Public Safety Committee on Nov. 19th, 2012

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

No, that's not the government's intention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, Madame Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Okay.

Subsection 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to enter or leave Canada for all Canadians. Could the new offences added to the Criminal Code violate the charter? Can you discuss that further?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

All rights are subject to reasonable limitations. Again, if there was evidence that somebody is leaving this country for the purpose of participating in a terrorist activity, I think most Canadians would think that's reasonable, and I'm completely confident that's accommodated within the Constitution of this country as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Madame Lefebvre.

Mr. Hawn is next, please, for five minutes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister, and your officials, for being here.

Some people suggest it's not needed because it hasn't been used—and Mr. Scarpaleggia's airbag analogy was very apt, I thought—or that this is aimed at the U.S., that there is no threat to Canada, that 9/11 didn't happen here. Well, there are 24 Canadian families who might disagree with that.

Let's talk about absolutes. There's an absolute certainty, in my view, that there is a terrorist threat alive in the world today. One of my other hats is as the Canadian co-chair of the Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defence, and one of the things we look at is critical infrastructure. Canada and the U.S. are basically one grid of critical infrastructure, whether it's pipelines, power grids, telecom, media, Internet, whatever. Somebody could get at the U.S. by getting at Canada, very easily, so if we leave ourselves vulnerable by not having these kinds of safeguards in place, are we not posing a threat, in fact, to the U.S. because they can get at those kinds of critical infrastructures by attacking Canada and not necessarily directly attacking the U.S.?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's hard to imagine a terrorist threat to the United States that wouldn't also endanger Canada. I get together on a regular basis with the attorneys general of New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain, the United States, and Canada. We have very many shared interests when it comes to issues involving the law and the justice system in this country. It makes sense for us to get together, because we do share these common concerns.

As was pointed out by my colleagues at the table, we are in discussions with the United States on issues that affect the border. I think that's important because of the size of the border and because of all the important reasons you have set out in your comments.

Yes, we all have a stake in supporting our allies and in helping each other, because many times, with respect to crimes in this world, they find that they don't respect boundaries. Crimes that take place in one country affect people in other countries. There's probably no better example than the United States. As you pointed out, that terrible attack on September 11 that took place in the United States affected Canadians in many ways. It affected them because of the lives lost, but there were many repercussions from it that we experience to this day.

This is why it's important for us to continuously update our laws. In your examination of this issue, you may look at the Australian example and the British example, because they face the same challenges we do. Again, this is a reasonable response.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Can I ask you a question on that? You talked about discussions with our allies and so on, which obviously are ongoing all the time. Can you make any comparisons to similar legislation in some of the other countries you have mentioned? Are we more severe, less severe, or in line?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

When we bring in legislation, we bring it in based on Canadian experience and Canadian analysis of the threats we face. That said, Britain has undergone a couple of revisions. There are provisions with respect to the detention of an individual. That's not the focus here; our focus is on investigation. We're not in the business of trying to imprison somebody we want to question. That's not what we're all about. I'm not suggesting that anybody else is, but if you look at the tone of a number of the pieces of legislation.... In the British example, a person can be detained for, I believe, 14 days. Fourteen days is the newest incarnation of that measure. I believe it was 28 days not that long ago. When you analyze this bill, you'll see that very quickly we have the individual before courts. Again, the focus is not to punish somebody in an investigative hearing; it's to get information that may assist in preventing terrorist activity at home or abroad.

We have a look at what Australia and other countries that have similar legal systems do. It's helpful, but ultimately it has to be a Canadian answer, a Canadian experience, and Canadian legislation. That's what we're all about, and this legislation is consistent with that approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We'll move back to Mr. Rafferty, please.

Before we do, in answer to Mr. Scarpaleggia's question, yes, Bill C-81 was introduced but was never brought to second reading. It was never really brought forward.

Go ahead, Mr. Rafferty.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, and gentlemen, for being here.

Minister, what would your definition of a terrorist act be?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Well, we're going to start with what happened on September 11 in the United States. That was a terrorist act. We see examples throughout the world. I know that London has experienced them. You can look at the Air India crash that took place. I was a fairly new member of Parliament back then. It was right here, and it was a Canadian example of these things.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

What I'm thinking of is a situation like Nazi slogans written on a synagogue, for example. Is that a terrorist act?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Sorry, would you repeat that? I apologize, Mr. Rafferty.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm thinking not of the very obvious sorts of cases, but of cases in which there might be a grey area—writing Nazi slogans on the side of a synagogue and that sort of thing. The reason I ask this question is that what this recognizance clause allows a peace officer or peace agent to do is arrest someone without a warrant, if the agent believes that a terrorist act is going to be committed.

The first question is, how do these people know or how do they qualify an act as “terrorist” before they arrest someone without a warrant?

Second, does it make you at all uneasy that this clause could be used not in the proper way; in other words, as a denial of justice for someone, or in a situation of ruining someone's reputation when they're absolutely innocent of something?

I think there is a grey area here. Who makes this determination?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You've made a very good point. You asked me what my definition is, or how I would describe a terrorist activity, but it's not my definition of a terrorist activity that ultimately will determine it; it's the definition contained within the Criminal Code. Everyone who comes forward using either these sections or other sections of the laws of this country is bound by the definition that Parliament has put together.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

But who is checking into that peace agent who wants to arrest someone without a warrant? Is that—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

They make that determination on a regular basis. If they believe that somebody is committing a crime and don't adhere to not just the definition of terrorism but to any of the provisions of the Criminal Code.... This is why we have judicial oversight. I have indicated the consents of the attorneys general, whether at the provincial or the federal level, depending upon the prosecution.

Peace officers are bound by the provisions of the Criminal Code, so it's that definition that will govern the activity of these individuals.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

There is also a clause to be seen that I think says “as soon as possible”, so detention could last for a length of time.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's not more than 24 hours, and again, every effort has to be made. It's not a question, as I indicated in one of the examples, of detaining somebody for 14 days or 28 days. That's not the case in Canada, and you, if you practised law, would know that even with respect to bail hearings and that sort of thing, we get people before the courts as quickly as possible.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I have another question. This is maybe the second or third time now that it has been asked.

You made a comment about an example of getting a call from parents that their son or daughter was going to leave the country to commit a terrorist act. Again, I'm getting back to the peace agent or the person who makes this determination. How will they make a determination whether, for example, the parents are telling the truth or don't want their daughter to go off and marry somebody they don't approve of? Is there some kind of safeguard to ensure that the information they're getting is correct before someone ends up in detention who really shouldn't be in detention?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, it's like any criminal offence: you have to have reasonable, probable grounds. One of the things that—

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

It has to be done quickly; they're getting on a plane—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

And you want it to be done quickly. If we're trying to prevent a terrorist activity, we want them to move quickly on that score, but we also want to move quickly to make sure that somebody isn't unfairly detained or improperly detained.

This is why I'm satisfied and pleased, and I hope you are when you have a look at all the safeguards that have been put in place on this, starting with the consent of the Attorney General. I'm satisfied that these, just like all investigations of criminal activity, have to be reasonable under the circumstances, and so—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Rafferty, our time is pretty well up here.