This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Okay.
Going back to the RCMP, Chief Superintendent Tremblay, recently the government's Combating Terrorism Act was passed, giving police new tools and powers to address the threat posed by terrorism. As much as you can say, politically, what is your view of Bill S-7? Is it going to give you some more tools in your tool belt?
Candice Bergen ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, once again, the opposition is completely wrong. They think if they keep repeating an inaccurate statement that it will stick. It is not true. In fact, our government has increased front-line border officers by 26% since we came into office.
As well, we are giving not only front-line officers at the border but those around the country the tools they need, whether it is to enhance RCMP accountability so that it can be modernized and have more funds or when, the other day, we supported and passed Bill S-7, which gives law enforcement the ability to fight terrorist activity. The NDP voted against every one of those initiatives.
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, we witnessed a sad spectacle in the House. Once again, the Liberals and the Conservatives joined forces to recycle an old, ineffective Liberal bill that attacks people's basic rights. Bill S-7 will not keep Canadians safer. It uses fear as an excuse to impose excessive measures, such as detention without charge and secret interrogations.
These measures conflict with Canadian values and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is strange. Many members of the old parties like to go on about the merits of the charter, but when the time comes to stand up for it, they just sit around doing nothing, and that is when they have the nerve to show up in the House to vote.
Blue or red, they are all one and the same. They vote the same way on Bill S-7 and the trade agreement with China, and they will soon vote the same way on climate change. Canadians deserve better. The only progressive alternative for 2015 is the NDP.
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-478, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).
I would first like to thank my colleague, the member for Gatineau and our justice critic. She has done an excellent job as our critic, as always. It is a pleasure and honour to work with her on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
We heard from the bill's sponsor. I understand his position. We are all moved by crimes when we hear what the families of victims must go through or when we must relive these situations, even if it is only at a trial.
I cannot imagine the feelings and emotions these families must experience. I can understand why the bill's sponsor wants to prevent victims from having to attend parole hearings.
Bill C-478 would increase the term for life imprisonment without parole from 25 years to 40 years in the case of offenders who are convicted of three crimes: the abduction, sexual assault and murder of one victim.
As my colleague mentioned, it is not clear whether this bill is consistent with the charter.
The bill's sponsor mentioned that the Department of Justice had been consulted. However, we recently learned from department employees that the department does not always check to see whether bills are consistent with the charter. There is a problem there. We have some doubts about what this bill does and whether it is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
My colleague from Gatineau said it was very surprising to see the Liberals support this bill, especially when we see what kind of impact it could have.
We have been seeing a shift in the Liberals for a while now. The Liberals supported Bill S-7 and now they are supporting this bill.
Again, I understand my colleague's intent. I know how much everyone wants to avoid making the families suffer.
However, Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime, said that this bill was all smoke and mirrors. If someone is accused of first degree murder, the Crown generally does not bother to deal with less serious offences. When Mr. Olson was found guilty of murdering 11 children, the Crown did not bother with charges of kidnapping or sexual assault, even though he obviously also committed those crimes.
The Crown would have had to prove each crime and could have used that to encourage a plea bargain, but it always depends on the judge's willingness to give more than 25 years, which he thinks is unlikely. He does not think that many judges would sentence a criminal to life with prison with no chance of parole for 40 years. Judges simply would not do that. If someone is sentenced to life in prison with a chance of parole after 25 years, this already takes into account that if the person represents a danger or a risk, they will not be granted parole. He thinks that this is a false promise, despite good intentions. The measure would be used at most a few times a year, but would change nothing for the families of victims.
That is where our concern lies. We understand the sponsor's intention, but he himself said that judges are not bound by the change and do not have to increase the ineligibility period to 40 years.
Our concern is about the law. Members have mentioned the charter, but we also need to talk about our obligations with regard to international law. Canada signed the Rome statute. Paragraph 110(3) of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court states that life in prison is the maximum sentence, but that it must be reviewed after 25 years. That applies to all serious crimes.
I can understand why my colleague wanted to mention certain crimes. However, what international law dictates and what Canada decided to apply is a maximum of 25 years for all crimes. Can one crime be considered more or less serious than another? These are crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes. These crimes are very serious.
Our role is not really to say which crimes are most serious. Our role is to define the law. That is why I am really very surprised that our Liberal colleagues supported this bill. Once again, I understand the intention. However, this seems to be a trend with the Conservatives. They claim that they are introducing bills because they want to try to fix a problem. However, they fail to consider Canada's obligations with respect to our legal system and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A former Department of Justice employee made this very clear. He said that the government no longer looks into that. This means that opportunities to determine whether a government bill conflicts with the charter are reduced, if not virtually eliminated.
Members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights asked for a review of the existing system to ensure compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservatives voted against that, so we were not able to carry out such a study. As a result, we have no certainty on that point.
The trend is getting worse. We know that the bill's sponsor had the support of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister. This is yet another trend with private members' bills. We know that this government's policy is to attack law and order by adding more and more offences. Obviously, their main goal is to put more and more people behind bars and build bigger and bigger prisons.
In this case, I understand that our colleague is genuinely trying to protect families. He wants to protect people from having to listen to all the details of a crime again during parole hearings. Unfortunately, as we have said, this bill does not solve the problem. Not only does it not solve the problem, it conflicts with our obligations and violates the integrity of our legal system. This is about Canada's obligation to respect certain basic rights, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our obligations in terms of international law.
We also wonder whether this will open doors, whether it will once again come before the courts. Taxpayers will again have to assume even higher legal fees. All this will go before the Supreme Court, as has happened often already. Since the Conservatives came to power, we have seen an increase in legal fees. Not just in challenges by the provinces, but also from the Supreme Court with respect to the compatibility and constitutionality of certain Conservative bills.
Once again, we support the idea behind this bill. Why not look at another option, such as changing the way hearings are held? Why not try to see what we can do to ensure that families do not need to relive these cases? We do understand the intention, which is to avoid trauma every time families have to attend the hearing. However, even my colleague knows that his bill will not prevent families from having to come back every two years to hear it again. Nothing guarantees that.
There was mention of the very serious case of Clifford Olson. He murdered 11 people between the ages of 9 and 18. Let us look at the facts, though. In the case of Clifford Olson, it does not make a big difference. After spending 25 years in prison, he applied for parole in 2006 for the first time. That application was rejected, and so was his second application, made in 2008. The third application, made in 2010, was also rejected, because the court deemed that he was still a danger to society after 30 years in jail. He died in jail in 2011.
I understand the good intentions of the bill's sponsor. However, the NDP will oppose this bill at second reading. We believe that it is a political move made without considering the rule of law or examining what has to be done to comply with the fundamental rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will not keep members in suspense. I will therefore say from the outset that the NDP cannot support Bill C-478 for a number of reasons.
I agree with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake that this bill deals with horrific, unspeakable crimes. I could add a number of others to the list that are just as horrific and unspeakable. I am thinking about the parents of a murder victim. Under the terms of the act, I should say someone who was “only” murdered, because all three offences were not committed. Kidnapping and murder would not be enough for this type of thing, nor would rape and murder. The three offences are required.
From the get-go, my colleague's bill is problematic. However, there are even more fundamental problems than this.
I just heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North express his support for the bill and congratulate its author for allowing the courts to retain their discretionary authority. The problem is that I am not convinced that this is a matter of discretion under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Rome statute. It is a matter of the period of time someone is required to wait before they have the right to appear before the parole board. That is the problem.
Technically, according to the Rome statute, which Canada signed, all the countries agree that people are freed even after being given a life sentence in cases of genocide, war crimes, mutilation, rape and murder. Their eligibility for parole is reviewed after 25 years.
I am concerned about ensuring that, when we introduce and pass legislation, we are not passing something that inherently goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or about which there are serious doubts. Sometimes, I give the benefit of the doubt to the government or to bills that come in through the back door, meaning bills that are introduced by government backbenchers. That is the strategy that is often used. The government hopes to make serious changes to the Criminal Code with this type of provision. That is still quite a leap.
Take for example a jury that makes recommendations to a judge in an absolutely appalling case similar to that of Paul Bernardo. I have no doubt that a jury of peers would sentence the accused to life in prison with the maximum number of years before he was able to appear before the parole board, because the case was so appalling to anyone who followed it.
That person is going to die in prison and will never be released. However, being able to review the person's case is part of our system. At some point, there may be an exceptional case where the individual will not be seen as a dangerous offender. It is important to understand that the Clifford Olsons and Bernardos—especially Bernardo—will not have to appear before the board every two years.
It is absolutely horrible for victims to have to relive the events. I have spoken to a lot of victims when the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has studied various bills. Neither this bill nor any of the bills introduced by the government gives victims the slightest comfort, except for maybe a brief moment when the bill is passed and they tell themselves that someone has thought about them. The next day, they go back to thinking about their child who was mutilated, raped and murdered.
People tell us that if the justice system was designed to be more respectful of victims' rights and if crown attorneys were to speak with victims when they are in court—and with the parents, in those cases—to explain what is happening, that would already be more respectful.
Using this bill to suggest to victims that they will not have to go before the parole board every two years is just misleading and makes them believe something that is not true. It is like telling people that, with Bill S-7, we are all safer now. That creates a false sense of security, a false sense of something that does not exist. We do not play those games in the NDP. We think these issues are much too serious to spread falsehoods.
As I started to say, imagine a situation where a jury suggests to a judge to have an offender serve 40 years before he is eligible to go before the parole board. Then, imagine that the judge decides to support that recommendation, regardless of the jury's reasons. Obviously, that would be challenged. It would probably go straight to the Supreme Court of Canada, because there may be completely different sentences for a crime that is probably similar, even with the wording in question.
We must remember that the Conservatives have a goal, one that was set when they arrived in government, that they are pursuing today and that will ultimately result in a victims' charter, which I am anxious to see. I thought we had identified victims' needs. However, it seems that the minister needs to hold further consultations. The Conservatives consult instead of taking action. That is their style at present. That said, this is a major and complex problem.
Once again, section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that we cannot impose “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”. I will be told that the crime itself is cruel. I completely agree. None of us would rise and say that kidnapping, raping and murdering a child is not horrible or despicable enough to warrant being punished. However, the perpetrator is already punished with a life sentence. The Bernardos of this world will never leave jail. The Conservatives should stop implying that we are not tough enough on this type of crime. We are.
In this case, we are talking about the right to appear before a board. I have spoken with a number of human rights experts such as legal scholars, criminologists, criminal lawyers, crown attorneys and defence attorneys. They have told me that there is a risk.
Take the case of Clifford Olson, which involved kidnapping, rape and murder. Did the crown attorney have to prove the rape and kidnapping? No. He put all his efforts into proving the murder and he sought the life sentence for the offence of murder.
What this means is that this bill will change what happens in courts of law. That is why I asked my colleague the question. He says that he has spoken to people at the justice department. I do not doubt him, but I would like to hear from them.
We will be voting against this bill, with the support of the Liberals, which surprises me. The Liberal Party justice critic is a human rights expert, so I was really surprised to hear that. That said, they are changing everything on this issue.
I cannot wait to hear from someone from the justice department tell us that he or she seriously doubts that this will pass the tests. Should we leave it up to the courts to decide whether these people should be incarcerated and whether there is any doubt? If, like the individual wrote on their website, the goal is to prevent victims and their families from having to go before the parole board, it would have been much better to find ways so that these people—in cases like Bernardo, Olsen and other such cases—do not have to do so, or have the choice, unless the offender is very close to being released, or unless it would be dangerous to release him. Much like my colleague, I am 95% or almost 100% sure that they will not be released. It is therefore quite possible that victims and their families would not have to attend.
I will listen to the rest of the debate, but I can say that this bill definitely does not meet the criteria. Indeed, a major change in how these cases are dealt with in court and—
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it was Harold Macmillan who once said, “Events, my dear friend, events”. That is the great variable.
As we know, we have had many events and we were delighted that we were able to get Bill S-7 approved by this House this past week, in response to events.
Today, we will continue with debate on the NDP's opposition day motion.
It being Victims Week, we will follow up on this week's passage of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, with debate tomorrow on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading.
Insofar as the government's agenda, there is actually a very significant cornerstone to that agenda; that is, of course, our economic action plan. Earlier this week, the House adopted a ways and means motion to allow for a bill implementing measures from economic action plan 2013. Our top priority is creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, so if a bill following on the ways and means motion were to be introduced before Wednesday, we would give that bill priority consideration for debate Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week.
In the interim, on Monday, we will return to the report stage debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice and the support of Canada act. It is my hope that this debate will conclude on Monday so that we can have the third reading debate on that bill on Tuesday.
If we have the opportunity next week, we will continue the second reading debate of the not criminally responsible reform act. This is an important bill and I would hope that it will get to committee without delay.
The government will also give consideration to Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act at second reading; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act at report stage and third reading; Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading; and finally, Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, it seems that spring has sprung and love is in the air as last night we witnessed the two old-line parties caught in each other's warm embrace once again.
When the final vote for Bill S-7 came up, it was Liberal, Tory, same old story as the Liberals and Conservatives were seen voting hand-in-hand.
Together they voted through a law that allows secret hearings and incarcerations of up to one year without charge and conviction, provisions that have proven unnecessary in the past and provisions that represent a clear violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a piece of paper that some parties in this place should understand better.
We recognize that these springtime smells can be intoxicating, but that is no excuse for shirking one's responsibility to uphold both the letter and spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, even when it takes political courage to do so.
Canadians deserve a party that will fight to protect the sanctity of the charter in all circumstances and they will have a chance to choose that change when they vote NDP in the federal election of 2015.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
Order, please. Before we resume debate, I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall
Ottawa
April 25, 2013
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 25th day of April, 2013, at 12:45pm.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Wallace
Secretary to the Governor General
The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act—Chapter 9.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague. The Liberal Party is where it is right now for a number of reasons. Since their new leader was elected, we have seen them getting a little closer to the Conservatives. Why not say so and tell everyone? Just yesterday, the Liberals supported Bill S-7, which violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as we will surely see in the courts before long.
There was talk about FIPA. Once again, the Liberals and Conservatives both gave their support. The same thing will happen again with this motion; the Liberals and Conservatives will be united. Therefore, it is becoming clearer and clearer for Canadians that these two parties are one and the same.
I would also like to say that there will be other elections and that they will probably have a maximum of 30 or 35 members in the next 20 years.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill S-7.
Call in the members.
The House resumed from April 23 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 third time and passed.
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, given the good news that we have concluded debate on the final stage of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, and given my statement Friday regarding the rescheduling of business, I would like to officially designate tomorrow and Thursday as allotted days.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech, which will end the day, by pointing out the irony of this situation. We can already hear Conservatives outside the House accusing the NDP of being soft, of not believing that safety is an important issue and of being soft on crime. It is the same old tune. However, this is their bill. Although we might be hearing them outside the House, we are not hearing them much in here. They are not here; they are not talking today. The NDP members are the only ones standing up to say that they care about the safety of Canadians and the Canadian value of respecting rights and freedoms. As the official opposition, we take this issue much more seriously than the Liberals do. They will stand with the Conservatives and vote in favour of a bill that will undermine our civil liberties. We find that particularly disconcerting.
I would like to begin by reading from a column written by Rima Elkouri, which appeared in La Presse this morning.
“You're either with us or against us,” said George W. Bush in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This famous ideological motto was quick to resurface after the attacks in Boston. The [Prime Minister's] government did not hesitate to seize the opportunity to exploit the tragedy for partisan purposes by immediately forcing debate on tougher anti-terrorism laws... We are obsessed with safety, and oh, by the way, we would like to take away some of your rights. But have no fear, it is for your own good. And whatever you do, don't think.
The Conservatives' haste to force debate on this bill has to do with grandstanding, putting on a show. It is about smoke and mirrors. Opposition days were scheduled this week. True to Conservative form, they are using the victims of the attacks in Boston for political gain. We find that offensive. The context surrounding this forced debate needs to be clear. Members opposite wanted to avoid a more difficult debate on parliamentarians' right to freedom of speech.
A few of my colleagues pointed it out, and I also asked questions about this today. The two most important provisions in Bill S-7 were created years ago and are being brought back even though the sunset clause passed after the attacks of September 11, 2011, has expired. In all the years that these two provisions were available to police forces, they were never used. They have not existed since 2007, and the government is now attempting to bring them back with Bill S-7.
However, it is clear from the Toronto 18 affair and, this week, the thwarted attack on a VIA Rail train that police forces have the means to protect Canadians' safety and that it is not worth jeopardizing the rights and civil liberties we enjoy. With respect to the case of Chiheb Esseghaier, who was arrested for allegedly plotting to blow up a VIA Rail line, I will read an excerpt from Christiane Desjardins' article in La Presse:
Earlier this morning, Mr. Roy summarized the charges against Mr. Esseghaier: one count of conspiracy to interfere with transportation facilities in association with a terrorist group, conspiracy to commit murder in association with a terrorist group, two counts of participating in the activities of a terrorist group, and one count of giving instructions to someone to carry out an activity in association with a terrorist group.
Do we need more legal provisions to help our police do their job, protect Canadians' safety and prevent terrorist attacks? I do not think so. I would also like to quote Reid Morden, the former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, who had this to say in 2010, when referring to the provisions that were passed in 2001 and that the government is attempting to bring back:
Speaking strictly of those two particular provisions, I confess I never thought that they should have been introduced in the first place and that they slipped in, in the kind of scrambling around that the government did after 9/11. ...It seemed to me that it turned our judicial system somewhat on its head. ...I guess I'm sorry to hear that the government has decided to reintroduce them.
The former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said that only three years ago.
“Police officers and security forces have all the powers they need to do their job properly. They do not need additional powers.” That is what Mr. Morden said in 2010.
What reasons, then, do the Conservatives have for tabling a bill that originated in the Senate, that unelected, undemocratic and unaccountable chamber that is already grappling with many problems and scandals, a chamber that generally serves as a repository for friends of the Conservative Party—party presidents, organizers, fundraisers and the like—where they can do political work at the taxpayer’s expense? That is a whole other debate, though.
What reasons do they have for reintroducing measures that were never used, that are therefore useless and ineffective, and that threaten the freedoms we and 34 million other Canadians enjoy? Why put these freedoms at risk for the sake of measures that we do not need, that will not work and that most groups defending our rights and freedoms angrily denounce?
This morning, someone in my office contacted officials at Amnistie internationale Canada francophone. What they had to say was quite simple: restricting people’s freedoms is not the way to prevent terrorism. Their view is also shared by the Canadian Bar Association and a number of experts who testified before the committee and are very concerned.
The NDP share their concerns. We will never compromise when it comes to security or our rights and freedoms.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, once again, we have to ask ourselves questions when such a bill is presented.
As I said, it is surprising that the Liberals are supporting a bill that will really have a negative impact on the rights of Canadians and their Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When there is a demonstration, in Quebec or elsewhere, they will obviously use such legislation if they do not agree with the demonstration. We therefore have to ask ourselves the following questions: is the legislation necessary? Are current laws sufficient to deal with the problem of terrorism? Does the legislation violate fundamental rights?
We quite simply do not believe that Bill S-7 meets these criteria. I think it is obvious that there is no difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals with respect to the protection of our rights: they disagree.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the debate on Bill S-7, a piece of legislation that is the most recent in a series of anti-terrorism bills to come before Parliament since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Unlike the parliamentarians at that time, we are able to look back at the original legislation, the debate and, most importantly, the results after more than a decade has passed, which should clearly instruct this discussion.
Certainly the debate that encompassed Bill C-36 was emotionally charged and took place in the period when the need for Parliament to respond to events competed with the clear-headed thinking these initiatives deserve. In some ways, that is the climate in which we are debating this legislation as well.
The brazen attack that took place during the Boston Marathon last week and the foiled attempt to attack VIA Rail that we learned about yesterday will colour this debate. Our hearts and prayers go out to the people of Boston as well as the victims of that terrible event. Similarly, we are proud of the security agencies that worked to stymie the terrorist plans for an attack on Canadian soil. Yet it is up to the members of the House to ensure they maintain the level of critical thinking that will allow us to arrive at the best legislation.
The original anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36, offers a clear example of how a government may not identify deficiencies in its proposals. It also shows how working with the opposition ultimately led to legislation that was more closely aligned with the democratic values of Canada and the sensibilities of Canadians, who rightfully cherish their rights and liberties.
When Bill C-36 was introduced, the Liberal government was both responding to the events of September 11 and updating Canadian legislation so that it could fall in line with international standards. The bill did not originally include a sunset provision for parliamentary review, even though rights and liberties were being ceded under special circumstances. The mechanism to ensure parliamentary review was added to the bill as it was debated in the chamber and reviewed at committee.
Certainly, the New Democrat fight for sunset provisions was not made to be popular. It was hard to make the point that it is ultimately more democratic to review measures that limit rights and liberties from time to time in such a volatile and emotionally charged climate, but it was the right thing to do.
Today, we are facing a similar situation. The difference is that there appears to be no working with the government or any desire on its part to see room for improvement in its own proposal. This is despite our ability to review the outcomes of the extraordinary powers that were contained in Bill C-36. In fact, when Parliament reviewed the parts of the bill that were subject to a sunset clause, they were not renewed, in no small part because it was revealed that these special measures were never used between 2001 and 2007. It is also important to note that all of the parts of Bill C-36 that were not subject to review remain in place and, as we have seen just this week, are allowing Canada to thwart terrorist plots.
This is the fourth attempt to recreate the extraordinary powers of the original anti-terrorism bill. It remains an exercise of making sure we do not surrender more civil rights and personal liberties than necessary. However, the government is refusing to listen or co-operate.
Despite New Democrat amendments that would have heightened transparency and reporting, as well as reducing the negative impacts on civil liberties, and despite testimony at committee that supported those amendments and the values we sought to protect, which are valued by most Canadians, the government's response was to dismiss and vote down every single item. That is both a shame and an indictment of the government, which is reluctant to work with parliamentarians in a constructive way, to put it charitably.
As I mentioned, the provisions we have available to fight terrorism are allowing Canadian officials to do their job. The foiled plot we learned about only yesterday makes that case clearly, so we should not feel as if our law enforcement officials are working in a vacuum with no provisions to combat terrorism.
There are certainly ways in which we can aid that work, but it cannot be done at the expense of the rights and liberties we seek to protect. This is not just the opinion of the New Democrats but also of respected groups like the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of University Teachers and la Ligue des droits et libertés. These groups feel Bill S-7 does not strike the appropriate balance, and they also support the notion that the current powers of law enforcement already allow security agencies to pursue, investigate, disrupt and successfully prosecute terrorism-related crimes.
This bill would allow persons to be detained for up to three days without being charged; would strip individuals of their basic rights, as accused under criminal proceedings, to know and challenge evidence against them; would threaten them with criminal punishment; and would compel individuals to testify in secret before a judge in an investigative hearing. In addition to that, a judge could impose imprisonment of up to 12 months if the person did not enter into recognizance.
Add to that provisions of recognizance that would intentionally include a broader spectrum of individuals engaged in an activity that can be more properly described as a feature of democracy: expressing a dissenting opinion by way of protest. That can be seen as related to terrorism, and we can see that there would be mechanisms in this legislation that would go beyond the stated intent of the measures we are discussing.
Again, New Democrats are prepared to make important arguments that are easy to characterize in a negative light, but we are confident they will be confirmed over time and are critical to preserve the human rights and civil liberties of individuals who are in no way engaged in terrorism activities.
In committee, it was revealed that the Conservatives intentionally worded new section 83.3 of the bill to allow security agencies to sweep up these people under the pretense of fighting terrorism when their actions are not at all related to that subversive behaviour. As a result, we could end up detaining young people who are engaged on a particular issue to the point that they are willing to join a protest and exercise their rights to assembly and free speech. We could detain those people, using the provisions concerning recognizance in this bill, and the Conservatives think that is just fine.
New Democrats cannot and will not accept that, and feel the bill would overreach its intended target and would also serve the Conservatives' desire to sweep protestors, whose message they do not particularly want to hear, under the carpet. How can this be seen as anything but a significant surrender of rights? The answer of course is that it cannot.
New Democrats attempted to amend this and discovered that the broad net cast under those provisions related to recognizance was not merely a case of oversight on the part of the government, but they were deliberately worded to cast that broad net to include individuals who are not suspected of engaging in future terrorist activity. That amounts to using anti-terrorism measures to target non-terrorists and stifle democratic dissent, something the government would never do under other circumstances and can rightly be seen as opportunistic and cynical.
I have argued that we are compelled to learn from experience and history, yet the Conservatives clearly feel no need to do as much themselves. While they have a majority in this place, the ability to push through legislation is far different from the ability to arrive at the best legislation. When considering measures that impose upon individuals' rights and liberties, it is far more desirable to take the time to ensure the effort is on the mark than it is to rush toward deadlines, blinded by the belief that no other interpretation has merit or could conceivably improve the way we combat terrorism.
Again, it is clear that the Criminal Code contains the necessary provisions for investigating individuals and groups involved in criminal activity and for detaining anyone who may present a threat to Canadians.
Terrorism is abhorrent, and it is clearly not something that any country wishes to struggle with. That said, it is also sadly a feature of our societal discourse and has become something that no longer happens only in places far removed from Canadian soil.
It is important for parliamentarians to engage in this debate, just as it is imperative that we get it right. We cannot engage in a process that creates the ironic outcome where rights and liberties are surrendered to protect those same rights and liberties, which are among the hallmarks of the freedom we enjoy. Canadians are counting on parliamentarians to get it right. We have the tools at our disposal to do as much, and I would hope the Conservatives find the will to make the appropriate adjustments to their legislation that would go a long way to meeting those expectations.