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

[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.

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

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

This issue was also raised by our justice critic, the hon. member for Gatineau, at the Standing Committee on Justice. We know that the government does not really have any structure to review government bills, and even less so for reviewing private member's bills.

We know that no study is done and that there is no established system to ensure that a bill does not go against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We asked that this matter be looked into, but since the Conservatives hold a majority they refused to do so. I was disturbed to find out that, even internally, it is no longer as important for a bill to comply with the charter. This opens the door to legal proceedings, which costs Canadians dearly. The government must go before the courts, including the Supreme Court. The costs involved are huge and, unfortunately, this is because the Conservatives behave in a partisan and ideological fashion, without really verifying what their laws introduce.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North, Public Safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for this warm welcome.

Considering what we are dealing with, what happened yesterday and what happened in Boston a week ago, I want to begin by offering my condolences to the families and loved ones of the Boston bombing victims. I am speaking on behalf of all my constituents, regardless of their political allegiance, and I also want to thank all those who helped foil the plot that we were informed about yesterday.

I travel regularly on VIA Rail, and I am pleased to see that people whom we do not always see in action, are doing an exceptional job, and I thank them for that.

Having said that, it is important to reflect on this issue, even though it is always a bit awkward to ask political questions after such incidents, because it may be interpreted as partisanship. However, that is precisely what we are seeing here today.

Since the beginning of the 41st Parliament, the government keeps resorting to gag orders and closure motions. We have to ask ourselves if this is really a priority for the government, considering that it has so often tried to ram bills through, under the pretext that they are important for the economy or for public safety. The reasons given by the government are sometimes trivial and are sometimes made up. We must ask ourselves that very important question. We must ask ourselves whether it is truly appropriate to suddenly bring this debate back in order to score political points.

We must also ask ourselves another question. If the minister is serious about improving legal actions relating to terrorism, why did he not present the bill himself in the House of Commons? Why delegate such an important task to the Senate, which is unelected and unaccountable to the public?

We were elected by the public as part of their civil rights to represent them. Given his numerous responsibilities, rising in the House to introduce a bill is the least a minister of State can do. This was another concern we had about this bill, and again it makes us wonder how serious the government is about this issue.

The Conservatives claim to be the great defenders of public safety and like to spit on the work of the opposition parties, particularly the work of the NDP. We have good reason to wonder whether they are serious about this matter, when they send bills to the Senate and impose gag orders.

I am very interested in this issue. At the risk of sounding young to some of my colleagues, the events of September 11, 2001, had a tremendous impact on me and affected a lot of people. Those events marked the beginning of my interest in politics. I was a teenager then. It is actually a big deal for me to admit that in a debate in the House. However, it is true, because I find it very interesting to look at it from that angle. As I result, I followed all the debates around those events and they sparked my interest in politics. We are all familiar with the debates that were held in the U.S. on the infamous patriot act and all those debates on civil rights and civil liberties, as well as constitutional issues.

In Canada, we have not been immune to those issues. A lawyer once said that just because unfortunate events take place and we do not support certain legal decisions, does not mean we automatically have to change the law. It is important to keep that in mind for debates like this.

After all, we cannot say that we want events like that to occur. Those attacks are clearly tragic events. It is shameful that members of our society think about doing such things, but we have to be very careful before we make any changes. The fact that a tragedy takes place does not mean that we must automatically change things. We must really take the time to look at existing measures. Before we change the law, we must look at what we can do for the people who are already doing this work.

Yesterday, members of the RCMP and various public security forces thwarted a plot despite the budget cuts imposed by a government that claims to be the champion of public safety.

In recent months, the NDP has raised a number of questions in the House. The members for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and Alfred-Pellan, our public safety critics, and the member for Gatineau, our justice critic, have asked questions about why the government has been talking up public safety while cutting staff at organizations that are working very hard to maintain this safety.

Before making major changes that will violate civil liberties, we must ensure that people already on the ground who are using existing measures are well equipped to continue doing what members of every political persuasion recognize as excellent work. This is a fundamental issue in this debate, given the major changes being proposed.

My colleague, the member for Brossard—La Prairie, and all my colleagues who spoke before me, talked about the debates on public safety that have taken place in the House over the past 10 years, since 9/11. The issue was whether or not a person should be detained for 72 hours.

Is it appropriate for Bill S-7 to be so broad in scope that it allows people who are not even suspected of committing terrorist acts to be detained? In committee, we saw that this was deliberate on the part of the government.

In my opinion, it is very disturbing to know, as my colleague from Gatineau said, that the government wants to keep things vague when an amendment is suggested. That is very problematic. We must be very careful when introducing bills about safety that could violate civil liberties. We have to be as clear as possible, no matter what our political leanings. We have to protect people's safety while ensuring that we continue to live in a free society that protects fundamental rights and civil liberties, which are extremely important.

The Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision along those same lines. Since it pertains to the subject of debate, I would like to tell the House that I had a conversation with my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth. He already mentioned this to the House. He told me that despite the Supreme Court decision, there are some good points in the existing legislation and that it is very important for us to keep in mind that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to make our own decisions.

I think it is important that we not view the Supreme Court as a body that decides for Parliament, but rather one that works in co-operation with Parliament to ensure that our laws properly reflect the values of our society.

For this reason, if the court has a problem with a bill, it can simply return it to Parliament. It does not always prescribe corrections, if I remember correctly from my courses on political and constitutional issues. It is important to have this dialogue. This debate has been going on for many years.

In 2007, about five years ago, it was noted that legislation proposed in the past had not changed anything in terms of people's safety and that the existing legislation was more than adequate.

I would therefore ask the government to reconsider its proposed legislation. We cannot support this bill because it infringes on civil liberties.

The government needs to take a good look in the mirror and decide to continue to give the necessary resources to the people we saw hard at work yesterday. That proves that they are doing an excellent job. The tools are already available to them. We need to continue to work with what we have. We should not be trying to make any major changes like the ones proposed in this bill. Those changes will achieve nothing and will only violate our civil liberties.

In closing, I want to point out once again that regardless of the political debates we might have, I think we all agree that we need to fight terrorism and protect Canadians. Let us do so responsibly. That is crucial to protecting the values of our society.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I bring in the comparison once again in regard to Bill C-55 and Bill S-7.

Bill C-55 deals with wiretapping. I quote what a judge indicated, and this is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling:

Section 184.4 contains a number of legislative conditions. Properly construed, these conditions are designed to ensure that the power to intercept private communications without judicial authorization is available only in exigent circumstances to prevent serious harm. To that extent, the section strikes an appropriate balance between an individual's s. 8 Charter rights and society's interests in preventing serious harm.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there difficulty with the system? Does the member have his BlackBerry on his desk?

I think that the member for Chambly—Borduas is ready to respond.

We will go back to the hon. member for Winnipeg North to finish the question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the point is that when we do the comparison between Bill C-55 and Bill S-7, both of them deal with individuals' rights. Both of them deal with issues related to the charter.

On the one hand, as the party that introduced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada a number of decades ago, we are very sensitive to the importance of individual rights.

Bill C-55 deals with wiretapping. This particular bill deals with investigative hearings. Both concerns were in regard to individual rights.

When it came time to vote on Bill C-55, every member of the House voted in favour of it. In the case of this particular bill, the NDP will be voting against it. The same arguments the NDP used to vote against it here in principle could have been used for Bill C-55. My question is this: why the inconsistency?

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

Mr. Speaker, they are two separate issues.

I do not want to put myself forward as an expert in the law, but what is important here is the issue of detention and the definition. I am referring, for example, to the fact that there is a definition under which it is possible to arrest people who have not necessarily been accused of an act of terrorism.

Without wanting to get involved in another debate, I would like to make a distinction between what I understood of the issue and the member's comments. There are two different issues at play.

I will stick to the debate on Bill S-7. When we talk about civil liberties, the key issue is the way in which people are defined when it comes to detention. That is what is important here, today. Once again, I stress that I am not an expert in the law. However, this nuance is extremely important.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comment. He could perhaps tell the member for Winnipeg North that, in fact, Bill C-55 was a response to an attack on sections of the Criminal Code that were amended in an exaggerated fashion. The response, given in the form of Bill C–55, met the Supreme Court's criteria. Moreover, as I said earlier, it was a slightly more prudent way of responding in terms of human rights.

We now have Bill S-7 before us, and it will probably be challenged. We will be forced to return with a bill that complies with the Supreme Court's requirements.

Indeed, it would seem that the NDP is the protector of the rights and freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would ask the member to comment on that. The Liberal Party no longer seems to understand the charter, or may have forgotten it; I do not know which is the case. Perhaps my colleague can shed light on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, these nuances are problematic, especially in light of the decisions that the court has previously made. I will come back to what needs to be done in terms of the court's decisions.

It is extremely disappointing that the Liberal Party supports the bill. We want to hear what the court has to say, but we also believe that, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to address the problem before it reaches that point.

I will repeat exactly what my colleagues have already said concerning the lawyer at the Department of Justice. Fortunately, he spoke publicly about the fact that the government was not conducting any prior verification. We are demonstrating due diligence to ensure that things do not reach that point. We have responsibilities as legislators.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the debate yesterday and today and one speech in particular caught my ear, and that was the debate brought forward by my colleague, the member for York South—Weston. He had a really good story in his speech and I want to pick up on that.

My colleague for York South—Weston was talking a lot about the recognizance with conditions, or preventative arrest powers. This provision is really problematic. We know now that it is even more problematic than we thought because of some things that happened at committee when this section was being explored.

On recognizance with conditions, or preventative arrest, we have section 83.3 of the Criminal Code. However, Bill S-7 tries to prevent terrorist acts, which is a laudable goal, but the question is: Would that section of the act actually meet that goal?

The bill would allow for someone to be arrested because the police believe the arrest necessary to prevent a terrorist attack, which makes good sense to me. However, we had some problems with the way this section was worded because it could be read to mean that someone could be arrested who is not actually a suspect. Perhaps we do not believe that the person is going to carry out the terrorist attack but might know someone who is going to carry out the terrorist attack. It is written in an overly broad way.

The NDP raised this at committee only to hear from the government side that in fact that was the intention. It is not just there to sort of scoop up the person who is actually the suspect but it is to scoop up other people as well, which is way too broad. It is far too broad and that should not be the intention of any anti-terrorist legislation. I do not think it strikes a balance when we look at what our fundamental rights are.

However, the reason I liked the speech of my colleague for York South—Weston is that he used an example of someone in our community, and I will do something similar.

My home town is Kirkland Lake, Ontario and I represent the riding of Halifax. If there was someone in Halifax, originally from Kirkland Lake, whom the authorities suspect may commit a terrorist act, the authorities could go to Kirkland Lake and arrest the suspect's mom. They could say, “This is your kid and we want to interrogate you”. People can actually be interrogated under this bill. Therefore, mom could be arrested in Kirkland Lake, Ontario. She may or may not know anything about what is going on down in Halifax with her daughter, for example.

Furthermore, arrest is serious. My colleague for Winnipeg North was talking about wiretapping, which is also a serious breach of rights. However, that is different than arrest. It is different than arresting someone, putting them in jail, and hauling them before a judge.

So mom is arrested, interrogated, and asked what is going on. She appears before a judge, and the judge can set conditions, which is the recognizance with conditions. The judge can set conditions on her release, and the conditions might be that she cannot have a firearm.

Where I grew up, there were a lot of firearms in my house. We are a family that hunts and that was how we made ends meet when I was growing up. We could not tell my mom or step-dad that they could not do that. We very truly relied on that meat, especially in the winter months.

If mom says no, she is not willing to give up her firearms, she could be put in jail, which is beyond the pale. Surely to goodness that is not the intent here. For example, we are not looking to put my mom in Kirkland Lake, Ontario, in jail for something that she may or may not even have any knowledge of. Therefore, the idea of preventative detention really does go beyond the pale. I do not think it is something we should be supporting.

It does not strike that balance in combatting terrorism along with supporting our fundamental rights, freedoms, and liberties. I do not think it can be supported by saying that we might need this, that exceptional times call for exceptional measures. If we look back, this provision has never been used.

I want to talk a little about that, and about this idea of the sunset clause. When this bill was first introduced in its very first form to make the changes to the Criminal Code, the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001, it was Bill C-36. I will never forget that number. I was a first-year law student. September 2001, when I started law school, is when we saw the terrorist attacks in New York. I watched them happen from the student lounge on my way to property law.

This bill was introduced as a response to that, to make sure of lots of things, including to make sure we were up to international standards when it came to anti-terrorism law. As a first-year law student, I did not have very much experience doing legal analysis. A lot of what was happening around Bill C-36 was beyond me, but I was really concerned with it.

My fellow students were as well. We talked about it in the criminal law class. We talked about it ad nauseam with our professor. We had guest speakers come in and discuss it. I was a member of SALSA, the Social Activist Law Student Association. We organized a panel discussion, sort of breaking down Bill C-36, what it could mean, what might violate the charter and what might not, and how this worked within the greater context of what we are trying to achieve here, that balance of our rights and our safety.

There was a lot of unease around a number of provisions. Different experts were coming forward and saying that they were not sure if it struck a balance and that they could not really predict what was going to happen in the future. This was an attack that we were unprepared for, and we did not know how to respond. It was hard to know if these measures went too far or not.

It felt like the measures went too far, but the saving grace, I remember, was the fact that there were these sunset clauses. If a jurist, an expert, a law professor, whoever was there, had a level of discomfort about these provisions, he or she said, “at least there is a sunset provision”.

The sunset clause sort of lays out when a provision in legislation or a contract will expire, and usually the terms by which it will expire. It is kind of like an expiry date. After three years or five years we actually have to revisit this piece and decide whether or not it is working, whether or not it has struck that balance. Sunset clauses are often used for controversial subjects, where we need to think about how the world is changing, and how legislation is changing to adapt to that changing world. They can be really useful.

On the question of balance, maybe Bill C-36 was a bit of a cop-out. Maybe people were too afraid to say no to some of these provisions. I do not know. I was not there. I was not particularly skilled at legal analysis at that point. However, that sunset provision existed for a reason.

We go back to looking at why we are here today, and we are here because of those sunset provisions. We have to look at these clauses again and again. We have to make that assessment about whether or not we should continue them, whether or not they have outlived their purpose, whether or not they have in fact crossed the line and gone too far.

I would argue that they have crossed the line and gone too far in something like the section on recognizance conditions. Why? Because it violates our rights, our fundamental rights, our liberties, and it has never been used. I could maybe see if we had the big success case of why this has been so important, why it has worked, or if the Conservatives could demonstrate to us that this is a violation of our fundamental freedoms but it is in some way balanced out because it has worked in some way. It has not.

These provisions have not even been used. What we are doing is we are opening that door. We are wedging it open, and we are allowing more infringement of the state on our lives, heading down towards that police state where the police have these incredible powers of saying, “Okay, mom, in Kirkland Lake, Ontario, we are going to put you in jail. We are going to put you before a judge, and you have to hand over all your firearms.”

That balance has not been struck here and we do need to vote against this legislation without making these changes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, periodically I like to stand just to emphasize the importance of making sure we have what many would classify as boots on the ground. We have talked in the past about the impact of budget cuts. This is something the Liberal Party has opposed. I wanted to bring that, once again, to the attention of the House.

I was passed a note here indicating the measure that is being suggested, an investigative hearing, allows law enforcement to compel those individuals suspected of possessing information about a terrorism act that has been or will be committed, to appear before a judge and answer questions. In these cases, Bill S-7 defines a judge as “a provincial court judge or a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction”. Before making an order for investigative hearing, a peace officer must first receive the consent of the Attorney General. Once an order is made, the judge would base his decision on whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence has been or will be committed, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the information gleaned from the hearing will in fact assist, and it goes on.

It seems to me that the experts, professionals, and law enforcement officers see this as a tool that would be of great benefit in terms of the potential to combat terrorism. Hopefully, they would not have to use the tool.

The member is making the assumption that her mom, or others, are going to be inundated by law enforcement officers taking away their civil rights, when there appear to be checks in place. After all, the Supreme Court of Canada, back in 2004, implied that it would in fact be constitutionally compliant.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to answer that question. We cannot have provisions in place, these incredible criminal law powers, these incredible state powers for the police to be able to violate our civil liberties just in case it might come in handy. Well, yes, it would come in handy; so do rubber hoses. However, we have certain safeguards in place, like the right to remain silent and like the right not to be arbitrarily detained. Those rights are enshrined in the charter, which the member points out time and again that his party brought forward. Whoop-de-do if we are not actually living up to those rights, defending those rights, and taking them for what they should be, which is fundamental to who we are as Canadians.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Halifax on her speech.

I would like her to comment on the flip-flop by the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberal Party is the party that most often wraps itself in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which it says is so important in the history of Canada, and we agree with it on that point.

Why today will the Liberal Party, the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, be going against all the country's rights and freedoms advocacy organizations, which tell us that Bill S-7 is a threat to our civil liberties? Why is it joining forces with the Conservative Party, when we know very well that there is a real chance this bill is unconstitutional and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Even the former director of CSIS said that the measures in this bill were neither appropriate nor necessary.

I would like my colleague to tell us about the Liberal Party's change in position.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why the Liberals would do this and not actually stand up to fight for the rights that they have so vigorously championed. This is a complete about-face.

I want to read something from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association from 2001, when this actually came forward for the first time. It stated:

To say that civil liberties can be qualified when an open society encounters extraordinary threats to its institutions is almost a truism. No rights are absolute, and security is a fundamental condition of the exercise of all other rights. But saying this much settles no issues at all. We still require some principled basis from which to assess the appropriate limits of government action.

I will close with that.