Debates of Oct. 16th, 2001

Privilege

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pardon me for interrupting but I wish to advise you that all government members henceforth will be splitting their time.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the member's proposals regarding sunset clauses, it seems to me that there has been a bit of consensus emerging in the House. We now have members from the Alliance, the Tories, the New Democrats and several Liberals who have spoken in favour of sunset clauses, and I think this outline is particularly interesting.

There are some systemic differences between the Canadian and American legislative systems. In the American system the president functions separately from the congress, whereas in the Canada the Prime Minister functions within the House.

First, would a review that takes place or an extension that requires a vote of the House not seem to the member to be superior?

Second, could he be a little more specific about which sections of the law he thinks should be included in the sunset clause?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to be terribly specific. Frankly, it is a huge bill which I just received yesterday and I am not a lawyer. It references 23 separate acts and does not necessarily give the text of them. It is a huge piece of work, and I thank God every day I am not a lawyer.

However I do have a lot of faith, quiet frankly, in the justice committee. I served on it for a while. I know a good portion of the membership. They are smart as can be. They will give this real review. On the government side, there has been an indication that the government is prepared to accept the advice from the committee.

The member makes a good point about the difference in the two systems, although I think the committee, if challenged, can find a Canadian solution to that. The proposal is really simple: sunset it for a specific date.

The sunset is better than review because it forces us to debate it rather than simply have it done in committee, then table a report saying that it is okay. I would sooner have the House engaged in it, as it should be on issues of individual rights. However, it gives an out clause because we do not know what will happen in three years from now.

It was suggested to me that if we get all these security services ramped up and it has the potential of ending in three years, about half way through people may start getting nervous about whether they have these powers or not. Therefore, give the authorities one extension and at the end of that, it is either reviewed and passed or it is gone. I think that is reasonable.

I would not do that for all acts. Reviews are a legitimate mechanism when we are talking about economic and commercial acts. However, the bar should be higher when we talk about things that affect our rights.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike many of the debates that we have in this place, this is an issue that Canadians are fairly seized with. The number one question that most Canadians would ask is: How will this affect me? Will this bill give broad sweeping police powers to the state and interfere in my everyday activity, or is this a bill that will provide safety and security for me and my family?

It is important that we discuss this bill in the context of both of those questions. Bill C-36 is in fact an anti-terrorist bill. It is not an anti-immigrant bill, anti-refugee bill, anti-Muslim bill, anti-Afghani bill, anti-Pakistani bill, or anti any of those things because if it were it would truly be anti-Canadian. Unfortunately the debate around this entire issue is in some quarters, mostly the media, focused on this aspect.

There have been many times in this place when my friends opposite and I have disagreed, sparred and had vociferous debates. However this is a time when parliamentarians an all sides of the House have shown that their number one concern is for the safety of Canada.

I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and the other leaders of the opposition, even the leader of the NDP. Even though we may not agree with her particular position on this matter, there is a constituency within Canada that shares her viewpoint. This democratic place called parliament is the place where those kinds of countering viewpoints need to be put forward.

I am interested in some of the suggestions made by the previous speaker regarding sunsetting. There is a section of the bill that requires it to be revisited and redebated in three years time. Whether it is an automatic review in three years or a cancellation of certain policies, unless they are reaffirmed in this place they are all issues that can be fairly and effectively dealt with in committee. They are technical aspects as to whether or not certain search and seizure aspects of the law should be continued or discontinued.

Should there be a wiretap that lasts one year instead of 90 days? Should there be intrusive abilities to monitor situations within this country, abilities that we would probably not have supported on September 10 of this year?

Since September 11 we have had to look at life through a different prism. Canadians are frightened and justifiably so. However, what concerns me is some of the hysteria that has literally thrown gasoline on an open flame.

I refer to recent allegations in the media last week which said that 50 refugees from Afghanistan and Pakistan had been allowed into the country without any security checks whatsoever. I can say that the switchboard, if we want to call it that, in my constituency office lit up. People were concerned and outraged as to how this could happen.

I too was concerned as to how we would allow someone in, particularly today but at any time in our history, without a reasonable security check and so I investigated. What did I find? I found that there was not one refugee from Afghanistan or Pakistan.

On that given day at Pearson airport there were indeed 29 people who applied for refugee status, which is not an unusual occurrence. The largest volume of refugees come through Pearson airport. Each and every one of those people was fingerprinted, photographed, checked through CSIS and cross-checked through the RCMP. No one was allowed to enter the country without a security check.

I will not be critical of anyone in particular in this case. However some members have said that when refugees come to this country and are a security risk or a flight risk, meaning they will not turn up for their hearing, then they should be detained. They are detained if those determinations are made.

I can take anyone who wants to go to a number of motels in the Brampton-Mississauga community that have been acquired as detention centres by the federal government to see families languishing. If there is a problem in our refugee system, and there is, it is in the length of time it takes to process the applications to provide a fair hearing.

We believe that Bill C-11, which will be before the House after it passes through the Senate, would help in that regard because it would allow single person panels instead of the three people needed to hold the hearings now. That should triple the number of hearings and should speed up the process dramatically. That is a case of human rights that need not interfere with this bill or any bill that targets anti-terrorism.

I wholeheartedly support Bill C-36. It is a response that our government has put forward in a timely, thoughtful and well researched way which says to Canadians that the government will fight terrorism with its friends in America, Great Britain and around the world. We will stand united as members of NATO as we have in other conflicts in the world.

A clause was invoked as part of our agreement with NATO known as article 5. Article 5 states that when a member of NATO is attacked all members are attacked. It is an all for one clause. If any Canadian falls through the cracks of discrimination in our zealous attempt to fight terrorism, the attack on that individual Canadian citizen is an attack on all of us. I caution that it can and does happen.

Let me share with the House the experience of a gentleman by the name of Mohamed Abdel-Aziz Attiah who was an engineer on contract with AECL at Chalk River. He was a Canadian citizen for 27 years. He is married to a Canadian citizen and has four children born in Canada. He moved from Mississauga to work at the Chalk River facility.

He was interviewed recently by CSIS and the RCMP for 90 minutes after which there were no charges, but because his name was Mohamed Abdel-Aziz Attiah they remained suspicious. They were concerned about security. There were no charges laid against the individual but after he went out for lunch and arrived back at the facility that he had worked at for some time, and at which he was being offered a permanent position, he found that his security card had been cancelled with no explanation and no reason. Today he languishes without a job, without an income and with a wife and four children, trying to understand.

Is it because of his name and heritage that he was fired? He asks what he did wrong. They trusted him before September 11. He wants to know why they do not trust him now. Is it because his name is Mohamed?

I know no one in this place would support that, yet it is a current case. It is an unjust case and in passing an anti-terrorism bill we must ensure that people like Mohamed and others are not discriminated against. This is not McCarthyism in the 1950s. It is clearly a united attack against terrorism that can come in any nationality, any skin colour and from anywhere in the world, even right here in Canada.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before asking a question I wish to advise the House that October 30 is prostate cancer blood testing day. The speech by the hon. member was quite interesting because he mentioned the case that was widely reported in the newspapers of refugee claimants who were released at Pearson airport, supposedly without proper background checks.

I am a bit puzzled because he claimed that none of them were released without the proper CSIS checks, fingerprints and so on. Yet immigration officials told me that it takes up to 12 months to check the fingerprints that are taken at the point of entry when refugees come into the country. The Ottawa Sun reported on Tuesday, October 9:

Some 50 refugee claimants who arrived at Pearson airport on Sunday after fighting began in Afghanistan were released without proper background security checks and despite an FBI alert that terrorists could retaliate in North America, immigration officers say.

Immigration officers said they were released without proper checks. Frontline officers said the claimants, some of whom were Afghani and Pakistani nationals with no identification, arrived at Pearson on European flights hours after the attacks began. From where did the member get his information that they were not released without proper checks?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not get my information from the Ottawa Sun , the research organ the individual member chooses to quote. The information is incorrect. I get my information from within the department and I have verified the facts.

If the member wants to make this into a partisan issue he picked the right guy to do it with. Not one of those people was from Afghanistan or Pakistan. They were all cleared. Again the face of the Canadian Alliance shows its true self in relying on false information from a newspaper document with no attribution and no proof, nothing but scurrilous accusations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member and it is not often I do that. I visited the motels that he talked about where refugees are detained. Some of them have been detained for up to two years and that is a problem. We all realize that.

However, what is not correct is that they are not all detained. Thousands have been released from these motels with a promise that they would come to a court date some time in the future. That is not just in the Toronto region but it is also on the west coast and in many other places. Therefore thousands of people have disappeared because they fail to show up for their court date. That is a problem, and he failed to mention that in his speech.

Does the hon. member believe this legislation should include a clause that absolutely outlaws membership in an organization directly tied to terrorism?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the minister and the government is that our main concern is the actual activity as opposed to the membership. However it is an issue that should be raised in committee and should be discussed. There could possibly be an amendment. I do not think it is an unreasonable suggestion. We should hear both sides of that argument

However I say to the hon. member that the primary purpose of the legislation is to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. The key word is identify. I think the hon. member would agree with me that we want to make sure we are identifying the proper people who are in fact engaging in terrorist activities and not make mistakes.

We should not go running off in the wrong direction that will cause hardship to people like the gentleman whose example I quoted, and others who are fearful and afraid to even speak up on this kind of issue because this is not the time to do anything but rattle the sabre and stand strong.

Members should make no mistake that any suggestion that people's rights must be protected within this great land is not a suggestion that we should in any way weaken our attack on terrorism. We must stand together with our allies. We will do so and the bill goes a long way toward helping out in that direction.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Langley--Abbotsford. Yesterday I rose in the House to congratulate the government for doing the right thing in committing Canadian troops to join the coalition in the military effort in Afghanistan. Today I rise again to congratulate the government for doing the right thing in bringing forth comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation which will address some of the concerns that need to be addressed.

The legislation being proposed does in some ways appear to be similar to the United Kingdom terrorism act legislation of 2000 and is comparable to U.S. legislation, but it is still lacking in some very important areas which must be addressed.

For over one month we have been asking the government to introduce anti-terrorism legislation and today we are pleased that the government is taking action.

The official opposition was calling for a clear Canadian commitment to provide military support to the United States and for anti-terrorism legislation a long time before September 11. I am not saying that out of any sense of partisanship. I point out that it is the duty of the official opposition to point to areas where we feel the government is not moving strongly, quickly or adequately enough and to encourage the government to take action.

Precious time in the war against terrorism would not have been lost had the measures that we asked for been in place on September 11. The most important role of government is to act as the guardian of the public, particularly in times of great national and international crises such as we faced since September 11. It is the role of the official opposition to be a guard of the guardian. It is the role we played and will continue to play as far as our national response to the threat of terrorism goes and how it unfolds.

On September 18, a week after the horrific terrorist attacks on the United States, the official opposition brought forward a motion which compiled a comprehensive list of those items we had been focusing on for some time previous to September 11.

We called for the naming of all known international terrorist organizations that were operating in Canada, a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism, the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations, the immediate ratification of the international convention for the suppression of financing of terrorism, the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training and terrorist activity in Canada or inciting terrorist acts abroad from Canada, the prompt extradition of foreign nationals who were charged with acts of terrorism even if the charges were capital offences, and the detention on the deportation to the country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed claimants who may have been linked to terrorist organizations.

In a war on terrorism there are many things that should be done but there are a few things that absolutely must be done. If the purpose of the legislation is to have a wall, to block the flow of terrorism and terrorist activity, the wall is of little use if it is of strong concrete in some places but has gaping holes in others. It is the holes in the wall that we need to address.

The elements being brought forward by the government do not deal with the issue of detention and deportation of failed claimants. It does not deal with that issue at all, and I suggest that it is a huge and gaping hole.

We hope to have the opportunity, when the bill is reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice, to improve this anti-terrorism legislation.

These areas must be addressed. The bill would allow the government to create a list of known terrorist organizations. We have been asking for this for a long time. We named the Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils, or FACT, from the government list as a front group for the terrorist Tamil tigers, an identification which had been made not by us but by CSIS, as well as the U.S. state department and the government's own justice and immigration department lawyers.

We took the government's identification of that group as a dangerous group and were accused by the government and its members of smearing innocent Tamil Canadians. That is absolutely far from the truth and that unreasonable part of debate should not be entertained in the House.

The items we are dealing with here are too important to lower ourselves to that kind of accusation. What the government apparently did not want to acknowledge is that Tamil Canadians are among the victims of the Tamil tigers. They have been tricked, cajoled and bullied into supporting terrorist activities through supporting front groups.

While the bill allows the government to list terrorist groups and their front organizations, it does nothing specifically to prohibit membership in those organizations. It only allows for criminal prosecution where individuals actually perform terrorist acts or other crimes related to terrorist activity.

It is possible under the legislation the government is suggesting that al-Qaeda, which is clearly known to be a vicious terrorist organization responsible for the vicious slaughter of thousands of people, could be named as a terrorist organization. Its members across Canada could stand and freely wave and proclaim the al-Qaeda flag. That should not be the case.

In the United States and in Great Britain it would be enough, if it were proved that an individual was a member of a type of organization like that, to allow members of security forces to arrest and detain that person.

We have to remember we are talking about groups of people whose sole reason for existence is death, destruction, terror and destabilization. It would be useful to prosecutors to have available a lesser charge of membership in a terrorist organization like that to bring suspected terrorists into custody. It is very necessary legislation.

Another weakness of the bill is that it continues a policy which has been roundly criticized by many of the government's own members, especially the member from Mississauga. It is something that we call volume discounts for mass murder.

Canadians, including members on the government side of the House, are appalled that multiple murderers cannot be convicted to consecutive life sentences, in effect keeping them in jail for life. We heard ministers on the other side of the House state that life means life in terms of how the government applies the law. It does not. That is simply not a fact. After 25 years a mass murderer is eligible for release and parole. We can produce a list of people already in that category walking the streets of Canada.

Crimes of terrorism are deliberately aimed at the death and destruction of people. We believe judges must have the option of convicting terrorists to consecutive life sentences without any possibility of parole. That should be absolute.

A third weakness is that the bill, unlike the comparable U.S. legislation, does nothing to ensure security from people arriving on our shores from other countries who may be linked to terrorist activities. Canada has a reputation, quite properly, of welcoming people who want to come to Canada, who believe in freedom and democracy, who want to live here, raise their families, and pursue their hopes and dreams.

Our arms are open and have been to those types of people, but we also have a reputation of being somewhat of a haven and a magnet to people who want to come here who do not appreciate freedom and who want to take away and destroy the freedoms that others enjoy. We need to shed that reputation.

We ask for legislation that will give immigration officers and judges the power to detain claimants who arrive in Canada without documentation or where there is reasonable suspicion of involvement with terrorism or organized crime. Detention should be permissible until claimants are able to prove that they are who they say they are and are not a security risk.

This happens in the United Kingdom. It happens in the United States. It happens in Australia. It happens in other freedom loving democracies. It should happen here. It is another gaping hole in the legal wall the government is trying to build, a wall that is concrete in some places but has holes in it that will not stop the flow of the worst type of terrorist activity. These holes attract the bottom feeders of society, the terrorists themselves to whom I refer. They will find the holes, and the holes must be closed and closed firmly.

Fourth, we note that the legislation does nothing to improve procedures for extraditing suspected terrorists to other jurisdictions. Because of the supreme court decision in Burns v Rafay it may prove practically impossible to deport a terrorist to a country, for instance the United States.

This would include people who have possibly masterminded the atrocity in New York City, with the deaths of thousands, coming to Canada. This does not allow them to be deported just because the sanctions for their crime are different from the sanctions that we would have here. That is inappropriate.

We need to address these issues and we need to provide the resources. The minister talked about $250 million and $64 million for law enforcement. On the one hand that might sound impressive until we realize that the amount of money the federal Liberals are saying should be available is actually one-tenth of what they have spent on a faulty system of registering the shotguns of duck hunters.

The priorities are wrong, which is another reason we need a budget in place. There must be a budget. This country should not be known as a country that is now going into two years without a budget. We need that in place so that we can help the government move from areas of wasteful spending and low priority spending to the areas of high priority spending that really matter to Canadians.

Those are the thoughts and principles that we will be taking forward as we address our concerns about the bill. We need to ensure that Canada is a place which invites those who love freedom, peace and democracy but slams the door firmly on those who do not.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to FACT. The unfortunate part is he does not know what FACT is made of. He has not visited the offices of FACT or even spoke to the people at FACT.

I would like to lay on the table a couple of facts regarding FACT. I notice the member sitting beside him is also sharing his leader's vision. FACT is a coalition of Canadian citizens. It is located in my riding. The turmoil that the party in opposition put my constituents through last year, especially my Tamil constituents, is a shame.

During its war on FACT as well as its broader war on the community, I had children going to school who were ashamed to say they were Tamils. I had children who were coming home asking if they could change their skin colour. This is what the war of the opposition party created in my riding.

There are four words I am sure that leader and his party will certainly embrace today. Those words are celebrate, accept, respect and embrace. We celebrate our differences in Canada. We accept our neighbours as equals. We respect the people who are coming into our country and most of all we embrace them.

The unfortunate fact is that opposition party did not use those words. It certainly did not demonstrate that when its leader came to the community and put a lot of my constituents' children at risk with its rhetoric last year and the way it is continuing. I am ashamed to hear the same rhetoric today.

My question is for the Leader of the Opposition. When was the last time he first and foremost went to speak to the individuals at FACT? When was the last time he visited the offices of FACT? When was the last time he spoke to the Tamils in my constituency after what their children were put through because of his party's rhetoric?

I am ashamed of the way the opposition is going. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition really care about those children? Does he accept, celebrate, respect and embrace those children? Certainly not.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an example of what I just referred to, of sliding to an unacceptable level of debate when we are talking about legislation.

We will not stand for the insidious question and the insidious remarks by the member suggesting that we are concerned about anything less than the safety and security of all Canadians.

We are not wilting in the light of that insidious type of language. It is time to be mature when we talk about this issue.

In the last election campaign we had more candidates of ethnic and minority groups than any other party, including the party across the way. As we sit here today there are more MPs of non-European descent in the Canadian Alliance than in any other party. We proudly stand for all Canadians.

This member is telling me about FACT and about naming a certain group. If he were really sincere about this concern he should have talked to the groups and organizations, not the Canadian Alliance that talked about the group FACT.

It has been identified as such by CSIS, by the U.S. state department and by his own Department of Justice and Department of Immigration and Citizenship lawyers. I wonder if he has addressed those people or if he is just getting political here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask about something else but I have to support my colleague from Scarborough. The Leader of the Opposition, as leader of the then Reform Party, raised the issue about a couple of ministers including the mayor of Toronto and other councillors being at a dinner for Tamils. He knows the Tamil tigers are terrorists, but he labelled all Tamils. We have been saying all along in the debate on terrorism that not all Afghans are terrorists. We must support the Afghans.

It would be correct for the opposition leader to apologize to the member for suggesting that it is insidious when it is the Leader of the Opposition who raised that dinner again in his speech today. He raised it again and labelled all Tamils. Does he also label all Afghans as terrorists?

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the people watching are seeing this total departure from fact. There is nothing in here about dinners with anybody, and the member should acknowledge that. I also defy him and challenge him to produce at any time, evidence that any member of this opposition took a whole group of people and clumped them into one. Has he asked his minister why he attended a certain dinner when he had been advised by government officials not to attend? I would ask that question.

We make it very clear that we are supporting legislation to continue the fabulous reputation Canada has established of having open arms for all people who want to find asylum here, who love peace and democracy, to raise their families as such. We stand unashamedly slamming the door on people here who want to take away those freedoms.

When we have groups that are named by department officials in CSIS, then yes, we will ask those questions. I would hope they would start dealing with the elements of debate.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the folks at home should listen very carefully. It is interesting to see how those individuals across the way start to detract from the main issue of terrorism and some of the problems that are not even addressed in the terrorism legislation and degrade the discussion by something that they are doing.

I want to address some facts of which these individuals across the way are probably not aware. I am the only individual in the House who has actually been an intervener in as many as maybe eight or nine deportations of criminals from this country. I will go through seven cases for those at home and those listening in the House.

They are not terrorists but they very well could have been terrorists. The same applies to terrorists except that the rules I am about to go through are not being changed as far as the government is concerned. I will go through this case by case.

At the end I would like the government to ask itself if it is really addressing the real problems inherent in our system as far as criminals are concerned, whether they be criminals moving from north or south of our border, whether they be terrorists in the definition of terrorist today or whether they be people who should not be in our country for whatever reason.

I have to give a brief description of it because I do not enough time. I want to briefly talk about an individual from El Salvador who came into our country, raped a woman and had nine or ten extra convictions while here. He raped a second woman. That lady agreed to stay the charges if he were deported.

The government then escorted and deported the person to El Salvador. It was while the lady was getting gas for her car in my community that she found out he was back in the country within six months claiming refugee status. We have physically deported somebody. He came back into the country and was given a refugee hearing. It took me two years to get rid of this fellow again. He knew it was a haven here. He knew he could stay and would have stayed had I not been an intervener in that case.

This condition still exists today, whether a person is a terrorist or any other kind of criminal. That condition has not been changed by any legislation.

Let me describe another case of an individual from Laos. He was involved in a murder. He went to prison. He applied for refugee status while in prison and after a one hour hearing it was granted. It took me two years as an intervener to get this fellow deported. He would have stayed here had I not been an intervener.

He could have been a terrorist. He was a murderer, not a terrorist. The condition still exists today where a terrorist can be in a prison in Canada, apply for refugee status and receive it while in prison.

Let me describe another case of an individual who came in on a visitor's visa. This is the same thing that a terrorist can do, although this fellow was not a terrorist. He was charged with assault almost immediately. When he heard I was after him for deportation he was advised to apply for refugee status.

He applied for refugee status. I applied as an intervener. As all refugee applicants can do, he applied through the refugee board to exclude me from the hearing. I had to fight that and I won. Just before we had him ordered deported, he abandoned his claim. Everything stopped and he disappeared.

About eight months later I found out he was applying for refugee status for a second time in Calgary. I went to Calgary and applied as an intervener. He kicked me out. I applied to fight that and won for a second time. This time we won the case. His refugee claim is disallowed.

I told the refugee board to hold him because he was a jumper, that he would leave, that he would disappear in Canada. It would not do it. He has disappeared and we hear he is in Winnipeg now waiting to apply again.

This happens today whether the individual is a terrorist, a murderer or a rapist. It does not matter. Those are the kinds of issues that are not being addressed in the House. Those are the issues that the Americans are concerned about.

Speaking about the Americans, I just had a case of an individual from Cuba. He came into Canada. He hooked up with a young, 15 year old kid. The parents came to me and wanted me to do something. I went after him. He applied for refugee status. In the refugee hearing, after he excluded me and I won the right to stay in the hearing again, I was passed a document that said he was wanted in the United States. He had been there for four years. He was not a refugee from Cuba. He was a refugee from prosecution in the United States.

This guy could have been a terrorist. If he were a terrorist the same rules apply today as they did then. I told the police and the refugee board to hold this fellow, that he was a skipper, that he jumps. He jumped from the United States to avoid prosecution. They would not do it. He is gone with the kid. I hear he is in Edmonton. This is the identical rule under which a terrorist would operate.

There is an individual in prison in my community who has been deported from this country over 20 times. One has to work at that. That is a problem. He is an American.

I had a call a couple of weeks ago from fellow who said he was from Oklahoma and was in my community. He wanted me to pay for a few nights at the Travelodge. He said he was a refugee from Oklahoma. I said there is no such thing as a refugee from Oklahoma. He told me he was avoiding political persecution. I asked what were the charges. He is not avoiding political persecution. He is avoiding prosecution.

These individuals in the United States will move to Canada as a terrorist would under the same rules and apply for refugee status. That is wrong.

Christopher Dawson is a dangerous sex offender. I have been working on this case for a long time. To be labelled a dangerous sex offender in this country is a serious charge. He got a passport from Canada while in prison. This is serious. The same rules apply today. That can happen.

Where I come from, if he gets a passport and lives on the border he is going to go to the United States to get some child and run back to Canada to avoid prosecution. These rules exist today whether or not someone is a sex offender, a murderer or a terrorist. I have been saying this in the House for eight years. This is serious and it is not being addressed.

There is only one other thing I want to say about the money that the government is spending on some of these projects. We have a commitment from the government to develop a national sex offender registry. It will not live up to its commitment that would have been about $5 million or maybe a little more. In times of crisis I am perplexed as to why a government says it is throwing money into all of this and will work it out later. The country has been begging for a national sex offender registry. It is the same thing I am talking about. They are different priorities.

It is a priority the government does not seem to understand. I do not know what to say except that these are actual cases. I do them all the time. I am very familiar with them. I could tell the House of 10 or 12 more. The problem is the government is not addressing these circumstances at all in this legislation.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member reminded me of numerous cases in my riding as well. I could read off a list, but I will point to a particular case which highlights another area of the existing rules which creates problems.

A refugee claimant in my riding was forging passports from his home. It took about three years to finally get the case to court. The guy claimed he had no means of support, but he was driving a brand new Explorer and living in the British Properties in Vancouver.

The judge gave him a six month suspended sentence. On the very day that he was in the court getting a suspended sentence for forging passports someone else was standing in for him downtown at the citizenship court and getting his Canadian citizenship.

There is another example of existing rules which create problems that terrorists use. Because our citizenship process does not properly identify the person coming down to the court house, anybody can stand in and get citizenship for people like the person I just mentioned.

Is the hon. member aware of that problem in the citizenship office? Has he experienced similar problems in his riding?

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for North Vancouver has similar problems as I have in my riding. We do not live that far apart.

These situations exist. The government knows they exist. When we hear that there are 27,000 people deported who are still in the country, I do not know if the number is right or wrong. I do know that I personally have dealt with well over a dozen and fought every case. Every time I won the case and the refugee application was rejected because of some criminality or something, they skipped and they stayed in the country. It has all been a waste of time. The only ones left behind were the victims.

Of those who have deportation orders who are in this country today, I would hesitate to guess how many are actual terrorists. With that number of 27,000 I can guarantee the number is somewhere above 50 or 100 or whatever. I just do not know.

This issue is serious. I ask the government for the umpteenth time to address that particular issue in the legislation.

I want to mention another thing. I received a rather interesting suggestion from a lady by the name of Julia Milstead:

The idea I had today would take time before it could be implemented, but after the fault of the terrorism is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (which I'm sure will happen) the frozen assets of the terrorist organizations should be distributed to pay for some of these costs. Part of the punishment for their crimes should surely include retribution, so the terrorists should be paying for these costs as much as possible. I don't know how much of the costs the frozen assets would cover, but I think it only justice that their assets should go completely toward these costs.

It is not a bad idea when we think about it. It has to be worked out. These are the kinds of things the government has to get into, looking at options and alternatives which may well provide better answers and solutions.

I am not saying that the legislation tabled is useless, and I would if I felt that way. I think there is a lot of good in the legislation. The government just has not dealt with one of the critical things which is the people who are still here and who are still mobile. Some of them probably are terrorists who are able to distract, destroy, disrupt our country and the Americans'. Do not forget that the Americans know this just as well as we do. With respect to everything I have said here today, the Americans know what I am talking about.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Hamilton West.

I appreciate the opportunity to consider the bill that is before the House. Rather than read through all the points that other people have said, I thought I would convey some of my thoughts about what I hope the committee members will look at when the bill is before them. They have a very difficult job looking at legislation and they do not have the vast experience of another context. This is a new context for all of us. It is a new context for the legislators, for people in our enforcement agencies, for the people who have drafted the bill and for all people who have anxieties.

We have to be calm and we have to be rational. This legislation will last longer than our fears. This legislation could last indefinitely.

There are provisions in the legislation calling for a three year review. I have already heard many people suggest there be sunset provisions, to use the common vernacular.

I have to think of the practicality. What would it mean if we were in the middle of a case and this legislation sunsetted based on provisions in the legislation? Perhaps the committee could consider sunsetting parts of the legislation, perhaps some of those provisions that are the investigative hearings or the preventative arrest, new procedures that we are coming to. Perhaps we could look at that. To see what are the practical advantages and disadvantages perhaps would be something worthy of attention by the committee.

Earlier I heard statements indicating that we will not be testing this at the supreme court for constitutional predisposition. It is not impossible but it is very difficult for courts without factual situations to deliberate on the constitutionality of a law. Usually individual cases have different levels of hearings from trial to appeals all the way up to the supreme court. They are heard on the basis of specific facts of whether a provision is inside or outside, constitutional or unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, it is void and we start over.

The bill before us today is new. It must have been incredibly difficult work for the teams of lawyers and parliamentarians around the cabinet table to look at this legislation and try to make it charter proof. Many of us would agree that some of these provisions are riding pretty close to what we would consider a normal edge.

All of us in this Chamber are concerned about the charter of rights and freedoms. We fought very hard in Canada to get that charter. We do not want to give it up lightly. It is our obligation as parliamentarians to closely scrutinize this bill. There is a need to get some appropriate legislation in place, but we do not have to be on the steamroller. We can take the time to ask questions, to do the work, to make the necessary examinations and to call a number of witnesses who are experts in their various fields. We also have to live with the reality of today. It is a different world after September 11.

Let me go back to before September 11. We think this is a new bill. I am a member of the finance committee and last spring we looked at Bill C-16, the deregistration of charities provisions. It has found a new life as part 6 of this bill. The whole bill in theory is under the auspices of the Minister of Justice. However part 6 is actually under the auspices of the minister of revenue and the solicitor general. That is the reincarnation of what was Bill C-16 except there have been a few changes.

One of the major changes is the inclusion of definitions of terrorism that were missing in Bill C-16 and which the committee had stated were needed. It also changes the period of potential inquiry into hearings from three years to seven years. That is quite an incredible increase.

What else is different about these parts? First let me speak to the parts that are specifically under the Minister of Justice and all the various provisions, whether they are changing other pieces of legislation or are new punishments, new crimes or new powers.

In large part society is leaning toward the acceptance of security over freedom, except we always have to take into account the proportionality test that any court would look at in a piece of legislation like this. Are the crime and the outcome related? Are they proportional? This is when section 1 of the charter comes into play.

Even though I have not gone through all of these sections in detail, I believe that a large number of people in Canada will come to the conclusion that even though these are unusual limiting provisions and procedures, they would be willing to go this far in these extraordinary situations. The proportionality is there, although it is not laid out in stone.

The proportionality test is different in part 6. Part 6 is not about criminal law. In criminal law there has to be mens rea. The person has to have thought about it. The person has to have knowingly done something wrong, it has be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was wrong, and then there are consequences.

There are a lot of safeguards in that system. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high standard. It is difficult to prove and there is a good reason why it is difficult to prove. We have higher sentence structures in the bill. I agree with those structures.

Part 6 is an administrative procedure that is talking about the result of stripping a charitable status. That is the outcome of all of the procedures.

There are some provisions based on something we are already doing as a government in section 40 of the Immigration Act to set up a special procedure where there is a hearing before a judge. Under the Immigration Act it usually is the immigration minister and the solicitor general. In this particular piece of legislation it would be the solicitor general and the revenue minister, CCRA. They will take some evidence. The evidence they want to show is not evidence that would be revealed in a court. Why? It is sensitive classified material. Perhaps it puts at risk a personal information source.

The ministers have to take this on reasonable grounds. Basically this is the level of proof when someone is charged and there is an arrest. This is not beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not the civil balance of probabilities. There are different bars. It is a fairly low bar.

When we were examining this section, we were concerned with a series of potential problems that could have a very chilling effect on the charities in Canada. These charities have made their views known. The committee had not finished its hearings. In fairness to the government, it had not made its case yet.

Serious concerns were laid out. People can read our data in the finance committee transcripts of the hearings last spring. The government was aware of these. We thought the legislation would not go in the form it was in. We thought there could be changes. In fact, it came to us for our input because it was draft legislation.

It is here now and it is unchanged. Many organizations are fearful of the outcome of this legislation. I particularly want to say that this procedure under subsection 40.1(5.1) has never constitutionally been upheld in any court because it was excluded by the Attorney General of Canada in the Ahani decision on section 40.

I have made my concerns known to members inside the various departments here. I will have them give my concerns to anyone who is interested. There are many good areas which we have to look at carefully. I am supportive, as would all of us be, the doves and hawks, of getting the work done and dealing with terrorism.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I address my comments to the member who has just spoken. I know she would agree with me, with the exception from time to time of a partisan outbreak that we saw a few minutes ago, that there is a very sincere effort on the part of herself, myself and the vast majority of members of the House to get on quickly and expeditiously with the bill, that it be proper and balanced, that it get the job done and that the people of Canada be protected by the bill.

Within a democracy, we have a very interesting situation. While we as people are persons and our property is protected by the police, by the same token, within a democracy and free society, we are also protected from the police and unreasonable police action.

Therefore it is very important, as we put together the tools the police will need to work with, the legislation and laws, that we make sure they have a full complement of tools so they do not have to use tools that are not there, in other words, that they do not have to use a screwdriver as a chisel or vice versa.

One of the difficulties expressed by my party and other critics of the legislation is the fact that there is no prohibition within this omnibus bill for membership in a terrorist organization. Because that is missing, it removes the lowest possible threshold for the police to start or continue exploratory activity with respect to possible terrorist connections. In other words, by having a very simple prohibition starting at the lowest possible level the police would then be entitled on the basis of reasonable suspicion to continue to ramp up their investigation.

I wonder if the member would agree with me that when the committee is looking at this it would be very wise to consider seriously and probably include an amendment to the legislation that would include the prohibition of membership in terrorist organizations so that the police have the smallest of the tools, the starting point of the investigation process.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to answer the question to the best of my ability. I am not an expert but I think experts would tell us that freedom of association is a charter right. As such, if we just take pure membership we would then be making this law unconstitutional. I have heard it said by the hon. member's leader and by many other people that it is one of the basic principles, which is what we are talking about when we talk about balancing rights and freedoms.

If I were a parent and my children were misbehaving I would not tell them that they were wrong or that they were bad children. I would tell them that what they did was wrong and that they should change their activity. It goes to what we are saying here. I like the way the bill has crafted definitions of terrorism. We are taking it away from the concept of groups of people and putting onto people doing wrong activities, terrorist activities.

I like how we have gone to the 12 international conventions. I certainly applaud that we are now able to accede to the last two conventions and that we are the fourth in the world on one of them.

The understanding of where the balancing act should be is important because otherwise we would have a sledgehammer coming down and the tools we were searching for would be lost. The balancing act has been done for very good reason.

I am actually concerned about a lot of the tools we are now giving to the police. I am concerned that the knowledge and safeguards we might have on some levels may not get down to the operational level. However I believe people are well intentioned, including the police and enforcement services.

We need to go forward with a little faith in the system but if I had my druthers I would rather go forward with the protection under the charter of rights and freedoms.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard all day from the opposition that this is bad, that is bad, this terrorist and that terrorist. They never gave an example of good individuals, people who came to Canada, made an effort and after five or six years were successful. Two of those individuals live in my riding. One is Mr. Anthony Sellarajah who owns Lincare Ltd. and employs 100 people. He came to Canada as a refugee. The other one is Mr. Davood Farouzyan who owns Land Construction and employs about 150 people.

Could my colleague from London West share some positive examples of people coming into Canada?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak as an immigrant because I am an immigrant. I came here from Malta and I became a Canadian citizen when I was about 14 years old.

I think most of us coming to this country celebrate the freedoms we have here and we try to contribute to the best of our very diverse abilities.

As an immigrant, there is nothing wrong with wanting to retain one's heritage or attending a Maltese Canadian club, an Italian Canadian club, a Tamil organization or a Sikh organization.

Among the Canadian population, people may be doing activities that no one in this Chamber would agree with. What we want to do is weed out the terrorist activity and the financing of the terrorist activity but we must do it with the right tools.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, stands as the fulfilment of the government's continued commitment to combating terrorism, a commitment that we have practised since our election and which was exemplified in our capacity to respond immediately to the horrific events of September 11.

To further extend the response capability and capacity of our country, we have introduced the bill with the intent to provide further tools to our law enforcement and national security agencies. The bill would aid in the task of rooting out terrorist organizations, and that will curtail future threats to the health and well-being of our citizens.

As such, the proposed act, while extending the powers of our security agencies to combat hate crimes, is consistent with and predicated on the word and spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is of central importance that while finding an appropriate response to the current situation we act in accordance with the principles and values for which this country stands and which, as representatives of our respective communities, we must uphold.

Bill C-36 is designed to help us do exactly that. The new anti-terrorism plan has four key objectives: to stop terrorists from entering our country and to protect Canadians from terrorist acts; to bring forward tools to identify and prosecute terrorists; to prevent our borders from being held hostage; and to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and impact the root causes of such hatred.

The bill would help protect our borders economically and, just as important, it would protect the principles of openness and acceptance that are fundamental to the Canadian spirit. These are difficult times that require difficult decisions.

I have a message for my constituents in Hamilton West and my fellow Canadians. It is for them to go about their daily business and their daily lives as usual, to understand that we must now live in a state of heightened awareness. The bill is a response to and an expression of that heightened awareness.

In the fight against terrorism, there are many weapons in the Canadian arsenal. Some of these weapons are legislative, such as the bill before us today and some include the skills and commitment of our local and national security agencies and the capacity of our armed forces.

However there is another weapon that is often overlooked. It is the strong character of our country's pride in our commitment to cultural diversity. With this pride resides the confidence that hatred and violence will never find a home here in Canada.

It is from the wellspring of this pride that our Prime Minister recently asserted that “Canada will not use the justification of national security to abandon our cherished values of freedom and tolerance. We will not fall into the trap of exclusion”.

One of our country's most enviable features is its reputation as a land where individuals are free to practise their cultural activities and commitments as they see fit, a land where peace loving individuals from around the globe can come together in friendship and share their rich and diverse traditions. No other country can claim the same degree of success or commitment to multiculturalism.

It was back in 1971 that the Liberal government of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau made Canada the first country in the world to adopt an official policy of multiculturalism. We cannot doubt that in such multiplicity we as a nation are made strong. However we must also not doubt that our commitments to strength through diversity are also in danger of being hijacked by the purveyors of hatred and terror.

In my remarks to worshippers at a Hamilton mosque last week I said “I am proud to be the son of an immigrant. My father is proud to call himself Canadian”.

We are collectively a nation of many diverse cultures brought together by a common goal of peaceful coexistence and equality.

We must under no circumstances allow the world's terror merchants to export their hatred to Canada. We must not allow them to undermine the mutual respect that Canadians of all faiths and backgrounds have nurtured for 150 years. We have worked diligently to firmly establish the basic principles, values and shared beliefs that hold us together as Canadians.

In the wake of the tragic events of September 11 it is important; no, it is absolutely necessary, for Canadians to reaffirm the fundamental values of our charter of rights and freedoms: the equality of individuals of every culture, religion and ethnic origin. Our way of life and system of values has made us proud of our country and provided us a tremendous bounty of freedom, tolerance and justice.

It behoves us to protect ourselves through an awareness of what is at stake in our response to recent events. We could inflict damage on terrorists the world over by exporting our deeply rooted Canadian values abroad. If our values can act as nutrients to the growth of a country such as our own, surely enacting them in our foreign policy and allowing them to guide our future international relations can be of benefit to the global community.

As we act in immediate and necessary co-operation with our allies to attack the threat of terrorism, it is perhaps time to consider how the principles that make us strong might themselves weaken the roots from which such hatred grows.

I will close by raising this fraught question: Is it too soon to debate the history of international relations and foreign policy in a broader context? Is it too soon to enter into dialogue about the responsibilities of each of us as global citizens?

If we are to defeat terrorism we need to discuss and confront the root causes of terrorist activities, namely the inequities that breed discontent. We need to recognize the political and economic disparities that have promoted social, cultural and physical starvation in certain regions of the world. While today we are taking one of the many necessary incremental steps in the battle against terrorism and terrorist activities at home and abroad, we should recognize that this broader question must also be addressed.

In closing I will join what will certainly be a chorus of voices in this place in thanking the many public servants who have worked diligently and quickly to produce the bill. It was a huge undertaking. The bill contains 146 clauses affecting more than 20 acts of parliament. At the conclusion of this debate the all party justice committee will have the formidable task of scrutinizing the bill and quite possibly suggesting solid amendments to have it carried, we hope, unanimously.

I for one have every confidence that each and every member of parliament on the committee will address the legislation with an eye to reaffirming Canadian values and ensuring that our country's renowned respect for diversity and justice is reinforced.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hamilton West for his speech. I think he will find that most members of the opposition are supportive of the bill that the government has brought forward to the House.

I have one question for him regarding the costs that would be associated with implementing the bill and the fact that more resources would be required for hiring and training security personnel, immigration officers and other individuals that would need to be brought on stream.

The hon. member is a good colleague of the Minister of Finance. Could he ask the Minister of Finance on the government side whether he would be willing to present an early budget? It would actually be late because we have not had one for quite a period of time, almost two years, but the minister could present it earlier than February. Could the member talk to the Minister of Finance to scope out exactly how we would pay for these new costs and what the government's plan would be for paying for these important, necessary and needed changes?

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I am certain that the Minister of Finance, along with his colleagues in the cabinet and especially the Prime Minister, have every intention of spending every dime necessary to protect Canadians against any kind of terrorist threat and put down any future terrorist activity.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the important debate on Bill C-36, the government's anti-terrorism act.

There is without question deep concern among Canadians across the country about the horrific acts that took place on September 11. As we begin to come to terms with what happened and determine what kind of responses there need to be, we in the New Democratic Party have stated clearly every day in the House that our response should be undertaken through the United Nations and in accordance with international law. It should be a response that promotes peace and justice rather than further violence and militarism. The NDP has articulated that position very well even if it is not popular to do so these days.

In addressing the bill before us today in terms of the measures we are prepared to take and the powers we should confer upon law enforcement agencies, there may be a rush to get the legislation through. However it is incumbent upon us as members of parliament and upholders of the public interest to have a sober analysis and review of the bill.

I have heard a lot of talk in the House today that the bill would provide the necessary tools to law enforcement agencies. A lot of members have remarked on that. I and my colleagues in the NDP want to make sure those tools do not become sledgehammers that undermine or crush civil liberties and freedoms.

In speaking to the bill we must be circumspect. We must be thoughtful and look at what its impact would be not only in the short term but in the long term. I have been reading through various opinions of experts and lawyers and look forward to the opinions of witnesses who will go to the committee. One opinion in particular struck me. The president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers’ Association was quoted in the media today as saying that to turn Canada into a police state in the name of liberty is bizarre.

As we examine the bill we must look at each and every clause to ensure that the broad powers and measures it contains will be used in a way that ensures continued public accountability, transparency and due process of law.

There was an interesting article in the Globe and Mail today which said that most Canadians would not be terribly inconvenienced by the justice minister's proposals. It said the costs would instead be borne by people who find themselves targets of police suspicion because of their ethnic background, radical political views or association with immigrant communities that have ties with groups deemed to be terrorist fronts.

It was an interesting commentary. It may well be that most Canadians support the legislation because they do not see that it would have an impact on them. They see it as powerful tool to deal with their legitimate fears about terrorist attacks.

However we must examine what the measures are and how they would be applied. One thing I am concerned about is how the measures in the act would be targeted to certain groups in our society. Are there adequate protections in the bill to ensure that the strong measures and broad powers it contains will be targeted, as the member for London West has said, to people who are engaged in terrorist activities and not merely members of this or that group? Will the legislation have an application and political weight that begins to take on a broader net?

Today in the House during question period I raised the issue of students from other countries who come to Canada to study. It has been confirmed by the RCMP that such students are being questioned and investigated, particularly if they are in engineering or scientific programs and courses. While there may be reason to do this, why do we single out a group of people based on their ethnic background, country of origin or what they are studying? This may have an important impact on Canadian students of colour who may be of Arabic background or Muslim students who begin to feel they are being targeted in some way.

This is disturbing. A commentary in the Globe and Mail said that many of us will not be inconvenienced by the act. It said we will go about our business as usual and not feel targeted in any way. Given the backlash that has already taken place in the country we must be terribly concerned about the bill's impact in terms of targeting visible minorities, political activists or even labour activists.

I will focus on three specific areas of Bill C-36. As others have mentioned, it is a massive bill. It contains about 170 pages and 146 clauses. None of us have had time yet to go through it thoroughly. We hope that will happen at committee. However it struck me that there are three things we must look at carefully in terms of the balance between our need to protect civil liberties under the charter of rights and freedoms and our need to protect safety and security.

First, the definition of terrorist activity concerns me. Bill C-36 defines a terrorist activity as an action in or outside Canada that is taken or threatened for political, religious or ideological purposes and 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 interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system.

The definition is carefully circumscribed to make it clear that disrupting an essential service is not a terrorist activity if it occurs during a lawful protest or work strike and is not intended to cause serious harm to persons. The Minister of Justice addressed this in the House today when she was asked about it.

However we must closely examine this definition of terrorist activity and ask a substantive question: Have activities taken place in Canada that could be characterized as terrorist activities under the proposed legislation? There are several that come to mind.

Recently in B.C. members of a health care union participated in illegal strike activity. They walked out on a rotating basis. It was not a lawful protest or work strike as defined in the legislation.

This brings to mind that even Canada has historically developed anti-trust laws which were meant to prevent corporate monopolies from controlling goods and services but which in actual fact were used against labour unions to prevent them from organizing. The anti-trust laws were used against unions to take away people's right to organize.

These historical references are very important. I have a very serious concern about the definition that is being used. While I appreciate the fact that the government lawyers and the government side have gone to some lengths to try to come up with a definition that is specific, it seems to me that the way it is written is very problematic. It raises the question with me as to how broadly that could be applied.

I, along with my colleagues, participated in Quebec City at the summit of the Americas. We participated in the protests. To reiterate the remarks of our House leader in debate earlier today, he made it quite clear when he said that lawful sounds good, but there were a lot of young people who thought they were engaged in lawful protest in Quebec City way beyond the perimeter who did not challenge the wall or engage in property damage or anything like that. There were people who did participate in other forms of more direct action. How would those activities be characterized under the legislation, perhaps not in the next few months or in the next year, but what about several years from now, or if this legislation is still around, a decade from now? The definition of terrorist activity is of much concern.

Second, the other area I have a lot of concerns about is the whole notion of preventive arrest. This is something that is quite a new feature in terms of Canadian law and gives enormous powers to law enforcement agencies to arrest and detain people on the suspicion that they are about to commit a terrorist activity. While on the one hand I think that may make people feel safe and secure, it is demanded of us as parliamentarians to ask what kinds of protections there will be in this legislation to ensure that this very broad power is not abused and that people are not simply picked up willy-nilly all over the place for whatever activity might be deemed to be suspicious or somehow related to a terrorist activity. As I say, these are only a few of the things that jumped out at me as I read through the bill in a very summary way.

Third, there is the whole notion of an investigative hearing. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this is really very new in Canadian legal undertakings, this idea that the police could compel persons to come forward with information before a judge even though they may not themselves be charged with something or they may not know what investigation is underway. In fact one senior federal official was quoted as saying that we remove the right to silence. To me this was another flag going up in terms of how and how broadly that would be applied.

Those are three areas that I think are very problematic with this bill. The other aspect I wanted to speak on is the permanency of the bill. I listened to the news last night and heard the comments made by Mr. Clayton Ruby, a very well known criminal lawyer and advocate of civil rights in Canada. I think he is an outstanding member of the legal community. I was very interested to hear his remarks. He reminded us of our history in terms of when legislation like this is brought in how permanent it will be.

Presumably it is permanent. We know it will go through a review in three years, but even when our House leader today raised the possibility of the notion of having a sunset clause, it seemed to me that the government was very reluctant to respond to that and basically shuffled it aside.

Mr. Ruby basically characterized this legislation as war measures legislation. I do believe we have to look at our history. We have to look at what it is that we are embarking upon. This weekend in Ottawa at the federal council of the New Democratic Party we had a very extensive debate about what took place on September 11, what the party's position has been and what it should say as events continue to unfold. I will quote part of the resolution that was passed by our federal council and brought forward by our international affairs committee.

The resolution states:

--at this critical time it is very important that Canadians be vigilant to protect against unwarranted attacks on fundamental civil liberties and human rights as part of the comprehensive response to terrorist attacks, bearing in mind the history of internment of Japanese Canadians and the proclamation of the War Measures Act in similar circumstances.

I can already hear some people asking why we would drag that up, saying that this is a different situation, but I really wonder if it is. Again, I believe it is incumbent upon us as members of the House who uphold the public interest to look at our history and consider that when these actions were taken, the War Measures Act, the internment of Japanese Canadians, there was also a political climate of wanting to take strong retaliatory action. In hindsight now, in the one case 50 years ago and the other case 30 years ago, there is a serious questioning as to whether or not those particular policies were things that actually needed to be done. I suppose we can say that hindsight is always perfect and we can always look for ways to criticize something that was done.

However, surely we can learn by examining the legislation that took place then and what its impact was on civil society and civil rights, and the singling out of identifiable people, in one instance Canadians of Japanese origin and in the other instance political activists. Our whole society was impacted by that in a very negative way.

I took Mr. Ruby's comments very much to heart as a sobering reflection on what the House is poised to do in terms of bringing in the legislation, which from all that we have been given to understand, will be permanent. What impact will that have on our civil liberties in the longer term? What kinds of powers are we giving to law enforcement agencies that will begin to turn us more and more into a society where more control is given to law enforcement agencies?

Some people may argue that is good and that is the price of fighting terrorism, but I think we have to examine that. We have to weigh that balance between civil liberties and the need for security. We have to ensure that we do protect civil liberties and rights and freedoms in Canada.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was genuinely interested in hearing amendments and feedback as this goes through committee. I hope that is true because to remove the protection for civil liberties is something that we are possibly on the brink of doing.

I have serious reservations about the bill. As it continues to go through committee some of those issues will come forward. I hope that members of the House will not be in such a rush to pass this legislation that will deeply offend the basic values of democracy and civil liberties in Canada in order to do what they believe is politically expedient and because there is public concern in regard to passing legislation.