Bill S-7 (Historical)

Combating Terrorism Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act

This enactment replaces sections 83.28 to 83.3 of the Criminal Code to provide for an investigative hearing for the purpose of gathering information for an investigation of a terrorism offence and to allow for the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person to prevent them from carrying out a terrorist activity. In addition, the enactment provides for those sections to cease to have effect or for the possible extension of their operation. The enactment also provides that the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness include in their respective annual reports their opinion on whether those sections should be extended. It also amends the Criminal Code to create offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit certain terrorism offences.
The enactment also amends the Canada Evidence Act to allow the Federal Court to order that applications to it with respect to the disclosure of sensitive or potentially injurious information be made public and to allow it to order that hearings related to those applications be heard in private. In addition, the enactment provides for the annual reporting on the operation of the provisions of that Act that relate to the issuance of certificates and fiats.
The enactment also amends the Security of Information Act to increase, in certain cases, the maximum penalty for harbouring a person who committed an offence under that Act.
Lastly, it makes technical amendments in response to a parliamentary review of these Acts.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

As we are in the midst of debating Bill S-7 in this House, I am pleased to present a petition with respect to the report and recommendations of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security of the House of Commons of 2009, concerning the cases of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muyyed Nurredin.

The petition calls on the House of Commons to demand that the Prime Minister act immediately on those recommendations and bring a much-needed measure of justice and closure to these cases.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill S-7, which proposes to do a number of things in amending the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, but I want to focus on just two things that this bill proposes to do, the two that I believe are the most significant. These are the reintroduction of the provisions for investigatory hearings and the reintroduction of preventive detention in national security cases, also known as recognizance with conditions.

Regrettably, Bill S-7 places measures before the House that the House had already wisely sunsetted in February of 2007 during the 39th Parliament by a vote of 159 to 124, a decisive vote. These measures were wisely rejected again by opposition parties when reintroduced by the Conservatives in 2009 in the 40th Parliament. Of course, these two measures were part of the package passed quickly in the aftermath of 9/11 when Canada's new Anti-terrorism Act was adopted by the House of Commons on November 28, 2001, and received royal assent on December 18, 2001, just over two months after the terrorist attack on the twin towers in New York.

Even in that climate of intense fear and even panic over national security, such was the concern about the two measures for investigatory hearings and preventive detention that a sunset clause was inserted so that these provisions would expire in five years. Yes, there was a climate of fear and panic that all of us remember well. I have personal reasons for recalling that day and its aftermath very clearly. My mother was flying from Washington, D.C., to Seattle that day, and a friend of my partner was flying from Boston to New York.

Fortunately, we located my mother safe on the ground in Denver, but my partner had to tell his friend's parents that their son had not been so lucky. He had to tell them we had confirmed their son was on the flight from Boston. He who had been late for everything in his life managed to catch that flight, unfortunately. We had to tell them that his body would never be recovered to be returned home to them in Indonesia as his was the second flight to hit the twin towers that day. My family remembers that day, but as residents of Vancouver Island we also remember that fear and panic can do harm, as well as responding emotionally to these kinds of issues.

Canadian history itself tells us a climate of fear and panic, no matter how real the threat, can all too easily lead to great injustice when governments act too hastily. I want to reflect a bit today on what happened to Japanese Canadians at the outbreak of World War II, action taken in a climate of panic also in the name of national security. I am going to offer my comments on Japanese Canadians as a kind of cautionary tale that relates very directly to the kind of measures we are asked to consider adopting in Bill S-7.

Much of what I will say here is based on the work of Ann Sunahara, her 2005 book titled The Politics of Racism. She has very interesting things to tell us about decision making with regard to the deportation of Japanese Canadians, because she was the first author to have access to government documents from that period after the expiry of the 30-year secrecy rule for these documents. In her book, Sunahara clearly demonstrates that government actions ordering the internment of more than 20,000 Japanese Canadians and the confiscation and sale of their property were based on nothing but fear and panic, often stemming from overt racism and ultimately facilitated by the latent racism against Japanese Canadians present throughout Canada at that time.

Again, it is a cautionary tale when we see members of the Canadian community today, especially Muslim Canadians, often targeted by anti-terrorism measures and the fear and panic that terrorism tends to cause.

Of the 23,000 Japanese Canadians in 1941, less than one-third were Japanese nationals. The rest were either native-born Canadians, some 13,500, or naturalized British subjects, some 3,650. Therefore, two-thirds of Japanese Canadians at that time should have enjoyed exactly the same rights as any other Canadian. Yet even Japanese Canadians born in Canada were denied the right to vote, denied the right to practise most professions and discriminated against in many ways. The so-called gentleman's agreement between Canada and Japan in 1907 had limited immigration from Japan to Canada to 400 per year, and in 1928 that number was revised downward to 150 per year.

Given this climate of latent or overt racism against Japanese Canadians, it is perhaps not all that surprising that after the outbreak of World War II in the Pacific, with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in early December 1941, the Canadian cabinet adopted an order in council under the War Measures Act on January 14, 1942, ordering confiscation and sale of the Japanese Canadian fishing fleet and removal from the coast of all male Japanese nationals. Cabinet said explicitly this was for reasons of national security and to prevent sabotage or collaboration with a possible Japanese landing force.

In taking this action, Prime Minister King was following the lead of the United States and giving in to demands from B.C. provincial and federal politicians who continued to demand the removal of all Japanese Canadians from the coast: men, women and children.

On January 23, 1943, as a solution to the problem of how to pay for the internment of Japanese Canadians, and as a way to prevent their eventual return to the coast, the Canadian cabinet passed an order in council, again under the War Measures Act, that granted the custodian of enemy property the right to dispose of Japanese Canadian property in his care without the owner's consent.

What is important about these two things? What is the lesson they have brought today? At that time, cabinet did all of this against the advice of senior public servants and military officers. They did this, according to Sunahara, against the advice of the RCMP commissioner, the deputy minister of defence, the deputy minister of labour, the deputy minister of fisheries and the vice chief of the general staff of the Canadian military.

The actions against the Japanese were opposed, publicly and consistently, only by 28 CCF MPs, the predecessors of the NDP here in the House, to be joined in 1943 by a few Liberal senators after the disposition order was made.

The deportation of Japanese Canadians from the coast is often justified after the fact by selectively pointing to the U.S. experience, citing a similar experience for the removal of Japanese Americans from the U.S. Pacific mainland. However, relying on the U.S. mainland experience ignores the other U.S. experience and the awkward fact that in the U.S. territory of Hawaii there was no legal action taken against Japanese Americans. This is an area in which Japanese Americans were definitely on the front lines in the Pacific war, but where they constituted 32% of the population and so the economic impacts of internment would have been too difficult.

In Canada, at the end of the war, Prime Minister King was eventually forced to admit in the House that not only had not a single Japanese Canadian ever been convicted of sabotage or aiding the enemy, none had ever even been charged with these offences. Yet cabinet still refused to rescind the restrictions imposed by the order in council and did not end the exclusion of Japanese Canadians from the B.C. coast until 1949, again citing national security as the justification.

I have devoted most of my speech today to this dark period and this dark piece of Canadian history, one which took us nearly 40 years to come to terms with. Not until 1988 did Canada officially apologize and offer some compensation both to surviving internees and in the form of support for the National Association of Japanese Canadians. Obviously, this came far too late for most of those who suffered injustice.

In Esquimalt, where I live, we are only now restoring the Takata Gardens, the oldest Japanese gardens in North America, where the Takata family had operated a very successful tea house before being dispossessed for reasons of national security. This is a powerful local reminder to Esquimalt residents that injustice caused by fear and panic has costs for all Canadians, not just those who are the direct victims.

I see the experience of Japanese Canadians in World War II as a cautionary tale for all members in the House as we contemplate Bill S-7, a bill the government insists is necessary for national security. It is a cautionary tale that tells us of the sometimes ugly consequences of letting fear rule over rationality.

The provisions that we are talking about restoring here were never used in the five years they were in place. Some will cite the Air India inquiry where an application to hold an investigatory hearing was approved but challenged in court, and that hearing was ultimately never held as the sunset clause came into effect in the meantime. Therefore, we are left with no concrete example where an investigatory hearing was actually used. Yet in the 10 years since the Anti-terrorism Act was passed, the government has managed to get terrorism convictions for Momin Khawaja, Zakaria Amara, Saad Khalid and Saad Gaya of the so-called Toronto 18.

Therefore, I would ask this. Has our security been more at risk in the last five years since these provisions were allowed to expire? Does the government have any examples to show us when these powers could have been used?

Instead, I look back to the Japanese Canadian experience and we see the obvious contradiction of having fought a war for freedom and democracy and against racism, while at the same time treating a portion of our own citizens so unjustly.

Can we not see now the risk of a new contradiction? In the struggle to protect freedom, human rights and rule of law, we risk trampling the fundamental rights that are the basis of our democratic and legal system: the right to freedom from detention without charge and the right to protection against self-incrimination.

We also risk the unfair treatment of Muslim Canadians. Though perhaps not as severe as the deportation of Japanese Canadians in World War II, this constitutes a potential blot on our human rights record, which I know all in the House would like to avoid.

Let us not repeat the past but rather learn from it. Let us not stampede to trample rights because of our fears for national security. I urge all members of the House to reject the false security offered by Bill S-7 with its all too likely consequences of weakening our rights and the principles that are the foundation of our justice system.

We know that the best response to threats to our national security is to be found in giving resources to law enforcement and security agencies so they can do their jobs, while working within our system of rule of law and respecting those very rights that give meaning to the question for national security.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Davenport for his very interesting question.

Once again, this goes back to what the member for Gatineau said earlier. The government must answer these questions and tell us what is going on. It must also tell us why it introduced Bill S-7 in the Senate. Why does it want to change laws that are working very well? Why is it eliminating things that are essential to our security?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his question. He also works very hard on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is interesting to have different viewpoints on an issue as important as our national security. We do not always agree, but it is very important to have this debate today and to bring different ideas to the fore.

I would like to go back to many things my colleague just said. It is very important that I make it clear that I am not attacking the existing Anti-terrorism Act. However, I find it very intriguing that Bill S-7 is being brought forward. Our existing legislation is sufficient, and all the provisions we need are already in the Criminal Code.

I will come back to the increase in the number of border agents. I am glad that my colleague mentioned that in the House, since that gives me the opportunity to talk about it. In some places, part-time staff were hired to work at night to improve things, but the hours have still been cut at border crossings. So this changes absolutely nothing. Furthermore, there will be over $140 million in budget cuts to border services. In Quebec alone, 260 border agents received notice that they would lose their jobs, and there were another 1,351 in the rest of Canada. This has yet to happen. When these positions disappear, what happens in the coming years will be catastrophic.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague from Gatineau for her very wise and interesting comments on this matter.

Indeed, the Conservative government has never before tried to legislate against terrorism as it is now with Bill S-7. As my colleague pointed out, the Criminal Code already covers all of this. Most experts agree that there is no need to initiate all of this or stir things up to change anything, since we already have the standards and legislation we need.

I have to wonder about the government's real motives for amending the Criminal Code and the Anti-terrorism Act. That is one of the big questions I have right now. Once again, I invite the government to reread the technical guides used by the counter-terrorism committee to determine whether the government knows the basics and what laws are needed.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I especially appreciated the link she made between some of this government's decisions, which do not always seem to make sense.

We are debating the issue of terrorism. Bill S-7 was introduced in the Senate and touches on certain basic rights. At the same time, we also talked about the elimination of the firearms registry. For the international community, as my colleague put it so well, gun control is a very important aspect of this because, as we know, the two are often connected.

I do not know if she talked about this, because I missed the beginning of her speech on Bill S-7, which she began here in the House the other day. One particular aspect of this bill really struck me. Several experts have said that everything we need already exists in the Criminal Code. It has been at least four years since this government has made any serious attempt to change the terrorism provisions the way Bill S-7 does, and this does not appear to have had much impact on the hunt for terrorists. I wonder what my colleague's thoughts are on that.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was interrupted the last time we were in the House because the time allocated to this bill ran out. I will therefore continue my speech.

I took the time to review the content of Bill S-7 and the text of our international agreements, as I mentioned the last time I rose to comment on Bill S-7.

As I pointed out then, I delved deeper into our stance on terrorism, particularly at the international level, and into the international agreements that Canada signed or agreed to in principle. I believe it was important to do that in order to get to the heart of the issue of terrorism and examine what has and has not been done about it.

I looked at the Counter-Terrorism Committee and what it was introducing. The members of that committee have a very interesting guide called the “Technical Guide to the Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001)”. The resolution was unanimously adopted by the United Nations on September 28, 2001, if I am not mistaken, following the attacks on September 11, 2001. The events required an immediate response and an international consensus, and that is what was achieved.

It is interesting to note how quickly it was adopted, and unanimously at that, by all the countries represented at the United Nations, including Canada. I looked at chapter 2 of that technical guide, a chapter that deals with two very interesting points. The second point talks about eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists and point number 10 talks about effective border controls.

I began by exploring the issue of effective border controls, an extremely important aspect of combatting terrorism. It is interesting that we are talking about these things now. On the weekend, some of my colleagues and I went to the Canada-U.S. border at Stanstead, which is about a two-hour drive south of Montreal. I learned some very surprising things, along with my colleagues, the member for Compton—Stanstead, the member for Brome—Missisquoi and the member for Sherbrooke, who is also affected by this, since his riding is only 30 minutes away.

Many surrounding communities are affected. Unfortunately, Stanstead is known as a porous border crossing. In 2006-07, there were about 42 illegal entries. This number has gone up every year. By August of this year, there had been over 300 illegal entries at that border crossing. This is a growing problem.

I know the mayor of Stanstead has tried to mitigate the problem in several ways, for instance, by closing Church Street to traffic. Unfortunately, this only moved the problem elsewhere. People are going around the barriers, simply not stopping at all at the border and continuing straight ahead.

People caught recently were mostly refugee claimants. There are international treaties to deal with such cases. Canada welcomes immigrants, and the case of every individual who claims refugee status must be examined.

I completely agree that we must examine the case of every refugee claimant. However, what I found troubling—although oddly enough, a Conservative senator said yesterday that it was not all that troubling—is the fact that the people who entered the country illegally then phoned the police when they reached Magog. They phoned the police to inform them that they had arrived and to ask them to come and get them. As soon as they cross into Canada, they are the ones who contact the police. Honestly, I find that a little troubling.

Why have we not caught these people ourselves, questioned them ourselves or discovered that they have crossed the border?

These illegal immigrants are the ones who contact us to inform us that they are here and are claiming refugee status. That is troubling.

The Conservative senator believes that this is not troubling and that they are simply people claiming refugee status. I agree that we must examine refugee status claims. The NDP filed access to information requests and discovered that human trafficking was taking place through Stanstead. That is very serious. It seems that clandestine networks are being set up, especially at this border crossing. This is a very serious problem that we must deal with.

What is the connection to terrorism? Those people are able to cross the border, reach Magog and then telephone police to announce their presence without anyone going after them or trying to stop them. However, if people enter Canada illegally, not to claim refugee status but to illegally transport weapons, drugs or tobacco, for instance, they will not call the police to inform them of their whereabouts and ask to be arrested. They will probably continue on their way in a truck carrying weapons. They will not stop.

The fact that the government is not taking action in this regard is of serious concern. What is even more worrisome is that the Conservatives are boasting about attacking the problem of terrorism through Bill S-7 when, in the last budget, they cut funding for Canada's border services by over $140 million.

In Quebec, the border services officers' union indicated that 260 jobs were in jeopardy, which means that 260 people would have received a notice telling them that they were going to lose their jobs. For all of Canada, that number was 1,351. That is a lot of staff when other more practical solutions could have been found.

This measure is completely unrealistic, and the government should be increasing the staff when our country is facing such problems. Officers could be mobile so that they could leave their posts to pursue people who cross the border in this manner.

The Government of Canada website clearly indicates that “[The Government of] Canada supports action by the Security Council on international terrorism.” I think that we should focus more on effective border control than on passing a bill that, as we can see, will clearly not make a very big difference when it comes to terrorism.

The second thing that I found interesting in this technical guide is the proposal to eliminate the supply of weapons to terrorists. I considered this issue a little more carefully and wondered exactly what was being referred to in this chapter. I therefore checked the exact definitions that are found on page 16 of the technical guide against terrorism, where it talks a little bit about arms brokering. It says:

(iii) With respect to brokering: regulate brokers and sellers of SALW...

We are talking here about small arms and light weapons, and the point just before that says:

(ii) With respect to possession: set rules and regulations governing civilian acquisition, possession, transportation, licensing of dealers, record-keeping, and tracing of the various categories of SALW, and rules requiring the reporting of lost or stolen SALW...

That made my hair stand on end. Last year, the firearms registry was abolished here in the House. We fought against it on this side. My colleague from Gatineau and I fought tooth and nail to save the registry. Quebec recently won a court case regarding the data from Quebec, which will not be destroyed. I have also heard that the government will unfortunately appeal that decision.

The Conservatives will not give up. I cannot believe it. This government proudly adopted a resolution condemning the September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, and it has since supported the anti-terrorism measures taken by the Security Council.

This guide calls for tracing or a firearms registry. But what did the government do the first chance it got as a majority government? It abolished the registry.

That is not a good way of doing things. It is demagogic to think that it can introduce a nice little bill coming from the Senate that will not change much at the end of the day, when we already had practical solutions.

The firearms registry may not have been perfect, but it was a tool that could be used. We could have improved it so that it would be more robust, more relevant, more interactive and less expensive. The parties here could have come to a consensus. We missed out on a great opportunity to work together on this. What is more, the government has signed agreements with other countries, but it does not even honour these commitments. It is very disappointing to see this.

Also—and I have often mentioned this in the House—I am a hunter and I come from a family of hunters. We had no objection to registering our guns. In fact, we feel safer. Many people I know and many members of my family find that it is safer and that it makes sense to register guns. Personally, I completely agree with the United Nations resolutions. I find it sad that those resolutions are not being honoured here.

Why not deal with the real problem? I think it is sad that with this bill, the government is missing an excellent opportunity to work with the other parties. This bill will make unnecessary amendments to the Anti-terrorism Act. In fact, many experts, including the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, Mr. Copeland of the Law Union of Ontario, the Canadian Islamic Congress and plenty of other individuals, agree with us that the measures in Bill S-7 are not necessary.

I agree that we must take all threats of terrorism seriously. Members on this side of the House feel that we must do anything but take these threats lightly. Indeed, we must tackle terrorism more efficiently, but unfortunately, with Bill S-7, I do not see how we can tackle international terrorism efficiently. I find that terribly sad.

I would like my colleagues opposite to consider the fact that our very own land borders are becoming porous. We have serious problems at borders in many of our communities, not just in Quebec. I would suggest that the government talk to Canada Border Services Agency officers to see what the people on the ground think of the situation.

As for gun control, as noted in the Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism's technical guide, it is time to deal with this issue, not to turn a blind eye to it. We have to do this because it is extremely important.

As an expectant mother, I am very worried that the government is not taking this issue seriously enough. I am extremely disappointed that the government is turning terrorism into an extremely political issue. The government should focus on national security, it has to honour our international agreements, and it is really missing an excellent opportunity to work with all parties in the House.

The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the motion that Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my speech by thanking my NDP colleagues who have given excellent speeches before me today about Bill S-7.

I was not very familiar with this bill and so I took the time to do some in-depth research yesterday in order to better understand its objective. I spent some time learning about the UN counter-terrorism committee and researched its activities. We are a member of this committee and work a great deal with it. On its Internet site, I found the Technical Guide to the Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted in 2001 following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. This guide was prepared by the counter-terrorism committee executive directorate. It is an extremely interesting and substantial document that contains a number of suggestions for member countries on how to effectively fight terrorism throughout the world.

I examined the most effective means of fighting terrorism. I am repeating this term because it stands out the most in this document.

In reviewing chapter 2, I was struck by two points which I found to be very important and which the government has unfortunately not addressed. I am referring to section 2 on eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists and section 10 on effective border controls. My colleague from Brome—Missisquoi will probably agree with me that we currently have a serious problem with border control.

This week there was a very serious incident in British Columbia during which a border services officer was shot at our border. That is very serious. In Brome—Missisquoi, Compton—Stanstead and Montreal's entire south shore, which borders the United States, there have been reports of many illegal crossings lately. I heard that last night, 11 people crossed this border illegally. This is a rather glaring problem that could be very serious for our national security. Refugees enter our country. We are here to welcome them and we must treat them in accordance with the international treaties we have signed.

There is something that worries me more—my colleagues have talked about this at length—and that is the smuggling of drugs, tobacco products and illegal firearms. This is very serious. Like many of my colleagues, I have met with border services officers, including those near Sherbrooke. They told me things that are extremely difficult to hear. They told me that they do not have time to search everyone and that they have to work quite quickly sometimes because they are understaffed and do not have enough resources to do their jobs properly.

That is sad to hear. We are currently debating a bill to combat terrorism when, according to the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee's technical guide, we have other problems that require our immediate attention. If our border is porous, then we face a very serious threat of terrorism.

I would suggest to the government across the way that it re-examine its priorities and address the existing problem with our border security. That is my first point. A number of my colleagues could elaborate on what is happening on the ground.

The government across the way cut the border services' budget by $146 million. That is extremely serious for our national security. The union said that 260 front-line jobs would be cut in Quebec alone. That is extremely serious because it has a direct impact on our national security and our fight against terrorism.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we can sit here and keep debating Bill S-7 and make very little difference, if any, in people's lives and we can keep saying that we have now tackled terrorism, when we know this is not going tackle terrorism, or we could be dealing with issues that really matter to Canadians.

I have had the privilege of travelling across the country and going to different communities. As much as people are concerned about a huge number of issues, there are some basic issues that they get down to. They care about having a universal health care system that is functional and that meets their needs. They care about having an economy that is sustainable and that grows decent paying jobs here instead of sending our resources overseas or instead of bringing in temporary foreign workers to whom we pay a lot less without making those jobs available to Canadians.

They also care very deeply about education. They are very concerned about our youth. I do not know if it is because I am teacher and that is why they always talk to me about education, but wherever I go, people always to talk about what we will do to invest in our children. The best way to invest in our children is through education and developing preventive programs.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her wonderful speech. I agree with her that Bill S-7 creates a false sense of security.

The NDP supports the fight against terrorism. However, if I understand correctly, the government is not investing the necessary resources in our police forces, intelligence agencies, and so on. This bill will thus only serve to camouflage the Conservatives' inaction and pull the wool over Canadians' eyes. What is more, this bill does not respect human rights.

I am a criminologist by training, and I must say that I found it refreshing to hear talk of things like prevention, enhancing Canadians' quality of life, strengthening the social fabric, working on the dropout rate, and investing in education, social services, affordable housing. I liked that.

I would like the hon. member to talk about the real problems that are of concern to Canadians, whether it be the economy, ethics or the environment, In her opinion, what are the real problems that are of concern to Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge right upfront that Bill S-7 does make some changes. It is important to note that it does create some additional offences that would help in certain situations. For example, where there is planning to commit a terrorist attack outside of Canada, our law enforcement agencies would have a little more to go on to potentially prevent a terrorist attack in another country by individuals who might be attempting to leave Canada to commit that offence. I suspect the vast majority of the public would not question the validity and need to have those offences brought into the legislation.

I believe it was a Conservative senator who talked about the bill as being a deterrent. This type of thing I have a difficult time with. This is yet another piece of legislation that the government has brought in and has said that it will be a deterrent.

I would ask my colleague to provide comment on this type of legislation not deterring or preventing someone from committing a crime. It would not cause a person to think twice in terms of committing a terrorist attack. It might enable the police to act or be better equipped to act, but it would not prevent one from committing an attack.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak against the legislation.

Bill S-7 would amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. These are weighty matters when we are talking about the security of the country. Opposing the bill is not a position that we take lightly. Whenever we move legislation and develop new statutes, we always need to carefully weigh whether they are effective tools. If they are effective tools, we need to know how they will be used and what the costs will be? I would argue that this legislation would not be an effective tool to either stop or deter actions of terrorism.

Elements of the legislation, which are being brought back after the sunset clause expired, were brought in at a time when the world was gripped with the incident on 9/11. I do not think I need to ask if people remember where they were on that particular date. We all remember where we were as we watched with horror that whole scene play out before us.

In response to the terrible act of terrorism that occurred on that day, there was a quick reaction around the globe to look for a quick fix, that one thing that would fix it and ensure such an event would never occur again. However, we know from our history that there is no magic pill.

When these particular clauses were in effect, the ones that have now expired and the government is trying to bring back, they were only invoked once and that was during the Air India investigation. I do not think anyone would disagree when that was characterized as being one of our biggest fiascos. We have statutes, laws and systems in place to tackle the issues that this legislation purports to tackle.

What we need to look at is the broader scourge of terrorism. If there is no magic pill, what are some of the effective tools that we should be utilizing? Intelligence would be one of them and enforcement would be another. The government should be looking at investing in these areas and ensuring that enforcement has the resources it needs in order to utilize the tools it has right now.

We must oppose the bill because it would be so ineffective at combatting terrorism. It also would unnecessarily infringe on our civil liberties, which we value. We live in a country where we have a parliamentary democracy, we live by the rule of law and we value our freedoms. Bill S-7 would violate one of the most basic civil liberties and human rights, specifically, the right to remain silent and the right not to be imprisoned without first having a fair trial. We need take time to reflect on that because, when we start moving away from those Canadian values, we need to ask ourselves what we are putting at risk.

The Criminal Code currently contains all the necessary provisions for investigating those who are engaged in criminal activity and law enforcement has the ability to detain anyone who may present an immediate threat to Canadians. We can look at this and ask why we are debating this in the House today. I would say that we are debating it in the House today because the government is trying to deflect from its lack of action on key issues that are very important to Canadians and important to the security of our communities. It is a way to distract from the massive changes that are being made to our immigration policies. It is a way to distract from the fact that many Canadians are without work. It is a way to distract from the budget, or, I should say, the telephone book, that will be before the House in the next few days.

We have all this talk about terrorism. After 9/11, it was not a good time to be joking about terrorism, but the world was engaged in trying to find out where Osama bin Laden was. I can remember wondering where we were looking. I will always remember something that was said to me by a dear friend of mine. She said that he was probably sitting in a New York cafe drinking lattes, wearing an Armani suit, while everybody else was running around.

At that time, there was this fear around the globe, and I would say especially in North America and Europe. We were looking for ways to take control of terrorism. the one thing we have learned over the years is that this is a scourge that is not that easy to take on. Terrorists do not go around wearing signs saying that they are terrorists and that they should be picked up and taken in for questioning.

When we create new legislation, we need to create legislation that will be effective, useful and do what it purports to do. There is no way that this legislation would achieve what it claims to achieve. There is definitely a huge imbalance in this bill between security and the basic rights that we value as Canadians.

I wish I could get the opposition to focus on tackling some of the real issues facing communities around the country. I will talk a little bit about my riding of Newton—North Delta. We are very concerned about the safety of our communities in Surrey and North Delta. One of the reasons we are really concerned is that we are very worried about the high level of gun violence we have seen over the last number of years.

What we are looking for is some action, some support, some strategies and some commitment of resources to combat that kind of gun violence that is taking place on our streets and having an impact on our youth in a huge way. I do not have enough fingers on both my hands to count the number of young people we have lost due to gun violence.

When it comes to gun violence, all we get is the government saying that it will do away with the gun registry. That really did not help to tackle that problem. Then we hear about firmer sentences. I want to remind everyone that the U.S. has what I would consider one of the firmest sentences, and that is the death penalty. I am so pleased that we do not have that. It has the death penalty and, despite that, gun violence and violent crime have not declined. It also has the highest level of people in prisons. That also has not led to crime or gun violence being reduced.

What is it that we as government should be looking at? I think it is time for all levels of government to invest in a serious way in education. It is time we take seriously that we need to tackle the issues that drive our youth toward violence, the drug trade and gang activity. We need to tackle issues such as poverty, homelessness, mental illness and economic insecurity, that feeling of not belonging. There are so many things we need to tackle and yet what do we have in front of us?

We have a bill in front of us that actually attacks two of our most valued basic rights: the right not to be imprisoned without first having a fair trial and the right to remain silent. In a way, those measures would do absolutely nothing to tackle terrorism. If we are really talking about the security of the nation, we should look at our communities across Canada and ask ourselves what we can do to tackle the root causes of our young and not so young getting engaged in a world of crime and being enticed by that kind of lifestyle.

Our focus should be fully on that issue but I see very little of that from across the way. We hear a lot about more prisons, higher sentences and sentences for minor infractions, almost as if sending people to prison and punishing people will solve our problems.

One of the things I have learned as a teacher is that positive reinforcement and preventive measures are far better tools and much cheaper, meaning not so hard on us emotionally or financially, than going down the punitive road, especially with legislation that will do nothing, but on paper it will give the PMO another opportunity to write speaking notes to say that the government is tackling terrorism.

Our legislation should not be there just for the purpose of giving the PMO an opportunity to make more speaking notes, especially when the legislation will not achieve the results it purports it is trying to tackle. Instead, we need to ask parliamentarians to start tackling the facts that tell the federal government that we need a national strategy on affordable housing. We need to seriously tackle the child poverty rate in this country. Some people will ask what that has to do with safety and security. I cannot imagine anything more critical to our safety and security than ensuring our children are fed, housed and educated. That is what we are all about.

It does not matter where we have come from, what we value as Canadians right across this country is living in safe communities. However, we also know that punitive measures do not necessarily achieve safe communities. As a teacher, I realize and recognize, and I am sure others do as well, the value of putting money into preventative measures.

For the youth in our cities who are struggling, let us invest some money into some prevention programs. A lot of those community programs that used to keep our kids off the street and used to help them develop the skills to integrate into society and to be productive members of our communities have been cut. The funding to those programs is gone.

This is just so it looks as if we are doing something. We are spending hours debating this piece of legislation, while people in our communities are asking us what we are doing to tackle the issues that are hurting them right there at home.

Over the last number of years, when the Liberals were in power, my community saw a task force on gang violence. It led nowhere. People getting together just to talk is not going to solve the problem. We need the funding to put action and programs into place. I appeal to my colleagues across the way to take a look at the security of our communities and work together to develop strategies and action plans. Then, let us apply the resources so that our communities can feel safe and we can tackle this disconnect that our youth are feeling and therefore being enticed into drug-related gangs that do a lot of harm in our communities. It would probably take a lot less money than some of the measures purported in the bill, which would actually lead to no change at all and would probably hardly ever be used.

To put somebody in prison for a year, I believe, the cost is now over $80,000. Yet right across this country, we are not willing to spend more than $8,000, $9,000, $10,000 or for some about $12,000 a year to educate our children. We have to look at investment in education but also investment in the early years, because we know how important those years are to young people as they proceed through life.

We should also talk about other areas we could be investing in. I was quite taken aback when I read some of the staggering figures in here. The Rideau Institute released a report that said that the various branches of government that are involved in the fight against terrorism in Canada received $92 billion more than they would have normally received. That is quite a staggering figure. Obviously, money is not the issue here. It is about where we want to allocate our resources. If we really want to tackle security for our communities, let us deal with issues that can make a real difference.

Let us not fake it with a bill that purports to bring back a couple of clauses that were used only once, which was a disaster, and have not really been missed. The police and intelligence officers already have the resources and statutes they need to keep us safe and secure. Instead, let us look at how we can support the structures we have and how we can invest in prevention and rehabilitation programs. One thing I have learned is that when looking at rehabilitation, hitting somebody on the head is not how to get them to reform their ways. It usually takes a lot more than that and that is where we have to make our investment, because our children deserve nothing less.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill S-7 today because it is a bill that comes to us from that wonderful other place. That other place is the gift that keeps on giving. This is one of those rare and special opportunities to see the senators at work during their very, very long mandate. We might forget they exist sometimes. Alas, Eppur si muove, and yet it moves, as Galileo said.

I would like read the title of Bill S-7 to put things into context. The title is: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. Behind this rather banal title lies a series of measures that seek to amend our anti-terrorism laws. All these changes originate in the panic that followed the events of September 11, 2001, and for good reason. The west woke up one morning with a very real threat at its doorstep. Our American neighbours were hit hard, and we all came to realize that the North American fortress might be much more vulnerable than we ever thought.

Since then, we have been trying as best we can to balance our fear, our lack of understanding and our ability to defend ourselves. It is quite normal to want to protect one's country against terrorism. It is also quite normal to want to help one's neighbour and closest ally. In spite of their great expertise, Americans have had to face terrorism in the worst possible way: their country was attacked and their citizens killed without warning.

However, Canada has little experience with terrorism. Our country has practically never been attacked by a foreign power, other than the United States, and it is probably not a top target for anyone. That does not mean that we must not be prudent. Just the same, I want to remind everyone that the threat, although possible, is really a perceived threat.

For Canadians, acts of violence and terror over the years have amounted to the occasional shooting, except for the Air India incident in 1987. The destruction of the Air India Boeing by a bomb off the coast of Ireland was a brutal wake-up call for our security services. It is a shameful tragedy that laid bare our weaknesses. One year later, there was the bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie. Air safety is no longer what it used to be before that.

Shootings in Canada—I am thinking of École Polytechnique and Dawson College—are not acts of terrorism. We were all shocked and alarmed by these horrific incidents, but they were isolated attacks and not politically motivated. To prevent these desperate acts of violence, we created the long gun registry, which the Conservatives are trying to abolish as quickly as possible. Bill S-7 would not have prevented these isolated acts of terror that took place in Canada on a number of occasions.

I lived in a country where terrorism is an everyday threat. People always have to be on their guard in Moscow. Before getting onto the subway, they glance suspiciously at the other passengers. In very busy public places, people are always gripped by the fear that something could happen. There are often serious attacks in Russia.

Simply sending a parcel through the Russian postal service is quite an undertaking. People have to wrap their parcel in front of the postal worker, who then seals the package with special tape. It can easily take 30 minutes. It is a simple act of everyday life that has become very complicated by the fear of fear. I am not criticizing the Russians; they manage this situation the best they can within their means.

No matter what anybody says, Canada has never known such a climate of fear. Although some members of this House like to describe certain current political parties in Quebec as extremist, I would like to remind everyone that Québec solidaire has nothing to do with the Front de libération du Québec. Really, people can rest easy.

We could also talk about domestic terrorism, which is a much more insidious threat, because no one wants to imagine that it is possible. Two years ago, who could have predicted a terrorist attack right in the middle of Oslo, Norway, the most peaceful, most prosperous, most educated and nicest country in the world? No one could have.

What does Bill S-7 propose to combat terrorism and better protect Canadians? I would not say nothing at all, but almost nothing. The original aim of the Anti-terrorism Act was to update Canadian laws to meet international standards, particularly UN requirements, and to provide a legislative response to the events of September 11, 2001.

Since 2001, we have had an opportunity to review that legislation, which was passed in response to a specific event that threw people into a state of panic. We have since learned that there is actually nothing to justify such a law. When those provisions expired in 2007, there had never been any investigative hearing required or any situation that called for recognizance with conditions.

Canada's Anti-terrorism Act was brought in line with similar legislation passed by our traditional allies. Furthermore, the Criminal Code contains plenty of provisions to deal with such matters efficiently and quickly, and without violating anyone's basic human rights.

Bill S-7 would also take away fundamental civil rights. We understand that the threat of terrorism is elusive, unpredictable and can easily escape our vigilance. But we must not become completely paranoid. As I said earlier, although it is always possible, Canada is not a target for anyone.

The whole spirit of Bill S-7 is much more about the need to protect the United States. It is as though we were implicitly accepting that Canada itself is not threatened, but could be used as a conduit. We are afraid of being a waiting room for the United States, where jihadists come to prepare their bombs. Is that it? We have to wonder whether this is simply a request from the United States, as was the case in 2001, but I doubt it. It is definitely no longer 2001, and the United States has turned a page and is no longer putting the same kind of pressure on Canada.

So why insist on bringing back clauses that expired in 2007? Why the urgency? Why is the Senate sending us this uninspired legislation that is 10 years old? What are we to make of this unforeseen development?

I can think of two explanations. First, this bill has come to Parliament to distract Canadians from the government's paltry legislative agenda. The government also has to show that it uses its Senate caucus from time to time. If it is going to serve us legislative leftovers, it might as well send them out from the Senate kitchen. Canadians do not know where the senators are coming from. Maybe they are stuck in some kind of parliamentary twilight zone. The senators have nothing to worry about because they are not accountable to the Canadian public and will not have to answer to voters in three years. We might as well say they are accountable only to God himself.

The other possible explanation is that the Conservative government wants to get rid of these sunset clauses once and for all, since they are no longer applicable because they were never used. I think that the government does not even want them and is debating Bill S-7 without really believing in it. I cannot wait to see the results of the vote at second reading, because I think that Bill S-7 is nothing more than an attempt to show that the senators do work. That is too bad; there were bills from the other place that were much more relevant and substantial. The Senate is filled with talented, intelligent, accomplished people. It is time to make use of them.

One of the things that bothers me the most about this Senate bill is that this is not the first time we have debated this issue. Witnesses have come and told us in no uncertain terms that some provisions of this bill create glaring problems. The legislation that is being introduced again has never been used and may never be. People explained that to us in great detail. Clearly, no one is thrilled about these provisions. They are not of interest to anyone and do not serve anyone. In fact, they create more problems than they solve, which is somewhat counterproductive.

I have also lived in a country where the police had too much arbitrary authority and where almost anyone could be arrested anywhere, at any time and for any reason. There are not 75 different ways to become a police state. The first step is to give too much discretionary power to security services on the pretext of all sorts of potential and invented threats. We must not take that step.

Why start compromising our civil liberties now, 11 years after the events of September 11, when the days of the war on terrorism started by President Bush are pretty much over? Why?

I would like to quote one of the witnesses, Ihsaan Gardee, the executive director of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations. He said:

Some legal commentators have argued that there is a narrow gap within the Canadian context in which preventive detention has utility. However, there are significant risks associated with overreaching state powers, such as the ability to detain someone for up to 72 hours. To jeopardize civil liberties for a potential yet unrealized circumstance pushes the boundaries between civil rights and concrete national security concerns.

In other words, it is like getting on a train when we do not know exactly where it is going to take us. We have never acted this way in this country. We will not do it now, and we will never do it. We are more intelligent than that, and if ever there are threats that need to be dealt with, I am convinced that our existing laws will be sufficient to get the job done.

In conclusion, I would like to remind the hon. members that this bill is a rather sad collection of provisions that do not amount to much of anything. These issues have already been debated. The bill goes against what everyone agreed upon and is extremely disappointing. I have the right to expect that, when the other chamber thinks it is appropriate to send a bill to the House of Commons, it will make the effort to suggest relevant solutions. That is not the case here, and I am very disappointed.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to recognition and understanding of some of the other ridings in the country, she is very right. She is bang on when she says there is an extremely high population of newer immigrants in my riding, and we are already concerned. Before Bill S-7 was introduced, we were already concerned about racial profiling. If we look at our prison populations, we see mostly racialized youth being detained.

We know racial profiling is a serious concern for many organizations and members in the community, and when we look at some of these bills, it seems it is an underhanded way of achieving some of the goals the government was not able to achieve in previous Parliaments. Now that the government has the majority of seats in the House, it wants to push anything and everything through that it could not achieve before.

We know that the House voted down the special provisions that were not needed and not used from 2001 to 2007 when they were in effect. The investigative hearing was used once, and the recognizance of conditions was never used.

Officers and legal experts in this country are saying they are not necessary, yet the government, of course, says it is very necessary for the protection of Canadians. I am going to side with the experts on this and not the government.