This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment replaces sections 83.28 to 83.3 of the Criminal Code to provide for an investigative hearing for the purpose of gathering information for an investigation of a terrorism offence and to allow for the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person to prevent them from carrying out a terrorist activity. In addition, the enactment provides for those sections to cease to have effect or for the possible extension of their operation. The enactment also provides that the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness include in their respective annual reports their opinion on whether those sections should be extended. It also amends the Criminal Code to create offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit certain terrorism offences.
The enactment also amends the Canada Evidence Act to allow the Federal Court to order that applications to it with respect to the disclosure of sensitive or potentially injurious information be made public and to allow it to order that hearings related to those applications be heard in private. In addition, the enactment provides for the annual reporting on the operation of the provisions of that Act that relate to the issuance of certificates and fiats.
The enactment also amends the Security of Information Act to increase, in certain cases, the maximum penalty for harbouring a person who committed an offence under that Act.
Lastly, it makes technical amendments in response to a parliamentary review of these Acts.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her excellent speech. She touched on some extremely important points in this bill.
I noted several of the things she said, including her comment about the lack of respect the Conservatives have for Canadians by introducing a bill that will violate our fundamental rights.
Can the hon. member elaborate on the fundamental rights that are being totally violated with Bill S-7?
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
Today I rise alongside my colleagues, to speak against Bill S-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. The bill goes against the values of Canadians. It infringes upon civil liberties and human rights, a repeated theme among the actions of the government, I must add. It has measures that have been proven to be unnecessary and ineffective.
I would like to be clear. The New Democratic Party believes that it must seriously address the issue of terrorism. Keeping Canadians safe is of the utmost priority. However, we also must ensure respect for our rights and freedoms. The provisions in the bill fail to balance our need for security and our basic fundamental rights. Both are equally important to Canadians and espouse Canadian values.
Bill S-7 is the most recent iteration and measure of a series of anti-terrorism laws that began with Bill C-36, tabled in 2001. The Anti-Terrorism Act, tabled in 2001, was enacted to update Canadian legislation and respond to international standards, specifically the requirements of the United Nations, as well as to actually present a legislative response to the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
The provisions of the act remain in place today, except for two of the troubling provisions: the investigative hearings and the recognizance with conditions. The bill was adopted in response to a horrific event on September 11, 2001, which we all know too well. It left people in a state of panic and fear.
The excessive provisions in the act expired four years ago. A sunset clause was rightly added to these provisions back in 2001, with certain provisions to expire in 2007. This was following concerns that were raised during the legislative process in 2001 that these measures, without any precedent in Canada, could have been used inappropriately.
In order to extend these provisions, both Houses of Parliament must adopt a resolution to that effect. In February of 2007, when they expired, such a resolution was rejected by the House of Commons, with a vote of 159 to 124, because the controversial provisions had not even been used. We now have learned that there is no empirical evidence to support such legislation. When the provisions expired in 2007, there had been no investigative hearing and no situations that required a recognizance with conditions. Actually, I must add that the investigative hearing has been used once since it was created in 2001, as part of the Air India inquiry, but that led to no conclusive results.
New Democrats oppose the bill because it is ineffective in combatting terrorism. In a parliamentary review of the bill, committees heard over and over from stakeholders and experts that the current Canadian legislation was sufficient. It begs the question, why is the government choosing to ignore experts? We all know this will not be the first time that the government chooses to ignore experts in the field and writes erroneous legislation based on its own ideology.
The committee heard that the Criminal Code has sufficient provisions to investigate those involved in criminal activity and detaining anyone who might be an immediate threat to Canadians. In a 2011 review by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-17, the former version of Bill S-7, a spokesperson for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group said that between 2007 and today, police investigations have successfully dismantled terrorist plots without having to resort to any of the provisions discussed here. Also, even since 2001, or for 10 years, among the investigations leading to accusations or convictions, none required the use of these extraordinary powers, including the Khawaja case, the Toronto 18 case, or more recently, the case involving four people from the Toronto region.
In addition to the fact that the bill will be ineffective in combatting terrorism, I want to stress the point that Bill S-7 stomps on basic civil liberties and human rights.
Our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is fundamental to Canada and to Canadians. We cherish the charter. Yet over and over again, we see legislation from the government that tramples upon Canadian values.
What is even more alarming is that, as experts have indicated, this infringement on rights and freedoms is completely unnecessary and utterly ineffective. Yet, the government goes ahead anyway.
A spokesperson from the International Civil Liberals Monitoring Group said the use of arbitrary power and “a lower level of evidence” cannot replace the properly carried out work of the police. “On the contrary, these powers open the door to a denial of justice” and the substantial likelihood of ruining the reputation of innocent individuals, as was the case for Mr. Arar.
These kinds of decisions reveal a government that does not respect Canadians or Canadian values. We believe on this side of the House that Bill S-7 violates the most basic civil liberties and human rights, specifically the right to remain silent, the right to not incriminate oneself and the right to not be imprisoned without first having a fair trial.
Experts have warned that Bill S-7 would make it punishable by imprisonment for up to 12 months, or impose strict conditions on the release of individuals who have never been charged with a criminal offence. We believe this goes against the core values of our Canadian justice system.
Moreover, the provisions in the bill could be used to target individuals participating in activities, such as active protest, dissent, which has absolutely nothing to do with the reasonable definition of terrorism.
Canadians take their rights and responsibilities to protest to heart and use them to make their voices heard. The arbitrary nature of the provisions in the bill could certainly lead to an abuse of power, and we have seen that happen many times by the government.
Canadians would not be better protected by legislation that infringes upon their rights and freedoms, but rather they will be better protected with intelligence efforts and appropriate police action.
Canadians are tired of seeing actions and legislation that show such a lack of respect for our Canadian values. Let me conclude by reminding the members opposite that actions and legislation that show such a lack of respect for Canadian values creates a disconnect between policy-makers and the needs of the people they represent.
The Criminal Code contains all of the provisions necessary to fight terrorism. Yet here we are, discussing a bill that shamefully infringes on our civil liberties and human rights.
Sadly, the bill is yet another example of the government missing the mark on writing sound legislation. The bill, as it stands, has no balance between the need for security and the protection of the fundamental rights of Canadians. Therefore, I cannot support the bill.
As many experts in the field have said, it is quite unnecessary and full of holes. It introduces concepts that are foreign to our Canadian values and it risks causing many more problems than those that it actually solves.
Canadians expect the government to prioritize tangible job creation in our communities across the country, measurable environment protection and real action for community safety, not the infringement of our basic human rights and freedoms.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his question.
In my opinion, the government is not on the right track. Once again, the government wants to crack down. The Conservatives are introducing bills in the House to solve problems that, frankly, do not actually seem to exist.
I would like to remind members that when this bill was debated in the Senate before it arrived in the House, the testimony showed that there were no examples of actual cases where this legislation could have been used. Let us think about the Toronto 18. In that case, the measures already set out in the Criminal Code were more than sufficient to deal with the situation, this dreaded risk of terrorism.
Since then, we have seen that the existing and available laws in this country are completely sufficient. Is the government on the right track with Bill S-7?
It seems that the government is selling a product to Canadians. It is trying to lead Canadians to believe that they should be afraid, that they should hide and that only the Government of Canada can defend them. That is not the case.
We already have before us all the tools we need—tools that were debated in minority parliaments and agreed upon by all the parties across Canada. It is really unfortunate to be in a position where a single party is trying to run everything, because that leads to absurd measures such as Bill S-7, which, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.
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 second time and referred to a committee.
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 second time and referred to a committee.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill S-7, which originated in the Senate. I have a question. Why did it originate in the Senate and not in the House of Commons? The Senate is less democratically elected than the House of Commons. It is very important that it is the representatives of the public, not the people appointed by the Prime Minister, who debate these important bills.
Bill S-7 has four main objectives, which I will summarize here. First, it amends the Criminal Code in order to provide for investigative hearings and to allow for the imposition of a recognizance with conditions—the so-called preventive arrest; second, it amends 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 amends the Criminal Code to create new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit a terrorist act; and fourth, it amends 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.
Again, the government is cracking down on imaginary terrorists. In 2001, the Chrétien government had similar provisions passed in the House. None of those provisions have been in effect since December 31, 2006. Since then, given the very small number of terrorist acts or presumed terrorists acts in Canada, the laws that were in effect between 2001 and 2006 have not been necessary.
Why was this bill introduced in the Senate? What motivated the government to introduce it? Let us not forget that it was the government that introduced this bill in the Senate. It was not a senator who did this on his or her own initiative. It was truly the government that introduced it and that is telling us that it is important.
What is motivating the government? What exactly should we be cracking down on? This bill will have serious repercussions for human rights in Canada. Canada has always been a world leader when it comes to human rights. They are enshrined in our Constitution.
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for his brilliant speech, in which he pointed out that the NDP supports the fight against terrorism and that Bill S-7 gives Canadians a false sense of security.
The bill does not provide police and intelligence services with the resources they need. We have the legal tools needed—in international treaties and the Criminal Code, for instance—to combat illegal terrorism activities.
What stood out for me was when my distinguished colleague said that the Conservative Party had spent $92 billion and had therefore poorly managed this project. Furthermore, in terms of people's quality of life, it completely ignored any notion of respecting human rights.
This bill acts as a smoke screen and avoids talking about the real problems. As for quality of life, Canadians care a great deal about their health and safety. Canadians want a national energy strategy and a national transit strategy. These are priorities and they would help tackle the real problems that the Conservative government refuses to talk about.
My questions, therefore, are as follows: will Bill S-7 take away the freedom of expression of Canadians who wish to demonstrate or engage in acts of dissent that have nothing to do with terrorism? Will it eventually lead to social profiling or labeling someone an environmental extremist for asserting their rights?
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her very comprehensive overview of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. She has given us a very good history on why this bill is so problematic.
I was actually in the House in 2001 when the original anti-terrorism bill was passed. It is correct that there were the sunset clauses concerning preventative arrest and interrogation. Those were put in because they were such serious elements in that bill. That bill was rushed through. I really appreciate the comments the member made today about why this bill should not be supported.
One of the concerns that we in the NDP have is that every response by the Conservative government is a legislative response, such as new legislation, new clauses to the Criminal Code, as opposed to relying on what we believe is the Criminal Code that already has existing provisions and the fact that we should also be relying on and supporting resources for intelligence efforts and appropriate police action, not a new legislative agenda.
I wonder if the member might comment on that in terms of where we are now with this bill and the fact that we do not actually need new clauses, that the existing Criminal Code is sufficient, and that we should be supporting intelligence resources and law enforcement action as something that is more appropriate to this situation.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. I want to state at the outset that New Democrats will be opposing the bill.
Since 2001, we have had an opportunity to revise the bill, which was adopted in reaction to a particular event that sent people into a state of panic. We have learned that there is actually no evidence to support such legislation. When these provisions expired in 2007, we found that there had been no investigative hearing and no situation that required a recognizance with conditions. Since 2007, the investigative hearing has only been used once as part of the Air India inquiry, but that led to no conclusive results. I am going to talk more about that later.
Bill S-7 has four objectives. The first is to amend the Criminal Code to authorize investigative hearings and authorize the imposition of the recognizance with conditions or preventative arrest. Second is to amend the Canada Evidence Act to allow judges to order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information on a trial or an accused, once the appeal period has ended. The third is to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences for those who have left the country or tried to leave the country to commit a terrorist act, and finally, to amend the security of information to increase maximum sentences incurred for harbouring a person who committed or intended to commit a terrorist act.
I am going to focus on the investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions. I want to give some context here. New Democrats oppose the bill because it is an ineffective way of combatting terrorism and because it is an unnecessary and inappropriate infringement on Canadians' civil liberties. New Democrats believe that Bill S-7 violates the most basic civil liberties and human rights, specifically the right to remain silent and the right not to be imprisoned without first having a fair trial.
According to these principles, the power of the state should never be used against an individual to force a person to testify against himself or herself. However, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutionality of hearings. We believe that the Criminal Code already contains the necessary provisions for investigating those who are involved in criminal activity and for detaining anyone who may present an immediate threat to Canadians.
We believe that terrorism should not be fought with legislative measures, but rather with intelligence efforts and appropriate police action. In that context one must ensure that the intelligence services and the police forces have the appropriate resources to do their jobs.
I want to quote from Denis Barrette, a spokesperson from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, at the review by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on former Bill C-17, which was an earlier version of Bill S-7. Mr. Barrette said:
—the provisions dealing with investigative hearings and preventative arrests, which are intended to impose recognizances with conditions, are both dangerous and misleading. Debate in Parliament on these issues must draw on a rational and enlightened review of the anti-terrorism law. As we know, that legislation was rushed through Parliament after 9/11 in a climate of fear and under very considerable pressure from the United States....
At this point in time, what is the real objective need for these two provisions? From the time of their introduction in 2001 until their repeal in 2007, the only time they were used was in relation to the Air India case which, as you all know turned out, sadly, to be a total fiasco.
Since 2007, police investigations have succeeded in dismantling terrorist conspiracies using neither one of the provisions we are talking about today. Furthermore, since 2001—in other words, in the last 10 years—none of the investigations that resulted in charges or convictions required the use of these extraordinary powers, whether we're talking about the Khawaja affair, the Toronto 18 or, more recently, the four individuals in the Toronto region....
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. On the contrary, these powers open the door to a denial of justice and a greater probability that the reputation of innocent individuals...will be tarnished.
There are a number of concerns that have been raised with particular aspects of the legislation. It is important to note that sometimes it also gives Canadians a false sense of security. Again, what we need is appropriate resources to ensure that these activities are monitored and prosecuted where appropriate.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada on national security from 2002.
The Supreme Court stated:
On the one hand stands the manifest evil of terrorism and the random and arbitrary taking of innocent lives, rippling out in an ever-widening spiral of loss and fear. Governments, expressing the will of the governed, need the legal tools to...meet this challenge.
It goes on to say, however:
On the other hand stands the need to ensure that those legal tools do not undermine values that are fundamental to our democratic society — liberty, the rule of law, and the principles of fundamental justice — values that lie at the heart of the Canadian constitutional order and the international instruments that Canada has signed. In the end, it would be a Pyrrhic victory if terrorism were defeated at the cost of sacrificing our commitment to those values. Parliament’s challenge is to draft laws that effectively combat terrorism and conform to the requirements of our Constitution and our international commitments.
Again, I think it is important that we balance the safety of Canadians and the need for Canada to play its role in combatting terrorism, domestically and internationally, with those civil liberty rights.
In an op-ed referring to Canada and 9/11, which was originally published on September 6, 2011, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association stated:
Prior to the attacks, we demonstrated a high level of commitment to certain core values -- rule of law, due process, equality, habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, and the absolute prohibition against torture. These values lay at the heart of our Constitutional and international law obligations.
We knew, from contemporary history, that the absence of such legal protections resulted in societies where exceptional measures became the norm. Such societies could devolve into accepting presumptions of guilt, secret trials, secret evidence, extrajudicial execution, arbitrary detention, torture, even ethnic cleansing and massacres. To prevent such devolution, Canadians knew that any incursion into civil liberties must be legally and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society; unjustifiable incursions must be remedied.
It goes on to do an analysis about whether or not we, in Canada, can make that same claim today, and I will only read the sections that are actually applicable to this act. It states:
Our national security actions since 9/11 require our attention:
It talks about a number of things, including Afghan detainees and using immigrant and administrative processes and counter-terror initiatives.
However, the piece that I want to highlight is:
Canada seeks to re-introduce post 9/11 amendments to our Criminal Code that will enable interrogation and preventive detention without criminal charge. Civil liberties concerns include the undermining of due process, fair trial, and lower evidentiary thresholds to trigger proceedings.
These concerns are being raised on a number of fronts about the lack of due process.
Later on in its article, it acknowledges that:
...Canada has not taken the extreme legislative or administrative measures seen in other countries, including the United States, following 9/11.
However, it goes on to state:
But we have not always got it right. And when we fail to take timely action to provide accountability, transparency, and redress, we risk morphing from a state anchored on the rule of law and democratic guarantees, to a state that condones illegal actions and disregards human dignity.
Terrorists have little regard for human dignity, human life, human rights, or the rule of law. We cannot effectively fight terrorism and protect our national security if we operate from a paradigm that also disregards these objectives. If, as Canadians, we no longer shrink from the injustices of wrongful conviction; torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; racial profiling; arbitrary detention; impunity; then what exactly are we protecting?
I think that is a very good question, one that we need to ask ourselves as parliamentarians and as Canadians. I think that most Canadians would want to continue saying that we in Canada do protect those civil liberties, that right to due process.
I want to put into context where the Conservative government has missed an opportunity because the review of the Anti-terrorism Act was conducted over a number of years. Someone who did the analysis on it pointed out that the review that was supposed to happen at three years became the three-year review.
In 2007, the subcommittee on the review of the Anti-terrorism Act submitted a report. I want to quote from the minority report that was put forward by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I do not have time to read the whole report but many Canadians probably have not read that report and I just want to highlight a couple of the points that come back to the challenges we are facing with this bill before us.
In that report, the members noted:
Terrorism cannot be fought with legislation; it must be fought through the efforts of intelligence services combined with appropriate police action.
There is no act of terrorism that is not already a criminal offence punishable by the most stringent penalties under the Criminal Code. This is obviously the case for pre-meditated, cold-blooded murders; however, it is also true of the destruction of major infrastructures.
Moreover, when judges exercise their discretion during sentencing, they will consider the terrorists’ motive as an aggravating factor. They will find that the potential for rehabilitation is very low, that the risk of recidivism is very high and that deterrence and denunciation are grounds for stiffer sentencing. This is what they have always done in the past and there is no reason to think they will do differently in the future.
We must also consider that, when it comes to terrorism, deterrence has limitations. First, it will have very little impact on someone considering a suicide bombing. Second, those who decide to join a terrorist group generally believe that they are taking part in an historic movement that will have a triumphant outcome in the near future and that will see them emerge as heroes.
Therefore, one cannot expect that new legislation will provide the tools needed to effectively fight terrorism.
Legislation can, however, be amended if police do not seem to have the legal means needed to deal with the new threat of terrorism.
Consequently we must ensure that the proposed measure does not unduly disturb the balance that must exist between respect for the values of fairness, justice and respect for human rights, which are characteristic of our societies, while also ensuring better protection for Canadians and for the entire world community.
This is an important point. We have had the Supreme Court point this out and we have had civil liberties organizations point this out. It is the continuing need to balance the right to protect Canadians in terms of due process with our role domestically and on the world stage.
This dissenting report goes on to say that the Criminal Code already contains this solid arsenal of provisions for combatting terrorism. The Anti-terrorism Act has simply added two more that no police force has yet seen the need to use. Further in the report, it states:
But the ATA is also dangerous, because it is a frontal attack on a number of fundamental principles that underpin our system of law, the system that distinguishes us most sharply from the ideology motivating the terrorists who confront us.
The report continues:
The Civil Liberties Union and the Canadian Association of University Teachers drew up a long list of such principles, including: the presumption of innocence; the right to privacy and to be secure against searches and any kind of invasion of privacy; the right not to be stopped, questioned, arrested or detained based on mere suspicion or on racial, religious or ethnic profiling; the right of every individual to a public, just and fair trial, and the right to appeal; the right to make full answer and defence; the right to be secure against arbitrary imprisonment and torture; the right to bail while awaiting trial, and to have the validity of detention reviewed by way of habeas corpus; the right of asylum; the right to information and to freedom of the press.
We must also learn from our overreactions in the past when faced with danger. As the danger recedes, we feel obligated to compensate the innocent victims of useless measures taken out of fright.
Not only did these measures do nothing to increase our security, but we devoted a great deal of energy to them that could have been better employed in fighting the real danger more effectively.
Sadly, Canada does have a history of reacting to something that ended up not being a threat to Canadians' security at all. The report cites:
One example is the way we treated Canadians of Japanese origin during the Second World War. In 1942, 22,000 people of Japanese origin were arrested and detained, and their property confiscated. 75% of them had been born in Canada. And yet, government documents finally made public in 1970 revealed that both the Department of National Defence and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were convinced that Japanese-Canadians in no way threatened the country’s security.
I want to repeat that. It states, “...in no way threatened the country's security”. As a result of that, of course, the federal government eventually made an official apology and some financial restitution and put some money toward creating educational, social and cultural programs and activities.
However, it is an example of a response to a frightening world situation that unjustly penalized many Canadians.
During the First World War, some 5,000 Ukrainians were interned and 80,000 others were required to report regularly to the police. A number were forced to endure harsh living and working conditions and more than a hundred died during their internment.
There are other examples of how Canada has behaved in a way that many of us would argue did not respect due process and the liberties that many men and women in this country have fought so hard for.
Later in the report, it states:
Respect for our values is an important element in the war against terrorism. At the plenary closing session of the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security in Madrid on March 10, 2005, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan declared once again, “[T]errorism is a threat to all states, to all peoples.” He added,
[Terrorism] is a direct attack on the core values the United Nations stands for: the rule of law; the protection of civilians; mutual respect between people of different faiths and cultures; and peaceful resolution of conflicts.
But he then went on to say,
[T]errorism is in itself a direct attack on human rights and the rule of law. If we sacrifice them in our response, we will be handing victory to the terrorists… I regret to say that international human rights experts, including those of the UN system, are unanimous in finding that many measures which States are currently adopting to counter terrorism infringe on human rights and fundamental freedoms… Upholding human rights is not merely compatible with successful counter-terrorism strategy. It is an essential element.
In the conclusion of the report, one of the things that was recommended was a parliamentary oversight committee. This report was back in 2007. It states:
Canada is unique among western nations in its lack of a Security oversight committee. Over the course of the review we heard testimony from individuals and organizations who stressed the importance of creating a mechanism for overseeing disparate national security activities. In 2004 an Interim Committee of Parliamentarians on National Security was set up to make recommendations to the government of the day, it presented a report to Parliament in April of 2005 and on November 24, 2005, the government tabled a bill (C-81) to establish a National Security Committee of Parliamentarians.
This dissenting report goes on to say:
We would support recommendation 58 in the majority report. We would, however, further strengthen the recommendation to ensure that any Committee has authority to oversee all security agencies. In the examination of the Air India tragedy and the events surrounding the deportation and torture of Maher Arar, to cite but two examples, we have seen and heard of too many problems created when information is improperly shared or withheld from one agency to another.
The National Security Committee must in addition to providing a review function, be empowered to oversee current polices and conduct to ensure their adequacies. We have throughout the course of the review heard that vast amounts of information are deemed of national security interest and therefore inaccessible to the public or judiciary. Therefore, the proposed National Security Committee must be able to examine this information and where appropriate provide a graduated scale for the release of previously classified information.
Of course, over the years we have increasingly seen a government that withholds information. This is not part of this bill, but we recently we saw a very public feud between the government and the Parliamentary Budget Officer because of the government's refusal to release information and there were threats of court action in order to get information that the Parliamentary Budget Officer needs to do his job.
The same can be said to be true of many of the government departments. One almost needs a full battery of people working on access to information and analysis of the different ways this information is presented because when information is available, it is not presented in such a way that it is easily understandable and many times there are huge difficulties even accessing information which should rightfully be available to parliamentarians in order for them to do due diligence in doing their jobs.
This minority report went on to make a couple of recommendations. I will not read them all, but it states in part:
While the purpose of the ATA review was to examine the existing legislation and, while we cannot write an entirely new law, we would recommend that the existing ATA be terminated. However, if a new law were to be drafted, the following considerations should guide the process:
That new legislation seek to provide the utmost protection to, and not oppression of, our citizens;
That the new legislation be guided by the spirit and principles of the Charter;
That new legislation would prohibit “evidence” garnered from torture domestic or international, in our courts or tribunal;
That there be an absolute ban on sending people back to their country of origin or any other country where there is a reasonable risk of torture or death.
The reason I raised that report from 2007 in the context of the legislation that is now before us, Bill S-7, is that we can see that Bill S-7 largely disregards some of the recommendations that were made, principally around due process. We have a re-introduction of the clauses that were sunsetted around preventative detention and investigative hearings.
It is on those grounds that the New Democrats will be opposing the legislation.
The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the motion that Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Business of the HouseOral Questions
October 18th, 2012 / 3:15 p.m.
See
context
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I would have been quite happy to have consented to the motion had the member not included in it a provision for an additional opposition day. Had the member decided to conclude that NDP was prepared, since its subject for today was food safety, to make the balance of the day the debate on Bill S-11 and then have it proceed to committee, we would have been quite delighted to consent.
In terms of his suggestions on the budget bill, I am looking forward to meeting with him and discussing with him what opportunities might exist there further.
Earlier today, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.
This important piece of legislation will bolster Canada’s economy and help improve communities with initiatives that build a strong economy and create jobs, support families and communities, promote clean energy and enhance neutrality of the tax system, and respect taxpayers’ dollars.
We will start second reading debate of Bill C-45 on Wednesday—once honourable members have had a chance to review the bill and discuss it at next week’s caucus meetings. The debate will continue on Thursday and Friday.
I genuinely hope all members will take advantage of the budget bill study week that is available to review the valuable measures that are set out as the second half of our legislative arm of our comprehensive economic action plan 2012. One highlight of the study week will be a briefing arranged by the minister for all hon. members on Monday evening. I hope many MPs can attend, and certainly more than the paltry attendance of opposition members that appeared this spring for the briefing on Bill C-38.
I look forward to a vigorous policy debate on the economy and not on procedural games.
I turn now to the business of the House leading up to Wednesday.
This afternoon we will see the conclusion of the NDP's opposition day. Regrettably, I was personally disappointed that the official opposition did not answer my call last week to lay out the details of its $21.5 billion carbon tax and how it would raise the price of gas, groceries and electricity. Though, I was encouraged that this week in question period the New Democrats actually did acknowledge the subject and raised it.
Tomorrow and Monday will see us resume second reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. I understand we should finish that debate sometime on Monday, at which that time we will then turn to Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.
On Tuesday, we will debate the second reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, unless we find some other approach that would allow us to move on a more urgent basis. Since we did not get unanimous consent to move it forward quickly, we are hopeful there will be some other approach that can be agreed upon to move quickly with it. We hope that if we do debate it that day, we will be able to deal with it quickly and then spend the balance of that day debating Bill C-15 and Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act.
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill S-7, a bill designed to violate the civil and human rights of Canadians, a bill to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act to allow a Canadian to be arrested without a warrant, imprisoned without having a fair trial and imprisoned for up to 12 months without even being charged with a criminal offence.
These fundamental changes were brought in by the Liberal government of the time in 2001, immediately after September 11. At that time, it was not a public policy discussion; it was a crisis management tool. Some of the provisions of the bill expired in February 2007 and, at that time, the NDP led the opposition to the renewal of these clauses and opposed the extension of the provisions. We were very proud to stand for human rights. It is unfortunate to see that through the Senate this bill is now back in front of us.
I remind people that there is a lot to learn from history. Maher Arar, a Canadian, was arrested without a warrant and was imprisoned without a fair trial. He was never charged. There was never a criminal offence. He did not do anything wrong. It was during that unfortunate period that he was not only sent to be tortured, but he was imprisoned in a coffin-like box for almost a year and eventually freed. During the O'Connor commission inquiry, there was a great deal of talk about the kinds of human rights violations against Maher Arar.
What we have in front of us is a bill that unfortunately would take away a tremendous amount of rights from an individual. We can have a secure country without having to violate the civil and human rights of individuals. We do not have to give up those rights.
The provisions in the amendments of the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act had been deleted since February 2007. The police from that time to now never saw the need to use any of the provisions. Also, no investigations needed to use them.
Many things have occurred, as my colleagues have talked about, such as the case of the Toronto 18 and the more recent case involving four people from the Toronto region, the bomb situation. In none of those situations did the police have to use any of these provisions. People did not have to be put in jail without charges or arrested without a warrant.
In many ways we actually do not need to do anything because police investigations have successfully dismantled terrorist plots all of those times. Why are we particularly concerned? It is because we have seen instances where some sectors of the community, especially the Muslim community, have been subjected to some of the unfortunate discriminatory measures.
The executive director of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, Ihsaan Gardee, talked about arresting people without any charges or warrants and stated that these kinds of measures posed a significant risk to the abuse of the powers conferred to the state. For an example, he said the ability to detain a person for 72 hours, compromising civil liberties when faced with a potential danger which has not yet happened, only dissolves the boundaries between civil rights and concrete national security concerns.
He went on to say that the council believes that the provisions already contained in the Criminal Code are more than enough to allow the policing authorities and courts to prevent terrorism-related offences before they are committed. He said that according to article 495, a person detained for reasonable motives must appear before a judge who can impose the same conditions as the proposed anti-terrorism measures. He then said that the judge can even refuse bail if he or she believe that the liberation of the person concerned constitutes a danger to the public.
In his opinion, the experience of the last 10 years has shown that Canada's Muslim communities would be disproportionately affected by the abandonment of civil liberties. It is even less clear how the distinction would be made in practice between acts linked to terrorism and other criminal acts. For example, the recent fire bomb attack incident in Ottawa against a Royal Bank branch before the G20 summit was treated as a criminal act of arson and no charges were laid under the anti-terrorism provision, et cetera.
The president of the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association of Toronto, Ziyaad Mia, and Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said that, in their opinions, the bill should not move forward, that it is unnecessary, that it does not offer any solutions and that there are substantial problems.
A very renowned lawyer, Paul Copeland, who is actually in the Order of Canada now, said that the provisions being examined or that were being debating would unnecessarily change the legal landscape in Canada. He said that we must not adopt them and that, in his opinion, they were not necessary. This man who has practised criminal law for at least 30 years. He went on to say that other provisions of the code provide various mechanisms for dealing with such individuals.
The Canadian Islamic Congress said that removing people's rights was problematic because some people may have legitimate concerns about themselves but know that if they speak out their family members overseas may suffer persecution. We have heard from many legal experts who have said that we are already very well protected under the Criminal Code. If we were not, how were the police able to solve a lot of the problems before they occurred.
They talked about having close working relationships with communities. Good policing means community based policing. When various activists or people who are very engaged in their communities hear of problems or notice suspicious things, if they trust the police because of a close working relationships with them, they very likely will talk to the police and deal with the problem before it happens. That kind of good, community based policing is what ultimately led to destroying the terrorism plot.
I also want to talk about security at the border. I have noticed there has been a recent massive layoff of people who keep our borders secure. It is not just the Canadian Border Service Agency that has suffered layoffs. As a result of the Conservative government cutting back millions of dollars to CATSA, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, we have seen massive layoffs of airport screeners. When we go through the security gate at airports, these are the people who help screen people to ensure they are not carrying objects that are dangerous and keep both our airlines and air travellers safe. A few months ago, 300 people were laid off in Toronto and a few hundred have just received their notice in the last few days. Therefore, we will have fewer people in the biggest and busiest airport in Canada.
The government says that it does not have enough money, which is why it has to lay off people who keep us safe and secure. However, the government has continued to charge significant fees for the air travellers security charge, which increased in April 2010. If individuals come on an international flight from other countries, they will be charged $25.91. For a domestic round trip it is close to $15. In this year alone the federal government has taken in $658 million in revenue from these so-called air travellers security funds. The government is actually making money from these fees to keep us safe but it is not putting that money into border airport screeners.
On one hand, we are losing jobs at a time when we need to create jobs. On the other hand, we have a bill before us that is supposed to keep us secure but, in actuality, as all the legal experts have said, the bill is not necessary because the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act already have the provisions.
The other concern with the bill is that it could be invoked to target individuals participating in activities, such as acts of protest or of dissent, which have nothing to do with a reasonable definition of terrorism.
I do not need me to remind members about what happened at the G20 Summit in Toronto. There were a series of human rights violations. People were arrested and some of them were not allowed to speak to lawyers. They were put into a detainment area where their human rights were violated. In some cases, women had to go to the washroom in public and they were humiliated. There were assaults that led to different charges against the police.
Various inquiries and studies have shown that sometimes, if the state feels it has the power to dominate, people's human rights can be violated, as we saw, unfortunately, during the G20 Summit protests in Toronto. In that case, it was partially because the Conservative government did not give the City of Toronto and the police enough time to prepare for security measures. The summit was imposed on the city even though the mayor at the time felt that having that kind of event in downtown Toronto was a huge problem. Unfortunately, the Conservative government did not listen to those concerns.
There are provisions in the bill that could be invoked to target individuals who want to express their dissent to existing policies, and there are other problematic areas.
For example, the institute released a report claiming that the various branches of government involved in the fight against terrorism in Canada received $19 billion more than what they would have normally received, or $69 billion with inflation. However, Bill S-7 is not clear on the financial costs to reactivate these measures. It is not clear how much it would cost taxpayers. This is at a time when CBSA officers are being laid-off. These measures expired four years ago. Why is this necessary since nothing much has changed from 2001?
I also want to mention some very serious studies that I would encourage my colleagues who are supporting the bill to read. An in-depth study presented to the Canadian Human Rights Commission talked about why this anti-terrorism bill was unnecessary. It quoted many legal experts from when it was Bill C-36. Reports from the Department of Justice also state the problems with the bill.
I urge my colleagues on the opposite side to not support Bill S-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. If I understand correctly, Bill S-7 will leave the door wide open to injustices. It will tarnish our international reputation, which has already been battered by this government.
Can the hon. member tell us what values unite us as Canadians? She said that we fought for these rights. I should know, because I am a member of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. I know that many countries do not have a charter of rights and freedoms like the one we have in Canada.
Can the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île tell us what unites us as a people? Will Bill S-7 divide us rather than bring us together?
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do not accept the fact that government members are telling me to be quiet while I am giving my speech. I was elected, and I have the right to speak in the House.
The battle against terrorism cannot be conducted by means of legislative measures, but rather through intelligence and appropriate police action.
There is no need to pass Bill S-7; the Criminal Code already provides all the tools that are needed, and it contains provisions to combat terrorism. I have a serious problem with establishing a system that forces people to incriminate themselves. Contrary to the recommendations of the Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act, witnesses clearly told the Senate committee that there were major problems in terms of the protection of children.
There is Bill C-10 and criminal justice for minors, the status of aboriginal children, and poverty among immigrant children: we have been singled out and criticized repeatedly for our violations of children's rights. Once again, the government should be ashamed to have been singled out as a democratic industrialized country that violates children's rights. And yet again, the government would like to pass legislation that would violate the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is shameful. The government members should be ashamed to be smiling as I remind them that they are violating children's rights.
It is also noteworthy that since 2001, over 10 years ago, none of the investigations that have led to charges or convictions has required the use of these extraordinary powers. There is still doubt about how, for example, a distinction could be made in practice between a terrorist act and other offences. For example, the incendiary bomb at the G20 in Ottawa was treated as a criminal offence and not an act of terrorism. The Criminal Code can handle such acts very well.
Bill S-7 would make people with no criminal charges against them liable to imprisonment for up to 12 months or subject to strict release conditions, and the NDP believes that this contravenes the fundamental values of our justice system. That the provisions were only ever invoked once, and the only time they were invoked it was a total fiasco, illustrates that the police have the tools they need to combat terrorism with existing procedures, without any risk to our civil liberties or justice. The provisions of this bill could be invoked to target dissidents or people involved in demonstrations.
I see a trend here. The Conservatives want to prevent people from protesting. I remind members that the right of association is a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is not the first time that the government has tried to restrict our fundamental freedoms and civil liberties. I remind them that the Canada they love so much was created with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and they should be ashamed of trying to take away the freedoms that people fought for.
This legislation shows a lack of balance between security and fundamental rights, and the New Democratic Party cannot vote for such a bill. We must give serious thought to the issue of terrorism, but we must also protect our rights and freedoms.
I would like to conclude my speech by saying that this bill shows a flagrant lack of respect for Canadian values. This is an ideological bill that threatens Canadians and their freedoms. The Criminal Code already contains all of the provisions needed to fight terrorism, and the government should be ashamed of trying to take away our civil liberties to further its own ideological and political agenda.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech on Bill S-7, I would like to say something. Given that the government considers this bill so important and so significant, I think it is a shame that I find myself once again this week making a speech about it. On Monday, I spoke about Bill S-9. Both of these bills were introduced by the Senate.
I was elected on May 2, 2011, in a democratic electoral system. I was not appointed to a seat on an honorary basis just because I was a close friend to the Conservatives. Ministers should spend less time discussing bills before Senate committees and spend more time reporting to House of Commons committees and providing evidence to duly elected members.
We are opposed to Bill S-7. I would like to tell the government that, instead of getting the so-called other chamber to pass its bills, it should do so itself. If terrorism is so important to the government, why does the Senate have to take the lead after several years and introduce Bill S-9?
The government always says that talking is all well and good, but it is taking action. That is not true, because obviously the Senate is doing the government's work. Either the government does not want to admit that its resources are inadequate, or its priorities are different than it says, for instance, in terms of Canadians’ security.
Bill S-9 deals with food safety. According to the Minister of Agriculture, food safety is one of the government's priorities. If food safety is a priority for the government, why did the Senate have to draft the bill?
I would like to know why the government does not face up to its responsibilities instead of letting the Senate do all the work.
I would now like to begin my speech on Bill S-7, which concerns the important issue of terrorism.
Nowadays, people will cry terrorism at the slightest provocation, but the concept remains vague. It is used quite frequently to create a climate of insecurity. In fact, it is meant to create a climate of fear. As I said yesterday, the Conservatives have often used the concept of terrorism whenever they felt like it to justify the policies or decisions they made that were criticized by the public. The concept of terrorism creates fear, and more fear; it is a vicious circle. This is exactly what Bill S-7 does; it nurtures a climate of fear. It is a rather twisted approach and a concept that remains vague and is meant to make us believe that our rights and freedoms are much better served if they are taken away from us.
Moreover, I would like to point out that these provisions expired four years ago. We have not required these provisions over the past four years. Why bring them back now? They have expired but, when it comes to priorities, the government is well known for making flagrant errors in judgment.
Let us be clear: nobody in the House, especially in the official opposition, supports terrorism. We understand the importance of keeping Canadians safe, and it is one of our top priorities. What we are criticizing here are the provisions contained in Bill S-7. We are critical of this bill's failure to strike any balance whatsoever between two equally important concepts: security and fundamental rights.
The government constantly engages in petty partisan politics by pitting two important notions against each other in order to create confusion in the minds of Canadians and force them to choose between two principles: fundamental rights and security. Yet, this government should guarantee both these principles.
The two principles are at the very heart of our democratic society. The government should ensure that they are upheld without putting one ahead of the other.
The NDP believes that it is important to take strong action against terrorism while also, as I said, respecting the rights and freedoms that are at the heart of our society, our system of justice and our democracy.
In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, the Government of Canada responded, as it believed it should, and under extreme pressure from the United States, to what was an exceptional event. The legislation that was passed, although very strong, contained sunset clauses—and for good reason.
In the days and months that followed the attacks of September 11, the United States, with George W. Bush at the helm, declared war on terror. What I wish to stress here is that changes were made to some civil rights in the name of the war on terror, such as indefinite detention for presumed threats to national security, the creation of prisons, and even the legalization of torture, all shameful examples of the failure to respect fundamental human rights.
For example, the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war sets out fundamental rights. Omar Khadr is a case in point. He was imprisoned in Guantanamo as a mere teenager, which flies in the face of international law.
Canada's involvement in international conventions should never, under any circumstance, be taken lightly. It is very easy to forget our international obligations when the government chooses to do so. Child soldiers should never be imprisoned. This is an internationally recognized principle that Canada should stand up for, without exception.
Canada's involvement in this regard helps to combat terrorism while at the same time assisting in the eradication of child soldiers. Two such fundamental principles should never be pitted against each other. We have a charter of rights and freedoms. The United States may have a point of view that is different from ours, but here in Canada, our rights and values should prevail over any outside decision or influence. That is why it is important not to succumb to Orwellian paranoia, like our neighbour to the south.
The provisions regarding preventive arrest and interrogation techniques were subject to a sunset clause and expired in 2007. It is now 2012. These provisions were included in the Criminal Code for good reason. The balance between the need for security and civil rights is essential. We do not need others to tell us what standards we want to adopt, particularly when those standards infringe on our fundamental freedoms.
The NDP is of the opinion that Bill S-7 violates civil liberties and the most fundamental rights, particularly the right to remain silent and the right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial. I would like to remind the House of this.
Perhaps, over the past few years, the government members have forgotten to read our magnificent Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I strongly advise them to do so just to refresh their memories with regard to our values, the values upon which the Canada they hold so dear is built. The weight of the state should never be used against an individual to force him to testify against himself. Self-incrimination is internationally recognized as an illegal and undemocratic principle.
The Criminal Code contains the provisions required to investigate people who engage in criminal activity and to detain anyone who may pose an immediate threat to Canadians.