Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act Committee on June 21st, 2006

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, again, it's not my area of expertise--

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

You have two officials here.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

--but subsection 83.18(1) states, for example, that

Every one who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out

--I would say that's very close to “undertake”--

a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence

Then as to the specific offences, such as setting off a bomb, or even the conspiracy aspect, I would suggest--

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Sorry, Minister, but wouldn't it be very simple to say that the commission of a terrorist activity is illegal?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I believe it does say that.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Where? It doesn't say that. The definition of a terrorist offence is specifically stated, and there are specific sections mentioned, with specific offences. I just find it curious that we can't find a very simple, clear statement in the act that to commit a terrorist activity is an offence.

There's “facilitate” this, and “move” this, and “check on” that, and “look after” that, but--

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let me repeat this--and I know that the headings are of no legal force or effect--under “Participating, Facilitating, Instructing and Harbouring” it says: “ Every one who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly, any activity...”. So you're contributing indirectly to an activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing its ability to facilitate. We're getting about as close to being as broad as you can possibly be, and we're spreading a net without being uncertain.

It's a complaint I often express about the law--why can't the law be a little clearer? The problem is that after many years of courts interpreting sections, to simply put down “undertake” may confuse things rather than help things. As difficult as that is for most of us to understand, the more you try to simplify it, the more confusing it often becomes. So you end up with sections like this.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Allow me to give you another example, Minister, and that's section 83.23. This involves harbouring. According to this rather wordy section, someone who harbours someone who the harbourer knows has already carried out a terrorism activity isn't guilty of an offence unless, in addition to the harbouring, the harbouring is done for the purpose of permitting the terrorist to facilitate or carry out a second terrorist activity.

To me it's very simple. Why isn't harbouring someone who the harbourer knows to have carried out a terrorist activity, in and of itself, not an offence?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Quickly, Minister.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I would be surprised to find a specific act that Canadians would regard as heinous not covered in this specific legislation.

Again, you may well have hit upon the only imperfection in the entire act, to utilize your words. I'm not suggesting this act is perfect. Often a car looks perfect until you start it up. I'm wondering whether we have really started this car up yet. Have we considered every aspect? You try to do your best, but until you actually put the gas in the tank and turn that key, you want to see how well it works.

This goes back to my concern about the criticism of the security certificates. It's a very well-balanced piece of legislation, a very well-balanced device. I would be very reluctant to tamper with it until we've seen more evidence than we've seen to date.

On your considerations as a committee, go ahead and make those recommendations. I'll have some of the lawyers take a look at your suggestions. I'm not ruling any of them out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you, Minister.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Regarding security certificates, I fully understand the administrative nature of the process that was followed when they were first implemented. If I recall, at that time, they were to apply almost as soon as the person arrived in Canada. Thereafter, the period was extended and it is now so long that the certificate can be used 10 or even 15 years after the person arrived in Canada. He or she has raised a family, the children were born here, the person went abroad and came back, he or she was allowed to come back and was given all benefits that are granted to Canadian citizens, except the right to vote. Since these certificates are not being applied to Canadian citizens, don't you believe that they should not be applied either to persons who have not become Canadian citizens, but who have spent some period of time in Canada? According to you, how long would security agencies need to apply them?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

You have raised an important issue. If you have ideas to improve on the act, you must tell us about it. Until now, officials and judges have used security certificates almost immediately after the arrival of the persons, but this is simply due to the fact that the act is still new. If you fear that they could be utilized 10 or 15 years after the arrival of the persons, this indicates that there is a weakness in the system, and I would appreciate if you could propose an amendment.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I am talking about security certificates and I understand that there are some cases where they have been used when the person had been in Canada for at least 10 years.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

This may be due to the fact that the system has been in place since 1978. You may be right.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

We could make suggestions in this regard.

I would like to make another suggestion and I want to know whether you are open to it. It would be to create an office equivalent to that held by Lord Carlile, whose title escapes me for the moment. You did talk about it, Mr. Toews, and you seemed to be aware of it. You gave his title in English but I did not catch it. I believe it is some kind of ombudsman.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Independent reviewer.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

That's it. Are you open to such a suggestion?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I certainly don't have any problems with that. We do that on an informal basis when we have judges review it. Developing particular expertise in that area and commenting on how legislation is working are not foreign ideas to our parliamentary system. Again that's something the committee has to examine in terms of all of the measures that are already in place.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You have raised another issue that concerns me, Minister Day: I am referring to the accusations made against the 17 persons who have been arrested recently in Toronto. I cannot imagine any criminal law allowing for people who have taken part in such a conspiracy not to be liable to the most severe penalties according to the law of the land. These people had meetings in order to prepare a bomb attack similar to the one we have seen in Southern United States. I cannot imagine any criminal law system that would not consider this as a very grievous act. You added that the Anti-terrorism Act had been applied in that case and that it had been quite useful.

In what way would the Anti-terrorism Act be more helpful to the attorneys who will prosecute them and the judges who will judge them once they have been found guilty? How will it help them determine an appropriate sentence for what is truly a murder conspiracy? What added benefit does the Anti-terrorism Act provide to the judge? What added benefit does it provide to the prosecutors? Clearly, this is a case when an infiltration has taken place. In passing, I imagine that when such an infiltration occurs, it is orchestrated in a way that no harm can come to the public. I would like you to confirm that, but this is not really the question I'm asking you. I am asking what does the Anti-terrorism Act add?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

That's a good question, but I cannot answer you because the investigation is ongoing. In the long run, we will see wether the Anti-terrorism Act gives these people additional powers. I cannot really answer you now because the investigation is still ongoing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you.

Mr. Comartin.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

On that point, I think one of the things that cannot be understated is that this act permits Canada to become a party to UN treaties against terrorist bombings and terrorist financing. It allows us to enter into that international arena and allows Canada to then comply with various UN Security Council resolutions.

If you're asking whether there's a great deal of overlap, yes, I would suggest there is. When you're conspiring to blow up a building, there are laws against that. But I think it is seen as part of an international fight. It was one of the prerequisites, as I understand it, from the former minister that we had to bring in this legislation in order to be part of these UN treaties.

The other important aspect that can never be understated when you pass specific legislation in respect to a specific matter is to denounce it as conduct that is unacceptable in a Canadian society. You focus on an issue and you make that a specific offence because of the denunciation. You're standing up for certain values as a nation. Laws are not simply punitive.

If you look at the issue of hate crimes, I always go back to this example. How many times do we actually prosecute under the hate crime laws? As a result of what occurred during the Second World War, the UN suggested that we have hate crime laws in specific categories resulting from that.

Are most of those things covered in other aspects of the criminal law? I would say yes, they are. But it specifically denounces that activity and is important in that respect alone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you.

Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I can answer your question, Mr. Toews. I did one of the six cases in the history of this country on which we used the hate propaganda section, and it goes back almost 40 years now.