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

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved 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.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and to speak in favour of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security considered the bill and heard a variety of witnesses. It was a wide-ranging and rich debate with important considerations and contributions from the witnesses who appeared before the committee. Several themes have emerged in the course of the consideration of Bill S-7 that I would like to address in my remarks today. I will first speak to the nature of the Bill S-7 initiative.

First and foremost, Bill S-7 is targeted criminal law reform. A variety of issues outside the scope of the bill have been raised in connection with it. Bill S-7 cannot address all concerns that arise in the context of national security, nor is it designed to do so. The government is working on many fronts to address other national security issues, utilizing the best means suited to the goal, whether it is through programs, training or other legislative initiatives. Rather, Bill S-7 is designed to re-enact the investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions in the Criminal Code that expired in March 2007, with additional safeguards over those that existed in the original legislation.

The bill would also create new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of committing certain terrorist offences, would respond to recommendations made during the parliamentary review of the Anti-terrorism Act and includes further improvements to the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act.

The investigative hearing is designed to facilitate the gathering of information by a judge, which may be relevant to the investigation of past or future terrorist offences following an application made by a peace officer.

The recognizance with conditions would allow a peace officer to apply to a judge to have a person appear before the court for the judge to consider whether it is necessary to impose reasonable conditions on a person to prevent a terrorist activity. The burden would be on the state to meet the grounds to make an application and to satisfy the judge that conditions ought to be imposed on the person.

There has been a debate about whether these tools are indeed needed and there has been compelling testimony from various witnesses supporting their reinstatement. For example, Assistant Commissioner James Malizia of the RCMP national security criminal investigations program's protective policing branch spoke of the need for these measures to assist law enforcement, while noting that they would be approached with cautious restraint.

The committee had the benefit of hearing from Maureen Basnicki, a co-founder of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror. She disagreed with those who characterized the original introduction of the investigative hearing and recognizance provisions of 2001 as an example of legislators having hit the panic button after 9/11. Instead, she stated, “Far from being an overreaction to 9/11, these provisions were, in fact, a sober and responsible recognition of the danger posed by terrorism to the future of the international community”. As a result, she urged all members to have in mind the security of Canadians when considering and voting on Bill S-7.

As Ms. Basnicki put it:

Canada should not be removing reasonable tools for fighting terrorism while terrorists are busy sharpening their tools for use against Canadians and other innocent victims. While the provisions of Bill S-7 can always be revisited at a later date, the lives shattered by a future terrorist attack that may have been prevented cannot be reconstituted by any act of Parliament.

The bill also proposes the creation of new offences for leaving or attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of committing certain terrorist offences. These offences are specifically designed to prevent persons from leaving Canada in order to participate abroad in the activity of a terrorist group, for example, receiving training, or to commit certain other terrorist acts abroad.

These offences have received the support of certain witnesses. For example, Mr. Rob Alexander, a member of and spokesman for the Air India 182 Victims Families Association, asserted during the hearing that the proposed new offences are necessitated by the globalization of terrorism-related activities, given reports of persons leaving Canada to receive terrorist training abroad. He argued that these potential Canadian offenders may pose a potentially mortal threat and danger to members of the Canadian armed forces on duty abroad. In his view, these proposed offences would help minimize this dilemma.

The horrific nature of terrorism requires a proactive and preventive approach. These new offences would allow law enforcement to intervene at an early stage in the planning process to prevent terrorist acts from being carried out. The proposed new offences would send a strong deterrent message potentially to assist in mitigating the threat of terrorism and would provide an appropriate maximum penalty.

In the course of debates on Bill S-7, some have alleged that the bill fails to protect human rights. To the contrary, the bill contains numerous human rights safeguards. I think we can all agree that counterterrorism measures must protect security, while respecting human rights.

Consider, for example, the investigative hearings. Under the investigative hearing provisions, the court would be empowered to compel persons who are reasonably believed to have information about past or future terrorism offences to appear in court and provide information. Without a doubt, the government has gone to great lengths to ensure that witnesses would be protected during the hearing from unintended consequences.

First, the Attorney General must consent before the investigative hearing process could be initiated. This is an important procedural step consistent with other areas of the Criminal Code.

Second, a judge would have to agree that an investigative hearing is in fact warranted for it to be held. Bill S-7 proposes, in particular, that to make an order for gathering of information the judge must be satisfied that the Attorney General's consent was obtained and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence has been or will be committed; certain information concerning the offence, or the location of a suspect, is likely to be obtained as a result of the order; and reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information by other means.

Under the provisions in the previous iterations of the bill, the last safeguard only applied to future terrorism offences and not to past ones. This safeguard would now apply to both past and future terrorism offences to further ensure that investigative hearings are only used in appropriate circumstances.

As a third safeguard, I direct the members' attention to the fact that under the original 2001 legislation, there was the power to arrest a person without warrant in certain limited circumstances, such as when the person was about to abscond, in order to ensure his or her attendance before a judge. However, the original legislation was silent as to how long the period of detention could be after such an arrest. Bill S-7 would remedy this defect by stating that section 707 of the Criminal Code, which sets out the maximum period of time an arrested person can be detained at a criminal trial, would also apply to a person arrested to attend an investigative hearing. Section 707 allows the detention of a witness for up to a maximum of 90 days, with judicial review for the detentions within each 30-day period.

Fourth, as a fundamental principle of our legal system in this country, the person named in the investigative hearing order would have the right to retain and instruct counsel at any stage of the proceedings. It is important that we all recognize that there is also a robust prohibition built into the investigative hearing proposal against the state using information or evidence derived from the information against a person who testified. An obvious and a logical exception to this is for prosecutions related to allegations of perjury or giving of contradictory evidence by the investigative hearing witness. Of course, this is an exception that is warranted.

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada took note of this robust provision and rejected the argument that the investigative hearing violated an individual's right to silence and the right against self-incrimination. The court also extended the use and derivative use immunity procedural safeguards found in section 83.28 of the Criminal Code to extradition and deportation proceedings.

On this last point, members may be reminded that Bill S-7 would be read in the context of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure that protections built into this section for use and derivative use immunity would be extended to extradition or deportation hearings. In summary, Bill S-7 incorporates appropriate and balanced safeguards.

The issue of review and accountability also arose during the debate and discussion of the bill. Let there be no mistake; Bill S-7 contains multiple reporting, parliamentary review and sunset provisions. The bill requires that Parliament review the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions provisions prior to the date they sunset. These measures would be subject to another sunset clause, which would result in their expiry after five years, unless they were renewed by parliamentary resolution.

The proposals in the bill also include, as was the case with the original legislation, annual reporting requirements by the federal government and the provinces on the use of these provisions.

However, Bill S-7 would strengthen the annual reporting requirements, because the annual report of the Attorney General and the public safety minister would include an additional requirement to provide an opinion supported by reasons on why the provision should remain in force. The accountability processes built into the bill are both extensive and robust.

To conclude, the measures proposed in the Bill S-7 are necessary, proportionate and balanced, and they are replete with safeguards. I urge all members to support and vote for the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is in regard to working on the terrorism file. There is an obligation for us to be looking at what is happening in other jurisdictions, in the different provinces. There is always the risk of potential terrorist targets and so forth.

My questions to the minister are: Which department works with the different provinces to highlight those potential threats of terrorist acts, and to what degree do they actually have plans in place, based on communications with those provinces?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, for reasons that should be plainly obvious, we will not discuss the details of plans, but I can assure the member that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety, with all the territorial and provincial ministers, have discussed these matters at length. They have worked together to create a cohesive plan.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, which my NDP colleagues and I opposed at second reading and continue to oppose based on the fact that the hearings in the House of Commons public safety committee, or SECU, revealed some serious hidden agendas on the government's part.

There are other problems we have with the re-enactment of provisions, albeit with some safeguards from the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act. My colleagues will address those in the third reading debate.

I will address how the hearings before the committee confirmed that Bill S-7 creates serious concerns with respect to the rule of law and human rights, notwithstanding the additional safeguards just outlined by the parliamentary secretary.

During the committee hearings on Bill S-7, my NDP colleagues and I raised several issues related to new offences created by the bill, but our questions were never fully answered by the government.

Many of our concerns related to these new “attempting to leave the country” offences remain, especially—and this is key—how they are linked to the re-enacted counter-terrorism measures from the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001, namely preventive detention, recognizance with conditions and investigative hearings.

For starters, it is clear as day from RCMP and CSIS testimony that the concerns I voiced in my speech at second reading are very well founded. There is a real potential that attempting to leave the country offences would serve as the trigger, first, for investigative hearings that would question friends, families and community members who know a suspect.

Second, once evidence arises through that investigative hearing method, that evidence would then be used to engage in up to 72 hours of preventive detention and then up to 12 months' recognizance with conditions, and indeed, it is important to note, up to 12 months of imprisonment without trial or conviction if one refuses to accept those conditions that are imposed or if one is deemed to have not complied with those conditions.

Such conditions could, and almost certainly would, involve confiscating passports so as to create a veiled, backdoor, de facto control order system, such as the U.K. explicitly uses to prohibit leaving the country. The key here is that all of this would occur implicitly, without it having been debated or structured in a proper way.

In this way, the new leaving the country offences need never be actually prosecuted, and that may well be ultimately the government's intention. They are just as likely, if not more likely, to serve as the reference point for disrupting a person's movement by using these re-enacted, extraordinary procedures of investigative hearings plus the recognizance with conditions provisions in tandem.

Before the bill came to the House, it was before the Senate. It started in the Senate. In committee there, the Minister of Justice said clearly that investigative hearings could be used to seek and get evidence of intent to leave the country for illicit purposes. As the bill itself states, evidence from investigative hearings cannot be used in criminal proceedings against a person questioned in the hearings.

This clearly points to the intention to use investigative hearings to interrogate family, neighbours, friends and others from a suspect's community, with attendant implications for discriminatory profiling, the potential for that discriminatory profiling and for instilling a feeling of harassment in a community that is the target of counter-terrorism surveillance.

CSIS and the RCMP effectively said, “Trust us”. They say that these provisions were not used before they sunsetted, so they will not be used much now. One wonders why there is the insistence of the government to re-enact them, but in any case, we should not believe it. Attempting to leave the country is a new offence of wide-ranging impact, and with respect to that offence or the series of offences that go under that label, the government has every intention of using investigative hearings.

The Minister of Justice, in that same testimony before the Senate, also linked recognizance with conditions orders to the new offence.

In the public security committee, government witnesses were presented with the scenario whereby evidence from investigative hearings is used not only as a basis for arrest of someone before leaving the country but also as the basis for securing recognizance with conditions without the need to actually prosecute.

Keep in mind this fancy term “recognizance with conditions” basically means limiting the liberty of citizens without trial or conviction. No witness denied that this trajectory was possible. It must be borne in mind, and I want to reiterate this, that any refusal to abide by conditions can lead to up to 12 months imprisonment, again without ever having been tried or convicted.

This is obviously a serious chain of state action and it is for this reason that the NDP not only is against the return of the sunset provisions that I have talked about, but also the reason why we have pushed for a range of additional safeguards to heighten monitoring and accountability in relation to how these provisions will operate in practice.

At committee, we concentrated at the amendment stage on such safeguards as it was a given, frankly, that the intrusive provisions would be accepted by the Conservative majority on committee. In committee we moved something like 18 amendments and not one was passed, either because the government majority voted them down or because they were ruled beyond the scope of the bill by the chair. In one case it was because the bill had originated in the Senate, to which I hope to get.

All the amendments were designed to enhance accountability as the government brought back these sunset anti-terrorism law provisions, while adding a new series of leaving the country offences and beefing up, from the Conservatives' point of view, a harbouring a terrorist offence. Half were ruled out of order. I argued unsuccessfully that such rulings misunderstood the legislative purposes of the bill and did not take into account a recent Speaker's ruling on when a bill should be deemed to be a money bill. Those are technical matters that we can leave for the moment.

What is important to note, and it was revealed in the parliamentary secretary's speech, is that this is a bill with three purposes. When a number of our amendments were ruled beyond the scope of the bill, the chair was not taking into account more than one purpose.

One purpose is terrorism repression. The second is rights' protections. We grant to the government that there are some elements in this that are a bit more protective of rights than the measures in 2001, including, for example, the right to counsel before an investigative hearing. We just feel they do not go nearly far enough. Third, separate from this, is institutional oversight and accountability and transparency mechanisms. These are all interconnected but have separate purposes. In our view, every amendment we proposed fit into one or other of these three purposes and thus none were beyond the scope of the bill.

The New Democratic Party believes we must seriously address the issue of terrorism. There is no doubt about that. However, we have to ensure respect for rights and freedoms.

That is why we introduced the amendments to heighten oversight, transparency and reporting in the bill in order to lessen the negative impacts on civil liberties, which the bill is bound to have. These amendments drew on testimony at committee and they also reflected the values that we believe were important to Canadians.

Let me describe some of the amendments that were attempted.

The first amendment would have provided for an inter-agency co-operation protocol between CSIS, the RCMP, CBSA and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to be put in place before the leaving the country offences could come into effect. Our rationale was that the exceptional state powers should be carefully circumscribed and accompanied by equally rigorous independent oversight which a protocol would have to build in. This amendment was deemed inadmissible as being beyond the scope.

However, the reason we believed the amendment was both necessary and within the scope of the bill was that in the Senate the director of CSIS drew particular attention to the fact that no protocols existed between these agencies for the kind of co-operation that he said would be needed in order to give effect to the leaving the country offences. He made it clear that such protocols were necessary.

Testimony before committee also indicated this, so we took it seriously by proposing a protocol for collaboration and that SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is the only relevant existing oversight committee in this field, must endorse it and only then, once the protocol was in place, would the provisions enter into force. We felt this was a reasonable provision. Now, because it was ruled out of order and adopted, we can only hope that the various relevant agencies will develop a protocol before these new offences enter into force.

The second amendment related to conditions for people to be charged with an offence related to harbouring terrorists. What the government wants is a provision that says everyone who knowingly harbours or conceals any person whom they know to be a person who is likely to carry out a terrorist activity for the purpose of enabling the person to facilitate or carry out any terrorist activities is guilty of an indictable offence liable to 10 years of imprisonment.

We wanted to change the words “likely to carry out a terrorist activity” to “intends to carry out a terrorist activity”. Our view, bolstered by the testimony and submissions, for example, from the Canadian Bar Association, is that likelihood is far too lax a standard, especially when we are asking somebody to think through to the mens rea state of another person. The term “likely” is far too speculative, but the amendment was defeated.

The third amendment we proposed was to ensure that testimony gathered from investigative hearings could not be used against the individual in any extradition and deportation proceedings, not only criminal proceedings. We heard from the parliamentary secretary that this was implicit. The Supreme Court ruled on this almost 10 years ago and said that in order to be compatible with the charter, that evidence could not be used in extradition and deportation proceedings. The Conservatives acknowledged this in committee and yet refused to write in the words that said this and made it clear.

We wanted this in bill simply because we believed that criminal law should be as clear as possible and that reasons of certainty, caution and respect for the rulings of the Supreme Court necessitated it. At the same time, it was specifically resisted. One can only ask whether the government is literally hoping that a newly-composed Supreme Court will eventually revisit that jurisprudence and that the only prohibition will be on using that evidence in criminal proceedings. Otherwise, it is impossible to fathom why it would have resisted including that amendment.

We also proposed that the right to counsel, which is written in Bill S-7, be extended to include a right to state-funded counsel, that is legal aid, if a person were dragged before an investigative hearing. Keep in mind that witnesses are brought before investigative hearings with no necessary, and definitely no suspicion of, wrongdoing on their own part. We felt that in this kind of context, it was important to ensure that people were not having to pay the costs of state investigation.

We also felt it was especially important to say that the right to counsel was a negative right. Those who can afford it will obviously be able to bring their lawyers and will have much greater protection in investigative hearings. For people who do not have the resources and cannot afford it, there is nothing in Bill S-7 that would allow them access to lawyers, despite the fact that elsewhere in the Criminal Code there is provision for federally-appointed, state-funded legal aid.

Another amendment revealed more information on the government's intent with the bill. We tried amending the provision on recognizance with conditions to ensure it was clear, and I want to emphasize this, that only persons determined to be potential participants in a terrorist activity could be subject to recognizance with conditions. Our concern was that people who were not themselves suspected of terrorist activity should not be the subject of the restrictions of liberty that were part of the recognizance with conditions regime. We thought this was a friendly amendment on a badly-written provision and were bowled over in the clause-by-clause process when what we thought was a friendly amendment was resisted. To our shock, the parliamentary secretary said that the government actually wanted to keep it broad precisely so recognizance with conditions could be imposed on someone who may not be suspected of any potential criminality themselves. The parliamentary secretary said:

The recognizance with conditions in its present form would provide the potential for a recognizance with conditions to be imposed to disrupt the nascent phase of a terrorist activity, even where the person who would be subject to the recognizance with conditions is not necessarily the person carrying out a terrorist activity.

The proposed amendment would seek to restrict the application of this measure.

That was the NDP-proposed amendment. She went on to say:

Because that is inconsistent with the policy intent underpinning the provision, we are opposed to it.

The government is on record as wishing to permit conditions to be imposed on perfectly innocent people. Failure to comply can lead to 12 months of imprisonment. Is that a regime we want in our country?

There was a whole series of amendments we then proposed that dealt with trying to ensure that the reporting procedures in Bill S-7 were more robust and less general than found in the bill. We wanted detailed information on the statistical use of the provisions, for example. A lot of testimony suggested we needed to have clarity and standards with respect to what the reviews of the operation and the provisions would entail, and we were seeking to assist with that.

We also wanted information specifically written into the review that would talk about exit control and exit information systems. The reason for that was, before the Senate, the director of CSIS indicated that there were no such comprehensive systems in place in Canada. However, there was every sign during the committee hearings that the government intended one way or the other to move toward more comprehensive exit information which could lead to exit control systems.

It was very clear that, not in Bill S-7 but in other legislation, the Conservatives had created enabling conditions to enable exit information to be accessed earlier than was currently possible in the process so before a plane left the country, it would be known who was on the plane and Canadian officers could go onboard and arrest people. However, this was not put in Bill S-7, but in Bill C-45, which is a budget bill.

We were simply taking the cue from the director of CSIS who had indicated that, before the cabinet, our proposals to strengthen the no-fly list were precisely because of the new leaving-the-country offences, yet no information was presented to us on the nature of the debates going on. We felt it was extremely important to ensure that the review mechanisms down the road would ensure that exit information and exit control were taken into account.

I believe I am nearly finished my time, although I have had to talk over an incredible hubbub and ruckus on the other side of the House.

Amendments also sought to ensure that a comprehensive review procedure expressly included the operation of the four leaving the country offences—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. If members want to carry on conversations with their colleagues, they are free to do so in the lobby. However, the member for Toronto—Danforth still has the floor and it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Speaker to hear him.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will sum up, as I believe I am running toward the end of my time.

Once again, the government has exercised its strict policy that we have seen over the last two years of no amendments allowed in committee, especially if they come from the opposition. Conservatives voted down our suggestion for higher standards, and they were not willing to discuss with us whether the chair's rulings on beyond the scope were correct. Those that were admissible were dismissed completely by the government members, who had clear intentions going into the committee not to change a word. There was no interest in strengthening the rule of law or human rights beyond what the Conservatives had already decided was necessary.

It has become clear that the government has virtually no interest in legislative co-operation in Parliament. In committees, Conservative majorities routinely refuse to consider good-faith points from opposition committee members on ways to improve legislation, even when they are in line with the government's own objectives, let alone listen to arguments on the serious problems with the bill that need to be fixed.

I also want to note one particular slap in the face of the House of Commons.

It is worth noting that we prioritized having the director of CSIS appear before the public security committee. He had already appeared before the Senate and gave testimony that was very important, which necessitated detailed follow-up on the part of the House. CSIS knew of the need because it was expressly stated in my second reading speech. CSIS officials came to committee twice, yet on neither occasion did Director Fadden appear. This sequence of events shows major disrespect to the House of Commons when a government official would readily appear before a Senate committee but decline to appear before a House committee.

I would also like to add that there was one ruling that rejected the legal aid funding amendment, which said that this was improper because the bill had originated in the Senate. It being a Senate bill, and the Senate not able to table money bills, any amendment in the House of Commons having financial consequences was ruled out of order. Therefore, the practice of the Conservative government of starting legislation in the Senate ties the hands of the House of Commons to engage in the kind of legislative practice that is the right and privilege of the House of Commons. The order in which governments introduce bills is something that very much needs to be addressed and fixed.

Finally, our Liberal friends on this side of the House voted in favour of this legislation both at second reading and in committee. I look forward to seeing whether the party, which likes to call itself the “party of the charter”, is ready to rectify this by voting against the unnecessary and fraught measures contained in Bill S-7.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote from the hon. member's colleague from Brome—Missisquoi. He said: “I am confused about what motivated the government to introduce Bill S-7”, and he continued, “because since 2007, nothing has happened in Canada. The country has not even been subject to terrorist attacks.” This was October 17, 2012.

Does the hon. member agree with his colleague from Brome—Missisquoi that there is no risk of future terrorist attacks on Canada, and with his assumption that the government and Parliament should not pass legislation that would provide the necessary tools that would be needed if such an attack were to occur?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously there is a serious concern with terrorism, both globally and in Canada. We had evidence before the committee that I have no reason to disbelieve about a tendency, however large it is, for young members of some communities to actually leave the country in order to be part of terrorist training, et cetera. There are real issues here.

Our point is that the bill goes too far. We had no evidence of the necessity of the bill beyond that one data item. That is the only thing that committee witnesses from CSIS, the RCMP and the government detailed as the necessity for re-enacting the sunset of provisions.

What I have set out is the interconnection between all the provisions and the failure by the government to consider beefing up the protections in a way that meets our concerns, but in terms of the seriousness of terrorism and the need to combat it, I have every reason to believe that we need to be vigilant.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to the fact that we do need to be vigilant. Canadians have an expectation that the government of the day will do what it can to prevent any form of terrorist attacks from occurring, whether in Canada or abroad. We need to recognize that Canada has a role to play not only in Canada but ultimately in a leadership role.

Even though there are some concerns within the Liberal Party, we recognize that there is some value in passing the bill. I can sympathize to a certain degree with my New Democratic—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will stop the hon. member there to give the member for Toronto—Danforth a very brief chance to respond. We do have to move on to members' statements.

The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not sure that the member had time to get to the question.

I understand that people are arriving at decisions on Bill S-7 in good faith from different perspectives. I feel, however, that it is more or less accepted in circles that take charter rights and the rule of law seriously that the Anti-terrorism Act went too far. So does this bill.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act.

As the world unfortunately witnessed last week, terrorism is still a very real evil threat that continues to threaten the world. The horrific bomb blast at the Boston Marathon and the terrifying aftermath that crippled the city have again demonstrated what terrorists strive for, which is the deliberate infliction of death or suffering upon innocent people to further some misguided cause. These horrendous acts of violence must stop, and the perpetrators who commit them must be punished to the furthest extent of the law.

It is precisely to prevent the scourge of terrorism from wreaking havoc in Canada that all members of the House need to stand together and support the enactment of Bill S-7.

The enactment of Bill S-7 would bring back the investigative hearing, which is a procedure whereby a peace officer may apply to a judge for an order for a person to attend before the judge and be questioned in order to gather information or to produce a thing before the judge. The order can only be made where the judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence has been or will be committed. Thus, it applies to past as well as future terrorism offences.

This power contains numerous safeguards, such as the right to counsel and strong protections against self-incrimination. The bill adds safeguards that are not present in the original legislation. One of the key new safeguards is that in all cases, before granting the order to gather information, the judge must be satisfied that reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information by other means. This is an important safeguard.

Bill S-7 also proposes to re-enact the recognizance with conditions. This is intended to disrupt terrorist activity from occurring. This provision would allow a peace officer, who believes on reasonable grounds that a terrorist activity will be committed and suspects on reasonable grounds that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person is necessary to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity, to go before a judge to have the judge compel the person to attend before him or her. At a hearing the judge then determines whether to impose the recognizance on the person. This tool is a modified variant of other peace bond provisions found elsewhere in the Criminal Code.

The bill also proposes to create new terrorism offences that are designed to focus on the problem of Canadians going abroad to commit terrorism outside Canada. Unfortunately, we are all too aware in recent months of examples of such heinous behaviour.

Bill S-7 proposes to create four new terrorism offences to help address this issue. These are the following: leaving or attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of knowingly participating in or contributing to any activity of a terrorist group, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out terrorist activity; knowingly facilitating a terrorist activity; committing an indictable offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group; and committing an indictable offence that constitutes a terrorist activity.

These are very important new laws that need to come into place, as we have seen what has gone on over the last week in Boston as well as even here at home. These are really important amendments that need to happen. Bill S-7 would bring these amendments forward.

These new measures are intended to prevent a person from leaving the country to participate in certain terrorism offences. It would make more robust the legal authority to arrest and prosecute a person who has left Canada or who is attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of, for example, attending a terrorist training camp.

Communities are asking us for this. Communities across the country are concerned when young people are being radicalized and leaving the country for this purpose. They want Canada to have strong laws in place to stop this. We really appreciate the fact that communities are working together with us.

The penalties for these offences would send a strong signal that leaving the country to engage in terrorist activity is unacceptable.

Bill S-7 also proposes amendments to fulfill parliamentary recommendations that were made following a parliamentary review of the Anti-Terrorism Act, and amendments to the Canada Evidence Act that are proposed in order to bring the act in line with court rulings. The provisions in Bill S-7 have been drafted with due regard for the Constitution of Canada. For example, the new terrorism offences found in the bill have stringent requirements, such as proof as purpose to do wrong.

The investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions have several due process guarantees built into them and require annual reporting on their use by all governments, federal and provincial. As well, Bill S-7 requires Parliament to review the investigative hearings and the recognizance with conditions. We can see that there are strong and numerous safeguards built into this important piece of legislation.

In closing, I would like to express my deepest condolences to all of those who have suffered as a result of the despicable acts that occurred in Boston this last week. I hope, as I know all members of the House hope, that Canada will never have to suffer as Boston as suffered over the last week. We can only hope, though, that if such a terrible event were to happen in Canada, or if Canada were to become a target of terrorism, we would act as Bostonians have, with great courage and great resolution.

The way that the city has come together has been an inspiration for all of us. They have shown the world that fear would not define them. I would hope that Canadians, if such a thing would happen, would do the same thing. I would like to commend the Bostonians and honour them for what they have done, as a city and as our American neighbours.

At the same time, I would like to say that it is so important to ensure that Canada has the necessary laws and tools to prevent such a heinous attack. We want to make sure we are fully prepared and that we can combat terrorism and possible future terrorist acts, as well as making sure that anyone who has been involved in terrorist acts in Canada is dealt with. We have to ensure that the evildoers are met with the justice that they deserve. Otherwise, we as parliamentarians have failed our most basic duty, and that is to protect Canadians.

Therefore, I urge all members of the House to support the immediate and long overdue enactments of this important bill.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thinking about my dear friends in Boston, as people all over the world are thinking of Boston, I would like to refer my hon. colleague to the editorial in today's Globe and Mail. It says the two-day debate in Parliament on the government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation “smacks of political opportunism, and it is regrettable that it will take place. The debate politicizes the Boston Marathon bombings when few facts are known [...] The sole apparent purpose of the debate is to attempt to embarrass [the new political leader], and to cash in on any public fears caused by the bombings”.

The Globe and Mail calls on Parliament to take the time to reflect on this bill and not to use it just to embarrass the fuzzy thinking of the Liberal leader.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to work with us in ensuring that the bill is reviewed properly instead of it being used for political fodder.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that would be the first question my colleague would ask me. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed.

The fact is, as we have seen over this last week in Boston, as well as in London, Ontario, and there are other examples, we know that terrorism and the threat of terrorism is not something that only affects countries far away. It has had a terrible effect and terrible consequences right here in North America. Our neighbours have suffered terribly.

Our job as parliamentarians, and we as Conservatives take our job very seriously, is to make sure that Canadians are protected and to make sure law enforcement have the tools they need, whether it is CSIS, RCMP or investigators locally. That is the job that Canadians have asked us to do.

This is an important amendment. It is an amendment that was part of the original legislation. Again, the Liberals recognized that it was important. At this time, when a lot of the threats are not known, when police and law enforcement are investigating, they need these tools. There are strong safeguards, but they need the tools to be able to question potential threats. They need to be able to stop these potential threats, which is the recognizance with conditions portion, again, only with the approval and the consent of a judge, and they need other safeguards in place.

It is too bad that the NDP does not seem to understand that terrorism is a threat. We have seen it over this last week. It is not just a notion. It is not just something for academics to talk about.

It is time right now for parliamentarians to act, to give law enforcement the tools they need, to bring back important provisions into the Anti-terrorism Act, including the new laws that would make it an offence to leave the country to engage in or be trained in terrorist activity. These are important and timely measures. It is extremely disappointing that the NDP does not see this.

I am hoping I will hear that the Liberals will continue to support this. I know they have indicated previously that they would support it.

It is disappointing, not surprising, that the NDP will not support it. The legislation was before committee and we did study it thoroughly. I know that some of my NDP colleagues, and other colleagues, the critic for public safety, were there and they asked questions. We heard over and over that this was an important piece for law enforcement.

If the NDP members have more technical questions about the bill, we understand that. We would be happy to answer those questions. We are prepared, because we believe it is a good piece of legislation. However, to out and out say they are not going to support it then I would say that if they want to talk about who is politicizing something they need to look in the mirror.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to echo the comments made by my colleague from Timmins—James Bay, for I too believe that the Conservative government's decision to bring this debate back to the forefront smacks of partisanship.

What we have before us is a government that is using the terrible tragedy that took place in Boston for partisan purposes. On the one hand—and this ties into the question I want to ask my Conservative colleague—I will demonstrate that this government is not very proactive on terrorism.

It cut $143 million from the Canada Border Services Agency budget, and 325 jobs were lost at border crossings across the country. The intelligence branch lost 100 jobs and 19 sniffer dog units, which could have protected Canada by preventing terrorists from entering our country.

Why does my colleague think the government is, on the one hand, using the terrible tragedy in Boston to try to boost its image, while on the other hand quietly eliminating the jobs of inspectors who could prevent terrorists from entering Canada?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is pretty remarkable coming from a member on that side of the House, when every time we try to bring forward legislation that supports law enforcement, as is evident today, members vote against it and do not support it.

The fact is that we have increased front-line officers at the border by 26%. However, it is no surprise that when the NDP members do not have a valid argument for their shallow dismissiveness of a very serious threat, they spew inaccurate talking points. It is this government that has time and time again given more resources to law enforcement, whether it is at the border or it is the RCMP, with Bill C-42. There have been legislative changes, whether we are talking about legislative changes to support victims, or in this case, where we are bringing forward legislation that has been asked for by law enforcement across the country who know terrorism is a real threat. They have asked for this legislation, and the members opposite have voted against it.

If NDP members want to argue against the legislation, go ahead. I would be happy to debate any one of them head-to-head on this legislation. Instead, what are we hearing from them? We are hearing that we do not need to do it right now.

Last October, the NDP member for Brome—Missisquoi expressed his reservations for this legislation by saying, “since 2007, nothing has happened in Canada. The country has not been subject to terrorist attacks”. Frankly, that kind of irresponsible head-in-the-sand attitude is not only disappointing, but it is very troubling. I think Canadians will look at the NDP members and look at their reaction.

When they have a chance to support important legislation, they could do one of two things. They could support the legislation or they could stand up and give an informed and intelligent response. However, what we are hearing so far today is pretty shallow, and I would say intellectually bankrupt.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat interesting that we have had this legislation sitting on the books for quite a while. The Liberal Party has indicated its support for the legislation.

However, the government chose last Friday, an hour before the House was going to adjourn, to raise this issue. We were supposed to be debating a motion today dealing with democracy and reform. However, the Conservatives used the excuse to say it is because of the Boston incident, which every Canadian from coast to coast to coast would acknowledge is horrific and for which they want to see consequences, to bring this issue forward. They did not say they would bring it forward on Friday or last Thursday; they wanted to bring it in on Monday. I will explain why I think that is the case when I get the opportunity to speak.

If the bill were to pass today, would the government then go back to an opposition day tomorrow? Would that be the inclination of the government?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by assuring both the NDP and the Liberals that this is not about them. They need to stop the navel-gazing and thinking the whole world revolves around them, because it does not.

Here is what we are doing with this legislation. We are giving law enforcement the tools they need and that they have asked for time and time again. The initial Anti-terrorism Act was under the Liberals, and that was sunsetted. I hope my hon. colleague from the Liberal side would indicate that even under his new leader they will still support this important piece of legislation and these amendments.

It is perhaps hard for the opposition to understand, but when we are in government, we have to make the right decisions and we have to make them at the right time. It may sometimes be easier for them to sit and pontificate about what might be causing all of this, but this government will act. We will act decisively. Law enforcement needs these tools. They need these provisions. We will move swiftly to make sure it happens. We will not be deterred by the opposition's constant wondering if it is all about them, because it is not: it is about the people of Canada.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York South—Weston.

I would like to begin by expressing my condolences on behalf of the NDP to the families and loved ones of all those who were injured or killed last week in Boston. What a terrible tragedy.

When I heard the news, the first thing I thought of was the final message left in a letter to Canadians from our former leader, Jack Layton. He said he hoped our world would have more love and less hate, more hope, less despair and more compassion. When I heard about what happened in Boston, my first thought was that we still do not live in that kind of society.

Parliament has already brought in anti-terrorism legislation and I am so happy that it has been successfully protecting Canadians and the Canadian government for the past 12 years. My initial stance is that Canada's existing anti-terrorism laws are satisfactory and adequate. That is one reason the NDP will be opposing this bill.

As my Liberal colleague mentioned earlier, this bill comes out of nowhere. We have not heard anything about it since December. Now, suddenly, the Conservative government is exploiting the Boston tragedy for partisan purposes. I am disgusted by this display of partisanship, which has no place in Canada.

We are still waiting for the House of Commons to raise the level of intellectual debate in Canada. While I believe the Conservative government cares about the safety of Canadians, its decision to bring Bill S-7 back into the spotlight stinks of partisanship. I strongly condemn that decision.

I hope the people at home realize that. I hope they will not think the Conservatives are white knights sworn to protect Canadians from terrorism. If the Conservatives were really in power to protect people from terrorism, they would not have waited until April to dust off this bill, which has been on the shelf since December.

A responsible Canadian government would not have kept hitting the snooze button until tragedy struck somewhere else in the world. It would not have made a last-minute decision on a Friday afternoon to discuss terrorism on the very next business day. That is poor planning. A responsible government would step up and introduce good bills.

Bill S-7 is not wholly without merit. Nonetheless, the Conservative government and the parliamentary secretary had no business saying that the NDP's approach was not serious.

To prove just how serious the NDP is, I will point out that when this bill went to committee, the NDP put forward 18 amendments to improve it. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives proposed a single amendment. In committee, the NDP fought tooth and nail to debate and improve this bill.

As I said, nobody is against doing the right thing. We want to protect Canadians from terrorist acts. However, we have to be careful, because passing this kind of bill can cause major problems in terms of freedoms. I am not talking about the freedoms of actual terrorists. It is clear that real terrorists must immediately be handed over to police or even military authorities, depending on the circumstances.

I have particular concerns about people in a position of power. We know that the Conservative government, which is in a position of power, abuses Parliament, which is supposed to be democratic. Last week, the Conservatives invoked closure for the 31st time. That is a Canadian record. Congratulations on killing democracy bit by bit.

I am concerned that Bill S-7 will give this type of freedom to the Conservative government and will create problems that will become clear only in a few months or years. By then it will be too late, because other problems will have been created.

Earlier, I mentioned that the NDP takes the issue of terrorism very seriously. We proposed 18 amendments in committee, but all of them were rejected by the Conservative government, which has a majority. Obviously, Canadians do not know about all of these useful amendments that the NDP proposed in order to improve this bill. If some of them had been passed in committee, we might not be debating this bill. It could have been passed quickly, with the NDP's support.

The Conservative government continues to believe that every bill it introduces is perfect, in every sense of the word, but the past has proven the government wrong. One example is the minister's bill that proposed spying on people on the Internet. That bill was quickly withdrawn because of a public outcry. This government believes itself to be perfect, but it is not. That is why we need to have debate in the House and pass amendments in committee, but that is not what happened with Bill S-7.

The first amendment the NDP proposed was rejected. We wanted SIRC to look at the possibility of an inter-agency co-operation protocol to ensure that it would be effective and that rights protected by law would be respected. We wanted that protocol to be put in place before the leaving the country offences could come into effect. It was deemed as being beyond the scope of the bill, and on that basis, the government decided to reject the amendment outright.

Clearly, the people watching at home understand how good it would be to do this type of review of our techniques and protocols. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused our request. It is no big deal. The NDP is very reasonable and continued to propose other good amendments to improve the bill.

The second amendment we proposed was to ensure that testimony gathered from investigative hearings could not be used against an individual in extradition and deportation proceedings, not just in criminal proceedings. Once again, the Conservative government said that this did not fall within the scope of the bill and that this amendment would therefore not improve the bill.

The third amendment we proposed was to establish the right to state-funded legal aid if a person had to attend an investigative hearing. Common sense dictates that people who are charged must at least be able to defend themselves and have their point of view heard. In many trials in human history, allegations have been proven to be unfounded. Clearly, that is not what the NDP wants. We want the real criminals to be put behind bars. We have to give these people a chance to prove their case.

When we proposed this amendment, we were told that it would encroach on the Crown's financial initiatives. This is just another ridiculous excuse as to why we could not propose this amendment.

Since I am running out of time, I will not be able to list all the amendments. However, I would like to try to quickly share some of them. Incidentally, they were all rejected.

The fourth amendment was to ensure that the annual reports included detailed information on any changes to the legislation, policies and practices related to exit information or exit control. This amendment was rejected.

The fifth amendment was to ensure that the comprehensive review included the implementation of four new offences related to leaving the country and that the issue be dealt with by elected members, not just by the Senate. This amendment was also rejected.

The sixth amendment was to add a comprehensive review of the government's implementation of the Arar commission's recommendations with regard to accountability and oversight mechanisms, with particular attention to oversight and activities among agencies. Once again, the amendment was rejected.

We wanted to include the advice of the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the racial discrimination and profiling issues surrounding Bill S-7. This amendment was also rejected.

My time has expired, but I would like to reiterate that the NDP takes terrorism seriously. We will continue to fight to ensure that Canadians are protected and feel safe in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the NDP will not be supporting the bill, but my question for the member is in reference to his earlier statement with regard to the Conservatives bringing forward this bill at this point in time. The Boston tragedy has been pointed out as something on which Canadians, Americans and anyone who lives in North America can really sympathize with the families and the city, and we want to see justice prevail in this issue. However, we find it unfortunate that the government wants to use that tragedy as a legislative tool.

Would the member agree with that assessment?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, the Conservative government is putting this bill on the front burner in order to make tomorrow's headlines. It wants the editorials to say just how proactive the Conservative government is being on the issue of terrorism, and that it is protecting Canadians' way of life and security. Bill S-7 has come from nowhere. The Conservative government dragged its feet for many months before reintroducing it.

As my Liberal colleague mentioned, this legislation was passed 12 years ago when the Liberals were in power and it still stands up today. Since coming into force, it has done a good job of protecting Canadians. The Conservatives have yet to convince me that the old law needs to be changed. If that is the case, the amendments I mentioned earlier should be incorporated. We should improve the bill by making these amendments and we should not be creating an incredible loophole that could wreak havoc with the civil liberties of people who are not criminals.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. Certainly the horrific killings in Boston remind us of the recent killings and senseless violence in Newtown and in Colorado.

However, I am thinking about why this bill is being brought forward today, and I think of Annie Maguire and her six family members in London who were sentenced to 15 years in jail for the crime of being Irish because the government at the time thought it would fight terrorism and it would get rid of all liberties. I am thinking of Maher Arar, whose only crime was that he was a Canadian citizen who came from the Middle East, and the Liberal government at the time did not mind his being taken off and tortured. Of course, years later we saw that it had been a fundamental abuse.

Today we are being called upon to push this through. We are being accused of being soft on terror and all the other crazy stuff that the Conservatives talk about.

I would like to ask a question of my hon. colleague about today's Globe and Mail editorial saying that the government's anti-terrorism legislation smacks of political opportunism, that the debate is politicizing the Boston Marathon bombings and that the debate should not happen until we have a chance to ensure that basic civil liberties would not be undermined in an attempt by the government to simply embarrass the Liberal Party. I do not know why they are worried about embarrassing the Liberal Party; the Liberal Party has been supporting the undermining of civil liberties for years on this issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord has 50 seconds.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about partisanship in the House of Commons. Naturally, the House is a very partisan place. It is common for the government to accuse the opposition of a thousand and one things, and vice versa. However, when Canadian newspapers point out that what Parliament or the Conservative government is doing is partisan, that is appalling.

The Conservatives accuse the NDP of not taking terrorism seriously, even though that is not true. However, when a newspaper as illustrious as The Globe and Mail says the same thing as the NDP, it means that the government must change its tune and stop using the House of Commons as a soapbox for spreading such rubbish for partisan purposes. It is unbecoming.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak again to Bill S-7. I must agree with my colleagues on this side of the House, the timing is somewhat suspect.

The bill was reported back to the House of Commons on December 12 of last year and it was not until today, more than four months later, that it suddenly appeared. The only notice was given last Friday, by the government House leader, that the bill would be replacing an opposition day motion that dealt with Conservative backbenchers' rights to speak here in the House. Therefore, the timing of the bill is very deliberately political. We could not come to any other conclusion than there is a political method and madness in the timing of Bill S-7.

However, putting the timing aside, we in the NDP believe in the freedoms and rights of individuals in our country. We do not want to see unnecessary and unhelpful changes to our laws that make people in our country subject to unreasonable search, seizure, and detention. That is one of the core problems with the bill that the Conservatives have refused to consider amending. Every step of the way we have suggested that we could support the bill if some of the freedoms that were being taken away by the government were put back or protected in another way. They have refused at this stage to consider any amendment whatsoever.

When the Conservatives bring a bill before Parliament they have all the right answers in their minds. They believe everything they have written is perfect and cannot be improved upon. We take considerable umbrage at that approach. In fact, there are some serious problems with the bill that we would like to correct.

We would like to work with the government in preventing terrorism. No one on this side of the House would like anything more than to prevent terrorism in our country. There has not been a lot of it in our country. Of course, we have the recent events in Boston to remind us just how close it could be. However, the police have been successful, without these changes in the law, in preventing serious terrorist acts in the country and without using its predecessor in preventing serious terrorist acts in the country.

Why then is it necessary to create this new regime? Why is it necessary to withdraw some more Canadian fundamental rights and freedoms? The right not to be imprisoned unreasonably and the right not to have to give evidence against oneself in a trial are two fundamental rights that we believe Canadians think they enjoy. However, the government would take those rights away with Bill S-7 and in so doing remove some of the very fundamental protections that Canadians have.

Bill S-7 is very complicated and technical, so let us bring it down to a more reasonable and understandable level. When we talk about the notion of preventative detention, what the heck does that mean to an ordinary Canadian? What it means is that a peace officer, and that means a police officer, an RCMP officer, a border officer, or anyone who is classified as a peace officer, can, without a warrant, put someone in jail. That is now what the Conservatives would like us to accept, if that peace officer believes that doing so might help prevent a terrorist act from taking place. It is true that after a short period of time—we do not know how long exactly, but they suggest 24 hours—that person would have to go before a judge and the peace officer would have to justify the detention of that individual or, in the words of the act, “the preventative detention”, which means that individual would have restrictions placed on his or her ability to get around, on whether or not he or she could have firearms, for example, and whether or not her or she could leave the country.

We have a situation then, without any trial and without any conviction.

That individual is not a person suspected of being a terrorist, by the way. That is a person who is maybe a relative, maybe a friend. That person, then, would be subject, under the bill, to serious, preventative detention measures.

As it turns out, this kind of preventative detention was there in the previous act and was never used. Police have managed without this kind of measure to stop terrorism. So, what would its effect be?

I would like to refer to good, old Uncle Albert, in Moose Jaw, whose nephew, for whatever reason, is suspected of some kind of terrorist act. And so, because they cannot find the nephew, the police come to Uncle Albert's door, put him in jail for a day, then take him before a judge and argue that Uncle Albert might know where the nephew is, so we cannot let Uncle Albert have any more guns. We cannot let Uncle Albert leave the country because we have to be able to interrogate Uncle Albert, Uncle Albert in Moose Jaw, who has done nothing. The police do not suspect him of any terrorism. He just happens to be the uncle of the nephew they do suspect.

What happens? Uncle Albert says, because he is from Moose Jaw and because he is a farmer and has to keep the varmints off his property, “I can't give up my firearms. I'm not giving up my firearms. I refuse.” There would be no choice, then, but to put him in jail for up to 12 months.

That is the kind of thing that could happen to Uncle Albert in Moose Jaw, who has absolutely no terrorist inclination whatsoever. However, because he is related to somebody the police are only investigating because they suspect there might be some kind of terrorist activity, Uncle Albert would be put in jail for up to 12 months.

That is not the Canada that I want to be part of. That is not the Canada that Canadians have come to expect, to have as part of their rights and freedoms the right and freedom not to be imprisoned without conviction, with a trial, without a judge.

That is exactly what the Conservatives are suggesting should happen. That is one of the things to which the NDP said, “Whoa, that goes too far”, and the Conservatives said, “Too bad. This is the way we like it. We want this preventative detention to apply to anybody, not just people we suspect of being terrorists, but people who are peripherally related.” That would take the bill way too far.

With respect to the timing of the bill, people can read for themselves what The Globe and Mail has to say about the timing of the bill. They can suggest for themselves what the Conservatives are doing to create the timing of the bill.

However, the bill would not do what the Conservatives suggest it would and put Canada in a place where we could prevent the kinds of things that we all want not to happen. The bill would go too far in a number of respects.

The NDP supports the notion that we should be giving our police forces, our border protection people, the powers and the tools they need, and the resources to prevent crimes from being committed in Canada. The border services is having its budget cut. At the same time the Conservatives are suggesting that we want to prevent terrorism and we want to prevent terrorism from occurring overseas. We want to prevent terrorists from being trained overseas. At the same time we want to prevent those kinds of things from happening, we are in the position of having to say our border services it has to make do with less.

The Border Services Agency is already having a terribly difficult time preventing the huge influx of smuggled guns into this country, which I would suggest is doing more to harm our citizenry and to put people in a state of fear than the bill would ever solve. At the same that the bill is being presented as a necessary part of police officers' arsenal, we are taking away money from the Border Services Agency, which is trying to prevent illegal handguns from reaching this country. It is a two-faced system.

We in the NDP believe that there are things we should be doing and spending more time on than this one. This one is seriously flawed.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for having spent a fair bit of time on an area that had NDP members leaving the committee after clause by clause quite shocked. We had attempted to propose an amendment that would make clear that anybody who was not suspected of being involved in or potentially involved in terrorist activity could not be subject to the recognizance with conditions regime. We wanted to make that clear, because we thought that the provision had been drafted badly. It turns out that is what the government wanted.

The parliamentary secretary said the following, which I am wondering if my colleague could comment on. She stated:

The recognizance with conditions in its present form would provide the potential for a recognizance with conditions to be imposed...[on a] person who would be subject to the recognizance with conditions [who] is not necessarily the person carrying out a terrorist activity. The proposed amendment [from the NDP] would seek to restrict the application of this measure....

Because that is inconsistent with the policy intent underpinning the provision, we are opposed to it.

I wanted to put on record what my colleague has been saying because many in the House might have thought this was a fanciful example of Uncle Albert. Maybe it is a stretch to think that anybody in Canada would do to Uncle Albert what my colleague suggested, but the possibility of that or other scenarios is very much what the government affirmed in committee.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his position in committee, having had the ability to actually hear from the government what it intends. What it intends very clearly is that the scope of preventative detention and recognizance provisions of this bill are intended to cover a very wide scope of individuals. It may be a stretch to suggest that somebody in Moose Jaw would be held in prison as a result of being related to somebody who was, in fact, the subject of a terrorism investigation, but that is precisely what the bill would permit and that is precisely why the NDP had suggested the bill goes to far.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will have the opportunity to provide some comments in more detail, but I was wondering if the member could reiterate the timing and comment on the Boston tragedy and, in very few words, explain why he believes the bill is before us right now.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stated earlier that the timing is somewhat suspect. No one in the House, least of all the NDP, suggests that what happened in Boston is not something we should pay very close attention to and be very concerned about. Our hearts, thoughts, and prayers go out to the individuals who were affected by what must have been a very difficult, trying, and frightening time.

The bill has been sitting in limbo for the past four months. For the government to suddenly decide to bring it forward today smacks of some political opportunism, if ever I saw it.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I would like to hear what he has to say about this government's measures. On the one hand, the government is advocating law and order and says that it wants to combat terrorism. On the other hand, particularly in budget 2012 and successive budgets, it has made significant cuts to public safety.

Could he elaborate on this?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the importation of illegal handguns is a serious and pressing problem in my riding and in the city of Toronto. There was a bank robbery just yesterday, which was probably with illegally imported handguns, because just about all of them are. Two individuals were shot during the bank robbery in Toronto, in my riding. That kind of thing needs to be prevented. The importation of illegal guns needs to be prevented. Cutting the budget for border services officers is not the way to prevent illegal guns from coming to Toronto.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-7, which is before us.

Before I get into my comments, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard.

What happened last week in Boston was a heinous crime. It was a horrible situation that affected real people. It terrorized a community. We were all moved by it when we saw the images on TV.

As someone who likes to run and who takes part in running, I can personally say that it is normally a place of celebration. If members have never seen a marathon run, I would recommend that they go. It is a magical place where people of ages, sizes and genders come to celebrate participation and civic action. It is one of the most wonderful expressions of civic participation, because it involves not only the people participating in the race but also those who are on the sidelines cheering people on. When people come to Ottawa during a race weekend, they see people by the canal cheering on people they do not even know. It is a magical thing to see. That is why it was so difficult to witness this heinous assault on a public space.

Boston is known for its friendly citizens. The Boston Marathon is world renowned, and we were all moved. None of the members in the House have the licence to say they were moved or more concerned than another member. Let us start with that premise, the premise that everyone in the House thought what happened last week was horrific and that we need to do things to make sure that we prevent those kinds of occurrences from happening again. Let us make that point, because sometimes the debate gets heated and people become passionate. I think we have to avoid being personal and partisan when it comes to this issue.

However, when it comes to the application of this bill and the agenda, it is very important that we underline what appears to be the motive of the government. As members know, this has been stated, and it needs to be restated: it was on last Friday at the last minute that the government decided to put this bill in front of the House. Let us remember that it has been around since 2007. In 2001, there were provisions brought in by the previous government, with a sunset clause in 2007. In 2007 a bill was brought forward, and since 2006 we have had a government that has had the opportunity since 2007 to pass it.

It works against the logic of the Conservatives when they say they have to do this right now, because they have had the ability to pass the bill for years, not only with a majority government but before that, because the Liberals were supporting them when we had a minority Parliament.

Let us be clear about where everyone stands on this. The Liberals support the bill, notwithstanding the fact that there are concerns around civil liberties. We have concerns mainly because since 2001 and 2007, the provisions that were put in place by the Liberal government were never used. If we look at some of the concerns we have had in this country with respect to terrorism, such as the infamous Toronto 18, that was not dealt with by using these provisions but rather through good old-fashioned investigative police work and coordination. That was how it was dealt with.

The Liberals want to support the Conservatives on this bill, and that is fine. However, the point is that the Conservatives could have passed this measure even when they had a minority Parliament. They have had a majority Parliament, yet last Friday they claimed they had to pass it immediately because it is urgent. The government has no credibility on that—zero.

Some members get angry when they think about what is being done here, but I will say it is unfortunate. It is with deep sadness and regret that we see a government using this issue and this bill in the way it is today.

We heard the parliamentary secretary say that this is very important and that they wanted to hear from everyone. I am not seeing that so far from the other side today while we are debating this bill. I am not seeing the opportunities to ask questions and the opportunities for senior ministers to get up and speak. I will leave it to citizens to figure out what it is all about.

What is so incredibly unnerving is to see what happened last week being used in this way. Canadians really have to understand what the agenda of the government is. If it was on this issue, it would have passed this law back in 2007. It could have. It had the support of the Liberals. The Conservatives have had a majority since 2011. Did they pass the bill? No. How many bills have the Conservatives rammed through this place? If it was so important, they could have had this done. They have had time allocation and they have had omnibus bills and they could have done it.

For the government to stand and say that this is urgent and we have to pass it in light of what happened in Boston lacks credibility, to put it mildly. If the government is seriously concerned about this issue and wants to see results, then it has to put its money where its mouth is.

To that end, what we do have is a government that has actually done the opposite. It has cut border services, the people who are responsible for being our eyes and ears when it comes to threats of terrorism. It has cut RCMP budgets as well.

We have to ask ourselves what is at play here. We have heard from experts, as members on the committee would have heard, who have deep concerns around how the bill could be misapplied. Giving up rights—which, let us be clear, is what we are talking about in this bill—has to have a premise and there has to be evidence for it.

The evidence to date has been that we have never used these provisions when they were available and that we have been able to prevent terrorism by using the tools we have available to us. I mentioned the Toronto 18 case, and there are others. If the government is going to take away rights, then it has to make the argument and it has to have the evidence. We do not believe an argument has been made that is cogent enough to actually undermine civil liberties.

As has been mentioned a couple of times, The Globe and Mail did say in its editorial today that there are a lot of questions around the timing, but there is also another a key question. I will quote from the editorial today:

More worrying is the fact that there are aspects of the proposed bill that raise questions about balancing civil liberties with the need to protect citizens. A wise course of action would be to postpone the bill’s final reading so that any emotional fallout from the Boston bombings doesn’t colour an important debate about public safety in Canada.

I could not agree more, regardless of whether members think this is the way to go or not. The time to push this through, ram this through, is not immediately after an incident like this, because it will have made no difference to the incident we are talking about, which is in the United States. To date we have not seen any evidence that it was connected to Canada. Certainly these provisions would not have helped.

Again, it really is up to the government to explain why it is doing this now and for my friends in the Liberal Party to explain why they support it.

We heard about the importance of the charter last week from Liberals. I have to say we are proud as a party to have stood against the War Measures Act. We stand against this bill, but most of all we stand for being clear and honest about the reasons and the rationale for actions one takes in this Parliament.

Today we stand with the victims of the horrific terrorism case in Boston and we stand with all victims of extremism, but we stand against cynicism and we stand against political gains when it comes to protecting citizens no matter where they are. That is the position of our party, and I say it proudly.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his remarks. He is, as members know, our international affairs critic and as such has a very firm and knowledgeable grasp of situations that impact us here in Canada and that impact Canadians around the world.

I want to pick up on part of his remarks.

I think that this is an issue of leadership. We need leadership in how we respond to events both within and outside Canada, but we have none from the Conservative government.

If we had leadership, the Conservatives would not have cut the security budget by 29.8% in 2012-13 and 2013-14 and put our communities at risk in regard to our preparedness for emergencies and in terms of the personnel we need to respond to them, such as police officers. The recruitment fund has been gutted, with no renewal.

What should the government be doing instead of cutting and dismantling? If the Conservatives truly believe that we need to be secure, what should they be doing?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for London—Fanshawe for her question and her work. I was recently in her riding and I know that she has done a remarkable job of connecting with the constituents within her riding and, in fact, had a meeting with members of the Arab and Muslim community after they went through a very difficult time. She has shown real leadership on the ground in her riding.

However, to answer her question, one should invest in the very people who are our eyes and ears in preventing terrorism or extremism. It is quite surprising to hear the audacity of the Conservatives when they say on the one hand that we have to move on this issue because it is so important while on the other hand they are cutting the budgets of the very people who would prevent extremism and terrorism. The answer is that we invest in people to ensure that we prevent acts of extremism and terrorism. One does not just talk about it; one actually does it.

In the budget put in front of us and in previous budgets, we have seen cuts, so it is inconsistent for the government to say that it is serious about this issue when it actually cuts the budgets of the very people who help prevent extremism and terrorism.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, back in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling indicating that investigative hearings are in fact constitutional. We have seen numerous attempts by the government to try to bring in legislation, and on one it prorogued itself to kill the legislation. Now we have this bill before us today.

My question is related specifically to the need to provide for investigative hearings for the purposes of gathering information. We see that as one of the tools that our law enforcement officers could be using to combat terrorism. I wonder if the member would like to provide his take on the importance of that particular tool.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when one takes a right away, one had better be sure it is for the right reason. The Liberal Party has decided it will support the government on this bill. However, we do not support the government on this bill.

As I said in my comments, to date we have been able to prevent acts of terrorism by investing in the police, CSIS and others. We have to be vigilant on the balance between rights and security. We do not think the bill is necessary, and we are not alone.

I would suggest that just because it has gone through the court system and the court system says it is okay, that does not mean we should do it. That is why we had a different position years ago when it came to the War Measures Act.

Rights are things that are built up. They are things that we had better ensure are not taken away unless it is absolutely required. We do not believe, as the Liberals do in this case, that we should take rights away. The argument that we need to do that has not been adequately made.

We need to invest in people to prevent terrorism. That is what we would do.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am confused and concerned as I rise in this House today to speak on Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, as the Conservatives call it.

I am confused because the government expressed no intention of putting this piece of legislation back on the agenda. It had instead opted to have successive opposition days. As a result, I have some serious questions about the real reasons we are debating this bill right now. I am not the only one. This morning, The Globe and Mail stated:

The two-day debate in Parliament on the...government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation smacks of political opportunism, and it is regrettable that it will take place.

The editorial concluded:

More worrying is the fact that there are aspects of the proposed bill that raise questions about balancing civil liberties with the need to protect citizens.

I am also concerned as I rise in the House because, regardless of what arguments the opposition puts forward, their arguments will be twisted around and demolished by the Conservatives, who, instead of debating this issue, want to use this time to get their message out.

First of all, I would like to start by defining terrorism and talking about how it has evolved over time. My research opened my eyes, especially to the motives of perpetrators of acts of terrorism, motives that are not always fully known to us, contrary to what we may often think.

Terrorism goes back a number of centuries, and the term was particularly used after the fall of Robespierre in France to refer to the reign of terror in 1793 and 1794. The dictionary continues to define it as the systematic employment of violence to achieve a political goal.

The United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as the calculated use of unlawful violence, or the threat of unlawful violence, to inculcate fear intended to coerce or intimidate governments or society in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.

The Department of State continues by saying that acts of terrorism are often perpetrated against civilian—or non-combatant—targets.

Terrorism dates back to antiquity, when groups used systematic assassinations to spread fear and promote their cause. As I already mentioned, it was after the French Revolution that the government at the time used a climate of terror to take down its opponents. Even now, this type of terrorism is used and institutionalized by governments. The rise of nationalism during the last century exacerbated instances of terrorism. Terrorism has gone global and we are seeing a change in the types of terrorism and in the groups or individuals who are conducting these activities.

How can we combat terrorism in Canada, especially as this bill proposes to do?

We must know what kind of terrorism Canada has experienced in recent decades. In Terrorisme et antiterrorisme au Canada, the authors state:

The threat of terrorism—meaning the probability that a highly destructive incident will take place in Canada—is practically non-existent....

For several reasons, it is ridiculous to think that Canada can prevent terrorist attacks, although we can certainly prepare for emergencies and develop strategies to minimize destruction and provide assistance to victims. Some plots will be foiled. However, this is very rare and when we look at the plots that have recently been uncovered in Canada and the United States, we cannot help but notice that they are amateur in nature and have a slim possibility of being successful. First, the evolution of international terrorism must be taken into consideration. Instances of truly international attacks (instigated, financed or run remotely from outside the target country) have been considerably declining in the past ten years. The fact that they are so rare means that they are too unpredictable to be prevented: there is no pattern or detectable model. However, most acts of terrorism in western countries are carried out by individuals born in the country they are attacking or by naturalized citizens. These people are recently radicalized and ill-prepared. This means that their actions tend to be uncommon...and organized quickly—also difficult to detect in advance. Second, since there is a nearly infinite number of vulnerable targets in a country like ours, it is not a good idea to focus on protection. There is no way to prepare...

Bill S-7 is not the right way to go about combatting terrorism. The bill reintroduces measures that have proven to be unjustified and ineffective in the past. Over the weekend in The Globe and Mail, Doug Saunders described the silence following a tragedy like the one in Boston, and how politicians try to fill that silence:

...we point to the neglected menaces and failures within our own society, we raise our security and perhaps lower our tolerance for reduced civil liberties, and in the process we allow a new political moment to take shape.

Further on, he also says that major attacks against civilians are extremely rare, but every time they occur, they seem to have the same effects and elicit the same reactions: confusion, horror, fear and profound sympathy for the victims, who are all too numerous in tragedies like this.

However, I do not believe it was those reactions that pushed the Conservatives to bring back Bill S-7, which will not fight terrorism but is simply an example of political opportunism. Our laws already fight terrorism. Terrorism is a crime, and we already have laws in place to bring to justice those who plot or commit acts of terrorism. This bill is useless and will not combat terrorism in Canada.

I should add that this government has a very strange way of addressing safety. In the 2012 budget and budgets before that—and those that are to come, I imagine—it announced considerable reductions of $687.9 million to public safety, whether it was at the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or the RCMP.

That is a strange way of addressing public safety. The Conservatives come up with a bill like this one, which is completely useless, while their actions run completely counter to protecting and increasing public safety in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Supreme Court ruling from 2004, which talked about investigative hearings. With terrorism being what it is now, it has really changed the dynamics in many different ways. We understand that our law enforcement officers are looking for the opportunity to use this as a tool.

I am interested in knowing if the member feels that there is a need, from her or her party's perspective, to give law enforcement officers this tool that allows an investigative hearing. Is that something she believes is necessary and needs to be amended to allow it to take place, or it is not necessary?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Since 2001, the provisions in the bill that was passed in the wake of September 11, 2011, have never been used. That is a clear response to my colleague's question. These provisions have not been used. We have enough tools already. I believe that investigators have the tools they need to do their jobs.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a day when we are still mourning the loss of so many people in Boston, we are debating a bill that could have enormous implications.

I am interested in my colleague's opinion. Bill S-7 is a law of general application, which means that it would affect not only adults but juveniles as well. Canada has certain obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international instruments to protect children from unnecessary detention. The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children proposed amendments to the bill that would ensure that children under the age of 18 would be taken into special consideration and not be subject to these measures. The government ignored that recommendation. We are concerned about this.

The Liberal Party is supporting this legislation. Last week the Liberal leader said that New Democrats were somehow soft on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although the first charter of rights and freedoms in this country came in with Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan. New Democrats, as opposed to the Liberal Party, fought to ensure that first nations were included in the charter.

The Liberal Party is supporting a bill that would not offer clear protection to those under the age of 18 from these kinds of detention measures. What does my hon. colleague think about that?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very perceptive question and especially for pointing out one of the problems caused by Bill S-7.

When bills are introduced, we have to work on them and consider all their potential consequences. It is scandalous that experts appeared before the committee, amendments were proposed and that, once again, the government turned a deaf ear. That is a problem.

We identified serious flaws in this bill. The government must absolutely go back to the drawing board.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for London—Fanshawe.

The iterative, in the sense of repetitive, nature of additions to the Criminal Code devised unilaterally by this government bring out my instincts as a litigator.

Introducing in the House arguments that call into question a tangent that resembles an edict and that would implement coercive measures can only contribute to maintaining an intrinsic balance in the rule of law in our country.

Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, currently before the House, is likely to feed a number of citizens' fears related to repeated attempts to circumscribe the spectre of civil liberties and human rights in our country, all under the cover of legislative initiatives associated with the repression of contingent and intangible threats to Canada.

I would like to emphasize the hypothetical nature of terrorism in Canada, and I think that my colleagues agree with me in this respect. The Criminal Code, the tool we are currently using, already contains many provisions related to terrorism. Based on my own analysis, which is fairly sound since I practised law for six years, I believe that we would be opening a Pandora's box by blindly delegating discretionary powers to peace officers. This would ultimately allow them to unilaterally determine which individuals pose a threat to national security and then simply proceed with interrogations and pre-charge detention.

Pre-charge detention already exists in France, where individuals can be detained for a certain period of time while an investigation is conducted. This is unprecedented in Canada, particularly for individuals who do not necessarily have a criminal record or links to organized crime or terrorist groups.

This type of addition to the Criminal Code will leave the door wide open to abuse. As a lawyer, my first instinct is often to look at how such decisions and legislative measures could be challenged in court. I know that the Canadian government has Crown lawyers. I have sometimes wondered whether the government is really listening to these lawyers, because this type of measure can clearly be challenged.

The bottom line is that the exercise of such discretionary power can only result in abuse. We know that such measures have never been implemented in Canada. Adding them to the Criminal Code will only result in a significant number of court challenges. I strongly urge the government to re-evaluate its position and listen more closely to its own lawyers. The Government of Canada must have good lawyers on staff.

The notions of terrorism in the Criminal Code are always being revised, which means that the use of power could become more arbitrary and less evidence could be needed to determine the reasonableness of an interrogation or preventive detention.

I would like to give an example of the type of reasoning that could result from the implementation of the proposed measures if the bill is passed. The proposed amendments will result in many instances of individuals being arrested without a warrant because a peace officer believes that the arrest is necessary to prevent a terrorist attack. Ultimately, the individuals in question will be subject to recognizance with conditions. This all concerns individuals who were not suspected of terrorist activities.

Thus it will be possible to arrest someone who has no criminal record and no known links to terrorism or organized crime. That individual could be arrested based on suspicion, based on the perception of the officer responsible for the case who sees an act of violence. That individual could be questioned for 24 hours.

Then, also based on the peace officer's opinion, that individual could be brought before a judge and forced to appear outside the usual structure of criminal charges and penal and statutory rules. We are still talking about civil matters.

That individual, who should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, can be brought before a judge who will be called upon to determine if release conditions can be imposed on him.

If that individual does not want to meet those conditions or appears unwilling to do so, he could be imprisoned for up to 12 months. Accordingly, someone who is presumed innocent could be held in detention for 12 months, if he does not meet those conditions. Quite obviously, this leaves room for potential abuses of power. It is immediately obvious that this is unacceptable.

If the individual refuses, he can be imprisoned for up to 12 months. This imprisonment, not the result of a criminal conviction, is considered preventive detention.

I would like to say a few words about preventive detention. I would like to reiterate that I miss practising law. That said, over the years that I was a practising lawyer, some changes were made to preventive detention. When I began practising in 2006, if a client's case was treated according to normal criminal procedures, preventive detention counted for double time. In fact, judges applied this calculation de facto. In other words, time spent in remand custody was credited two-for-one for individuals who were not released following their bail hearing. That is no longer the case. The justice system has new instructions and that time simply no longer counts as double time.

This illustrates the trend towards applying harsher, more demanding measures when it comes to sentencing for criminal matters.

Seeking to include preventive detention of up to 12 months in the Criminal Code, coupled with eliminating the need to comply with the conditions of making an arrest without a warrant for the purpose of preventing a hypothetical terrorist act, clearly shows the highly questionable nature of the Conservatives' approach to national security.

As I said, I still have my lawyer's instinct. That is why I saw a case right away and the possibility of a court challenge against measures like these.

Actually, when I give training and I go to various first nations reserves and aboriginal communities across the country, I always make sure to tell them that people have the option to consider class action suits against unilateral decisions that are highly prejudicial and problematic.

I often encourage people to consider that option, given the possibility of pooling money and having a host of plaintiffs in a case. That reduces the financial burden for each plaintiff. In cases involving thousands of plaintiffs, they can put together a substantial amount of money and gain access to experts and their expertise, which would be difficult for an individual.

I submit all this respectfully.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I always pay close attention to his way of seeing things and presenting them.

Could he speak to the fact that we have before us a bill from the Senate? If this is one of the government's priorities, why does the bill not come from the House of Commons? Let us move on to something else.

In budget after budget, the amounts for public safety agencies have been significantly reduced.

Could he comment on the disconnect between what the government says and what it does?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

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

There has been decentralization, but this constitutes thoughtless delegation of the criteria for assessing how dangerous individuals are and the threat level when it comes to terrorism.

According to the text of the bill before us, this is being delegated to peace officers. They have some training, but there is only so much they can do. They are, after all, human beings. This delegation of power to individuals could result in serious abuses of power, as I pointed out. It would be better to invest in better-equipped entities, state entities overseen by government, to assess how dangerous individuals are, rather than going about it this way and opening Pandora's box.

I submit this respectfully.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the issue of the investigative hearings.

The Supreme Court made a decision that investigative hearings are in fact constitutional. Given the very important issue of terrorism, there are law enforcement officers who genuinely believe this is a tool they could actually use to combat terrorism. We heard that in the presentations at the committee stage.

Given the member's background in law, from what I understand, does he not see any merit at all? It appears the NDP does not support the concept of investigative hearings. I wonder if he could just provide a little more clarity as to what the NDP really does believe in regard to investigative hearings to assist law enforcement officers in combatting terrorism.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

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

With respect to the NDP's position, I would rather talk about my own position as an individual. Yes, investigative hearings are a good idea. They have passed the constitutional test, as my colleague pointed out.

However, the criteria that will result in such measures being used on individuals can be confusing and leave a lot of room for interpretation. This is too much discretionary power. As I stated in my speech, we will be relying on the judgment of a single individual, a single peace officer making decisions based on tenuous facts that may or may not be well documented concerning individuals with no prior record and no direct connection to terrorist or criminal organizations. That can lead to abuses of power.

Investigative hearings can be a good thing, but I have my doubts about how they will be carried out and the circumstances and criteria that will lead to individuals being subjected to these measures.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing the same arguments put forward for many years in the House: that these are necessary and they will only catch bad guys, so if we strip citizens of basic due process, it will all help. We saw Maher Arar, who was deported and tortured under the Liberals' watch; they did nothing for him.

On this issue of preventive detention, the idea that a Canadian citizen could be thrown in jail on someone's word, without clear cause, is very disturbing. Most Canadians need to know that is part of the bill. As well, there are no provisions to protect children under the age of 18. Why, I ask my hon. colleague, does he think the Liberals would support a bill that does not have clear breakout provisions to ensure that children age 12, 13, 14 or 15 are not going to be subject to unfair detention?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

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

I see the connection to what my Liberal colleague said in his remarks. The member makes a very good point.

This kind of highly controversial measure could be subject to a court challenge. Detaining an individual for 12 months even though police have no information in their files, an individual who has no connection to criminal or terrorist organizations, is the hallmark of a police state. I was going to say that this has never been seen before, but we were given an example.

I submit this respectfully.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this Parliament is supposed to be a place wherein democracy and communities are protected. Consequently, I have some very serious reservations about Bill S-7 being debated today, the context in which it is being debated and the various elements within the bill. I am concerned because it would not only impact the civil liberties of all Canadians, but it would also be part of a larger dismantling of the democratic core of this country.

Liberty and democracy are very much part of our history and what makes us who we are. For example, here is an excerpt from the translation of the original French poem by Adolphe-Basile Routhier, written in 1880. It is the basis upon which our own national anthem has been created. The poem reads, “The Canadian grows full of hope. He is born of a proud race; enemy of tyranny, but full of loyalty. He knows how to keep in harmony his proud liberty, and by the effort of his mind on our soil establish the truth”.

It worries me greatly that there has been a whittling away of our democracy in recent years and the undermining of truth by those seeking political expediency. In the last election alone, there was illegal overspending by certain MPs, some of whom have been forced to step down and others who are facing serious accusations. These are accusations that Elections Canada is currently investigating.

Of greater concern were the acts of voter suppression in ridings across Canada, and now charges have been laid in one of these cases. This illegal spending and voter suppression is a very real threat to the basic functioning of our democracy in this country. Citizens require the ability to vote, and those running the various campaigns need to be on an equal footing to ensure a fair race, and that is not just during elections.

In this House, the government continues to limit democracy by attempting to silence, by using dissenting opinion, including the opposition and its own members of the government caucus. We cannot speak out on this side of the House or on that side of the House. It is no kind of democracy.

The government has shut down debate a record 31 times and is actively limiting debate, not just in the House but also in committees. The government is using its majority to conduct committee meetings in camera. Therefore, Canadians do not know what is happening. They do not know what members have proposed. They do not know what is being undermined.

Sadly, the government is clearly not interested in hearing other ideas. The problem is that our job here is to work together and collectively look at legislation to ensure it is in the best interest of all Canadians.

The government has no interest in compromise, in the House, in committee, in public, or even behind closed doors. This dogmatic and anti-democratic approach to governing is, to say the least, problematic. It is concerning and it is a travesty of Canadian values.

Bill S-7 continues in that same vein. If passed, it would be a hit on democracy in Canada as it would inhibit the personal freedoms of individuals. This principle is sacrosanct in our democracy and should absolutely be a principle that is above any meddling by anyone.

We have the protections and the prosecutorial measures already in place within current legislation to address terrorism in this country. We do not require the changes that we see in Bill S-7. Bills such as this would tarnish the very core of what makes us Canadian. We are a great country that is known for our democratic principles. However, if we pass this legislation, we would in fact be stripping away the very thing that makes this country great.

It is often said that the goal of terrorism is to create fear. Reacting to that fear and taking away civil liberties has the circular effect of validating that fear and giving into it. In this sense, the terrorist is successful in creating a culture of fear. This is not a new idea. Benjamin Franklin stated, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Without liberty and democracy, we are neither safe nor free.

I want to emphasize that this bill does not protect Canadians from terrorism and it shows a lack of balance between security and basic rights. There are better ways of combatting terrorism without taking away Canadians' civil liberties. Our job in this place is to protect Canadians and our communities. Protecting Canadians does not mean taking away their freedoms, nor does it mean opening up our laws to a cycle of fear. As I have already said, the Criminal Code contains the necessary provisions for investigating those who are involved in criminal activity and detaining anyone who may present an immediate threat.

Paul Copeland, a lawyer from the Law Union of Ontario, when testifying before a parliamentary committee, stated:

In my opinion, the provisions that you are examining here in committee will unnecessarily change our legal landscape in Canada. We must not adopt them, and in my opinion, they are not necessary. Other provisions of the code provide various mechanisms for dealing with such individuals.

In December of 2012, Mr. Paul Calarco, a member of the national criminal justice section of the Canadian Bar Association, stated:

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 [S-7] fails to achieve either goal.

The fact that the sunsetted provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act were never used between 2001 and 2007 is evidence of this. Even though it may be politically risky to oppose measures that have been engineered to seem effective, our position on this side of the House is rooted in the belief that the measures are ineffective and unnecessary, and in the belief that our position reflects the values cherished by Canadians and our absolute faith in the strength of existing laws.

Bill S-7 violates civil liberties and human rights, especially the right to remain silent and the right not to be imprisoned without first having a fair trial. Imagine that. We are talking about putting people in prison for as much as a year without any evidence or a trial. That smacks of the worst kind of totalitarianism. The state should never be used against an individual to force a person to either testify against himself or herself or to inflict punishment of a year in prison without recourse.

This bill shows a lack of balance between security and basic human rights, notwithstanding that there are a few more safeguards than in the 2001 version, notably the role of the Attorney General in an annual reporting process.

The timing of this bill cannot be ignored. A Liberal opposition day intended to propose a more democratic process for members' statements for some parties in the House was abruptly—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. There is way too much talking and socializing going on in the House. I can hardly hear the debate, so please keep it down. If members want to socialize, they should move into the lobby.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my point about a refusal to listen was illustrated quite effectively just now.

At any rate, as I was saying, a Liberal opposition day was abruptly cancelled in order to bring this legislation forward. Last week, Bill S-7 was not deemed a priority, but suddenly it needed to be debated today. The explanation given by the members opposite was that this bill needed to be passed in light of recent bombings at the Boston Marathon. I would like to point out that the House unanimously condemned those attacks and members rose in silence and respect for those who suffered.

It is unfortunate that members opposite are using the Boston terror attacks to reintroduce controversial measures. These measures go far too far. They endanger Canadians just as much as any other terrorist. New Democrats believe we need to work in strength and use our intelligence and law enforcement networks to deal with the threat of terrorism. However, the Conservatives are choosing to ignore that, to cut border intelligence units in half and end funding for police programs. It is very clear that this is an act of political expediency and not one of genuine concern.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the member in regard to why we have Bill S-7 before us today, and I hope to address that in my own comments.

My question is along the same lines as the questions I have asked of her colleagues, and that is in regard to the need to have an investigation.

Could the member expand on the point that with terrorism today law enforcement officers are saying they need this additional tool to help them combat terrorism? Does the member not realize that if it did not pass we would have law enforcement agencies, and other experts, saying we have a gap that needs to be filled?

The power to hold individuals for investigation seems to be most important tool. Would she provide further comment on that aspect?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do have in place a number of provisions that are already in law for dealing with unusual threats.

However, the recent Conservatives cuts in budget 2012-13 and 2013-14 to agencies and police forces that could maintain the security and safety of Canadians speaks more to the point. The Conservatives have cut those agencies by 29.8%. That means there is a huge gap in the ability of communities to deal with emergencies, of all kinds. While terrorism is certainly top of mind, there are a lot of things happening in our communities,and there is security to which we need to pay attention.

There are natural disasters in the Huntsville area right now. People are dealing with very serious floods. Yet, the emergency measures that are needed to help those communities have been cut.

While we are concerned about terrorism, we have to look at security in a much broader way and not just focus on what is expedient and politically of interest.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague.

Everyone has heard about The Globe and Mail editorial that said it is very unfortunate that the debate taking place is an attempt on the part of the government to politicize the Boston Marathon bombings, that we need to think this legislation through and we need to look at it it in terms of other historical moments. In England, during the horrific bombings in the 1970s, preventive detention, which the Liberal Party has been promoting all day, was used. We then saw Annie Maguire and her six family members jailed for 15 years on the charge of being Irish in the wrong place. Later on, we realized that was a complete abuse of process.

We saw under the Liberal government, after 2001, that they thought the notion of the right to trial, of the basic freedoms we cherish in the rule of law, was outmoded, and we saw Maher Arar sent off for torture. Given the fact that there are no provisions for children under the bill, they would be treated as adults.

What does the member think of the Liberal Party's continual pushing for the supposed need to have preventive detention without trial, without charges, where people can be put in jail?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a democracy, one of our chief aims is to protect. What could be more important than protecting children from whatever is out there, and apparently in this case, protecting them from their own government?

It seems to me that we go far too far. We need to remember that three people died on the streets of Boston a week ago. We have to respect that. We have to honour that. To see the government using it for its own nefarious purposes makes all of us feel dreadful. It is sickening in terms of what kind of response we should have.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and address this bill.

I would like to start off by just commenting briefly on the Boston tragedy. I believe it is safe to say that no matter where people live in Canada or where they live in North America, we will find that people were shocked, surprised and horrified at what they witnessed in one form or another, whether it was reading or watching the news, seeing what had taken place in the landmark, iconic, annual event of the Boston Marathon.

It touched the lives of everyone. We extend our condolences and our best wishes to those individuals, families, friends and others who had to experience this first-hand. Let there be no doubt that it had an impact on all people living in North America and beyond. At the end of the day, we had seen all sorts of comments and remarks made by the average citizen on the streets of Boston, Winnipeg and Toronto. All over North America, people were touched and concerned and wanted to be able to express themselves.

We also had the opportunity to see leaders of nations provide comment on what took place in Boston. Unfortunately Canada's Prime Minister stands alone, in the sense that he is prepared to exploit what took place in Boston. I say “Shame” to the Prime Minister for doing that. He has done that in a couple of ways.

It was just last week that the Prime Minister was overseas in England, attending the funeral of the late Margaret Thatcher, as he should, and we heard comments coming from around the world. There was talk about what took place in Boston. What did the Prime Minister do? He decided to attack the leader of the Liberal Party, amongst others.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Members from the bench are saying “Hear, hear”.

We have to put it in context. What did other leaders have to say about the Boston tragedy, or terrorism in general?

It was interesting. President Barack Obama said:

Obviously, tonight there are still many unanswered questions. Among them, why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?

That came from a real leader, President Barack Obama.

Then we have another real leader, David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, who said:

I believe the root lies in the existence of extremist ideology. I would argue an important reason so many young Muslims are drawn to it comes down to the question of identity.

That is another reaction, not necessarily to the Boston tragedy but a reaction to terrorism in general.

These are the types of comments we hear from leaders. On the other hand, our Prime Minister is so nervous, so concerned and scared of the leader of the Liberal Party that he focuses his attention on attacking the leader of the Liberal Party. Where is the statesman that the Prime Minister should be on this particular issue?

He wants to be able to get a little attention. At the end of the day, I think it is unfortunate the Prime Minister would use that to take cheap shots at the leader of the Liberal Party or anyone else for that matter.

Then we have what took place last Friday. We are debating Bill S-7 today. What happened last Friday is that the Liberal Party put a motion on the notice for opposition day, today, about democratic reform. A number of Conservative backbenchers feel the current Prime Minister, a former Reform Party member—the whole glass bubble—would say: “You have to do and say what it is I say, or you are not a part of the Conservative Party mentality”. That is the person we are talking about.

The Prime Minister decided on Friday to have Bill S-7 debated today, of all days. It has been on the order paper for months, yet the government chose today to have it debated.

What is the reason? It is because of the Boston tragedy. I have news for the Conservatives: the Boston tragedy occurred last Monday. Why did they not have it on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday last week? The simple reason is that on Friday, an hour before we were going to adjourn, the Conservatives found out that the Liberal Party, on an opposition day motion, wanted to talk about democracy and allowing individual backbenchers from the Conservative Party to look at a way in which they would actually be able to speak. That is what was happening.

What did the government do? A light clicked on, and Conservatives thought they could avoid that by having a debate on Bill S-7 and use the Boston tragedy as an excuse to justify it. That is the second time they have used that horrific incident for their own political self-serving agenda. That is not very prime ministerial. However, Bill S-7 does have merit, but we are concerned about the manner in which it came about. There is no way the government will convince me that Bill S-7 was its intention for today. It did not even raise it last week. It was a non-issue until the Liberal Party presented its motion for today to talk about democracy.

Shame on the Prime Minister for taking advantage politically of such a horrific terrorist attack in the United States. We will have to wait and see what happens. We have been very clear about this bill for a long time. The Liberal Party of Canada supports Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. It is something in which we believe, and we have indicated support in the past, whether it was at second reading or at committee stage.

Could the legislation be better? Yes, it could be better, but we know that the Prime Minister, especially since he has had a majority, does not take kindly to amendments. I understand that the NDP members are a little sensitive because they proposed a number of amendments, which were always rejected. That is the new form of democracy coming from the Prime Minister, where amendments are not tolerated. We have seen plenty of examples of that.

However, the legislation, as it is being proposed, would assist because law enforcement officers, other stakeholders and experts have been very clear that the ability to have investigative hearings is important to help Canada in terms of combating terrorism. Yes, checks need to be put into place, and within the legislation there are a number of areas where checks are put into place to ensure there is some integrity. It would be nice to see more done to protect individual rights. The Liberal Party has to take second seat to no one in terms of protecting individual rights. One only need reflect on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was introduced by the Liberal Party in the seventies.

We recognize that the Supreme Court of Canada was right in 2004 when it said it was constitutional. We believe this is an important tool for our law enforcement officers, but we question the integrity of the Prime Minister for the manner in which he has brought this forward and his anti-democratic approach in dealing with the House of Commons.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will have 10 minutes and 30 seconds when we resume debate on Bill S-7.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-7 be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Before statements, the hon. member for Winnipeg North had ten and a half minutes left for his speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I found the contribution made by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North interesting with regard to what has become a very important issue in the House of Commons. We have heard members on both sides of the House talk about the importance of their right to speak, and they are very sympathetic to and supportive of what the member was talking about and how S. O. 31s are being used as a punishing tool from political parties.

It is one of the reasons we designated today as an opposition day. A motion was going to be brought forward by the leader of the Liberal Party with regard to democratic reform in the hope that it would pass, and that would have dealt, at least in part, with the member's concerns and with the concerns of the member for Langley.

That said, if I have enough time at the end of my speech, I would like to comment further on that issue, but for now I want to talk very briefly about Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act.

I received an email just prior to question period, which states:

Canadian police and intelligence agencies will announce later today they have thwarted a plot to carry out a major terrorist attack, arresting suspects in Ontario and Quebec, CBC news has learned.

Highly placed sources tell CBC News the alleged plotters have been under surveillance for more than a year in Quebec and southern Ontario.

The investigation was part of a cross-border operation involving Canadian law enforcement agencies, the FBI and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The email goes on, and we will probably get more information coming from news media outlets as the day unfolds.

I have tried to put this matter in the form of questions to the New Democratic Party in particular. There is a heightened sense of awareness, and that awareness became very evident during the 9/11 crisis. There were a lot of issues at the time, but in essence I believe we can go back to that in terms of the public's need to have more information. There is a desire to feel that the government is doing what it can to combat terrorism.

The primary thing Bill S-7 is attempting to do is in regard to investigative hearings. This is something Liberals believe is important. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized this need back in 2004 and acknowledged that that conducting investigative hearings without warrant would be constitutional and that the government would have the ability to do so. That was done back in 2004; since then the government has attempted this measure and failed, but not because of opposition from our party, because the Liberal Party has been the only party that has been consistent on wanting this type of legislation to advance.

This is now the fourth rendition of this type of legislation. There have been some modifications over the years, but once again it is being brought to the attention of the House. The Liberal Party, at second reading and at the committee stage, indicated its support in principle for the legislation, and Liberals did that believing and understanding that some checks are being put in place to ensure that individual rights would be respected. Individual rights have always been very much a concern for the Liberal Party. It is one of the reasons we stand behind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something Canadians have adopted as their own and as one of those things for which we have a sense of pride.

At the end of the day, we are comfortable in knowing that those rights are in fact going to be protected with some of the checks.

Is it perfect legislation? No, it is not perfect legislation. It would be nice to see some modification, but we are very much aware, as I pointed out earlier, that the government is not sympathetic to amendments. It does not like amendments to its legislation to be brought forward, nor has it ever shown an interest, since it has been a majority government, in tolerating any form of amendments, which is unfortunate.

However, at the end of the day we look at it in terms of what our law enforcement officers from across Canada are saying. Some of the agencies making an announcement later today about something that has been uncovered in relation to terrorism have made presentations to the committees and have in fact lobbied not only our caucus but, I suspect, all caucuses inside the House. We ultimately recognize that, yes, it is something that is important, something that we are prepared to see pass. Our critic and others have had the opportunity to comment on the legislation, and we would like to ultimately see it pass.

That said, in the last few minutes I want to pick up on an issue that I believe the government has done a great disservice to.

We recognize, as I very clearly said in my earlier comments, the profound impact that events in Boston have had on all people living in North America. We have expressed our condolences and our best wishes and our prayers to the families of the victims. However, at the end of the day, we in the Liberal Party are very much disappointed by the manner in which the government has chosen to use that act of terror in order to advance a political agenda.

This legislation could have been brought forward long ago, months ago. However, the government has been sitting on it. Then, on Friday, we heard the government House leader stand in his typical fashion and say that because of the concern with respect to the Boston Marathon and the terrorist attack, we were now going to have Bill S-7 introduced on Monday, thereby bumping the Liberal opposition motion that was being proposed in relation to democratic reform.

We find that it is no coincidence. It is something that was done intentionally by the Prime Minister's Office. The PMO had the opportunity to bring it in on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday of last week. In fact, it has been sitting on it for months. The real reason it was brought it in is that the government did not want the Liberal Party to have its opposition day motion debated in the House.

What I find somewhat cowardly is that the government, the Prime Minister, is actually using the Boston Marathon as a tool to prevent a specific debate from occurring in the House, thus preventing a debate on democratic reform and forcing or imposing upon MPs a favourable response to Bill S-7.

The Liberal Party has always supported it in principle. We find it unfortunate that the government is using the terrorist attack that recently happened in Boston as an excuse to bring the bill forward today, because over the last couple of weeks we have seen the reaction from the Conservative backbenchers toward the Prime Minister's Office in terms of limiting their ability to speak.

The other way in which he is using the Boston tragedy is with regard to his negative attacks on the leader of the Liberal Party, which I would suggest is no coincidence. This horrific event takes place in Boston, and all that is on the mind of the Prime Minister is how he can attack the leader of the Liberal Party. He is supposed to be abroad, attending the funeral for former prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

We find it is somewhat suspicious, but the bottom line is that Bill S-7 is here today, whether we like it or not, and the Liberal Party has indicated its support of the bill in principle and for it to ultimately pass.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the hon. member has stood several times today in debate to point out that the investigative hearings provisions under the old law were ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada not to violate the charter, but it is important to say that what this ignores is that Parliament has an independent duty to make its own judgment on whether human rights need more protection than the courts require. Courts always show some deference to Parliament, and their rulings, frankly, are floors and not ceilings for Parliament. That is why the NDP is still very concerned with these provisions.

The question that the hon. member keeps putting ignores that the recognizance with conditions provisions have never been validated by the courts. These provisions allow people to be jailed without trial for 12 months if they fail to conform to conditions, no legal aid is available if they are hauled in for a recognizance with conditions hearing, and, as I pointed out earlier and as my colleague from York South—Weston commented, perfectly innocent people can be subject to recognizance with conditions, people who have nothing to do with and are not even suspected of terrorist activity.

What I would like to know is whether the Liberal Party of Canada understands this feature of the bill and whether it supports this feature of the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is prudent for us to be very clear on the issue. Expert witnesses came before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and confirmed that the passage of Bill S-7 and the provisions within it would be very useful in their efforts to combat terrorism.

Is it a perfect bill? No, but let there be no doubt that the passage of the bill will put into place a system and a tool for law enforcement agencies to be more effective at combatting terrorism. The principle of what the bill would do is really what we should be talking about, which is ultimately being argued as a positive.

Yes, there could have been more accountability in certain aspects, but it is critically important. That is one of the reasons I cited the example of what is breaking in the news right now. I do not know the details, because it is just coming out. All we know is that there was some sort of plot, and in the next few hours we will get more details. We need to provide tools where we can, and this is going to be just one of those tools. Hopefully we will see even stronger legislation coming forward.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member has cited the news report outlining that authorities have managed to find and control a planned terrorist plot. With that very clearly stated by the member, and given our position that the Criminal Code contains sufficient means to find and detain terrorists already, does it not seem that the extra measures are not needed? Clearly it worked in just the last few hours. I do not understand this need or this obsession with increasing the powers of the government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a case in which the NDP needs to get is collective head out of the sand and recognize the reality, which is the reason I brought it up the example, saying "look, we have something that is there and it is very real". I used the example of today, what is actually happening.

We have many different potential public targets out there. We could talk about marathons, malls, fast transit or, in my own province, Manitoba Hydro. There are all sorts of potential threats out there. By using these examples, what we are trying to do is give a wake-up call, in this case to the New Democratic Party, to recognize that there is a real threat. To pretend that there is no threat would be a tragic mistake.

What we need to do is provide the tools that are necessary to be able to minimize the potential threat that is there. By providing Bill S-7, even in its imperfect format, all we are doing is providing yet another tool for those law enforcement agencies to be in a better position to protect all of our constituents, the people we represent, who appreciate the fact that there is a terrorist threat out there.

This is not to scare people; it is just the reality of the day. It behooves us to be responsible and provide a proactive approach as much as possible in trying to combat terrorism wherever we can.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to clarify what I think are some serious contradictions in the remarks made by the member for Winnipeg North.

Much of my colleague's argument was based on how upsetting it was for the government to bring this forward in the wake of such a recent event as the unfortunate, tragic incident at the marathon.

This happened so recently that we still have no idea what he means when he talks about a potential plot in Canada.

Does it make sense to criticize the government for acting on that pretext and then turn around and do something even worse?

Then there is the matter of preventive detention. Is the Liberal Party okay with the idea that an individual can be detained preventively even if there is no proof against him other than a notion that he might someday be associated with terrorism? We did ask for that to be changed because it creates plenty of opportunity for terrible mistakes.

How can they support that? How can they refute the government's argument, then turn around and suggest something even worse? I am trying to understand exactly what the Liberals are saying. I do not understand.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me try to help the member out. Canadians are more aware than the Conservatives and the NDP in terms of the potential and real threat that is out there regarding terrorism.

Why do I put it in that fashion? It is because the Conservatives have been sitting on the legislation for literally months. They had the opportunity to bring it forward a long time ago. They only chose to bring it forward today, using the Boston terrorist attack as a political excuse. If they were sincere about the Boston terrorist attack as the justification for bringing it forward, they would have brought it forward on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday of last week. They are using the Boston terrorist attack as a way to bump the Liberal opposition day today, which would have had a different debate.

By using the examples I used today, not only the media report but things such as the potential terrorist attacks on malls and other venues, I have shown that Canadians already know that the threat is very real and that the threat is there. The New Democrats do not seem to recognize that. They say, "Well, we have not had a successful terrorist attack; that means the law works, so we do not need to change the law". It is a flawed argument. Here is a law that could change and that would assist. They do not have to take my word for it. We have law agency officers from across the country who are saying that Bill S-7 actually does have some merit and that it would help them in terms of combatting potential terrorist threats. They do not have to believe me. They can take the word of these law enforcement agencies and officers from across the country.

Hopefully that helps the member better understand why I said what I said.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I will be sharing my time with the member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

Today is Earth Day, and a debate on terrorism is wholly appropriate. The ordinary, unthinking actions of humans as a species are affecting the environment and, in turn, all life on the planet, but so are other, more deliberate actions. Terrorism targets innocent victims, men, women and children around the world. This saddens our mother nature, known to many as Gaia.

I truly believe that the earth senses all of these attacks against her. I wanted to make the connection here because I hope that all of my colleagues, no matter what their party, will realize the importance of our decisions and the collateral damage they cause.

Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, has four main objectives. The first is to amend the Criminal Code to allow investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions. Its second objective is to amend the Canada Evidence Act to allow judges to order that potentially sensitive information concerning a trial or an accused be made public once the appeal period has ended. The third objective is to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences for persons who leave or attempt to leave Canada to commit a terrorism offence. The fourth objective is to amend the Security of Information Act to increase the maximum penalties for harbouring a person who has committed or is likely to commit a terrorist act.

Once again, the government is going to get carried away with definitions, and we will have to turn to the superior courts to define some of the vocabulary. Who is “likely to commit”? How will these acts or suspected acts be judged?

We New Democrats believe that these measures violate the most fundamental human rights and civil liberties. Those rights, which are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, are the principles recognized as the foundation for building a nation and a world where everyone will be treated justly and fairly, particularly in legal matters.

We are therefore opposed to this bill because it is an ineffective way to fight terrorism and because it is a pointless and inappropriate infringement of our civil liberties. We believe this bill therefore violates civil liberties and human rights, in particular the right to remain silent and the right not to be imprisoned without a fair trial.

The spirit of those laws requires that the state never use its power against individuals to compel them to testify against themselves. The Supreme Court has nonetheless found investigative hearings to be constitutional, but it still needs to be said that the NDP would hope that whenever the House considers bills like this one, we pay a little more attention to human rights than the constitutional requirements necessarily demand, even if the Supreme Court does recognize certain situations. We have the power, and it is up to us to demonstrate leadership.

In addition, we believe that the Criminal Code contains the necessary provisions to investigate people who engage in criminal activities and to detain anyone who might present an immediate threat to Canadians. This very day, even without this bill being in effect, we witnessed the arrest of two individuals in Quebec and Ontario.

When it comes to terrorism, we have to remember that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP and the provincial police forces work together closely and are in constant communication, since combating the scourge of terrorism is a priority in North America, Canada and the United States.

We do not need Bill S-7 to build cases and make arrests.

The fact that the provisions in the earlier bill, which was passed in 2001, were never used between 2001 and 2007 proves it. Although it might be politically risky to oppose measures that clearly set out to strengthen national security, our opposition is rooted in the belief that the measures are pointless and ineffective. We believe that our position reflects values that Canadians hold dear. We know very well that all governments in the Americas, including in North America, are implementing many different measures to combat terrorism. In our opinion, this bill fails to strike a balance between security and fundamental rights. There was greater protection in the 2001 version, particularly with regard to the role of the Attorney General and the reporting process.

The original aim of the Combating Terrorism Bill was to update Canadian laws to bring them up to international standards, including the United Nations’ requirements, and to put forward a legislative response to the events of September 11, 2001. All the provisions in the Combating Terrorism Bill, except for those to do with investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions, are already in effect. And as we have seen, arrests were made today, just the same.

However, a sunset clause was added to the original bill because of major concerns that came up during the legislative process in 2001. For the most part, they were unprecedented in Canadian law and could easily have been abused.

The NDP also feels that this bill runs contrary to basic civil liberties and human rights, including the right to remain silent and the right not to be imprisoned without first having a fair trial.

In the spirit of these rights, the power of the state should never be used against an individual. I am repeating this because it is fundamental to twhat we are doing here. We must not forget that the bill would make it possible to imprison a person for up to 12 months or would impose strict parole conditions on individuals who have not been charged with any crime. Just the suspicion of a crime. We believe this is contrary to the fundamental values of our legal system and our free and democratic society.

In addition, the mere fact that these provisions were used only once, and unsuccessfully at that, shows that police forces in Canada have the tools they need to combat terrorism using existing procedures without the risk to our civil liberties posed by the bill.

The provisions of this bill could also be cited to target individuals taking part in activities such as demonstrations or acts of dissent that have nothing to do with a reasonable definition of terrorism. I referred to definitions a moment ago, and this is extremely important.

The right to demonstrate is guaranteed by the charter, like the right of association and the right of free speech. The right to demonstrate is a necessary counterweight that sometimes helps to focus politicians’ minds. That has to continue. If we start saying that demonstrations are acts of terrorism, it will not end there. That is why I said earlier that it is essential for these terms to be defined.

In conclusion, how can the government talk about national security and public safety and at the same time impose all these budget cuts on our protective agencies and institutions?

Over $700 million will be cut from the budgets of the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The response being offered is a law that will have no effect on activities on the ground, yet that is where we have to tackle terrorism. Cutting $700 million from the budgets of those institutions and police forces is not how we are going to produce results for our constituents when it comes to safety.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I want to ask him about the notion of the loss of our own human rights as a result of this bill in that innocent individuals can be imprisoned even if they are not being investigated by the police and have absolutely no connection whatsoever to terrorism or a terrorist act other than that they are related to or are a friend of someone who is.

Mr. Diefenbaker would be rolling over in his grave if he knew that pretenders to his party were in fact trying to put something forward that would remove such a basic human right.

Could the member comment further on that?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

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

The more we infringe on people's liberties, the more we also limit their freedom of expression and the fundamental rights that go along with it. Will we end up with a dictatorship? Say I live in a neighbourhood where there are people who are under suspicion, for whatever reason. Will I be classified as a terrorist because I live in a neighbourhood where there may be a terrorist with whom I am acquainted and who greets me in the morning when I am mowing the lawn? Am I a terrorist because I listen to heavy metal music? When someone is classified or labelled, we have to look at the reasons why it is being done. When someone is described as a terrorist, a rocker or what have you, does that mean they are a criminal?

Freedom of expression is extremely important. When any freedom is taken away, we see dictatorship emerge, and the public is left with no way of making itself heard, but members of the public do have the right to speak out against a government or a situation they consider to be unjust.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the notion that this bill is somehow defending us against terrorism is counteracted by the events that were referred to today by the member for Winnipeg North, who pointed out that the police had successfully stopped a terrorist attack without Bill S-7 in place, and that has been the case all along.

The very essence of terrorism is to make people feel afraid. Part of what is happening here is the government is trying to make people feel afraid and feel that they should have their liberties removed to allow the government to take more control over their lives to defend them against something that apparently the police have already been doing without this new law.

Could the member comment further on that?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have not needed the provisions in Bill S-7 that are meant to strengthen the legislation. We have not needed them at all. As I said earlier, both the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service work together and co-operate very well when it comes to exchanging information, even with the Americans. I would know; I live in an area close to the border. If someone is being monitored, information is shared rather quickly. During the day, officers do a very good job. We will not see better results by making cuts to budgets or by bringing in a bill that has absolutely no effect.

Bill S-7 was not needed to make the arrests today. Does this mean that the next time there is a protest here, people will be photographed and deemed to be terrorists because they protested in front of a Parliament that is supposed to be democratic and represent the people? We must protect our freedoms, and this bill is not the way to do so.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Lambert, Citizenship and Immigration; the hon. member for Québec, Search and Rescue.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate. I have been listening to a lot of the arguments that have been flowing around this place.

As a preamble to what I am going to say, it seems to me that we have another bill before us that we probably do not really need. The impression I am getting, via the events of today and the events that have happened in the past few years, is that we have sufficient means and sufficient legislation to work for the safety of our country.

The intent of the original Anti-terrorism Act was to update Canadian law to meet international standards, such as meeting the requirements of the United Nations, and as legislative reaction to 9/11. All the provisions of this act, except for the investigative hearings and the recognizance with conditions, remain law today.

The sunset clause was attached to the original bill because serious concern was expressed during the 2001 law-making process that these measures were largely unprecedented in Canadian law and could easily be used inappropriately.

What I find interesting is that, upon review of this legislation that was passed as a reaction to a specific event and in a state of panic, we have learned that there was in fact no need for that legislation.

As of the day of their sunset, a number of investigative hearings have been held. There were no instances when recognizance with conditions was required.

It is unfortunate that the mandated parliamentary reviews of legislation made a number of recommendations that were not incorporated into Bill S-7. It is my understanding that the NDP proposed 18 amendments. It is not unlike what happened to us on the food safety bill. We came and said we would work with the government to improve the bill that was before us—necessary at that time—and it then rejected all of our amendments.

As our colleagues are probably already aware, we have proposed amendments that would improve transparency and strengthen reporting requirements, to minimize the negative impact of the bill on Canadians’ civil liberties. This is an important point. These amendments are based on evidence we heard, so we did not just make them up. As I understand it, we drafted amendments on the basis of evidence heard in committee that reflect the values that we believe are dear to Canadians.

Among the issues dealt with in these amendments, there is first the addition of a SIRC review of a possible co-operation protocol between the agencies, to ensure its effectiveness and its respect for rights protected by legislation before the offences relating to leaving the country come into effect.

Second, we want to ensure that the evidence gathered during investigative hearings cannot be used against an individual during extradition or deportation proceedings, and not just during criminal proceedings.

Third, we want to ascertain the right to legal aid provided by the federal government if the individual is to appear at investigative hearings.

Fourth, we want to ensure that annual reports include detailed information about all changes to the legislation, to policies or to practices in terms of exit information or exit inspections.

Fifth, we want the comprehensive reviews to cover the implementation of the four new offences relating to leaving the country and for the issue to be dealt with by elected members of Parliament, not just by the Senate.

Other amendments have also been proposed, but they were all rejected by the Conservatives. This is the key point.

As this House has already heard, this bill has been in the works for months. It came from the Senate and all of a sudden the Conservatives decided to bring it forward today.

We have received the answer to our question; we know why we are discussing this bill today. I do not need to belabour this point.

I would like to point out that the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh spoke against Bill C-17 in the House in 2010. He said:

When facing a crisis, we as political leaders feel that we have to do something even when all the evidence shows that the structures we have, the strength of our society, the strength of our laws, are enough to deal with it. We passed legislation in early 2002 to deal with terrorism when we panicked. We have learned in the last eight years that there was no need for that legislation.

My colleague, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, is a lawyer. He spent many years in the field. He was our justice critic. He is always the person to whom many of us look, to this day, for his judgment when it comes to the various laws here, and he has basically said that we do have sufficient legislation to combat what we need to combat in regard to terrorism.

I mentioned the actions of today, and I would like to congratulate and thank all those law enforcement officers and those men and women who have put together the roundup today, that they were able to penetrate a terrorist cell. I am not sure of the details, but as a citizen I would like to thank them for that effort. We have professional people on the ground who collaborate, not only with other law enforcement agencies in our country but with other countries, and that goes on. What we need to do is give them more resources, not fewer resources as is happening now. We need more resources to beef up our borders, to ensure we do not have illicit guns coming across the border, and to have people on the ground to penetrate terrorist cells and to work with their counterparts in other countries, so that we in this country can continue to feel safe.

Something that disturbed me, and this is a result of one of the committee hearings, is that Reid Morden, former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, stated in 2010:

Speaking strictly on 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.

Police and security services have “perfectly sufficient powers to do their jobs” and “they don't need any more powers”.This is the former director of CSIS, saying this in 2010. As I flipped through my notes and tried to prepare my speech, that disturbed me.

I will sum up by saying that I believe, as do members of my party, that we have the legislation in place. If we are going to improve, we need to improve the resources on the ground so we can equip those men and women to combat the potential terrorism threats to our country, which I feel confident they are capable of doing.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

I would like him to talk to us about the fact that police forces announced today that they were able to track down some people who could have committed terrorist acts and were in fact about to do so. We may not have very much information about this yet, but clearly Bill S-7 was not needed in order to take action to fight terrorism in Canada.

The RCMP and other police forces are working hard across the country at all times to help Canadians and to ensure our safety. I wonder if my colleague could expand on that.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

That is what I was trying to point out in my speech. As hon. members know, I also quoted Reid Morden, a former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I also mentioned my hon. colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, who is very familiar with justice issues. He has said, and he still maintains, that there is no need for another bill. We need to strengthen what we already have. Indeed, the legislation exists, and we have proof of that today.

My colleague who asked the question said that there are not enough resources and that budgets are being cut. Thus, instead of making cuts, the government needs to increase resources in order to ensure that Canada remains safe.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to stand up and ask a question. The hon. member for York South—Weston quoted former Prime Minister Diefenbaker. The debate going on here, particularly between the NDP and Liberals, reminds me of an old Diefenbaker quote, which was that the Liberal Party—now we can use the NDP members as the opposition—is much like a UFO in that no one really understands it, and it is rarely seen in the same place twice.

Our debate today acknowledges that. The NDP caucus was up talking about our federal Canadian Forces, firefighters and service people. In fact, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, in his remarks, wanted to thank law enforcement for foiling the VIA Rail plot today. Yet his central concern with Bill S-7 is that it would be used “inappropriately”. Are opposition members saying that they fear that our federal law enforcement officials and the folks investigating these same plots they are thanking them for foiling today would not use it appropriately?

I would like him to answer that please.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite a long question, and I will do my very best.

Before I answer, I would like to thank the hon. member for his service to our country. He served our country well, and I am glad to see him in the House. It is a pleasure to have him here.

There is no incongruity. The fact is, we have a bill on paper that the government is planning to put into legislation, but we have existing laws that are working on the ground, and we have seen today that they are able to protect us.

The main point I am trying to make and that others are making is that we should beef up the resources for those people who are working on our behalf under existing legislation. It is there, and it is working.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my speaking time.

Today, we are debating Bill S-7. Before beginning, I would like to wish everyone a very happy Earth Day. To mark the occasion, I was in Montreal yesterday, with 15,000 or 20,000 Montrealers who were marching together for the environment. It was a wonderful event, and I am happy to have been part of it.

The second announcement I want to make relates to the speech I am about to make. Today there have been arrests, crimes have been prevented, and I would like to take a few moments to congratulate the RCMP and the police on their important work.

Let us come back to Bill S-7, which is certainly connected with today’s events and with the tragic events that occurred in Boston last week, as the Conservatives take so much delight in saying.

We have before us a bill at third reading, and we have good reason to believe it may threaten the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. The NDP believes it is important that we pay serious attention to it.

There is disagreement about Bill S-7, and the Conservatives have presented no analysis or evidence or studies to prove that the measures set out in this bill are necessary, useful or appropriate. There are many measures in effect already that allow us to take action against terrorism or any other crime, and they have been used on many occasions.

Are the provisions set out in Bill S-7 necessary and appropriate? Is it really going to provide the additional tools needed for combating terrorism? We have serious doubts in that regard.

If that were all the debate was about, it might take a very different direction. What concerns us is not only that we are not sure the bill will have an impact and be useful, but also that we have serious reasons for thinking it will jeopardize Canadians’ fundamental rights and freedoms, and therein lies the rub. Are we really going to agree to jeopardize fundamental rights and freedoms for a bill that may be neither useful nor effective?

The NDP wants the concerns that were raised to be addressed before moving on, no matter which bill is being considered. No matter the reasons for a bill or the good intentions behind it, as soon as a bill threatens fundamental rights and liberties, we must call a halt to the proceedings and make sure that the bill does not jeopardize the rights of Canadians.

This is where we come in, and this is why unfortunately the NDP cannot support Bill S-7 as it reads today, with all its flaws and all the doubts that still remain about the terms that I mentioned earlier. Even though the NDP had doubts and reservations about this bill, we still kept going. The NDP did not only say we had doubts.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my speech is not very interesting to all the members of this House, but I would like to be allowed to finish, just the same. I thank the minister for leaving the House so I can continue with my speech.

As I was saying, the NDP did not simply stop at the fact that we had doubts about the bill before deciding to block it. The NDP members on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security did a great deal of serious work, proposing nearly 18 amendments for debate, in order to try to improve the bill and ensure that it was not a threat to Canadians’ rights and liberties.

The members of the House can probably guess what happened: the 18 amendments were defeated for a number of different reasons without any counter-proposals being made to try to improve the amendments or respond to the concerns of the opposition parties. Just to support what I said a little earlier, I would like to give you two amendments as examples.

First, one of the amendments dealt with the addition of a comprehensive review of the implementation of the Arar Commission recommendations by the government in terms of accountability and oversight mechanisms, with particular attention to inter-agency activities and oversight.

Bill S-7 proposes granting discretionary powers. Someone could be imprisoned for a few days or a few months without being charged. It is cause for concern.

The NDP wanted to use amendments such as the one I mentioned to ensure that peoples' fundamental rights and freedoms would be respected. That amendment was not accepted.

Another amendment would have included the Canadian Human Rights Commission's opinion on questions about racial profiling and discrimination with respect to Bill S-7.

On that topic, I would like to talk about a church in my riding called the Church of God. Recently, I met some of its members: spirited seniors, parents and youth who spoke to me about several challenges. They spoke to me about profiling and their concerns, as well as about experiences their friends or loved ones have had with profiling. It affects the black community on Montreal's West Island, for one.

I want to echo their comments and let them know that I hear them. If the NDP feels that the discretionary powers set out in a bill could be used for racial profiling and discrimination, we will take a stand and make absolutely sure that every bill introduced in the House takes into consideration the concerns of those in the black community, such as the members of the Church of God.

I will continue by paraphrasing what one of my Conservative colleagues said today in the House about Bill S-7. She said that she was disappointed by the NDP's position and that someday the NDP would have to come to realize that a lot of work went into Bill S-7 in committee. She also said that the NDP needed to acknowledge all of the witnesses who were heard and who support Bill S-7. That is what she was trying to say.

I hate to have to contradict her, but a number of witnesses had concerns and did not agree with Bill S-7 as we are seeing it here in the House today.

I would like to quote two witnesses who appeared before the committee. First, I will quote Ms. Cheung, counsel for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association:

...we urge the committee to refrain from further expanding the powers of our national security agencies until appropriate and effective accountability and review mechanisms have been established.

This is not someone who simply does not agree. This is someone who has made suggestions and is urging us to put in place mechanisms to guarantee the rights and freedoms of Canadians, if that is the direction the government is taking.

According to Paul Calarco, member of the National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association:

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.

In other words, the NDP is not alone in saying that we should wait and that we should perhaps be concerned.

The experts agree with us. They also believe that this bill, in its current form, poses risks and is not an effective measure.

I will close by repeating that the NDP and I are convinced that the fight against terrorism warrants special and serious consideration. We all agree on that in the House. However, at issue is the way in which we fight terrorism.

We believe that Bill S-7 is not appropriate because it poses threats to the fundamental rights and freedoms that Canadians cherish. We our proud of our rights and freedoms, and we must ensure that they are not threatened.

Are we supporting terrorism by voting against this bill? Of course not. It is completely ridiculous to say so.

We have to consider that, in the house, we all want to provide useful and significant tools to fight terrorism. Unfortunately, Bill S-7 is not one of them.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to explore a little more the comments from the NDP that we do not need Bill S-7, that somehow all of the measures are already covered here.

We do have clauses in the bill that would cover new offences of leaving Canada or attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of committing a terrorism offence or an offence that would be created under proposed amendments. These new offences would be aimed at deterring persons who could be planning to receive terrorist training or engage in other terrorist activities abroad.

In light of the fact that two men from London, Ontario, have recently been identified as being involved in the gas plant attack in Algeria, which is of significant concern to residents of my riding, a lot of whom travel to various countries to work in the oil and gas industry, how can the NDP say that there is nothing new in the bill when, clearly, it would target people and would have a very high threshold, which is, the intent to commit an offence in this regard?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

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

I want to correct one thing. I did not say that there was nothing new in this bill or that it was all bad. I simply said that this bill represents a threat to the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Is my colleague prepared to jeopardize the rights and freedoms of Canadians to combat terrorism?

This bill may have some worthy points, but the NDP will absolutely oppose a bill that threatens the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

If the Conservatives are serious about combatting terrorism, why did they cut funding to border services or the RCMP? These agencies, which need these resources to fight crime, acts of violence or acts of terrorism, unfortunately were not spared from the Conservatives' budget cuts.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member, in concluding her remarks, made reference to the fact that the NDP would like to support effective tools.

At the hearing stage of Bill S-7, it was made very clear by a number of a law enforcement officers and experts that the bill itself, in principle, would provide yet another tool. This came from experts and law enforcement officers talking about something they believe would assist them in the future in combatting terrorism.

Canada has been very fortunate in that we have not been subject to acts of terrorism to the same degree as other nations. That does not necessarily mean that we should not be progressively looking at how we can enhance our law enforcement abilities in the future, in terms of combatting it.

Given that we have expert and law enforcement officers saying that this is a tool that they would like to have, why would the NDP want to deny them that, given that there are checks in place to protect individuals rights and freedoms?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my Liberal colleague tell the House that he will support Bill S-7. I would have liked to hear him talk about the threat this bill represents to the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. The Liberal Party brags about supporting and upholding these types of principles, but this is not evident in their actions and in their support for Bill S-7.

Will we move forward with any bill that could be useful, even if it threatens the rights and freedoms of Canadians? Why rush through the study of this bill?

Experts and the NDP agree that there are still some serious doubts about this bill. We must examine these concerns seriously before we move forward with such a bill.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-7 today. My colleagues have stated quite clearly where the NDP stands on this bill.

I also want to say how saddened we are by what happened in Boston. We all saw it on television. There were even New Brunswickers there. We saw people running for a good cause, families and completely innocent people placed in a terrible situation. It is certainly no laughing matter.

But let us come back to Bill S-7. What I find deplorable is the little bit of hypocrisy that is mixed up in it. Today, all the Liberals are worried about losing their opposition day. If they are so serious about Bill S-7 and if they really believe in it, I feel that, if I were in their shoes, I would be thanking the Prime Minister for cancelling that day. That is the question that the Liberals have been asking almost all day today, as if the Conservatives had used this against them, because of the Liberal motion to protect democracy for the Conservatives. It is incredibly hypocritical on their part.

At any rate—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Bourassa wants to raise a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, but I would like to remind him that we are talking about Bill S-7 today. He does not need to talk about anything else. This matter is complex and serious enough.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I encourage all hon. members to speak to the matter before the House and trust the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is doing so today.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, all day, I have been listening to the Liberals whine about how their opposition day was cancelled. The NDP never stopped them to raise a point of order. The poor Liberals lost their entire opposition day, which they meant to use to protect democracy for the Conservatives. In my opinion, I had the right to talk about it, otherwise we should have called them to order a long time ago.

We are dealing with this bill today. Meanwhile, we saw what happened a month ago in London, Ontario. An incident occurred in our country a month ago, and we had to wait until today to examine Bill S-7. I listened to the speech the parliamentary secretary gave this morning. She said that, if there were problems with Bill S-7, we could talk about them and propose amendments. In my opinion, the parliamentary secretary is living on another planet, because 17 amendments were already proposed in committee and the majority government completely rejected all of them.

Today, some Conservative members are rising in the House and saying that they disagree. They are giving examples of Canadians who go to other countries and commit acts of terrorism. They are saying that something needs to be added to the legislation so that action can be taken in such cases. However, there is not just one problem with the bill. It is therefore important to examine the bill in committee so that amendments can be proposed, but it seems that this is not at all negotiable and that only the Conservatives are right.

The Liberals are saying that the professionals who testified before the committee said that they liked some aspects of the bill even though it is not perfect. In such a case, the bill should be rejected and just the good measures kept. Are we going to say that our only choice is to vote in favour of a bad bill because it contains some good measures? Is that how we create bills?

The Liberals are afraid. They are not in the middle for nothing. They are trying to please everyone, both on the right and on the left. They vote for everything for crying out loud.

I would like to talk about issues related to cuts. If the government is so serious about fighting terrorists and criminals, why is it making so many cuts?

For example, the Canada Border Services Agency has been on the receiving end of $143 million in cuts, which will affect 325 jobs. What good is it to pass laws if there is no one to enforce them and if the employees hired to protect people are losing their jobs?

On one hand, the government wants to pass a law that is supposed to fix all of these problems. On the other hand, it is cutting jobs across the country, including 325 at the Canada Border Services Agency.

Police in municipalities and communities are saying that they need help. Even RCMP officers are saying it. Their budgets are being cut in cities and towns. However, the people who are likely to commit these crimes will be caught on the ground. We need boots on the ground.

They love the idea of having tidy legislation in place. It looks great politically. They can say that they arrested someone and put him in prison, that they will build jails and throw people in there every once in a while, and that the story will make the national news. It will look good because they will have done their job.

Yet, in the meantime, jobs for border service agents and police officers will be cut all across the country. There is even a rumour that the government has cut funding for security at level three airports. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

That is what we are talking about. For instance, at a level 3 airport, like the Bathurst airport, there would no longer be any security. You would arrive at the airport, board the plane and away you go. It would be no problem. At the same time, police forces are trying to stop criminals and terrorists. The more the Conservatives think they are going in that direction, the more they make cuts to policing and security. They make cuts left, right and centre. Then they introduce a bill.

The Conservatives love spreading terror and fearmongering by introducing bills. They think the best thing to do is come up with laws and build prisons and other big buildings. For them, one prisoner per cell is not enough; they want three or four per cell. What a beautiful Canada.

Cuts to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will total $24.5 million by 2015, while general inspector positions at the CBSA were eliminated in 2012. Yet that is crucial for accountability. Some $24.5 million is being cut. Furthermore, the RCMP is having its budget cut by $195 million. Now, the Conservatives would have everyone believe that this is all going to change on Monday, given what happened in Boston. Canadians are not stupid and they do not believe the Conservatives.

I spent the weekend in my riding and people told me that the Conservatives are not all that smart. The Conservatives wave this bill around while the Liberals are fighting to get a day to talk about democracy. Yet, at committee, they refused 17 amendments concerning Bill S-7. Even though they refused all of them, they want to vote in favour of the bill because it contains one good point. Come on.

I thank hon. members for giving me the opportunity to speak. For all of these reasons—taking away people's freedoms, putting young people in prison for 12 months without anyone of age to protect them and possibly putting innocent people in prison—the NDP will not be supporting this bill, which fundamentally violates personal freedoms. We are not talking only about terrorists. There is one place where terrorists belong. In my opinion, we already have the legislation we need to protect Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member read the debates today, he would have found that a number of his New Democratic colleagues stood today and made comments on why the government brought forward Bill S-7. It is not only the Liberal Party but even some of his own colleagues who expressed concerns about Bill S-7. Maybe they can enlighten him.

The member referred to amendments and said that it is not a perfect bill and therefore should not pass. I would like to remind the member that literally a thousand-plus amendments have been brought forward on government legislation by opposition parties. I am wondering if the member would indicate how many of those amendments have actually passed. Does he believe that the only way a bill should be voted for inside third reading is if opposition amendments are adopted? If they are not adopted, then it is not perfect, and that means that the NDP will in future be voting against that legislation.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if the amendments are not adopted, the legislation could take the liberty of innocent people and put them in prison for 12 months without protection. Yes, we would vote against it.

We had 17 amendments. As my Liberal colleague said, even though it is not perfect, the Liberals did not put one amendment forward.

Do the Liberals not believe that committees should work? Do they not believe that we should still push the government, put pressure on the government, and leave Canadians to decide whether that is the government that should run this country?

The Liberals just sit there, not putting forward any amendments at all. They swallow everything. Even if it is not perfect, they vote for it, even if it takes people's liberty away, and I have a problem with that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague with respect to the Liberals putting zero amendments forward and then accusing the government of not listening to them. No wonder the government is not listening to them; it is because they are not speaking.

It was the Liberal government, under Jean Chrétien, that brought in the provisions that suspended habeas corpus under the so-called terrorist provisions. They were such onerous provisions that the government agreed to put in a sunset clause so that they would be removed after a time, because they were a fundamental threat to the legal landscape of the country.

In 2007, Parliament voted to ensure that those provisions for taking people without warrants and forcing them before investigative juries or judges would not be brought back. The Liberals, in 2013, are standing up and supporting the same provisions they promised to sunset in 2001.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks it is that the Liberal members have offered zero amendments and have been rubber-stamping this from the get-go.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the only answer is that right from the beginning they believed in that type of law we have in our country and in taking advantage of people. We see it now when they are not putting forward any amendments.

The sad part is that they get up in the House of Commons, and they say that the bill is not perfect. That is why we have committees where we are able to put forward amendments.

Today they cannot show us even one amendment. Saying that the bill is not perfect and not having one amendment means that they have not done their job on Bill S-7. They have done nothing. Then they come here and say that is it not perfect and that they are voting for it, but that the New Democrats are voting against it when they should be voting for it, even if it is not perfect and is doing something wrong.

It is the same party that is having an opposition day to save the Conservative backbenchers that have been told not to speak by their Prime Minister.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the issues raised by Bill S-7. However, I would first like to offer my condolences to the families of the Boston Marathon victims and express my support for this extraordinarily resilient community.

Terrorism is a horrible thing, and we need a responsible approach to combat it without losing what defines us as a society. When Osama bin Laden launched the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, he said that he wanted the North American way of life to disappear forever.

Since those attacks, Western countries have lost a little bit of their candour, and we have had to face our own limitations. At the centre of the lifestyle we share with our American neighbours is the rule of law and the civil liberties enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These social markers are at the heart of Canadian identity, and we must protect them as our most precious treasure, because if we willingly abandon our fundamental rights, then what is the point of combatting terrorism?

This is the main question behind my opposition to Bill S-7. In my opinion, this bill is ineffective and pointless in the fight against terrorism and it directly threatens my constituents' freedom.

We all know that Bill C-36 was rushed through in 2001 following the attacks on New York, which made a deep impression on our minds. Who does not remember those events, even 12 years later? Yet very few people remember Bill C-42, which allowed the government to declare temporary military zones in which fundamental freedoms were suspended. This millennium opened with a new interpretation of our most fundamental freedoms.

Why this aside when talking about Bill S-7? It is simply to show the House the risks of passing a bill such as this one in a time of emotional distress.

What happened in Boston has had an effect on all of us, but if Bill S-7 was so urgent, why did the Conservatives wait until now to introduce it? If I did not trust in the good faith of the members opposite, I would be tempted to say that they are trying to use this tragedy to conclude the debate on Bill S-7 so that they never have to hear about freedom of expression within their own caucus again.

Among other things, Bill S-7 would reinstate sunset provisions contained in Bill C-36, which expired in 2011. That is the case for recognizance powers, which the government is trying to put back on the table for no apparent reason. Other provisions, such as investigative hearings, are cause for concern.

The fact that these provisions were not applied between 2001 and 2007 does not seem to be of great concern to this government. Moreover, with respect to recognizance powers, the Conservatives insisted at report stage that this provision apply to individuals who are not suspected of conducting terrorist activities.

In summary, with Bill C-36, we introduced the idea of preventive detention and provisional judgments grounded in mere suspicion. Is there anyone here who wants to be the object of such suspicion? Bill S-7 goes even further. It reintroduces a sunset clause for an obvious purpose and, moreover, it tries to apply the provision to people who are not even suspected of being terrorists. It is not a mistake: the broad scope of the provision is intentional.

What are we doing? Are we going to put people in jail on the grounds of a suspected suspicion? I am sorry, but that is not the democracy in which I want my grandchildren to grow up. Suspending an individual's freedom because of a suspicion is very arbitrary. No longer requiring this suspicion would be utter madness. Furthermore, this provision could result in 12 months of preventive detention, 12 months of imprisonment without a conviction. What has happened to Canada?

The reading of Bill S-7 raises questions for me that I must ask. If the government wants to extend an anti-terrorist provision not only to terrorists, but also to those suspected of terrorism and, basically, everyone in general, where is this all leading to?

Anti-terrorism legislation like this is not worthy of a state governed by the rule of law. It is not actually used anyway, and our Criminal Code has up to now proved to be adequate for tracking down terrorists. With this type of legislation, we are opening the door to broader applications, which we are already seeing in Bill S-7.

Earlier, I was talking about Bill C-36 and Bill C-42. They have not been useful in protecting Canada from terrorism. The behaviour of our forces of law and order deteriorated as a result.

If memory serves, Bill C-42 was used when the government declared the community of Kananaskis to be under military jurisdiction for a G8 economic meeting in 2002. Who were the terrorists? Al Qaeda, or the global justice movement? Bill C-36 may not have been able to defend the country, but it sure got the authorities all worked up in 2010 during the notorious “Torontonamo”, when the city centre was locked down and $1 billion was spent on security for a simple G8 meeting on the economy. The result was 1,000 Canadians imprisoned and convicted with no evidence, and civil liberties taken away, first inside the security perimeter, then around it, and finally all over the city.

If the authorities feel that they can act like that at a simple demonstration about the economy, what will they do in other situations? I firmly believe that anti-terrorist laws give quite the wrong message to our forces of law and order. “Torontonamo” was strongly criticized in official government reports, but the harm was done. How many other accidents like that are we going to have to deal with before we realize that anti-terrorist legislation can become “anti-Canadian” legislation?

If the Conservative government really wanted to improve security in Canada, why did it cut the budget of our border intelligence unit by half? Why did it end a program designed to recruit more police officers in our communities, and why did it abolish the position of Inspector General of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service?

Furthermore, the NDP proposed a number of amendments that would have made Bill S-7, if not satisfactory, at least tolerable, but the Conservatives rejected all of our amendments. So we have to learn to live with investigative hearings, a technique worthy of medieval witch hunts, that could well pervert our justice system. Rather than confronting the potential threats hanging over our country, the Conservatives seem to be more interested in using them to significantly change the nature of justice in this country.

In my opinion, Bill S-7 is poorly designed and does not add anything substantial to the Criminal Code, other than the potential for misuse and abuse that we will all regret one day. Bill S-7 should be examined much more carefully before it is passed, since the issues this bill raises are much too important to be left to the whim of the government in power.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments, and I am very disappointed.

First, let me say that the member had a very negative portrayal of our men and women in uniform, our police officers and our front-line public safety officials. I want to say that those people deserve respect, and we should honour them. They protect us every single day. That member should be ashamed for trying to run them down.

Second, the member said that this was somehow political, that the legislation is only here because of events of last week. That is ridiculous. The legislation has been before the various houses of Parliament for a very long time.

Today, we have to see how important it is that the government do its number one job, which is to protect the people who live within its boundaries. Why is the NDP always soft on crime and soft on terrorists?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not negatively portray men and women in uniform. On the contrary, I think that they need help. They need more money and we must not be making cuts to jobs.

Furthermore, this bill has been around and has been studied for a long time, so why did the government only bring it up today? Why not months ago?

This bill may have been acceptable if at least one of our 18 amendments had been accepted.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first if I may, I would like to convey heartfelt congratulations to the men and women of our forces who did a fantastic job earlier today. We found out there was a plan being put into place to cause harm to citizens here in Canada in the 905 belt. We do not know exactly where. We applaud all of their energies and efforts in saving us from what could have been a fairly horrendous situation.

Having said that, it is important for us to recognize the fine work they do, and I tried to do this earlier today. We heard presentations at the committee stage in which they were very clear. They see Bill S-7 as a bill that would allow for an additional tool to combat terrorism. That is in essence the principle of why we assign value to the passage of the bill. The Liberal Party, in principle, has been supportive of the bill.

My question for the member is: Given that we have professionals, law enforcement agencies and experts saying there is merit to passing the legislation, why then would the NDP go against what they are saying, given that there are checks in place to protect private individuals' rights?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

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

The purpose of this bill is to muzzle people and to send them to jail based on a mere suspicion. That is unacceptable. We live in a democracy, or at least I think we do. Putting that in a bill is unacceptable. We cannot vote for a bill that will muzzle people and send them to prison based on a mere suspicion. That makes no sense.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill S-7, on combatting terrorism.

The Conservative government's intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds, and today is no exception. They are trying to exploit a tragedy so recent—the Boston Marathon attacks—that the victims' wounds are still bleeding.

Our thoughts are with the victims and the many people who risked their lives to protect the Boston area over the past few days. Because of the way the Conservatives do things, our agenda in the House of Commons has once again been flipped upside down without prior notice. Why? Mostly because the government in place lacks vision. It exploits hot-topic issues and uses them to impose its own agenda.

Countries in the G8 are not supposed to rush to pass legislation based on what is going on in the news, especially if the goal is simply to shove the government's own agenda down the public's throat. We must work for the common good, listen to what experts tell us and base decisions on the objectives of our international partners.

This makes it clear that the government cares more about its own agenda than anything else.

The morning after the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, did the government start a debate on crazed killers to help the American president, who has been fighting for tougher laws since then? No. That issue is not in line with this government's objectives.

Given that Bill S-7 has been back in the House since December, why is the government suddenly in such a hurry? Why did we not have this debate in February, for example? With a record number of 30 gag orders, we had plenty of time to debate what has now suddenly become a priority. The government is being purely opportunistic and exploiting current events.

So that we do not play into the government's hands, I would like to recap some facts about Bill S-7.

The committees heard testimony from a number of stakeholders in the legal community and civil liberties groups. They said that Canada's current laws are sufficient.

Immediately providing law enforcement and border services with better resources for field investigations would improve our chances of preventing a tragedy. We should not make a habit of using exceptional measures that threaten fundamental rights. For example, in the case of the Toronto 18, the worst-case scenario was avoided because of a successful investigation, and no exceptional measures were used.

Cuts in the hundreds of millions of dollars to border services and the RCMP make no sense, and they demonstrate this government's contempt for these people. The government loves them so much that it keeps making cuts. I would not wish this government's love and affection on any Canadian. Talk about bad news.

Bill S-7 is useless and disconcerting because it throws wide the doors to infringements of civil liberties and human rights.

Take, for example, the part of the legislation that is perhaps the most disturbing, which is recognizance with conditions or what are known as preventive arrests.

The government included a paragraph in its legislation specifically so that it could use preventive arrests even when individuals were not suspected of terrorist activities. NDP members tried to amend that provision to ensure that only those individuals identified as having potentially been involved in a terrorist activity could be placed under preventive arrest. Committee members were shocked to hear from a parliamentary secretary that the amendment would not be accepted because the government had intended for the provision to be far-reaching so that it would include individuals who authorities do not suspect will commit terrorist activities in the future.

The stage is set for abuse, and the government is promoting it. The fact that the anti-terrorist provisions were never used between 2001 and 2007 clearly illustrates that the government's haste is purely a tactic.

The NDP has gathered a great deal of support for this interpretation of the events. Paul Copeland, a lawyer and member of the Law Union of Ontario, said:

I wanted to comment first on the circumstances of the Air India case, because that is the only case in which this legislation that came in under the anti-terrorism bill was used, and it's a rather bizarre circumstance. It was described as a fiasco, and I think that's an appropriate description.

He concluded his speech with the following:

...the provisions you are looking at here change the Canadian legal landscape. They change it in a way that isn't useful. They should not be passed, and in my view they are not needed. There are other provisions of the code that allow for various ways of dealing with these people.

According to Reid Morden, a former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, police officers and security forces have all the powers they need to carry out their duties and they do not need any additional powers.

We are talking about very competent people who have taken positions that are very similar to ours.

Further conclusions, also very similar to the NDP's, were expressed in today's Globe and Mail. I wanted to quote this, because I noted that the French-language press was not reporting this as much. These conclusions are quite justified:

“The debate politicizes the Boston Marathon bombings when few facts are known regarding the bombers' motives or inspiration.”

The Conservatives are forcing us to make decisions before the injured have even healed.

“More worrying is the fact that there are aspects of the proposed bill that raise questions about balancing civil liberties with the need to protect citizens.”

The Globe and Mail—and no one can say that it is a leftist leaflet—reached the same conclusion as we did: this raises some serious concerns about fundamental rights.

Here is another quote that made me smile, but bothered me at the same time:

“The government's sudden need to debate Bill S-7 seems more likely to have been prompted by Mr. Trudeau's unfortunate comments about 'root causes'—”

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. I would remind members not to refer to their colleagues by their given name.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Let us say they would have been written by the new chief of the Liberal Party, “—the day after the bombing than by a concern for public safety.”

This analysis is justifiable but troubling. Are we going to hold debates in the House based on the blunders of the new Leader of the Liberal Party? If that is the case, then we should cancel all the debates for the coming months. The young Liberal leader will provide the government with at least one blunder a week, that is for certain.

We will have to have debates on millionaires who, when they hit their forties, suddenly discover the needs of the middle class. We will have to hold debates to determine whether a striptease is a good idea for a fundraising campaign. We will therefore have at least one blunder a week in the coming months.

The purpose of this House is not to focus on the short term or on current events. On the contrary, the purpose of the House is to think about making the best possible decisions to protect our constituents in the long term.

Earlier, the hon. member for Bourassa had a very strong reaction with regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He said that the Liberals are thinking about supporting this bill even though there is very good reason to be concerned.

One of my colleagues spoke about an uncle who could be arrested without even knowing that his nephew was part of a group that could be involved in terrorism. These are fundamental rights that might not be upheld. The hon. member for Bourassa shouted: “The Charter of Rights! The Charter of Rights!” Clearly, we have a problem.

The member was adamant about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the government introduced a bill that flouts the charter and does not take into consideration the people on the ground, the customs officers, law enforcement and police officers who are put in untenable positions.

Who will have to deal with these untenable and completely contradictory decisions about certain key aspect of Canada's laws and regulations? It is law enforcement.

Making hasty decisions and showing up with something written on the back of a napkin—as the Conservatives like to say—shows a lack of respect for law enforcement and the work that these people do.

I will vote against Bill S-7 because this bill threatens rights and freedoms, contains useless provisions that are never used, and exploits current events and the all too recent suffering of some people to further the government's agenda.

I will continue to oppose any cuts to the resources granted to customs officers and investigators. In fact, the real problem and the real threat Canadians are facing in 2013 are the cuts that the Conservatives are making to funding for the dedicated and courageous individuals who take risks every day in the field.

This bill does not respond to this threat. The threat will continue as long as these people are in office.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, as always when the New Democrats speak, there is an undercurrent that suggests some pretty negative attributes to our men and women in uniform. I just want to say that this government supports our men and women in uniform, be it the military, the police, the RCMP, or CSIS.

The New Democrats do not seem to understand that the number one responsibility of any government is to protect the country's sovereignty and ensure public safety. The Minister of Public Safety has said today that the examples of terrorism that we saw in Boston and, unfortunately, here in Canada today, and in the Toronto 18, and so on just demonstrate that this type of legislation, unfortunately, is necessary. The New Democrats seem to be so soft on terrorism, along with the hug-a-thug mentality. I just wish they would support us and do the right thing.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in resources for people whose mission it is to identify and combat terrorism is an excellent way of being soft on crime, or soft on terrorists. Who would dare to do such a thing? The last we heard, it was the people who are currently in government. Opposing these cuts is an excellent way to show that we respect and appreciate the work these people do. Who has been supporting the people who combat terrorism over the past two years? The people on this side of the House. Can I be any clearer?

I sometimes feel like I am arguing with a stubborn 12-year-old. If we want to support these people, we have to give them the resources they need. We might disagree about regulations but, in the end, the people who respect them want to maintain and increase their resources, and the people who make cuts do not respect them. We cannot make it any clearer.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we never hear from the Conservatives is that a primary responsibility of Parliament is to respect the rule of law, and the rule of law is based on the rights of citizens. That is something that the Conservatives continually want to do away with.

We brought forward numerous amendments to fix this legislation. The Liberals brought zero. One of our proposed amendments was to clarify what would be defined under “terrorism” because individuals could be detained and held without warrant by authorities who think those individuals might do something. We tried to clarify that and the Conservatives refused to have clarification, because they said they wanted a broad sweep. We see the Liberals and Conservatives support a broad sweep against citizens.

My question for my hon. colleague is this. In light of the recent G20 where there were numerous abuses of civil rights, such that the police were left embarrassed and it has been brought to court, why do both the Liberals and Conservatives support this broad sweep against ordinary Canadian citizens?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. His question is a valid one.

Once again, let us return to the basic principle, which the government is not doing a good job of defending. Does the government respect the front-line workers, the investigators and customs officers? It is not helping them by introducing legislation that can have a very broad interpretation. They will find themselves in untenable situations where the decision to be made could violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What is to be done in such cases?

The government is making an amendment to include a potential exception that could at times apply in the context of terrorism—without really defining what terrorism is—and that would be contrary to the charter. Then the government is asking them to find a way to do a good job. That is what it is telling them. That does not help them.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is the party of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also the party of multiculturalism, pluralism, and respect for diversity. The charter is one of Canada's proudest achievements. All Canadians, whatever their origins, cultural or religious backgrounds, or affiliations, know where they stand under the charter. They stand as equals. In deciding how to vote on any piece of legislation, we in the Liberal caucus always employ a key criterion: Does the legislation respect the charter? At the same time, Liberals are unshakably committed to ensuring the physical safety of all Canadians.

As Justice Lamer once said, and I paraphrase, safety from imminent harm is at the core of the values of dignity, integrity, and autonomy of the individual. These are also the values at the core of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, the charter is consistent both with individual liberties and with the notion of protecting community and individual safety.

Like all members in this House, we in the Liberal caucus live in communities. We have families and neighbours. We want them and all fellow Canadians to be safe from violence. It is precisely because of our dual adherence to the charter and to the need for public safety that Liberals will be supporting Bill S-7 at third reading, as we have done throughout the legislative process surrounding this bill.

Bill S-7 contains a number of important provisions. First, it reintroduces two public security measures, investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions, that a Liberal government introduced in 2001 with sunset clauses that took effect five years later in 2006 and nullified these measures as originally planned.

Prior to sunsetting, section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, which referred to investigative hearings, permitted a peace officer to apply to a judge for an order requiring a witness believed to have information concerning a terrorism offence, past or imminent, to appear before the judge to answer questions. This measure was accompanied by important safeguards. Among other things, the witness in an investigative hearing was protected against self-incrimination in reference to a future criminal proceeding and had the right to retain and instruct legal counsel. Also, the presiding judge could impose conditions on hearings in the interest of protecting the witness. For example, the judge could order that the witness' identity not be made public. The Supreme Court has ruled investigative hearings to be constitutional. In other words, they are charter-compliant.

Recognizance with conditions, in other words, preventative arrests under section 83.3 of the Criminal Code with a view to preventing a potential act of terrorism, also contains safeguards. Invoking this measure required the prior consent of the Attorney General and a provincial court judge unless the peace officer suspected immediate detention was necessary, in which case the detained individual had to be brought before a judge within 24 hours or as soon as feasible.

This section was slightly amended in its reintroduction through Bill S-7 to ensure conformity of the original provision with the Supreme Court decision in Regina v. Hall, a case related to detention without bail. The amended version in Bill S-7 is meant to narrow the scope of reasons for which the individual could be detained.

I should mention for the benefit of those who doubt whether the government's attitude to combatting terrorism is constitutional that this past December the Supreme Court unanimously rejected claims that the 10-year-old terrorism sections of the Criminal Code had defined terrorist activity so broadly that these sections threatened free expression. The court said that the anti-terrorism law is “...respectful of diversity, as it allows for the non-violent expression of political, religious or ideological views.”

The court also found that the definition of terrorist activity is not so broad as to capture innocent individuals in its legal net. The court specified that:

For example, the conduct of a restaurant owner who cooks a single meal for a known terrorist is not of a nature to materially enhance the abilities of a terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity.

Therefore, it would not constitute a terrorism offence.

A second feature of Bill S-7 is that it introduces a new offence that security experts have told the public safety committee they need to be effective in fighting terrorism in the present-day context, which is, the offence of leaving or attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of engaging in terrorist activity, whether to attend a terrorist training camp, or to take part in any kind of terrorist-related action. As we know, Canadians have been implicated in terrorist incidents overseas, namely in Algeria and Bulgaria.

Richard Fadden, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, recently testified that while this new offence was perhaps not needed a few years ago, he is now more concerned about the radicalization of individuals in Canada who become inspired, often through the Internet, by the extremist narrative.

Furthermore, as mentioned in the CBC report on the subject:

Ray Boisvert, former assistant director of intelligence with CSIS..., said radicalization is a "growing pattern" in Canada. CSIS has identified up to 50 people who have left Canada to fight abroad.

For those who might fall prey to generalizations about the source of extremism in Canada, the path to violent extremism does not originate in particular communities. This is according to CSIS.

Since 2001, there are communities that have been the object of suspicion. This saddens me because distrust of newcomers is not a new phenomenon. Different cultural and religious groups have been held in suspicion throughout history, and across societies. Such treatment has created hurt and frustration in these communities. Sometimes persons and property in these communities have suffered harm.

Even when this has not been the case, community members, especially the young, otherwise excited about opportunities for growth and success, often understandably passionate about contributing to the greater societal good, believe their opportunities to be limited because of their identification with their cultural group of origin.

This is why I was so interested and pleased to learn of the conclusions of a CSIS intelligence assessment branch study on radicalization in Canada. The study affirms that the path to violent zealotry is ultimately “an idiosyncratic individual process”.

Allow me to refer to some of the study's conclusions, as reported in a Globe and Mail column by Doug Saunders, entitled “Canada's looking for terrorists in all the wrong places”.

I will quote and paraphrase:

[Canadian extremists] are almost always native-born Canadians, rarely immigrants, and never refugees.

Not only are they not immigrants, but they don't tend to be found within “parallel society” immigrant enclaves. And they aren't radicalized by attending a mosque.

Britain's MI5 analyzed several hundred violent extremists and found similar non-immigrant...backgrounds—and that, as in Canada, these extremists don’t come from religious backgrounds. “Most are religious novices,” the security service concluded, and, in fact, “there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalization”.

U.S. experts have come to the same conclusions. Mark Fallon, formerly with U.S. counterterrorism, has confirmed that migration experiences, religious traditions, and theology almost never cause radicalism.

To quote Doug Saunders in conclusion:

The path from strict religious faith to violence simply doesn't exist—in fact, the most religious are among the least likely to become extremists.

[Terrorism] is a criminal tendency, neither imported nor theological, not rooted in communities or faiths.

This new offence of leaving or attempting to leave Canada for the purposes of engaging in a terrorist-related activity, similar to many of the current terrorism offences in the Criminal Code, is designed to allow for arrests and charges at the early planning stage of terrorist attacks outside Canada, before a person even leaves Canada to commit terrorist acts.

As usual, the offence comes with safeguards. To quote Donald Piragoff, senior assistant deputy minister, policy sector, Justice Canada:

[The leaving or attempting to leave Canada offences] require the consent of the Attorney General before charges are laid. It's not simply a police officer who makes the determination; you have to get the consent of the Attorney General to say that the prosecution or an arrest would be appropriate.

Moreover, this new offence is not so broad that it would prevent someone from, say, going to a survival camp in Colorado or in the Middle East.

As Mr. Piragoff also noted before committee:

It's not an offence to go to a survival camp...to learn how to shoot an AK-47. However, if the person is going to learn how to shoot an AK-47 for the express purpose of helping improve the capacity of a terrorist group, that makes it an offence.

Finally, Bill S-7 would introduce legislative guarantees of greater government transparency and accountability in dealing with matters of national security that come before the courts or an administrative proceeding. It would introduce amendments to the Canada Evidence Act that would make it more difficult for the government to use national security concerns as a routine justification for suppressing information that is in the public interest of a democracy, information that is often essential to permitting a fair trial for an accused.

Some of the changes to the Canada Evidence Act in Bill S-7 implement the decisions of the Federal Court in Toronto Star Newspaper Limited v. Canada, and Ottawa Citizen Group v. Canada. In essence, it would no longer be in the power of the Attorney General to determine, even against the opinion of the court, whether information relating to a case or a proceeding must remain confidential. That discretion would now belong to the presiding judge, who must presumptively abide by the open court principle and allow only very limited exceptions.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and I thought they were well thought out. He certainly addressed many of the nonsensical arguments brought forward by the NDP, for example, issues around the charter, that the legislation is sound.

Would the member comment on why the NDP would not support legislation that would help bring more tools to protect Canadians? This is the House of Commons. The laws of the land are determined here to protect, improve, and ensure that the quality of life of Canadians gets better. Why is the NDP against that?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's kind words regarding my own words, but I really cannot speak for the NDP. I can only speak for Liberals as our public safety critic. I really do not know for what reason the NDP is not supporting the bill, but I am sure other hon. colleagues, namely in the NDP, will provide the answer.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to stress the concerns of the NDP about Bill S-7 and its threats to fundamental rights. I have a press release sent by CAIR-CAN that said it shares the same concern:

CAIR-CAN joined several other prominent Canadian civil liberties organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, in opposing the controversial bill.

I would like to know how the Liberals will answer CAIR-CAN and many other organizations that are scared about the threat that Bill S-7 might be to fundamental rights.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, whatever the issue, whatever the bill we are debating, there are opposing points of view that are expressed by expert witnesses at committee stage and that are expressed in the House. That is very healthy. It is always important, as I said in my speech, that we question every piece of legislation that comes before us against the standards that are contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a part of our Constitution. It contains the fundamental principles at the core of our democracy.

However, I sat at committee and I listened to the arguments of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. They were good arguments. But at the end of the day, other arguments prevailed over myself, speaking as a member of the Liberal Party. I go back to the very beginning of my speech where I mentioned that to be free of intimidation, to be safe is also at the core of the values of individual dignity and one of the core values in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I do not think we can ignore that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can offer the reasons I am opposed to this legislation, and perhaps they are shared by the official opposition.

The Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights made the point that “...human rights are not, and can never be, a luxury to be cast aside at times of difficulty.”

I believe there are adequate mechanisms within the current Criminal Code, and this legislation goes too far. I ask my friend from Lac-Saint-Louis if he would not prefer if the bill had been amended to change the term “likely to carry out a terrorist activity”. Twice in the legislation, people face sanctions of up to 10 years' imprisonment if they have in any way harboured or assisted someone who is “likely to engage”. How is that defined, and should we not have taken the advice of the Canadian Bar Association and changed that language to “intend to undertake terrorist activity”?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is discussing the part of the bill that refers to purpose, for example, in the case where someone would be serving a meal to or harbouring someone who has committed a terrorist act or is likely to commit a terrorist act.

From what I recall in the legislative summary of the bill, it was deemed that the idea of having to discuss “purpose” was not necessary according to other legal experts. I will look into this a bit more, but I do remember it coming up.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add to the compliments that have been expressed. The hon. member almost always gives an extremely well thought out and carefully constructed speech, and I have to appreciate that.

However, I do have one concern. At a minimum, from the perspective of the Liberal Party being ostensibly concerned with charter rights, there is a bit of a contradiction. The recognizance with conditions provision was admitted by the government in committee to be something that can be applied to people who are in no way suspected of terrorist activity or potential terrorist activity. We tried to amend that, and the government said it wanted it to be that broad.

This has never been tested in the courts, so we cannot say that it might pass scrutiny, as is the case with investigative hearings. Therefore, I would like to know why the Liberal Party and my hon. colleague feel so certain that rights are not at issue with respect to the operation of that clause.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings a great deal of legal knowledge and deep thinking to all of the debates in the House that he takes part in.

In terms of preventative arrests, there are other cases where that can take place, for example under section 810 of the Criminal Code, if someone is threatening domestic violence or sexual aggression.

There was a court case recently, which I mentioned in my speech, Regina v. Hall, where the issue of preventative arrest was brought up in the context of a bail hearing. My understanding is that Bill S-7 responds somewhat to some of the points made in that judgment. However, that judgment upheld the notion of preventative arrest in certain cases.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, especially the introduction regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling based on investigative hearings, stating in essence that they are indeed constitutional.

Having said that, I ask the member whether he sees this as one tool that law enforcement agencies and professionals would have in their hands if required at some point in the future. Could the member provide a brief comment on that?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is encouraging is that our public security and safety agencies are working very well at investigating threats. We saw that in the events that unfolded earlier today. They are working well together and working well with agencies in the United States. As the House will recall, it was not always the case that agencies worked well together. In 2001, one of the problems was that the FBI was not talking to the CIA and the Department of Transportation in the United States.

Great progress has been made, and hopefully we will not need to use the measures in this bill because our security agencies are doing such a good job. However, it is a good insurance policy to have in case the existing tool box does not serve every situation well.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, as always, to rise in the House and represent the great people of Timmins—James Bay, who put their trust in me to address issues in the House.

Today on the Hill outside Parliament, I was reminded why I love this country so much. I think of Parliament Hill, that great public space where people go to demonstrate, play drums, play Frisbee and, yes, smoke pot to draw attention on 4/20. This is a public space and in that great public space today, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people gathered in support of the people of Boston. It shows that, fundamentally, we are a world community and care for each other in those moments. I watched the crowd go off to the sounds of Sweet Caroline, one of the great songs I used to sing at weddings, but that is another story.

I thought of Fenway Park in Boston, where Neil Diamond showed up and sang Sweet Caroline, showing that Boston has great spirit and that senseless violence will not deter us from being a civil society. Whether it is the horrific killings in Boston or the crazy gun nuts in Newtown or Colorado, a fundamental principle of our society is that we are not going to let them win by growing in fear and undermining the basic principles on which our society has been based. That principle is based on the right of citizens to be protected from terrorists, but also from arbitrary arrest and detainment. That is the principle for which the House of Commons stands.

It is unfortunate that, as we saw the great outpouring of goodwill on the Hill, we see this debate being brought forward again in the House. I refer to The Globe and Mail editorial that stated:

The two-day debate in Parliament on the Harper government’s proposed anti-terrorism legislation smacks of political opportunism, and it is regrettable that it will take place. The debate politicizes the Boston Marathon bombings....

It goes on to say:

More worrying is the fact that there are aspects of the proposed bill that raise questions about balancing civil liberties with the need to protect citizens. A wise course of action would be to postpone the bill’s final reading so that any emotional fallout from the Boston bombings doesn’t colour an important debate about public safety in Canada.

It is incumbent upon us when we see this political opportunism in the face of such tragedy that we do not just bend with the wind when the Conservatives say to bend. Our colleagues in the Liberal Party bent long ago on this issue. We need to raise the fundamental issues that are facing Canadians. We are talking about legislation that takes away basic fundamental rights: that people can be detained without trials and be made to go before special investigative judges without the right to remain silent. Those are fundamental principles.

If Parliament is going to undermine those basic rights on which democratic freedoms are based, there have to be some damn good reasons for it to take place. These original measures were brought forward by the Liberal government in the post-9/11 era. In the horror after 9/11, many people said that our traditional freedoms were outdated, that in the 21st century, torture, rendition and detention without trial were what we needed to do to protect society.

We saw many abuses of citizens' rights in the public realm under this sense of fear and panic, and the Liberal government at the time went along with that George Bush analysis and brought in the provisions that are being brought back. However, even at that time they were so unpalatable to the Canadian public that it had to guarantee there would be a sunset clause, that they would only be in effect for a period of time. Within that period of time, those provisions were never found to be necessary; not once. Yet the Liberals still want to break the promise they made to Canadians when they said they would sunset these clauses because they were such a threat to basic democratic and legal rights.

Now the Liberals are saying, “Let us do it; let us forget that sunset clause; let us forget the debate that happened in 2007 when the House of Commons said that those kinds of provisions would take away from people the fundamental rights of legal protection”. The House of Commons rejected that in 2007 and the Liberals voted with New Democrats. Now they are going back to where they wanted to be.

This is the party that always wraps itself in it. It was them; they represented the charter. However, these are fundamental charter issues.

They used the word "terrorism". It is certainly a very loaded word and a very dangerous issue we are facing. However, the issue with this bill is that, as parliamentarians, we have to make sure due diligence is done so that innocent people will not be drawn up into this net.

It was really telling that we brought forward a number of amendments to try to fix the bill and to work with the government to fix the bill, yet the Liberal members brought zero amendments. They just went along to rubber-stamp it. One of the motions we tried to bring forward was the issue of recognizance with conditions, where a person could be held by preventive arrest based on the word of a peace officer. That person could be held without a warrant and without charges. A person who knew somebody who may be a threat could also be held.

We tried to clarify the language so that we were really clear about what was intended, so that it was terror suspects and not just average citizens who were out there protesting in the streets or would get caught up in a sweep. The government refused that amendment, because it said it wanted a broad sweep. That is something that my hon. colleagues in the Liberal Party are supporting. They are saying that would pass a charter challenge. I certainly do not think so.

What preventive arrest and recognizance with conditions really mean is that we have to look at where it has been done. In the post-9/11 era, Maher Arar was arrested without any real evidence, went through rendition and was tortured. That was done under the nose of the then Liberal government, which thought that was the price we had to pay for freedom. We found out later that Maher Arar was completely innocent.

The Liberals are saying this does not mean that, if individuals serve a meal in a restaurant to a supposed terrorist, they will be arrested without a warrant. That is a ridiculous example. A more telling example would be to look at England during the 1970s and the horrific bombing campaigns that hit London and Birmingham. The Parliament at that time felt it had to get rid of the basic principles of habeas corpus and detention and trial. They arrested numerous innocent people, including Annie Maguire, whose story I have already mentioned today. She was just a housewife.

Not only Annie Maguire but seven members of her family were put in jail for 15 years based on no evidence, because they were thought to somehow be associated with people who were terrorists. The people they were associated with, their cousins, were innocent. We saw that a great miscarriage of justice was done with the Guildford bombings. People's lives were ruined, but it was considered okay at the time because they were all a threat. The crime then, of course, was that they were Irish in England.

However, civil society is based on the rule of law. It is based on ensuring that those situations do not happen.

I want to just talk about the term "terrorist". I was called a terrorist. I was denounced by the government of Mike Harris as an eco-terrorist because I was standing up against a massive garbage dump that many of the frontbenchers supported. As a citizen, when I was speaking up and protesting, I was being called an eco-terrorist. We see that the government uses that word all the time. If a person does not like a pipeline, he or she is an eco-terrorist.

What about all the young aboriginal activists who are on the streets? What about the people at the G20, who came from all over and got off the buses to participate in their demonstrations at the G20, which is their fundamental right? Under this law, a peace officer could believe that these people are possibly thinking of terrorist activity, and they could be held in detention for 24 hours without charges. Then, the peace officers could decide whether to let them go.

We saw what happened at G20 and that is exactly what they were doing. They were detaining people. They were kettling people. Of course, they missed all the bad guys who were running up and down Queen Street with black masks on. I do not know how they missed them, but they managed to run from Queen and Spadina all the way up Yonge Street, and a lot of innocent people were detained.

We have to be careful and we have to define exactly what we mean.

If police officers or people in authority are allowed to decide that they do not like a person and they think he or she poses a threat, then that person could be detained without a trial. In this bill, a person could be held for 12 months without a conviction.

The government says it needs this. However, in the years that these provisions were in effect, they were never used once. Under article 495 in the code, already, an order can be brought to have people appear before a judge, and a judge already has the ability to detain them, without releasing them on bail if he or she feels they are a threat. Those powers already exist.

We are talking about new powers that are much more arbitrary, that are much more subjective, that allow for people to be picked up and held without charges. That is a fundamental threat.

I would like to quote Paul Copeland, a lawyer with the Law Union of Ontario, who said in his opinion the provisions we were examining in committee would unnecessarily change our legal landscape in Canada. He said we must not adopt them. In his opinion they are not necessary. Other provisions of the code provide various mechanisms for dealing with such individuals.

It is unfortunate that within the opposition, the Liberals did not think to even challenge, not even clarify. There are some other amendments that are very much needed but that the government refused. For example, Bill S-7 is a law of general application. It cuts right across. The Young Offenders Act does not supercede Bill S-7. That is very concerning.

What happens to people who are under 18? Can they be detained? Can they be held? That happened in the case of Annie Maguire in Ireland. To say it would not happen is absurd. It has happened. Canada has legal obligations under the international Convention on the Rights of the Child to protect children.

The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children proposed amendments to the bill to ensure that the implementation for children under 18 would consider the convention on the rights of children, including detention as a last resort. The government did not accept those amendments, and neither did the Liberal Party. That is serious.

What we are told here, and I have been here for a number of years, is that we are soft on this. What I find the government is soft on is the basic principle of the rule of law. If someone says “Hey, let us get rid of the rule of law; it will be more effective”. Certainly it would be more effective. Totalitarian states are always very effective in a certain thing because they do not have the rule of law.

We are different because we have the rule of law. I will point to Bill C-30 in this last Parliament, where the government came in with massive provisions to allow it undefined legal authorities to demand personal information on Internet users and cell phone users without warrants. The government thought that was perfectly okay. It needed this, and if we did not support it, then it said we were soft on child pornography.

What an ugly statement, considering the fact that the one who came forward, who was very soft on child pornography, was the architect of the whole Conservative revolution, Tom Flanagan. Tom Flanagan was soft on child pornography.

However, average Canadians who wanted to protect their privacy rights were attacked by the government. The other provisions within Bill C-30 at that time were forcing telecoms to put in spyware so that they could track people whenever they wanted.

My colleagues in the Liberal Party said nothing about it, because those were actually provisions that were brought forward under the Liberals.

At that time we saw a huge backlash, publicly. It was very impressive. Canadians care about their privacy rights. Canadians are not soft on child pornography. Canadians are not soft on terrorism. However, they were not going to sit back and allow the government to undermine basic rights, including the issue that if individuals are going to wiretap, they need warrants.

Recently we have seen the government come back with Bill C-55, which is on wiretap provisions. The government recognized the need to have warrants.

None of this precludes the issue that already within the court system of this country, if officers believe a life is danger, they can act. They can act without a warrant. That is a reasonable provision. If something is an emergency, if a child's life is at stake, they can act and they can then explain to the judge.

However, we are talking about something different. We are talking about someone who feels that a bunch of young activists from Montreal who come to Toronto for the G20 and get off the bus could be up to no good, and it is perfectly okay to grab them and put them in detention for 24 hours and then decide to maybe let them go. Maybe the demonstration will be over by then.

CSIS has been keeping tabs on young, aboriginal activists. Will they be drawn up in this because CSIS wants a broad sweep? Those were their terms: they wanted a broad sweep.

I tell people back home to really reflect on what the House is being asked to push through. The provisions of law have served us for hundreds of years. They are not arbitrary. We did not just come up with them. They exist because we have seen the abuse of civil rights. We have seen the abuse of individual rights, and we need the clear rule of law.

Even in the case of terrorism, we in the New Democratic Party say that we need the tools. If the government wants tools to go after cyber-terrorists, it should bring in a bill that goes after cyber-terrorists, but it should not bring in a bill that allows it to grab any information on anybody it wants at any time just because. Just because is not good enough.

I find it unfortunate that in the wake of the Boston bombing, that incoherent, horrific act, the government has been widely seen to be trying to force this through. It is wrapping itself in the grief of Boston to push through a bill, with its friends in the Liberal Party, that is undermining the basic rights of Canadians without having ever proven just cause.

In the years these provisions existed under the Liberals, before the Liberals agreed to a sunset clause, they were never used. We see that within the Criminal Code we have numerous provisions to give police the powers they need to go after the bad guys.

We as parliamentarians do not need to be frightened, told by the Conservatives that we all have to jump when they say jump, otherwise we are soft. We are not soft, and we are not soft-headed, unlike our colleagues over in the third party. We stand for the rule of law in this country, and if the government tries to fundamentally alter the political landscape of this country, it needs to prove it.

Second, it needs to stop politicizing it so that when amendments are brought before the committee to ensure, for example, that children are not drawn up in this wide sweep, the Conservatives will say that it is reasonable and that they will protect children.

We asked for amendments to clarify what are terrorists so that a guy in a uniform is not just picking some kid out of a crowd because he looks like he is about to do something. That is not the rule of law. That is what exists in totalitarian countries, and it is the difference between us and them.

Paul Calarco, of the national criminal justice section of the Canadian Bar Association, put it very clearly at committee. He said:

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, the bill fails to meet either goal.

The issue is the investigative hearings. Someone could be brought before a special judge, and the right to remain silent, which is a fundamental principle, would be taken away without any justification, without a necessary explanation as to why the individual was being stripped of these rights. It would just be on the subjective word of a legal authority.

As well, there is recognizance with conditions and preventative arrest, not just of the people who are suspected but of people who may know them, people who may be their relatives. A peace agent could arrest an individual without a warrant if he or she believed it was necessary and could hold the person for 24 hours. People could then be held for up to a year.

It is incumbent upon us, in the aftermath of this horrific and senseless act in Boston, to say that in civil society, we will not give in to knee-jerk reactions. We will not give in to fear. We will stand with the victims, but we will ensure that they are not used to undermine the very basis of what makes us a civil and progressive and democratic society.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would hate for accuracy or the truth to interrupt the full flight of rhetoric we hear from the member for Kenora—Rainy River.

He used the picture of a group of students getting off a bus, or protestors going to protest, which is our right as a Canadian to do. Considering that parts of the act were previously law in Canada, could the member point to an example of when that occurred? Other members of his caucus, and people in the House today, have mentioned that most of the powers in the act were not called upon when they were in force. What is he basing his analogy on?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I would like to let him know that northern Ontario is bigger than Kenora—Rainy River. I am actually from Timmins—James Bay, but no matter.

What I said was very clear at the G20. Perhaps he does not remember the G20 and the massive abuses of civil rights at the G20, all in the name of going after the black masked anarchists. They missed all of them, but they arbitrarily held people, then let them go. They said they were sorry and that it was a mistake. That happened.

If these provisions are so badly needed, why was it that during the four years after 9/11, when the supposed terrorist threat was at its highest, they were never even used? The police did not need them. Now they are being brought back. They were such onerous provisions that the government agreed to put in a sunset clause to get rid of them, because they represent a fundamental threat.

I would like to remind my hon. colleague, who was not here then, that Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was dragged out, sent off to Syria and tortured. Everyone in the House on the Liberal and Conservative sides at the time thought that it was what was needed to defend democracy. Meanwhile, this was a completely innocent man whose only crime was the colour of his skin.

Yes, it has happened, and if this bill is brought forward, it will happen again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if we were to read what the member said, one would think it was the Liberal Party that was in government. That might come in a couple of years. He said the Liberal Party this and Liberal Party that.

We want to put some facts on the record. The Liberal Party will take full credit for the Charter of Rights. The Liberal Party, traditionally, has demonstrated very strong support, in legislative and constitutional form, for standing up for individual rights. However, the Liberal Party also recognizes that terrorism is something real.

If we provide a tool in a toolbox for law enforcement agencies, and they never use the tool, it does not mean that the tool is useless. There could be opportunities, or there may be situations that arise in the future, when the tool could be effective.

Could the member indicate to the House why he and the NDP believe that there is no need for S-7 because it walks on an individual's rights, when we have law enforcement officers and other experts coming forward saying that there are advantages and there is a need for it? We even had the Supreme Court of Canada indicate that investigative hearings are constitutional.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of tools one can put in a toolbox. One could get a screwdriver or a big jack hammer. The question is how they are used.

Obviously, I never expect to see the Liberals in government again, because they flip-flop and they misrepresent themselves to Canadians. They promised Canadians in 2001, when they brought in these provisions, that they would sunset them, because they recognized that they were a fundamental threat. Now what we have seen is that as soon as we have a Conservative majority, the Liberals hide behind the Conservatives, run up the road with them and say “We want to suspend these fundamental civil liberties”. They can howl all they want, but that is the historical record.

They come out every few months and wrap themselves in the so-called charter, but they were the ones who brought in the provisions that had Maher Arar tortured. They did nothing to help him when he was over in Syria being tortured. They left him there, because they thought these provisions were okay.

We have continued to stand up for the basic defence of civil liberties, and we will continue to stand up. If they want to vote with the Conservatives, it makes no difference to us. There is a reason they are the third party. There is a reason the third party will stay a third party.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Timmins—James Bay for putting so plainly and bluntly in front of Canadians today the fact that there is a party here that would like to defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and article 9 that says that “everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned”. This legislation would change that right for innocent people. They would no longer have the right to say that the charter will protect them. This party defends the charter. The party to my right might have put the charter in, but that was a different Trudeau and a different party.

Would my friend like to comment?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want clear choices when looking at these issues.

I might disagree with the Conservative Party on almost everything—although there are a few Bruins fans over there—but I do recognize that the party offers Canadians a clear choice.

We on the other hand stand for the rule of law. We stand for the protection of basic rights because we believe in that. The difference is the party over in the corner that is howling and screaming at the moon has brought zero amendments and it has the nerve to stand up and say the Conservatives do not listen when it brings in amendments. How could they listen to those members if they do not speak? What an absolute waste. They get paid to read legislation that would have profound effects for undermining the basic rights of the rule of law and they go along with it, yet they stand up today and say the Conservatives have been mean to them because they really wanted to talk about a motion that would allow Conservative backbenchers to change their motions and statements.

Really, with all the issues that are facing people in Canada and the world today, one would think that the new leader from Papineau would discuss issues of democracy, or accountability, or pensions in his first opposition motion, but he is not going to do that. He thought about playing political mischief with the Conservatives. It does not matter to me how Conservative members do their statements. That is their business. Do we really think that anybody in the real world gives a monkey's rear end about how they debate statements in the House? That is to be his first opposition day motion. That is his idea of defending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, as we see the NDP continue with its hug-a-thug, kiss-a-terrorist approach, this is a serious bill. The member said the only thing that separates Canada from a totalitarian state is this legislation. I am afraid that member does not understand Canada or our freedoms. He has done a disservice by putting down our nation as well as minimizing the suffering of those who do live in those types of nations.

The member talked about civil rights. Why did he vote against equal matrimonial rights last week?

NDP members talk a lot, but they do not do as they say.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not stay very long on this hug-a-thug, talking down the nation business. It is really unfortunate that the member cannot even involve himself in a serious discussion without reverting to some university Conservative Party talking points. We are talking about the rule of law here. He might think he looks smart using some quick notes from the 20-year-old grunts in the PMO, but we are talking about a bill that The Globe and Mail said today is legislation that “smacks of political opportunism” and unfortunately “politicizes the Boston Marathon bombings”. That member needs to stop wrapping himself in the flag because it is affecting his thinking. We need to talk about this issue, which is the right of citizens to be free from arbitrary arrest in this country.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in this debate. I want to say to my colleagues across the way that I have never hugged a thug or kissed a terrorist in my entire life, and I do not intend to start today, nor will I be doing it tomorrow. That is not in our vernacular, nor is it our propensity to suggest we start doing that.

The law is there for a reason and one reason alone, and that is to protect the innocent and ensure it captures those who perpetrate crimes against us. In fact, we can see the RCMP out there talking about their investigation and the folks they have arrested today in connection with what may well have been a terrorist attempt, or at least the planning thereof.

I say “well done” to those police agencies who took it upon themselves and did the hard work that they did. Yet, they did not have the provisions that the Conservatives seem to want to bring back in. It seems they did their job adequately because they actually thwarted what could have been a catastrophe. There may have been carnage or death, with injuries and maiming of innocent civilians across this country. We congratulate the police forces for the work they have done.

We understand terrorism is within our midst. We have seen it before. We have arrested people in this country. We have seen the unnecessary acts of violence against civilians throughout the world. However, when talking about this country, we talk about how we safeguard those citizens. At the same time, how do we also allow citizens to be free? It is a balancing act. There is no question that it is about how we ensure safety and thwart terrorists from acting, but also how we allow Canadians to enjoy the civil liberties they expect and have come to understand.

The other day I remember my colleagues complaining about the failure to celebrate the Charter, yet here they are today suggesting they should break the charter that they wanted to celebrate last week. That is perhaps why the members on the other side decided there would be no celebration, since their Liberal colleagues who were going to join them, and will join them when they vote on this, were actually going to abrogate the charter under section 9. Why celebrate something they are going to rip up and throw away anyway? It shows their duplicity when it comes to what they intend to do with that.

Clearly, this is about the fact that we do have the rule of law. There are numerous lawyers in this place who understand it much better than I, since I am not a lawyer. However, as a citizen, I do expect even-handed treatment under the law. Regardless of what the charges would be, if I were to ever be charged, I expect that understanding and I expect that type of treatment.

Canadians expect us to find the balance in protecting them, as well as ensuring that their civil liberties are protected, not abrogated, under the charter. If we cannot find a way to do that, then what are we doing? We are saying to Canadians that we do not know how to balance that for them. That is a failure on the part of this House, not on Canadians who are looking to us to find a way to do this.

I would say to my colleagues across the way that one ought to rethink how one does this, so we can find that balance for Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Welland will have 15 minutes and 50 seconds remaining when this debate resumes.

The House resumed from April 22 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill S-7 at third reading. I am doing so not without some soul-searching because I do believe that members of Parliament must address the issue of terrorism seriously. The question remains: is Bill S-7 the right way, and the right response to the threat of terrorism?

In my speech at second reading, I mentioned my personal and family connections to 9/11, a day when my mother was flying out of Washington, D.C. and one of my partner's close friends was flying out of Boston. My mother was fortunate and she was located, safe, later that night on the ground in Denver. However, my partner's friend was not so lucky in his choice of flights from Boston, and we were in the unfortunate situation of having to inform his parents in Indonesia that indeed their son had been on that second plane to hit a tower in New York.

What I did not talk about during second reading was my international human rights work. I have experience working where the threat of terrorism was a constant. I worked in the field in East Timor, in Ambon in Indonesia, and in Afghanistan. In each of these situations, bombing campaigns were a daily threat and all too often a daily reality. I have seen up close, communities torn apart by terrorist violence. I still remember the day in Ambon where my partner and I were working on a peace-building project between Christian and Muslim communities. That was the day that the market was bombed, and from our office we could see the smoke rising. That was the same market where my partner was supposed to be at that moment, but fortunately was late and was not there.

Therefore, I do have some understanding of the reality of terrorist threats, and I have always taken a clear and unequivocal position against terrorism. I have always said there was no justification, no excuse for the use of violence against civilians, none, never, and I fully believe that those who use terror should be met with the full force of the law. I take seriously that we must take measures that will protect us against terrorism, but I also believe we have an equal responsibility to preserve the rule of law and respect for our basic rights and freedoms. Otherwise, what is it that we are protecting? As so many of my colleagues have said, this is truly a question of balance. How do we protect our society in a way that protects its most fundamental values?

In my second reading speech, I spoke not just about my own experience, but also about the unfortunate history of the deportation of Japanese Canadians during World War II. When we look back now, it is very clear that fear, and fear alone, caused us to trample the rights of a minority in this country, using the War Measures Act, an act which the majority at the time argued was necessary to preserve our rights, despite the lack of any evidence at the time or subsequently that this was the case. I emphasize once again that not a single Japanese Canadian was ever charged, let alone convicted, of any collaboration with the enemy during World War II. However, our panic and our fear caused us to uproot a community and the lives of thousands of Canadians for no reason other than their heritage. This is a fear that I have, that we will make these same kinds of mistakes if we panic and adopt measures that would lead to the targeting of certain communities today based on their heritage.

Therein lies the dilemma. How do we keep communities safe without trampling the very rights that are the foundation of a free community and a tolerant society? Then the question is, what are those threats that I see to rights in Bill S-7? What do we in the NDP think is the problem with Bill S-7? There are two major problems, and one associated problem.

The two major problems are that investigative hearings and preventative detention both run against the grain of our fundamental rights in our legal system. Whether we view these measures through our British legal traditions, through our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or through Canada's international legal obligations under international covenants, both of these would challenge our fundamental values. Investigative hearings wreck the fundamental protections against self-incrimination that we have built into our system for 300 years. Preventative detention would violate the principle that one should be punished only for a specific wrongdoing. Bill S-7 would allow the incarceration for up to a year of individuals never even charged with, let alone convicted of, a criminal offence, and, as we discovered in the debate in committee, the government intended for those provisions for preventative detention to be quite broad and to perhaps include people who were merely associated with or inadvertently giving assistance to those who might carry out a terrorist act. While intention is a fundamental element of a criminal act in Canadian law, intention alone has never before been the crime. Therefore, I find these two measures excessive and threatening of those basic rights and values.

In committee, New Democrats pointed out the most basic flaws of this legislation and introduced 18 amendments to address the most egregious problems. However, as usual, the Conservatives were having none of that. As we have seen time and time again in committee, despite statements to the contrary by ministers when they introduce legislation, Conservatives are not actually prepared to consider reasonable amendments at the committee stage, not even in the case of Bill S-7 when it came to an amendment that simply asked that the rights of children be protected under these two measures so that children might not be caught up in investigative hearings and preventive detentions. Not even that amendment on the rights of children were the Conservatives prepared to accept.

The third party, at the other end of the House, which initially introduced these two measures in 2001, not only failed to introduce any amendments of its own but also refused to support the NDP amendments. Now Bill S-7 is back in the House for third reading unamended.

The argument the Conservatives seem to be making in favour of Bill S-7, insofar as they are bothering to make any argument at all—and I should point out that we do not see Conservative members rising to try to convince both the opposition and the public that this measure is indeed necessary—is that if Bill S-7 does not pass, we will not be kept safe from terrorism and that we need investigative hearings, preventive detention and new measures to make it illegal to go abroad for the purposes of committing a terrorist act.

This necessity argument, I believe, fails on several grounds. First, as it is easy to point out, there were no successful uses of investigative hearings or preventive detention when they were previously in force. If they are so necessary to protect against terrorism, why were they not used? Why do we not have examples of how they contributed to that safety?

The second ground on which I would argue that the necessity argument fails is the actual record of the RCMP, which has been able to apprehend those involved in terrorism and get convictions in the absence of these extreme powers. Examples include the Khawaja case, the Toronto 18 and even the arrests just yesterday. If these powers were so necessary, how have the police been able to make such progress against terrorism over the last 12 years? If for 12 years we have appeared to get along well in the struggle against terrorism without these powers, where is the argument for their necessity now? I have heard no one on the other side actually make the argument, in any kind of fashion, that we must have Bill S-7 at this time to keep us safe.

Of course, when it comes to going abroad to engage in terrorist acts, anyone who looks closely at the existing law will find that it is already illegal to do so. Therefore, what is Bill S-7 adding to the existing law? It is really not clear to me why this new provision is there.

If the measures proposed in Bill S-7 are neither effective nor necessary, then are we, in fact, left helpless in the face of terrorism, as the Conservatives' insistence on passing this bill would imply? The timing of the reintroduction of this bill in Parliament and the timing of the arrests yesterday on charges of terrorism are indeed suspicious, which is I guess the best word I can use. The coincidence seems too large to me. It seems to me that the Conservatives are trying to use a climate of fear to push forward this legislation. Again, I refer to the example of Japanese Canadians in World War II, when fear caused us to do things that destroyed an entire community in Canada, which has taken many years to rebuild, based on fear and fear alone.

I fear that the Conservatives are using this climate in the aftermath of the tragic Boston Marathon bombing, and in the aftermath of very good police work done to bring charges against those who would have derailed a VIA Rail train through their connections with al Qaeda, to create a climate that will cause people to not ask the questions they need to ask about this legislation.

I was very proud that members in the House came together unanimously to condemn the tragic bombing in Boston, but I am a little less proud about the timing of the reintroduction of Bill S-7 in the aftermath of that bombing.

At the time of the bombing, I argued that we ought to be careful not to draw conclusions too quickly. I still argue that it is probably too early to draw many firm conclusions about how the U.S. should respond to what happened at the Boston Marathon. It is necessary to take reasonable precautions when we are met with terrorist acts, but it is also necessary to find out what actually happened before we can figure out what might be the proper measures to take.

However, I would argue that there is one quick lesson from the tragedy in Boston. The quick conclusion that can be drawn, I think, is that when law enforcement agents are given sufficient resources, they can produce results remarkably quickly. They can produce those results using traditional methods, and they can produce those results without resorting to extreme legal powers that threaten basic civil liberties.

The sad fact is that where the government is falling down when it comes to the everyday fight against terrorism is on the question of resources. Without resorting to a very long string of figures documenting budget reductions in everything from policing to emergency preparedness, let me cite just two facts. I think they are two very important facts when we talk about the struggle against terrorism.

The Conservatives are in the process of cutting 325 front-line CBSA officers and 100 intelligence officers from the CBSA. It is certainly good news for gun and drug smugglers and almost assuredly is also good news for potential terrorists. If we reduce our front-line resources, if we reduce our front-line intelligence activities, then, in fact, we increase our risks of terrorism. It is not a question of legislation. It is a question of resources at the front end to do the investigative and law enforcement work we need to have done, just as the RCMP has just done in the charges that came up yesterday.

Again, there are cynics who believe that the Conservatives are bringing forward Bill S-7 simply for political reasons and to create more support in their base community. There are cynics, and I guess in this case I include myself, who believe that the Conservatives are taking advantage of this atmosphere in which few are asked the hard questions about how we keep our communities safe without trampling the very rights that are at its heart.

When New Democrats have tried to address this fundamental question in debate in the House, I have frankly wondered if Liberals and Conservatives have even been listening. If this bill is so transparently necessary, why have the Conservatives refused to carry on a serious debate?

Instead, as far as I know, there has only been a single speaker at third reading from the Conservatives. It has been hard to take seriously their questions after opposition members have spoken, as their comments have been reduced to little more than sloganeering.

Yesterday afternoon in this House, I witnessed the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia and Winnipeg responding to a speech by one of my colleagues by asking about the NDP's “hug-a-thug” and “kiss-a-terrorist” policies.

I have referred to this member by his riding name only, even though he is a minister of the Crown. I did so not only because I believe that these comments fail to engage the substance of debate but because I do not believe that they are worthy of a minister in the Canadian government.

While the response of many Conservatives on this serious topic has disappointed me, the response of the Liberals has been perplexing. Here is the once proud Liberal Party, which likes to claim the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and which recognized the basic threat to civil liberties when they introduced the main provisions, which are coming back in Bill S-7, by including a sunset clause.

Here they are now taking part in the debate, actually almost even carrying the debate on behalf of the government in favour of Bill S-7, in favour of those very same provisions that were in the original Anti-terrorism Act but with a sunset clause. Now they are arguing for them without any sunset in sight.

In 2007, when the sunset date was approaching for recognizance with conditions and investigative hearings, and it was time to vote on the proposed renewal, the Liberals voted with the NDP to kill those provisions. Now, in 2013, they seem to be even more enthusiastic supporters of the bill than the Conservatives are themselves, reminding us, I suppose, that these ideas, which I believe threaten our basic liberties, were originally Liberal ideas in 2001.

I am probably coming close to the end, so let me start to conclude my remarks. I am speaking not with any hope today that Conservatives or Liberals will listen to reason on this bill. I do not believe that many of them have done the soul-searching that those on our side of the House have done about this threat to basic civil liberties. I am comforted only by my hope that most Conservatives are acting in good faith and out of a genuine belief that the measures proposed in this bill will actually keep us safe.

All I would ask is that a single Conservative stand up on that side and point to the evidence that investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions, or preventive detention, as it is called, would provide effective protection against terrorism. I have yet to hear from anyone on that side of the House making that argument and providing that proof.

I do not believe that these measures will make any contribution to our safety. Rather, they pose a genuine risk to the free society they are supposed to defend.

When I think back to my own experience with 9/11, which touched me in a very personal way, as it did many other Canadians who lost friends and relatives, I ask myself what was under attack that day. I believe that it was a free society that values tolerance and diversity and that protects the fundamental rights of all its citizens.

I think back to the time when I worked in zones of conflict, where bombing was a daily occurrence, where communities were torn apart over what in the end seemed to be trivial issues when compared to the losses in those communities. I think back to when we knew who were responsible and their supposed reasons for carrying out those attacks. It was impossible to understand how they could have inflicted such violence on their friends and neighbours over, when we take the time to step back from them, such fundamentally unimportant issues.

Instead of enacting measures that potentially undermine fundamental rights in Canada and measures for which there is no evidence of effectiveness, we should be strengthening our intelligence and enforcement programs in ways that would enhance as well as protect the rule of law and respect for rights.

Because of my experience on police boards and as a municipal councillor with the police force, I know that the vast majority of police officers are committed to the rule of law and are committed to respect for rights. I know that they would like to have the resources they need to keep our communities safe from terrorism. I again stress that my major concern with respect to terrorism is not the lack of legislative provisions or legislative powers. Rather, it is the lack of commitment by the Conservative government to providing the resources our front-line officers and front-line intelligence agencies need to do the hard, slogging work that keeps us safe from terrorism.

It is a parallel to the whole approach by the Conservatives when it comes to crime. They think the solution is to make more legislation, to make more acts criminal and to increase penalties. However, we know that in everyday policing what makes us safe are boots on the ground at the front line doing the enforcement and the social services that help reintegrate people into their communities.

When people eventually draw conclusions about the Boston Marathon, the conclusions I believe they will draw will be that the main protection of a free society is its ability to accommodate and tolerate diversity, its ability to respect rights for all, its ability to protect free speech, and its respect for those fundamental legal traditions that say that no one should go to jail who has not committed a specific criminal act and that people should not be forced to appear in an investigative hearing to give testimony against themselves, which is one of our fundamental legal protections.

When we draw those conclusions, we will see that rather than offering support in our fight against terrorism, Bill S-7 undermines those very values we intended to protect when we founded this country, when we introduced the Charter of Rights and when we signed those international covenants.

I will conclude today with a final appeal to both the Conservatives and the Liberals, which I know will not be listened to. Think again about what is most important to this country of Canada: our tolerance, our diversity, the rule of law and respect for basic, fundamental rights.

For those reasons I will be voting against Bill S-7 at third reading.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's statements. He has put together a number of decent arguments. However, I say that he is missing the point in a couple of key areas.

He said what is most important is the protection of our freedoms and our civil liberties. I agree. The freedoms that Canadians enjoy are a big part of what makes this country so special, but it is those very freedoms that people in this place are tasked with protecting.

Every time we see a terrorist act that targets civilians, we see those freedoms taken away. We see some of them infringed upon as everyday Canadians and everyday citizens are asked to go through more and more clearances, more tests and more challenges simply to do the things we have always done. This is the cost of terrorism.

We also have people feeling under threat in their own neighbourhoods and in their own homes. They ask for us to be able to provide the basic protections.

Our law enforcement officials have asked for these measures to be put in place. They have asked for them as tools they can use to protect Canadians if necessary. It is only responsible that the people in this place would provide those protections so that we can protect Canadians at all times.

I would like to hear the member's response.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Peterborough for his response and for taking seriously the debate we are having here, because I think he raises important questions. However, when we talk about the tools that law enforcement has asked for, the tools they need, the main one they continue to ask for is the resources they need to do the job.

When we talk to CBSA agents who work on the front line, they cannot understand how they are expected to prevent gun smuggling, which is a fundamental part of most possible terrorist activities. How are they supposed to do that when gun seizures have been going up at the border over the last year but suddenly there will be 325 fewer people to actually do that enforcement work?

When it is a question of giving people the tools they need to do the job, the member and I agree. We just differ on which of those tools would be effective. The evidence says that traditional law enforcement and traditional investigation activities are what we need to put our resources to, and not these new measures, which actually, as I said, threaten our basic fundamental rights.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent analysis. All Canadians are deeply frustrated with the level of incoherent violence we are seeing, especially with what happened in Boston, and we have seen it in other communities.

In terms of the so-called solutions being offered here, two of the key provisions of the bill were brought forward by the Chrétien Liberals in 2001, at a time when they were telling us that basic freedoms could be done away with. It was an era in which they were going to support rendition and torture.

Those two provisions—the ability to hold someone without charge and to force someone before a judge to give evidence against themselves, which would undermine one of the most basic civil rights—were so contentious that even the Liberals agreed to sunset them. In the years they were in place, they were never used once.

I ask my hon. colleague why he thinks it is now, after the Liberals had promised to sunset these very fundamental threats to the legal landscape of Canada, that they are sneaking in behind the Conservatives to once again push through two provisions that undermine basic rights of any Canadian?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question from the member for Timmins—James Bay points to something I mentioned in my speech, which is that I am very perplexed about the Liberals' response.

They have two choices: either they were disingenuous in 2001 when they suggested they needed sunset clauses and they were only doing it to get the support of the public at that time, or they are disingenuous now. They cannot have it both ways. Either these were dangerous things that threatened our rights, as they said in 2001, or they are dangerous things that threaten our rights now, when the Liberals are supporting the bill without sunset clauses.

I am, again, perplexed by the position of the Liberal Party on Bill S-7. I am very disappointed to see the Liberals voting in favour.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is also a neighbour in the riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

On a related but different point, I want to thank him for raising in question period yesterday the need to support our firefighters. Motion No. 388 went through, although we seem to have no action to bring it into place, and that relates to terrorist acts, as we noted in the Boston Marathon. Everyone was amazed to see the first responders run toward danger when everyone else was running in the other direction.

However, I stand with him in finding, despite my concerns about terrorism, that this current law, Bill S-7, goes too far, and that the existing tools and law in the Criminal Code are more than adequate. I stand with the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, the international civil liberties organizations, as well as with the concerns expressed at committee by the Canadian Bar Association, in believing that the bill potentially violates our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will therefore be struck down later.

I wonder if he could comment on the futility of passing laws in this place when there are significant doubts that they are charter compliant.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I stand in somewhat the same place on this issue. The NDP has had this question for a long time. When legislation is introduced, the Minister of Justice has a responsibility to certify that it would not violate the charter, but the minister has set a very low bar: we have heard reports that if there is even a 5% chance that the law will be upheld in the courts, the government is willing to go ahead and introduce that bill.

I also want to thank my colleague for raising the issue of first responders. The Conservatives say that we have the resources we need, that we have done the things we need to do. Firefighters would be one of our most important resources in any terrorist attack and they were one of the most important resources in Boston, so it shocks me that in this country we have failed to implement a compensation fund for the families of fallen firefighters. The only argument made by the government yesterday against this fund was that it would be simply too expensive. I was disappointed to hear that argument. It was quite a shocking statement, because the tragic loss of firefighters has a cost, and right now those costs are borne by their families.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to talk about something that has not really been explored.

In most cases—such as Boston and many other examples—the perpetrators of the attacks had already been identified by the police as radicals. Could the answer simply be to provide more resources in order to conduct investigations in those countries and make sure that the people identified as radicals are not dangerous? I think that would solve the problem. It is all well and good to provide tools to the police, but you do not give someone a hammer to kill a fly on a window.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question brings me back to one of the major points in my speech. One of the major things that is lacking in the debate about this legislation is the question of resources. Why do police agencies miss people who have been identified as radicals? Probably because they have too much work to do to devote the necessary resources to identifying those who could be potential threats.

As we saw in the case of the Boston Marathon, the police were given virtually unlimited resources in a short period of time and using traditional enforcement investigation methods, basic police tactics not extreme laws which threaten people's rights, they were able to produce results in very short order.

Rather than creating this law which would threaten basic liberties, we need to turn our attention toward providing resources to the police and our security agencies so they can get the job done.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like a number of my colleagues, I will start by denouncing the reasons behind debating this bill today.

Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act, could have been brought back to the House quite a while ago. If the government really believed that this bill was vital to the safety of Canadians, it could have decided to debate it a long time ago. If the government truly believes that this bill is vital and it did not put it on the agenda until yesterday, then it is negligent.

However, I do not think that is the case. I really think the government decided to take advantage of recent events in order to muster public opinion. That is also what the editorial team of The Globe and Mail thinks.

Let us be clear. Like all my NDP colleagues and all my colleagues in the House, I condemn terrorism. To quote the former secretary-general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, “terrorist acts are never justified, no matter what considerations may be invoked.” I condemn the Boston bombing and I condemned the September 11 attacks. I condemn the bombings that take place throughout the world every day. I want to take this opportunity to commend all the law enforcement officers who in any way participated in the investigation that led to yesterday's arrests. Well done.

Many of my loved ones have been affected by terrorism. Whether it was because of the Algerian war or the Islamic Army in the 1990s, my loved ones have lived in fear. I have learned one thing from this: it is always civilians who pay the price for such senseless violence.

I also had the experience of being in a place where bombs were dropped when I worked as a medical volunteer for the Red Crescent during the first Gulf War, and so I know the effects and dangers of terrorism. I am therefore proud to stand in the House and oppose this bill.

I am opposed to this bill for many reasons. The first, but by no means the least of these, is that I believe in the rule of law. This bill, as it currently stands, violates the most fundamental civil liberties and human rights. I want to prevent attacks on Canada, but I also want to prevent the arbitrary arrests and the abuse we see in police states.

In Canada, we already have laws that punish crimes of terror and give law enforcement officers the tools they need to protect national security. In this morning's edition of Le Devoir, there is a great quote by Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. In reference to the case of Canadians involved in the hostage situation at the In Amenas gas plant in Algeria, she said:

If the police had had any evidence, they would have done something. There are many provisions in the Criminal Code under which these individuals could have been arrested.

Denis Barrette, a spokesperson for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, made a similar speech in 2011. He said:

We know as well that these provisions could, as we see it, be abused. I am thinking here of the Air India case. We believe that Canadians will be better served and better protected under the usual provisions of the Criminal Code, rather than others that are completely unnecessary. Reliance on arbitrary powers and a lower standard of evidence can never replace good, effective police work.

The NDP wants to strike a balance between safety and people's rights and freedoms. We proposed numerous amendments to the bill in order to strike that balance. The government rejected them all. However, I found them to be quite reasonable.

The committee members would have had plenty of choice if they had wanted to pass even one amendment as a sign of goodwill, which they obviously did not do, because my colleagues proposed 18 amendments. I would like to mention a few of the amendments so that Canadians can judge for themselves just how stubborn this Conservative government is, how obsessed it is with always being right and how it believes itself to be infallible.

Here are a few of them: ask the Security Intelligence Review Committee to look at the possibility of an inter-agency co-operation protocol to ensure that it would be effective and that rights protected by law would be respected, and have that protocol in place before the leaving the country offences could come into effect; establish the right to state-funded legal aid if a person had to attend an investigative hearing; add a comprehensive review of the government's implementation of the Arar commission's recommendations with regard to accountability and oversight mechanisms, with particular attention to oversight and activities among agencies; and include the advice of the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the racial discrimination and profiling issues surrounding Bill S-7.

Really? I thought it was impossible to be against virtue. These are just a few examples of the amendments put forward by the NDP, but to no avail. The members of this government rejected them all, one by one. I would also like to point out that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals even bothered to propose any amendments to this bill.

Many of the measures in this bill were suggested in 2001 following the September 11 attacks. These measures expired in 2007, so they have not been in force for the past five years, and when they were in force, they were used a grand total of zero times. Zero, zéro, sifr, none, nada, never.

I would like to quote something former CSIS director Reid Morden said in 2010 about some of these measures:

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.

He added:

Police and security forces have perfectly sufficient powers to do their jobs. They don't need more powers.

We in the NDP will continue to fight to achieve a balance between personal rights and freedoms and people's safety. We believe that the provisions included in this bill provide no additional protection to anyone in this country. I would remind hon. members that this bill is in its present form because the government refused the 18 amendments we proposed in committee in order to strike a balance between safety and rights and freedoms. Accordingly, I cannot support this bill.

Furthermore, this bill leaves out some of the additional protections that were included in the 2001 legislation. An editorial published in today's Ottawa Citizen entitled “No need for new laws” shares many of our concerns. To quote that article:

The idea that the state can arrest and detain someone who has not done anything criminal runs counter to the fundamental values of our society.

For all these reasons, I will oppose this bill and I will vote against it with pride and with my head held high.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member realizes that the first job of any government is to keep Canadians safe from those who wish to harm us. International terrorism is going to continue to be a threat in the foreseeable future. Bill S-7 would provide law enforcement and national security agencies with further means to anticipate and respond effectively to terrorism.

That is what I want to ask her about, anticipation, because the bill would assist law enforcement in disrupting terrorist attacks by compelling suspects to appear before a court in advance of a suspected terrorist attack. Once the attack occurs, there is nothing we can do about it. This would create new offences for leaving or attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of committing a terrorist offence.

Does the member think these new initiatives are a good idea, and if not, what does she suggest we put in place to stop terrorist attacks before they occur? If there are any other ideas she has, I would like to hear them.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite, who is a fellow member of the Standing Committee on Health, which runs smoothly.

Unfortunately, I do not agree with this bill. The NDP believes that Canada must give serious consideration to the issue of terrorism while maintaining the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

This bill is not the right response to the threat of terrorism. It would reintroduce measures that, in the past, have proven to be unwarranted and ineffective.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a sad reminder that police forces are needed to combat terrorists.

How can the government claim that it wants to combat terrorism with legislation when the budgets of counter-terrorism organizations are being slashed? There was a subsidy to help municipal police combat street gangs and stop recruiters from getting young people involved in terrorist organizations. That subsidy has disappeared.

How can we fight terrorism when the only tools we have are laws that take away our rights and the tools police need to fight terrorism?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I truly understand how he feels about this bill.

We know that this Conservative government is slashing budgets everywhere, including the budgets for community police services.

How can we expect community police, or other enforcement services, to do their job properly if they do not have the required means? We know very well that satellites and sophisticated devices are not the way to collect reliable information.

We have to provide the tools and the means, even if only to those in the field, to detect any activity that could result in a terrorist act.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that many people familiar with the issue support the NDP's position that, so far, most of our legislation has been able to control the situation and that it is sufficiently clear?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and riding neighbour.

As I just mentioned, many important people support our position, including Denis Barrette, a spokesperson for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group; Ihsaan Gardee, the executive director of the Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations; Ziyaad Mia, the chair of the Advocacy and Research Committee of the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association; Carmen Cheung, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association; and Nathalie Des Rosiers, the general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. All of these people agree with us.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the objective of this bill deserves to be examined, and we must look at what has happened in the past.

In his book On War, Von Clausewitz defined war as “an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will”. What is the will of terrorists? It is quite simple. They want to force us to give up our rights, our freedom of press and our democratic right to elect our leaders. That is their objective. Our response must be to reinforce those values and absolutely not to abandon them. That is the issue here.

This situation makes me think of a chicken farmer who witnesses his chickens being killed by a fox and decides to punish the chickens instead of going after the fox. We must combat terrorism. Our best weapon to do so—the strongest and most reliable weapon—is democracy.

We have a police force that is organized and able to democratically defend our society against acts of terrorism. It is perfectly able to do so. Canada has not yet experienced any acts of terrorism because our police forces have been able to prevent them from happening with our existing legislation. Democracy is precisely what we are talking about today.

Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government—except for all the others. This means that there are no others. This is our system and we must defend it. We value democracy and we abhor terrorism.

It is a devious, treacherous adversary, and when it attacks, Canada must respond appropriately. We arrest terrorists and judge them based on our laws, not theirs.

This situation is particularly controversial. As we know, the legislation expired six years ago, in 2007. For the past six years, it has not been in force and it has never been used since 2001. There was not one investigative hearing or any situation in which authorities needed to resort to recognizance with conditions. This speaks volumes about the effectiveness of this bill.

I have the sinking feeling that this bill is being used because certain things in the media have created a sense of insecurity among the population. It is very troubling to know that some young people were recruited in the Toronto area to participate in terrorist activities in Algeria. It is also troubling to find out that people who were in Canada were preparing to commit a terrorist attack against a VIA Rail passenger train. That is pure terror.

It is only normal for people to be afraid. What is not normal, however, is to see a government that feeds this fear and uses it to give itself additional powers that work against the population. It is abusing its own population because terrorism exists. That is what terrorism is. Using people's natural sense of terror to give oneself additional powers that take away people's rights is also a form of terrorism.

The parliamentary secretary talked about the NDP amendment concerning people who have served in a foreign army that is illegally occupying another country. One of the objectives of this bill is to prohibit people from leaving Canada to serve in a foreign organization.

Consider the following three examples. A young Syrian returns to his country of origin to serve in the Syrian army against the rebels. Is that young man a terrorist?

A young Canadian does his Israeli military service in the occupied territories. Is that young man a terrorist? A young Somali returns home to participate in a religious war against the people he calls infidels. Is that young man a terrorist?

Terrorism will not be defined by the acts committed, but by the people targeted by these acts. Are the perpetrators considered to be insignificant? They may or may not commit these acts. We will use our judgment and our international values to establish who is and who is not a terrorist. However, all three will do exactly the same thing—use violence to force people to obey their orders. That situation requires clarification, something that this legislation does not and will not provide, because that is not what the Conservatives want.

The NDP is opposed to this bill for good reason. It is an ineffective piece of legislation. It does not target terrorism; it targets the civil rights of Canadians. Once again, the Conservatives are using a dualist turn: if you are not with us, you are against us. That is from a speech by George W. Bush, the loser. The government has adopted a loser as its model. That says a lot about this government, which is an assortment of losers, people who cut police budgets, withdraw into themselves and believe that all other countries are enemies with which they must not speak, instead of fighting terrorism effectively by increasing police resources and entering into international agreements for the exchange of information. The government is telling us that we have no choice and that we have to sacrifice our rights so that they have the means to fight terrorists. Fortunately, our police do not need this government. Our police manage to carry on without this government, which hinders them by taking away the resources they need and access to information.

Bill S-7 therefore violates civil liberties and human rights, particularly the right to remain silent and the right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial. According to the spirit of those rights, the weight of the state should never be used against an individual to force him to testify against himself. Yet here we are with Bill S-7. There is a reason why, in 2001, the first version of the bill had a sunset clause. It was a protection to ensure that the violation of our rights would not lead to the definitive loss of our rights. In 2007, the act fell into disuse. I can guarantee you that terrorists were not roaming the streets spreading terror the next morning. We did not have that problem in 2007.

There is an imbalance between security and the fundamental rights violated under this legislation. There is the case of Mr. Arar, who was deported to Syria where he was tortured. That is the epitome of stupidity. Everyone agreed, and unfortunately, we have not learned our lesson. We had nothing to gain from sending that man to be tortured. He was not a terrorist. As the parliamentary secretary himself admitted, the problem is that this piece of legislation is so broad that it can be applied to people who are not suspected of terrorism in the slightest.

The NDP is against terrorism. We are so opposed to terrorism that we are against the Conservatives. They are the ones who create false fears and blow them out of proportion to punish Canadians for having rights and using them.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's speech. I think all of us share the anger and frustration about people who would abuse our country and put people's lives at risk and, in doing so, undermine basic protections and freedoms that all Canadians enjoy. Certainly, we want to ensure that, when people are caught, the full weight of the law is thrown against them.

However, I think what we are looking at here is this undermining of basic rights that make us the democracy we are.

We know that the Liberal Party brought in two very controversial motions in 2001, taking away the basic right of people to protect themselves in court, by forcing them to give testimony against themselves and also by holding people without charge.

The Liberals knew this was so contentious that they brought in a sunset clause. However, now, they are hiding behind the Conservatives and supporting getting rid of that sunset clause and bringing the legislation back.

Bill S-7 would be a law of general application, so it would affect minors as well as adults. There would be no differentiation in the people who could be held: friends, relatives, anybody related to someone who is supposedly suspected but not charged. It would include children. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals refuse to amend the act to clarify that people under the age of 17 or 18 would not be detained in this same measure.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why, given that Canada has signed specific UN conventions on protecting children, this huge breach of basic rights for children would be allowed in what the Conservatives have called their desire to have the wide sweep of powers to go after anyone they want.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has only one objective, and it has nothing to do with observing the age difference between a minor and an adult or the difference between a Canadian citizen and a foreign national. It has only one objective, which is to bring in an unfortunately partisan policy.

The Conservatives want to appear to be the champions of anti-terrorism. They knowingly introduced this bill at a time when people in Boston were victims of an act of terrorism and when Canadian authorities were uncovering terrorist plots. There is a reason we are talking about this bill today.

The government wants to come off as the guardians of Canada. That is not the case. They are not good guardians for Canada. The good guardians are the ones who stopped the terrorists, certainly not the people over there who create obstacles by cutting funding and prohibiting the authorities from accessing internationally relevant information. The government violates all of our own most fundamental laws.

At what point will we see children being sent to prison for what the Conservatives arbitrarily consider to be an act of terrorism?

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill and the context in which we are debating it are full of contradictions. We are here debating that the government is asking for extraordinary measures, when the day before it seemed that ordinary measures, the measures that currently exist, were sufficient to ensure Canadians are protected from terrorist acts.

One of the other contradictions we are faced with is that, again, the government is asking for extraordinary measures at the same time that it is implementing cuts to the enforcement agencies that are there to protect Canadian interests and lives. I look to, for example, cuts of $143 million to CBSA that would affect 325 front-line border crossing guards across the country.

I wonder if the member would comment on that particular contradiction.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, effectively combatting terrorism requires competent, qualified police officers who receive the support they need from the government and effective legislation.

They are responsible for defending democracy, and they are very good at doing so. This government is only looking for publicity. Its only objective is to make itself look good by claiming to be combatting terrorism.

Less work will get done, at the borders, at airport security and in the field, because of the Conservatives' budget cuts.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the matter of Bill S-7, legislation that proposes a number of amendments to Canada's anti-terrorism regime, including provisions respecting the re-enactment of preventive arrests and investigative hearings. As members will know, these provisions expired in 2007 and have, on numerous occasions, been the subject of my remarks in the House and in writings of mine over the years, dating back to the tabling of the original Anti-terrorism Act, Bill C-36 in 2001.

It perhaps goes without saying that this debate began in the period following the horrific events of 9/11, which was characterized at the time as a period when the whole world was changed. Back then the Liberal government of the day introduced provisions for preventive arrests and investigative hearings as components of the larger Anti-terrorism Act. Soon after Bill C-36 in the House in its original form was tabled, I rose in the House and expressed some 10 civil libertarian concerns with respect to that projected draft of the Anti-terrorism Act, including the provisions relating to preventive detention and investigative hearings. I elaborated on these matters in a series of articles and recommended that the provisions be sunsetted after three years, later extended to five years, pending comprehensive parliamentary review, and the government agreed. With that as well as the majority of my other concerns being addressed, some eight out of the ten, I ended up supporting the legislation.

Regrettably, by 2007, when the provisions were scheduled to sunset pending a parliamentary motion to extend them, the House and special Senate committees had not yet completed their studies of the Anti-terrorism Act due to repeated delays including the dissolution of Parliament in 2004 and 2006. Nevertheless, the Conservative government went ahead with proposing the extension of the provisions without taking the views of these parliamentary committees into account, leaving House members with little insight into the experience of the provisions in effect. The result was a highly politicized and partisan debate, rife with what I could only describe at the time as bumper-sticker slogans and smears instead of a debate on the merits of the policy, a policy with which reasonable people can and do reasonably disagree. Indeed, I regretted the references made by ministers of the Crown at the time that somehow our party was soft on terrorism for simply wanting to debate these provisions, especially considering that it was a Liberal government that introduced the Anti-terrorism Act in the first place.

With Bill S-7 now stipulating that preventive arrest and investigative hearings be once again subject to a five-year sunset clause, I offer my support today with the expectation that if enacted, parliamentary committees will be given the opportunity and resources necessary to undertake full review of the provisions in question during the next trial period and well in advance of any debate to extend it once again. Indeed, any decision made by Parliament that affects the security and rights of all Canadians must be reasoned, thoughtful, evidence-based and not rushed as a matter of political expediency.

The critical issue here is one of principled balance. We must, on the one hand, seek to combat terrorism and keep Canadians safe from terrorist threats and attacks, while at the same time protecting our individual freedoms as enshrined in the charter. These are not, however, mutually exclusive objectives. Indeed, an appropriate and effective anti-terrorism strategy must view security and rights not as concepts in conflict, not as a zero sum game, but as values that are inextricably linked.

Let me articulate a number of basic principles in this regard. First, terrorism itself must be seen as being, in effect, an assault on the security of a democracy like Canada and an assault on our fundamental rights such as the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Accordingly, anti-terrorism law and policy may be said to constitute the promotion and protection of the security of democracy and fundamental human rights in the most profound sense. At the same time, however, the implementation and enforcement of such anti-terrorism law must always comport with the rule of law, must always adhere to the principles of the charter. Torture, for example, must never be allowed to be used and must always comport as well with our international legal obligations.

The second and related principle is that we are not simply talking here about a domestic criminal justice model. We are talking about is an international criminal justice model. We are not talking, as the courts and others have said, of the ordinary criminal. We are talking about the transnational terrorist threat.

This brings me to a third principle, which the Supreme Court has itself enunciated, namely the contextual principle; that we cannot view these issues in the abstract but we must view them in terms of the realities as they have unfolded in this regard. Also, we must appreciate that Canadian anti-terrorism law is inextricably bound with the international criminal justice system and the invocation and application of international law treaties, the invocation of general principles of law recognized by the community of nations. For example, section 11(g) of the charter on this point says that retroactivity shall not avail when the crimes are those that run afoul of “the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations”. Therefore, in this regard, it recognizes that the international criminal justice model departs sometimes from the domestic model.

UN Security mandates must also be taken into account, bilateral and multilateral agreements and so forth. In particular, Security Council resolution 1373, enacted following 9/11, mandates that all states take “additional measures to prevent and suppress, in their territories through all lawful means, the financing and preparation of any acts of terrorism”. These standards must be met by our anti-terrorism legislation, if for no other reason than that we cannot have the appropriate or factual understanding of the dynamics involved in our domestic counterterrorism measures if we view them in a vacuum, if we view them as abstracted from the global circumstances and precedents or if we view them, as the Supreme Court has said, out of context without resort to an appreciation of the contextual principle.

However, beyond the abstract in that regard, let us be clear. The threat of transnational terrorism is real and Canada is not unaffected by it, as the recent events, whether they be in Boston or the aborted terrorist attack now in Canada, indicate. Indeed, Canadians have been implicated in terrorist attacks abroad as recently as last month in Algeria, last year in Bulgaria and just two days ago with regard to an arrest in Bulgaria. This is precisely why Bill S-7 also makes it a crime to leave or attempt to leave Canada to participate in terrorist activities. Moreover, Canadians have been killed in terrorist attacks, tragically in the case of 9/11 but also thereafter.

Accordingly, our commitment to civil liberties must always be consistent with regard to the protection of human rights as a whole, and we must take the necessary concrete and decisive actions to prevent terrorist attacks. In the words of two former Supreme Court justices, the Hon. Frank Iacobucci and the Hon. Louise Arbour, who also spent several years as the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, the Constitution is not a suicide pact and “[t]he challenge for democracies in the battle against terrorism is not whether to respond, but rather how to do so”.

Preventive arrests and investigative hearings can be effective, limited and lawful counterterrorism measures. Indeed, the Supreme Court, in the matter of investigative hearings has held them to be constitutional, stating that they do not violate an individual's charter rights against self-incrimination, as evidence derived from such hearings cannot be used against the person except in perjury prosecutions. Moreover, the provisions are not otherwise unknown in Canadian law, and similar provisions already exist in the Coroners Act and the Inquiries Act, and I can go on.

In the matter of preventive arrests, these too are not a new invocation of principle and policy. Preventive arrests are effectively the invocation of a peace bond process set forth in section 810 of the Criminal Code, which has been used to protect against criminal violence such as domestic violence, sexual violence and organized crime, and now extends them to suspected terrorist activities.

In addition, preventive arrests and investigative hearings as set forth in Bill S-7 seek to respect Canadians' individual and collective rights through safeguards and principles of transparency. In this regard, it is important to appreciate that there are three safeguards in the bill, and I was involved with respect to the initiation of these safeguards. Reference has been made to the safeguards, and we must appreciate that there is an executive requirement for the consent of the Attorney General and therefore objective oversight in that regard. With parliamentary oversight and the requirements for annual reports from both federal ministers concerned and with Bill S-7, they must not only detail how often the provisions are used, but also make a case for why they should be extended.

Furthermore, there is judicial oversight with respect to investigative hearings, and in the event of an arrest, the individual must be brought before a judge, typically within 24 hours, contrasting with the situation that is in the United States or with the situation in the United Kingdom and the like.

Notwithstanding these safeguards, I understand why some members, maybe even from all parties, remain uncomfortable with the proposed measures. They are indeed extraordinary provisions, though extraordinary provisions to combat extraordinary threats.

I do not, however, share the view offered by some in the House that because the provisions, and we heard this again in debate, were seldom used, in effect they are somehow unnecessary now. In fact, their lack of use can equally demonstrate that they are not abused, that they are truly measures of last—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid the member's time has more than expired.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. While I agreed with some of his analysis, I disagreed with other parts. I would like to question him on it.

I really felt that what the member said about terrorism being an assault on the fundamental democratic rights and freedoms of any society was completely accurate. Therefore, it is then equally incumbent upon us to ensure that in our response we do not give up fundamental basic rights.

I note he was concerned about the need for a sunset clause with the two very provocative amendments or positions that were brought forward under the Anti-terrorism Act following 9/11, which was arrest without charge and the special investigative hearings. Canadians were very concerned, and that is why they wanted a sunset clause.

He said that we needed it to be evidence-based, but it was not used. These were extraordinary powers.

We went through these hearings. The Liberal Party put zero amendments forward. My hon. colleague has an extraordinary background in issues of human rights and law. I am surprised, because I have heard members of the Liberal Party say that it is not a perfect bill, but they are willing to accept it.

When legislation is brought forth, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that all efforts are made to ensure the legal rights that Canadians have enjoyed for this century and more are not undermined.

Does he believe that we should go through an endless round of sunset clauses? If it is evidence-based and it was not used, why is this being brought back now?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the fact that they had not been used does not mean that they may not yet be needed. In fact, it may demonstrate they were not abused. They may yet still need it.

In terms of the Supreme Court's contextual principle, we must appreciate the contextual environment in which the transnational terrorist threat operates.

I would remind the hon. member, and I suspect he knows, that if one takes a comparative perspective here, we have a situation where, in the United States, simply by designating a suspected terrorist an enemy combatant, he or she can be indefinitely detained. Detention in the United Kingdom has been extended from 6 days to 18 days. We are talking about a requirement to bring a person before judge within 24 hours. As I said, there is an inventory of safeguards at the executive level, at the legislative level, at the judicial level and through other commissioners, such as the Privacy Commissioner and the like.

While this is an imperfect approach, nonetheless it was something that was supported after there was review of these provisions by parliamentary committees in the House and in the Senate. It is not as if we did not have any review or appreciation of these principles as well.

I do agree that we need to do more on these matter. For example, members in the House need to have more information in the matter of intelligence gathering, which my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis recommended. Our government re-established a parliamentary committee to provide oversight with respect to intelligence gathering, and here, too, to invoke more principles of transparency in that regard.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ensure I understand from the comments by the member for Mount Royal that the Liberals are hoping to support this bill and are hoping that the Conservatives are going to then have some parliamentary reviews and oversight, as just mentioned. How likely does the member really believe that is, given the government has used closure on debate a record number of times? Currently, right now, the Conservatives are attacking their own leader.

It is a very naive approach to assume that the Conservatives will later on review this bill. How can the member believe that is going to be possible?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the approach is what I would call the principle of least injustice. In other words, bearing all the facts and circumstances that are known to us, for now these provisions can be helpful, may be necessary and a parliamentary review is mandated. I trust it will take place, and we may have a better appreciation at that time as to how to go forward.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North. I am speaking today about Bill S-7, the proposal to reintroduce anti-terrorism measures, which were previously sunsetted in the Anti-terrorism Act.

Bill S-7 has been shamefully promoted in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings. The government is exploiting public fear in order to push through its agenda. It is appalling to attempt to use the mourning and pain of the American people to push through legislation that is blatantly confiscating our human rights and civil liberties.

Bill S-7 is not about preventing terrorism. We already have a comprehensive justice system and enough legislation to protect Canadians from acts of terrorism, as well as a variety of capable institutions to facilitate these laws. Rather, this bill fundamentally attacks our rights and freedoms.

Bill S-7 is a reintroduction of the sunsetted clauses of the Anti-terrorism Act, which were also designed in the wake of an instrumental and horrifying event: the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. The clauses introduced in the Anti-terrorism Act were given a sunset period, which has expired at this point. These clauses include the allowance of investigative hearings and preventive detention, as well as the permission for judges to publicly disclose information about a trial or the persons being tried. Even at first glance, it is obvious that there are major violations of human rights and civil liberties at stake.

The term “human rights” is often tossed around vaguely as an abstract concept. However, the key to this discussion is in exploring what human rights are. The codification of human rights emerged during the 18th century with the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the American Declaration of Independence. These documents were designed to limit what a state could do to its citizens.

Human rights essentially prescribe what liberties a citizen has within his or her own state and the duties that the state has to its citizens. States have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of their citizens. This is not a duty that our government should be taking lightly. We have made international commitments that confirm our dedication to protecting our citizens from human rights violations.

In 1976, Canada ratified the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Under this human rights treaty, the government has an obligation to protect the liberty of people within its borders. This explicitly means nobody should be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention.

Interestingly, in the discussions at the public safety committee, it was discovered that the wording of Bill S-7 allowed for the arrest of people who were not suspected of terrorist activities. In further consultations with parliamentary secretaries, it was confirmed that this was the intention of the government. It is the government's intention to expose every Canadian to this preventive detention, not only those who could potentially cause acts of terrorism. Imagine the resources and cost of arresting or detaining anybody, regardless of whether there is any cause to believe people may engage in criminal activity.

The original purpose of the Anti-terrorism Act was to update Canadian legislation. In order to respond to the United Nations Security Council standards, we must consider that Canada must also adhere to international standards of human rights. Of course, terrorism itself has a direct impact on human rights that Canadians enjoy. It especially violates the principle of life, liberty and security of a person.

Media rhetoric describes terrorism as the opposite of freedom. Although they are not simply binary concepts, if freedom and terrorism are somewhat polarized, then how can we describe the limitations on freedom that the government is proposing?

The preamble to the UN ICCPR states:

—the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy [human rights]...

Does Bill S-7 propose conditions where everyone can enjoy their human rights? It seems to be the opposite case. The Conservative government is exploiting fear to confiscate our freedoms and rights.

Nobody in this House is debating that terrorism should not be addressed. Terrorism is a horrific problem that attacks the heart of national pride and undermines state stability. The events at the Boston Marathon last week were horrific, and I stand with my colleagues as we condemn these attacks and offer our deepest sympathies and best wishes to the victims and families.

Bill S-7 presents us with a very contentious issue. There is a delicate balance between national security and individual human rights. However, this is a balance that Canada has already found. Our Criminal Code already offers the necessary provisions for investigating those who are involved in terrorist activities and those who could be potential terrorist threats to national safety. The proposed clauses in Bill S-7 have been proven unnecessary and ineffective in the past. They have only been invoked once in a situation described as a complete and sad “fiasco” by lawyers and human rights advocates alike.

Rather than investing in a procedure that creates fiascos, the government should be investing in our institutions that have proven themselves capable, like the RCMP. Just yesterday, the RCMP announced it had stopped a plan of terrorism within our borders. There are two suspects in custody right now. The RCMP was able to handle the situation without the aid of the clauses in Bill S-7. RCMP members were effective, timely and able to perform their jobs without compromising the human rights of Canadians.

We are thankful for the work of the RCMP and we need to recognize that work. We should be investing in supporting these institutions that are able to work effectively within the current sphere of the Canadian justice system.

There are valuable tools that should have been introduced in the anti-terrorism act, which would have been influential in combatting terrorism while upholding the integrity of Canadian values of liberty and rights. We should be promoting inter-agency co-operation to reflect the multi-faceted nature of terrorism—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has a point of order.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we are below quorum. I think this hon. member deserves more people listening to his speech in the chamber here.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not think that is a point of order or that there is anything the Chair can do to encourage more people to come in.

There is now quorum in the House.

The hon. member can continue.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleagues who finally rushed into the House. They often talk about terrorism and how they would protect Canadian human rights and invest in the RCMP and other agencies, yet they do not want to participate in this debate. That is very sad.

There are many valuable tools that should have been introduced into the Anti-terrorism Act, which would have been influential toward combatting terrorism while upholding the integrity of Canadian values of liberty and rights. We should be promoting inter-agency co-operation to reflect the multi-faceted nature of terrorism and address the source of terrorist activities. Efforts against terrorist activities should be performed without discrimination of any kind. The government should be transparent in its dealings with terrorist activities, and we should be able to hold them accountable for their actions. These do not seem like unreasonable requests, yet when they were proposed in committee by the NDP, they were determined to be beyond the scope of the bill.

We cannot sit here and watch the fundamental rights of our citizens being taken away by the Conservative government. Even the United Nations, which requested that states align their legislation with Security Council standards, has established that human rights are integral to combatting terrorism, stating: “Respect for human rights and the rule of law must be the bedrock of the global fight against terrorism.”

The government has an obligation to all Canadian citizens, to all within Canadian borders and to the international community and the international bodies that govern our human rights. The government must respect our current freedoms, protect our rights as well as our security, and fulfill its obligations to Canadians by investing in effective counter-terrorism strategies.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. Again, all of us are so offended by senseless violence and the effect it has on our society. One of the most poisonous effects is that it creates an impression that the basic rule of law and basic rights need to be done away with.

We saw this in 2001 with the horrific time after 9/11, when rendition, torture, arrest without a warrant and detention without charge were considered to be what was needed for the 21st century. At that time in Canada, we had a young engineer who was just coming home from work, Maher Arar, and he was arrested and sent through rendition to torture in Syria. That happened under the former Liberal government. At the time, Mr. Arar was considered to be the price to be paid for democratic freedom. The man was being tortured and he was completely innocent. Now, we realize that his rights were completely abused.

At the same time, the Liberal government brought in two very controversial measures. One was the ability to detain someone without charge. The other was to force those individuals before a judge without their being able to protect themselves. The Liberals knew it was so contentious that they agreed to a sunset clause, because it was to be for a limited period of time. Now, we see that the government is bringing it back in the wake of the horrific killings in Boston and that the Liberal Party is supporting it. The Liberals told Canadians they would sunset it, but now we see them hiding on the coattails of the Conservatives, bringing back the same provisions that were proven unnecessary and a major affront to Canadians back in 2001 and 2002. They could still lead to further incidents. We have not seen this party understand the implications of what happened to Mr. Arar.

We need to ensure that innocent people are not caught up in what they are calling, under this bill, the need for the wide sweep.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the Liberals for joining hands with the Conservatives on this issue.

The Liberals have, over decades, talked about how they protect human rights and how they protect civil liberties. I have heard this from former Reform Party members who are part of the Conservative coalition. They talk about individual rights outside of the House, yet when they come into the House, individual rights are not being protected by the government. In addition to that, we have the Liberals joining in a coalition with the Conservatives, not only on this issue, but on many other issues that are being discussed in the House.

I stand with my colleagues. I think there is a fine balance, where we have to protect the security of our country and balance that with fundamental civil liberties and human rights.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the question that was asked by a previous member and the point that was made about the implications of what happened to Mr. Arar.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the potential implications of what did not happen in Toronto. Law enforcement has to be right 100% of the time. Terrorists only have to be right once. We saw that in Afghanistan with IEDs and other things that went on over there. We have seen it around the world with terrorism.

Why do we not talk a little bit about what did not happen in Toronto and how important it is to not let those things happen in the future?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing. In my last answer to my colleague, I pointed out that what they say in the House is one thing and what they say outside of the House is another thing.

We are proposing that we need to make sure that our agencies, CSIS, RCMP and CBSA, have more co-operation among them to stop these terrorist attacks and catch these people before they commit these hideous crimes.

However, the Conservatives will say one thing here. They are cutting $680 million from the public safety budget up until 2015. We believe we need to invest. The NDP, my colleagues, believe we need to invest in our people and resources to make sure that the resources and the tools are there so we can prevent these acts from happening.

I am thankful to the RCMP and the other agencies that are involved with making sure we caught those two individuals in the Toronto area.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my New Democratic colleagues in debating Bill S-7 today. Like them, I oppose this bill.

I would like to begin by denouncing how this debate is playing out. Very few members are participating in the conversation here in the House, and most of those participating are NDP members. We are well aware of how our remarks will be portrayed outside the House to Canadians.

Today's debate is important, but unfortunately, it is being polarized. The Conservatives will exploit that polarization to portray New Democrats as people who do not care about the safety of Canadians and oppose measures to keep them safe. I want to emphasize that that is not the case at all. Here in the House, many of my colleagues have pointed out that public safety and the protection of our borders and our people are extremely important to the NDP. However, we also want to put into perspective the issue of basic rights and freedoms for law-abiding citizens who act in accordance with core Canadian values. It is very important to make that clear from the outset. I will be very disappointed if my Conservative colleagues ask questions that cast aspersions on our commitment to ensuring public safety and protecting people.

We all know the history behind Bill S-7. It was introduced in the Senate in February 2012 and has been with us in the House since December, but the Conservatives have not done anything about it. They could have introduced the bill in the House long ago if this issue really mattered to them. Instead, they have adopted a partisan approach in reaction to the threat of terrorism and the tragic events in Boston.

We can all agree on one thing. We hope that such events will never come to pass here in Canada or elsewhere. What happened in Boston was heartbreaking and deeply upsetting to us all. The NDP cast aside partisanship and joined the other parties in the House in condemning these attacks and offering condolences and support to everyone who was affected. That characterizes our approach to this debate.

We are concerned about the issues raised by the attack in Boston and other terrorist attacks around the world and those that have been foiled. We certainly need to have some serious discussions about this in the House, but we must not allow ourselves to be swept up in partisan ideology or to succumb to panic and forget the fundamental rights and freedoms that each of our constituents enjoys.

Bill S-7 is a recent measure in a series of anti-terrorism measures that have been introduced in the House since 2001. There again, laws were passed at the time in reaction to an event that was traumatic for people throughout the United States, Canada and the world. An attempt was made to introduce a timely legislative response to issues arising from the September 2001 attacks.

The purpose of the bills introduced at the time was to update Canadian laws so that they met international standards, particularly those of the United Nations Security Council. However, during debate, members at the time realized that the legislation introduced contained some very controversial provisions. At that time, a sunset clause was included for certain provisions of the bills that were introduced.

Over the years leading up to 2007, it became clear that these controversial legislative provisions were unnecessary because they were used only once and, unfortunately, did not produce the desired results. We therefore realized that we did not need many of these provisions, which expired in 2007. What is more, those that are still useful and that directly assist our police forces are still in force today.

For those reasons, the NDP opposes Bill S-7. The government is attempting to reintroduce anti-terrorism measures that are extremely controversial and fly in the face of civil liberties and human rights. These measures, quite frankly, have proven useless and ineffective in the past. I cannot imagine that it would be any different now. A terrorist plot was uncovered this week, on Monday, which proves how effective the current legislation is. Everyone has heard about it. Our law enforcement agencies were extraordinarily effective and managed to intercept two individuals who were going to attack people using VIA Rail.

It would have been terrible if a tragic event like that had happened, and we would have had to change our legislation. However, after a year-long investigation that required co-operation between various Canadian and American organizations, RCMP officers were able to intercept individuals who were planning a terrorist attack before we had to endure any loss of human life. That proves that the laws in place are effective and already give our police officers and border agents all the resources they need to be effective and protect the safety of Canadians. They did not need any additional measures. They did not even use the measures already in place, which shows that the measures that were passed in a panic in the wake of the 2001 attacks were useless.

The main issues the NDP has with Bill S-7 are related to the provisions that would amend the Criminal Code to authorize investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions in cases of preventive arrest where the individual refuses to accept the conditions or does not comply with them.

In terms of investigative hearings, people can be called at any point in time and forced to disclose all the information they have on various things, even though the information can ultimately incriminate them. Generally speaking, whatever is said in those hearings cannot be used against those who disclose the information. The fact remains that some points are not clear. Among others, could that information be used to initiate deportation or even extradition proceedings against the people who disclose the information?

That is a fairly serious problem with the legislation and we are still dealing with grey areas. We have received no explanation. The amendments that the NDP tried to present in committee to solve the problem were simply rejected out of hand, like most NDP amendments presented in every committee that I have been able to attend. This is nothing new, but this bad habit of the Conservatives and their partisan dogmas have prevented them from protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That is a major problem.

The same goes for recognizance with conditions. If certain individuals are suspected of being associated with terrorists, they can be subject to various conditions for moving around Canada. If they do not comply, they can be sent to prison for up to 12 months, without evidence, on the basis of suspicions. That is a major problem.

The Liberals are saying that they will support the bill because they hope that the Conservatives will be flexible in committee. I appreciate their optimism, but that is not what experience has shown us. Unfortunately, the outcome of the committee work will be a new bill that will undermine the rights and civil liberties of Canadians.

That is why the NDP is proudly opposed to this bill. It is not that we want to encourage terrorists or that we do not want to put them behind bars or to prevent them from taking human lives. It is because we are highly aware of the freedoms granted to Canadians and we want to do everything we can to preserve those freedoms.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this question is quite simple.

This bill resurfaced under somewhat bizarre circumstances. The opposition was given a day during which it was supposed to talk about a topic that could be embarrassing for the government: parliamentarians' right to speak. Some Conservative parliamentarians want to talk about the right to abortion, but the Prime Minister does not want them to. It seems he wants to be re-elected.

This bill resurfaced at a critical moment when Canadians realized that, in fact, terrorism is dangerous. There was an attack in Boston and the threat of an attack in Canada.

Was this bill introduced to protect Canadians or just to amplify the Conservatives' political role as the self-professed saviours of Canada?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

Unfortunately, this government has too often exploited tragic situations that make the news. The Boston attack is a perfect example of that. Canadians panicked in response, and rightly so, because what happened was frightening. We have reason to fear for our safety. The same thing happened on Monday. The RCMP's success reminds us that there are always issues affecting the public safety of Canadians.

The Conservatives are trying to distract us. They call for more freedoms, but they have introduced a bill that would deprive many individuals of their freedoms. That is definitely ironic.

The government is also trying to win political support from Canadians who were affected by the Boston attack. Reacting with shock to these events is completely normal. What is not normal is the Conservatives' reaction. They rushed to bring forward a bill that had already been before the House for a very long time. The government is rushing it through at the risk of violating the rights and freedoms of our fellow citizens. That is deplorable.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present some figures.

Budget 2012 announced cuts to public safety of $687.9 million by 2015, which is a considerable amount. Budget 2013 makes still more cuts.

Budget 2013 did not renew the police officers recruitment fund in spite of the fact that the provinces were asking for continued assistance from the federal government for front-line police officers. The Conservatives have cut services that affect national security and now they are introducing legislation.

Is there not a contradiction here? Does the government really want to protect Canadians by cutting law enforcement services?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that excellent question.

I got a bit carried away in my musings earlier, and I did not have time to address the very important topic of how the Conservatives regularly demonstrate a lack of consistency in the House and in the various bills that they introduce.

On one hand, the Conservatives want to restrict Canadians' freedom, but on the other, they are going to cut the resources of those who have the specific duty to arrest terrorists or people who commit crimes in Canada and try to endanger the lives of Canadians.

We all need to speak out in the House against this lack of consistency because what it really does is tie the hands of our police officers, customs officials and all levels of our law enforcement. That is very important to note.

We must speak out in the House against the Conservatives' lack of support and consistency. I am pleased that so many of my NDP colleagues are doing so during this debate. This is something that seems to have been forgotten by those who are choosing to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House to discuss Bill S-7, and I do so with enthusiasm.

The NDP opposes this bill at third reading. We believe it is an ineffective way to combat terrorism. It also needlessly and inappropriately infringes on all our civil liberties.

The constituency I represent is situated near the United States and borders on Vermont and other states. I am particularly concerned by the lack of security that this government is championing. I entirely support the members for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. In their view, the government is deluding itself in posing as champions when they make cuts left, right and centre to the national security budget. Those cuts will amount to $687.9 million by 2015.

The Canada Border Services Agency has suffered $143 million in cuts, which will affect 325 direct jobs at Canada's border crossings. CBSA’s intelligence service has been hit hard, losing 100 positions and 19 sniffer dog units as a result of the budget cuts. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has also had $24.5 million in cuts, and the RCMP has been subjected to reductions of $195.2 million.

Budget 2013 only exacerbates this state of affairs since there will be a 29.8% reduction in spending between 2012 and 2013 and into 2014.

Budget 2013 therefore does nothing to offset the Conservative government's inability to protect Canadians adequately. It also has not renewed the joint emergency preparedness program. The budget does not renew the police officers recruitment fund despite repeated requests from the provinces, which want front-line police officers, those capable of preventing terrorism and arresting terrorists, to receive ongoing assistance from the federal government.

There has also been a $20.3 million cut in crime-fighting, which represents a $2.4 million reduction in national security spending.

The department itself has stated that the infrastructure of the Government Operations Centre could be incapable of supporting coordinated intervention if a major event occurred. I will stop listing the cuts made by the government because there are too many and I do not know how to continue.

For all these reasons, we believe that Bill S-7 violates civil liberties and human rights, particularly the right to remain silent and the right not to be imprisoned without first receiving a fair trial. In the spirit of those rights, the weight of the state should never be used against individuals to force them to testify against themselves.

We also believe that the Criminal Code contains the necessary provisions to investigate people who engage in criminal activities and to detain anyone who may present an immediate threat to Canadians. The fact that those provisions were never used between 2001 and 2007 is proof of that.

Our opposition is based on the belief that these measures are ineffective and pointless. We believe that our position is based on values dear to Canadians. There is a lack of balance here between security, which is absolutely necessary, and fundamental rights. More protection is provided by the 2001 version.

In meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we tried to improve the bill by proposing 18 amendments—not one, not two or three, but 18 amendments. The Liberals and the Conservatives did not propose any.

The bill would impose a prison sentence of up to 12 months as well as strict release conditions on people who have not been charged with any criminal offence.

We, however, believe in the fundamental values of our justice system. The fact that these provisions were invoked only once, and without success, proves that the police have the tools they need to combat terrorism with existing procedures, without any risk to our civil liberties. The provisions of this bill could be invoked to target certain individuals, for instance, people taking part in demonstrations or acts of dissent that have nothing to do with any reasonable definition of terrorism.

We proposed a number of amendments. Here are some examples of the amendments we brought forward that were dismissed out of hand, because it was decided that they were outside the scope of the bill, because they would require a royal recommendation or for no reason whatsoever.

We wanted SIRC to look at the possibility of an inter-agency co-operation protocol to ensure that rights protected by law would be effectively respected. We wanted that protocol to be put in place before the leaving the country offences could come into effect.

We also proposed an amendment to ensure that testimony gathered from investigative hearings could not be used against an individual in extradition and deportation proceedings, not just in criminal proceedings. Once again, the government said that this did not fall within the scope of the bill.

We then proposed an amendment to establish the right to state-funded legal aid if a person had to attend an investigative hearing. We were told this would require a financial amendment from the House committee.

Lastly, we proposed an amendment to ensure that the annual reports included detailed information on any changes to the legislation, policies and practices related to exit information or exit control. This was also deemed to be beyond the scope of the bill. All our amendments were systematically rejected.

I want to inform the House that many witnesses appeared before the committee and wholeheartedly supported our position. Carmen Cheung, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, said:

...we urge the committee to refrain from further expanding the powers of our national security agencies until appropriate and effective accountability and review mechanisms have been established. We believe that strong and robust oversight mechanisms are important not only for protecting human rights and civil liberties; they are crucial for ensuring that our national security policies and practices are effective.

In conclusion, the New Democratic Party believes that we must look seriously at the issue of terrorism, but not at the expense of rights and freedoms. Bill S-7 is a threat to the rule of law and human rights, notwithstanding the additional protections in the 2001 legislation, which have gradually been eliminated.

Once again, all of the amendments to strengthen the rule of law and human rights were rejected by the Conservatives. They do not care at all. For all these reasons, we will oppose this bill at third reading.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians and members of the House, regardless of their politics, we have such anger and frustration when we hear of, for example, the VIA Rail plot. Whether it is true or it is not, people would harm innocent people. We want the full weight of the law to be brought against people who would create the kind of chaos that was created in Boston. What we are seeing with Bill S-7 is what the Conservative government called a wide sweep of measures and this is what Canadians need to understand: terrorism is a fundamental assault on the rights of a democratic society, but we do not counter terrorism by engaging in an assault on the basic rights of the rule of law.

New Democrats brought forward numerous amendments to attempt to clarify the provisions. Unfortunately, the Liberals brought zero amendments. I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks it is that the Liberals did not even bother to try to fix the bill, to try and work with us to ensure that basic civil liberties are not undermined in the pursuit of terrorists.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question, which reminds me of a proverb: You should not bite off more than you can chew.

That is the case here. The government says it wants a wide sweep of measures, but it is forgetting about the charter and it is forgetting that there are rights and there are regular citizens. We do not have 38 million terrorists in Canada.

My colleague asked a good question about the Liberals. As usual, I get the feeling that the Liberals signal left, but end up turning right. That is what they have done again here, in terms of respecting rights. That is disappointing, considering that they claim to be the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can explain the Liberals' behaviour. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no difference between them and the Conservatives. The Conservatives are doing all of this so that it looks like they are doing something, and the Liberals are acting this way so that they look like they are on the same side as the ones who want to look like they are doing something. In the end, nothing really happens.

We are used to seeing this type of behaviour from the government. The Conservatives claim to want to give rights to aboriginal women, but they know full well that these women will not have the resources or means to exercise those rights because they live in isolated communities that are dealing with a housing crisis and a lack of resources.

We are in a whole other league, and we want to take real action. We are truly concerned about public safety, and we want more resources to really fight terrorism.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his welcome comments.

In fact, the only way to fight crime, and in particular terrorism, is to hire more police and more border services officers in order to strengthen security at airports and everywhere else. Simply saying things and making systematic cuts left, right and centre, as I said earlier, is not going to enhance public safety.

So it is still a question of image. Whether it is the Liberals or the Conservatives, it is all the same thing.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that we were all outraged and shocked by the events that happened in Boston, and we offer our heartfelt sympathy to the families.

In our democratic societies, we cannot tolerate the use of violence for political ends, whatever they may be, and we strongly condemn it.

After the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the American and Canadian governments panicked and decided to put a set of measures in place quickly to enhance the fight against terrorism. One of those measures was Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act. Some clauses in that act were enacted temporarily—they were applied for an initial five-year period to see whether they were necessary and effective. Today we are seeing an attempt, in Bill S-7, to incorporate those clauses into the act on a permanent basis.

When I read the brief on Bill S-7 by Denis Barrette of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, I was struck by his comments on preventive detention. That term brings back painful memories of the October crisis of 1970. In Quebec, we have experienced terrorism. I remember the military barracks that were blown up. I remember the death of a sergeant, the bomb at the Montreal Stock Exchange and bombs in mailboxes. The governments of the day decided to suspend civil liberties and, rightly or wrongly, to invoke the War Measures Act. I was young at the time. I was 14 years old and going to high school.

In my neighbourhood of bungalows, we watched as 40 soldiers, armed to the teeth, got out of their vehicles. They went around to the houses knocking on doors to talk to us about things we knew nothing about. They asked us whether we knew people connected with the Front de libération du Québec. They had composite drawings. At that time, we did not have the photographs and all the digital equipment we have today. The soldiers showed us composite drawings of bearded men with long hair who might have looked like our neighbours. They asked us whether we knew those people or had seen them. They went to the home of my neighbour, who had a beard and long hair, and they took him away. He looked like the person in the composite drawing. Did he have connections with the FLQ? No one knew. The people in my neighbourhood knew the guy because he worked in a café. Young people went there and I imagine they may have smoked some substances that were illegal at the time, but to our knowledge he was not a terrorist, and it turns out that in fact he was not one.

When the War Measures Act was declared, the authorities carried out 36,000 searches without warrant and arrested 457 people. They called that "preventive arrest". That is just what we find in the bill before us now. When a government panics, it makes preventive arrests. When I read in the notes that preventive arrests would be possible, I decided that we must maintain our current laws, because the police have enough laws at their disposal. Yesterday we saw the arrest of two suspected terrorists, Jaser and Esseghaier. There was no need to make preventive arrests, take people into police custody and interrogate them, wait for their responses and put them in prison if they did not live up to police expectations. We went through such a period of preventive arrests in Quebec and where did it get us?

How many of the 457 people who were “preventively” arrested were charged with belonging to a terrorist movement? One may well ask. The Keable commission investigated. There were some answers. There was the MacDonald commission, which was blocked by the Supreme Court of Canada, because provincial commissions are not entitled to investigate the activities of the RCMP.

Some day, perhaps, when all the documents have been made public, we will know all the facts about this dark period in Canadian history and Quebec history. For now, we know that the suppression of civil liberties during that time was unjustified and produced nothing. Many people still claim even today that when the War Measures Act was declared, the police already knew where the kidnappers of James Cross and Pierre Laporte were. That is our basis for holding on to the laws that make it impossible for someone to be arrested without knowing why, that ensure that anyone arrested has the right to remain silent and be represented by counsel, and that ensure that the force of the state should never be used to compel individuals to testify against themselves.

In conclusion, I will read from the statement made by Mr. Barrette when he appeared at the committee I mentioned earlier. I will read it completely, for the people watching us and for those who still believe it is necessary to maintain civil liberties despite increasing terrorism. In fact, terrorism sometimes makes us forget our fundamental principles that make us want to live in a free and democratic society. Terrorism has achieved its goal when it succeeds in limiting our civil liberties, because that is its goal.

The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and the Ligue des droits et libertés believe the provisions relating to investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions to be both dangerous and misleading.

Parliamentary debate of this matter ought to be based on a rational and informed review of the Anti-terrorism Act, a piece of legislation that was rushed through Parliament after the events of September 11, 2001 in a climate of fear and in response to considerable pressure from the United States.

Today, what is the real, objective need for these two provisions? From the time they were adopted in 2001 until they were terminated in 2007, the only time they were used was in connection with the Air India affair, which as we know, resulted in an unfortunate fiasco. In 2007 and now, police have been able to investigate and block terrorist plots without using the provisions being discussed. That is clear. It is possible to prevent terrorist attacks using the legal tools we already have. There is no need to further limit individual and collective rights.

Moreover, since 2001, 10 years ago, of all the investigations leading to charges or convictions, none has required the use of these extraordinary powers, including the case of the Toronto 18, a more recent case involving four people from the Toronto area, and even yesterday, the case involving the two people who planned to derail a VIA Rail train. We know that these provisions could be used in a way we consider abusive. I am thinking of the Air India case. We believe that Canadians will be better served and protected if the ordinary provisions of the Criminal Code are used, rather than these unnecessary provisions.

Reliance on arbitrary powers and a lower standard of evidence can never replace good, effective police work. That goes without saying.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion with which the member delivered his speech. I do not agree with what he says as he tries to revisit or possibly rewrite history. At the end of the day, we have to put things in the perspective of the time and acknowledge that in the minds of many Canadians in the 1970s, there was a huge concern. Generally speaking, Canadians were very supportive of what Pierre Elliott Trudeau did at the time. Hindsight is 20/20.

Having said that, today we are talking about Bill S-7. We have to reflect on what was said at committee stage. Terrorism today is significantly different from what it was 20 or 30 years ago. Experts of all different backgrounds, including law enforcement officers and so forth, are telling Ottawa that they need some legislative ability, something in their tool belts, to ensure that they are in a better position to protect Canadians from terrorism.

Why does the member feel so passionately that all of the law enforcement agencies and experts who made presentations at committee are wrong and that it is only the NDP that is right?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the member says that terrorism today is not the same as it was in the past, he must be forgetting that there were deaths in Quebec, that bombs were planted and, above all, that the law invoked took away civil liberties and turned out to be unnecessary.

I do not understand how he can say that terrorism today is not the same as it was in the past, and that the situation is different. I am sorry, but I do not agree with what he said. One day, the Trudeau government's legacy with respect to this issue will be judged by history.

We already know that the RCMP, and others, had established terrorist cells. How was the situation used by those in power? We still do not know. One day, we will find out.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the excellent history he provided on what happened to the people in Quebec during the dark days of the FLQ, when Pierre Laporte was brutally murdered and James Cross was kidnapped. I was astounded to hear the Liberals say that it was right because treating the entire francophone population in Quebec as a threat and detaining people without warrant or trial was popular, and since it was popular, it therefore made it right.

This is the same attitude the Liberals took post-9/11, when Maher Arar was dragged off to Syria and tortured. At the time, nobody except New Democrats was saying that this man may be innocent. We did not know all the facts at the time, but we said that this man deserved the rule of law. We were right, just as we were right for opposing the War Measures Act at the time, because it is not about what is popular. Politicians should not give in to the fear of the day. They should stand for the principle of protecting civil liberties while making sure that police have the tools they need to go after criminals.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why, in light of legislation that strips away basic fundamental freedoms Canadians have fought for, the Liberal Party has done nothing in terms of amendments or attempts to improve this bill to ensure that innocent people are not arrested.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the danger lies in the potential for abuse.

When fundamental rights are taken away, the authorities can abuse power. Consider my neighbour who was arrested because of the police sketches of people with beards and long hair. Today, we would call this racial profiling. We do not want racial profiling in Canada.

We want our police officers to have the money and the tools they need to prevent terrorism without resorting to racial profiling. That might work one time in 20, but every other time it leads to legal errors. In such cases, all of society loses.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7 is the latest chapter in a long saga that began in the wake of September 11 and led to a number of legislative measures. Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act passed in 2001, was the first salvo launched following the horrific events in New York which still strike fear in people today.

Obviously, the legislation was brought in not only to respond to this threat and to protect Canadians, but also to meet our international obligations, as dictated at high levels, to the UN.

Some of the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act amended existing pieces of legislation such as the Criminal Code, the Access to Information Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorism Financing Act.

Other more significant changes were brought in, notably unprecedented changes to Canadian law. Those who were serving in the House at the time of the 2001 attacks perhaps can attest to the fact that this legislation was passed hastily and without due consideration.

Facing the unknown and a climate of dread, Parliament responded in a strong-armed, reflexive manner. There is a reason therefore why these provisions, crafted in the urgency of the moment, were subject to sunset clauses.

These so-called sunset clauses ensured that the more controversial measures would simply be temporary. That was for the better. The provisions in question pertained to preventive arrest and investigative hearings.

Had the desire arose to extend the life of these provisions, had they been deemed useful or relevant or had it been acknowledged that they had prevented an otherwise inevitable catastrophe from occurring, there would have been an opportunity to maintain them and make them permanent.

To do so would have required a resolution by both Houses of Parliament. A resolution was in fact tabled and rejected. Parliamentarians in their wisdom found that there was no valid reason to extend the life of these provisions.

Both Houses did their homework as far as these measures were concerned. Each one examined the most sensitive provisions of the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act. In October 2006, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security reviewed the legislation, most notably the investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions provisions. The other place produced an aptly named report entitled “Fundamental Justice in Extraordinary Times”.

Despite this flurry of activity, these questionable, freedom-destroying and fortunately temporary provisions expired as originally scheduled in 2007.

Since then, several attempts have been made to resurrect this long-settled debate: Bill S-3 in 2008, Bill C-19 in 2009 and Bill C-17 in 2010.

Each time, the same conclusion has been reached: the state currently has all the tools it needs to combat terrorism.

There was no reason to bring in these measures, even in 2001, and there is no reason to re-introduce them today.

The measures being debated today are not harmless. Among other things, Bill S-7 would re-introduce into Canadian law the phenomenon of investigative hearings that allow a peace officer to apply to a provincial court judge for an order to compel individuals to appear before a judge if they are suspected of having information concerning future terrorist acts. The provision would compel the individual to attend hearings and to answer investigators’ questions.

Another important measure that is being brought hastily before the House is the recognizance with conditions provision which includes preventive detention. It would give a peace officer the authority to arrest an individual without a warrant if he believes such action is necessary to prevent a terrorist act. The individual in question is subsequently brought before a judge, as soon as feasible, according to the wording of the bill, and may be imposed certain conditions, or may even be committed to prison for a term not exceeding 12 months.

From a human rights standpoint, these provisions are very restrictive. One could also argue that they are cause for great concern and that careful consideration should be given to the balance that must be struck between the real advantage they provide in terms of public safety and the cost to citizens, which undeniably in this instance is restrictions on a person’s fundamental rights. Admittedly, at issue are the rights of the individuals primarily concerned, but ultimately the rights of all citizens are affected as well.

Dramatist Henry Becque wrote that freedom and health have much in common and that we only appreciate their value when they are lost to us.

I am greatly concerned about the timing of today’s debate, about the fact that the government has chosen to move it up in light of what has happened. As noted earlier, the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act was passed hastily and this is not how debates on national legislation should unfold.

Today it would seem that an attempt is being made to recreate the same climate of fear and panic in order to hastily push through a bill that has serious implications for people’s freedoms.

It goes without saying that the people in my riding, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, want to live in safety. However, they also believe very strongly in the rights that belong to every individual. Many of them are going to wonder whether this is the right time to be debating the measures in Bill S-7, when people are recovering from the horrific, cruel and gratuitous attacks that took place last week at the Boston Marathon.

We do not need any added emotion for debating this bill. What we need is some distance, some reflection, and some calm and considered thought.

To me, there is nothing wise about the government precipitating this debate. I stress the word “wise”.

Is it really wise, the day after attacks like that, and with what we have in the news here in Canada, to be rewriting our laws and redefining our fundamental freedoms?

Perhaps it is the usual opportunism we see from this government, in its typical crudeness and poor taste.

We on this side firmly believe that this bill is contrary to the fundamental values of Canadians and the values on which our judicial system is built.

The unambiguous and unvarnished goal of these measures is to limit the civil liberties and fundamental rights of Canadians.

Those rights include basic elements of our judicial system that we take for granted: the right to remain silent, the right to a fair trial and the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The principles of our law, whose origin lies in centuries-old customs and legal traditions, lay out individual rights that are unwavering.

While the draft we are presented with today includes a few sops that are supposed to reassure us, because they are in the form of additional protections, these proposals are very unconvincing overall.

We also oppose these measures simply on their track record: these methods are ineffective in principle.

Ultimately, we firmly believe the Criminal Code is an entirely satisfactory tool for investigating these suspicious people who engage in shady plans or whose goal is to threaten the public. Those are crimes and that is what the Criminal Code is intended for.

In fact, the provisions drawn up in 2001, which had a “sunset clause” that took effect in 2007, were never used. Those measures made people uncomfortable from the outset, in 2001, because they were inimical to liberty.

In 2010, a former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Reid Morden, said, on the question of the two measures I referred to earlier:

...I confess I never thought that they should have been introduced in the first place...

He raised the idea that these provisions had slipped into the act almost by mistake.

...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.

He then stressed that law enforcement agencies already have the powers they need to do their job. They do not need additional powers. He concluded by saying:

I guess l'm sorry to hear that the government has decided to reintroduce them.

It appears that these measures caused misgivings among the forces of law and order, who wisely decided not to use these powers in their investigations.

Can someone really explain why these measures would be useful today, when they were not useful in the months following September 11, and that even the people who could have enforced them did not want to?

Finally, when some rights are under threat, all rights are under threat. Under the provisions of this bill, there is not much to ensure that citizens or anyone will not be falsely accused in the future for activities that have nothing to do with terrorism. Some activities may be considered subversive or dissident—slippery words that can be applied to peaceful activities in a democratic context.

Those who defend fundamental human rights are speaking up from all sides, telling us that these measures are unnecessary and that the price to be paid will be paid in civil rights, which is not a fair exchange for the proposed benefits. These measures are unwanted and unnecessary.

We saw this a few years ago when threats of spectacular terrorist attacks were foiled. We saw it again yesterday, when the admirable public safety professionals arrested two suspects who, it appears, wanted to disrupt the lives of ordinary people and do them unimaginable harm.

At this moment in time when terrorism has become part of current events, it is essential that we resist. We must resist terrorism in order to protect ourselves, prepare ourselves and defend ourselves. We must make our trains, airports, public spaces and gathering places safe and secure.

It is also essential that we, as a society, as communities and individuals, refuse to be terrorized by terrorism, and refuse to be manipulated or to change our behaviour and lifestyles. That is precisely what we should not do.

We must not be terrified by terrorism. To stand up to terrorism is to ensure that democracy and individual liberties for everyone in our country are never threatened by such people and their violence.

Since I have only a few seconds left, I just wish to express my astonishment at the Liberal Party's inconsistency. In 2001, the Liberals adopted the sunset clauses, but today they are not proposing any amendments of the sort. I cannot explain that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is really important to state for Canadians who are concerned, as we all are, about potentially dangerous people, whether they are politicized radicals, have a religious attitude or just want to cause chaotic harm to people, is that under the Criminal Code a person can already be ordered to appear before a judge if there is concern, and the judge can hold the person and deny bail if he or she believes the individual poses a threat. What is different about Bill S-7 is that a judge can detain a person for 24 hours without cause, detain the person just on the perception or the feeling of a police officer that the person may be engaged in terrorism.

New Democrats put forward amendments to try to clarify what would give law enforcement officers that ability. What is a terrorist? Are we talking about violence? What is it? The government refused to work with us on clarifying it because it said it wanted a wide sweep of powers. I find that concerning, because we saw that widespread civil rights abuses happened at the G20 against people who were just exercising their democratic rights, and now we see how people who oppose the pipelines are called eco-terrorists.

The government said it wanted a wide sweep. I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the Liberal Party, which has wrapped itself in the flag of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has refused to come forward with even a single amendment to at least clarify and basically protect the rights of Canadian citizens. If that party believes in the charter, why is it not standing up for it?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who has really set himself apart during these past two days of debate. We see how passionate he is about democracy.

Given the Liberal's inexplicable attitude, I get the impression that the question really caught them off guard because they were so concerned about proposing an opposition day. I am very eager to find out when our dissident colleagues opposite will have their opposition day on freedom of speech.

Clearly, we need to find the truth and determine what is best for our society. Please forgive the analogy, but people should never shop for groceries when they are hungry.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave a very thoughtful presentation.

I wonder if he would like to expand on the fact that we are talking about pre-emptive arrests where no crime has been committed and of secret hearings where people would be compelled to testify or face up to a year in jail. Would the member agree with me that this may just be political opportunism based on the terrible Boston bombings that just occurred?

The Conservatives sat on this bill for a year and did nothing with it, and all of a sudden, poof, it pops out of the genie bottle. Does the member share my concern that this is a bad bill at an opportunistic time?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and comments.

Frankly, it is unfortunate. If only we could have built a relationship of trust with a responsible government over time. I have often said that this government is heavy-handed, and I would like to add today that it is lazy in the sense that it always waits for a climate conducive to taking a completely questionable position.

As the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay said earlier about this type of proposal, we clearly need to make sure the police have the tools they say they need. We do not need to follow the agenda of the extreme right wingers.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this important bill. It is not much of a debate, as there has been silence from the other parties for the most part. However, as a New Democrat and someone who lives on the border, I believe it is important to talk about some of the issues with respect to Bill S-7, because the bill would indeed affect our lives.

I will start by recognizing the families and victims of Boston, which was a horrible crime perpetrated against not only those individuals but also against free people across the planet. It is sad to see things turn that way. Our thoughts and prayers are with those people as they try to move on with their lives the best they can at this moment.

I always remember when 9/11 took place. I was working as a youth coordinator at the multicultural council. In that program we had eight youth from Canada who were making bad decisions about their lives, and their lives were not on track. Then we had about nine to ten youths who were new to Canada within the last couple of months or the previous year who were having a hard time adapting to Canadian culture and society, so we were doing a program together. We had anti-racism, volleyball and basketball programs. There was a lot of integration into the schools and a series of different things for people who had been identified as youth at risk. We had a good program, because it had a 90% success rate of youth either going to school or returning to a job somewhere once they completed the program.

I mention that because I was in my office and saw the second plane go into the tower on 9/11. I will always remember that moment when I had to go and talk to the students right after that, knowing that this atrocious act of terrorism was forever going to change the future quite significantly for all of us, not only in the way we perceive the world but also in the way we go about our business in the world, such as in the consequences we faced at the border, which was lined up with trucks. The border was virtually shut down. There were lineups on the 401 all the way back to London, Ontario. It got to the point where diapers were being handed out and porta-potties were being placed along the route because there were so many people stuck in their vehicles.

The trucks could not go anywhere. At that time, around 10,000 trucks crossed via the Ambassador Bridge and the Windsor-Detroit tunnel and the haz-mat ferry per day.

We still have consequences of that remaining with subsequent policies. A lot of the focus has been on militarization. In some respects there has also been a focus, to the point of obsession, regarding civil liberties, and it has altered our lives.

Bill S-7 is one of those issues. We saw it come through the House originally. The U.S. had what is called the Patriot Act, which infringed civil liberties there, and it was fought diligently by the civil liberties associations and others in the U.S.

We eventually had the original security certificate before Bill S-7, which is now amending it more strongly, despite the fact that we know it was not needed to solve some of the issues we have had to deal with because it contained a sunset clause.

I want to congratulate and thank the men and women who were responsible for making sure the VIA incident did not take place. They are to be commended for their hard work. It is an example showing that we do have laws in this country that can be very useful in combatting terrorism and crimes of that nature.

It is important that we talk a bit about militarization of the border and a change in attitude that is affecting our economy and the way that we interact in this world. I have seen this at the border.

I will go back to the Oklahoma City bombing. Two Muslim men in a car were the original suspects. Later on it turned out that it was Timothy McVeigh, a white Christian male who was part of the Michigan militia, who was the primary person responsible for that bombing.

I mention that because we have seen racial and ethnic profiling occur at the border, and it has affected a lot of people. I often remind Americans, especially when I am in Detroit, that thousands of doctors and nurses cross the border every single day to save the lives of American citizens in their hospitals and in other services.

It has been challenging. At times when there have been other acts of terror, profiling was targeted at communities. Sometimes it was the Pakistani community or the Somali community, and other times they were thrown in with the lot. That was unfair.

In fact, one of the biggest changes that I saw take place was when the US-VISIT program was implemented. The government, similar to previous governments, has not opposed the U.S. on the tiering of Canadian citizenships. It first happened when I was in Washington. I was at the embassy, and we became aware that they were going to put five nations on a list. If a person was born there, he or she was going to be fingerprinted and photographed, despite becoming a Canadian citizen.

The first list came out, which basically had a tiering of Canadian citizens. It did not matter if a person had only been in a country for a brief time as a child, or had come to Canada later on in life, that person was seen as a lesser Canadian. I asked the ambassador at that time if we were going to challenge it, and he said no. It was subsequently never challenged by any prime minister. To this day, we have a tiering of Canadian citizenship, which is not the right way to go.

It is also important to note that when we have these issues over privacy and identity, there have been times when it has been used against individuals, and later on they have been found to be innocent. The case in particular that I would like to raise, which has been raised often in the House, is the one of Maher Arar.

Maher Arar is a Canadian citizen who was detained not by one but by two significant law enforcement agencies in North America, the RCMP and the FBI. He was exported outside of the country and he was terrorized. It was a terrible experience, affecting him, his life and his family, whom I have met, and it was sad to see. Basically, a lot of people at this odd time did not even think to stand by him. We had to stand by him. We found out later on that the evidence was not right. We found through the inquiry that it was not right, to the point where he has actually received reparations for it, but his life can never be made the same.

What concerns me with regard to Bill S-7 and some of the clauses that are in it is that the detention elements are for up to 12 months. If one has a detention of up to 12 months, that is a significant departure from a person's family, friends, relatives and the life that they are building in the country. Let us imagine being taken out of the workforce for 12 months and then see how one can actually get it all back later on.

Even if the person is cleared, the people around them in their life, whether they be friends and family, or just acquaintances or neighbours, will continue to harbour potential fears or different myths about the situation. They will not be as intimate with why the person was detained or what the reasons were, and if the person is later released, whether or not the person is still a threat.

I worry about the special process and stigma that are placed on those individuals, because it is inevitably going to lead to their having a different experience in Canada than other people, and why? Because we were creating a special law—a super law, so to speak—that is supposed to combat terrorism. We are going to see individual repercussions on that person and his or her family, which are heightened and very significant, and which will lead to long-term issues.

It is ironic that we are discussing this legislation, which very much does infringe on some personal rights, and we do want to act on terrorism, yet at the same time, through the budget and process, the government is cutting the things that can actually combat terrorism. I would like to talk about a couple of those things on the border.

I know I only have a minute, but I would highlight that we have over 100 CBSA investigative officers and other officers who are going to be or have been cut from their jobs. They have also been told to stand down if they find exporting guns, drugs, or criminal activity if they do not have an investigator when things are going to the United States. Those things come back as guns, money, and other weapons.

I cannot agree with Bill S-7. It goes far too far. We have the provisions in place right now to actually have a safer society.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague, and he talked about how certain groups are targeted because of violent acts that have happened.

In my family, and I come from a family that is orange and green at a time when there was such division and hatred, the one thing that brought both sides together was their horror at the sectarian killings that were happening in Ireland. I remember my grandmothers talking about what happened to the people in Ireland and England who were caught up in the sweep. At the time, it was popular to just arrest people and suspend the rule of law. It was seen as okay. Our Liberal colleagues talked about it today. It was popular to suspend civil liberties in Quebec, and therefore that made it right.

We look at the cases, and they always say it is to get the bad guys, but the question is, what happens when they get the innocent, as my colleague said about Maher Arar? I would like to point out the story in England, where Annie Maguire and seven members of her family were put away for 15 years on anti-terrorism charges, and they were innocent.

It is incumbent upon parliamentarians to ensure that the rule of law remains the basis while we are protecting citizens from terrorist activity. I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks about the problems of so-called preventive arrest without charge.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember the days of Alexa McDonough. God bless her, she stood out on her own in defending Maher Arar. She called for the proper process when it was very unpopular to do so. One was seen as being weak on terror and soft on crime. Those were the catcalls. She was determined and did not falter in making sure that he had his say and he had his day and justice was well served. However, the family is still paying for that. They have lost time and are still suffering the consequences of what took place. They have to move on as best they can, but unfortunately the damage has been done.

When Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in Oklahoma, we did not assume that every white Christian male was a terrorist and stop them from coming into Canada. We just assumed that he was a very evil person who did the wrong thing.

There are good people out there, and they cannot get caught in this net as well because there is too much at stake. The consequences for families are too much.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to have a very good recollection of all these events. What does he feel we need to remember from the war on terror that has been under way since 2001?

My impression that the only salient points are Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the war in Iraq—for the so-called weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be a fabrication—the Maher Arar case in Canada and a few other cases. That is what is left of that whole ideology, because it was an ideological position on a problem that the Canadian and American governments did not understand. They did not understand what terrorism was and they did not know how to respond. They acted randomly and the results were dreadful

I would appreciate my colleague’s comments on this matter.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, humanity has not found itself capable of having a civil society where we do not have these types of acts of terror taking place by some citizens on others. There have been other terrorist activities. The Unabomber is one example. Over time we forget some of the things that have taken place.

There is a delicate balance here, and we need to recognize that. We have to stop these things from happening in the first place. Once we catch people, we need to punish them in the proper way. If we do not do it right, we could do more damage to individuals and take away the reason we pay taxes to live in safe communities. Bill S-7 would not do it right. The reality is that we have not found a solution just yet. Unfortunately, some people choose to break the law at the expense of others. That is why we have police, several layers of police. It is an unfortunate situation.

As lawmakers, we need to make sure we do not go too far and create a state that has more powers than individuals. Due diligence cannot be done if people are not given their basic rights under the law.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing when old ghosts from the past come back to haunt us.

All these ideas were trotted out hastily, out of political opportunism, following the events of September 11. Today, they are resurfacing in an even more dangerous form, once again in a context of political opportunism, simply to give the appearance of having done something. Those who support these ideas simply want to look like they are on the side of those who want to look like they are doing something.

Although the members on the other side of the House accuse us of being soft on crime and other fictions, I am sincerely convinced, like my colleagues, that randomly killing innocent people can never be justified, not even strategically as part of a military strategy. There can be no justification for it.

We cannot fight an enemy until we identify it. Terrorists are not an organized army with headquarters, troops and equipment. They cannot even be identified by their physical characteristics.

Take the Boston Marathon terrorists, for example. The image they projected was that of charming young men. They could have been our children. In a crowd, there was no way to differentiate them from others, yet after the crime was committed, they were identified as transporting what might have been bombs. Walking down the street, most people would not recognize them and would think that they were ordinary young Americans.

This proves that resources need to be focused on properly identifying young people who are going astray and who are potentially dangerous. This requires considerably more police resources and intelligence. The police need funds to cover the expenses involved in occasional travel to remote regions to identify the recruitment and training centres of the groups that support these people.

There is also a lot of work to do to ensure that instructions for making bombs are not so readily available to anyone on the Internet.

Over the course of history, mistakes have been made. For example, in the Second World War, Canadians of Japanese origin were detained in camps for the entire duration of the war. With the benefit of hindsight, we now realize that the allies were able to defeat the Japanese thanks to the efforts of Japanese Canadians and Japanese Americans, who managed to break the Japanese navy's secret codes. This is what made the great allied victories possible.

The upshot is that businesses, fishers and people with prosperous companies on the coast were bankrupted in the small villages in the centre of the country. Their lives were completely destroyed. Years later, they were given an apology, but their lives were, nevertheless, ruined.

When one considers the Liberals’ position, the debate makes us—especially those of us from Quebec—think of the good, old Liberals, the Liberals of 2001, who passed this insane measure.

Clearly, they are not in a position to be too critical because they came up with this in the first place. So much for the charter.

Regarding yesterday’s arrests, there is only one thing to be happy about: that the police officers who arrested the two terrorists had not already been laid off as a result of the government’s short-sighted cuts.

Indeed, if they were not operational, in a few months, we could be talking about a terrorist attack on a train in Toronto. That would be a bombshell. We have undoubtedly headed off a disaster thanks to our police and law enforcement efforts.

The solution is not to pass legislation to arrest more people, but to put a stop to the cuts the government is making to the resources available to Canada’s police forces.

There are a lot of examples internationally. It is coincidental that the two Boston terrorists were Chechens. The Russians have always had a specific technique. In the 1930s, the entire Chechen population was deported to Siberia. They returned years later, completely destroyed and penniless. A third of them died in exile. They were never again made full-fledged Russian citizens.

That caused a whole host of problems that led to civil war and terrorist attacks. It does in no way excuse the wanton killing of people, but it does, to some extent, help to explain the root causes of the problem.

Over the course of the two recent wars in Chechnya, the Russian army engaged in neither interrogations nor temporary detentions. It carried out preventative executions. That only made the problem worse. As soon as compromises are made when it comes to human rights, society takes a step backwards.

Maher Arar and his family’s lives were ruined. Even though mistakes were acknowledged and his name was cleared, he is still living with the burden of what happened. Indeed, two months ago, he was still wearing an electronic bracelet around his ankle and he could not enter the Confederation Building because his photo on the computer screen had a red border around it. How long will it take before he is once again a Canadian citizen with the same rights as other Canadians?

We always end up regretting actions that are taken arbitrarily. It is time that the government started thinking before it acts and investing the necessary resources to address this problem. I am really fearful that somebody, like the terrorists that sought to derail a train, will wreak havoc in Canada. A stupid bill like this will not prevent that from happening. Resources need to be allocated appropriately and there needs to be better coordination between services in order to identify criminals and prevent such things from occurring.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments affect me a great deal.

In my own family, I have a brother who was tortured under the Pinochet dictatorship. He was not a terrorist, but he was against the regime. Yes, the context was different, but it reminds us that torture leaves its mark on people forever.

There is one thing that bothers me. We are being told that these laws need to be enforced, but there is no commitment to hire the resources that the police needs to do its job properly.

Could the hon. member elaborate on the fact that cuts in the budget are affecting the protection of Canadians and police services?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, those cuts are part of the government's law and order agenda.

The government is constantly accusing us of being on the side of pedophiles. However, everyone knows that many Canadians are involved in international pedophile networks. Some European countries monitor the movement of suspected pedophiles and carry out investigations in Cambodia, Thailand or Laos. They mobilize the resources needed to arrest those criminals and bring them to their countries of origin to be tried.

Here all we get is blah, blah, blah, and no resources. However, to stop terrorists, we need to apply the same principle and provide the resources necessary to identify where terrorists get their supplies and their logistical support from.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments by the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

I would like to know what he thinks about this. The fight against terrorism allows a number of things to happen. I am particularly thinking of the increased use of drones in the U.S. I hope that, one day, a motion condemning the use of drones by our allies will be tabled in the House, because I think that provides fertile ground for terrorism.

Last week, I read an article about a drone that gunned down a city in Pakistan and killed twelve small children.

Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, using the inappropriate strategy or weapon in a battle is like trying to kill a fly in a greenhouse with a hammer.

If, through the use of a drone, we manage to locate a tank in which a terrorist is hiding, we can blow up that tank and the matter is settled. However, if we bomb a house in which 10 children are sleeping, that is a blunder which results in collateral losses. What the military calls collateral losses are in fact human lives, and those who are wrongfully imprisoned are victims.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my objection to Bill S-7, but before I move forward, I want to express my condolences to the families and victims in Boston. I know that all MPs in this House, no matter what colour our ties or where we sit in the House, condemn this heinous attack.

Jumping to the bill at hand, this bill would amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, and the Security of Information Act with the express purpose of combatting terrorism. However, it is my belief, and the belief of numerous groups that appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, that this bill offers nothing in the way of protection from terrorism and that the limits it places on civil liberties are simply unacceptable.

The main component of this bill is an amendment to the Criminal Code that authorizes investigative hearings and the imposition of recognizance with conditions. It also authorizes preventive detention in cases where a person declines to accept or fails to adhere to the conditions of the recognizance with conditions.

In non-legal jargon, what does this mean for Canadians? Essentially, the first part means that any peace officer, such as a police officer or an officer in the Canadian Forces, can ask a provincial judge to order anyone who might, and I emphasize “might”, have information concerning a terrorist act to appear before a judge.

If a provincial judge makes that order, a person must submit him or herself for an interrogation, must respond to all questions and is required to bring any possessions connected with the judge's orders.

These hearings can be about past or ongoing crimes or suspected future crimes. The bill states that the purpose of an investigative hearing is not to prosecute individuals but is to gain information. Because of this, responses given during an investigative hearing cannot be used against the individual in the context of future criminal proceedings, except in the case of prosecution for perjury or giving contradictory evidence at the hearing.

Other non-criminal legal proceedings, such as extradition or deportation proceedings, are not expressly covered by the bill, meaning that individuals could still find themselves negatively affected by their appearance.

The second part, regarding recognizance with conditions, essentially means that a peace officer can arrest an individual without a warrant if it is believed that such an arrest is necessary to avoid a terrorist attack. The individual who has been detained must then be brought before a judge within 24 hours of detention, or as soon as possible, to prove the necessity of detention. The peace agent must then ask a provincial judge to order that this individual appear before a judge to determine whether recognizance, which is a legal obligation for an individual to respect certain specific conditions, is necessary. While the limits of the conditions a judge can set are not detailed in the bill, it does explicitly state that one condition a judge may impose is to prohibit a person from owning a weapon, including firearms, crossbows or ammunition.

If people refuse to abide by the terms of the recognizance, they can be imprisoned for up to 12 months. This imprisonment, not being the result of a criminal conviction, is thus described as preventive detention. These conditions can therefore allow any Canadian to be imprisoned for up to 12 months without ever having been charged or convicted of any crime.

I hear many say, “This will never affect me. I am a law-abiding citizen. Only people who are carrying out terrorist activities will be covered by this bill”. Well, they would be wrong. For one thing, if there was sufficient evidence that these people were planning to carry out terrorist activities, they would be charged with a criminal offence.

Subsection 83.18(2) makes planning a terrorist activity a crime, whether or not the terrorist attack is actually carried out. Knowingly aiding a terrorist group to carry out an attack is also covered by the Criminal Code in subsection 83.18(1).

There cannot therefore be proof beyond reasonable doubt that an individual is aiding or planning terrorist activities or they would be charged under these clauses.

“Even so”, our contrarian adds, “there must be suspicion that they are involved in terrorism. It would never affect people like me.”

Well, that argument is short-sighted on two levels.

First, and more generally, let us remember the poem attributed to German pastor Martin Niemöller. There are many variations of the poem, but the final line is pretty much universal, “Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me”. If we so easily give up the civil liberties of others, we cannot be surprised if later our own civil liberties begin to be eaten into.

Second, and more specific, the wording of the bill means that the erosion of our own civil liberties is near. During the clause-by-clause review of the bill at the public safety committee, it was discovered that the government had intentionally worded the clause relating to the recognizance with conditions so that people who were not themselves suspected of terrorist activity could be subject to such conditions. This discovery was made as the NDP proposed to amend the recognizance with conditions provision to ensure it was clear that only those determined to be potential participants in a terrorist activity could be subject to the clause.

The NDP is opposed to the imposition of recognizance with conditions completely, but we felt this amendment would at least prevent the imposition of recognizance with conditions on individuals not suspected of involvement in terrorism. It is a serious abuse that we felt the Conservatives surely did not intend.

However, it appears that we were wrong to think that this was an oversight and not a targeted attack on Canadians' civil liberties. A parliamentary secretary told the committee that the Conservatives would not support the amendment because the wording was specifically intended to have a broad sweep to ensure that it included people not themselves suspected of engaging in future terrorist activity.

There in the public safety committee, the Conservatives admitted they were bringing forward legislation with the intention of being able to enforce conditions or imprison up to 12 months people who had no involvement in terrorist activities under the pretense of a bill to combat terrorism. Even worse, the Conservatives are now using the tragic events in Boston last week to push through this attack on civil liberties.

Unfortunately, terrorism is a real threat in many countries, including our own, but Bill S-7 would do nothing to ensure that Canada would be protected from terrorism. When the provisions for investigative hearings, recognizance with conditions and preventative detention were previously in place from 2001 to 2007, they were not utilized once. However, in that time, the RCMP successfully foiled a planned attack in Ontario, leading to the arrest of so-called “Toronto 18”.

Again, the RCMP was successfully able to stop a planned terrorist attack earlier this week without these Big Brother-esque provisions. Bringing in a legalization that allows the government to detain people without evidence that they are carrying out attacks is useless at best and in all likelihood, much worse than that.

I am not alone in condemning Bill S-7. I will leave the final word to Mr. Paul Calarco of the Canadian Bar Association:

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.

I urge the House to reject this legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of NDP MPs articulate why they oppose this legislation. I want to bring up Bill C-55, and members will see the relevance to my question.

During my comments on Bill C-55, I stated that:

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.

On that particular second reading debate, when we were talking about individual rights, it was interesting that on March 20, 294 members of Parliament voted in favour of it.

Does the member see some relevance in terms of individual rights and how the Supreme Court back then made the suggestion about the wiretapping, and equally, in 2004, the Supreme Court made reference to the investigative hearings as being within the Constitution? In fact, we now have the same type of law enforcement officers and experts saying that as in the other situation, it is a tool for investigations. This is another tool to assist in combatting terrorism.

Why would the NDP would vote one way—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Sudbury.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Liberals. Comparing bill to bill, we do our job as parliamentarians to make these bills the best we possibly can, to ensure we protect Canadians when we bring forward legislation. However, when it came to Bill S-7, there were zero amendments and zero thought put into it by the Liberals to try to make the bill better for all Canadians.

Therefore, we have to ask this question. If the Liberals are looking at one bill, why are they not trying to make this bill the best that it can be as well?

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

Mr. Speaker, the one line that struck me in the member's speech was how easily the Conservatives were prepared to give up these civil liberties that we so cherish in our country.

What strikes me is that we advised the rest of the world that people should live the way we live, that they should live with democracy and the rule of law and with civil liberties. In fact, we send military around the world to intervene in other circumstances to bring these very values into existence in other countries and we even expect people in other countries, in the face of terror, to cling to these kinds of values and fight for them through bloodshed, yet in the absence of any evidence that we need to give up these civil liberties in our country and in the face of proof that our existing policing and law enforcement measures are effective in stopping terrorism, the Conservatives and the Liberals are so easily prepared to give up these things that we cherish so much.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his well laid out points in relation to my speech and the debate we have had in the House.

It raises this question. If the Conservatives were really serious about tackling the threat of terrorism, I do not think they would want to move forward with the cuts that we have seen in budget 2012 and in budget in 2013. Let me explain a few of these.

The CBSA border services saw cuts of $143 million in budget 2012, which will affect 325 jobs in the front line, so the government will reduce the staff for folks coming in through the borders. CSIS will see cuts of $24.5 million by 2015. Budget 2012 also scrapped the CSIS Inspector General, who was crucial for accountability to Canadians. The RCMP saw cuts of $195.2 million.

We want to combat terrorism. We saw our RCMP officers do great work yesterday on the VIA Rail incident. We need to have more boots on the ground, more police officers and more great work by the RCMP to ensure that we protect Canadians.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-7.

This bill originated in the Senate, a non-elected House, and it seeks to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act.

I oppose the bill that is before us and I will briefly explain why. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the House of Commons passed an act on terrorism, the Anti-terrorism Act. This legislation was introduced and passed rather quickly. We were shaken and trying to find quick ways and solutions to deal with a feared problem, terrorism, not only in Canada but also abroad.

In the end, several parts of this bill proved useless. Over time, we realized that perhaps we had gone too far in the changes made to our basic rights, which are enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We learned a lesson from that exercise and, in 2007, that act was not renewed, precisely because we realized that several provisions were no longer appropriate in Canada. In fact, they never were. At the time, there had never been any investigative hearing required, or any situation that called for recognizance with conditions.

The bill before us directly affects basic rights that are highly valued in Canada. It provides for up to 72 hours of preventive detention, without the person being charged with anything. It also provides for up to 12 months' imprisonment where a person refuses to testify. That is a major assault on basic rights in Canada. We have to ask ourselves what reasoning can justify such an attack on a fundamental right in a free and democratic society. In my opinion, there is no justification.

For example, in the case of investigative hearings, a peace officer may, with the Attorney General's prior consent, ask a provincial judge to compel any individual who may have information about a terrorist act to appear before a judge. It is immediately apparent that we cannot agree to this bill. A peace officer may force anyone to appear before a judge in order to explain himself or herself or to testify. In Canada, however, even though the right not to testify is a fundamental right, there will be consequences if the individual exercises that right. The person may be detained, even imprisoned, for 12 months merely for refusing to testify. This is a fundamental attack and we must really ask ourselves whether it is warranted.

As we have seen in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, certain rights may be disregarded where that is warranted. However, according to the principle that the Supreme Court has used on numerous occasions, such action must be warranted in a free and democratic society. I note that the judgment in Oakes established quite clear tests regarding what may warrant limiting fundamental rights in Canada. In my opinion, the bill before us does not meet those tests.

Several factors are involved, including preventive arrest. That is rarely seen in a free and democratic society. Some countries are accused of making unwarranted preventive arrests, and Canada is preparing to act like certain countries that we often criticize. Once again, we must ask ourselves on what reasoning this is based.

Peace officers may arrest an individual without a warrant where they believe that is necessary to prevent a terrorist attack. On what do they base their decision? On what do they rely? How can people defend themselves in those circumstances?

I guess people in Canada will say that they have nothing to worry about, that this does not concern them. However, if a peace officer is convinced that an act will be committed, if he or she assumes that an act will be committed, people will be in a poor position to defend themselves since there will be no evidence. There will merely be an apprehension. In that case, there can be no justification for a peace officer having such a considerable and substantial power.

Section 495 of the Criminal Code already grants a peace officer the following powers:

(1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant (a) a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence; (b) a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence; or (c) a person in respect of whom he has reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant of arrest or committal, in any form set out in Part XXVIII in relation thereto, is in force within the territorial jurisdiction in which the person is found.

We can see that this power is subject to certain conditions. We already have a section in the Criminal Code that gives peace officers this power.

We have to ask ourselves what the reason is for wanting to give them even more powers, including the power to detain an individual for a period of 12 months simply for refusing to testify. That right is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, among others. This is going too far.

This bill would have benefited from a debate in committee and several NDP amendments. However, the amendments were all turned down by the Conservative government.

Parliamentary committees listen to witnesses and experts and give them an opportunity to comment on bills. Members rely on witnesses' knowledge when amending legislation.

One of the witnesses was Denis Barrette, a member of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. According to Mr. Barrette, when the Anti-terrorism Act was adopted in 2001, insufficient evidence was presented to justify reducing the protections guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Toronto 18 were arrested without this legislation, which expired in 2007. The alleged terrorists who intended to attack a VIA Rail train were arrested by the RCMP and other Canadian security agencies the day before yesterday, once again, without legislation such as what we have before us today.

Bill S-7 is not justified. What we need to do in Canada is improve existing security agencies and give them the tools they need to defend our interests. That brings to mind the 2013 budget, in which the government cut air security services in Canada, then in the same breath talked about the problem of terrorism. The air security budget will be cut, especially in airports in remote regions like mine. Small airports may lose their security services.

We need to consider this: if the aim is to truly protect Canadians and the entire world with our security measures in Canada, these measures need to be improved through whatever means necessary. In my opinion, it is crucial that there be an adequate budget to maintain Canada's air security services, and the matter should not even be up for debate. Unfortunately, the budget will cut funding for these services.

Based on what we are seeing here, Canada is heading in the wrong direction by taking away Canadians' rights when we should be giving Canadians the tools they need to protect themselves.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. This is a very important debate because the one thing we all share in the House is an abhorrence of the senseless and cruel violence we saw in Boston and elsewhere. We know where the Conservatives are coming from. Their agenda has always been clear.

The issue I have is that earlier I heard the Liberals compare Bill S-7 to Bill C-55. For the last two days, the Liberals have been saying that if the police ask for tools, we should give them the tools. One of the problems with that is there has to be judicial oversight. When we look at Bill C-30, which the Conservatives brought forward and was a widespread bill to allow all manner of intrusions into people's online private interests without warrant, based on the supposition or desire of a police authority, we see Canadians rejected it because it was an unnecessary tool, yet the government came back with Bill C-55, which narrowly defined wiretap provisions under judicial authority.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the Liberals think it is okay to have judicial authority and review on wiretaps but allow people and their relatives to be held without warrant without any kind of oversight provisions that we consider important.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, it is very hard to ascertain the position of the Liberal Party on this, because it did not put forward any amendments to the bill in front of us today. Although Liberals say they think the bill is inadequate and incomplete, had they been serious about it, we might have heard from them much more elaborately as to what exactly this bill would need to be acceptable to the Canadian people.

Members on this side of the House are certainly being very principled insofar as this bill does not pass our smell test. This bill does not provide a proper balance between rights and protections of society. I would love to hear from the Liberals as to how exactly they would like this bill amended. Unfortunately, they did not bring forward any amendments.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that he has done a good job of listing the problems with this bill. I would like to underscore the fact that from 2001 until 2007 we already had some of these draconian measures, and they were never used. They really have not helped or were needed. I also agree with him that what we really need is boots on the ground in our cities.

The terrorists that people in my riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North are worried about are gangs, as well as unlicensed, unregistered and illegal guns and the drug problem. The government cut the federal funding to municipal police departments a while ago. Those are the things Canadians are worried about. I wonder if he agrees with me.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do agree with my colleague. The biggest problem I see for security in this country is the cutbacks. It is certainly one of the biggest problems and one that is going to be felt for many years to come.

Police ask for more tools and for the federal government to take its place in defending the security of individuals in this country, and yet what we see in budget after budget is cutback after cutback to that very security. We have to wonder if the bill in front of us today is simply some elaborate political ploy to capitalize on terrorist attacks that have recently taken place instead of actually doing the work that needs to be done on the ground to build up our security apparatus, protect Canadians and ensure that the safety of Canadians is paramount and not a play thing for political gain.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues on this side of the House have clearly expressed their opposition to this bill. However, I am disappointed that there were barely seven or eight members on the other side of the House today to listen to the arguments put forward by my honourable colleagues about the many problems with this bill.

It is worth recalling that everything in it comes from Bill C-36, which was tabled in 2001 following the events that occurred in the United States. From that time on, an international policy was developed and Canada has unfortunately simply been following it.

Canada should not even be involved, because everything was done according the foreign policies of our neighbours to the south. In reality, Canada was never really exposed to these kinds of constraints. Canada's foreign policy has always been fair, particularly in terms of non-interference in the foreign policies of other nations. In a word, Canada has no enemies.

On the other hand, after those events, the government of the day felt that it was important to introduce anti-terrorism legislation, so it did. However, it was pointless because we are not in that situation.

My honourable colleagues from this side of the House said that we did not really need to impose all these constraints on all Canadians, despite the efforts that were made to improve the resolution and return to the wording that was rejected in 2007.

Giving powers to certain peace officers—such as police and military personnel—to apprehend ordinary citizens suspected of committing acts of terrorism is pure madness.

Furthermore, everyone knows that the Canadian legal system already has measures to prevent actions like these, which are contrary to common sense. The effective way to combat them is to provide our public safety and security systems with the funds they need, yet in last year's budget and even this year’s, cuts to such funds were and are being made, which is absurd. In other words, members on both sides of the House are being illogical. The Liberals seem unable to seize this opportunity to send a clear message to the Conservatives about protecting public safety without compromising basic rights.

Do not forget that the 2012 budget made major cuts of approximately $687 million, and the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service suffered the most as a result.

These two agencies, which have some latitude and the power to act in order to detect acts that could potentially endanger Canadians, have no power over Canada's foreign policy, and Canada is not really exposed to a genuine terrorist threat.

Peace officers can interrogate an individual if something abnormal is suspected, whether on cultural, racial or religious grounds. The individual can be forced to appear in court, before a judge, to explain certain actions or types of behaviour that the peace officer considered abnormal. In a way, laws that protect the civil rights of citizens are circumvented as a result of aggressive action of this kind.

New Democratic members are opposed to Bill S-7 because there is no justification for it. To begin with, the bill would amend the Criminal Code. Our view is that the Criminal Code is fine just as it is, although it could be improved in certain areas. Secondly, many of the amendments suggested in committee were quickly rejected by most Liberals and Conservatives.

The bill would also amend the Canada Evidence Act. Potentially sensitive information about the trial of an accused could be disclosed, which in my view would be a blatant infringement of human rights.

The bill would also amend the Criminal Code to add new offences. However, it is impossible to determine ahead of time whether a person who has left the country or attempted to do so will commit a terrorist act. These are subjective questions linked to suspicions and unsubstantiated beliefs.

I can see that even though several colleagues on the other side of the House have arrived, they do not appear to be really interested in listening to what we have to say about this bill even though they should be willing to admit that they are on the wrong track in a way.

As I was saying, and I will repeat it once more, the key factor to be taken into consideration is the budget cuts to the agencies responsible for public safety. I hope that the members who are now entering the House will understand precisely what it is we wish to say, and I trust that they will make changes to the bill before it is voted upon in the next few minutes or days so that we can really tackle this issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will pose a question to the member in regard to his reference to human rights.

As we all know, it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who brought home the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians, a document that has been valued greatly by all Canadians ever since.

Bill C-55 was a tool that allowed for wiretapping situations without a warrant. Bill S-7, the bill we are debating today, is a tool that would allow for investigative hearings. In that regard both bills, in essence, will have impact on individual rights. Both those bills had an opinion from the Supreme Court saying that they are indeed within the Constitution, yet on the one hand we had the NDP supporting one bill, that being Bill C-55, and opposing the other, that being Bill S-7. Both bills will have an impact on individual rights, yet the NDP somehow voted in favour of one while it is going to be voting against the other.

I agree that the Conservatives have done a disservice with their cuts, which will have an impact on the research that could be done in combatting terrorism. However, I would ask the member if he would—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Laval.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for Winnipeg North has been expressing himself very well about old topics and old arguments from previous parliaments. However, I think that we should return to what is currently under discussion, which is Bill S-7.

This is about showing utmost respect for human rights. That is what makes living in a democracy good.

As to his allusion, I believe that the context was very different at that time. I do not really think that I can provide him with further details.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague appeared to have some reservations about the constitutionality of Bill S-7 in terms of rights being respected.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine also suggested that this bill might not meet the constitutional test.

I recall a story about Department of Justice officials reviewing bills hastily so that the bills would be introduced in Parliament more quickly, even though the fundamental rights of Canadians could be undermined.

That makes me wonder whether my colleague thinks, as I do, that the process should be tightened up, given the allegations that we heard not long ago.

Tightening up the process for bills sent to the House of Commons and the Senate would enable us to ensure that the bills we are currently debating undergo a rigorous test and that they are valid and constitutional. All of this would be done prior to debating the bills in the House.

Would my colleague like to comment on that?

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. He is absolutely right.

I agree that there should be a more thorough and meaningful review process before the bills are introduced. The bills should also be validated, checked and confirmed through other processes.

Unfortunately, this bill comes from the Senate. Everyone here knows how we feel about the Senate. Therefore, I do not think it would be a good idea to continue with this process, which is an affront to justice.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about terrorism for the past couple of days. There is no question that everyone in the House wants to do everything possible to protect Canadians against terrorism, and for anyone to suggest otherwise is just simply wrong.

We were all sickened by what happened in Boston last week. As it turned out, I was on my way to Washington at the time and saw increased security in that city. A lot of people were very concerned and troubled about the events in Boston and wondered whether there would be a spillover effect in that city. Frankly, we are all concerned, and have been concerned, about that possibility.

Bill S-7 would not do what the government claims it would do. The fact that it was introduced suddenly this week, surprising everyone, causes us considerable concern.

Back in 2006 these provisions were in the Anti-terrorism Act that came into force in 2001. After the terrible tragedy that happened that year, parliamentarians felt it was important to ensure that our legislation was up to international standards, and we included provisions that are contained in Bill S-7.

At that time, the bill had a sunset clause. In 2006 all members of the House of Commons voted as to whether or not the sunset clause would be extended. That was defeated, and it was defeated because none of the provisions now contained in Bill S-7 were ever used. Police, CSIS and other authorities in this country were able to carry out their responsibilities to keep us safe without the need for the provisions now found in Bill S-7.

The Conservative government has waited seven years to bring this legislation forward. This legislation has been sitting on the order books for months now, and the government did not deem it necessary to bring it forward. That was because it had been advised by authorities that it was not necessary and that it would trample on the civil rights and freedoms of Canadians to a level that is unnecessary, damaging and, frankly, frightful. That is not necessary.

We, along with people outside this chamber, have said that the only reason this legislation has been suddenly dropped on the table for debate this week is for partisan political reasons. Surely to heaven the Conservative government recognizes the importance of what happened in Boston. Surely the government recognizes that this is not an issue that we should be playing politics with, nor should we be playing politics with the civil liberties and human rights of Canadians.

All NDP members have stood in our places and voiced our objections to Bill S-7, and there will be others. Members in the far corner are going to support this legislation because they originally brought it forward, and they feel it is sufficiently expedient to pass it.

I will describe what I would like to see the government do. If the government is serious about dealing with terrorist threats, it should restore the $143 million that is being cut from CBSA. That would ensure that we have the resources at our borders to properly screen people who may want to do harm to Canadians and Canadian property.

I would like to see the cuts of $24.5 million by 2015 imposed on CSIS restored. The budget of the CSIS Inspector General was scrapped in 2012. The RCMP saw cuts of $195.2 million.

If we do not have boots on the ground, and if we do not have the individuals in the field who are directly involved with the investigation of these matters, how can we suggest that we are serious? It is simply not good enough to bring in a bad law and say that we have taken care of it and that everyone is safe. It just does not work that way.

Canadians know that when they cross the border, there are going to be fewer RCMP and CSIS agents available to protect them and to do the work necessary, such as the screening and investigation. That is where we need to be putting our money and resources.

I urge the members opposite, if they are serious about combatting terrorism, to put money back into resources so that we have people on the ground who are able to do the work necessary to keep Canadians safe. Bill S-7 does not do it. That is why my colleagues and I have risen to object strenuously, and we will not be supporting it.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour will have three minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

The House resumed 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.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address the Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, better known now as Bill S-7, Combating Terrorism Act.

I must admit that, last Friday, I was somewhat surprised, like everyone else in the House, by the move made by the Leader of the Government in the House. He informed us that two opposition days—one for the Liberal Party on Monday and one for the New Democratic Party on Tuesday—would be postponed, in order to resume dealing with Bill S-7.

I was surprised considering the government's usual routine with the orders of the day, and the debates of the past few weeks and months. We knew that Bill S-7 was on the Order Paper and that, some day, it would resume its normal course.

Bill S-7 originated in the Senate. I already said this regarding other issues: When the government has extremely important bills, it usually tables them under the letter “C”, followed by a number. This bill was introduced through the back door, through the Senate, which is made up of friends of those in power and of unelected people.

That was disturbing. However, it sent the message that, perhaps, the bill is not as important as the government is saying it is now.

Bill S-7 went through the Senate, which took a certain time. I believe it was tabled or passed in the Senate in February 2012, and it then made its way to the House. It was studied in committee and referred back to us in March if I am not mistaken. We had time for a speech at third reading. That speech was delivered by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, following the committee's report. After that, the bill was put somewhere. We knew it would come back here within a few weeks, months or years. We never really know with the Conservatives.

Then, surprise, surprise, on Friday, the Leader of the Government in the House rose as if there was a great need to hurry. He decided to put Bill S-7 on the orders of the day for debate.

Bill S-7 is a response to the events of 2001. It existed in another form and had been passed by the Liberal government of the day, in the aftermath of the events of September 11.

Terrible events such as September 11 or those more recently in Boston create a state of panic and terror.

People who want to combat terrorism, are people who have experienced terror. That is the power these terrorists have over people. They hope that the moments of terror they create will force people to change their behaviour and will make them lose their sense of safety. When terrorists achieve that, they have accomplished their mission.

It is the government's job to ensure that the public is safe. I would say that being healthy is certainly important, but more important than any other need on this planet, feeling safe is probably one of the most important feelings we have as humans. One of the government's responsibilities is to ensure that safety through reasonable, legal means.

The problem with laws that are passed in the wake of particularly sensational events is that they can have unintended consequences. Sometimes, they represent an improvement because we have learned from dramatic events. Sometimes, however, we overreact and need to make adjustments along the way.

Very wisely, the government at the time passed the legislation with the realization that certain provisions could pose problems in terms of individual rights and freedoms. We cannot take away the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens—as my Conservative colleagues so often say—just because of a small number of terrorists. These measures cannot be implemented to the detriment of honest people who obey the law and who live according to society's rules.

At the time, knowing that the bill was being passed quickly and in response to specific problems, the government included a sunset clause, which imposed a deadline and made the clauses contained in Bill S-7 temporary measures. It meant that the bill would have to be revisited to determine if it had been useful and to draw conclusions about the events.

The current government may be a bit frustrated right now, but the opposition is also very frustrated about the way the Conservative government plays its role as legislator. I am not very sympathetic to the government's frustration because, to some extent, the government brought this on itself. The government is frustrated by some statements. It is frustrated that the media and the official opposition are currently casting doubt on its motives for introducing Bill S-7. A distinction must be made because members can oppose the actual content of the bill or the way it is being addressed or passed through the House of Commons.

I must admit that it certainly reeked of opportunism when the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons suddenly announced after question period last Friday that we had to pass Bill S-7. We are talking about the message that the government is trying to send.

In passing, I am extremely surprised that the members of the Liberal Party are not rising to oppose this type of bill because, since the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they have always been the self-appointed gatekeepers of the charter, and probably with good reason. I am extremely surprised that they are not rising with the members of the NDP to speak out against some of the major concerns raised by this bill.

I would like to come back to the government's frustration. It is so rare for the government to be frustrated. The Conservatives have a majority and so they are free to do what they want in terms of their agenda. Perhaps that is why they are not being taken very seriously when it comes to Bill S-7. Since they have been in office, they have had plenty of time to pass this bill. However, they are using the current situation to score political points and to try to pass a bill that would normally be difficult to pass or would be negatively perceived. In my opinion, this is as despicable as it gets.

I will come back to my main point. The role of Canada's Parliament is to ensure, to the extent possible, that Canadians across the country feel safe in this very special place. We must have a set of rules and laws in order to provide our police forces with the tools they need. However, I realize that our police forces and our special counter-terrorism units already have many tools available, including the Criminal Code, in order to deal with events like the ones that occurred yesterday—namely, the press conference and the arrest of two alleged terrorists who were threatening the security of Canadians—and the events involving the group known as the Toronto 18.

I am not sure that Bill S-7 would have resulted in a different response to the situation.

In closing, we should perhaps say to the government that if it truly wants to stop terrorism, it must provide not just the legislative tools but also the people on the ground, which means more police officers and counter-terrorism units. That takes money. The Minister of Public Safety must stop cutting those budgets.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that the Conservative government needs to have more boots on the ground. We have seen, through a series of budget cuts, that those numbers are down significantly. We share the concern of the NDP.

Having said that, one of the concerns I have is the position of the New Democrats with respect to the Charter. They are saying that they are concerned about the rights of the individual.

I reflected earlier today on Bill C-55, which had similarities in terms of principles. The Supreme Court of Canada, in both cases, made a declaration that they are both constitutionally correct, implying that they should be made law. It even had a deadline.

Does the member see the consistency between Bill C-55 and Bill S-7? Why is it that the New Democrats would vote in favour of one but be opposed to the other? Could the member provide some clarity on that?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

Bill C-55 satisfied the Supreme Court's demands word for word. For once, the government resisted the urge to go too far. It chose individual rights over all-out accessibility and going after people who might be dealing with certain situations.

So, with Bill C-55, the government showed tremendous restraint. The same cannot be said about Bill S-7.

My colleague from Toronto—Danforth and his colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security did a great job examining Bill S-7 and highlighting how the arrest provisions, which the government would like to see as preventive, were vague. This certainly leaves us wondering. Someone could be accused of being directly or indirectly linked to an act, even though that person may be innocent. As everyone knows, when a tragedy occurs, at some point, well-meaning people see things that might not necessarily be there. Some people might find themselves in truly tragic situations, with extremely vague rights.

The NDP members asked the government another question. I encourage my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North to consult the evidence from that committee and he will see that the Conservative member replied very clearly that, on the contrary, the government wanted to keep this as vague and as broad as possible.

In terms of arrest, detention and interrogation, when people who have been arrested do not know what is going on or what they are alleged to have done, we need to err on the side of caution, while still thinking about public safety. These two aspects can be reconciled in a legal manner that respects our charter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was excellent, as always.

I would like to hear her thoughts on the government's habit of reacting to specific events by introducing a bill. This is very opportunistic. She mentioned that in her speech.

Could the member talk more about the fact that the government is using specific events to change laws? These laws apply to all Canadians, they will apply for years to come and they will have repercussions. As a legislator, it is trying to react only to specific events. The government is also trying to be opportunistic by using such events to advance its own ideologies. Why do we need to be wary of this kind of approach?

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Gatineau has 40 seconds to respond.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since arriving in the House in May 2011, I have realized that the government uses legislation to get media attention.

In terms of justice, law and order and public safety, this is not the way to properly manage legal and legislative issues, enforce the rule of law or ensure that we are a constitutional state that honours its Constitution and charter.

We do not even know if the Minister of Justice makes sure that his bills comply with the charter and the Constitution. One of his employees is taking him to court because he is claiming the minister does not do so. I am not surprised to see that everything he does is a sham. It is unfortunate that this is happening with these kinds of issues.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on Bill S-7, I would like to talk about the people of Drummondville, who organized a commemorative race last Sunday for the victims of the tragedy that took place in Boston, and for their families.

I would like to thank Carl Houle, Andrée Lanoie and Robert Borris for the 5 km race they organized in the city of Drummondville to honour and commemorate the victims of this appalling tragedy. It was a noble gesture on their part, because they were in Boston when the tragedy struck. They were taking part in the marathon there because they are regular participants in marathons. Andrée Lanoie is a former colleague of mine, and I wish to salute her today. She does excellent work with young people and promotes physical activity.

I would therefore like to thank them and the community of Drummondville for this fine event. Nearly 200 people from the greater Drummondville area took part in the race. That was just an aside before I begin my remarks on Bill S-7.

That said, the fact of a tragic event like what happened in Boston is no reason for the government to make use of it in order to play petty politics. Yet that seems to be the case, and it is regrettable. It should be condemned, and the NDP will condemn it.

I would also like to thank my hon. colleague from Gatineau for the excellent speech she just gave. She did well to note the opportunistic aspect of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act.

Quite obviously, we must combat terrorism and take every measure to do so. However, Bill S-7 is not an appropriate response to the need to combat terrorism. It is important to explain this and point it out to our honourable Conservative colleagues. They believe this bill is a suitable response in the battle against terrorism, but it is not in fact an appropriate response.

Why is that? I will begin by stating the four goals of Bill S-7. I will then explain how very seriously the NDP did its work in committee. As always, NDP members do outstanding work in committee by proposing amendments and improvements based on expert testimony. It will be important to come back to this later in order to show that unfortunately, once again, the Conservatives have no respect for the work done in committee. They are interested only in quickly presenting their political agenda, and we end up with flawed legislation that we have no choice but to vote against.

Bill S-7 has four objectives: to amend the Criminal Code to authorize investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions; to amend the Canada Evidence Act to allow a judge to order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information concerning a trial or an accused, once the appeal period has expired; to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences for a person who leaves or attempts to leave Canada for the purpose of committing an act of terrorism; and lastly, to amend the Security of Information Act to increase the maximum penalties for harbouring any person who has committed, or is likely to commit, an act of terrorism.

It is important to note these four technical points, because they are at the heart of Bill S-7. As my hon. colleague from Gatineau also mentioned, this bill comes not from the House but from the Senate, which we are opposed to. As we know, the Senate is not an elected chamber. Moreover, we challenge its very legitimacy.

What does “recognizance with conditions” mean? Simply put, it means preventive arrest.

Preventive arrest is one of the main problems with the bill. Why? It goes against the most fundamental principles of freedom and human rights. As I already mentioned, we presented amendments in this regard in committee.

I will now name the great NDP members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security who examined this bill. There is the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca; the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan; the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead, who is often by my side; and the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

These MPs presented 18 amendments, some of which sought to determine the definition of a person who can be arrested. Can just anyone be arrested? For example, if an individual who protested the Keystone XL pipeline—a project that will generate millions of tonnes of additional greenhouse gases in North America—is arrested, will that person be treated as a potential terrorist?

These are questions we had. Yesterday, during his speech on Bill S-7, the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead clearly demonstrated the major problem with the current definition. As my colleague was saying, the definition is very broad. Who can be considered a terrorist? Is someone who listens to heavy metal or a rocker considered a terrorist?

There are no criteria, which does not make sense. Of course, the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead is a heavy metal fan. That is why he is concerned about these issues. Personally, I am an environmentalist and so I am concerned about environmental issues. Environmentalists have often been monitored for fear that they will become radicals.

These are areas of concern with regard to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The first question we must ask is this: are good criteria in place to ensure that people are not put under preventive arrest just because we do not like them?

The NDP proposed amendments. The colleagues I mentioned earlier proposed very relevant, balanced amendments based on expert testimony. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against these amendments. We will therefore vote against Bill S-7. Why? It is incomplete and unfair, and it is not consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with fundamental rights, such as human rights. That is why we will vote against the bill.

We will also vote against the bill because it is not needed for combating terrorism.

I will now get back to what I mentioned in my introduction. I think it is very important to combat terrorism. Everyone agrees on that. I want the Conservatives to understand that I absolutely think it is necessary to combat terrorism. However, we must find the proper ways to do so.

As my colleagues from Gatineau and Compton—Stanstead, and others, have said, we must ensure that the necessary resources are there. First, we need police resources, such as the RCMP. We must support the RCMP, which recently did an excellent job preventing an act of terrorism in Canada. I commend its members for their work and for their diligence in dealing with a tragic and dangerous phenomenon. I thank them.

What I want to say is that we must combat terrorism. To do so, we must provide the necessary tools: financial resources, human resources and the resources needed to work with all cultural communities. That is what will help us combat terrorism.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which I believe emphasizes what this debate should now be about: the protection of Canadians' and Quebeckers' civil liberties and the fact that the government is bringing back old provisions that were hastily introduced following the September 11 attacks and were never used.

From 2001 to 2007, those provisions that the Conservatives want to bring forward, which restricted our rights and freedoms, were never used. Furthermore, they were never useful. On the contrary, our police forces have the resources, capability and tools they need to protect Canadians' safety. I would like to hear what she has to say on that subject.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Only the NDP truly wants to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That much is obvious.

In my opinion, it is very disappointing to see that the Liberals will be supporting this bill, which will really have a negative impact on people’s rights in Canada. It is unbelievable.

When we look at this bill, we can already see what happened this week with VIA Rail. Laws are already in place for combatting the problem of terrorism. The tools are already there. There is no need to keep on creating a new one every time a critical situation arises. We have to look at what we have, how it can be improved, if necessary, and whether it is working. It is obvious that right now, it is working.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one aspect of the bill concerns me greatly, and I would like to know whether that concern is shared by my colleague. The Liberals wrap themselves in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet they are going to support a bill that is necessarily at odds with the charter, particularly when it comes to the part that says we can arrest someone even if we are not sure they are really associated with a terrorist group. There is not a judge in the Supreme Court who will say that there is no danger. It is impossible. There is an unbelievable contradiction.

The major consequence will have an impact on the security forces, who will have to live with completely twisted decisions. They will be wondering if such a thing has to be done, only to end up with a form of charge that is not possible. Doing this is going to put people in the security forces in an untenable position.

We are told that the Liberals are going to support it and that they have not thought about that. They do not want to make their new leader look too soft. They are going to take a decision that makes no sense. I would like to know whether my colleague shares these concerns.

[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.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Call in the members.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred until tomorrow, Wednesday, at the end of the time provided for government orders.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred.

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.

[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 divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #666

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)