity in the procedure followed, there is a very big difference in the consequences of applying these two sections.

Under the current section 810, a person can be summoned before a judge, but not arrested. The judge can order that person to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace.

The judge cannot commit that person to a prison term unless the person refuses to sign the recognizance, after listening to all the parties and being satisfied by the evidence adduced that there are reasonable grounds for the fears.

If the person signs the recognizance and respects the conditions, he or she remains at liberty, will not be sentenced and will thus have no criminal record.

...

This provision and section 83.3 that we [rejected] are very different in nature and have radically different consequences.

There is also no comparison between the impact that the use of section 83.3 and section 810 would have on someone’s reputation.

When the decision is made to depart from the fundamental principles underlying our system of criminal law, there is always a risk that these measures will later be applied in a manner totally different from those foreseen. That was the case with the imposition of the war measures act in 1970, which saw the incarceration, among others, of a great poet, a pop singer, numerous relatives of people charged with terrorist activities and almost all the candidates of a municipal political party.

In light of this analysis, we have decided not to support the extension of these provisions. First, it is of little, if any, use. These two sections went unused during the five years they were in effect. Second, there is a very real danger that this provision might be used against honest citizens.

A terrorist activity deemed dangerous can be disrupted just as effectively, and in fact more effectively, by the regular application of the Criminal Code.

That is why I have taken the time to explain sections 83.28 and 83.3 of the Criminal Code: Bill S-3 is practically identical to the two measures that were eliminated, namely investigative hearing—sections 83.28 and 83.29 of the Criminal Code—and recognizance with conditions, which is similar to section 83.3 which was eliminated. If we count technical amendments, such as minor clarifications, there are still only three substantial amendments.

They amended the investigative procedure in order to standardize it. The previous investigative procedure depended on whether or not the terrorism offence had already been or would be committed. If the terrorism offence had not yet been committed, the judge had to be convinced—along with other criteria—“that reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information” outside of the investigative procedure. This was not required for offences that had already been committed.

Bill S-3 standardizes the procedure and requires “that reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information by other means” through investigative hearings in both cases.

The second minor amendment concerns the limit on detention. Bill S-3 adds a limit on detention when someone who is under investigation is being detained because there is a risk that they will evade service of the order or because they did not attend the examination.

An examination of the review in committee led to the following. Aside from the fact that the Attorney General of Canada and, in the case of section 83.3, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, must include in their annual report on the use of the two provisions their opinion on whether the provisions should be extended, the most important amendment is to ensure that the provisions will be subject to a comprehensive review, before the sunset clause expires, either by a Senate committee, a House committee or a joint committee that Parliament or one of its houses will have designated or created for this purpose. Within one year after the committee starts the review, it must submit its report to Parliament, along with recommendations on whether the provisions should be extended.

In short, not only were the comments of the Bloc Québécois not taken into account, but neither were the numerous recommendations by the two committees, both House and the Senate, who seriously examined the issue. The Conservative government prefers to do whatever it likes, forgetting that in a democratic and free society, there must be a real balance between ensuring safety and respecting other fundamental rights.

The Bloc Québécois has been acting in this responsible manner since 2001. I was on the Standing Committee on Transport when the Anti-terrorism Act was passed and we were the ones who presented the famous sunset clause to ensure that there would be a five-year review. In 2007, Parliament decided to abolish these provisions because they were never used. Again, the Conservatives do not care about the different committees and recommendations from all the experts and they decide to restore measures that had been abolished by this Parliament in 2007.

Perhaps I should read from the Bloc Québécois dissenting opinion.

The Anti-terrorism Act, a measure adopted rather quickly following the events of September 11, 2001, required its provisions to be reviewed three years after the bill became law.

The Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act was responsible for reviewing the legislation, as a five-year review was required. In October 2006, the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security tabled an interim report specifically on the two measures contained in Bill S-3. Although the Bloc Québécois agreed with some of the subcommittee's findings, it felt that the two provisions should not be kept as they were worded then.

The Bloc Québécois explained its reasoning by signing a dissenting opinion, which I will now read.

From the outset, it must be understood that this is a preliminary report that addresses only two sets of provisions in the Anti-terrorism Act; namely, those pertaining to investigations and preventive arrests as provided for in sections 83.28, 83.29 and 83.3 of the Criminal Code, as amended by section 4 of the Anti-Terrorist Act.

We concur with the description of the specific historical context that led to the adoption of the Anti-terrorism Act.

We also agree with most of the recommendations made in the majority report of the Committee, which aim to provide better guidelines for the investigation process. This exceptional measure should be used only in specific cases in which it is necessary to prohibit activities where there is imminent peril of serious damage, and not in the case of misdeeds already committed.

We, like other members of the Committee are also of the opinion that another review of the provisions ten years after their coming into force is needed and would make it possible to better assess whether the provisions should be extended or allowed to expire.

We would have preferred a three-year period; however, we are willing to support the opinion of the majority...

However, we do not agree with the Committee members’ opinion regarding the preventive arrests provided for in section 83.3 of the Criminal Code, as introduced in the Anti-terrorism Act. Our reasons are as follows.

Terrorism cannot be fought with legislation; it must be fought through the efforts of intelligence services combined with appropriate police action.

There is no act of terrorism that is not already a criminal offence punishable by the most stringent penalties under the Criminal Code. This is obviously the case for pre-meditated, cold-blooded murders; however, it is also true of the destruction of major infrastructures.

Moreover, when judges exercise their discretion during sentencing, they will consider the terrorists’ motive as an aggravating factor. They will find that the potential for rehabilitation is very low, that the risk of recidivism is very high... This is what they have always done in the past and there is no reason to think they will do differently in the future.

Thus, given this representation by our members on the sub-committee, it is important that Parliament understand that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill S-3, which seeks to reintroduce measures abolished by the House in 2007. The Bloc Québécois continues to have an advantage over the other parties in this House. We are always responsible and true to ourselves.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the closing remark of my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. He always comes to the House well prepared. He made a very informative and well-researched speech on the concerns he has with Bill S-3. We have many of the same apprehensions about the bill. I was particularly interested in two points my colleague raised on which I would like him to comment.

One is the lack of respect shown to the will of Parliament and to the voice of committees. In fact Parliament and the standing committee at the five year review rejected the implementation of these terms and conditions and wanted them to cease. We believe that the voice of Parliament should have primacy. The government of the day should have listened, taken note and acted accordingly, not to reintroduce these same measures through an unelected chamber like the Senate.

There is a second thing on which I would like the member to comment. I believe that one of the basic fundamental tenets of our judicial system is the right to remain silent when accused, or in a hearing, or in a courtroom setting. We only suspend the right to remain silent with very robust corresponding measures, such as, in the case of a parliamentary committee, there is no right to remain silent, but the information gleaned at that committee cannot be used against the person in any subsequent proceeding.

That does not seem to be the case in Bill S-3. There is no right to remain silent and the information given cannot be used directly against the person, but it may be used as derivative testimony, or derivative evidence in some further proceeding.

Would my colleague agree this has to be addressed? The right to remain silent cannot be compromised unless there are corresponding protections introduced.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his two questions.

With respect to the first question, the Conservatives are obviously acting in bad faith. The Anti-terrorism Act adopted at the time provided for a review of the act. Why? And why were we such staunch supporters of this issue? It was because we did not want there to be abuses. At the time, it was pointed out that the Criminal Code contained provisions that could do the job. Five years later, the clause had never been invoked. That fact was so clearly presented that Parliament decided, on February 27, 2007, to allow these clauses to expire. The two provisions were simply abolished.

Now the Conservative party has decided to reintroduce these provisions by way of the Senate. Once again, the Conservative way of governing is quite simply disrespectful. They say, “We are right; everyone else is wrong.” That is very harmful to a society. This brings me to the member's second question, the right to remain silent.

The measures in the Criminal Code were adopted by those who came before us and who gave us the opportunity, today, to take our place in this House. It is a model of society recognized throughout the world and one that Quebec would choose if it were a country. Thus, we are able to guarantee to all individuals that they will not be found guilty for acts they have not committed and that they have the right to remain silent if they deem that the questions asked would be incriminating.

Yet decisions are being taken to change this way of doing things on which our society is founded because, once again, the Conservatives have decided that there have been terrorist threats. Five years, six years or seven years later, these clauses have never been invoked. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois does not understand why, today, these provisions are being reintroduced after already being abolished by Parliament because they were never used.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask my colleague some questions following his heartfelt presentation. I was under the impression that he too was a member of the parliamentary committee in 2002, along with our defence colleague, if memory serves.

Clearly, the Bloc Québécois has been concerned about this bill since 2002, when Anne McLellan was the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness. First of all, the bill violated certain constitutional guarantees.

I have three questions for my colleague. Can he please refresh our memories regarding what constitutional guarantees are violated? He already mentioned the right to remain silent, but does he not think the presumption of innocence and the right not to self-incriminate are also jeopardized by this bill?

Second, can he please describe for us the Criminal Code provisions that already exist on this matter? Of course, I am referring to section 810 in particular. Can he please confirm that the existing legislation already contains every preventive measure necessary to counter terrorist threats?

Furthermore, can he please explain how the Conservatives have shown a lack of respect in this House? I cannot imagine that all ministers could have supported such a denial of democracy by failing to respect the House's vote. Does my colleague think there is one minister in particular who is less democratic than the others?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Hochelaga for his question. He is doing an excellent job as justice critic for the Bloc Québécois. He works very efficiently, is a thorough researcher and gets to the bottom of things. He is not like the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities who is often unprepared when he rises in this House. That, however, is his problem. I am very pleased that my colleague from Hochelaga is doing such great work.

It must be noted that our police forces have never used the sections we are discussing here or the provisions in the Anti-terrorism Act, precisely because sections 810 and 495 already exist in the Criminal Code. So one must wonder why the Conservatives insist on trying to reintroduce measures that were abolished in 2007 by this Parliament. Why would they do this, besides the fact that they think they are right and want everyone to think the same way?

The problem with the Conservative Party is that it is in the minority in this House. If an election were called, it would no longer form the government.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on his excellent presentation.

I have a quick question for him. I have been listening to the debates all morning, and I am hoping that he can explain what is between the lines in this bill.

Why are the Conservatives doing everything they can to reintroduce this bill? What is the hidden agenda that would push this party to disrespect the will of the House?

I am really wondering, and I am certain that my colleague can answer my question.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

It is mostly likely the fact that the Constitution protects certain rights, such as the right to remain silent and the right to fair and full defence. That is what the Conservative Party wants to take away in order to control not only politics, but also people's lives.

This reformist way of continually reintroducing right-wing values is really starting to grate on Quebeckers and, as we now see, Canadians as well. They truly understand that the only way to protect their interests is to elect social democrats, such as the Bloc Québécois, to the House, people who believe in protecting citizens' interests from those who would take them away.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill S-3 again, because I have spoken previously on it.

I would like to spend a few minutes retracing where this bill came from. I was a member of Parliament when this bill came forward in its first incarnation. It was Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation. It came forward after the attack on the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. It went through the House very quickly.

I remember at that time getting up to speak to the legislation. In fact, the NDP caucus opposed the legislation. We believed that the path being taken by the then Liberal government in this massive new venture of anti-terrorism legislation was not warranted.

We had grave concerns at that time about the impact it would have on life and civil liberties, particularly on Canadians who were originally from the Middle East, who were part of the Canadian Arab or Muslim communities, because after September 11, there was a shift in what was taking place in our society. Many things changed, one of which was the legislation that came forward.

The debate was not that long. In fact, one of the concerns the NDP had back in 2001 was how quickly the legislation was being pushed through Parliament. This was very serious legislation that made very significant departures from the process of law that we understand in this country. We said that the two clauses we are dealing with today, seven years later, were particularly offensive.

Because there was so much debate about those two clauses, which happened to deal with investigative hearings and preventive detention, it was agreed by the government, finally, that those clauses could be sunsetted. They would come under a review so that Parliament would have to examine the legislation and those specific clauses again.

The Anti-terrorism Act passed very quickly. The Bloc at that time may have opposed it as well, I am not sure, but it was basically the NDP and maybe the Bloc who voted against it. The Conservatives and the Liberals voted for it. We knew it would come back for debate and of course that happened. We had that debate a short while ago, because we knew those two clauses would become null and void unless they were somehow continued or reintroduced by March 1, 2007.

On February 27, 2007 there was a vote on those two clauses and, interestingly, they were defeated. It was a very important moment in the House of Commons to see that after a full debate in the House by all political parties, the NDP, the Bloc and some members of the Liberal Party defeated those amendments.

The government has reintroduced, with virtually no changes or very small changes, the same two amendments dealing with investigative hearings and preventive detention. The NDP is standing for the third time to speak out against this legislation.

These clauses have actually never been used. They are an affront to a democratic society. They create a path and a process that we do not want in this country.

Whenever I have spoken at community meetings or public hearings about security issues, more often than not, people voice their very significant concerns about the kind of legislative initiatives that are being undertaken as a result of September 11, and about how much has changed in our society in terms of security. Many people have been targeted, particularly visible minorities.

I want to pay tribute and respect to the organizations that have never given up in speaking against this kind of legislation, and this legislation in particular, whether it is at parliamentary hearings or at hearings that have been organized in the community. There are people in this country who have remained vigilant even in the face of sometimes a public appetite to have greater security measures. There have always been organizations like the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Arab Federation, the Muslim Association of Canada and many others who have always come forward to warn and alert parliamentarians about the dangers of this legislation.

It is very important that we remember that. Sometimes in the furor and frenzy of when things happen, people feel threatened and insecure, and it is very easy for governments to play a very opportunistic role, to play on those fears and to bring in the kind of draconian legislation that we have seen with the Anti-terrorism Act.

We have come to see over the passage of a number of years now that that legislation was not needed. Therefore, it is somewhat concerning and surprising that yet again we are debating this bill, that we are debating these two particular clauses. The Conservative government, with the support of the Liberals, is prepared to re-enact these amendments that have already been voted down by the Canadian Parliament.

When I speak to my constituents, they are very concerned about what is taking place in this country. For example, this weekend is the fourth annual summit of the security and prosperity partnership. It is taking place in New Orleans. Our trade critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, is one of the members who will be participating in a very broad people's summit, as opposed to the leaders' summit in New Orleans that is going to be discussing what is called the SPP.

The Council of Canadians, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, CEP, the United Steelworkers, and many other organizations will be heading to New Orleans, probably today, to participate in the SPP people's summit. Just as we saw at Montebello at the leaders' summit, where the Prime Minister of Canada, the President of the U.S. and the President of Mexico met behind closed doors to discuss security and trade issues, that will take place in New Orleans.

I am very glad that those members of civil society, and there are 30 organizations that are hosting the people's summit in New Orleans, will be there to push for and demand accountability from these leaders, who are trying to further this incredible agenda, the economic, political, cultural and security agenda between our three countries, and the integration of Canadian society politically, economically and culturally into the United States.

Many people are hugely concerned about this. I wanted to raise this today as we are debating this bill because I think that they are very much related. We have seen so many different processes that we are not even barely aware of. Sometimes we get leaked information. Sometimes we find out about what is going on, but all of these processes are taking place behind closed doors.

There are some people who have access. Business elites have access to this process. In fact they have their own forum for raising these issues and bringing them to government. In terms of the Canadian Parliament, people generally, or organizations or the labour movements, civil society, have no access to this process. A lot of this process, in terms of the security and prosperity partnership has to do with security measures in developing a common front of security measures, a merging of the American system with the Canadian system.

We know that anytime we cross the border. There are many of my constituents who, for no apparent reason, have experienced terrible interrogation and investigation at the border, and sometimes have been refused, all under the guise of security.

It really comes back to the broadness of the bill and what it represents. Although the bill has very specific measures in it, to me, former Bill C-36 and Bill S-3, the one we are debating today, exemplify this environment of heightened security, of control by the state, of the clampdown on civil society, the clampdown on individual rights and liberties. This is something that we should really stand up against.

I am very proud that in the NDP we have done that historically. Whether it is the War Measures Act in Quebec, whether it is the internment of Japanese Canadians during the second world war, there are these moments in our community's history where we have to make a decision as to whether or not what is being laid down has a basis and merit, or whether it is actually, in the long run, undermining the fundamental principles of a democratic society. We in the NDP believe that the anti-terrorism legislation did just that. It fundamentally changed Canadian society.

There was a feeling at the time that this really would not affect many people. It was somehow those people; it created an environment of them and us. It is a very dangerous situation when we identify a group of people as being a threat. That is precisely what this legislation does. We have to take the attitude that when civil liberties of any minority, whether it be religious, ethnic, sexual orientation, gender or whatever it might be, any discrimination, any singling out is not only a threat to that group, but it is a threat to all people.

Even if we do not feel immediately threatened or if we do not feel that we are the ones who are being targeted, we have a responsibility to speak out in defence of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. In my community there are people who feel very strongly about that. They are very concerned about the direction that we have taken in the last seven years.

It was actually because of the anti-terrorism legislation that a few years ago I introduced a bill to eliminate racial profiling in Canada. It was a very interesting experience to introduce that bill. When I introduced it, I held a number of hearings across the country, and I was quite taken aback by the response I got in different cities from people who came forward with personal experiences about having been targeted. It has always taken place.

Racial minorities in this country have always been targeted, but it escalated and went off the charts after September 11. I heard from people that it was both random and systemic. The chances of being held up at the border, particularly at airports but also at ground crossings, greatly increased if one looked like a member of a certain community, if one was Muslim, or wore the hijab, or was a member of a minority from the Middle East. That became very clear in talking with people and hearing about people's experiences.

The bill that we introduced to eliminate racial profiling is very important. I am very pleased that the bill has been reintroduced by my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas and it is now Bill C-493. We hope it will come forward for debate in the House one day because I think there is very strong support for that bill.

We also know the experience of Maher Arar and the horrendous situation that that one individual faced in terms of a complete denial of his basic human rights. He was sent to the U.S. with Canadian complicity and then to Syria, where he remained in jail for so long. He was tortured. It was only because of the work of his wife, Monia Mazigh, his family, his community and broader civil society that the issue finally came forward and there was a public hearing.

It is again one of those moments in Canadian history where people feel that a grave injustice was done, although it is good to know that because of the public pressure, there was a public hearing and finally an apology made.

However, what that family went through is something that probably none of us will understand or be able to relate to because it was so deep, so grievous and so harmful. We must learn from that experience.

In light of all of those things that have happened, here we are in 2008 debating whether or not two clauses in the bill should continue. We have already voted once that they should be defeated, that they should be left null and void as a result of the date the sunset clauses came into effect.

I would hope that we in the House could abide by that. We have had a vote. It was taken in February 2007. The clauses were defeated by 159 to 124 members. I am hoping that might happen again this time. The Conservative government has reintroduced these clauses and is hoping they will go through.

I am hoping very much that there is enough expression, will and solidarity in the House from the NDP, the Bloc and maybe some members of the official opposition that we can again defeat these amendments as unnecessary.

We look at our global community and Canada's part in that, and read about what is taking place in the world today. People do not want to see this kind of legislation. This legislation will not do anything to stop food riots, to improve food security, whether in Canada or around the globe. It will not do anything to improve the health of developing nations, eliminate starvation or help the millions of children and families who are suffering needlessly because of the incredible inequities in resource development and wealth distribution on our planet.

This legislation does not address those issues at all. In fact, it exacerbates a global system that is based on U.S. domination in terms of foreign policy and the war in Iraq, and certainly Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan. All of these things are connected.

Yet, if we talk to people and ask them what they are worried about and what they want to see us, as parliamentarians, focus on, people will tell us that they want to look at legislation, programs and policies that actually improve equality and social justice in our world. They want to see us focus on those priorities and to deal with those terrible inequities that exist.

I am coming to the conclusion of my comments today and I am glad that I was able to speak to the bill, as I have before. I will speak whenever it is necessary, as will my colleagues in the NDP, because we believe that we play a very important role in the House of standing up.

We take our role very seriously. We come here to vote. We do not sit on our hands. We challenge the government's agenda and we speak for a majority of Canadians who, if they had a direct vote in this, would not be supporting this legislation, Bill S-3, today.

I hope that when we get to the vote, there will be enough members of the House to defeat this, as we did before, and to recognize that these amendments are not necessary. They have not been used. They are not needed. We should focus our attention and our priorities on the issues Canadians really want us to in terms of building healthy, safe communities, respecting our environment, and promoting social justice in our world.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to most of the hon. member's comments with regard to the proposed legislation. I do not have time to hit on every point she raised, but there is one thing I would like to mention, and it has to do with our responsibility in the House and the issue of human rights.

People have a right to go to bed at night knowing there are laws in place to protect them from people who would come into our country, or are already in the country, and who want to do them harm through terrorist acts.

One of the reasons the legislation has been brought before the House is because there were concerns with regard to human rights. We went to the one body in the country, other than the House, that deals with these issues day in and day out, and that was the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has addressed these issues and the legislation conforms to the court's concerns.

We have talked about people being inconvenienced, while travelling, by some of the heightened regard we have for terrorism. We do not mind having the odd bottle of hairspray thrown in the garbage at the airport because we know it is being done to protect us. An organized terror group in another part of the world planned on blowing up aircraft by concealing these types of things. That is why we are being inconvenienced. The vast majority of us do not necessarily like it, but we understand why it is necessary.

That is why we do not necessarily like this type of law, but we know it is necessary to protect us so we can continue to be a country that is respected around the world for our human rights and how we take care of our citizens.

The hon. member mentioned Maher Arar. That incident happened under the previous Liberal regime. We are making all the changes that Justice O'Connor recommended. We did that almost immediately upon receipt of those recommendations, and that has been the hallmark of this government.

We will continue to defend Canadians against people who would do them harm, and the legislation does absolutely that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have different perspectives on the legislation.

This bill is overkill. No one here is disputing the fact that Canadians want to experience safety, that they want to go to bed at night and not worry about a number of things. There is no evidence that anything in the bill would make us safer. On the contrary. We could make some strong arguments that the purview of the bill and what it represents would create a global community so focused on incredible security measures that it fosters greater destabilization.

What is security? Security is being safe. Security is about having enough food to eat every day. Security is having a roof over one's head. These are also basic forms of security.

Where I depart from the member is the Conservative government has an obsession with legislation that is focused on a law and order approach, that everything will be solved by some new little boutique bill or a big bill such as Bill C-26 on mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes and that this somehow will answer all the problems in our society.

There is a fundamental difference in what I am speaking about and what the member is speaking about, but I certainly respect his opinion.

With respect to Maher Arar, I do not care whether it was the previous government or the Conservative government, but it happened in our country and we all bear responsibility for what happened to him. I am glad there finally was an apology. However, if we do not understand what happened and if we are unable to link it back to this bill and how we have dismissed the liberties of people and have taken away the due process of law, then what have we learned? That is the question I put forward.

This is why NDP members cannot support the legislation.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from across the way on her speech. She defends her arguments and her party's position passionately and with conviction. Further, she knows very well that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP will vote against Bill S-3

This makes me think about how each time I see a woman rise in this House, I am reminded of how few of us there are. I would like to take this opportunity to urge the parties to recruit more women so they can speak out in this House. Perhaps then the debates would be more informed and they would be different. I think members know what I mean. We would like more women in this House, and I urge the parties to recruit more for the next election, so we can have equal representation by men and women.

That said, I would like to ask my colleague what bothers her the most about this bill. What bothers her and affects her the most? What does she think is hiding behind this bill? I would like to know.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is just about the best question and comment I have heard all day. I would concur with the hon. member.

I think if we had a majority of progressive women in this House, and I am sure she would agree with that qualification, it would be a very different place. Think of the things that would be different. We would have child care at the top of the agenda, housing, food security and the environment. We would not be going to war. I very much appreciate the comments of the member from the Bloc. I am very happy that the Bloc will not be supporting this bill. I think we certainly stand together on that question.

The hon. member asked a very good question. What is behind this bill? What is behind this bill is a political climate of fear that is created for ideological reasons. We have seen it in the United States, whether it is on drugs or security, and we are seeing it now in our own country. It began with the former government and it is now being continued at a very rapid rate by the Conservative government.

It is all the more important then that we stand up as a voice of reason and in effect blow the whistle on this kind of legislation, and point out that it is not necessary. It is overkill. Most importantly, we respect our democratic society, respect people's human rights, and respect the due process of law. I am glad that we will be voting against this legislation along with the Bloc.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is amusing to see the NDP and the Bloc pat each other on the back for not protecting Canadians. I am actually appalled. I listened very carefully to the speech from the member for Vancouver East. I know she said that the way to address terrorism is by having a roof over one's head and having food on the table.

Quite frankly, if she looks at the Air India disaster, the people who were accused and convicted in the tragedy, having a roof over their heads and having food in their belly was not an issue. It was a matter of religious and political extremism.

I want to ask her, in light of the Air India disaster and the inquiry that followed, how can she still justify not supporting some reasonable anti-terrorism measures that our Supreme Court of Canada has already provided us guidelines for and we are complying with those guidelines?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting at all that where there are acts of terrorism that we should not act in a very forthright and strong way as a state. Certainly, we have seen those instances. When the member uses the Air India bombing as the example, I think it begs the question.

Clearly, legislation is already in place to deal with that. It comes back to the question: Why are we debating this legislation. Why is it necessary? It is overkill. It is not needed. There are more than adequate provisions within our existing laws and Criminal Code to deal with acts of terrorism.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this debate on Bill S-3. I will start by saying that the Bloc Québécois is opposed in principle to Bill S-3.

The Bloc Québécois has a responsible approach to analyzing such bills, because we believe that any anti-terrorism legislation must strike a balance between maintaining safety, which is very important, and respecting the other fundamental rights.

With this in mind, the Bloc Québécois became very involved in the review process of the Anti-terrorism Act and its application, a review which is provided for in the act itself. From December 2004 to March 2007, the Bloc Québécois listened to witnesses, read submissions and interviewed specialists, members of civil society and law enforcement officials. As usual, the Bloc Québécois was passionate, professional and thorough in its work.

During the specific review of the two provisions in Bill S-3 by the Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act, the Bloc Québécois clearly stated its position on the investigative hearings and on recognizance with conditions. The Bloc Québécois thought better guidelines for the investigative process were needed.

It is clear to us that this exceptional measure should be used only in specific cases in which it is necessary to prohibit activities where there is imminent peril of serious damage, and not in the case of misdeeds already committed.

The Bloc Québécois also firmly opposed section 83.3 dealing with preventive arrest and recognizance with conditions. Not only does this mechanism appear to us to be of little, if any, use in the fight against terrorism, but also, we believe that there is a very real danger of this provision being used against honest citizens.

The Bloc Québécois believes that terrorist activity deemed dangerous can be disrupted just as effectively, and in fact more effectively, by the regular application of the Criminal Code, and without the potentially harmful consequences of preventive arrest.

As a result, we recommended the abolition of this mechanism and we won on February 27, 2007. Today, as always, the Bloc is consistent, and our position on the issue has not changed.

I would add that the investigation process should not be reinstated unless major changes are made to it, which Bill S-3 does not do. Moreover, preventive arrests have no place in Canada's justice system because of the potential consequences and the fact that other, equally effective, provisions are already in place.

As we all know, Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), was read for the first time in the Senate on October 23, 2007. The purpose of the bill is to reinstate two provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act that were abolished when the sunset clause was allowed to expire. The vote on the sunset clause was held on February 27, and parliamentarians did not extend the provisions. That was the will of the House as voted.

I am surprised that the government is bringing back in this bill two clauses that have already been debated and defeated in a vote right here in the House of Commons.

Perhaps we could look at what section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, on investigative hearings, was all about. Under this provision, a peace officer could, with the prior consent of the Attorney General, apply to a provincial court or superior court judge for an order for the gathering of information. The order, if made, required the named person to appear before a judge for examination and to bring any thing in his or her possession.

The person named in the order had the right to counsel and was required to answer questions, but could refuse to do so in order to avoid disclosing information protected by any law relating to privilege or disclosure. The presiding judge was to rule on any refusal. The person was not excused from answering a question or producing a thing on the ground that that could incriminate him or her. In fact, the person simply lost the right to remain silent. However, no information or testimony obtained during an investigative hearing could subsequently be used directly or indirectly in other proceedings, other than a prosecution for perjury or contradictory evidence.

In our opinion, investigative hearings were not useful. Moreover, they were never used. In the normal course of an investigation, the police can already question witnesses and conduct searches to obtain documents. This is possible under the current law, which means that, in a way, Bill S-3 is seeking to reintroduce almost exactly the same provisions we refused to extend.

If we look more carefully at recognizances, arrests and preventive detentions, section 83.3 of the Criminal Code dealt with recognizance with conditions. A peace officer who believed that a terrorist activity was going to be carried out and who suspected that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions or the arrest of a person was necessary to prevent the terrorist activity could, with the prior consent of the Attorney General, lay an information before a provincial court judge. That judge could order that the person appear before him or her. A peace officer could arrest the person named in the information without a warrant if the arrest was necessary in order to prevent a terrorist activity from being committed.

The person detained in custody had to be taken before a provincial court judge within 24 hours or as soon as feasible. A hearing known as a show-cause hearing was then to be held to determine whether the person should be released or held longer. This hearing could not be adjourned for more than 48 hours.

If the judge determined that there was no need for the person to enter into a recognizance, the person had to be released. If the judge determined that the person should enter into a recognizance, the person was bound to keep the peace and respect other conditions for up to 12 months. If the person refused to enter into such a recognizance, the judge could order that person to be imprisoned for up to 12 months.

I will repeat, this provision had never been invoked before it was abolished. That is not surprising because police officers could, and still do, use the other provisions of the Criminal Code to arrest someone about to commit an offence.

Section 495 of the Criminal Code states:

(1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant

( a) a person ... who, on reasonable grounds, he believes ... is about to commit an indictable offence;

The person arrested must then be brought before a judge who can impose the same conditions as those in the Anti-terrorism Act. The judge can even refuse bail if he believes that the person's release would endanger public safety.

If the police believe that an individual is about to commit a terrorist act, it is because they are aware of a plot. They probably know, based on wiretap or other surveillance information, that a criminal act is about to be committed. Therefore, they have proof of a plot or attempt, and need only lay a charge in order to arrest the person in question.

They will eventually go to trial, at which time that person will have the opportunity to present a full answer and defence. The person will be acquitted if the suspicions are not justified or if there is insufficient proof to support a conviction.

It seems obvious to us that the apprehended terrorist activity would have been disrupted just as easily as if section 83.3 had been used. However, it is this provision that is most likely to give rise to abuse and this concerns the Bloc Québécois greatly.

It may be used to brand someone a terrorist on grounds of proof that are not sufficient to actually accuse him but against which he will never be able to fully defend himself. This will prevent him from travelling by plane, crossing the border into the United States and probably entering many other countries. It is very likely that he will lose his job and be unable to find another. These are serious consequences for the person affected by this provision.

One could compare this situation to that of Maher Arar upon his return from Syria, before he was exonerated by Justice O'Connor. If this new, temporary provision of the Criminal Code had been used, a judicial decision could have imposed conditions because of apprehended terrorist activity. The general public would see that person as almost certainly, if not definitely, a terrorist.

Terrorist movements often spring from and are nourished by profound feelings of injustice. A parallel fight against these injustices is often conducted by those who want to correct them through democratic means. Such people have made a positive contribution to the transformation of the societies in which we live today. They have often been the source of many of the rights that we enjoy.

It is inevitable that political activity will bring terrorists and non terrorists together. Very often, the latter will not even be aware that the former are involved in terrorism. The planning of terrorist activity is by its nature secret, of course. In order to determine whether a person is part of a terrorist network, as we saw in the Arar case, security organizations will monitor a person's contacts. For a judge to be able to order incarceration and, subsequently, the imposition of bail conditions, it is sufficient that the judge be convinced, and I quote, “that the detention is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including the apparent strength of the peace officer's grounds and the gravity of any terrorist activity that may be carried out”.

In other words, the apprehension of serious terrorist activity and grounds that appear founded will suffice.

It should also be noted that the person arrested need not be the one that is thought likely to commit a terrorist act, but only and simply a person whose arrest “is necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity”.

There is an important nuance there that is both astonishing and disturbing. It can include innocent people who are unaware of the reasons for which terrorists are soliciting their aid in a planned activity while concealing the real reasons they are asking for aid.

Some see in the reference to section 810 of the Criminal Code an indication that our criminal law already uses a procedure similar to that set out in section 83.3. While there is a similarity in the procedure followed in these two sections, there is a very big difference in the consequences of applying these two sections.

Section 810 states that a person can be summoned, not arrested, before a judge, who can order that person to be of good behaviour.

After listening to all the parties and being satisfied by the evidence adduced that there are reasonable grounds for the fears, the judge cannot commit that person to a prison term unless the person refuses to sign the recognizance.

If the person signs the recognizance and respects the conditions, he or she remains at liberty, will not be sentenced and will thus have no criminal record.

This provision and section 83.3 that we rejected are very different in nature and have radically different consequences. There is also no comparison between the impact that the use of section 83.3 and section 810 would have on someone's reputation.

When the decision is made to depart from the fundamental principles underlying our system of criminal law, there is always a risk that these measures will later be applied in a manner totally different from those foreseen. That was the case with the imposition of the War Measures Act in 1970, which saw the incarceration, among others, of a great poet, a pop singer, numerous relatives of people charged with terrorist activities and almost all the candidates of a municipal political party.

In light of this analysis, we decided not to support the extension of this measure. For one thing, it is of little, if any, use in the fight against terrorism, and second, there is a very real danger of its being used against honest citizens. In addition, a terrorist activity deemed dangerous can be disrupted just as effectively, and in fact more effectively, by the regular application of the Criminal Code.

As we mentioned on several occasions, Bill S-3 is virtually identical to the two measures that were abolished, namely the investigative hearing, under sections 83.28 and 83.29 of the Criminal Code, and the recognizance with conditions, under section 83.3 of the Criminal Code. Except for a number of technical amendments, such as the rewriting of some parts to make minor clarifications, there are only three substantive changes.

Let us take the change made to the investigative procedure. As regards the standardization of that procedure, the “old” investigative process made a distinction based on whether the terrorism offence had already been committed, or was going to be committed.

In a case where the terrorism offence had not yet been committed, the judge had to be convinced—in addition to meeting other criteria—that “reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information”—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

The hon. member for Vancouver East is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill S-3, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will have 10 minutes left for questions and comments.