Debates of Oct. 16th, 2001

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague across the way. I have to agree with her that we need to use vigilance and proceed with caution. As we embark on the new legislation in response to what happened on September 11, we have to make sure that the legislation is balanced and reflects what we want to do. We have to make sure that the legislation does not encroach upon civil liberties and our rights.

However I do want to remind the hon. member that it was the government of the day that brought the charter of rights home. It was the Liberal government under our Prime Minister, then the justice minister, that made sure we are now all treated equally and we all respect each other.

I want to ask my colleague if her party will be participating with positive legislation and amendments to the bill if needed versus using party rhetoric, like we have heard from other parties, to make sure that the rights of all citizens are protected.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his thoughtful question. I am very aware of the fact that it was the present Prime Minister, then minister of justice, who brought in the charter of rights. That was a good thing.

However I am also reminded that it was previous Liberal governments that brought in some of the best social programs we have had in this country and, I might add, with a lot of influence from New Democratic members of parliament, but it was also Liberal governments that took away those social programs. Nothing is static.

This is really what I am trying to get at in terms of the political environment we are in and that the charter exists in. As we move forward with the legislation we have to make sure that the intent, the philosophy and the protection provided in the charter are actually protected within the bill.

I can only say to the member that members in this party have no wish to engage in political rhetoric. We are genuinely interested in looking at the bill. That was clearly stated by our House leader, the member for Winnipeg--Transcona, yesterday when the bill was introduced, although he did make it very clear that we are not prepared to give blanket approval to the bill and we are not prepared to rubber stamp it. In fact we will have our own discussion about what we decide to do in terms of the support for this bill.

When we participate at the committee the member can be assured that we will be addressing the points that have come forward already in terms of concerns and criticisms. I am sure there will be many more and I am sure that there will be many amendments.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I also listened with interest to the member. She knows as well as all of us do that we are certainly not living in ordinary times. If they are not ordinary times then I guess they are extraordinary times and quite often extraordinary times require extraordinary measures.

When the hon. member expresses concern about us perhaps infringing upon the rights of some of our citizens, I wonder if we talked to all the citizens in the country in light of what has happened and in light of what can happen, where the trade-off would be. Most people I talk to are certainly willing to give up some of our rights and freedoms for the protection of life and liberty that we all stand for and fight for.

I wonder where the member draws the line. It is easy enough to say that we cannot infringe upon the rights of individuals, but individuals caused the problems we have today. If we do not take measures to eradicate the type of thing that happened on September 11, then undoubtedly the rights and freedoms that we possess and brag so much about will not be much good to us if we end up like a lot of people did on September 11.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is a very real question. That is precisely what is before us. Will the sweeping measures in this bill truly provide a society where we feel more secure? That is part of the question that we are debating. I agree that we are not living in ordinary times, which gives us all the more reason to examine this legislation in a very dispassionate way to ensure that the long term impacts of this legislation, if it is approved, would not have a significant impact on broad civil liberties.

Any member of the House who has begun to listen to and look at some of the commentary and the public discourse taking place will see that already significant concerns are coming forward about the manner in which some of the legislation is written.

That is our job. Our job is to go through that, make those judgments and weigh the need for security vis-à-vis the broader application of civil liberties.

I have flagged a few areas today that I think are particularly disturbing. I just want us to remember our history. What seemed good at the time in decades gone by are actions that we now look back on and say were wrong because we were so caught up in the moment. That is why we must take a very sober look at this legislation.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Vancouver East were to bring in a terrorism bill, what features would it have?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our House leader, the member for Winnipeg--Transcona, made it very clear yesterday that members of the New Democratic Party realize that we need to examine the legislation more closely.

Generally speaking there is agreement that we need to ratify all international conventions that are before us. In this bill there are specific sections, particularly the definition of terrorist activity, the preventive arrest, investigative hearings and extensive wire tapping, that need further examination.

These are the issues that we want to examine more closely at the committee stage. We want to hear from Canadians who have not only legal opinions about this but also human rights and civil liberties concerns. We want to determine whether or not the legislation provides the proper amount of law enforcement power to various agencies or whether it goes over that line and beyond.

We will be discussing this with other members of the House. I have flagged some of the areas we have concerns about.

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

Mr. Speaker, following up on the question of my hon. colleague from St. John's, Newfoundland, does the hon. member not recognize that sometimes it is necessary to infringe upon some rights that all of us have taken for granted? In our lifetime we have not been called upon, at least my generation has not been called upon, to fight for and sustain those rights.

I hear all the time that there are inherently evil people who take advantage of these rights. I think about the people that come to our country, and sadly enough the minute they land here they are wrapped up and protected by our charter of rights and freedoms which was put in place with the best of intentions. There are people who abuse that.

To offset that in this time of crisis for our nation there will have to be some infringement upon those rights for those particular individuals. Does the member not recognize the need for that in these extraordinary times?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we already have infringement on rights within our society. For example, we have provisions within the criminal code that speak to hate crimes. None of us has an absolute freedom to speak publicly in a way that would incite hatred against another group. There are certain parameters to the rights we all have that are contained in various pieces of legislation. On a purely theoretical basis I do not object to that.

The issue is this specific piece of legislation that we are debating in the House. We have to determine whether or not the powers that it confers would provide the level of security the government wants to see and whether it goes too far in terms of undermining and eroding civil liberties.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Kitchener--Waterloo. A few weeks ago following the terrorist attacks in New York City on September 11 we met in the House to debate a motion that called on our government to introduce anti-terrorism legislation as soon as possible. I am pleased to see that the minister and her staff have been able to respond this quickly.

I want to express my strong support for Bill C-36, a made in Canada legislative response to the problems of terrorism. It is a response that we hope will be effective, while being drawn up in such a way as to be respectful of the constitutionality of the protected rights of Canadians.

This legislation gives expression to our common resolve as Canadians to ensure that those persons who plan or direct terrorist attacks and those persons and entities that play a role in supporting them financially, or otherwise provide them with the material support which facilitates such acts, are denounced as criminals and brought to justice no matter where they may be found.

Canadians believe that all acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable and that they should be condemned as such. We are confident that by enacting such legislation we are joining other like minded countries around the world in efforts to prevent the commission of similar crimes in the future.

Canadians would agree that the objective of enacting effective anti-terrorism legislation is laudable and necessary. Canadians would also want us to reflect in a sober and critical fashion on the nature of such legislation. I do not believe they would agree that it is necessary to abandon our values, which make Canada a free and democratic society, to fight terrorism.

I am pleased that the preamble to the bill contains language through which parliament recognizes that the requirements of national security and the need to combat global terrorism must be carried out with due regard to the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian charter so that we can be true to the values of our society even as we battle this terrible thing.

Canada has worked in concert with the international community for many years to pursue initiatives that are intended to reduce the threat posed by international terrorists. It should be noted that Canadian diplomats played a leading role in the negotiation of the two most recent international counterterrorism conventions, namely the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombing and the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

I want to comment on the specific aspects of Bill C-36. When the Canadian government signed these international counterterrorism agreements it was seen as a commitment by Canada to move toward their ratification at some time in the future. Unfortunately that time has arrived.

The draft legislation contains measures that would allow Canada to implement three international conventions, two of which concern the fight against terrorism. The most recent of these is the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism, which would outlaw fundraising activities in support of terrorism and create provisions for the seizure and forfeiture of the assets belonging to the terrorists or placed at their disposal.

It would also give effect to United Nations security council resolution 1373 of September 28 that requires all states to take action to prevent and suppress terrorist financing.

Bill C-36 contains measures to implement the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings that Canada signed in 1998 in response to an increase in recent years of terrorist attacks directed against civilian and government targets by means of explosive devices or biological and chemical substances. In one of these indiscriminate attacks in November 1996 a Canadian woman was killed in a terrorist bombing of a Paris subway station.

The bill would implement the convention on the safety of United Nations and associated personnel. While this convention is not regarded as a counterterrorism agreement it does cover acts of violence directed against the official premises, private accommodation or means of transportation of United Nations or associated personnel. It recognizes that there is a need for appropriate and effective measures to prevent attacks against the United Nations and associated personnel.

The implementation of each of these conventions requires amendments to the criminal code to ensure that the crimes identified in each of these agreements are offences under our law and to extend the jurisdiction of Canadian courts over terrorist activities abroad.

A person alleged to have committed a convention crime abroad may be prosecuted in Canada if after the commission of the offence he or she is found in Canada and is not extradited to another state that could also claim jurisdiction over the offence.

Similarly under the amendments proposed in Bill C-36 a person responsible for a terrorist bombing of a public transportation system in another country in which a Canadian was killed or injured could be extradited to Canada to stand trial here for that offence.

Canada has taken these steps to ensure that terrorists are brought to justice by effectively denying them sanctuary after the commission of a terrorist crime. There should be no safe havens for terrorists. The terrorist attacks in the cities of New York and Washington on September 11 demonstrated to all of us that there is an urgent need for the international community to act together in concert to ensure that each has effective legislation in place to choke off fundraising efforts for terrorists and to enact the necessary legislation to implement the entire series of international and anti-terrorism agreements.

I congratulate the Minister of Justice and all those who worked so hard and so very quickly to bring forth Bill C-36. Bill C-36 contains the additional measures that our law enforcement and security services require to meet the threat posed by terrorism. It is simultaneously focused, effective, broad reaching and reflective of Canadian values.

Members will have an opportunity to do some work on the bill in the justice committee. There are issues that we all share. For example, should there be a sunset clause? How do we protect against abuse of powers? These are issues that will certainly be dealt with in committee.

It will also provide the opportunity for all of us in the House to air our concerns and to make sure the legislation gives the authorities the tools they need to protect the civil rights of all Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Under the circumstances, with only a minute left, would the House agree that I see the clock as being 5.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from October 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-217, an act to provide for the taking of samples of blood for the benefit of persons administering and enforcing the law and good Samaritans and to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Blood Samples Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, October 4, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-217 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting no on this motion.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as having voted in favour of this bill.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting in favour of the bill.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as having voted in favour of this bill.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for the bill.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favour of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be good to ask the Chair to tell the members once they vote they cannot change their votes just because the front bench stands up and tells them to do so.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was terrific that we just had the closest thing I have ever seen to a free vote on the government side. On the other hand, if people abstain, they abstain. They cannot change their abstention after the fact. There is something wrong.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I understand this is the first such vote we have had in some time. I know everyone wants to be very helpful. Let everyone just worry about their own vote and we will tally them all up.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could tell the House whether or not you counted the votes of the people who rose after. I wonder if you could explain to the House that the reason we vote from the back is so that people in the back cannot see what people in the front do first.

The House resumed from October 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-209, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (Public Transportation Costs), be now read the second time and referred to a committee.