Bill C-19 (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

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why I laid out the chronology since 2007 was precisely to try to show what we have been through in the Liberal Party and to illustrate the relationship between Bill C-3, Bill S-3, which came from the other chamber, and Bill C-19. That is the jargon we parliamentarians use.

In other words, we had a bill in the other chamber, Bill S-3, which introduced some provisions that were extremely important, I would even say fundamental. Unfortunately, for all sorts of parliamentary reasons, Bill S-3 could not be brought forward in this chamber and so the government decided to reintroduce Bill S-3 in the form of what we are now calling Bill C-19.

If Bill C-19 reiterates the elements of Bill S-3, as I really have the impression it does, those being safeguards and protections for individual freedom, then I will have no problem supporting Bill C-19.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).

The Liberal Party of Canada supports this bill, in principle. I say that because this bill has a history linked with September 11, 2001.

Governments the world over were charged with establishing anti-terrorism legislation to protect their countries in the event of an attack on their security and safety.

The security and safety we took for granted no longer exist. In today's world, rapid travel, changes in values and attitudes and strained international relations have become an unavoidable fact.

Many members no doubt recall that Canada approved initial anti-terrorism legislation in December 2001, because of a sunset clause that entitled Parliament to review the legislation after five years. Members were concerned and rightly so at seeing fear make a mockery of Canadians' fundamental rights, especially those of cultural communities and, in particular, let it be said, of individuals identified as being from the middle east or the near east.

Even though Parliament improved the legislation, what remained was the criminalizing of peaceful activities and the possibility of unfair trials.

Today we have witnessed the ongoing challenges faced by Mohamed Harkat, a refugee from Algeria, released from jail in 2006 after spending three and a half years incarcerated without a trial. He is accused of having ties to terrorist organizations. Very recently, at the end of May, 16 officers carried out a search of his home in the south end of Ottawa, accompanied by three sniffer dogs trained to find weapons, explosives and money, all because they wanted to know if he was complying with the terms of his release.

Here is a man, and he is not the only one in Canada, detained without trial, whose human rights have been consistently violated in the name of safety and security. This is unfortunately not the only case of this kind in Canada.

Further, the Federal Court later ruled that Canadian border agents were “the most intrusive”. According to Justice Simon Noel, “fairness has to prevail”. He felt the agents had gone too far in seizing items such as family photos. The ruling also called into the question the performance of CSIS, the fact that its informant was not trustworthy. Therefore, the information that put Harkat behind bars could be false. It is information that the government, including the Conservative Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, has been using to deport this family man.

The question was raised by Justice Noel, who presided over the case and who is apparently known as one of Canada's most respected and experienced judges in terror cases, that CSIS also could have deliberately withheld information that could have cleared this man's name.

Are these the values on which Canada now stands, ones of unfairness and inequality, the inability to have the opportunity to be proven innocent by a jury of one's peers? Surely there is another way to do that. Let us tell individuals like Harkat and Adil Charkaoui, a schoolteacher from Montreal, that these are not the pillars, values and principles upon which Canada has built a strong democracy before the Conservative government came into power.

Allow me to recall the facts pertaining to Bill C-19. First, the provision of the Criminal Code pertaining to investigative hearings allows authorities to require an individual to testify without giving them the right to refuse to answer questions on the grounds that the responses might be self-incriminating. The aim of this provision is to compel those involved secondarily in a terrorist plot, who might have vital information, to testify instead of the prime suspects, who are prone to lie in order to protect themselves.

The second provision of the Criminal Code concerns preventive arrests. It allows the police to arrest and detain an individual, in some cases without a warrant, on the condition that they have reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest would prevent the commission of new terrorist acts.

A number of points must be remembered as regards the position of the Liberal Party of Canada. First, my party takes very seriously the safety of Canadians and the protection of their rights. Next, as in all cases of legislation concerning national security, we think a balance must be struck between public safety and individual freedoms. We obviously welcome the government's decision to include security safeguards, proposed by the special committees of the Senate and the House of Commons, which had studied the matter. That has already been mentioned by others before me. These precautions improve the bill and help calm the concerns over individual freedoms we raised when previous versions of this text were studied.

Bill C-19 hearkens back to another bill introduced previously in the other place as Bill S-3. That bill was discussed in a committee of the other place, and dealt with investigative hearings and preventive arrest. This text was introduced in 2007 and then reintroduced with some additional safeguards. Considerable work has already been done on this bill. The 2007 revision required police officers to prove to the judge that they had used all other methods to obtain the needed information.

It also required the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to make an annual report to Parliament explaining their opinion on whether provisions should be extended. In October 2007, prorogation resulted in the bill, which had been referred to the other place, not getting back here to the House of Commons.

Bill S-3 included certain improvements worthy of mention. First, police officers must prove to the judge that all other reasonable and legal means have been used to obtain the information. Second, any person called to a investigative hearing has the right to retain counsel . Third, the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness are required to make an annual report to Parliament justifying extension of the provisions. Fourth, any provincial court judge may hear arguments relating to preventive arrest. Fifth, the special anti-terrorist provisions may not be extended for more than five years unless both House of Parliament agree to extension.

The bill we are examining here in the House, Bill C-19, is identical overall to the version of Bill S-3 amended by the Senate, whose key provisions I have just reviewed.

I realize there will be very emotional points of view on the bill. I had to take a long time before I decided the pros and cons of the bill because it is very important to the population and our way of life in Canada as well.

There are groups who have historically been targeted by those who would deliberately wish to carry out terrorism acts against them. Protection and safety are important. If it means reducing the human rights of others, then we have to accept that.

What is good about the bill is that clause 2 adds new subsections to section 83.31 of the Criminal Code, which calls for separate annual reports on sections 83.28, 83.29 and 83.3 by the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The reports would include opinions and reasons on whether these sections should be extended within the act.

What is important is that the bill be sent to committee so it can be thoroughly reviewed and discussed in detail. I want to remind everyone in the House, and people who will be reading this debate, that this is not the end of the debate. If the bill is accepted by the members of the chamber, it will then go to committee. The members of the committee will amend the bill. The groups that are either for or against the implementation of these hearings will go before the committee to provide input and suggestions.

When it is referred to committee for consideration it can be amended, and I hope that the amendments will provide a better balance between collective security, which we all care about, and another thing we all care about too, individual freedom in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come here today to discuss Bill C-19, the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions that the bill seeks to re-enact, which expired in March 2007.

The investigative hearing provisions permitted a judge to question persons having information about a past or future terrorism offence. The recognizance with conditions provision permitted imposing conditions on a person, where necessary, to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity. These provisions were not, and certainly would not be, unique to Canada. Other democratic countries have similar tools, or ones that tend to go much further than those proposed in this bill.

I believe that by comparing these proposals with foreign counterparts, it will become clear that the proposed investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions that are found in the bill would be seen to be reasonable measures and not at all excessive.

Let me first address the issue of investigative hearing. In 2001 the United Kingdom created a specific crime of withholding information relating to a terrorist act. A person who could have assisted police in preventing an act of terrorism, or in arresting, apprehending or prosecuting someone involved with terrorist activities but failed to do so, could be imprisoned for up to five years.

Also, the U.K. terrorism act of 2006 enables an investigative authority, such as the director of public prosecutions, to issue a disclosure notice requiring a person to provide information or documents relevant to the investigation of a terrorism offence.

Under the United States longstanding grand jury procedure, a federal grand jury can subpoena any person to testify under oath, subject to claims of privilege. Anyone who obstructs a grand jury risks being held in contempt.

Australia and South Africa have specific procedures similar to the proposed Canadian investigative hearing.

The Canadian approach certainly does not go further than other democratic nations in creating an investigative hearing procedure. Other countries have done as much, or even more, in ensuring that they have the tools to investigate terrorism offences.

The Australian counterpart of the recognizance with conditions is a system of control orders and preventive detention of terrorist suspects. The Australian federal police may apply to a judge for an order allowing up to 48 hours of preventive detention of a terrorist suspect where there has been a terrorist act or where a terrorist act is imminent.

Australian states and territories, under their legislation, allow for preventive detention for up to 14 days. Disclosing during the detention period that a person is detained is punishable by a maximum five years in jail. The Australian federal police annual report of 2006 to June 30, 2007 shows that one interim control order was made but that there were no preventive detention orders. One interim control order expired in December of last year.

Similarly, the United Kingdom has much broader powers for the detention of suspected terrorists, compared to Canada's recognizance with conditions power. In the United Kingdom, under the amended terrorism act 2000, a person can be arrested without warrant and held in detention without charge for up to 28 days if the police reasonably suspect the person of being a terrorist.

As many know, the U.K. government wanted to extend this period even further in its proposed counterterrorism bill to a maximum of 42 days. However, this initiative proved to be very controversial and was defeated by the House of Lords in October 2008. As a result, the U.K. government allowed the bill to continue its journey through the British Parliament without the 42-day measure, but it also published a bill containing the power to detain for 42 days, which will be held in reserve and which will be introduced in the British Parliament if and when the need arises.

The U.K. also has a system of control orders which has been in place since the passage of the prevention of terrorism act 2005. This generally allows for the home secretary to apply to a court to impose obligations on an individual, where there is a reasonable suspicion that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity, and it is considered necessary in order to protect the public from terrorism to impose obligations on the individual.

Control orders can be imposed on citizens or non-citizens alike. There are two kinds of control orders: derogating and non-derogating control orders.

The derogating control order is one that derogates from the European Convention on Human Rights. This type of order could potentially apply in the case of house arrests. A non-derogating control order is one that does not derogate from the convention. Some cases involving non-derogating control orders have now been decided by the House of Lords. It ruled, for example, that a condition requiring a person to stay confined at home for 18 hours each day contravened the right to liberty under the European Convention on Human Rights, but that a 12 hour and possibly a 16 hour curfew was acceptable.

Non-derogating control orders are enforced for 12 months, but they can be renewed. The quarterly statement on the use of control orders covering the period September 11, 2008 to December 10, 2008 said that in total 15 control orders are currently in force, four of which are in respect to British citizens.

Additionally, U.K. police officers have other powers given to them by the terrorism act 2000 that do not exist in Canada. For example, police can designate a certain area, or order anyone to leave it, or not to enter it at the risk of committing an offence. A senior police officer may also authorize a uniformed constable to search a vehicle or a person in a designated area when to do so would be expedient for the prevention of a terrorist act. As we can see, the U.K. powers by far outstrip in scope what Canada provides for its law enforcement purposes.

Finally, I would add that the need to fulfill our international obligations should also prompt a re-enactment of the powers. The United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, to which Canada is a party, obliges the party states to “Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts--”. The provisions proposed in this bill are intended to do just that.

I have talked at length about the measures that are present in other democratic countries facing terrorism threats and whose legal systems are similar to ours. As I have endeavoured to make clear, the tools we are now seeking to re-enact do not constitute an assault on human rights. On the contrary, they are minimally intrusive and are more restrained than our foreign counterparts. They do not present a threat to Canadian values but actually protect them. Accordingly, I would ask that all hon. members support this bill.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

I am very pleased to rise in my place today to speak in support of Bill C-19. It seeks to re-enact the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions provisions in the Criminal Code. The bill is almost identical to former Bill S-3, which died on the order paper at second reading before the House in a previous Parliament.

I will start by quickly explaining what investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions mean.

The investigative hearing provisions would empower a peace officer investigating a terrorism offence that has been or will be committed to apply to a judge for an order requiring a person who is believed to have information concerning the terrorism offence to appear before a judge or produce a thing. The peace officer would have to have the prior consent of the relevant attorney general before making such an application. What would be essential to deal with this is an information-gathering order that would apply in respect of a witness, not an accused.

Recognizance with conditions means that, with the prior consent of the Attorney General, a peace officer may lay an information before a provincial court judge if the peace officer 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 the terrorist activity. The judge could then compel that person to attend a hearing before him or any other judge.

As mentioned, a number of arguments have arisen in the past that have been critical especially of the recognizance with conditions provision. I will deal with them one by one.

I would like to address the contention that the recognizance with conditions provision is unnecessary because the Criminal Code already contains other provisions that could be used to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity, especially sections 495, 810 and 810.01 of the Criminal Code.

Section 495. (1)(a) states that a peace officer may arrest without warrant a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes is about to commit a serious indictable offence. In addition, sections 810 and 810.01 apply when any person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will cause personal injury or commit a criminal organization offence or a terrorism offence. These sections empower the judge to order that the individual enter into a recognizance with conditions.

These provisions all focus on someone who it is reasonably believed is either about to or will commit a crime. They do not encompass any other person and so are very narrow in scope. On the other hand, the recognizance with conditions provision would apply to situations where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity will be committed and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person is necessary to prevent the commission of a terrorist activity.

In other words, the police may have reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity will be committed but would otherwise be unable to take action in relation to a person because the officer lacks, at the point of identifying the threat and the person, the grounds necessary to support the requirement of a belief on reasonable grounds in relation to that particular person. That officer may only have reasonable suspicion. Given the grave nature of the harm posed by terrorist activity, there is a sincere need to be able to act quickly to address the threat.

The provisions relating to recognizance would allow persons to be brought before a judge if there are reasonable grounds to suspect their involvement in terrorist activities. They would also allow a judicial review to prevent the commission of acts of terrorism. This is why the provisions relating to recognizance with conditions are necessary and judicious.

In relation to the investigative hearing, one complaint has been that it takes away a person's right to silence. We have heard the member of the NDP repeat that several times during his dissertation. However, let us not forget that the Supreme Court of Canada held otherwise. In application under section 83.28 of the Criminal Code in 2004, the Supreme Court concluded that the investigative hearing provision did not violate section 7 of the charter.

In fact, the Supreme Court found that a person testifying at an investigative hearing is better protected than any other witness in a criminal trial. This bill also clarifies that the maximum detention for a witness arrested to ensure appearance at an investigative hearing is limited to 90 days, as is the case for witnesses who are detained in relation to a criminal trial under section 707 of the Criminal Code.

The provision relating to recognizance with conditions is in large part based on the Criminal Code provisions on sureties to keep the peace. As I have said, the purpose of the modifications is to make it possible to prevent apprehended acts of terrorism. There are also guarantees, particularly the need to obtain the consent of the Attorney General concerned.

It has also been argued that imposing a recognizance with conditions on a person attaches to that person a stigma of being an alleged terrorist. However, as noted, there are other peace bond provisions in the Criminal Code—for example, where persons are required to enter into peace bonds because it is reasonably believed they will cause personal injury or commit a sexual offence against a young person. These exist today. In these cases, there is no requirement that a criminal charge be laid.

Should these provisions be eliminated on the basis of a stigma possibly attaching to persons even though they have committed no crime? I do not believe that is the case. The government considered the substantive recommendation in the House of Commons subcommittee's interim report to the effect that the investigative hearing power be limited to the investigation of “imminent”, and that word is important, terrorism offences, thereby excluding the possibility of holding an investigative hearing in respect of past terrorism offences. This recommendation was not accepted.

It did not take into account, for example, the possibility of a terrorist group planning a series of terrorist acts following on each other. An investigative hearing related to the first offence, held after the fact—that is, in relation to a terrorism offence that had already been committed—might bring to light certain important information that would make it possible to prevent the other offences from being committed.

I have attempted to address some of the arguments that were previously raised against these provisions. It is my view that these criticisms do not stand up to close scrutiny. The proposed provisions are minimally intrusive and do not present a threat to Canadian values but actually protect them. Therefore, I ask all hon. members in the House to support this bill.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the House may know, prior to question period I was discussing Bill C-19, which engages the issue of civil rights in this country.

I would like to point out the valuable work that is done in our country on behalf of the civil rights of ordinary Canadians and, in fact, on behalf of people all over North America, by people like James Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, John Murphy, an international vice-president, the Canadian president of Teamsters Canada, Robert Bouvier, international vice-president and long time British Columbia teamster, Don McGill, Ontario teamster Larry McDonald and the very fine work done at the grassroots level fighting for the rights of people every day by British Columbia teamsters Jure Kelava, Maureen Roberts and Larry Sargeant.

These are the kinds of people who go out every day and help support and strengthen the civil and human rights of Canadians in our country. It behooves everyone in the House to remember the efforts of such people when we are debating bills, such as Bill C-19.

Getting back to the gist of Bill C-19, prior to the break I was speaking about the first problem with the bill, which is forced testimony under compulsion of prison under the Anti-terrorism Act.

The second thing in the bill, which is highly objectionable to anyone who cares about human rights, is the provision respecting preventative arrest, meaning that the state can imprison someone for up to 12 months, without ever laying a charge, on the mere suspicion of being involved in a terrorist endeavour.

Clause 1 of Bill C-19, which re-enacts section 83.3 of the Criminal Code with substantially similar provisions, deals with recognizance with conditions and preventative arrest to prevent a potential terrorist act. Under this re-enacted section, with the prior consent of the Attorney General, a peace officer may lay information before a provincial court judge if he or she believes that a terrorist act will be carried out and suspects that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions or the arrest of a person is required to prevent it.

Such a detained person must then be brought before a judge within 24 hours or as soon as feasible thereafter, which is not spelled out, and at that time a show cause hearing is held. If a judge determines that a person should enter recognizance, the person is bound to keep the peace and respect other conditions for up to 12 months, to which it is unlikely a terrorist will not agree. However, if the person refuses to enter into a recognizance or disagrees with the conditions in any way, the judge can order that person to be imprisoned for up to 12 months.

As I said before the break, our school children know about the right to remain silent. They also know of the presumption of innocence. They believe strongly in the western British tradition that informs the justice system in Canada, that people cannot be jailed on mere suspicion. They should not be jailed without being arrested, charged or convicted on any charge. That is exactly what the bill does.

First, New Democrats are opposed to the bill because it is an ineffective way to combat terrorism. Second, it is an unnecessary and unwelcome infringement upon our civil liberties. As I said before, we cannot protect freedom by offending it. We cannot protect human rights by infringing them. We cannot strengthen due process by abandoning it.

The Criminal Code already contains the necessary provisions for investigating those who are involved in criminal activity and for detaining anyone who may present an immediate threat to Canadians. We believe terrorism cannot be fought with careless and rights offending legislation, but it can be fought with intelligence efforts and appropriate police action.

I am proud to say that the NDP is once again taking a stand against the Conservative government for going too far. I am not taking this position just to take a stand against the government, but I will take a stand against a government that goes too far in pursuing a national security agenda that violates the rights of Canadians. We all believe it is important to protect national security, but it cannot be done at the expect of civil liberties.

Ensuring public safety is essentially about protecting Canadians' quality of life. We hear the government side say that all the time. But quality of life can be defined in many ways. If we talk to our family members, neighbours or people in the community, I would dare say they would define quality of life in a variety of ways. However, it would be by defining the right to live in peace, the right to pursue liberty and happiness and the right to be protected against offensive incursions of liberties by a state.

I think that two other things come out. While they are in favour of protecting Canada against terrorism and in favour of having a country that is secure, they are also in favour of freedom and civil rights. Security means feeling safe. It means feeling that our country and communities are safe and that we can safely go out into the streets. However, it is also about feeling that our federal government, provincial governments, courts and country are protecting us. That means protecting our civil liberties and human rights.

In addition, Canadians want to see any kind of security legislation balanced against these rights, because freedom and rights are as dear in principle to Canadians as national security. For some reason, the Conservative government is either unwilling or unable to find that balance, as has proven by introducing Bill C-19 and also the security certificate legislation. With both of these pieces of legislation, the Conservatives take the wrong approach. They take 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 piece of legislation.

Let us look at the facts. I have said that this legislation is unnecessary. It was not used once in the first five years of its being introduced in 2001. The government says that it is necessary. If it is so necessary, why has not one person been brought before a judge on it?

Second, is it effective? Again, not one person has ever successfully been brought before a judge on it, so how can we say?

However, I do know there has been one case of someone being successfully prosecuted in this country under the Criminal Code for an alleged conspiracy to commit terrorism, and that is Mr. Momin Khawaja. The important lesson to be learned is that under our normative criminal laws right now and our current legal framework, we are successful at prohibiting and interrupting any attempt by anybody in this country who might wish to commit a terrorist act. This legislation is not necessary.

However, I can say that there are at least five examples of Canadian citizens in the last eight years who have had their rights offended because of the Anti-terrorism Act's provisions that hearken back to 1950s McCarthyism. The Anti-terrorism Act in this country allows trials to be conducted in secret. It allows testimony to be heard behind closed doors. It truncates the ability of accused people to have their counsel of choice cross-examine and test evidence that is presented in private.

Who am I talking about? I am talking about people like Maher Arar. I am talking about people like Mohamed Harkat. I am talking about Messrs. Nureddin, El Maati and Almalki, who have been rendered to foreign prisons because of secret, untested testimony. They were tortured in Syrian and Egyptian dungeons. Mr. Harkat has been under a security certificate for five years for absolutely nothing.

The same reasonable and probable grounds that the members on the opposite side say have to be demonstrated before any of the imprisonments, security certificates or violations will be implemented will not protect them. The same testimony by CSIS, which resulted in all five of those men losing their liberties and being tortured, has now been cast under a cloud of suspicion.

Just two weeks ago, the Federal Court issued a stinging decision that questioned the compliance of CSIS with court orders. It raised the possibility of prevarication by CSIS witnesses. For everybody in this House, “prevarication” is the polite way for a judge to say “lying”. It found that CSIS buried and actually kept evidence from the special advocates appointed to defend Mr. Harkat, which cast doubt on the reliability of the secret witnesses against him.

When my friends on the other side of this House talk about there being protections in this legislation, tell that to Mr. Harkat. Tell that to any of the five people who have either had their rights offended or been tortured or been subject to house arrest for the last five years. They are Canadians, too, and their human and civil rights have been offended.

Again, Bill C-19 would do two things that are offensive to anybody who believes in a just society, in civil liberties and human rights, who believes in a fair justice system. It would force people to testify without the right against self-incrimination and it would force them to go to prison if they do not. It would actually allow the state to imprison people for up to 12 months without being charged with anything.

We say we want to preserve our way of life, that we want to preserve our freedom in this country. Is the way to do that to offend our freedom? I say, no.

We all understand that the Anti-terrorism Act was introduced by the previous Liberal government in 2001. The Liberals were all in favour of it then. They opposed that legislation two years ago when they voted with the NDP and did not agree that the sunset clauses be reintroduced. Now it is hard to know what they think about it. I cannot get it clear from them. It sounds like a classic Liberal position.

We can understand why such legislation may have been passed in the high emotion and nervousness in the aftermath of 9/11. It was wrong, but we can understand it. However, we cannot understand why any parliamentarian would stand in this House and violate precepts of parliamentary democracy and Canadian civil rights when there has not been one example in the last eight years of anybody who was successfully brought before a judge that would make this legislation necessary .

In calm, rational and sober thought, in a moment where we can actually address our minds to the needs and what this legislation would really do, no parliamentarian ought to stand in this House and violate Canadians' rights. I do not care what the justification for that might be. States have always justified incursions into civil liberties by appealing to some fear. They have always tried to truncate people's freedoms with the justification of some bogeyman of some type, but it ought to be rejected.

The members opposite talk about protective provisions in this bill. Again, let us talk about the case of Mohamed Harkat. All those provisions and protections were in the legislation then. There was judicial oversight. There were court-appointed defence counsel for him called special advocates. There were court orders issued to CSIS to produce information to his lawyers. Did that help? Tell that to Mr. Harkat. He is the victim of a security certificate that has been in place for years, and now we find out it was probably because there was some witness testifying against him in secret and it turns out he had no credibility.

I want to move my remarks to the overarching point, that if we have learned anything since 9/11, it is that our fundamental freedoms and guarantees of due process are critical to our rights as citizens. It is what we are protecting. It is the rationalization for why we would even propose any kind of legislative framework in this country.

The complete Orwellian irony of having a government propose legislation that would violate those very rights in the name of protecting them needs to be explained by the members opposite.

The civil rights we enjoy, the right to remain silent, the right to not be detained in jail before the state has proved a case or a charge against someone, are important bulwarks against the potential abuses of state power. These are not purely theoretical rights. These make up the fabric of our country, the fabric of our constitutional rights as citizens.

New Democrats are going to stand strong and firm to make sure that the rights of Canadian citizens are protected in every respect and that we create a functional and effective security establishment in this country that also respects fundamental civil liberties and rights as Canadian citizens, because that can be done.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am cognizant that I have 20 minutes to speak but only 4 minutes to begin. I am going to lay the preparatory groundwork for my speech later on.

Not everybody in the House will agree with what I am about to say, but the fundamental issue presented by the piece of legislation before the House today is that due process in law cannot be supported by offending due process in law. Civil rights cannot be protected by violating civil rights. Freedom in this country cannot be supported by abridging the freedom of Canadians in this country. That cuts to the heart of this matter, and I will come back to that concept later on in my speech.

Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions) was introduced in the House on March 12 of this year. It contains the provisions found in former Bill S-3, as amended by the Senate Special Committee on Anti-terrorism in March of last year.

The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that would reinstate the anti-terrorism provisions that expired under a sunset clause in February 2007. It provides for the appearance of individuals who may have information about a terrorism offence, compells attendance before a judge for an investigative hearing, and it contains provisions also dealing with imprisonment of those people for up to 12 months without charge.

This legislation also contains a five-year sunset clause that requires the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Public Safety to issue separate annual reports that include their opinions as to whether these provisions should be extended.

The seriousness with which the bill attacks our civil liberties in this country is established by the fact that it has to contain sunset provisions to come back before the House. The government does not have the confidence to put these provisions into law for an extended period of time.

Bill C-19 essentially reintroduces the provisions relating to investigative hearings and recognizances that first came into force in December 2001. A sunset clause contained in that act stated that the provisions in question would cease to apply at the end of December 31, 2006 unless they were extended by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.

As of February 2007, not one investigative hearing had been held, and there was no reported use of the provisions on recognizance with conditions at that time. I will come back to this theme later on.

Hon. colleagues on the other side of the House continue to maintain that this legislation is required, but it has never been used in the first five years of its existence.

Let me start with the first of these two offensive provisions, and that is investigative hearings.

Clause 1 of Bill C-19 would amend the Criminal Code, and it is similar to the original Anti-terrorism Act. Section 83 of the Criminal Code forces individuals who may have information about a terrorism offence to appear before a judge for an investigative hearing. The objective is to compel that person to speak, under penalty of imprisonment.

A peace officer, with the prior consent of the Attorney General, can apply to a superior court or a provincial court judge for an order for the gathering of information if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence has or will be committed.

If there are reasonable grounds to believe that information concerning the offence or whereabouts of a suspect is likely to be obtained as a result of the order, and if reasonable attempts have been made to obtain such information by other means, if granted, such a court order would compel that person to attend a hearing and answer questions on examination. No one attending such a hearing can refuse to answer a question or produce something in his or her possession on the grounds of self-incrimination.

Every Canadian school child is familiar with the edict in this country that an individual has the right to remain silent and not to testify if that testimony would present self-incrimination. It is considered a fundamental tenet of western and British legal tradition. It has been part of our country's Constitution and civil liberties for hundreds of years.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-19.

One of the most difficult balances we have in dealing with public safety is the balance between collective security on the one hand and individual freedoms and individual civil liberties on the other. It is a difficult balance, particularly in the wake of the events of 9/11, with which we have been challenged, not just our country, but countries in all parts of the world as they have tried to manage a process of ensuring the safety of the general population while at the same time making sure that terrorism does not undermine the very freedoms that define our society.

We have these two balancing interests. On the one hand the government makes the point, and it is well made, that there can be extenuating circumstances, situations where collective security is put in deep peril, where there is an impending terrorist threat that demands immediate action, where police need to be given every tool at their disposal to get answers and to prevent disaster from happening. Canadians would expect nothing less than that.

On the other hand there is an equally important assurance that needs to be made that those tools, those exceptional powers, would only be used in the most extreme circumstances. They would only be used in examples where there was an imminent threat and something that presented a serious risk to public security and public safety and that these powers would not be abused. In this regard, oversight becomes exceptionally important. As a Parliament, we need to look regularly upon this and ensure that the proper balance has been struck.

As we have seen western democracies struggle with this balance, this pull in both directions, we have seen errors made on both sides. There have been some states that have clearly gone too far and have jeopardized individual freedoms far too much for very little gain in terms of public safety. On the other hand there are those that have not taken action, have not given law enforcement officials and those on the front lines stopping terror the tools they need to do their job. That is where we are with this particular bill.

When the government first introduced its legislation after the sunset clause had been completed, it was clear that was greatly deficient. There were a number of problems. The Senate studied it. The Liberal senators did an enormous amount of work, along with others, but it was led particularly by the Liberals in the Senate. They tried to rebalance the bill, to make sure that those two competing priorities were met. I think they did an excellent job in that regard.

I will go over exactly what we are talking about and give an analysis of some of the reasons, at this point, we as a party certainly will be supporting sending the bill to committee. However, because of the sensitive nature of it and the balancing that is required, we will have a lot of work once it gets to committee.

It is important to note that investigative hearing provisions in the Criminal Code allow authorities to compel the testimony of an individual without the right to decline to answer questions on the grounds of self-incrimination. The intent would be to call on those on the periphery of an alleged plot who may have vital information, rather than the core suspects who would have an overwhelming incentive to lie or to protect themselves.

The preventive arrest provisions in the Criminal Code allow police to arrest and hold an individual, in some cases without warrant, provided the police have reasonable grounds to believe the arrest will prevent future terrorist activity.

After 9/11 the Liberal government passed the Anti-terrorism Act, a package of measures, including Criminal Code amendments, to combat terrorism and terrorist activity. The act attempted to balance those measures with respect to the Canadian values of fairness and human rights.

Two new powers in the act, investigative hearings and preventive arrest, were considered sufficiently intrusive and extraordinary that a specific five-year sunset clause was applied to them. The sunset clause was a Liberal caucus priority to ensure that oversight, as I mentioned before is so important, was had.

In October 2006 a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recommended extending the sunset clause while also amending the Criminal Code to restrict the scope and application of investigative hearings and preventive arrests.

The sunset clauses came due on March 1, 2007. The government introduced a motion to extend the provisions for a further five years, but in February 2007, the Liberal opposition, as well as the Bloc and the NDP, voted to allow the clauses on investigative hearings and preventive arrests contained in the original Anti-terrorism Act, brought forward in the immediate aftermath of September 11, to sunset.

At the time, the Liberal opposition offered to work with the Conservative government to find reasonable and effective improvements in the anti-terrorism laws of Canada to strike an appropriate balance between safety and protection of rights.

After the defeat of the clauses, the government introduced legislation in October 2007 that would have brought back the two clauses with additional safeguards. It required law enforcement officers to satisfy a judge that they had used every other method to get the information that they needed. It also required the attorney general and the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness to report to Parliament on a yearly basis explaining their opinion as to whether or not these provisions should be further extended.

In October 2007, upon the introduction of Bill C-3, on security certificates, and Bill S-3, on investigative hearings and preventive arrest, both the Liberal critic and the Liberal leader in the Senate indicated their support for both pieces of legislation. Bill C-3 eventually did become law. Bill S-3 did not make it through the House before the 2008 election because the government failed to call the bill for debate.

I want to talk about Bill S-3 and some of the changes that were made by the Senate that I think started to move the bill back into a better balance between those two priorities.

Bill S-3 included improvements to the code's terrorism regime, such as an increased emphasis on the need for a judge to be satisfied law enforcement has taken all reasonable steps to obtain information by other legal means prior to resorting to an investigative hearing; the ability for any person ordered to attend an investigative hearing to retain and instruct counsel; new reporting requirements for the attorney general and the minister of public safety who must now both submit annual reports which not only list the uses of these provisions, but also provide an opinion supported by reasons as to whether these powers needed to be maintained; 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 resolve to extend the provisions further.

The former minister of public safety encouraged the Senate special committee on anti-terrorism to continue studying Bill S-3 and related issues even after reporting back to the Senate. The committee suggested key amendments to the bill that were included in the final version passed by the Senate in March 2008. The most significant of these amendments mandated a comprehensive parliamentary committee review at the fifth anniversary of the bill's coming into force.

With all of these things having been said and that balance being moved more toward where it needs to be, we on this side of the House are prepared to see the bill go to committee where obviously it is going to need a lot more work. There are a couple of points I would like to address now for consideration and which we will want to talk about at committee.

We want to ensure there is strong parliamentary oversight. One of the questions I asked the parliamentary secretary not so long ago was the possibility of ensuring that we have a review by both houses of Parliament, not just one. That is something we can work on in a collaborative fashion in committee. The last time the bill was reviewed, the Senate had a lot of important additions to make and important observations that otherwise would have been missed.

The second thing we could discuss at committee is the possibility of the frequency of the review, whether or not three years would be possible as opposed to five years. If we approach it with the philosophy of trying to ensure we have the appropriate amount of oversight, those who are concerned that these powers might in some way be misused would have their fears assuaged.

I do feel the legislation as it stands now has a significant number of safeguards. I think we could consider further ones. However, it is imperative that our law enforcement officers and officials have the tools they need to act in a preventive way against potential terrorist threats in this country. By having sufficient oversight and by taking the proper time to study the bill at committee after it leaves this House, we can strike that appropriate balance and move forward in a productive way.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak further to Bill C-19, which deals with provisions that had sunsetted under the Anti-terrorism Act.

These important provisions are known as the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions provisions. They would allow our police officers to take steps that have been considered and steps that have the appropriate safeguards in place to ensure the rights of all concerned, but steps which may be necessary from time to time to prevent or to investigate a serious or imminent attack on Canada and Canadians

When I was last speaking, I was talking about the human rights concerns that had been raised over the course of debate on these provisions. I did want a chance to reflect on those concerns and address them, and assure the House that appropriate safeguards are in place.

Both the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions provisions as provided for in this legislation are replete with human rights safeguards.

With respect to the investigative hearing, these safeguards would include the following.

First, there could be no investigative hearing without the consent of the relevant attorney general.

Second, only a judge of the provincial court or of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction could hear a peace officer's application for an information gathering order and could preside over an information gathering proceeding.

Third, there would have to be reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence has been, or will be, committed.

Fourth, the judge would have to be satisfied that reasonable attempts had been made to obtain the information by other means for both future and past terrorism offences. Further, the judge could include any terms and conditions in the order that the judge considered to be desirable to protect the interests of the witness or third parties. The witness would have the right to retain and instruct counsel at any stage of the proceeding.

Finally, the bill would incorporate protections against self-incrimination, including in relation to the derivative use of the evidence in further criminal proceedings against the person testifying, except for perjury or giving contradictory evidence.

Members should also be reminded that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the investigative hearing in 2004 in application under section 83.28 of the Criminal Code. I would note in this regard that the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the protection against self-incrimination found in the investigative hearing was greater than that afforded to witnesses compelled to testify in other proceedings, such as in a criminal trial.

As to the recognizance with conditions, it too would have many human rights safeguards, such as the following.

First, the consent of the relevant attorney general or solicitor general would be required before a peace officer could lay an information to bring a person before a provincial court judge.

Second, only a provincial court judge could receive an information, and would have the discretion as to whether to cause the person to appear before him or her.

Third, the presiding judge would have to be satisfied by evidence that the suspicion was reasonably based. The judge would have to come to his or her own conclusion about the likelihood that the imposition of a recognizance on the person would be necessary to prevent a terrorist activity.

Finally, the person entering a recognizance would have the right to apply to vary the conditions under the recognizance order.

Experience has also shown that when these tools were part of our law, the investigative hearing was invoked only once, in connection with the Air India inquiry, and the recognizance was never used. This demonstrates the restraint that the law enforcement officials have exercised and would continue to exercise in deciding whether to use these powers.

The government is proposing that both the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions provisions be re-enacted for a period of five years.

At the end of five years, the bill would allow for further extension of one or both of these provisions. The task of deciding whether further extension is necessary would be informed, in part, by the mandatory review of the provisions found in the bill.

As well, the mandatory annual reports of the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Public Safety would detail the use of the provisions by federal officials and provide the minister's reasons regarding the usefulness of the provisions.

I believe that the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions powers are necessary, effective, and reasonable. I urge all hon. members to support the bill.

The House resumed from June 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are open to talking about it.

That does not mean that we will automatically agree to any request the government might make to extend sitting hours, but if debate on a certain bill were about to end and we still needed a few more hours, of course we would give that careful thought.

I want to add something else. I took a look at what was tabled every Tuesday for the past month. We have covered nearly everything the Leader of the Government wanted us to, as I said. He wanted bills in the House to be ready for royal assent; he got all but one of them—Bill C-6—and that is expected to happen around June 10. He wanted four bills to be sent to the Senate. Two of them are in the Senate. There are two more to go. So that makes three. Bill C-20 is in committee and should be back here soon. The parliamentary leader wanted the committee's report to be done by June, and that is likely to happen.

We have a problem with Bill C-19. I would remind the House that Bill C-8 and Bill C-23 were not included in the government's agenda that ends June 23. I therefore assume that the government does not plan to address those bills before the fall. We will debate them in the fall.

I therefore do not believe there is enough material to keep the House busy for 11 days from now until June 23. Once again, if we need to extend the sitting hours occasionally, the government can rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will be open to discussion.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I say with the utmost respect to my hon. colleague, the House leader for the Bloc Québécois, that in his remarks he made my exact point of the need for the extension of hours.

He named the three bills that have been somewhat problematic to get agreement on from both sides of the chamber: Bill C-8, the matrimonial real property bill, to which my Liberal colleague referred as well; Bill C-19, investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions bill; and Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement bill.

He went on to say that he would like to see some debate in depth. That is exactly what can be accomplished by extending the hours. I say that with all sincerity and reasonableness. If those bills are problematic, then why not work a little bit harder for Canadians?

We all know that Canadians are hurting. Canadians are struggling right now. They want to see this Parliament work. As I stated throughout my remarks, by and large Parliament has been working. We have been getting legislation through the House.

As I say, he made the actual point that I have been trying to make in that we need to have the additional time with only some 33 hours remaining of debate time for government legislation before the House rises. I do not think it is unreasonable to extend the hours and have a few more hours to debate bills like those.

I also referred to the House leaders and the whips. Quite some time ago, weeks ago in fact, I said that we would be introducing additional legislation. In particular, the Minister of Justice has been doing that. We will also have other legislation that was not on the list, as I said, which we would like to see debated before the House rises.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said that the government had introduced a number of bills. I have to say that the legislative agenda is not full enough to warrant extended sitting hours. I will explain what I mean later in my speech, but I want to express my opinion and ask the House leader a question. He had set a number of goals about a number of bills that he felt should receive royal assent by June, and he shared those goals with us at the meetings of the leaders and whips. All these bills, except one, are currently in the Senate. So from that standpoint, he has achieved nearly all his goals.

We had been told that certain bills had to be sent to the Senate by June before they could receive royal assent. Four bills had been identified. Two are currently in the Senate, while the House is still discussing the other two, but we could certainly come to an agreement on them. One bill was to be reported on by the appropriate committee, and that will be done. Three problematic bills remain. One has been mentioned, and that is Bill C-8, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves. The other two are Bills C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions) and C-23, the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. We disagree on these three bills, and we want to have in-depth debates on them.

Does the member think it would be reasonable for the opposition to agree to extend the sitting hours when the only bills likely to be debated during those extended hours are the bills that are the most problematic for the opposition? I think that that is not reasonable and that he will agree with me that we cannot agree to this blank cheque.

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but when debate resumes on Bill C-19, he will have 10 minutes to pursue his comments.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-19. The bill seeks to re-enact in the Criminal Code the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions provisions. Many hon. members will be aware of this subject matter as it has been before Parliament on our agenda from time to time in recent years, most recently as Bill S-3 in the previous Parliament, which was passed by the Senate and debated at second reading in the House.

I am pleased the government has reintroduced this bill. It further demonstrates the unwaivering commitment of the government, and I should add, our Minister of Justice, to give law enforcement agencies the tools needed to safeguard our national security, while respecting human rights. It also offers Parliament the opportunity to re-enact those important provisions. I sincerely hope Parliament will seize this opportunity.

In the time available to me today, I would like to discuss the nature of the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions. In addition, I would like to revisit very briefly previous parliamentary debates on these matters to emphasize that the provisions contained in the bill, while substantially similar to those that were debated in the sunset debates, are also somewhat different.

The bill responds to many parliamentary recommendations that have been made previously. The bill proposes to re-enact the investigative hearing provisions, which will allow the courts, on an application by a peace officer, to compel someone with information about a past or future terrorism offence to appear before a judge to answer questions and when requested bring anything in the person's possession or control to the judge. The investigative hearing would be an information gathering tool in respect of terrorism offences. Its purpose would not be to charge or convict an individual with an criminal offence. The focus would be on questioning witnesses, not on cross-examining accused persons.

The bill would also seek to re-enact the recognizance with conditions as a measure that would be intended to assist peace officers to prevent imminent terrorist attacks. If a peace officer would have reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity would be carried out and would have reasonable grounds to suspect that the imposition of a recognizance on a particular person would be necessary to prevent such an activity from being carried out, then the peace officer could apply to a judge to have the person compelled to appear before a judge.

The judge would then consider whether it would be desirable to release the person or to impose reasonable conditions on the person. The government would bear the onus of showing why conditions should be imposed. The recognizance with conditions would be designed to aid the disruption of the preparatory phase of a terrorist activity. The recognizance with conditions has previously been referred to as preventative arrest, however, this is not a particularly apt characterization of the provision since it would only be used under exceptional circumstances that a person could be arrested without a warrant. However, even in this instance, the attorney general's consent would have to be obtained before the officer could lay the information before the judge.

The maximum period of detention when seeking a recognizance with conditions would generally be no more than 72 hours. If the judge were to determine that there would be no need for recognizance, the person would be released. However, if the court were to determine that a recognizance would be necessary but the person refused to enter into a recognizance, the person could be detained for up to 12 months.

I wish to touch briefly on the legislative history of these provisions and to remark upon them.

Members will no doubt be aware that the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions were initially part of the Anti-terrorism Act. These provisions were to expire, absent an extension agreement by both Houses of Parliament, at the end of the 15th sitting day of Parliament following December 31, 2006, which was March 1, 2007. The Anti-terrorism Act anticipated that the mandatory reviews of the act would be completed well in advance of the parliamentary debate on the extension of these sunsetting provisions. As it turned out, this was not the case.

In October 2006, the House of Commons subcommittee tabled an interim report recommending that the investigative hearing power be limited to the investigation of imminent and not past terrorism offences. It also proposed some technical amendments to the provisions, but otherwise approved of these powers and recommended extending them for five years subject to further review.

The government, however, had yet to hear from the special Senate committee, which was conducting its own review of the legislation. Indeed, the Senate committee report was not issued until February 22, 2007, just days before the vote on the extension of the powers. The special Senate committee recommended a three year renewal period for both powers.

On February 27, 2007, when the time came to vote on the motion to extend the provisions, the final report of the House of Commons subcommittee on the Anti-terrorism Act was still unavailable. Consequently, it was not practically possible for the government to respond to recommended changes before the vote.

Since that time, there was an opportunity for reflection and the government was able to respond by introducing Bill S-3 on October 23, 2007. Bill S-3 sought to re-enact the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions with additional safeguards and some technical changes that were responsive to many of the recommendations made by the two parliamentary committees that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act.

Further, the Senate made three amendments to former Bill S-3, including making mandatory a parliamentary review of these provisions.

Bill C-19 reintroduces former Bill S-3, as amended by the Senate. In addition, one further proposed amendment has been included in the new bill. This new change would clarify that the judicial power to order things into police custody at an investigative hearing would be discretionary rather than mandatory. This change would align the provision with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in application under section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, where the Supreme Court concluded that the investigative hearing provision conferred upon the judge considerable flexibility and discretion.

Thus, the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions proposals contained in this bill are not the same as those provisions that were debated during the sunset debate. While they are substantially similar, important changes have nevertheless been made to respond to parliamentary recommendations.

When the resolution to extend the life of these provisions was last debated, three arguments were made in support of sunsetting these provisions: one, that they had not yet been amended in accordance with the recommendations of the parliamentary committees; two, that the provisions were not necessary, given that they had rarely been used; and three, concerns were expressed regarding the protection of human rights. I would like to address these arguments.

In the time since the original provisions sunsetted, the amendments suggested by the parliamentary committees have been carefully considered. The large majority of these recommendations have been addressed in the bill, including with respect to a mandatory review, annual reporting requirements and various technical amendments.

Moreover, as I have indicated, the bill also includes the Senate amendments that were made during its consideration of former Bill S-3, as well as the additional amendment that I have highlighted.

The government has not taken up a particular recommendation made by the House subcommittee in its interim report. In that report it recommended that the investigative hearing not deal with information gathered in respect of past terrorism offences, but should be limited to the collection of information only in relation to imminent terrorist offences. In this regard, it should be noted that the special Senate committee did not take a similar position.

Perhaps when people speak of past terrorism offences, they may think in terms of years. For example, as we know, the tragedy of Air India happened in 1985. Bill C-19 recognizes the significant value of being able to acquire historical information as well as information that may prevent the commission of future terrorist acts. Accordingly it does not propose to limit the application of the information gathered in the investigative hearing to imminent terrorist offences.

As for the argument that the provisions are unnecessary, we need to be reminded of the increasing number of terrorist attacks all over the world and the gravity of the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, it is folly to believe that Canada and Canadians are immune from the threat of terrorism. If we look at this issue realistically, we know that this is not the case.

Terrorism trials are taking place in our country as we speak. Clearly the threat of a terrorist attack, which these provisions are designed to prevent, continues. We need to be ready to respond to terrorist threats and it is important that our law enforcement authorities are properly equipped to do so.

Both the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions, as provided for in the bill, would be replete with human rights safeguards. With respect to the investigative hearing, these safeguards would include the following. There could be no investigative hearing without the consent of the relevant attorney general. Only a judge of the provincial court or of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction could hear a peace officer's application for an information gathering order and could preside over an information gathering proceeding.

There would have to be reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence has been or will be committed. The judge would have to be satisfied that reasonable attempts had been made to obtain the information by other means. The judge could include any terms and conditions in the order that the judge considered to be desirable to protect the interests of the witness or third parties. The witness would have the right to retain and instruct counsel at any stage of the proceeding.

The bill also incorporates protections against self-incrimination, including in relation to the derivative use of the evidence in further criminal proceedings against the person testifying, except for perjury or giving contradictory evidence.

Members should also be reminded that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the investigative hearing in 2004 in application under section 83.28 of the Criminal Code. I would note in this regard that the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the protection against self-incrimination found in the investigative hearing was greater than that afforded to witnesses compelled to testify in other proceedings, such as in a criminal trial.