Public Safety Committee on Dec. 15th, 2010

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

But they're more than just preventative. This adds a clause for preventative arrest that says that if a peace officer suspects that immediate detention is necessary, he or she may arrest a person without a warrant, prior to laying the information but before the person has had a chance to appear. So this subjects Canadians to preventative arrest, to being arrested, before there is any evidence presented against them or any kind of information or the chance to even appear, for up to 72 hours. Before such a radical—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think it's 24 hours, but....

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, it's 24, but it can be extended.

Before we make such a serious incursion into Canadians' historic constitutional rights, I think we have an obligation to make sure that the present Criminal Code is not sufficient to deal with these situations.

I'm going to ask you again. Is there any evidence that you've seen that shows that the Criminal Code, as it presently stands, is not sufficient to deal with this situation?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You will hear from law enforcement agencies and I'm sure you will hear from the RCMP, and you'll hear from them that they want to have the ability to prevent or break up possible terrorist activity in this country. They tell me in my discussions with them that they will have to move very quickly when they come across evidence or when information is brought before them.

Again I go back to what I said to you earlier. The Criminal Code provisions are just not enough; we have to move forward. We have to have tools on the books—as we did for most of this decade with respect to this—so that if and when the RCMP or other law enforcement agencies come across this kind of activity and want to break up or prevent terrorist activity or gain information on possible terrorist activity.... The tools have to be on the books.

At the same time, I hear what you're saying with respect to those safeguards. In response to Ms. Mourani, I started to list all the different safeguards that are in here. I think they're quite impressive, and I would commend to your review all the safeguards we are putting in here, because it is important to have these tools. At the same time, we have to make sure we safeguard the rights of individual Canadians who may become involved with this. I'm satisfied that the balance is reached with this piece of legislation.

Thank you for your comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Please summarize very quickly, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Minister, my only point would be that I think there's a way to protect Canadians from terrorism and still respect their constitutional right not to be arrested and detained by police before they even have the chance to appear.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think we do that in this legislation—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Well, it allows police that power.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

—but if they come across terrorist activity and they believe it's about to be committed, we want to do something about that in terms of protecting Canadians.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

And do you not think they can do that and respect the charter and Constitution at the same time?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think there are constitutional safeguards built into this legislation and I'd ask you to have a look. But the police officer who comes across or gets information that a terrorist activity is about to be committed has to have the tools to safeguard and protect Canadians. At the same time, there have to be safeguards with respect to that individual, and I think that balance is struck in this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We'll go to Mr. MacKenzie quickly and then to Mr. Lobb.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the panel.

I will share my time with Mr. Lobb.

Mr. Minister, I listened to the rant of the Liberal Party about all the issues about oversight. My recollection is that all of those incidents for which they are pushing for some apologies or some oversight occurred under the former government's watch.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I know. It's true.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

It would seem that Canadians would wonder why the party that was in power, if they want to apologize, wouldn't apologize. Now there's some rush to fix a problem that occurred when they were in power, and I just wonder—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. MacKenzie, you make a very valid point. These two provisions.... As much as I would be pleased on behalf of this particular government to take credit for all the tough-on-crime legislation—all that we have done to protect victims and law-abiding Canadians—these provisions were actually put in by the previous government in 2001 in response to the 9/11 crisis that the world faced. There were sunsetting provisions, as you know, put into the legislation, but these provisions were put in by the previous government.

We have modified them; we have put more safeguards, more oversight in. I make no apology for that. But the actual provisions themselves—the recognizance with convictions and the investigative hearings—were something that the government determined back almost a decade ago that they had to have; they determined that police officers had to have these provisions.

I guess I'm trying to preach to the group of individuals who enacted these provisions. Surprises never cease on this, but this is where these provisions came from. As much as I would like to take credit for everything that is done and let our government take credit for everything that is done to modernize our laws with respect to helping victims, these two provisions actually were drafted by the previous government—albeit that we have put some additional safeguards and oversight in place, and again I make no apology for that.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Minister. I'll turn it over to Mr. Lobb.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Lobb, please.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

And to be fair, the House of Commons itself—this committee—recommended that we do this. It's a little difficult to say that this committee recommended that we put these in. They were drafted by the previous government, who felt they were necessary to fight terrorism, in committee. Again, that being said, I don't mind coming here defending it. Other members have changed their minds or have forgotten where these originated.

I don't mind doing that, Mr. MacKenzie, but those are the facts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

With the investigative hearing, obviously the purpose is to facilitate an opportunity to collect information about a potential terrorism offence. We've heard a few members on the other side of the table today talk about the balance or the possible risks for human rights issues. This bill has a number of human rights safeguards, and maybe it would be important to reassure them and reassure Canadians about how this will provide a balance for both a safe society and protecting the individual's rights.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Lobb, thank you very much for that, and thank you for your interest and dedication to protecting Canadians and standing up for victims in this country. I've told you this before. I make no bones about it; I've been very appreciative of it.

You point out a very good point, that there are safeguards built into this process all the way through. I indicated to Ms. Mourani that others—the prior consent of the Attorney General of Canada or of the provinces and the fact that there is judicial oversight on these—are very important, and they form an integral component of what we are trying to do. As I indicated to them, there's a cooperation between all levels: between law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, and even the political oversight. I don't think it gets much better than that.

I would ask, when you're having a look at this legislation, that you have a look at what other—I mentioned major democracies.... And I appreciate that the Bloc had quite a bit of criticism of the way the Americans have done this, but you can go beyond the United States. Look at what the United Kingdom has done.

I believe the United Kingdom has a much tougher regime in place. Again, when we go back to the criminal law, much of our criminal law was modelled on British precedents, but if you have a look at where Great Britain is on these things, they're way ahead of us on that. That's before I even get into what takes place on the European continent.

In terms of where Canada stands, I think you will find that when you compare Canada.... And even those people who do not like the United States or the way they do business—I don't want to even get into that.... I'm not getting into that; I'm saying, look at other major democracies around the world, and I think you will be quite impressed. You'll say, yes, the Canadian approach is a very balanced, reasonable approach to a problem that we all face, and that's the problem of terrorism.

Those countries that are victims of terrorism, that are targeted by terrorist groups...I think you should have a look at what they do, and I'm pretty sure the conclusion that all members will come to, consistent with their previous recommendation to move forward on these provisions, is to say that these are a reasonable, balanced approach.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I have one other quick question, if I may.

We had some witnesses at our last meeting who were very concerned or wanted to see an amendment to deal only with imminent terrorism offences. To me, this defies logic; I disagree with their point on that.

I wonder whether you can go into a little further detail on that issue.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

These things shouldn't be looked at in isolation. It's not just imminent terrorist activity—that's part of it—that they may cover, but having knowledge of past terrorist activity can be very helpful in preventing and intercepting any attempts to commit new terrorism offences.

That's all we're saying. We want to have a complete approach to this. We can't say, “That's a terrorist activity that took place yesterday; we can't get into that.” No, we recognize that.... I mentioned the United Kingdom and their activities. Getting information about the subway bombings that took place, say, the day before might help them to predict or intercept future terrorist activities. So too for us: any terrorist activity that has taken place in the past is relevant for us to know.

So I think it has to be complete, and that's what this bill does, sir.