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.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about this at the beginning of his speech, but I would like to give him the opportunity to speak some more about the fact that the government seems to want to make this issue a priority.

Yet, the minister did not feel it was necessary to introduce the bill himself; he left it to the Senate. What is more, it was tabled a week after the events in Boston.

Is my colleague disappointed that the government is not taking this more seriously given the many times it has invoked closure since the start of the 41st Parliament and given the fact that this issue seems urgent because of what we saw yesterday and what happened in Boston a week ago? Instead, it introduces bills in the Senate and waits so that it can use them to score political points.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Chambly—Borduas for his question.

He is doing an excellent job in his constituency. He is doing a great job on the shale gas issue, for example, in order to protect the environment in his riding. His constituents are very proud of him.

He is quite right. The people of my riding, Drummond, commemorated those who sadly passed away in Boston and all the families affected by this tragedy. My constituents ran a 5 km race to express their dismay and show their courage in the face of such tragedy.

Yes, the fight against terrorism must continue and on several fronts. Yes, legislative measures might be necessary. The problem with regard to Bill S-7 is that the Conservatives did not do their job in committee, once again.

We put forward 18 amendments that had been recommended by expert witnesses. The Conservatives did not even bother to vote in favour of those amendments.

As my colleague mentioned, if the Conservative government is so serious about the steps it is taking, why is this bill not a government bill?

Why did this bill come from the Senate, an unelected, controversial body that is currently dealing with an endless series of financial scandals? These are all very pertinent questions. I thank my hon. colleague for his comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the fourth reincarnation of this particular piece of legislation. It has been what the member refers to as “C” bill, a Commons bill in the past. It is now a Senate bill.

There are some comments on which I agree with the New Democrats, and some issues that we have raised in the past, including the issue of providing the resources that are necessary to have boots on the ground at different borders, custom officers, and so forth, where we have seen significant cuts coming from the government. This will not do well in terms of dealing with the issue of combatting terrorism.

Having said that, it is important for us to recognize that we have had law enforcement officers and other experts come before the committee who have indicated that in fact there is a need for this investigative tool and that they do believe it would be of some benefit. Even if they have not used it in the past, that does not necessarily mean that it has no place in the future.

Does the member believe that this investigative tool could potentially be valid if in fact the NDP had gotten its amendments through?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North. He mentioned the work that was done in committee.

On that point, I would like to add that the NDP worked very hard in committee. We put forward 18 amendments based on the advice and recommendations of expert witnesses.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party did not propose any amendments in committee, as though it thought the bill were perfect. I find this a little strange on the Liberals' part.

However, I do agree with my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North on one thing: we do not need Bill S-7. What we need instead is more financial and human resources to effectively fight terrorism.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am conflicted somewhat as I begin my remarks today in that I object profoundly to the fact that this bill is designated S-7 instead of C-7, or whatever number it may get when it is introduced properly by the democratically elected members of Parliament in Canada's parliamentary system. I have never seen, in my 15 years as a member of Parliament, such a proliferation of bills originating in the other place. It used to be a rare exception. I think you will be able to back me on this, Mr. Speaker. It was the exception, not the rule.

Let us remind ourselves and make a statement here and now, and I urge members of Parliament present to make a statement today, that we should not tolerate, or entertain, or debate, or accept bills that come from the undemocratic, unelected and, we believe, ineffectual and even embarrassing other place, the Senate of Canada.

My views on this have changed dramatically. I have known you a long time, Mr. Speaker, and I think we have had this conversation. I used to be one of the only New Democrats who I knew of who did not want to abolish the Senate, even though the original Regina Manifesto that was the guiding document of the founding of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, the predecessor to my party, did. Article 9 of the Regina Manifesto was to abolish the unelected, undemocratic, ineffective, et cetera, Senate. We wanted to get rid of it back then because it was a repository for hacks and flacks and idiot nephews of some rich Liberals and Conservatives that they could not find another job for, a place-holding thing for a bunch of hacks and flacks. They wanted to get rid of it then, but I did not agree, only for one reason.

There was a time, a dark period in our history, where we lost party status and were down to nine members. The Conservative Party was down to two members. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, how wildly the pendulum swings in Canadian politics. In Brian Mulroney's second term, I believe it was, he had 202 members and by the time that term of office finished, it was down to 2. Our party did not fare that much better. We were down to nine. The difference was that the Conservative Party had two members of Parliament but 35 or 40 senators. It still had all kinds of resources, money and things it could do. Its caucus consisted of 30 or 40 people. Even though it only had two elected members, it had 35 unelected members in its caucus. The NDP had nine members of Parliament and no senators.

I thought to myself that it might be a good idea if we accepted some of the invitations to sit in the Senate. Why should there not be a New Democrat in the Senate? Some of my colleagues are objecting to my reasoning and the thought process that has brought me there. As I say, my thinking has changed once again because I have been so profoundly offended by the antics of the other place in recent years that I now fully and wholeheartedly believe and accept that the Senate cannot be repaired. It has to be abolished. A Triple-A Senate—

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

Is that your final answer?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That is my final answer. I doubt that I will prevaricate any further, and let me provide one compelling reason why.

I do not know if you know this, Mr. Speaker, but you will be shocked. Talk about an inherent conflict of interest. Senators are allowed to sit on boards of directors of companies and some sit on as many as 10 or 12 boards of directors and get paid for each one. How can they objectively deal with legislation? Some of them would have to recuse themselves from everything if they sit on the board of directors of Onex Corporation. Onex Corporation has everything in its portfolio. Senators would never be able to legitimately, objectively adjudicate and vote on any single thing. They could not even phone out for pizza because Onex Corporation, in fact, owns a whole bunch of pizza parlour chains. That is one problem.

The other thing is senators take fees for speaking. Can anyone imagine the audacity of being appointed for life a sinecure of $150,000 a year, plus travel, plus expenses, and yet when they speak somewhere, they charge a big, fat speaker's fee? That offends me. That offends the sensibility of any thinking democratic Canadian, I would think.

Also, many senators engage in purely partisan political work. Let me give an example. The head of the Conservative campaign for my home province of Manitoba was a senator, Don Plett.

If you are wondering about relevance, Mr. Speaker, I am giving my reasons why Bill S-7 should be marched down the hallway back to the Senate and presented to the senators. I am tired of getting marched down there to ask them to give royal assent to our legislation. Let them traipse down here for a change, and I will give them a piece of my mind. In the meantime, if we ever do go on another parade, we should pile up all these pieces of legislation that originated in the Senate and bring them back to them. They can keep them down there.

Another thing that bothers me is why senators would use public money to buy Obama's database. They spent a couple million dollars to buy the best political database in the world, a voter contact system. It is the best in the world, and we know this because we tried to buy it ourselves. However, we cannot buy it, because if it has already been licensed to one person or one party in a country, it will not be sold to another party. The Liberal senators used their budget to chip in and buy a database for the Liberal Party. Why would senators need a database? They are not elected. They do not to contact electors. Why are they spending public money to buy a database? Again, it offends the sensibility of any thinking Canadian.

The last thing I will say in preface to my remarks on the bill is what is really crazy. The entire Conservative war room is on the public payroll. The Conservatives appointed their party president, chief fundraiser, campaign manager and communications director to the campaign to the Senate so they could all operate on taxpayer dollars. It is not just their salaries, it is their travel privileges and their staff. They have become an organ of the Conservative Party of Canada.

The same is true of the Liberal Party. I know who the chief bagman for the Liberal Party is. I know him well. He does not apologize for it. He comes from Manitoba. It his job to raise money for the Liberal Party, but now he is paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. The Liberals do not have to pay him a salary anymore to do that; the taxpayer does. That is such an egregious abuse of any of the original intent forming the Senate of Canada as a chamber of sober second thought, et cetera.

Manitoba used to have a senate. We got rid of it back at the turn of the last century. Other provinces used to have senates, and they got rid of them too. We do not need a senate anymore. We do not need it, and not only is it not serving any useful purpose, it is counterproductive to the democratic process, because those guys are interfering. When Senator Don Plett comes to Manitoba and is paid full time to run the Conservative Party election campaign in the province of Manitoba, does nobody see what is wrong with that?

It just rubs salt in the wound to have to stand in the House of Commons and deal with legislation coming from the Senate. Nobody elected the senators to make legislation. Nobody gave them a mandate to create legislation. Why the hell is it coming to us in the form of Bill S-anything? We should make it abundantly clear that we will not tolerate it anymore. That is my view.

I see that I only have one minute left to deal with the substance of the bill. The main message that I wanted to convey today is how chronically disappointed I am in the system. It is broken down to the degree that the government of the day has to slip things through the Senate at its convenience.

I believe that the opportunism of raising this bill at this time speaks to the very worst of neo-conservative fearmongering of politics. It trivializes the tragedy of Boston and it does a disservice to the important debate that we need to have regarding the first duty of any government, which is to keep its citizens safe. This is the wrong way to go about it.

The Conservatives are probably feeling quite sheepish that most of them are better members of Parliament than that, having to be put in the situation of promoting this bill at this time and in this context.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agreed with some of the final points of my colleague's intervention. We can have a discussion about Senate reform, but it is also important to recognize this. The member provided one view of the Canadian Senate, but he did not recognize a lot of the important and constructive work done in the Senate. I will reference a couple of contributions to public policy that have made a difference in Canada and have contributed significantly to solutions to some of the most difficult issues facing the country.

The Kirby report on health care reform and the recommendations on mental health are one example. We need to do a lot more on mental health issues, but those are a couple of examples of very important contributions made by former Senator Michael Kirby. However, more recently, and I am being constructive here because I know the hon. member is fair and will share with me the admiration for some of the good work being done in the Senate, Senator Percy Downe has done extremely important work on the issue of tax havens. I know the member for Brossard—La Prairie, the former revenue critic, has worked closely with Senator Downe and his staff on this area. I know the new NDP member for Victoria is working with Senator Downe's office and benefiting from that research.

It is important to recognize, as we discuss the other place, that there are very positive contributions to the work that we do here and from time to time to provide at least a balanced view of the work done in the Canadian Senate.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my friend from Kings—Hants knows full well that much of the work that he cited as being worthwhile could be done by parliamentary committees if they were given the power, the authority and the resources that were promised to us in the Reform Party days when we used to have these conversations about giving meaningful work to committees and giving them meaningful resources to do it. We do not need a senate to have a comprehensive study on the situation of mental health in our country. I too have worked with senators on various projects, and again, that work could be done by elected members of Parliament.

I think the Senate is beyond reform. I used to think that everything that was wrong with the Senate could be fixed through Senate reform, through various changes we could make. I have given up on that idea. It has been abused so egregiously in recent years. It has been stacked and stuffed with hacks and flacks to the point where it is irredeemable. Having a two-tiered Senate is only going to compound the problem and make it worse.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's remarks. I found a parallel to what he was talking about with the Senate and the current government in a majority situation. The point on Bill S-7 is that the government can act just like senators. The Conservatives do not care when they have a majority situation at committee. When we put forward 18 amendments to the bill, they were all voted down and ignored. In fact, expert testimony was ignored.

I have a quote I would like the member from Winnipeg to talk about. Mr. Paul Calarco, who is a member of the National Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association, says:

There is no question that the prevention of terrorist action is vital to preserving our society. This requires effective legislation, but also legislation that respects the traditions of our democracy. Unfortunately, this bill fails to achieve either goal.

Would my friend like to comment on that, perhaps even referencing the Senate again?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on what was a very legitimate and serious question. In my view, the way the bill is being treated on this day in the aftermath of one of the greatest terrorism attacks in North American history and the undermining of another attempt at terrorism, trivializes and politicizes the issue and does a disservice to how serious it is an obligation of a government to keep its citizens safe.

If the government were serious about doing all it could to co-operatively work with Parliament to act in the best interests of Canadians, if we were in fact under siege or under attack, there should be a war cabinet attitude where the leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister, would bring together the leaders of the other parties and work collaboratively to act in the best interests of Canadians, not to rehash this flawed legislation, especially through the back door of the other place where it has no business originating.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, or the combating terrorism act.

Of course, we must begin today by marking the events that have taken place in recent weeks. Last Monday, two bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring 183 others. That event touched every one of us in the House. We were deeply moved by the news and that is probably the reason why the entire House has risen to condemn that attack.

Yesterday, we also learned the facts surrounding the VIA Rail conspiracy. Our security services were successful in dismantling a terrorist plot. This was an outstanding achievement on the part of our law enforcement agencies, the RCMP and CSIS, which worked together with the FBI and Homeland Security. This situation clearly demonstrates that we can work together to combat terrorism, and that is very important to the NDP.

Before analyzing Bill S-7, we have to talk about its history. We must not forget that the Anti-terrorism Act that was brought forward in 2001, after the September 11 attacks, changed Canadian law. In response to a very tragic event that moved the entire world, Canada brought forward a number of initiatives and laws that tackled the problem of terrorism. At the time, this was a spontaneous reaction; the government then was not sure whether these provisions should be retained or re-enacted. It passed a sunset clause, so the provisions and measures would expire and it could re-examine the situation to see whether the laws should be brought forward again.

In 2007, in the House, by a vote of 159 to 124, those measures were rejected. At that time, the Liberals were also opposed to them. The present Conservative majority government, however, has decided to bring these provisions back in the form of Bill S-7, which comes from the other Chamber.

We have spoken out against it and, as the media have reported, we are outraged that the Conservatives have exploited a tragic situation in a way that is unworthy of parliamentarians. I am talking about the Boston bombings and the plot that was foiled.

That is a very political and partisan way of using a situation that impacts everyone to push a bill through. If the Conservatives were serious about this, they would have introduced it in the House, not in the Senate. The Conservatives have been dragging their feet on this bill since February 2012. Taking advantage of this kind of situation to push a bill through and score political points is very partisan and cheap.

It is not surprising that we are opposed to Bill S-7. We are simply reiterating our 2007 position. Plus, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has done studies. I would like to thank our critic, the member for Toronto—Danforth, who has worked so hard on this file. He utilized every resource, studied the subject in detail and capably advised us and guided us on this matter.

Bill S-7 has four main objectives. First, it will amend the Criminal Code to allow for investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions. Second, it will amend the Canada Evidence Act to allow judges to order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information about a trial or an accused once the appeal period has expired. Third, it will amend the Criminal Code to create new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit a terrorist act. Fourth, it will amend the Security of Information Act to increase the maximum penalty for harbouring a person who has committed or is likely to commit a terrorist act.

I have spoken a little about the background to these provisions, but I would like to go into greater detail about the reasons why the NDP is opposed to the bill.

We believe that Bill S-7 violates civil liberties and human rights. Having sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I will say that we increasingly feel we must strike a balance. On the one hand, the purpose of the bill is to protect the public, but, on the other hand, we must look out for our rights and freedoms, which really are the basis of our democracy.

Unfortunately, and we see a lot of this in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Conservatives increasingly introduce bills that violate the charter and violate rights and freedoms. Not surprisingly, many of the Conservatives' bills are now before the Supreme Court. Even the provinces have to oppose them and institute legal proceedings. This process costs us an enormous amount of money. If the Conservatives did a better job, we would be sure to strike a better balance between rights and the purpose of the bills.

Consequently, one of the problems with Bill S-7 is that it violates the right to remain silent. It also violates the right not to be sent to prison without a fair trial. I personally do not sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but some of my colleagues there have heard witnesses from the legal community and civil liberties advocates, who really have said that the provisions of Bill S-7 are pointless, that there is a lack of balance between security and fundamental rights, particularly as regards the role of the Attorney General.

Let us briefly look at what happened after the Anti-terrorism Act was passed in 2001. There was the Maher Arar affair. The government went ahead with these types of measures and Mr. Arar, a Canadian, was deported. He was arrested in the United States and deported to Syria, where he was tortured. It later came out that all this had been done based on false information. The Prime Minister recently had to apologize and to pay $10.5 million in compensation, if I am not mistaken.

Let us not forgot that all that happened when the Liberals were in power. So that shows what the Liberals want to continue doing. I am a bit surprised that they have not learned their lesson. In 2007, they voted against the legislation, and now they have changed their minds. That may be because they have changed leaders and are therefore more supportive of what the Conservatives want to put forward. However, we find it quite surprising that the Liberals, who claim to be proud defenders of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are voting in favour of this bill as presented.

We in the NDP have studied the bill. We have proposed amendments designed to put forward a more balanced bill. As we often say, we must not just oppose, but also propose. So we made proposals and put forward 18 amendments that improved the bill's transparency, for example. They would have reduced the negative impact on civil liberties. Unfortunately, since the Conservatives were in the majority, all those amendments were, of course, rejected.

Mr. Paul Copeland, a lawyer from the Law Union of Ontario, said that in his opinion, the provisions we are looking at here—we were talking about Bill S-7 in committee—would unnecessarily change our legal landscape in Canada. He said that we must not adopt them and that in his opinion, they were not needed. Other provisions of the code provide various mechanisms for dealing with such individuals.

We also have the statement from Reid Morden, former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, who stated, in 2010, that police and security services “have perfectly sufficient powers to do their jobs.... They don't need any more new powers”.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, enlightening as usual.

I would like to ask him about the government's way of doing things. He already talked about it in his speech. I actually think the bill could have been passed a number of weeks, if not months, ago because it is here and we have been debating it for some time. The government brought it back as a way of setting aside a Liberal motion that would have embarrassed them. The government tends to avoid some debates and to bring others back on the agenda, when sad events take place.

Could the hon. member comment on the government's opportunistic attitude?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

He is absolutely right in saying that the Conservative government is being opportunistic. As I said, the tragic and horrific events that took place have affected all of us. However, the bill from the other place was introduced in February 2012, if I am not mistaken. That means that it has been sitting on the Conservatives' desk for some time. If the government had really been serious about this bill, it would not have introduced it at the other place. It would have done so itself.

We have seen it, the media have seen it, the Liberals have denounced it and we are denouncing it too. It was the government's response to avoid debating a motion on an embarrassing topic. To change the subject and to dazzle everyone, it brought back Bill S-7.

Last Friday, we saw the Conservatives respond in a knee-jerk way to protect themselves. Unfortunately, considering how important our rights and our discussions on major issues are, I think the government must not be opportunistic or partisan, but rather, must think about the interests of Canadians before it acts in such a manner.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched on this issue during his speech. I wonder if he could elaborate on the constitutionality of the bill, considering what we learned recently about a lawyer from the Department of Justice who was suspended without pay for saying that the Conservative government had lowered down to 5% the degree of certainty that its legislation complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the past, the Department of Justice would try to be at least 90% or 95% sure that a proposed piece of legislation was constitutional and would pass the test of compliance with the charter. Currently, that degree of certainty is somewhere between 5% and 10%.

I would like to hear the hon. member on this issue and on the possibility that Bill S-7 may not comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.