Public Safety Committee on Nov. 28th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone. This is meeting 62 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It's Wednesday, November 28, 2012. Today our committee is continuing our study of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act.

On our first panel testifying today, we will hear from Air India 182 Victims Families Association. We have Bal Gupta as the chair, who is present with us, and also Rob Alexander as a committee member and spokesperson. From the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, we have Maureen Basnicki, the co-founder and director.

Our committee thanks all of you for appearing before us today to help contribute in our work, and to help us understand a little more about issues that you've dealt with and how they may apply to Bill S-7.

My understanding is that you have different presentations or opening statements to bring, and then we'll go into a round of questions. Perhaps I will begin with Ms. Basnicki.

Could you open, please?

[Maureen Basnicki, Co-founder, Canadian Coalition Against Terror]

Thank you for having me. Good afternoon.

My name is Maureen Basnicki. I'm here as a co-founder of C-CAT, the Canadian Coalition Against Terror.

C-CAT is a non-partisan advocacy body comprised of Canadian terror victims, counterterrorism professionals, lawyers, and other individuals committed to enhancing Canada's counterterrorism policies. We represent a unique constituency of Canadians of every background, religion, and political affiliation who have become victims of terrorism. Some of us lost a single relative, others lost entire families, and some of us were injured ourselves. Any of us could have been any of you, under different circumstances, but all of us are united in our determination to ensure that other potential victims of terror are spared the horror that we had to endure.

Over the last few weeks, I have read some of the transcripts of the debates and testimony regarding Bill S-7. I would like to direct my comments to several recurrent themes in the concerns raised by critics about the very nature and legitimacy of the provisions in this bill, relating to investigative hearings, recognizance with conditions, and leaving Canada to commit a terrorist offence.

Some critics question whether Bill S-7, regardless of any proposed revisions, is needed, whether the threat of terrorism really warrants provisions that they describe as a departure from powers traditionally available to investigate criminal offences. Others question whether these provisions will violate the rights of Canadians, or whether this bill is the beginning of the much-dreaded slippery slope that will ultimately result in the abrogation of constitutional rights at a later date. And still others question whether passage of this bill is handing the government a blank cheque of sorts that could lay the groundwork for the ever-expanding use of the controversial provisions—originally justified only on the basis of the extraordinary and tragic events of 9/11.

Summarized in the words of one MP, these critics feel that at best there is no balance in this bill between security and the fundamental rights of Canadians.

At the core of this critique lies what I find to be a remarkable supposition, that terrorism as a phenomenon has not amply demonstrated the justification and need for some rather modest enhancements to the powers of authorities investigating terrorism cases. We believe this supposition clearly flies in the face of the words of Justice Dorno, who presided over the Toronto 18 cases and stated bluntly that terrorism offences are abnormal crimes whose object is to strike fear and terror into citizens in a way not seen in any other criminal offences.

Justice Dorno is entirely correct, as well as the Appeals Court in the Khawaja case, which noted the unique nature of terrorism-related offences and the special danger these crimes pose to Canadian society.

As I have stated previously in other testimony before Parliament, terrorism is not simply a more pernicious form of organized crime. The primary interest of most criminals is personal gain of some sort, while the objective of terrorism is to fundamentally undermine, if not destroy, the society or country being targeted.

We need to look no further than the daily newspaper to be reminded of the ability of terrorists to destabilize entire countries or regions and to inflict violence at a level once reserved only for sovereign entities. But most chillingly, for terrorists there is no weapon or tactic, including weapons of mass destruction, that is inherently beyond contemplation. Acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a stated terrorist imperative, and the immediacy and magnitude of this threat has led some of the world's most prominent experts to conclude that a terrorist attack with unconventional weaponry may be all but inevitable.

Given the magnitude of this threat, we must therefore disagree with those critics who have stated that the legislators who introduced these measures in 2001 were simply hitting the panic button in the aftermath of the urgency created by the events of 9/11 and that there is no justification or urgency today that mandates their continued presence in the Criminal Code of Canada. This is not the case.

Far from being an overreaction to 9/11, these provisions were, in fact, a sober and responsible recognition of the danger posed by terrorism to the future of the international community. They were an acknowledgment that the western world had already tumbled down a slippery slope of another sort and had grossly misread the terrorist peril because of what the 9/11 commission referred to as a “failure of imagination”.

Today, in the aftermath of 9/11, lawmakers no longer need imagination to conceive of the unimaginable. They need legislative imagination to find better ways of navigating the competing concerns of security and liberty. I believe Bill S-7 has demonstrated that type of legislative imagination.

To suggest, as some have, that the supporters of this bill are soft on protecting constitutional rights is to ignore the fact that the vitality of a democracy is measured not only by its liberty but by its capacity and obligation to find a balance between those liberties and other concerns in uncharted waters.

Given the numerous safeguards, reporting requirements, and time limitations imposed on these provisions, we do not agree that Canadian legislators are betraying Canada's democratic ideals in seeking their passage. Rather, we see this bill as having found reasonable and effective accommodation in balancing what the Supreme Court of Canada has described as the “imperatives both of security and of accountable constitutional governance” while recognizing the truth of what British Minister of State Ian Pearson stated in the aftermath of the 2005 London bombings, that “...there is no human right more sacred than the right to be alive. Without this human right all others are impossible.”

As for concerns that some of these measures are a blank cheque that might be used by the government, the record clearly indicates otherwise. Even this bill's most vociferous critics have acknowledged that the authorities have scrupulously avoided utilizing these tools. In fact, they have never been used and therefore have never been abused. There is clearly no ravenous appetite in law enforcement to utilize these provisions.

This does not mean that they are not invaluable tools for contending with an ever-adapting and evolving enemy that presents a danger of unprecedented dimensions. If these provisions succeed just once in stopping a terrorist outrage, they will have more than served their purpose. While we agree that some of these provisions should be sparingly used, others, such as those that prevent individuals from leaving Canada to be trained as terrorists, must be aggressively advocated by anyone concerned with human rights and war crimes. If Canada can prevent individuals within its borders from seeking advanced training to commit the worst atrocities in countries around the world, it absolutely should.

If for some the concern regarding potential future abuse of these tools supersedes the concern for saving real lives from a very real and immediate threat, they should consider the following: by assisting authorities in interdicting a major terrorist incident, these rather modest provisions will have protected our justice system from the inevitability of coming under even greater pressure, in the aftermath of an attack, to enact measures even more stringent and controversial to protect Canadians from other attacks.

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

As a Canadian who lost her husband on 9/11, I am a living example of just how true that is.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Basnicki.

We'll now move to Dr. Gupta, for 10 minutes, please.

[Dr. Bal Gupta, Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association]

I will share my time with Mr. Alexander.

My name is Bal Gupta, and it has been my misfortune to have been coordinator and chair of Air India 182 Victims Families Association from 1985 onwards.

I thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to testify.

From the perspective of victims impacted most directly by the terrorist bombing of Air India Flight 182 on June 23, 1985, the Air India 182 Victims Families Association strongly supports Bill S-7. This bill proposes to re-enact the investigative hearings and recognizance-with-conditions measures that were in the original Anti-terrorism Act and expired in 2007.

Bill S-7 also proposes new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit a terrorism offence. These provisions, if enacted into law, will help in prevention, criminal investigation, and prosecution of terrorism offences.

Lest we forget, let us remember some painful facts and the enormity of the Air India 182 tragedy, which was a result of a terrorist conspiracy conceived and executed on Canadian soil.

A single terrorist act killed 329 persons. Statistically, that is a higher ratio than the number of 9/11 victims in the U.S.A., keeping the population in mind. Most victims were Canadians, from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia—all the provinces except P.E.I. Others came from many states in India and the U.S.A. They came from almost all religious backgrounds, including atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Muslim, Sikh, and Zoroastrian. Eighty-six victims were children under the age of 12. Twenty-nine families—husband, wife, and all children—were wiped out. Thirty-two persons were left alone; the spouse and all the children were gone. Seven parents in their forties and fifties lost all their children, and two children, about the age of 10, lost both parents.

This was the largest terrorist act conceived and executed in Canada against Canadians, and it will continue to cause incalculable suffering and pain to thousands of friends and family members for decades to come.

In the Air India 182 bombing, I lost my wife, Ramwati, to whom I was married for over 20 years. In a tragic moment, I became a single parent to two young boys, aged 12 and 18 at the time. Even today, our family cannot enjoy the best of occasions in our lives because of the persistent, underlying inner grief and pain.

On the same day, a related act of terrorism involving a CP Air flight, a bomb explosion, killed two baggage handlers at Narita airport in Japan. This was followed by the murders of two important and prominent potential witnesses of a future Air India 182 trial—namely, two journalists, Mr. Tara Singh Hayer in British Columbia and Mr. Tarsem Purewal in the United Kingdom.

The intelligence and security agencies did not prevent the Air India 182 bombing. The eventual criminal trial in Canada, which took over 15 years to commence, failed to convict and punish the terrorists. The real culprits are still roaming free in Canada and elsewhere. The Air India 182 bombing, the largest act of terrorism in Canada, was not even—it is sad—recognized as a Canadian tragedy for over 20 years.

The Anti-terrorism Act was passed, and some terrorist entities or organizations were banned, only after 9/11 in the U.S.A., more than 16 years after Canada experienced the AI 182 bombing.

As families of the victims of the terrorist bombing of AI 182, we have suffered and continue to suffer incalculable grief and pain, which we do not wish to befall any other Canadian from future terrorist acts. AI 182 victims were mostly Canadians of East Indian origin, but make no mistake, the victims of the next terrorist act could be anybody. Terrorism cares little about a victim's colour, creed, gender, or age.

We, with first-hand experience of the effects of terrorism, ask all members of Parliament to protect Canadians by supporting the anti-terrorism measures in Bill S-7. There is no greater duty for the government than the protection of its law-abiding citizens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Dr. Gupta.

I believe Mr. Alexander has an opening statement as well.

[Rob Alexander, Committee Member and Spokesperson, Air India 182 Victims Families Association]

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for allowing us to be here today. I will just carry on from Dr. Gupta's comments.

Today terrorism is an international phenomenon, and the terrorists in most cases have worldwide connections. Well-known examples include Spain, Indonesia, the U.K., Russia, India, Jordan, and many more. Recent cases of the Toronto 18 and Khwaja in Canada, and the millennium bomber in the U.S., involve Canadian connections and demonstrate that even today, 27 years after the Air India 182 bombing, Canada is not immune from terrorist attacks and attachments. The provisions of Bill S-7, if enacted into law, will help most importantly in preventing, and then investigating, and possibly prosecuting, terrorism offences.

I speak to you not as an expert in legal or constitutional matters, but as a Canadian victim of terrorism. I was 15, my brother was 9, my sister was only 11, and my mother 40 when my father, Dr. Mathew Alexander, was murdered in the terrorist bombing of Air India 182. He was going to visit his ailing mother back home in India, but never made it to see her. Our family was devastated in an instant—forever. Since then we have suffered pain and grief, which will continue with us throughout our lives. For that reason, we plead with all MPs to consider this outcome and keep Canada free from terrorism so that no Canadian will have to suffer what we have.

Investigative hearings can be helpful in preventing, investigating, and prosecuting terrorism offences. Let us not forget that the perpetrators of this serious crime of Air India 182 and its bombing are still roving free in Canada and elsewhere. Investigative hearings may be needed for effective ongoing criminal investigations. They were used once in the Air India 182 trial against Mrs. S. Reyat, and were found constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada on June 23, 2004. If the identity of a Mr. X could have been determined, who was an alleged accomplice of Mr. Reyat and who stayed with the Reyat family for about a week, it could have potentially changed the course of that trial.

The prevention of terrorist acts is much more efficient and more humane than dealing with the aftermath of terrorism outcomes, which unfortunately we have first-hand experience of as victims' families. The recognizance-with-conditions provision will also help authorities in preventing terrorist acts. It will be an additional effective tool for the police and intelligence personnel in performing their duties. Successful use of this provision will disrupt the potential terrorist before they can carry out a terrorist act. Sadly, this tool was not available in 1985 to help prevent the Air India 182 bombing, which took so many Canadian lives.

The third provision in Bill S-7 proposes new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit a terrorism offence. This is necessitated by the globalization of terrorism-related activities. There have been many reports of highly indoctrinated people from different parts of Canada leaving our soil to join terrorist training camps or terrorist training activities in other countries. Some of these individuals have reportedly disappeared and are presumed killed abroad, leaving their Canadian families to grieve. Also, these potential Canadian offenders may pose a potentially mortal threat and danger to members of our Canadian Armed Forces on duty abroad.

In our opinion, this provision will help in minimizing this dilemma. We believe the procedural safeguards clearly provided in Bill S-7 will be a strong and practical deterrent against misuse or abuse of these provisions.

In summary, we speak to you as persons living first-hand in the aftermath of the most heinous act of terrorism in Canadian history. Part of our mission is to speak out on terrorism issues to ensure that Canada is safer and more secure for its citizens now and in the future. We sincerely believe that Bill S-7, if enacted, will assist Canada in further combatting terrorism. Civil liberties are important, but they must be weighed against the potential violent consequences of a terrorist act against Canadians, and deterrents must be present to do so.

We request, plead, and urge all MPs to keep Canada free from terrorism so that no other Canadians will have to suffer what we have since June 1985.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Alexander, and to all our guests, thank you for your presentations.

We'll move into the first round of questioning, which is a seven-minute round.

We'll move to Mr. Leef, please, for seven minutes.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all our witnesses. A lot of times in the public safety committee and as Canadians we tend to think of public safety issues and justice issues around those front-line crimes against the person. It's a sobering reminder to have everyone here today testify about some very real and imminent threats to our country, both past and present, something that hopefully we can work to deter in the future. Your testimony today brought a real economic point to what Canadians have faced in these tragic events in the past, so thank you for sharing a bit of your story and for your courage in testifying today.

Ms. Basnicki, you mentioned that the vitality of our democracy is not only measured by its liberties but by the balance of how we enjoy those liberties and what reasonable measures we put in place to ensure that some of our liberties aren't affected. For instance, our right to safety and security is only philosophical, in my opinion, if we don't put in steps like this bill to actually take tangible steps to protect those sorts of things.

From the perspective of your membership—maybe I'll open this question to everybody—you've spoken on behalf of the group and said, yes, you're very supportive of this. What kind of feedback do you hear from your groups about the tools and techniques that are going to be used in this legislation and on whether or not people feel those are reasonable applications and are not broaching on people's right to complete civil liberty?

[Maureen Basnicki]

Not all family members agree on all matters relating to terrorism in the process that they go through, but I can say with conviction that there is a consensus, and a majority feel that these proposed counterterrorist measures are more than appropriate.

In the past, there seems to have been an emphasis on the rights of the perpetrator, or the accused, or the “alleged terrorist”, but you know, there's nothing alleged about us as victims. We're real live victims, and we want the balance to be there. But we see that, if anything, there has been a tendency in the past to protect the rights of the terrorist or the alleged terrorist more than protecting the rights of our safety and security.

In my conversations with other family members, when I told them I was testifying on the anti-terrorist bill—and I testified at the beginning, when the bill was first introduced—they responded with, “Go, Maureen, go”: there was unanimous support for it.

[Dr. Bal Gupta]

I think I can say the same thing. I personally appeared before the Senate committee in 2007, when the sunset clause was being debated. We, all the members, agreed that those two clauses, the investigative hearings and the recognizance with conditions, were very valid clauses for fighting terrorism.

Let me go a step further. Measure the rights of a terrorist, or somebody who is planning something who has been taken away to answer some questions, or somebody who is detained for a certain number of days after the Attorney General approves and a justice so orders, against the rights of a four-and-a-half-year-old girl who lost her mother in Air India 182. She was four and a half. You will be happy to know—I cry when I see her—that she is a medical doctor doing her residency in England, at Oxford. Or measure it against the rights of an 84-year-old lady in India, who couldn't even cry after having lost her son, her daughter-in-law, and three grandsons.

You have to balance the rights. That's what we meant when we said that deterrence must be present, both ways—to deter terrorism and to deter any abuse or misuse of the provisions. And they are there. The Attorney General's approval and the justice is there, and the evidence will not be used against the person who is giving it.

We have to balance these things, and I think the bill, as it is, is quite balanced, in our opinion.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much.

Maybe you can tell me what the investigative hearing would mean to you and your members if the provision were used and we were to have a witness come forward and testify about past events that would allow law enforcement, Canadian intelligence systems, the ability to utilize that information and prevent a future terrorist attack. What would that mean to your members?

[Maureen Basnicki]

What would it mean? We're unanimous in wishing to do everything possible to prevent future acts of terrorism. If you have even a remote suspicion that a Canadian citizen, and in this case a non-Canadian, is attempting to murder fellow Canadians, then it becomes common sense. You want to do everything possible, given the extraordinary circumstances, to prevent a heinous crime from being committed by terrorists. If you can allow time—and there are checks and balances here for the time—to prevent a crime from happening, then the job has been done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Scott.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I echo the sentiments and the comments of my colleague Mr. Leef.

Thank you so much for coming to testify. I can only imagine the grief that all of you suffered at the time and are still feeling. I think it's important that Canadians constantly remind themselves of two things that your stories represent. One is that Canadians and other nationalities were part of what happened on 9/11, and there's a certain global story about the victims of 9/11. The other is that, with Air India, people sometimes forget that a large number of human beings were killed in Air India, and that a large number of them were Canadians. This was not fully acknowledged at the time, and it is something that we're going to have to come to terms with.

Mr. Alexander, I'd like to ask you to elaborate on your description of the initiation of an investigative hearing, when the previous provisions were still in force, that never ended up taking place. You mentioned that if a Mr. X had ever been tracked down then things might have changed. You said it would have potentially changed the course of that trial. Could you set the scene a bit more, tell us what you meant, and then elaborate?

[Rob Alexander]

I might add some of the details that were going on and being brought out when the trial was going on.

A Mr. X was identified as staying with Mr. Reyat, who was convicted of building the bomb that was put on Air India. To this day they still don't know who that is. They've never testified; even though that Mr. X stayed with that family for over a week, they forgot who that person was. I can tell you, from my own personal experience, that even if someone stayed with me when I was a child 20 or 25 years ago, I would still remember.

So that extra piece of information, when all that was...and Dr. Gupta can speak to this as well. That part of the investigative hearings could help bring that information out. That did change a lot of the information that was brought out in the trial, because people were a little bit afraid of what was going on, who was being brought to trial, and who was the accused. People were very tight-lipped about what they were speaking about in the trial, and no one could really force them to bring out that information, unfortunately.

[Dr. Bal Gupta]

If I may add, you have to keep in mind the way that terrorist organizations or terrorist individuals work. Intimidation is a very strong tool used in these groups or communities, and people are afraid to come out. Investigative hearings can be a useful tool. People, even those who know, will not come out because of fear.

And when they are not afraid.... I mean, a very good case is one of your colleagues being thrashed. The former premier of British Columbia, Ujjal Dosanjh, got beaten up by these goons for speaking out.

So that's one thing. As related to the Air India trial, this fellow went with Mr. Reyat in that famous...from mainland to island for the trial test run of the explosive device. In the trial, he never disclosed who this Mr. X was.

The RCMP, or whoever the investigative agency was, tried to get Mrs. Reyat to testify. The case ended up in the Supreme Court, and on June 23, 2004, it was held to be a constitutionally valid provision, but unfortunately it was not followed up. Maybe the trial was already too advanced, and the prosecution may have thought that the case was already sewn up.

But this can be very important in getting information. Don't forget that the Air India case is not closed. These cases are never closed. A trial may happen. They may not try the same individuals, but they can try the other individuals. This can be useful in prevention. If they catch some guy and he says, “No, I don't know anything”, that evidence cannot be used against him or her, but it can be used against others. It can be useful in investigating for the same reason, and prosecuting.

So this is very important too. And it was held to be constitutional.

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

I don't necessarily mean this from the perspective of legal expertise or whatever, but all three of you have been thinking about this a lot. Do you think there's any danger at all of the investigative hearings being something that gets triggered too early?

I ask this because one of the clear prohibitions is that, once you have somebody in an investigative hearing, you cannot use the evidence in criminal proceedings against that person. Is that something where we just trust that the police and the crown prosecutors judge when the right time is, or is there any reason to worry about that?

[Dr. Bal Gupta]

Well, in Air India, obviously the prosecution dropped it. Once the legality was proved, they didn't use it. So that tells you that they will be judicious, or reasonable and rational, in their application. That's my feeling.

Both these provisions were there, and at least one was proven to be constitutional. The other one has never been used or abused, so my personal feeling—and I'm not a legal expert, as I said—is that we have to have some trust in the justice, investigative, and intelligence systems. If we don't have that trust, we are in much bigger trouble.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Doctor.

We'll now move to Ms. Findlay, please, for seven minutes.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you all very much for being here.

I certainly remember you, Ms. Basnicki, from last year when we were debating Bill C-10 before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Being an MP from B.C., I'm very aware of the Air India tragedy.

I find it also very helpful in these deliberations that you as a panel represent terrorism that has reached out and taken Canadian lives, but actually in different ways and from different sources. We tend to hear a lot these days about militant Islamist radicals and the radicalization for jihadist reasons of some of our youth. But I think the Air India tragedy has to continue to remind us that sometimes the politics of other places in the world come home here, and there are effects here. Our heartfelt sympathies continue to go out to you all. Tragedy is something that follows one’s whole life. It's not something you get over; it's something you learn to cope with.

I am interested in having a comment from all of you on this. Would you agree with me that terrorism in our world remains a threat to our national security here in Canada, that right now, in this present time, it is a continuing and present threat?

[Maureen Basnicki]

Absolutely. I never want to be a fearmonger. Terrorism’s method in the past has been to use airplanes. I was a flight attendant for over 30 years. I fly, and I continue to encourage people to fly. I continue to tell people to live their lives, and to not let terrorism, or the threat of it, stop our lives. They win if we do.

But the reality is that I'm also here to remind Canadians that we do have Canadians who have been victims of terrorism, who have lost their loved ones; we do have Canadians who are terrorists; and we do have the possibility of future acts of terrorism against Canadians. Most importantly, my late husband, Ken, and myself are very proud Canadians. As a country we have global recognition, and strength, and I think we're a force to be reckoned with. I am very optimistic that my country will be a leader in the global battle against terrorism, in the global war against terrorism.

I don't want us to react and not have the imagination of...an attack like 9/11. Certainly we discounted the Air India terrorism attack, and we still have things that we have to continue in that particular act. But again, as a Canadian, I believe in my country and I will continue to encourage my country to do everything possible to not only save Canadians but also save lives, no matter their citizenship, their faith, or their country of origin.

As has mentioned many, many times, terrorists don't know borders. They really don't. They don't care what colour you are, what faith you are, or what country you come from.

So it's absolutely imperative that we as a country take every step to do what we can to deter it from happening again.

[Dr. Bal Gupta]

If I may add to that, the answer is yes. I think it was either in November or late October when the millennium bomber was convicted in the U.S.A. Finally he got sentencing—not convicted, but sentencing was pronounced. That's a good example; he was carrying ammunition from British Columbia to bomb planes in Los Angeles.

So the answer is yes. Imagine the picture if the Toronto 18 would have succeeded. What would be the picture?

We have to keep in mind that even the perpetrators of the Air India 182 bombing are still free. They may be preaching in their temples the same rhetoric they used in 1985 and afterwards. Some of these people have converted our places of worship into temples of doom, unfortunately. That applies to all religions, not one, whether they are Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, or somebody else. We have to be proactive.

I will go a step further, actually. As politicians I think unknowingly...and I'm not blaming any particular party or particular politician. Unknowingly, indirectly we encourage terrorism—pardon my using the words—by associating with the events being organized by certain entities who are known to glorify terrorists, even convicted terrorists, or terrorist causes, because they can use that presence in their communities and say, listen, you know, this fellow came.

So I would suggest that you have to be careful when attending these meetings organized by such groups.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Doctor.

We'll now move to Ms. Sgro, please. Welcome to our committee.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm pleased to be here to hear more about what a terrible, terrible tragedy this was. My condolences to all three of you and your families. Your words are all very touching for all of us. It doesn't matter how many years ago this was, it's still very real to all of us, as it is to you.

Bill S-7 that's before us, you've clearly reviewed it very well. Are you satisfied with the legislation as it stands now?

[Rob Alexander]

In our case with Air India, the investigators and prosecutors needed something that would allow them to carry on their search for evidence and use of evidence, including witnesses. That wasn't there at the time. It could have been very helpful for us in the criminal trial.

Certainly for us, if anything happens again in the future, something needs to be available for investigators and prosecutors to be able to go through that process again. Hopefully that never has to happen in Canada ever again, but should that happen, those provisions are, in our opinion, very useful.