Debates of Oct. 16th, 2001

Food and Drugs Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr Bélair)]

Since it is 7:15 p.m., the time provided for the debate is now over. Pursuant to the order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-287 are deemed put, and a recorded division is deemed requested and deferred to the expiry of the time provided for government orders on Wednesday, October 17.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities, in order to combat terrorism, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express my support for the government's anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36, and for Canada's participation in the international effort to bring to justice the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of September 11.

There are no words adequate to describe the horrors felt by people around the world at the slaughter of thousands of innocents and the images of passenger planes crashing into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Over six thousand innocent people were slaughtered. Thousands of widows, widowers and orphans were created. Children lost parents and people lost friends and co-workers. No one was untouched. People who did not lose a relative or a friend lost their peace of mind.

In combating terrorism we are acting in concert with our NATO allies, which have all agreed to invoke article 5 of the NATO treaty. It states that an aggression against one member country is considered an aggression against all. Our actions are consistent with the United Nations convention on the suppression of terrorist bombing and the right of a nation to defend itself against aggression.

The anti-terrorism act has four objectives: to stop terrorists from getting into Canada and to protect Canadians from terrorist acts; to bring forward tools to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists; to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists; and to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and to address the root causes of such hatred. The bill accomplishes these objectives. These measures are in keeping with the actions of our allies.

As a nation we must be prepared to ensure our safety and security. The bill is not perfect and I hope that committee will recommend a sunset provision. I also expect that other improvements will be proposed in committee. It is incumbent upon free and democratic countries to send a clear message to those who perpetrated the horrible acts of September 11. Therefore we must act. The message is that those who have chosen the path of terror to achieve their political ends will be apprehended and brought to justice.

Governments of countries that support terrorists are equally responsible for the actions of those terrorists. Efforts toward eradication of terrorism will be long term and multi-dimensional and to this end we must dedicate ourselves to eliminating the conditions that breed terrorism. We must strongly censure countries that act in their own military, political or economic interests to support terrorist, fascist and extremist factions in other countries. Their actions cause political destabilization and undermine the integrity of the social, physical and economic infrastructure in those countries. Too often this leads to disenfranchisement, poverty and oppression of people in those countries. The deep rooted resentment and hatred they feel toward those who are seen to have caused their misery is a breeding ground for terrorism.

Canadians want the root causes of terrorism addressed. The inequities in affluence between the west and the rest of the people in the global village must also be addressed. Our safety and well-being are not only rooted in creating and supporting political and social conditions and institutions that are sustainable and have the confidence of the people they are intended to serve; we in the west will also have to provide increased resources for human development in troubled societies if we are to be effective in combating terrorism.

The Prime Minister said in his address to the NATO parliamentary assembly on October 9 what we can never repeat often enough, that Canada and its coalition partners:

--have no quarrel with the people of Afghanistan. And they have no quarrel with us. Our dispute is with the terrorists and the Taliban regime that insists on giving them safe harbour.

The people of Afghanistan need our support. They have suffered horribly because of years of drought and war in their country. To this end, Canada and its allies have significantly increased contributions of humanitarian aid for Afghan refugees.

Our fight with terrorism does not represent a conflict between religions or cultures. Terrorist acts are in no way supported by the morals, beliefs or practices of Islam. Like all faiths, Islam is about peace, justice and universal brotherhood and encourages harmony among all people. Muslims in Canada and around the world have joined us in condemning terrorism.

We are engaged in an armed conflict so we must be particularly vigilant in protecting the rights and security of all our ethnic minorities. It is unacceptable and offensive in a democratic, pluralistic nation such as ours that even one act of intolerance would be perpetrated against our fellow citizens.

We have many fellow Canadians who are Muslims, Christians and Jews who are from the Middle East or are of that ancestry and other Canadians who look like they might have come from there. It is important to remember that Judaism, Christianity, Islam and all other religions abhor the terrorism that has taken place. This act was carried out by a small group of fanatic extremists. We must fight any expression of xenophobia by reaching out to our fellow Canadians and speaking out against hate and intolerance.

I am very pleased to see the strong and consistent efforts made by all parliamentarians and by our government to allay the tensions and fears felt by minorities in our country. Our present actions contrast most favourably with the dark days of our history when the government was the leading force in carrying out acts of intolerance, a past where we interned those we considered dangerous during our wars and whose only sin was being different, the most grievous of these being against Canadians of Japanese descent, thousands of whom were forcibly repatriated to Japan after the last war.

However, we have evolved. Canada has evolved into a country that is made up of people from all over the world representing every religion and ethnic group. We have come together in this country to build one of the most prosperous and inclusive societies. Canada shines as a beacon of hope in the troubled world too often torn by ethnic hatreds and intolerance.

Bin Laden, the Taliban and all terrorists feed on hatred and intolerance. It is in their interest to promote hatred so they can carry out their terrorist acts. Every Canadian and every individual concerned with terrorism can join the war against terrorism by working for an inclusive society at home and abroad. We can do so by reaching out to people and respecting their different religions and cultures and their humanity. We will not tolerate any expressions of racism in our communities. The anti-terrorist legislation, Bill C-36, strengthens our laws on hate crimes.

In closing, I would like to express my support for and gratitude to the courageous men and women of our armed forces. I believe that I can speak for everyone in the House in wishing them a safe return to their homes and families after they complete their tour of duty in making our country a safer place.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attentiveness to my hon. colleague's speech on this important piece of legislation. I know that the hon. member represents an area of the country where there are a lot of factories, both large and small, that are very reliant upon north-south trade with our U.S. neighbour.

Certainly one of the great concerns that I have heard expressed since the tragedy of September 11 is how this is impacting on and threatening the huge trade relationship we have with the United States. I have heard a number expressed by one of the hon. member's colleagues in the Liberal Party indicating that nowadays there is upward of $1.4 billion a day in trade between our nations.

Obviously one of the concerns being expressed by people whose livelihoods are contingent upon the free flow of goods between our nations is the whole idea that we can either work with the United States in negotiating a comparable system of securing our borders so that we continue to enjoy that trade or we can see it increasingly put at risk by not reassuring the Americans that we have the willingness to basically wed our systems so that they can feel comfortable that our standards, if you will, of securing our borders from any would-be terrorists are as high as the standards employed in the United States.

With that as a backdrop I will put a question to the hon. member. I know it is of great concern to him because, as I have said, of the huge economic impact that the fallout from this despicable action of September 11 has had on his riding in particular. I would ask for his comments about securing this perimeter of North America rather than looking at us as individual nations in that sense.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. There is no question about it. Trade with the United States represents a big part of the economy in my community. Nothing more exemplifies that than the little gadget produced by Research In Motion which, I just found out today, is being worn by every member of the United States congress. It is called a BlackBerry. It is worn by the members of the United States congress because it was one device that continued to function on September 11 when the cellphone airwaves were jammed. This is just one example. We have many industries in my community that very much rely on trade between Canada and the U.S.

The member is quite correct. If we were to allow the terrorist acts of September 11 to impair the economies of Canada and the United States then we certainly would be letting the terrorists win. I will say to the member that I have a great deal of sympathy for the idea of the Schengen agreement that was negotiated in the European Union.

I think we can come to some kind of arrangement to ease transborder traffic and I can also say to the member that in many cases the standards in Canada in terms of gaining access to the country are higher from a security perspective than they are in the United States. Clearly the member has touched upon an area that is of vital concern to both nations. I trust that it will be adequately addressed.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my comments to those expressed earlier on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, by my coalition colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough.

Before I begin my comments on the bill itself, I would like to extend a sincere thanks on behalf of my constituents in Prince George--Peace River, and perhaps on behalf of all Canadians, to the architects of the anti-terrorism bill, who dropped everything and began working I suspect around the clock in order to have this bill ready for presentation to the House yesterday.

One can only imagine how onerous this task must have appeared during the first few meetings on those first few days. Yet the challenge was met with a level of confidence and professionalism of which all Canadians should be greatly proud.

Sadly it is often the case that the work and sacrifices of these dedicated individuals goes unnoticed or unappreciated. I would like to assure everyone involved in the drafting of this legislation that the entire country has taken notice of their work and thanks them for their sacrifice.

As a member of the opposition, it is not very often that I find myself in the position of agreeing with something that the government has done or that it has made a commitment to do. The fundamental differences in our values and beliefs are what keep us on opposite sides of the House.

However there are occasions such as yesterday, when the government supported our supply day motion condemning the attacks of September 11, affirming our support for the men and women of our military headed overseas and the joint meeting of the defence and foreign affairs committees, where the government finds itself supporting the opposition or conversely the opposition supporting the government.

The international war against terrorism is one such occasion. I commend the government and the Minister of Justice for undertaking the introduction of this important new piece of legislation.

The bill represents an important step but not the only step in the development of a national strategy to address a threat that until recently we believed to be a problem inherent in countries elsewhere in the world. That perception of the world, perhaps somewhat misguided, some might even say naive, was a reflection of the world that Canadians want to live in, the Canada that we want to protect.

I struggle now to ensure that the reaction that we undertake as parliamentarians and as Canadians is an intricate balance between our desire to ensure that we are protected from harm and our desire to ensure that we do not fundamentally change the way life that has been carefully nurtured and protected by previous generations of Canadians.

This is the balance that I know was in the minds of the drafters, lawyers, advisers and countless others who contributed to the bill. It is a balance that I believe has been fundamentally achieved. Of course the devil is in the details. However I am confident that any concerns that we, the PC/DR coalition, may have will be adequately addressed during the review of the bill by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

As I mentioned previously, the bill represents only one of a number of important elements in the fight against those determined to undermine our confidence and democracy and our way of life. The passage into law of the anti-terrorism act will provide us with a way to deter, disable and dismantle terrorist activity, but having the means by which to undertake these activities is equally important.

As with any law, it is essentially useless unless we have someone to enforce it. Manpower, the human element in counterterrorism activities is an area that has suffered considerable neglect in recent years. It is an area that we can ill afford to continue to ignore. Year after year for the past decade the budgets of the Department of National Defence, CSIS and the RCMP were slashed. Entire departments in some cases, such as the Canada ports police, were eliminated.

Frontline security duties, such as airport security, were privatized. The focus at our borders was shifted from security and enforcement to revenue generation and cash collection, all without due consideration as to the long term effects these cuts might have on our national security.

The aftermath of the events of September 11 have shown that we cannot continue along this route. Canadians are tuning in to the fact that the increased police presence at airports, nuclear power plants and even on Parliament Hill is a redeployment of existing officers and that redeployment means less coverage somewhere else. The practices of underfunding and understaffing are being noticed and Canadians want something done about them.

Last week, in keeping with the government's approach of tell the world before it tells parliament, Canadians were subjected to a national parade of cabinet ministers clambering over one another to make the next announcement of a new government initiative for what can only be described as a full court press in a game of catch up. In the world of public relations I believe it is called damage control.

As mesmerizing as it was to watch minister after minister after minister and sometimes three at once announce new funding, it was a completely redundant exercise since the Minister of Foreign Affairs had previously announced that a meagre $250 million would be made available as an immediate response to the deficiencies identified in our national security network.

Despite attempts to generate enthusiasm for the one time expenditure, it is readily apparent that this cannot be the full extent of financial resources devoted to improving national security. As it is, the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada only receives an annual budget of $1.5 billion, which has to cover all operating costs of both CSIS and the RCMP. Even if the full amount of the additional spending were allocated exclusively to the solicitor general, it would only represent an increase of 16.63% in the national security budget.

Given the recent public opinion poll supporting an increase in spending on national defence of $3 billion to $9 billion, one could conclude that Canadians would also be receptive to spending much more than the $1.75 billion on intelligence and national policing.

It is also apparent that to have any meaningful impact the funding of our armed forces and national policing agencies must be increased on a long term basis to ensure that the agencies responsible for national security have the ability to sustain operations at the desired levels. Now more than ever it would be irresponsible for the government not to introduce a budget outlining to Canadians how it intends to finance our war on terrorism over the long term.

I would like to return at this point to the specifics of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act. While I have nothing further to add with respect to my comments on what the bill sets out to accomplish, I would like to add one comment with respect to what I consider an intricate component that is not contained in this bill.

Part 5 of the bill is devoted to the amendment of other acts and proceeds to introduce amendments that are deemed necessary to ensure that this bill integrates properly with existing Canadian law and to allow the new act to achieve the desired objective.

What I find surprising in this amendment to other acts section is that there is no amendment to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act that would broaden the mandate of CSIS to include conducting international and covert information gathering operations as part of its normal operations. I question how we will participate in the international fight against terrorism without giving our intelligence service an international mandate. It would seem to me that this is a question that should be considered by the committee when the bill has been referred for its consideration.

I hope that the introduction of the bill represents the beginning of the government's fight against the threat of international terrorism and not the end. There is much work to be done if we are to rid ourselves of this evil and providing that we are given the opportunity to participate through debates and information briefings, I am certain the government will find itself with all the support it needs during these challenging times.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first, this bill will be important to our law enforcement and security agencies. They need the bill because we need to stop terrorists from getting into Canada and need to protect Canadians from terrorists.

As a nation we must be prepared to ensure our safety and security. We need more and more powerful tools to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists and those who support them.

The legislation would give our law enforcement, security agencies and courts the ability to do so. Our allies also need the bill. If we truly want to be a leader in the international effort to deprive terrorists of sanctuary, to shut off their funding and leave them nowhere to turn, we must have strong anti-terrorism laws.

We must ratify the international conventions on the suppression of terrorist financing and suppression of bombing and the convention on the safety of United Nations personnel. We must be part of the solution.

This is especially true for our common border. The free flow of people, goods and services between Canada and the United States is absolutely essential for both of us. We must prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists. If we do not then the terrorists will have won.

As the House will know, the nature of terrorism is constantly changing. Terrorist operations are decentralized and terrorist cells are made up of highly motivated and skilled individuals.

Canada, the United States and countries around the world are adapting to dealing with new and emerging terrorist threats and methods of operation. We are constantly re-examining and improving what we do and how we do it.

The Government of Canada has already taken significant measures to enhance our ability to fight terrorism and will continue to take any and all necessary measures to ensure the country remains safe and secure.

Last week the Government of Canada announced a series of measures to improve airport security and improve RCMP capacity to fight terrorism, especially in joint operations with our neighbours to the south, to tighten up immigration procedures and freeze assets of terrorists.

A full $250 million in new funding is being invested immediately, and just last year we allocated $1.5 billion to the RCMP, CSIS, CIC and other public safety partners to ensure that they continue to have the tools they need to do their jobs effectively.

Through the special committee chaired by my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we continue our review of laws, policies and procedures. As the Prime Minister has said, what we need to change will be changed.

It is evident that Canada and the United States have a long record of close co-operation in fighting terrorism and transnational crime. No two countries work more closely together on law enforcement.

The whole point of our anti-terrorism plan, which includes this legislation, is to deter and disable terrorists. In this regard, our efforts and those of the United States will be complementary.

RCMP, CSIS, local police, customs, immigration and transport officials work closely with their American counterparts each and every day in their ongoing efforts to ensure the safety and security of our citizens.

Joint investigations and operations and the sharing of information and intelligence show how close the relationship is between our two countries.

These activities are possible thanks to the seamless co-operation that exists at every level of our national law enforcement, intelligence, security, customs and immigration agencies.

When I was in Washington two weeks ago to meet with attorney general John Ashcroft he told me the United States government was impressed. He thanked me for the co-operation it had received from CSIS and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He said that before the U.S. could ask Canada for help we were already co-operating to do the things we knew to be necessary so we could succeed and bring the terrorists to justice. That is high praise. It is true that while we protect Canada and Canadians we also help protect our American friends and other allies.

To defeat terrorists we need to choke off their money supply. Bill C-36 goes a long way toward achieving that. It would designate certain groups as terrorist groups, make it easier to freeze their assets, prosecute those who give them financial support and deny or remove charitable status for designated groups. It would cut off financial support for terrorists by making it a crime to collect or give funds either directly or indirectly to carry out terrorism.

There is no doubt that some of the measures we propose are extraordinary. That is why we have included significant checks and balances. Canadians want the measures but they also want safeguards to ensure the measures are targeted to terrorists and those who support them.

Yes, we will give police more tools to investigate and prevent terrorist activity. Yes, we will make it easier to use electronic surveillance against terrorist groups. Yes, we will take steps to protect security information and detain terrorists. Yes, we will take measures against groups that abuse our registered charity system to raise funds for terrorists.

Simply put, a nation must be prepared to protect itself to ensure its safety and security. That is exactly what we are doing. The murderous attacks of September 11 showed the world that terrorists have no regard for their victims or themselves. If we are to prevent terrorism and save lives we need the tools in Bill C-36.

The bill's measures are targeted directly at terrorists but it is also important that the principles of judicial review and due process be respected. Bill C-36 has found that balance. It is consistent with the charter of rights and freedoms and it responds to the situation we face following September 11.

I hope all members of the House will support Bill C-36. The bill would provide our legal system and police officers with the important tools they need to do the job of making sure Canada remains the peaceful and safe place it has been for many years.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate, particularly because the government moved so quickly. Much of the work that went into the bill should have been done years ago but nonetheless it is before us now.

A few years ago the Royal Canadian Legion had a motto “If you can't remember, think”. There are many people in the House today, and no doubt many people watching, who cannot remember certain events in our history. I remember very well the events of September 3, 1939. I remember September 10, 1939, when Canada declared war. I was only a boy. At the time I heard some of the funniest statements one would ever want to hear, but none as vicious as a statement I heard on September 11, 2001, on Canadian television. I will get back to that later.

On December 7, 1941, a Sunday morning I remember like yesterday, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Do members know what I heard in this country? I heard that the United States had it coming. I would like members to recall that date in 1941. Canadians and we in the House had better thank God we had the United States as an ally. If not, we would probably not be sitting here enjoying the freedom we are enjoying this very day.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, my Ottawa office staff phoned me and said they had been asked to leave. They told me to turn on my television. As I sat having breakfast with my wife, I said that before the day was over I would hear some of the same crapola I heard following December 7, 1941. Sure enough, all day long on September 11, 2001, and in the days that followed I have heard that the United States had it coming.

The statements were not made by anyone in the House because the House was not in session. However the CBC carried some programs that made me sick to my stomach. They defamed our partner and ally through two world wars. They blamed the whole thing on the United States.

There are people in the House who say the United Nations should take the lead role rather than the United States. I am sorry, but one of our UN nations admitted the other day that it had within its borders many of the same people whose names are on the list for terrorism. Sweden, a member of the United Nations, said it could not do anything about it until these people broke a law.

We do not need to worry about the bill going too far because it will not need an examination in three years. It will need to be expanded before then. I do not think for one moment that we have seen the last of the war on terrorism. There is a whole lot more coming. If there is one theme I would like to leave the Chamber with it is this: No one's rights can ever exceed the nation's right to security.

We pick up the papers and read all these things about sweeping rights. We read that lawyers and civil rights people have concerns. No one's rights can ever exceed the right to have a secure nation. We must be cognizant of this fact: We did not have the charter of rights during World War II but the security of the nation was utmost in everybody's mind.

We came a lot closer to having war on our very soil on September 11 than we did during those five years of conflict. Canadians were killed not many miles south of the border.

We have this hogwash in Canada that to be a true Canadian one must somehow hate the Americans. It is generated. When I listen to certain university professors, and everyone probably knows the one I am referring to, I wonder what kind of message they are sending our students and young people who attend university. It is shameful. It is disgraceful for the nation.

Let us look at our charter for a moment. Let us look at what happened in Seattle. Do we have freedom of assembly? Yes, we do. Do we have freedom of expression? Everything is freedom of expression in this country but who gets all the attention? Was the Operation SalAMI meeting a legal meeting? Yes, it was. Were the protesters given legal rights? Yes, they were. The same was true in Quebec. However we must always put our weight on the ability of security forces to protect a legally constituted meeting.

We need to re-examine some of these things. We hear people in the House, mainly members of the NDP, say we should not get involved in the campaign against terrorism. We should not get involved? The Minister of National Defence knows full well that any boat could pull into Toronto harbour undetected and blast away. It is possible. We need to think of the security of the nation more than we need to think of individual rights. This is terror.

I represent a rural constituency. This morning at 9 o'clock some people picked up their mail from a small post office in my riding. They took it home and opened it and powder was in the envelope. They were not ready for that. Neither was the RCMP. After nine hours someone finally came and picked up the envelope. A lady is now receiving precautionary antibiotics.

We need to state clearly to the Canadian people that this is not the end of the crisis. Canada is subject to attack in any place and at any time. The question is not so much whether we must go back and re-examine Bill C-36. The question well may be whether we must strengthen its measures for greater security. That may sound a bit rough for some people. However let us not worry about our individual rights. Let us worry about the security of our country.

In our country and in my province we have terrorism of a different sort. Bill C-36's definition of terrorism fits what is happening in some of our cities. Homes are being raided and destroyed. People are being molested. That is terrorism, even as defined by Bill C-36. The powers of the bill, which some call wide and sweeping but which I call common sense, could be applied to the domestic scene as well.

I am proud to support the bill but there is one thing I want to see forgotten. I want to see Canada take a far different approach through its media, the CBC and its town halls. We must stop thinking that to be Canadian we need to defame the United States.

It is about time. We enjoy our security because of our partnership with the United States. We do not enjoy any misdoings of United States events as our allies in World War I or World War II. It is time now that Canadians realize that.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I rose in the House to speak with respect to our Canadian forces and the deployment of over 2,000 of them with respect to the campaign against terrorism. Today I rise to speak about the legislative changes in Bill C-36 as they affect the defence portfolio.

One of the objectives of the government's anti-terrorism bill is to eliminate the obstacles to the security of our country.

The proposed anti-terrorism legislation will amend the National Defence Act to align it with changes in the criminal code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security Information Act. For example, the National Defence Act would incorporate the definitions of terrorist events, terrorist activity and terrorist group. This is to bring the military justice system, which is a separate system, completely in line with the civilian system.

A second set of amendments contained in this package would provide additional authorities to the Communications Security Establishment or CSE. This organization has an important role to play in the campaign against terrorism since it is heavily involved in intelligence information gathering and analysis. Not only does it intercept and analyze foreign communications it also helps to protect the government's information systems and networks.

The world is changing and so must CSE. The organization needs to sharpen its focus on critical trends, on national issues and, most important, on terrorism. These new authorities would enable it to meet the requirements of the new environment and provide the kind of foreign intelligence that Canada, working closely with our key allies, will need in the coming months and years. This new framework would help CSE work more effectively to help protect our own federal government computer systems and networks.

The intelligence needs of the government have changed greatly since the end of the cold war.

At the same time, advances in technology have radically changed the way the world communicates. These changes have made it increasingly difficult for CSE to operate effectively within existing authorities. Currently in its information gathering the CSE is focused on foreign entities. It can only pick up information in foreign countries, not in Canada. Under section 184 of the criminal code it is unable to pick up any communication that either starts in Canadaand is sent to a foreign country or is sent from a foreign country to Canada. If two terrorists are communicating in foreign countries, we could pick it up. If one of the terrorists moves into Canada, we cannot. Therefore we are stymied in an attempt to deal with the terrorist problem. This unduly constrains the effectiveness of the Communications Security Establishment.

We know that terrorists and those who support them communicate with people in many different countries and they do communicate with people in Canada. However, under the criminal code, if CSE is targeting a known terrorist abroad and that individual then communicates with somebody in Canada we cannot intercept the communication.

This constrains our intelligence collection apart from that of our closest allies. We are working closely with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Those countries have had the legal framework in place since the second world war, and that is what I am asking that we do through Bill C-36.

It is also important to understand that the proposed amendment would not authorize CSE to focus its collection effort on Canadians. The effort must continue to be focused on foreign entities and not on Canadians. The proposed amendment states that CSE's activities would not be directed toward any person who is a Canadian. It would simply enable CSE to intercept the communications for foreign intelligence targets located abroad when their communications go in or out of Canada or to an unknown location.

CSE also requires additional authority, which that it does not presently have to protect our own federal government 's computer systems and networks from any mischief, unauthorized use, hacking or interference.

Monitoring systems are indispensable tools in assessing the vulnerabilities of our networks. Under its current legal framework CSE is restricted in its ability to monitor the computer systems or networks of the government.

The proposed amendment would therefore authorize it to perform in a more effective monitoring fashion. This measure would help to assure the protection of government computer systems. I am sure that is what Canadians want. They want to have their government protect its systems and its networks into the future, particularly when more government services are going online.

An important point here is privacy. Let me assure the House that the privacy of Canadians remains paramount and that it would continue to be protected through an effective control regime in the conduct of CSE's operations.

As Minister of National Defence, before authorizing CSE to collect foreign communications which originate or terminate in Canada for purposes of foreign intelligence, I would have to be satisfied on four counts: first, that Canadians and persons in Canada would not be targeted; second, that the intelligence resulting from this collection could be reasonably be obtained by other means; third, that the value of the intelligence would justify the means of interception; and, fourth, that a private communication would only be used or retained when it was essential to the advancement of Canadian interest, defence or security.

I should point out that CSE has an unblemished publicly available record of compliance with similar kinds of controls in the regime it has already operated under for a great many years. Over the past several years both the privacy commissioner and the CSE's own commissioner, a retired judge from the court of appeal in Quebec, have examined CSE's handling of information involving Canadians. They concluded that it was done in compliance with Canada's legal framework, including the Privacy Act and the charter of rights and freedoms.

I have confidence that this would continue if CSE operates under these proposed new authorities. The commissioner's own mandate is strengthened in this legislation to ensure that it does so.

Good intelligence is one of the most important contributions that Canada can make to the campaign against terrorism we are waging with our allies. The proposed amendment enhances Canada's foreign intelligence capacity by allowing CSE to intercept communications that may have a direct bearing on terrorist operations.

The proposed amendment will be welcomed by our allies as they already have this authority. It will be welcomed by them as evidence that we are committed to remaining an active and contributing member of our close intelligence partnerships. It will also enable us to more effectively protect the computer systems and networks of the Government of Canada.

I believe the additional authorities provided to CSE and the changes to the National Defence Act I have outlined would give us better tools to fight terrorism effectively in the long run.

I therefore recommend that we support them.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight and speak to the bill.

First, I would like to continue to extend our sympathies and best wishes to the families and friends of all victims, from wherever they may have come, as a result of September 11. It indeed was a tragic thing and our prayers continue to be with them whether they are from Canada, the U.S. or wherever. I think that would be true of each and every one of us.

I am pleased to see the foreign affairs minister here tonight. I would like to say to him, on behalf of the Wild Rose people and myself, that we commend him for the excellent job he has done as the spokesperson for our country in the event down there. He has done very well and we are very pleased with that. I believe in passing out commendations when they deserve it and he deserves it.

The second thing I would like to thank the Liberal government for is the bill. It finally has arrived. I think it should have arrived a little sooner but I would like to thank the government for using many of our ideas and proposals that we have presented in the past. That is a feather in its cap too. It really did not ignore what we were saying. It included them in the bill. For that we say thank you.

There are a lots of good things in the bill but there are many things that we must now take into consideration. I would ask every member of the government who is present tonight to please hear me out and to consider these things quickly in terms of dealing not only with the bill but with terrorism itself.

I will start with Parks Canada. This may surprise people. They may wonder what in the... that has to do with the issue but I will explain.

Presently something is happening in all parks across Canada. At one time it was the duty of many park wardens to enforce the laws, to look after the needs of managing our parks and to make sure that things were going well. It was managed by those people who were best trained and best experienced for that kind of work: the park wardens themselves.

They did an excellent job in the past and we want them to continue to do a good job. What does that have to do with the bill? Here is the problem.

We know that the one thing that is lacking in the bill is the resources to do the work that will be required as a result of September 11. I do not know who would initiate it, but it is time for somebody in the government to initiate some conversations with the heritage minister to deal with the park warden situation and get them back to work doing what they do best, which is looking after the parks of Canada, and thus releasing the hundreds of RCMP officers who are trying to do that job.

The government has hundreds of RCMP officers trying to manage our parks. They are not trained or qualified to do that job. They do not particularly like chasing poachers or looking for horns on top of vehicles that should not be there or confiscating things. They need to get back to what they are best qualified for and that is providing security and protection for this country.

I plead with somebody on that side of the House to talk to the heritage minister. We must deal with the park warden situation. We must get them back to work in the parks and equip them with the tools they need to do their job effectively so the RCMP officers can go back to their duties of providing safety and protection for this country, which is what they want to do. They do not want to chase elk, deer and those who would poach them.

Whoever came up with the idea that is what had to take place really surprises me. However, the move was made and it will cost, if it has not already, as was reported to me, about $40 million to have RCMP officers in the park areas doing the job of highly qualified people who are already there just waiting to go back to work.

Following the circumstances of September 11, it makes absolutely no sense for us to even consider using police officers in some capacity other than that of providing safety and protection to this great nation of ours. Since that is what they want to do and what they were trained to do, why, for Pete's sake, does the government not allow them to do it? Could the members over there please wake up the heritage minister and tell her to get the issue settled with the park wardens? They want to get back to work as well. They can do a great job. Let them do their work.

I have visited a number of border crossings, land border crossings and airport crossings, and if there is one thing customs officers want to contribute to the whole cause it is to be given the ability to actively participate in the protection of Canadians and Canadian soil.

I would like to read to the House the regulations regarding customs officers. It is number 16 of the regulations. It states:

Customs officers shall not use force against members of the public where it is known or strongly suspected that the individual is carrying a weapon and considered dangerous, if in the judgment of the officer involved the use of force would present an undue risk to their personal safety or to the safety of another officer of the public. In these circumstances officers shall note the pertinent details of the case, permit the individuals to proceed into Canada unobstructed and then officers will notify the police immediately.

Whoever wrote that regulation did not take into account the 50, 60 or more crossings in this country. When they phone the police it is up to two or three hours before the police can respond to their call, just because of their location. A lot of these locations have one individual on duty. If anyone thinks for a moment that the terrorists would only use the most active ports to enter into our country, the bigger ports, they had better think again. The terrorists know about these ports. They know about these entries into Canada where there is a cabin and one person on duty and that at 10 o'clock or 9 o'clock at night they put out a pylon to stop the flow of traffic and then go home.

Let me tell the House about the attitude of the officers on the front line, the first line of defence at the borders. They want to be equipped and trained. They want the tools needed to enter into the battle of stopping terrorism from entering this country. They do not want to allow peoples to enter into our country unobstructed when they know they will only cause a lot of trouble and grief to a lot of innocent people. They know this will happen but because of government regulation they are not allowed to stop them.

We should all think about terrorists arriving at our border. They are smart enough to know they cannot come through Toronto or through Port Erie, so they go up to Roosevelt, which has only one person, or somewhere else that has only a one cabin one person operation and they come right in. All they have to do is act tough and scary and the customs officer has no choice but to let him go and then phone the RCMP which could be 200 to 300 miles away.

These are just common sense things that we could do to provide protection.

I encourage the government to get the park wardens back so we can bring more police back on duty doing what they do best. It should also train and equip our customs officers so they can do the job of arresting people at the border like they so desperately want to do.

We have to change our attitude on this. It is a serious thing. Allowing terrorists to enter our country unobstructed creates a great risk to people in Canada and that just plain does not make sense.

I ask the government to please listen to the people on the front lines, to those who work hour after hour in defence of this land. It must hear their pleas and listen to them. If the government puts away its bureaucratic thoughts and thinks about the guys who are out there really working, I think it will come up with some real good plans for the security of this nation.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to take the opportunity to speak to my constituents and other Canadians who are watching tonight about the importance of the anti-terrorism act that we have now introduced in the House, about to what exactly is in the act and how I believe the act helps to lessen the threat of terrorist activities here in Canada.

The government is determined to take steps to stop terrorism. Over the past number of weeks I think the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence have very clearly outlined the steps we believe need to be taken to help fight terrorism in Canada. I have certainly outlined what I believe to be the reasons behind the actions taken today.

I want to say at the outset that the actions we are taking in the legislation today might not have been acceptable in Canada two months ago, but certainly after the events of September 11, I do not think there is any question. When I go back to talk to my constituents on the street they say they are prepared to give a little of their rights and freedoms ensure that Canadians are safe. The constituents I have talked to on the street certainly are in favour of the approach that we are taking here, with the understanding that there are checks and balances within the legislation to make sure that governments and representatives of governments do not take advantage of these changes in the laws that we are making here today.

I will outline a bit of what is in the act. The act tries to identify, prosecute, convict and, in particular, punish terrorist activities here in Canada. Activities in Canada, as we know, have always been under the criminal code. Canada has in fact been a leader at the United Nations in pushing for international conventions on terrorism. We have now signed all 12 United Nations conventions on terrorism and we have ratified 10.

What this legislation would do is help ratify the other two conventions of the United Nations that try to attack terrorism internationally.

What is critical in what we have tried to do is to get the international community moving to fight terrorism. Under the auspices of the United Nations, the work it has done on these conventions goes a long way to co-ordinating the efforts of the world community to fight terrorism.

Of the two conventions that the bill would help ratify, the first is the suppression of terrorist financing convention. That relates to the freezing of terrorist property by prohibiting dealing in any property or with a person engaged in terrorist activities and also by prohibiting making available funds, financial and/or other related services to terrorists. What that tries to do is strike back at terrorist financing to make sure that these terrorist organizations do not get the financing they require to carry on their activities.

The other convention that the act would deal with is called the suppression of terrorist bombings convention. It contains provisions relating to the targeting of public places, government or infrastructure facilities or transportation systems with explosives and/or other lethal devices such as chemical and biological devices. What this tries to do is make sure that these activities are not carried out by terrorist groups.

What this also does is deal with provisions within the Criminal Code of Canada. It defines what a terrorist activity is in the criminal code. It states that it is an offence under one of the ten United Nations anti-terrorism conventions and protocols, which is what I just spoke about earlier. If people do things to break those conventions or protocols, then they are conducting a terrorist activity.

Second, it says that an action taken for political, religious or idedogical purposes which threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering the person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people or by interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system, is a terrorist activity.

On the other side, we have public debates in this country that sometimes lead to demonstrations where people go out and break a few buildings, or tear down a fence or something. That would not be called a terrorist activity.

What we have tried to do is balance the legitimate right of Canadians to express their views and at the same time make sure that these terrorist activities do not take place in Canada.

The bill also designates terrorist groups and activities. The definition in the designation framework would provide clear guidance to the police, the prosecutors, the courts and the public as to what is and what is not a terrorist group or activity.

It would also make it a crime to knowingly collect or to provide funds to these terrorist groups, the maximum sentence under that would be 10 years, and to knowingly participate in or facilitate these activities of terrorist groups.

It would also be a crime to instruct anyone to carry out a terrorist activity on behalf of a terrorist group and also to knowingly harbour or to conceal a terrorist. By doing this, someone would get 10 years. In fact, for a lot of the activity in the terrorist group, one could get life sentences also.

The criminal code would also stipulate that the sentences imposed for each of these offences would be served consecutively so the time period would be longer.

It would also change the criminal code to make a new definition and designation of schemes that would make it easier to remove or to deny charitable status to some of these terrorist groups. As has been listed in the paper, there are a number of groups around the world that claim to be charities and claim to do certain noble things for people around the world. However, they are taking those dollars and funneling them to terrorist activities. This would make it a lot easier for the government to deny that charitable status to these groups to ensure that this sort of activity does not take place in Canada.

It would also allow stronger investigative tools for our police forces and to find these terrorist groups.

Measures within the legislation deal with electronic surveillance. Nowadays terrorist groups have all kinds of opportunities with new electronic media to deal with these sorts of issues. This would help take away their ability to use the Internet, to use this electronic surveillance to carry on their terrorist activity.

The Official Secrets Act would also be amended to address national security concerns, including threats to espionage by foreign powers and terrorist groups, and make sure that they are not able to carry on these activities denying them access to the information they require.

I believe very strongly that we have hit the right balance in this approach. I believe that constituents in my area support the approach the government is taking on this issue. I would encourage any of them at any time to contact me and let me know their views. We will continue to fight terrorism, as the Prime Minister said, to make sure that these activities do not take place in Canada or around the world.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part today in this exercise in reflection brought about by the anti-terrorism bill.

The events of September 11 have wreaked havoc with everyday life and the way people go about their daily life. It can be said that since September 11 we have been experiencing a shockwave. In my riding, I have heard stories when talking with friends about how life is no longer the same. We thought we were not vulnerable to an attack such as this one.

People are experiencing feelings from fear to anger and compassion. Compassion is being felt for many American citizens, but there is also a feeling of compassion for what is happening in faraway lands, in Afghanistan, compassion for all these displaced people who are destitute and often on the verge of starvation.

As a result of the unfortunate event of September 11, we as a society have a lot of thinking to do. Our vision of the world leads us to rethink not only what an anti-terrorism act should be but also our vision and the compassion we should show to improve the living conditions of people in the Middle East, in Asia and across the world. As we know, the conflict in Afghanistan is not the only one going on in the world today.

The bill is aimed at reassuring our fellow citizens but also at eradicating terrorism. I have been wondering. Will this bill reach its intended goal? Is it not too far-reaching and might it not fail? How could we better reassure people? Could it be through a change in attitude? I believe a change in attitude is a goal we should strive for. Does the bill not go too far?

We know that several people, more precisely 62% of Quebecers, have some concerns about losing the freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the charter of rights and freedoms, privileges that were acquired over time. They are concerned with security. We know that security has been seriously jeopardized. Right now we can feel that people are scared, especially in the United States. Even here on the hill, we had an emergency situation yesterday because of a letter that might have contained anthrax. We know that this feeling of fear could very well affect us too.

The attacks on New York and Washington made us aware of the dangers stemming from the international situation. They warned us that from now on we would have to be on our guard. Many people are on the verge of a psychosis about terrorist attacks. If this is what bin Laden wanted to achieve, I think he succeeded. We must react and we must do it quickly.

I think that rapid action does not require haphazard measures. I hope that in introducing this bill, the government will be open to amendments that we may want to propose to ensure that this bill does not infringe on our rights and freedoms. The Bloc Quebecois has asked a lot of questions and has some concerns about the implications of this bill. In fact, there was an obvious political goal attached to the introduction of this bill, that is, to calm the public.

Maybe the government will succeed in recreating for a few days or a few weeks the illusion that Canadians had before September 11, namely that they can live in relative peace under the umbrella of the United States. It will take only one serious incident to change all that.

We may try to prevent, repress and punish terrorism, but will we be able to eradicate it without dealing with the feeling of hopelessness that causes it?

How can we prevent an individual, whether or not he belongs to an organization, from taking other people's lives with his own? I wonder if an anti-terrorism act will keep at bay people who are prepared to give up life or to risk it in the name of a so-called holy war.

This is why we must be very careful about the type of bill on which we will vote here, a bill that requires the support of members of parliament.

We must ask ourselves the following questions. Why must we legislate against terrorism? How can we do it without infringing on those freedoms that are so dear to us and that were gained over the years? Last, will this legislation be enough to avert the threat?

Let us begin with the first question. Did the government have to introduce these measures today? Either the security measures in place were inadequate and the government was careless or else it was fully aware of the possibility of terrorist attacks. If it was, this means that existing measures were not applied properly. Either way, the government is responsible and must now hurry to reassure the public with its omnibus bill.

There are examples that illustrate both carelessness and mismanagement. The first one is the delay in reviewing the cases of refugee status claimants in Canada. We had an act that could have allowed us to be much more vigilant. It often takes several years before a ruling is made. It may take in excess of five years. Hanging a sword of Damocles over the heads of these claimants will not facilitate their integration, if they are accepted, or their expulsion, if they are rejected. If the act had been properly enforced, part of that problem might have been solved.

Another example is the privatization of security services at airports. The discovery of knives on aircraft at Toronto's airport shows that the government was negligent and missed an opportunity to tighten up security for the benefit of passengers by resorting to penny pinching schemes.

Finally, today the government announced measures that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It should have thought of these measures before, but we cannot go back in time. However, we must be vigilant as to the types of bills that we are going to pass in the coming months.

Again, I hope that the government will give opposition parties enough time to hear witnesses and recommend amendments to the bill.

A second concern is the issue of security. Since it is possible to improve the security of Quebecers and Canadians by rigorously applying existing security measures, is it necessary to go as far as amending the criminal code to grant broader powers to the police force in terms of preventive custody, electronic surveillance and opening of postal and electronic mail?

Is there not a risk of violating the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens? This is the question the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois asked the Prime Minister today. We cannot say we got reassuring answers with regard to the goals of the anti-terrorist act.

Finally, the long term effectiveness of the comprehensive strategy being proposed raises concerns. In the aftermath of the air strikes by the U.S., can we really believe that an anti-terrorist act will prevent such acts in the future? Not only should we find a political solution to the problem, but we should also be cautious about exclusively military and police solutions. We have to go beyond that.

Before September 11, there was already a terrorism problem. We could have been much more vigilant. This is the why I ask the government to be cautious in the choice of legislation it wants to implement in Canada. It might bring in a short term solution, but such legislation could have, in the long term, a destructive impact on democracy in Canada and in Quebec.

Before September 11, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency knew that something was going on in Quebec and in Canada. However, all the information was concentrated in the hands of the solicitor general and the Minister of Justice. We could have been much more vigilant.

There are irritants in the bill. It should be reviewed every three years. This legislation could be counterproductive.

The bill should contain a sunset clause, otherwise it would no longer be in force.

We have to be very vigilant. I ask the government to show openness and to listen to opposition parties, which might change its mind regarding this anti-terrorist legislation.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, yesterday the government introduced in the House its anti-terrorism act. It is strong new legislation to deal with people and acts that were mostly unknown before September 11.

The goal of the legislation is to identify, convict and punish terrorists and provide new tools to the police and other agencies effectively to pursue and prosecute terrorists. Some of these measures are strong but they are consistent with Canadian values of respect and fairness. The legislation is also in step with measures being taken by our allies everywhere. With the legislation, we join our international partners in taking steps to stamp out terrorism around the world.

Let me talk about some of the provisions of the new act. It would allow law enforcement agencies to define terrorist groups and activities. It would make it easier to prosecute terrorists and those who support them. It would make it an offence to participate in or contribute to the activities of a terrorist group. It would make it an offence to harbour a terrorist. The new legislation would create tougher sentences and parole provisions for terrorist offences.

All of these measures go to the heart of rooting out terrorists in our country. All of these measures are appropriate following the events of September 11. They are in line with what must be done and what is now being done by our allies around the world. It is important to repeat that following the attacks on September 11, the Prime Minister and Canadians with him have called for a renewed commitment to Canadian values of respect, equality, diversity and fairness.

The point is worth making one more time. This is a campaign. This is new legislation against terrorism, not against one cultural community, group or religious faith. The anti-terrorism act reaffirms Canadian values and ensures that the Canadian respect for justice and diversity is reinforced.

The legislation takes direct aim at the root causes of hatred and its expression. For example, amendments to the criminal code would allow our courts to order the deletion of publicly available hate propaganda from computers. Very importantly, further criminal code amendments would create a new offence of mischief with a maximum sentence of 10 years for acts committed against a religious place of worship which are motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. Amendments will also be made to the Canadian Human Rights Act clearly prohibiting using telephones, the Internet or other communications tools for the purposes of discrimination or hatred.

We are a free and democratic society. We must remain a free and democratic society. The anti-terrorism act introduced by the government yesterday has as its first goal to keep Canada free and democratic. To do this we must confront the terrorist forces against us within our own borders and across the world.

The government is doing just that. Canadians can be comforted in knowing that with the legislation all that must be done is being done to stop terrorists and terrorist acts, to deal with the hatred that is a root cause of terrorism, and to protect our values and our way of life.

It is my belief that the anti-terrorist act has balanced the need to confront our enemies with the desire of all Canadians to live in a free, diverse and fair society.

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was in Ottawa on September 11 and watched in disbelief, as did millions around the world on their television sets, as one and then a second airplane crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. Quite simply, the world gasped as these horrible acts of terrorism unfolded right before our very eyes.

There is no doubt that this brought terrorism home to our country. A peaceful fall day was shattered by the hard realities of the terrible human toll right in front of us on our televisions. Since then a great sense of insecurity and vulnerability has swept the continent on a level unimaginable just an hour before the skyscrapers crashed to the ground.

These acts also brought terrorism to Parliament Hill itself. Terrorism arrived at the door of this House to a Canadian population that shared in our neighbour's grief and now shares in our neighbour's war response.

It changed things forever. It brought terrorism into our daily vocabulary. It brought terrorism into our daily lives. It caused a tidal wave of disruption that reached into every corner of our economy, government, schools and communities. It shook our placid society to its core as our government fumbled as it responded to the threat.

While the effect on our economy was definitely traumatic in the short term, our citizenry's response was unbelievable, incredible. There were many isolated great efforts as some rose above the rest to help. We saw thousands of Canadians step forward to host and help stranded air travellers and others race to New York to offer their specialized services. Those unable to assist directly did so through their generous donations of money and blood.

These acts by the terrorists succeeded in sending a number of companies in Canada and abroad into receivership, but our determination and resolve will quickly put things back on track. I am confident that with our collective international will we will fight these terrorist pressures with a vigour reminiscent of the stubbornness of allies in World War II. The bill today, while incomplete, will help in the war on terrorism.

The terrorists are not the enemies of the past, the ones who opposed us under the Geneva convention set of rules. Those rules of war were established to protect the innocent, the unarmed, the unprotected. No, today's enemies are cowards that hide in caves, behind rocks and live under the protection of the freedoms we fought for in previous times. Cowards like that deserve no respect or mercy. They are as much a danger to us as they are to the people they purport to represent and the false legitimacy they cower behind.

We, with the help of our allies, will overcome these terrorists. We will bring them forward and bring justice upon those determined to undermine our civilized nation's efforts and successes. We will exact retribution from those who cowardly assassinated thousands of peaceful civilians who were simply going about their daily lives working for their families. If we do nothing, we invite similar attacks in the future. These cowards must realize that their actions are civilly and morally repugnant and will come at a great personal cost to them.

We congratulate the government for finally getting on with the job of national security. To date, the government's reaction to this critical issue can be best described as slow motion and delayed reaction.

Already the changes are evident on Parliament Hill. There are tighter security controls. There has been the introduction of vehicle inspections and checkpoints. There are more officers on duty today than there were for the first four hours after the strikes in the United States on September 11. I am pleased to see that there is now a heightened level of awareness and vigilance on the Hill, at our airports and in other public buildings. This is welcome and gives confidence and reassurance to those who work in and visit these buildings.

As a past member of the Royal Canadian Air Force, it is fair to say that I have a sense of the military mind and thinking. Our military is proud and ready to serve at any time. As they say in the navy, they are ready, aye ready. They are ready to contribute and assist under any emergency, whether it be ice, fire, flood and of course now the war. They wear their uniforms more proudly today than they have over the recent past. I invite all members of the House when meeting members of our armed forces in uniform to give them warmest greetings and show them that we care and that they are appreciated.

While they have been under the continual assault of cutbacks, slashback and neglect, their years of training and patience again regain importance under present global circumstances. On Wednesday we will see them off from our port of Halifax in new frigates. I have personally been aboard the HMCS Charlottetown and can attest to its first rate construction and the pride of its first rate crew: first rate ships for first rate sailors.

I want to allay fears that the aging Sea Kings are unsafe. The crews and pilots need these assurances after recent reports. The minister too has assured us that they will be flown safely under strict limitations. Missions will be limited and greatly downgraded and scaled back from the mission standards of new helicopters, but will still have some limited air transport capability. Some day soon I hope the government will finally order first rate helicopters for our navy's first rate frigates.

I am sure the government will be analyzing our current military state under an expedited timetable. I hope it will revisit tenders in progress to ensure our men and women in uniform will have the best equipment possible to do the job and do it safely.

We must learn the lessons from our experiences in the past. In World War II we traded the safety of our soldiers for the sake of expediency. We provided Sherman tanks that were under-armoured and under-gunned compared with those of the enemy. Many lost their lives because we traded quality for quantity and low price. We provided the best soldiers with the least effective tank. I hope and pray that the government will never ever follow that strategy of providing lesser capability equipment to our frontline military simply to save money.

This is the time to reassess and reconsider overly simplistic assessments of a reduced threat by the end of the cold war. Today the hot war has begun. It is a war that is fought in some of the most extremely high temperature climactic conditions. The Middle East, Africa, the Pacific, the Balkans and now the Arabian Sea are theatres that severely test the high temperature operating capabilities of a helicopter to perform missions, but perform it must.

While our Sea Kings can be safely operated on very limited missions, they are not designed for service in the extreme heat zones of the world. They cannot lift off from a stationary ship if fully equipped with gear and fuel in over 35 degrees Celsius weather. They have served us well in cooler climates but now need to be replaced with a craft designed for hot war theatres and modern needs. I strongly stress my desire to see the public works minister expedite the maritime helicopter project to replace the Sea King with the best unit available for the job and to leave politics out of the decision for the sake of our aircrews' lives. We need the best equipment in the world for the best men and women in the world. Considering what we are asking of them, it is the least that we can provide. Our soldiers depend on our government to provide them with the very best to go into conflict with. If their lives are on the line, we must give them the very equipment possible.

I would like to comment on the bill we are debating today and read a short extract that emphasizes the need for this bill and the need for the bill to go further. A communique from the Equality Party with the heading “Canada soft and squishy on its own terrorists” indicated that punishment meted out to bombers and languished terrorists is laughable. Mathieu, recently convicted of planting bombs outside the Second Cup restaurants in Montreal because the chain carried an English name, was charged and sentenced and he will be serving no more than one to two months in jail. This is his second offence for a terrorist bombing action.

The judge imposed the minimum sentence despite the fact that Mathieu had a prior record for FLQ terrorist bombing and was described by the judge himself as not yet rehabilitated and motivated. He was motivated: by hate and prejudice.

This underlines the reasoning behind the very real need for the bill today. I support the bill but I would also suggest that it does need vast improvements to strengthen it. However, it absolutely will be a tool in the fight against terrorism.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Madam Speaker, our attention has been turned upon a changed world since the New York and Washington, D.C., terrorist attacks of September 11. A paradigm shift has occurred, like no other that most of us will ever see. I do not believe we will ever erase the impact of these tragic events on our personal lives, on the life of our nation and indeed on that of our global village. We have had a wake up call like few others in our history.

I have been very proud of the leadership of our Prime Minister and of the tremendous competence exhibited by our cabinet ministers as the government responded quickly, responsibly and carefully to the new challenges of making our neighbourhoods, our country and our world safer for everyone.

I have also been very impressed with the calm and caring response of my constituents and Canadians from coast to coast who refused to rush to justice. I believe the vast majority of my constituents and Canadians, as they express their support for our American neighbours, want us to deal firmly, effectively, thoroughly, but justly, with the threat of terrorism everywhere, not only through this terrible episode but in the future as well.

As we debate Bill C-36, a bill to combat terrorism, let us first review some of the many challenges that seized the attention of our leaders and the government over the past month.

There was the whole general area of security, especially airport security. I remind members that each one of these security matters entailed tremendously complex issues to be resolved and they were resolved quickly and effectively with the assistance of a tremendous public service. There was border security. As we all know, we share the longest unprotected border in the world with our U.S. neighbours. Included with the issue of border security was making sure that cross-border commerce would soon return to some semblance of normality. I would like to mention that the president one of my constituent businesses, Manitoulin Transport, contacted me and asked for our best efforts to make sure that cross-border commerce would return as soon as possible. I am sure every effort will be expended to achieve that goal.

The Prime Minister and all of us have been seized with trying to get life back to normal, making sure that tourists were travelling and that small businesses were trading not only among themselves in this country but across the border.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been seized with refugee and immigration issues, and of course the media attention, especially in the early days, really put a tremendous amount of pressure on her and the government. I appreciate how it was handled. Her response, along with the responses of other ministers, resulted in great confidence across the nation.

More recently there have been issues of bioterrorism, but we do not know the outcome yet. There is also the issue of money laundering.

Of course there is the need to respond in a military way to the call of our U.S. neighbours and allies to deal with terrorism. We can only express our pride in and appreciation for our military personnel, land, air and sea, for their willingness to be prepared and to, when needed, enter into dangerous situations on our behalf to make sure that we, our children and grandchildren can look forward to a more peaceful world.

The public has noted with approval the support of both sides of the House for the involvement of our military in Afghanistan and here at home and for the need for an appropriate military response. It has been refreshing. Partisanship has for the most part been set aside during this difficult time. I do know that the public appreciates that.

November 11 is the day that we cherish each year to remember the members of our military from past wars and peacekeeping. We have come to count upon our legion branches across this country to make sure that we never forget the terror and tragedy of war. It is very comforting that at this time we have those elders among us to make sure that we continue with measured steps over the weeks, months and years ahead. There are many lessons that we can learn from our legion members. I want to express thanks to them for what they have done for us. I know that we will be counting on them considerably in the future.

I would like to very briefly mention that I think the government's response to the September 11 attacks has been clear and concise. Canada's anti-terrorism plan has four major objectives. The first is to basically stop terrorists from getting into Canada in the first place and to protect Canadians from terrorist acts. The second is to bring forward tools to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. The third is to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists and impacting on the Canadian economy. We count on that Canada-U.S. trade. The fourth is to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and address the root causes of such hatred.

More specifically regarding Bill C-36, we must give some credit to the great number of public servants who spent intense hours and days in a large group effort to bring forth legislation that I believe will withstand the test of time. However, with the assistance of the justice committee it will no doubt be made even better. We commend them for their efforts.

Bill C-36 includes defining and designating terrorist groups and activities to make it easier to prosecute terrorists and those who support them. It includes tougher sentences for terrorism offences. It would make it an offence to knowingly participate in, facilitate or contribute to the activities of a terrorist group. It would make it an offence to instruct anyone to carry out a terrorist activity or an activity on behalf of a terrorist group. It would be an offence to knowingly harbour a terrorist. Also, it would move us forward in cutting off financial support for terrorists and would make it a crime to knowingly collect money or give funds either directly or indirectly in order to carry out terrorism. It would make it easier to deny or remove charitable status from terrorist groups under the Income Tax Act and easier to freeze and seize their assets. Of the 12 UN conventions, of which Canada has already ratified 10, the last 2 are ratified in the bill.

I hesitate to use the word war. I prefer the word campaign, because I think our efforts here are about making peace. However, sometimes making peace requires a firm hand and a firm resolve to deal with people who would abuse the freedoms of others. This is not a campaign against an ethnic group nor is it one against a country or a religion. It is a campaign against terrorists, who are essentially criminals seeking to destabilize our society for their own ends. Regardless of how they would rationalize those ends, in the eyes of the vast majority of the people on this planet those ends are not justifiable. Not only have they hijacked planes for their terrible cause, they have also hijacked a great religion, Islam. Indeed, the roots of Judaism, Islam and Christianity are the same. I am sure no amount of terrorism will deter us from finding peace some day for the entire world.

As I wish our military bon voyage, safe travel and a quick return, I will conclude by expressing my hope that the co-ordinated efforts of the countries of world at this time to deal with terrorism will in due course turn to dealing with the other great challenges of this planet, such as poverty, environmental pollution and other forms of crime.

I am pleased to have a chance to speak tonight. I only hope we will see the end of all this soon.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my statement this afternoon I mentioned that we are campaigning for life without violence. This evening I am obliged to speak of the violence that does exist.

It is a bit of a paradox that we are obliged to speak of such violent things once again, and it will certainly not be the last time we will have to talk about the min the House. We speak of them not only in this House, because I am sure people who watched us yesterday and are watching us today and will watch us tomorrow will continue to speak of the events of September 11. It is part of our day to day reality and we have no choice but to speak of it.

What really bothers me is that I was born in a free country and want it to remain free. I would also like Quebec to be a free country.

Why do I speak of that? Because it annoys me that we have to pass such laws, bills that are vital but affect the balance between security and freedom. I would never have thought that we would have to speak more of security than of freedom.

I have children and I hope they will live in a free country. For us to be in a free country, our freedom must not be curtailed, and this is what concerns me. Our fundamental guarantees must remain untouched also.

We talk of the constitution. This is a major issue. We could simply talk of freedom, but we must look at the source of our freedom and what makes us a democracy, which must be properly enshrined so that we can live in a free country, on a free planet. This is something we should be able to take for granted. We saw what happened on September 11. We had no choice.

Either people are poor or they live in an undemocratic system. They have no freedom and in their lives they have a problem: they are forced to live in abject poverty. That is the word, poverty.

Poverty is why we are talking about antiterrorism legislation today. This is a pity. I hope the money spent on it will not just go to sanctions but will also reduce poverty and suffering so that we can solve the problem of terrorism.

I hope this will be discussed. There is a lot of talk about sanctions and how to stop terrorists, but is there another way to deal with this problem? Maybe this should be looked at also.

There were four objectives in the government's anti-terrorist plan when work was begun on drafting this legislation: to prevent terrorists from entering Canada and to protect Canadians and Quebecers against terrorist acts; to provide tools for the identification, prosecution, conviction and punishment of terrorists; to ensure that the border between Canada and the United States is not taken hostage by terrorists, which would have serious repercussions on our economy, both in Canada and Quebec; and to co-operate with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and to deal with the root causes of the hatred that motivates them. Those were the four objectives.

Something will have to be done about this bill and I hope that the government will have its ears wide open, both here and in committee, that it will not go too fast and that it will listen to experts. We can hear from people who not only are experts in international law but who know a lot about terrorism.

I want the definition of terrorism to be much more precise and not as broad as what we find in the bill now.

That definition does not include a definition of a terrorist. Of course we are told that we cannot get an international consensus on what terrorism is.

The problem is that the bill only refers to terrorist activities without defining terrorism. It goes without saying that it will be difficult to do that, but we should not hurry, because what are terrorist activities?

In the bill, the definition of terrorist activity is twofold. Clause 83.01(1) reads as follows:

an act or omission committed or threatened in or outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:—

Then there is a list of ten conventions that were signed and ratified by Canada. There are also two that remain to be ratified and implemented in Canada.

Clause 83.01(1) states the following:

an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed in whole or in part—

The most important part in that clause is the expression “in whole or in part”.

The expression “in whole or in part” opens up a lot of possibilities. It is not restrictive. It leaves the door open to anything that will follow. It gives an idea of what the legislator wants to do. The legislator is the House of Commons. This expression is broad and is followed by this:

(A)...for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause,

(B) ...with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada—

I skip 83.01(1) (b) (ii)(A), (B), (C) and (D) to go to the following:

(E) to cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that does not involve an activity that is intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C).

It is very broad. This paragraph says in part that the organizations seem to be made up of unions or supporters. We have seen what happened at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City. Police officers did a good job. Some of the protesters were there but were not provoking anything. However, things happened that could even be classified as terrorist acts.

We cannot leave such a broad definition of terrorist activity in this legislation. I believe a definition of terrorism should be included, or the concept should at least be explained.

At the European Commission meeting held in September, a proposal was made to the council. Terrorist acts are said to generally affect the physical and psychological integrity of a person or group of persons, their property or their freedom, just as common law offences do. Terrorist offences go much further than that, because they undermine the political, economical and social structures of countries through violence. It is a very severe form of crime.

Moreover, we find the following proposal in a definition of a terrorist offence.

Terrorist offence deliberately committed by a person or group of persons against one or several countries, their institutions, their population, with the intention to intimidate them and to destroy or severely compromise the political, economic or social structures of those countries, in particular murder, bodily harm, kidnapping or hostage taking, blackmail, theft or robbery, unlawful seizure of governmental or state facilities—

I will spare you the rest of the list.

All that is to say that this proposal will be ratified on December 6 or 7 by the Council of the European Union.

Of course, ten minutes go by very fast and that is unfortunate. However, the bottom line is that the concepts of terrorism and terrorist activity really need to be specified.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-36. It is an important bill which will be going before the justice committee. Canadians will be comforted to know that it is a very important bill and that it will undergo rigorous scrutiny by the House, both at second reading and in committee. Representatives from all parties will have an opportunity to address witnesses, including the minister, departmental staff and anybody else they feel has relevant information, because the bill is an omnibus bill and touches a number of important aspects related to terrorism.

Many members have already put on the record a number of the provisions of the anti-terrorism bill. I will leave it at that. There were a couple of aspects though that I did want to deal with. It is important that the definition of terrorism or terrorist activity is understood in the context in which the bill deals with it.

Terrorist activity is defined as an offence under one of the 10 UN anti-terrorism conventions or protocols as defined in another jurisdiction or where for political, religious or ideological purposes one threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people, or by interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system.

It is very important that we are focusing on and dealing with terrorism. The definition is crafted to make it clear that disrupting an essential service is not a terrorist activity. There has been some concern about whether or not this application would be too broad. It is not a terrorist activity if it occurs during a lawful protest at a work site or is not intended to cause serious harm to persons. There is within the definition this clear focus on truly defined terrorist activities.

The bill was introduced yesterday. Constitutional experts will be looking at charter issues and criminal lawyers will be looking at a number of the subtleties.

Two issues have come up that I thought would be of interest to dwell on. One is called the preventive arrest, which Canadians should know about. We are talking about individual rights and freedoms and the extent to which these things would be appropriate, given the circumstances of September 11 and the challenge that free and democratic countries face now.

Preventive arrest is a process whereby something similar to a grand jury would allow people, where there was a suspected or alleged risk of terrorist activity, to be taken into custody. During this process they would be subject to the rules of perjury. In other words, if they lied or it was shown that they had lied in their responses, they could be subject to the laws relating to perjury. They would not be able not to answer questions in that hearing. If they did not answer, like in any other judicial proceeding they would be held in contempt according to contempt laws.

Interestingly enough in this process nothing that they would say could be used against them in the event that they were ultimately charged. It is a separate process. It is a new instrument that I wanted Canadians to be aware of.

As a result of a preventive arrest, the outcome could be that the people would simply be released because the judge was satisfied. They could also be charged as a result of the information developed by the investigation. They could even be released with certain conditions, similar to a peace bond situation. This is mutual and Canadians would want to inform themselves and watch the development of this issue.

The second one I thought was interesting is a process called the investigative hearing. This is something similar to a process whereby people would receive a subpoena to appear before a hearing in which they would be asked certain questions related to their activities. This may lead to other things. However it is another tool which would help to achieve the objectives of the bill to allow those who are responsible for detecting and preventing terrorist activities from occurring to be able to deter terrorist activity.

The bill contains a number of other aspects. Members have very eloquently described the extension of wiretap provisions and the impact on other jurisdictions, police forces and provincial integration.

In looking at this issue I thought about the ongoing process and discussions of the post-September 11 attacks. It has to do with the allegation by some that Canada is a haven for terrorists. This is a very serious allegation and a very serious indictment and Canada should strongly respond to the myth of that statement.

This act will be one of the tools we can use to dispel that myth. It would be quite legitimate to suggest that if Canada did not have an effective anti-terrorism piece of legislation comparable to the legislation in place in other jurisdictions such as the United States, Great Britain or elsewhere it would be the weakest link. Canada would in fact become that haven. It is very important for us to know what is going on internationally to make sure that the provisions under this act work and work in the same realm of effectiveness we see in other jurisdictions.

I want to finish off with something that concerned me a bit today. There was a speech on the bill by the Leader of the Opposition in the House. As usual, the discussion always seems to slip into immigration and refugee issues. We talk about new Canadians and how we will toughen up the Immigration Act because of criminals coming into Canada or what will we do about it.

No issue has been stressed more by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and members of our caucus than the importance of understanding this is not a war against Afghanistan. There are terrorists who happen to be in Afghanistan. We cannot let this become a cultural or a religious bias. I do not think anyone in Canada would say that anyone of Afghani background should be suspected of being a terrorist.

I remind Canadians of what the Prime Minister said last night in the debate and today in question period. We have taken every step possible to ensure that the rights and freedoms of Canadians and all those on our soil who are protected by the charter of rights have been fully taken into account. Those rights and freedoms will be unaffected substantively by this legislation.

There is no question that we, as a small country with a baby boomer situation and an aging society, will depend very heavily on the immigration system over the next 20 years to provide us with people to support our population base and our economic base.

We welcome immigrants. We welcome new Canadians to the best country in the world. Those rights and freedoms that the Prime Minister was so instrumental in bringing to Canada are rights and freedoms that we are going to protect as part of this bill.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, as others have said 10 minutes is a very short time. I can assure everyone that I wish I had an hour or two because there are so many aspects of the bill I would like to speak on. What I will do is limit myself to one part of the bill about which my colleagues have not spoken. They have covered some very important areas in other parts of the bill, but I would rather talk about some of the things that are missing from the bill, and one in particular.

There is a conundrum that opposition MPs find themselves in when the government comes out with a bill that has perhaps 60% of or 40% or even 20% of what it should have in it. Do we vote against because it does not have everything it is supposed to have or do we accept that it has some good in it and pass it because anything is better than nothing? That is something that I will need to look at.

The government says this is critically important. We have even negotiated a swift passage of this bill to committee. That is why we are in tonight at a late hour. If the government really were sincere about that, I would remind it that we brought forward a supply day motion almost a month ago that was essentially the same, in fact different only in the respect that the government has left some things out that should be in it and which were addressed in our supply bill.

I hope that the ministers present will pay particular attention to what I have to say in the hope that they might convince their colleague, the Minister of Transport, when they meet in committee to reconsider some of the things he is doing or rather fails to be doing.

The area I want to talk about, and which needs to be addressed to seriously deal with terrorism or the threat of terrorism in the country and the safety of Canadians, is airport and aircraft security. I want to talk about a single example because that is unfortunately all that time will permit. It is a very serious breach in airport security.

The minister is talking about spending a very large portion of the money in the transport sector on enhanced new equipment that will go into the big airports, such as Pearson, Montreal and Vancouver International. The problem is, as the old saying goes, a chain is only as good as its weakest link. There are dozens of small airports around the country that feed into the big airport locations and have almost no security at all. They do not have basic x-ray equipment.

Bags are checked by very conscientious people using nothing but their eyes and hands. As people might well figure, particularly with hard shell luggage, it is not very hard to put false compartments or false bottoms in certain types of suitcases. They can run them through and check them, but we know already from the minister's own testimony in the House that, just as bureaucrats attempted to take fake guns through security, one in five make it through. That is in airports that have the fancier equipment now.

What happens when a sincere terrorist, who will use any method available to him, tries to do this at some low key location? The minister is putting all his eggs in the high traffic airports and is in fact doing nothing. I asked him in committee and he confirmed that the government had no plans whatsoever for these small airports.

People will go through security in these low key airports and then fly to places like Vancouver, Calgary, Pearson or Montreal. They will land in those airports and disembark into the terminal, not outside but inside. Then they will pass this fancy new enhanced equipment, which the minister has said he intends to purchase. What have we done? We have bypassed all the safeguards the minister has claimed he will put in place. Those people are now between the security system and the aircraft.

I can assure everyone there are a lot of other ways. I have worked in the industry for most of my life and I could go on for an hour describing the various ways that a serious terrorist could breach security and get weapons onto an aircraft. That means that the aircraft itself is the last line of defence in terms of thwarting the plans of a hijacker or terrorist, particularly one that is plotting some horrific action like what was done in the United States on September 11.

Those three things that must be done are these. The cockpit crew must be secured. The crew must be informed of what is going on. There has to be a method to subdue a hijacker if one should try to take over the plane.

The flight crew is secured inside the cockpit by having a substantive locked door with the necessary structure so that it cannot easily be broken down, never mind just opened. Once the crew is secured inside the cockpit, it does little good if they do not know exactly what is going on inside the main cabin. That can be done by installing a very inexpensive closed circuit television that will give a view of what is occurring in the cabin.

Now we have the crew inside a secured cockpit and we have them informed as to what is going on. What happens if one or more hijackers or terrorists try to take over that aircraft? What do they do if terroriste hold a young flight attendant and threaten to cut her throat if the crew does not open the door? What if they proceed to do it, then say they will do it to one passenger every minute until they open the door, or conversely if they start to break down the door?

Air marshals are one possibility, provided it happens to be a flight on which there is an air marshal and provided there are not enough terrorists on board that they actually outnumber the air marshals.

Another thing that has been suggested is to arm the crew. I personally do not think that is a great idea because before the flight crew can use a firearm, if that is what they have been provided with, or stun guns like British Airways has talked about, they first have to breach the secure mechanism between them and the hijackers. They have to put themselves in harm's way in order to have the possibility of using this. Depending upon what the terrorists are armed with that may not be a very good idea.

I will suggest something that is very drastic but I am suggesting it under drastic circumstances. It is serious when passengers or crew on board the aircraft are harmed seriously or killed or when there is an attempt to break the door down. That suggests there is a good possibility the aircraft could be used as a missile and flown into a building, as was the case in New York City on September 11.

Under those circumstances, we should have a serious talk about the concept of having a cannister whereby the pilots could go on an oxygen system and release the contents of that cannister into a main cabin and put out the people who are in there. That is drastic, but so are CF-18s flying in our airspace armed with missiles with the knowledge that they may be called upon to shoot down that aircraft with its passengers. I fly a lot and if I had my druthers I would far sooner be knocked out with a knockout gas than shot down by one of our CF-18s.

It certainly matters that we have a terrorism bill. There definitely is some good in the bill, but there are some gaping holes in it as well. Until we fill those, we are still putting at risk Canadians who are depending on us to look after their safety.

Maybe I will close with the facet of the costs associated with this. I would suggest that there are no costs on a net basis. One of the solutions for small airports, which has been discussed before, is to do away with security at these airports. We are talking about Beach 200 twin engine turbo props. We are talking about Dash 8s. No one will to hijack them. They can be rented or leased without any security at all. If the aircraft are flown to Vancouver, the passengers could be released not on the secure side but into the main terminal building. If they wish to go onto the main aircraft, they would then have to go through that enhanced security.

The government got rid of the cost of putting the gas system on board the airplane, building up the door and putting on a closed circuit system. If the airlines did this they would create confidence in the travelling public. If one passenger flew on each aircraft once at full fare across Canada it would cover the entire cost. We can do a lot better than we are doing with this bill. I hope the government will be amenable to improving it when we reach committee.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-36. These are particularly dangerous and fragile times not only for us as Canadians but internationally as well. We are witnessing a United States led bombing campaign in Afghanistan which, in my view and the view of my colleagues, is in breach of international law. The response to the September 11 terrorist attacks should be under the framework of the United Nations.

These are also very dangerous and difficult times on the domestic front. Thomas Berger wrote an eloquent book on the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. He called it Fragile Freedoms and indeed the freedoms that Canadians have are fragile, particularly those set out in the charter of rights and freedoms.

It is precisely at times such as these that those freedoms are potentially under the greatest assault. We recall during World War I the internment of Canadians of Ukrainian origin, and in World War II the internment of Canadians of Japanese origin and the confiscation of their property.

Of course in 1970, the War Measures Act was invoked and 400 Quebecers were arrested without any evidence, incarcerated for several weeks and then released.

I am very proud of the fact that at the time the NDP was the only party to say “No, this is not acceptable; this is an abuse of power”.

Before we invoke the kinds of sweeping new powers contained in Bill C-36, it is critically important that the government demonstrate to Canadians that the existing powers in legislation accorded to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to CSIS, to the Communications Security Establishment and to the Canadian armed forces are inadequate to respond to the terrorist threat. If we are not in a position to ensure that is indeed the case and if we are extending sweeping new powers, they risk violating the most fundamental rights and freedoms set out in the charter of rights. I believe that in a preliminary review of this legislation there are a number of provisions of the legislation that risk violating the charter of rights and freedoms.

I have a particular personal interest in that charter having been a member of the constitution committee that drafted the charter of rights back in 1980-81. I believe I am the only sitting member of the House who was in fact a member of the committee that wrote the charter of rights and freedoms. I recall the minister of justice at the time was the member for Shawinigan, today's Prime Minister. We wrote that charter for a very specific reason. It was to ensure, particularly at times of widespread popular sentiment that might risk assaults on fundamental rights and freedoms, that the judiciary would be in a position to say “No, you are going too far”. I believe that we risk going too far in this legislation.

Certainly the internment of Canadians of Japanese origin was popular. The proclamation of the War Measures Act was very popular. However they were both profoundly wrong. When I read for example the definition of terrorist activity in this legislation none of us have any concerns about the incorporation of the various United Nations conventions. My colleague the member for Winnipeg--Transcona, the New Democratic Party justice critic, spoke earlier on this legislation. He pointed out that there was no issue with respect to that or indeed a number of other provisions of this legislation that we would be prepared to support.

However the definition of terrorist activity I believe goes too far. It refers to political, religious or ideological purposes. It talks about causing serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy. Consider for a moment the possible risks of this and what this could be applied to. There are many examples of this, some historic, some current.

The African National Congress in its fight against the brutal and racist apartheid regime in South Africa would clearly have been caught by this legislation, as would any Canadian who supported the African National Congress in its fight against apartheid. I see the member for Edmonton--Strathcona. I know he was a long time opponent of apartheid. He probably even sent a dollar or two to assist in the struggle against it. Had this legislation been in effect, he, as well as I and others, would have risked imprisonment for that. I do not want to see us bringing in legislation that would imprison people who are supporting those who are fighting tyrannical, brutal, repressive regimes.

I recall the freedom fighters in East Timor fighting against the genocidal Indonesian regime. I remember the Sandinistas fighting against Somoza in Nicaragua. I remember the FMLN in El Salvador. Those are some of the historic examples. As Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said, “It is one thing to say we won't countenance people assisting dictators against democrats, but why shouldn't Canadians be free to assist democrats against dictators?” This bill would appear to criminalize that activity.

Today we know that there are people around the world who are engaged in struggles. Whether Canadians agree or disagree with them, do we want to define as terrorists those who support self-determination for the Tamils, for the Chechens, for the Kurds or the Kashmiris? I think here particularly of the Kurds who have been tortured, villages that have been destroyed by the repressive Turkish regime, and member of parliament Leyla Zana who has been imprisoned. For those of us who wish to support them in their struggle against that repressive regime, would we be subject to this legislation?

Here in Canada would environmentalists or labour activists who were engaged in protests be subject to the sweeping powers under this bill?

My colleague from Winnipeg--Transcona has pointed out as well the provisions on preventive detention and investigative questioning, the sweeping new wiretapping provisions, the new unprecedented powers to the Communications Security Establishment, the powers for ministers to override the freedom of information legislation by executive fiat.

I will say in closing that I would support sending the subject matter of the bill to committee, and sending it to committee urgently, but I cannot support the bill in its present form. I believe that the powers that are in the bill constitute potentially a very grave abuse of civil liberties.

There must be a sunset clause as well, not simply a review after three years but a sunset clause, to ensure that the many draconian provisions of the bill in fact are not extended beyond a one year period.

I voice my deep concern about the legislation and in closing point out the words of Clayton Ruby who has reminded Canadians that once these extraordinary powers are brought in, they are not rolled back. As Fred Kaufman, a former judge of the Quebec Court of Appeal, who was appointed by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to prosecute people after the 1970 FLQ crisis, said, “One has to be careful because emergency legislation drafted in haste stays on the statute book”.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that I am very much aware of the magnitude of the events that have led to the introduction of Bill C-36.

I was here when the House considered Bill C-95, which was brought about by the events that resulted in the death of Daniel Desrochers, a young boy from my riding of Hochelaga--Maisonneuve. Then there was Bill C-24, which is currently before the other House.

When I give speeches, I always start by saying that it is important to find the proper balance between the role of the state, which is to ensure public safety and security, especially when it comes to fighting organized crime or, as in this case, terrorism, and the most virulent forms of terrorism we have witnessed in September.

I still think that we need to balance the tools we give the state and its officers, including police officers, with the freedoms that are so dear to all of us.

I have been and still am under the impression that with the defunct Bill C-95 and with Bill C-24 we had managed to reach our goal. After a quick glance at Bill C-36, I am not so sure we can do it with this legislation.

As it stands today, if we were to have a vote at third reading to pass as is all the provisions introduced today, I would find it somewhat difficult to support the government. Why? The problem is not the goal, as I believe that everyone of us will agree with the principle that we must fight terrorism as it now exists.

When we talk about keeping terrorists out of Canada, when we are asked to provide the necessary tools to identify and prosecute people who carry out terrorist acts, I agree. When we are told that we must prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists, I agree. When we are told we must work in co-operation with the international community to bring terrorists to justice, in particular to be tried by an international court, these are all goals that we fully support and for my part I support them, just as my Bloc Quebecois colleagues do.

The problem is that to know whether to reach such goals, which are not only laudable but our duty as parliamentarians, do we really need a two page long definition, like a Spanish inn where everyone and anyone can find something to his liking?

Let us look at the definition of a terrorist act, and I quote:

(b)—an act or omission, in or outside Canada—

So far so good. Then it states:

(A) —in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause—

This exposes the government to a lot of criticism. Then it states:

(B)...with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government, or a domestic or international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada.

This, I believe, might lead to excesses. A militant organization opposed to the status quo might be working to bring about changes for ideological reasons and one might consider that to be economically compelling. One might consider it to be compelling as far as the government structure is concerned.

It is not a definition that should automatically apply to non-terrorist organizations.

To keep it short, I think that in committee we will need to tighten the definition of terrorist activity or terrorist group.

The committee will also have to consider very seriously another matter of concern, which is the fact that the Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Justice, might use information to build a case or to instruct her officers to act on her behalf without necessarily having to account for how she carries out her duties.

What this means is that the Attorney General of Canada or any of her officers could act in such a way that we would end up with no one being held accountable. Not only would no one account for their actions, but we would not be able to find out why they acted the way they did because that information would not be made available through access to information.

Another area of concern relates to the fact that in a piece of legislation as important as the one dealing with gangs and organized crime, the government found a way to use judicial authorizations in just about any circumstances, but it will not be able to do so in this case.

Since my time has expired, I will conclude by saying that I hope some serious work will be done in committee. I must say that we will have a number of criteria. For example, we hope that the legislation, once it is passed, will remain in force only for a specified period. That means that after three years it should not be simply reviewed and extended. We want parliamentarians to have the opportunity to vote on it again, because the time will have come to determine to what extent it has helped us meet our objectives.

I also want to caution the government against trying to fast track the process in a way that would give us only a few days to consider this bill in committee. I think that somewhere around Christmastime would be a decent target from a parliamentary point of view.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, the introduction of this legislation has generated a configurative response which tends to characterize if not stereotype the discussion as one of national security versus civil liberties. Accordingly, I would like to identify if not briefly comment upon a cluster of areas that have been configured as national security versus civil liberties concerns.

I would like to suggest that the appropriate optic should be that of human security, that the appreciation of this legislation should be approached from the perspective of the promotion and protection of human security and which sees the anti-terrorism law and policy as a priority on the human rights agenda and not simply on a national security agenda, and which jettisons the moral and legal shibboleth that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, which has blunted and blurred the moral and juridical divides and pre-empted and precluded effective anti-terrorism law and policy.

First, it has been said that the legislation is not unlike the War Measures Act, that it is violative of our guaranteed fundamental freedoms under the charter of rights and freedoms and that it will not pass constitutional muster.

It is important to recall that there was no charter of rights at the time of the War Measures Act, that the provisions authorizing preventive detention and the like under the War Measures Act have no parallel under the present legislation; that the rights and freedoms under the charter are not absolute but are subject to reasonable limitations prescribed by law, as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society; and that the supreme court has developed a number of interpretative principles, such as the contextual principle, the internationalist principle and the comparativist principle, to determine whether any limitations are in fact demonstrably justified.

For example, under the contextual principle, the issue would not be examined under the abstractions of national security versus civil liberties, but under the concrete case and context of terrorist assaults on human security.

Under the internationalist principle, the court would look to see whether the legislation is in pursuit of our international treaty undertakings and the like.

Under the comparativist principle, the court would look to see what other free and democratic societies like the United States and the United Kingdom have done. Under the margin of deference principle the court might well defer to a parliamentary judgment respecting the overall promotion and protection of human security in the face of this international terrorist assault.

Second, the question arises whether the definition of what constitutes terrorist activity and terrorist offences and whether these definitions are over-broad or sufficiently circumscribed to pass constitutional muster. It is clear that in respecting the delineation of terrorist offences, pursuant to the 10 issue specific international anti-terrorism treaties, these offences are properly defined and circumscribed and they incorporate by reference definitions already under the international treaties and present in the criminal code.

With respect to new definitions of terrorist activity as set forth in proposed section 83.01 of the act, they appear to be clearly defined, both with respect to the character of the terrorist acts and the mens rea, or guilty intent, required for prosecutable purposes.

Third, with respect to the issue of participation and contribution offences, the burden of proof will be on the state to establish that there was intent on the part of the accused that the activities were for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out terrorist activity.

Fourth, there is the issue respecting the process of adding a group to the list of terrorists. Admittedly, it incorporates a number of protections, including provisions for removal, judicial review and safeguards to address cases of mistaken identity. As well, the list must be reviewed every two years by the solicitor general, but this well may become a politicized provision which would prejudice the integrity of the anti-terrorism law and policy and therefore should be approached with respect to appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Fifth, there is the civil forfeiture scheme, which raises the question as to whether the procedural safeguards respecting confiscation of property are sufficient. In that context it is important to note that the safeguards include court protection of the interests of family members in the principal residence, access to the property in order to meet reasonable living and business needs and legal expenses and appeal procedures.

Sixth, there is the issue of the financing of terrorism offences. Here it is important to appreciate that this offence has been established pursuant to our prospective ratification of the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism, that it requires the consent of the attorney general to prosecute, and that the state must establish a mens rea threshold that the accused knew or intended that the moneys or resources were in fact being used to plan, facilitate or carry out terrorist acts.

Seventh, in fulfilling its mandate to collect information, the Communications Security Establishment must receive authorization from the Minister of National Defence to intercept any communication to or from a foreign target located outside Canada that originates or ends in Canada. Admittedly the minister must be satisfied before issuing such an authorization that measures are in place to protect the privacy of Canadians, but should there be a requirement for a judicial authorization cabinet ministers would delegate this authority.

There are three other points in the bill which I will identify. Eighth, is there a breach of the solicitor client privilege with respect to information disclosures mandated under the act? Ninth, what about the provisions respecting preventive arrest which admittedly required judicial authorization and consent of the attorney general but which are new procedural approaches in that regard? Tenth, are there investigative hearing provisions where the judge may order the examination of a material witness?

These are 10 neuralgic points which the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights will address in the days and weeks ahead.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 10 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 10 p.m.)