Debates of Oct. 16th, 2001

Anti-terrorism Act

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member probably realizes that at the present time the border crossings are under the regulations and guidance of Revenue Canada. I find it rather strange that at our border crossings people are being issued bulletproof vests and calculators. They are revenue collectors in most cases. As the events have turned in the last little while, I firmly believe it is time to remove Revenue Canada from being the controlling body of these individuals who are dealing with security of our borders and move it to a law enforcement agency, probably the solicitor general or someone like that, to protect the nation.

What does the member personally believe in, protection or collection?

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

Madam Speaker, the question sets up a dichotomy which I am not sure I accept. I confess to the hon. member I have not given a lot of thought to it. I did not see it as particularly relevant to the bill but as they say in question period sometimes, I will take his comments as a representation.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to this debate on Bill C-36. This is a very important bill.

I would indicate at the outset that members of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition are generally supportive of this legislation and enthusiastically supportive of the need to bring about changes in our internal security measures and the way in which we deal with terrorism in this country.

I begin my remarks by saying that this debate has taken a very constructive tone. It has been representative of the recognition by all members of the House of the desire on the part of Canadians to plug some of the legislative gaps that exist to address the issue of terrorism head on. I think in fairness that this legislation is an attempt to do just that.

Ideally in every sense we would like to see laser guided precision when we deal with issues such as this, of public security. I hope that my remarks will be indicative of a genuine desire to improve and buttress this legislation in some way.

It is encouraging to see that the government has taken decisive action. Following September 11 there was a public need, a very anxious nervousness that direction and leadership be displayed by the government. After one month this legislation is here. In fairness I believe that it is a good bill. It is a bill that attempts in a broad way in an omnibus form to address some of the holes that are there and which have been exploited by international terrorists.

There are some shortcomings. There is room for improvement. In particular this legislation needs to be given greater detail. The legislation needs to be put under the microscope and the lamp not only by members of parliament but by those who will be affected. As the minister herself indicated in her remarks, this is not the be all and the end all. There is going to be a need for further legislative changes in the areas of immigration, border security, economics and trade and customs and excise. All of these areas have been affected in a profound way by this horrific event which was the pinnacle, in our generation, of aggression brought to bear in North America. It is a time for measured and introspective action but action nonetheless.

Elements of this legislation that will improve upon our internal security measures include the announcement that police will be able to carry out preventive arrests, that is, arrests of individuals without charge under strong suspicion of activity related to terrorism. There is a subtle but important change in that bar, that standard that is to be applied by CSIS agents which is now afforded to the RCMP. That is to say they can arrest on reasonable suspicion as opposed to reasonable grounds. It is of such importance when dealing with terrorism that police should be afforded that standard.

I would argue there is more that can be done. The issue of preventative arrest is something that is going to cause a lot of jitters and nervousness among the communities. There are safeguards in place which we are quick to acknowledge. The individuals brought to justice must appear before a judge within 24 hours. They can be detained a further 48 hours, bringing it to a total of 72 hours in custody. Yet they must have this appearance before a judge and there must be reasons given. During that time in custody it is good to see it enunciated that they will be able to afford themselves charter rights, that is, right to counsel, right to disclosure, reasons for being held in custody. All of those traditional rights will still apply and those safeguards should apply.

This type of pre-emptive strike on the part of police officers is a response to the seriousness and the grave implications that can flow from terrorist activity.

The use and implementation of investigative hearings is an important step that we find in Bill C-36. The police can take a person into custody and deduce information and question a person with respect to terrorist activity. The person appears before a judge and is required to answer questions. The individual cannot be forced to incriminate himself or herself but may be forced at least to respond to questions about his or her activities.

How compromised would their individual rights be? That remains to be seen. The return to a power that used to exist in Canada and still exists in the United States, for example the process of grand juries, would be an interesting experiment but one upon which we must embark in our efforts to deal with terrorism.

Increasing the powers of the Communications Security Establishment is an important step. Currently the CSE is only allowed to monitor communications outside Canada. Under this legislation CSE would require only the authorization of the Minister of Justice before monitoring discussions between a foreigner and someone in Canada.

With regard to monitoring, Bill C-36 would allow police to obtain one year surveillance warrants for suspected terrorists. While benchmarks and criteria would need to be met, police would have an increased and expanded ability to monitor and conduct surveillance on communications that relate to terrorist activity.

Currently police can perform this type of surveillance for only 60 days. The efforts of the bill to expand that ability are important. It also makes an effort to streamline and expedite the ability to get warrants and wiretaps. The current process is extremely onerous and is an impediment to the ability of police to monitor criminal activity. There is a need to expand this in the general context of police work.

I would have liked the bill to set out a clear definition of terrorism as we have seen in the United Kingdom, however, I commend the government for including a definition of terrorist activity. This was taken from many sources.

I am told there are 190 definitions of terrorism in legislation around the world. Bill C-36 defines terrorist activity as action taken for a political, religious or ideological purpose that threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing property damage likely to injure people, or disrupting an essential service or facility.

The definition does not state that terrorist activity does not involve lawful activity such as protests and strikes. There is therefore concern, as has been mentioned by my colleague from Winnipeg--Transcona and others in the debate, that legitimate political protest might fall under a rather broad umbrella.

Bill C-36 is defined in such a way that judges applying common sense criteria would not find that legitimate forms of protest or activities deemed counter to the government would fall under this ambit. However, even before this legislation came into being there was a politicized element to protests such as those we witnessed in Quebec City.

When students in bandanas and ripped jeans who carry signs are cracked down on by police in a violent and forceful way it causes concern, almost paranoia, in the minds of many. We must be cognizant of that. We must also be cognizant, as was mentioned by the Alliance critic, of the political interference or politicization of RCMP and security measures. We know that the Prime Minister's surrogate son, Jean Carle, involved himself far too heavily in police activity in Vancouver.

That was a serious concern. It was examined by a judge, Judge Hughes, who came out with strong recommendations and repudiations regarding the RCMP. We cannot ignore such politicization. As was suggested, it calls for a greater firewall between the solicitor general and the commissioner of the RCMP to prevent the guiding hand of the PMO from playing a role in the way security is carried out. Governments sometimes have a vested interest in suppressing that type of activity, as we have seen at the APEC inquiry.

I would support a list of terrorist organizations and individuals being put together on the recommendation of the solicitor general and an order in council. This would be a legitimate attempt to identify those who have participated in fundraising or any activity that could be connected to terrorism.

Having a list available to be shared among security services would be an important step toward controlling and, it is hoped, preventing action on the part of those enumerated. It would allow for legislative tracking. It would allow for cross-references with various organizations including CSIS, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Interpol and other international partners in our security services attempts to curtail terrorist activities.

There would be safeguards. Groups that appear on the list could appeal. They could appeal to the solicitor general and the list would be reviewed every two years.

The more substantive measures in the bill entail changes to the criminal code and the creation of new offences. The criminal code offences would deal with instructing or soliciting support for a person to carry out a terrorist act. Maximum penalties of life imprisonment would be attached to such activity.

This is all being done against the backdrop of the horrific events that occurred in the United States on September 11 in various locations including New York City and Washington. With such life altering and life taking implications these criminal code offences take on a poignant meaning. Knowingly facilitating the activities of a terrorist group would be punishable by 14 years. Harbouring a terrorist would be punishable by 10 years. Fundraising for or participating in a terrorist group would be punishable by 10 years.

There will be heated debate over the practical implications of Bill C-36. Further definition of what it means to participate may be required. However let us keep it in the proper context. The legislation does not go as far as that of the United Kingdom where even passive support for a terrorist organization can result in criminal charges.

Bill C-36 would allow for and encourage the freezing and seizing of assets of terrorists and their supporters. That is a welcome and necessary step. As has been noted numerous times, assets are the lifeblood that keeps terrorist organizations alive.

We know they are here in Canada. CSIS has produced a list that clearly identifies 50 terrorist cells operating in the country and 350 individuals who are involved in the cells. They are here and they are active. Cutting off their lifeblood of financial assets and resources is one important step in eventually eliminating, curtailing and capturing those who engage in terrorism.

Introducing consecutive sentences is a welcome step but it does not address another shortcoming in the criminal code: the anomaly that allows mass murderers to avail themselves of early release. Through provisions of the criminal code they can avail themselves of statutory release. This is one of the ridiculous anomalies that exist in our criminal code.

Bill C-36 would change sentencing provisions to make terrorists ineligible for release until they have served half their sentences, but they could still avail themselves of early release provisions that exist under the National Parole Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There will be further discussion and examination of this at the committee.

Someone who exhibits such a blatant lack of respect for human life is unlikely to avail themselves of rehabilitation. For that reason I am encouraged by the harsh sentences outlined in Bill C-36. However the parole eligibility may lessen and blunt the instrument of justice in this regard. At the very least there must be a clear and unequivocal statement of denunciation when it comes to terrorist activity.

Some of the anticipated fallout or backlash against Bill C-36 from groups concerned about civil liberties is addressed in the substance of the bill. It calls for the strengthening of laws against hate crimes by punishing the destruction of churches or mosques with sentences of up to 10 years. It would also take steps to make it easier to remove hate propaganda from the Internet.

Concerns have been raised about this by Internet service providers, particularly smaller ones who make legitimate efforts to monitor their systems. In many instances service providers do not have the capability or resources to fully complete that task yet they are good corporate citizens. They are concerned that criminal liability will attach to them because they are providers or facilitators of the communication of hate propaganda.

Nonetheless I endorse the attempt to dissuade anyone from facilitating, aiding or abetting the distribution of hate propaganda. In this heated and extremely troubling time there has been a backlash against certain communities. It is encouraging that the legislation includes provisions to prevent people from lashing out at religious organizations and followers of the Muslim faith who are often the antithesis of those who engage in violence or terrorist activity.

The bill's amendments regarding the Official Secrets Act are meant to counter espionage by taking into account new computer technologies and the need to fight intelligence gathering activities by foreign powers and terrorist groups. This is a recognition that the means of communication have changed substantially. We need to update ourselves and use new methodologies to monitor new forms of communication. That is what Bill C-36 would allow the law enforcement community to do.

The bill would also amend the Canada Evidence Act to protect information obtained by foreign intelligence agencies when used in Canadian courts. It would amend the Firearms Act to allow air marshals, mainly from the United States, to fly into Canada. These amendments are a clear common sense recognition that the world we live in has changed substantially and that we need to accommodate changes that have taken place in countries like the United States.

I encourage all members to support these provisions. Members of the coalition will be reviewing Bill C-36 at the committee level and supporting the majority of them. The bill's provisions would allow police, CSIS and others that provide security to develop a more effective methodology for combating terrorism.

My greatest concern, which has been expressed numerous times, is about the resource allocation that would be required to implement these changes. The bill's provisions for new powers of arrest, investigative techniques, investigative hearings and use of warrants would all require additional resources and training.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has referred to $250 million in new resources. When that is spread out over time and we allow for the bureaucratic assistance that goes with law enforcement, the actual impact on person power and frontline policing will be fairly minimal when one considers the task. We will be pressing the government for more specifics in that regard.

There are concerns about the bill's powers of arrest and detention. Those matters will be pressed at the committee level and further meat will be put on the bones with respect to details. If the legislation is enacted it will be up for review in three years. A sunset clause of greater duration may be necessary.

The Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative coalition will be supporting the legislation in its first instance while looking for improvements at the committee level and providing an indepth examination. I look forward to that process taking place, as do all Canadians, and the speedy passage of Bill C-36 into law.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I put a question to the member for Winnipeg--Transcona and I do not think I expressed it very well so I would like to try it again.

Subsection 83.01(b) defines terrorist activity. It clearly and explicitly would include the kind of violent protest that we saw in Quebec City, the throwing of Molotov cocktails there, as well as whenever leaders from across the world meet at World Trade Organization conferences and there are attacks on police and barriers with the use of violence.

Does the hon. member feel that parliament should endorse this as a definition of terrorist activity in the ambit of this legislation? Is this something we want the bill to catch?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know my learned colleague has a longstanding interest in human rights and protecting the public when it comes to access to information. Yes, I believe this legislation would very much envelope acts of violence and where the requisite mental element exists for actions that are intended to clearly put people's lives in danger.

The government in its wisdom has brought forward a bill that is sufficiently broad to include that activity. Whether it is someone from another country perpetrating an act of violence of the magnitude that we saw on September 11, or whether it is an individual who purposely prepares a weapon or a bomb or engages in a dangerous act, that in my view is terrorism. It is a threat to public security and it has to be dealt with in the harshest and most just but swiftest fashion. I agree that this definition would encompass that type of activity.

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

Mr. Speaker, toward the end of his remarks my hon. colleague made reference to a sunset clause. Would the hon. member echo the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona with regard to the value of having a sunset clause which would require a re-enactment or a review of the law at the end of a set period so that any problems that occurred and any excessive measures that may have been included could be rectified at that time?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that a legislative sunset clause, particularly for these provisions, many of which arguably infringe on the area of human rights and freedoms, mobility and protection from police powers, should be re-examined and put through the rigours of a re-examination in four to five years or basically the life of this government.

As demonstrated by the events of September 11, things changed dramatically. They changed for the worst on that date. That is not to say that they could not improve in the future with some hope and optimism. To that end, if we are living in a safer, gentler world in years to come there may be a need to pull back some of these provisions. That is not the case now with this heightened sense of awareness of terrorism.

There should be a sunset clause, particularly for some of these provisions. I hope we will have an opportunity to examine that issue in committee. I suspect that there is some willingness and some openness on the part of the government to do just that.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if in the event there is a sunset clause or even a review of this piece of legislation, does my hon. colleague feel that there is an adequate provision in the committee structure to deal with this issue?

Should there be a change in the committee structure? Should there be a committee dealing with national security or some measure for reviewing the legislation? Does my hon. colleague feel that there is a committee process in place that can do justice to a review of this piece of legislation?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that currently our committee process is somewhat flawed and there is a need to re-examine it. In the short term we will not be able to reconstruct our committees in a way that will address the concerns my colleague raised.

However, we are dealing with a very specific legislative response to a terrorist act and there is a need to fill legislative gaps. The committee structure could have been expanded to envelope some of the more critical elements of terrorism including immigration and the concerns around border security. All these issues unfortunately will not be touched upon in the current legislation but I suspect there will be future legislation.

I am concerned about public knowledge of the bill. It is not currently available on the Internet. The information commissioner does not have a copy. I am sure my friend opposite would share those concerns. Members of the public will have to be given a certain amount of information so that they may digest the impact of the bill, both good and bad. Committees do not always allow for that to happen.

Committees will be televised in this instance which will provide Canadians with a greater opportunity to see the details of the legislation. We will have to re-examine how these committees work in the future because they have been abused by the government. They have been controlled to a far larger extent than they should be.

Individual members, both on the government and the opposition sides, should be encouraged. A lot of talent is being overlooked and ignored as a result of the way the current committee structure works.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the remarks of the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. There are many themes throughout the speeches we have been hearing, starting with the member from the Canadian Alliance, the member from the Bloc and the member from the NDP.

One of the themes that keeps coming up is the possible fear that even if the bill is being put forward with the best of intentions of the Minister of Justice, some of the powers afforded the police or the authorities within the bill could go beyond the original planned purpose and could be exercised with a force greater than anyone would have contemplated in the Chamber, to the detriment of peaceful protesters.

It may go beyond and be used in a way to undermine what we as Canadians have always viewed as peaceful, lawful protests. Would the hon. member care to expand on the possibility of that happening with Bill C-36?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have said that the bill in its proper interpretation will not tread into the area of civil disobedience of a peaceful nature and legitimate protests against government activity. I was concerned even prior to the legislation that there is opportunity for political interference. We saw that at APEC. It was clearly identified.

The legislation is aimed more at specific acts of violence meant to disrupt legitimate government activity. There has to be a degree of accountability for it to work. We will have an opportunity to hear from groups that will be affected.

I do not believe it is ever legitimate for college students who are engaged in a peaceful demonstration of sorts to be subjected to violence themselves. Violence will not solve any problem in this instance. However, when an individual goes out and deliberately engages in dangerous acts such as throwing a firebomb or carrying a weapon, that type of activity should be and is covered by the legislation. I am hoping it will be implemented in a reasonable fashion.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Parkdale--High Park. I want to begin by saying that I echo the comments made by my colleague opposite. I believe that the time for tolerance of violent protest is at an end because violent protest is a type of terrorist activity. It is designed to intimidate and to disrupt the democratic process. However, I would stress in the same context that we would not want the legislation to interfere with rightful dissent and peaceful protest and I do not believe it does.

I would also like to echo the idea of a sunset clause. What is contained in the legislation is so profound, so important and so contrary to the way Canadians would like to see themselves and yet so terribly necessary in the context of international terrorist threats. I hope the government will seriously consider, instead of a statutory review, a sunset clause perhaps after five years, not counting an election year.

The reality is that a committee will never examine the issues contained in the legislation in the kind of depth that parliament should examine it. I hope the government will seriously consider that prospect.

The government may have to separate out from the legislation as a consequence the clauses dealing with the statutory creation of the Communications Security Establishment, and rightly so, because the Communications Security Establishment is a very important institution that pertains to national security and is little known and understood in this country. It ought to be subject to a separate debate in the House. That is something that I would like the government to consider.

More important, something that concerns me very specifically, and I sound the alarm, is clause 87 which would change the Access to Information Act. There are other clauses such as clause 103 and clause 104 which would change the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Privacy Act. These clauses give the Attorney General of Canada the right to issue certificates that prohibit the disclosure of information pertaining to international relations, national defence or security.

We can see the rationale for that. There is certain information in times of crisis that one would want to protect, but the trouble with clause 87 is that it makes an exclusion instead of an exemption from the Access to Information Act. The clauses amend section 69 of the Access to Information Act by adding a further section, section 69.1.

Section 69 of the Access to Information Act excludes cabinet confidences. It provides for the release of cabinet documents after 20 years. By adding section 69.1 after section 69 there is no 20 year release date.

In other words, what happens is that the Attorney General of Canada would be able to exclude information from public view forever with no review, no outside ombudsman or court. No one can see what it is doing. One might argue that since this pertains to international relations and national defence there could be a case made that there are secrets in those two areas that should be kept indefinitely, however not security.

Section 87 enables the government to withhold information pertaining to security issues forever. Mr. Speaker, that is terribly dangerous. That is the excuse that has been used by dictatorships throughout history and around the world. We are talking about police information being withheld forever.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot have that. I hope the government will seriously reconsider what it is doing by this particular clause 87 and the ones relating to the other two pieces of legislation. This cannot be. I am sure it is an oversight on the part of the government.

I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Access to Information Act does provide exemptions for security issues and for international relations. An exemption enables a review by the access to information commissioner and by a federal court, which in the interests of democracy I think is a much better situation, but the Access to Information Act is still flawed because these exemptions also withhold information indefinitely. At least there is a review by the courts, but nevertheless, the information can be held under the current legislation indefinitely.

One change I would like to see to the Access to Information Act, which could be put in this legislation, would be that security information, international relations information, defence information, should have some automatic release review, a timeline of, say, 30 years or even 50 years. The point is that when we are dealing with the need for government to act in secret, certainly in the public interest when it is acting in secret, we must make sure in a democracy that there is a time for disclosure. Under the current Access to Information Act with an exemption there is no time for disclosure.

This legislation makes the situation even worse because an exclusion makes it impossible for any kind of oversight or review. So, Mr. Speaker, I do hope the government will review its position on that.

There are other areas of the legislation that interest me that I would like to see a little bit more on, such as requiring charities and non-profit organizations to be financially transparent. It is one thing to put up penalties for fundraising for terrorism, but we have to have the mechanisms to see actually how funds are moving. We can see it in a casino. There are mechanisms to track how casinos use money. We cannot see how money is used in charities and especially non-profit organizations.

Mr. Speaker, charities have to send in a financial information return to Revenue Canada, which is a very incomplete document and anyone can fill it out, but at least it is some kind of information for the public, but when a non-profit organization sends its financial information return to Revenue Canada, it is not a public document. Consequently, there is no transparency whatsoever for a non-profit organization.

The difficulty with this legislation is while it has provisions for lifting the charity registration status, a charity that is raising money for abusive purposes, not just terrorist activity but for laundering money or for organized crime, can just move on to become a non-profit organization and have a higher level of secrecy.

So these are some things that I think should be reviewed by the government.

I also point out, just to go the full circle, the legislation would appear to capture the special interest groups that promote violent activity, like some of the animal rights organizations. I think we will probably hear from them in the course of this debate.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the government's anti-terrorism plan as outlined in Bill C-36, the new anti-terrorism act. The main purpose of the bill is to give us better tools to address and better protect ourselves from terrorism.

As the Minister of Justice noted this morning in the House of Commons, the new legislation contains the following measures: first, measures to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists; second, measures to provide new investigative tools to allow enforcement in national security agencies to better undertake their work; and third, measures to ensure that Canadian values of respect and fairness are preserved and the root causes of hatred are addressed through stronger laws against hate crimes and propaganda. It is these last measures I wish to address today.

Since the apocalyptic events of September 11 the Government of Canada has been firm in its resolve to stand by the values of tolerance, respect and equality. I would like to take this opportunity to remind members of what the Prime Minister said in the House on September 17. He said “Today more than ever we must affirm the fundamental values of every race, every colour, every religion and every ethnic origin”. The Prime Minister also noted on that day that we will not give into temptation in a rush to increase security, to undermine the values that we cherish and which have made Canada a beacon of hope, freedom and tolerance to the world.

It is important to remember that our plan to fight the rise of terrorism in the world must include action to fight against the rise of intolerance in our midst. Expressions of hate have no place in Canadian society. They undermine the very fundamental values of respect, equality and security and cause damage to a multicultural, tolerant and law-abiding society.

Last night the Prime Minister reminded us once again that Canada is a land of immigrants, a place where people from almost every nation and faith on earth have come to find freedom, respect, harmony and a brighter future. Therefore as part of its anti-terrorism act the Government of Canada is proposing changes that address the root causes of hatred, reaffirm Canadian values and ensure that Canada's renowned respect for justice and diversity is reinforced.

These measures would include the following: first, amendments to the criminal code that would allow the courts to order the deletion of publicly available hate propaganda from computer systems; second, amendments to the criminal code which would create a new offence of mischief motivated by bias, prejudice or hate committed against a place of religious worship or associated religious property; and third, amendments to be made to the Canadian Human Rights Act to extend the prohibition against hate messages beyond telephone messages to include all communications technologies. I will continue to elaborate on these measures.

It is important to remember that Canada, along with other like-minded countries, has embarked upon a war against terrorists and terrorism. Unfortunately, because recent acts of terrorism are associated with people of a certain faith, some regrettably and wrongfully view it as a religious war. Osama bin Laden himself, in his pre-taped message the day after the United States attacks, actually called upon the Muslim world. He is the one who is inciting that hatred. More unfortunately, here in Canada some Canadians of Muslim faith have been made the targets of the anger Canadians are feeling against those whom they feel are responsible.

At the same time as we take measures to protect ourselves from terrorist activities, we want to ensure that Canadians of any origin do not become a target for hatred. We want to make sure that everyone in the country in all circumstances will continue to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this context the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by section 2(a) of the charter takes on particular importance. The criminal code already protects any group distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin from statements of hatred directed against them.

In fact, it is an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes when an offence is motivated by hatred. The Canadian Human Rights Act already protects any person from repeat communications by means of telecommunications of any matter that is likely to expose that person to hatred or contempt by reason of this person being identified on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

I previously noted that the bill includes additional measures to better protect from hatred those who have become vulnerable because they belong to a group distinguished by factors such as race, religion or ethnic origin. The bill would create the offence of mischief motivated by hatred in relation to places of religious worship or objects associated with religious worship found in such a place.

The harm done by a mischief against a religious property goes far beyond the physical damage to the property. The greatest harm comes from the message of hatred that is conveyed by the mischief. Such mischief would create fear among worshippers of a specific religion and divert them from the practise of their religion. It is because we recognize these far reaching implications that we want to create an offence of mischief that is related to the purpose of the property damage, regardless of the value of that property.

The offence of mischief in relation to religious property would be a very serious offence. It would be subject to a maximum penalty of 10 years when prosecuted on indictment or 18 months when prosecuted on summary conviction.

In addition, the government is proposing two provisions that respond to the fact that the Internet is now an easily available and efficient means of communication of hatred. The Canadian Human Rights Act would be amended to clarify that communicating by computer hate messages against a person identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination is a discriminatory practice. In addition to any other penalty, persons found responsible for these messages could be required to cease and desist from this practice.

The criminal code would be amended to authorize the court to order deletion of publicly available online hate propaganda when it is stored on a server that is within the jurisdiction of the court. This procedure is independent from prosecution. It would allow the material to be deleted in cases where the person who posted it is unknown or is outside the country. The person who posted the material would be given an opportunity to be heard before the judge would decide to order deletion of the material.

The criminal code already provides for the seizure and forfeiture of copies held for sale or distribution of any publication found by the court to be hate propaganda. This procedure would parallel in the cyberworld a procedure that is available in the material world.

Protecting minorities from discrimination and hatred is a value that is well established in Canadian law. For more than 30 years the criminal code has protected from hatred identifiable groups, which are defined as any group distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. The communication of statements in a public place inciting hatred against an identifiable group is an offence when it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The communication of statements other than in private conversations that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group is also an offence. Advocating or promoting genocide, whether in public or in private, is an offence.

More recently we have made it an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes when there is evidence that the commission of an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on factors such as race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour or religion.

For almost 20 years the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has protected our fundamental liberties and provided for equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on factors including race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religion.

The Canadian Human Rights Act, which applies to the private sector under federal jurisdiction, prohibits discrimination based on factors that include race, national or ethnic origin or religion.

Finally, it is important that we have the legislative means to defend ourselves against terrorists, but it is also equally important that we do that without discriminating against Canadians of minority religion or ethnic origin.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-36. As I mentioned in the House a number of weeks ago, this debate should have taken place months ago. Although we commend the government for bringing the legislation forward to parliament, we wonder why the government waited such a long time and why it took such an alarming wake up call to mobilize the government into bringing forth these necessary legislative initiatives to immediately ensure the security and safety of Canadians and of our nation, Canada.

On that note I quote an article appearing in yesterday's Toronto Star by James Travers. He said:

As the federal government begins to tear down walls protecting terrorists operating in Canada, it has some dirty little secrets of its own to hide. For years, the Prime Minister's cabinet has been receiving increasingly worrisome reports that this country is a prime and easy target...The evidence is overwhelming that the federal Liberals knew a lot and did very little. In confidential yearly cabinet briefings, in dozens of documents sent to specific government departments and even in some public statements, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) repeatedly warned that Canada, along with the U.S. is among the world's pre-eminent terrorist targets. Those threats were documented in CSIS reports that government sources say became noticeably more specific--and frightening--after 1996. Following a surge in refugees, the intelligence agency identified a lengthening list of organizations and 350 individuals active here...In fact, the federal government should have recognized the threat to this country as far back as June 23, 1985, when Air India Flight 182 was bombed killing 329 passengers and crew. Until the attacks on New York and Washington, that was the most deadly terrorist attack in modern Western history. Now the federal government is desperately trying to respond by bringing forward legislation and introducing security measures that for years have been relegated to the bottom of the agenda. It clearly hopes that the current flurry of activity will somehow mask years of inaction.

On September 18 during our supply day the Canadian Alliance called upon the Liberal government to bring forward anti-terrorist legislation. Within that legislation we asked that there be a provision for the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada.

At first glance it would appear that Bill C-36 falls short of that recommendation. Subclause 83.05(1) provides for the establishment of a list on which:

--the Governor in Council may place any entity if, on the recommendation of the Solicitor General, the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that (a) the entity has carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity; or (b) the entity is acting on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with an entity referred to in paragraph (a).

I do not see anywhere in the legislation authorization for the publication of that list unless I am missing something in the bill, although under subclause 83.05(7) there is authorization for the solicitor general to publish in The Canada Gazette notice of any person no longer a listed entity.

Publication of the names of those who are known terrorists or who have terrorist connections would effectively warn lending institutions and others not to do business with those individuals or groups.

I also point out the use of the word may as opposed to the word shall in subsection 83.05(1).

Without the word shall effectively there is no obligation for the establishment of a list. Bill C-36 provides discretionary power to the governor in council to set up a list. Furthermore, under clause 83.05 there is to be a review of the list two years after the establishment and every two years thereafter to listen and to determine whether there are still reasonable grounds for an entity to be listed.

Why is the government contemplating delisting a terrorist who, according to the definition carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorism activity? Why has the government suggested the absurd notion that criminal records should not follow a person through life?

In criminal law now we can have a pardon after a number of years. After perhaps five years a person can apply for a pardon, but a terrorist could be delisted after two years after carrying out such atrocious acts.

Bill C-36 makes participating in, facilitating, instructing and harbouring terrorist groups an indictable offence for which a person is liable to imprisonment for variable maximum terms.

Although I fully support and commend the government for finally proscribing these activities, as it is obligated to do under the UN convention, I would hope it is receptive to amending this section of Bill C-36 to provide for minimum sentences.

Without a prescribed minimum sentence a person arrested and convicted for knowingly facilitating a terrorist activity could receive a conditional sentence. Clearly the magnitude of any and all forms of terrorist activity warrants a stiff period of incarceration.

With regard to sentencing I would also hope the government is willing to amend clause 83.26 of Bill C-36 to allow for consecutive life sentences. It is absolutely abhorrent to think that a person convicted of a terrorist act in which there were multiple deaths is eligible for parole after 15 years because the Liberal government has repeatedly failed to eliminate section 745 of the criminal code which unjustifiably grants killers a chance at early release.

Again at first glance there appear to be no provisions within Bill C-36 allowing for the deportation of alien terrorists. The United States anti-terrorist legislation, which I would like to point out was introduced within eight days of the September 11 attack on America, makes membership in terrorist organizations reason for exclusion from that country. Furthermore, it permits the deportation of aliens if sentenced to more than five years in prison. I would highly recommend that the Canadian government follow suit. In the next couple of weeks as Bill C-36 is moved through committee and as we take a look at it in greater depth, I am sure other omissions will become apparent.

Before closing, I encourage the Minister of Justice to stand firm in her resolve to balance the rights of Canadians with their security. I know in the next week the Canadian Bar Association and others may challenge Bill C-36 as going too far and unnecessarily restricting civil liberties. However, the time has come when we must determine whether or not the right of many to be safe and secure justifies an infringement of some basic individual rights and freedoms.

A poll conducted between October 2 and 4 by the Globe and Mail , CTV and Ipsos-Reid revealed that 80% of those surveyed were willing to surrender some freedom in exchange for tighter security. A high percentage of respondents would support submitting themselves to providing fingerprints for a national identity card which they would be required to carry at all times and show on request to police or security officials. Fewer, but still a majority, would support letting police stop them at random and search their vehicles without reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence.

Far too often the courts are making new laws in their rulings. Judges are substituting their judgments over the elected representatives of the people and of parliament. According to university Professor Jane Hiebert:

Since the Charter's introduction the judiciary has passed judgment on the constitutionality of a breathtakingly broad range of political and social issues from the testing of cruise missiles in Canadian airspace to euthanasia...Effectively, the Charter offers a convenient refuge for politicians to avoid or delay difficult political and moral decisions. Elected representatives can insulate themselves from criticism, and political parties can avoid risking party cohesion by ignoring controversial issues--

I urge the minister not to abdicate her responsibility by clearly articulating within this legislation the intent of parliament to effectively balance liberty against greater security. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kelowna.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for splitting his time. It makes it possible for me to speak earlier in the day rather than later.

I think the government is taking the right step by moving in the direction of introducing Bill C-36. However, as my colleague asked so clearly, why did it take so long? I also recognize that the bill was probably put together very quickly on very short notice. Apparently people seemed to think there was no need to do anything like this.

Now we have legislation that is omnibus in nature and covers a variety of other acts that are to be amended by this bill. Perhaps some of the safeguards that need to be included in the bill have not been thought of or have not been adequately dealt with. I will focus on a couple of them.

I refer to a particular phrase that the hon. minister stated in her address to the House earlier this day. It had to do with dealing with the root causes of hatred. Perhaps the issue here is not so much hatred as it is fear.

What happens in terrorist operations is that terrorists use fear as their weapon. It is one thing to destroy property or to destroy human lives, but hatred is a motivator, as I think we all know and have experienced. It gets the adrenaline flowing.

In the game of hockey adrenaline can really run high. People do not really hate the opposition, but by golly they sure get boiled up every once in a while and sometimes perhaps there is an element of that. When a player can strike fear into and intimidate the opposite team member, the team member will avoid the other player. Damage does not have to be done because the fear is debilitating.

What is happening in our country right now is that we are not acting as perhaps we ought to do. The threat of terrorists is to intimidate to the point where it incapacitates the individual. That is a much more subtle effect than simply destroying someone, because it affects everyone.

It is one thing to take down two towers in the centre of New York City. It had a terrible effect. We feel very sympathetic to the families involved. However it is affecting all of us. It is affecting our celebrations.

On Saturday I was at a wedding ceremony where candles had been ordered to be part of the table setting. They were delayed and got there an hour before the reception was to take place. Why? They had been ordered six months ago. They had been held up because of the September 11 events in New York City.

Every one of us is affected. It does not bother some a great deal, but others are fearful. There are people, for example, today who refuse to get on an airline because of the fear of what will happen to them and whether it is safe to travel. That is the fear I am talking about. That is the effect it has on our economy. I suggest we really look at the effectiveness of terrorist acts at striking fear into the hearts of individuals, rendering them almost incapacitated.

I will move on to another point. The definition of a terrorist act causes me some concern. I do not think I have time to read everything, but I will refer to the overall section referring to an act that is committed:

--in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government, or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada...and that is intended...to cause death...and that is intended to cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that does not involve an activity that is intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of the clauses.

The hon. minister took great pains this morning to emphasize this, so I would like to ask the members as well as the committee members who will meet to discuss the bill to consider the example of what happened in Vancouver when the transit system was incapacitated by a strike for more than six months. It was not the express intention of the union or the group of people that brought about the strike to cause severe difficulty, but the strike did so and it was not unknown that it did.

If the intention is the issue but the result is immaterial, I think that to separate them is perhaps misleading. Not only must we intend to do something bad, but if we do something bad whether we intended to or not the act itself becomes a bad one. It is not that this is not what should be done in the act. The caveat here, what ought to be so strong, is that it does not mislead the public and allow certain freedoms to be exercised at the expense of others.

On the balance side of this position is the intrusion, if you will, by the power of the state through its police officers and other peace officers to, on the suspicion or belief that a terrorist act is about to be committed, charge and detain someone without particular evidence in place, to simply put someone aside because it is believed that person will be doing something such as intimidating people or destroying property. In some cases it would be correct and I think the police should have that power, but there ought to be clear safeguards as to what kinds of things would support that belief that someone might engage in such activities.

There are some things in the bill that ought to be fixed. I do not want the minister to go away from this thinking we are totally opposed to the bill. We are not and I certainly am not, but we ought to be very careful about civil liberties and at the same time not open the door to certain other opportunities that might cause us other difficulties.

With the time I have left, I would like to make one more point with regard to the operation of CIDA. This morning a column in the National Post written by Diane Francis makes a very interesting case. She asks the question: Should CIDA, a taxpayer funded organization, support organizations like Minga, which is operating in Colombia?

It is not quite clear. I certainly do not know the details of what is going on there, but the implication of this column is that it is not clear whether Minga is aiding and abetting the operation or the function of three groups: the National Liberation Army, the Revolutionary Armed Force of Colombia or the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia.

If Minga is in fact doing that, then it actually is in collaboration with organizations that have been put on the list of terrorist organizations by the United States of America. If she is right we ought to take a very careful and serious look at it. I know the bill suggests that we should not fund any terrorist organizations and I am sure the Government of Canada would never think of doing that, but it could be that unless there is a clear and careful audit of how moneys like those from CIDA, for example, are spent and applied such moneys might find their way into organizations such as these.

I really would ask this question and I would ask the minister to ask the Minister of Finance and the minister in charge of CIDA to look at where the money is going, how it is being applied and whether it in fact finds its way indirectly to terrorist organizations.

With that, I would like to suggest that the committee look very carefully at this legislation and that we in parliament support the principle of the legislation, surely, but let us look at the details in such a way as to look after our civil liberties and deal with the real issues.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for London--Fanshawe.

I am pleased to speak about our national response, as embodied in the bill, to the events of September 11. In particular I want to talk about parts 1 through 5 as presented in Bill C-36 because I think Canadians expected, wanted and are supporting a toughening, a codification or a creation of a number of new offences that come as a result of a closer examination of terrorist activity in the world. The world is becoming a much more sophisticated place and the means of creating terrorism and chaos in our society, as we have seen, is happening in new and previously unimagined ways.

From that perspective I think Canadians would support us on parts 1 to 5 and at the same time would expect us to move in tandem with other countries, particularly the G-8 and under the banner of the United Nations, which collectively are moving to eradicate those who would create chaos and who in fact are terrorists.

I would refer to four objectives of the bill, particularly in parts 1 through 5, the criminal provisions of the bill. Those objectives include stopping terrorists from getting into Canada and protecting Canadians from terrorist acts. One is a corollary of the other. Of course to do that police and other security forces need the tools to identify, to prosecute and above all to punish those who would commit these acts.

The third objective would be to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists and impacting on the Canadian economy. As someone who represents a border community, I can say that what occurred on September 11 has had a very direct impact, and not only on our regional, provincial and national economies, but it has had a very tangible result in terms of lines at the border in both directions, outbound and inbound.

Of course the fourth objective is to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and, most important, to address the root causes of such hatred and venom as expressed by these people.

I think there is great support from the Canadian public for the bill, which would define and designate the terrorist groups and their activities. We would make it an offence to knowingly participate or facilitate the activities of terrorist groups. We would make it an offence to knowingly harbour or hide terrorists. We would create tougher sentences for terrorist offences and tougher parole provisions for terrorists.

Cutting off financial support and making that a criminal offence is a very important part of this. Of course as I said at the outset, moving in tandem with other UN signatories to certain provisions and conventions is very important. It is very important that it not be a unilateral action on the part of Canada but in fact a collective action of many countries.

Once again I will say that I think the public knows and expects that we have to make it easier in certain very specific conditions for authorities, those being police forces, the local forces or RCMP or CSIS or whatever, to collect the kind of evidence that is necessary. It is necessary to have electronic surveillance. It is necessary in certain very limited cases to compel disclosure of information that may be held by people. It is also necessary to amend the Canada Evidence Act so that we can collect information and not disclose it in a public forum that would be detrimental to the country.

Canadians are fully supportive of all of those provisions. I also think the bill contains an excellent provision, the three year review provision, because we are caught in the middle of a whole series of events which assume a particular state of mind both nationally and internationally. We do not know the nature, the extent or the duration of this matter, so we have enacted laws which are fitting and proper under the current circumstances. At the same time the three year review allows us to consider the effect of these laws and the conditions in three years' time so that we may determine then whether these laws are enough, too much or not enough. It is very important that laws be considered in a timeframe, both current and short term, but not entrenched forever. In that respect I know that Canadians are quite supportive of this, that they expect it and support it.

What I would now like to talk about is what is referred to as part 6 of the bill because we have heard a great deal of talk about balancing rights, a lot of talk about the charter and a lot of talk about rules of natural justice. I want to point out that part 6 is not about criminal law but civil law. It is about, in this international year of the volunteer, those people who have another element to them, that is, they wish to help others, whether in this country or in other countries. It is about the provision of charitable acts by people in this country to those both in and out of this country. Let us be clear about part 6. It is not about criminal law. It is about civil law and it is about charities.

We have heard a great deal of talk about the rules of natural justice, one of which is this one: Who is my accuser, who is making an accusation against me, what is being said specifically against me and do I have the right to question and to meet that person making the accusation? I point out to members present that part 6 was before the House prior to the summer recess. At that time it was called Bill C-16. It was referred to a committee of the House after first reading. I would point out, far be it from me to say, that it was widely rejected by that committee. It was not a question of one party rejecting it. It was a question of everyone on that committee being disturbed by it.

Some excellent points were made before that committee in terms of what part 6 is about, so as the bill proceeds from the House to the justice committee I would invite the committee to revisit what was said about part 6. All Canadians will support parts 1 to 5, but I think part 6 has some disturbing elements, the principal point being that when one examines that provision one sees that nobody would know who is making the accusation, what specifically is being said or in fact who is saying it. It would be fed through the sieve called CSIS, which would then provide a summary of perhaps what was said, or more properly, of what the allegations were, but little or no detail.

This would have dire consequences for those people in this country with a long tradition of helping others, and this is international year of the volunteer. Part 6 does not meet that fundamental rule of the rules of natural justice, that is, who is making the accusation, what is being said and do I have the right to meet that person and question them?

Finally, I would also point out that part 6 of this law imposes an absolute liability on a charity.

It has nothing to do with anyone's intention. One can imagine some very innocent occurrences where people believe they are doing the right thing when in fact, through misfortune or lack of attention, the money is diverted to somebody who has less than honourable intentions quite innocently by those paying it. Effectively, the result under part 6 would be the end of that charitable cause. That is unfortunate.

When the bill goes to committee, I would ask that the members pay very close attention to part 6 and all the provisions thereof.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend opposite is a lawyer, does he think there is anything in the bill which would tarnish our bill of rights? Is it possible that the individual rights of society could supersede the safety and protection of the entire nation?

I am really concerned about the latter. Do our individual rights exceed the security of our nation as a whole?

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in many respects we are moving into uncharted waters. These are exceptional times. Certainly the objective of the bill is the security and safety of our country and of individuals therein.

The member will know that there are portions of the bill which in another time were never contemplated because it was deemed there was never any need for such types of laws. In terms of the criminal law, the events of September 11 have certainly turned the tide so that the rights of the collective, the safety of the collective and the safety of the nation are being brought forward and will supersede.

For example, I would refer to the section where a person might be, for all intents and purposes, arrested without charges and held for 24 hours prior to being taken before a judge. If we were to suggest that to be the case, six weeks ago people would have said that we could not do that.

However, if we look at it in terms of the events and of the public mood, the public opinion and the culture of the world today, that is not seen in light of those horrendous acts of September 11 as being an unreasonable provision for public safety and protection. In that respect, where otherwise criminal law parts 1 to 5 are applicable, the public is there.

I would like to think that judges do not live in a vacuum. They are quite aware of the climate, although it could be argued that sometimes they are not. However, certainly because of the greater beliefs, fears and apprehension of people today, judges would see this as a reasonable provision for public safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from across the way for a very informative speech this afternoon. My question has to deal with the deterrent values, or at least the potential deterrent values, built into this legislation.

A number of the new classifications for criminal terrorist activities or advising others to commit terrorist activities, now bring with them the potential for life imprisonment in Canada.

Does my colleague believe that this type of deterrent would be successful with terrorists who clearly have shown in the past no appreciation for the value of human life? In particular, we might need to look at legislation that would more speedily extradite and/or deport individuals back to their countries.

Many people would view life imprisonment in Canada's prisons as a step up from what they are used to in their home countries. Therefore, I am a little concerned whether the deterrents would provide the effect for which we are looking.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question. The corollary is that if we had previously apprehended the 19 who commandeered those planes and killed those hundreds of people and said that we were returning them to their country of origin, that would not have been a deterrent, as I see it.

What do we say to people who are capable of overriding the very natural instinct to live and survive by committing mass suicide among themselves? There is an element in all of this that is relative and that is that any kind of punishment, whether it is in Canada or in some other country, is of no consequence to them whatsoever.

The bill aims not only to address those who commit the acts but also those who support the network people. Obviously the 19 did not act as a collective of 19 or as 19 solo acts. There was some cohesion to that group which meant there were support operatives either in the United States or, as has been suggested, in Europe. It is to get at those people who are the real threat.

What do we do with people who are willing to commit suicide? No number of threats of any kind will prevent that.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Sarnia--Lambton gave us a pretty good explanation of this legislation. I enjoyed listening to his comments. I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-36, which will put the government's anti-terrorism plan into place.

Quite clearly the bill is aimed at terrorist organizations and it seeks to strengthen the investigation, prosecution and prevention of terrorist activities at home and abroad. The bill has two primary objectives: to stop terrorists from getting into Canada and to protect Canadians from terrorist acts.

Canada has been fortunate to have a very peaceful history, unlike our neighbour to the south. September 11 is one more horrible example of that, but it has probably made Canadians question if we will continue to have a peaceful history without threat. We know now that Canada is in a position of being threatened. Our safety and security as a nation and as individual citizens of this nation have been threatened. It is important that the bill be in place to help protect Canadians from any possible terrorist acts.

The bill brings forward the tools necessary to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. As my colleague from Sarnia--Lambton noted, the bill seeks to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage or under threat by terrorists, which would have a very deleterious effect on the Canadian economy.

Since I have been working with the Minister for International Trade, this brings home much more clearly the importance of the Canadian--American border in our trading relationship. We see that nowhere more clearly than in southwestern Ontario.

In my home community of London, Ontario, people regularly cross the American border either at Sarnia Port Huron or Windsor-Detroit. It is as simple as going to see a ball game or a hockey game and returning that same evening. Thousands of people cross the border daily to go to work. There is also an enormous amount of trade across those two border points.

We need to reflect on the fact that the twoway trade between Canada and the United States now stands at $1.4 billion every day of the year. We need to reflect on the fact that there are some 250 million crossings at the border by individuals, be it for recreational purpose or work.

It is very important the legislation be in place to restore the confidence that has been somewhat shaken in Canadians and Americans. They want to continue to live in a society that has been free and open. The openness of our border is a good example of that.

Therefore it is very important that all these steps be taken to re-establish the confidence that we normally have had between our two countries, where individuals can travel and move safely across the borders and where business can continue in an unhindered way. The statistics I just mentioned show the enormity of this two way trade. Something like 87% of our exports go to the United States.

The bill creates a situation whereby Canada will be working with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and to address the root causes of such hatred. In that regard I want to put forward a suggestion for the minister's consideration and I intend to take this up with her individually.

This suggestion comes from leaders in my own community, particularly Muslim leaders in London, Ontario, who consistently condemn the terrorist attacks of September 11. They have proposed the idea that perhaps Canada is an ideal country to host an international forum on terrorism. Perhaps we are the perfect country to say that we should, as an international community, gather and discuss the terrorist threat and discuss very basic questions like who is a terrorist and what is the proper definition of a terrorist. There have been some very famous people in history who have been considered terrorists. Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist in his own country and he went on to lead his nation. He is obviously one of the outstanding individuals in history in recent times. This suggestion has some merit. Perhaps Canada would be well advised to take a lead in looking at the whole issue of terrorism and working with our international partners. I am happy to put that suggestion on the record and I will pursue it individually with the appropriate persons.

The proposed anti-terrorism act includes measures to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. These include: defining and designating terrorist groups and activities to make it easier to prosecute terrorists and those who support them; making it an offence to knowingly participate in or contribute to or facilitate the activities of terrorist groups or to instruct anyone in how to do any of those activities; making it an offence to knowingly harbour a terrorist; creating tougher sentences and parole provisions for terrorist offences; cutting off the financial support of terrorist groups; making it an offence to knowingly collect funds for or contribute funds to any such group. It would also ratify the two UN anti-terrorism conventions, the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism and the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings, as well as the safety of United Nations and associated personnel convention.

I believe Canadians overwhelmingly support the legislation and the need for it. Some valid concerns have been raised. Certainly they have been raised with me, about the fact that we do not slip in a draconian series of measures that would somehow infringe unnecessarily on our rights as individuals. I think the bill strikes the proper balance between the need to fight terrorism and the need to protect of our civil liberties.

The bill has several safeguards which I will mention briefly. There will be a parliamentary review of the anti-terrorism legislation in three years. As the Prime Minister noted in his speech last night, the minister is committed to requesting and supporting such a review sooner if it is deemed to be warranted.

Clearly defining provisions so that they are targeted at terrorists and terrorist groups would allow obviously legitimate political activism and protest which are so much a part of our democracy and which we witness every day outside on the steps and the lawns of parliament. I am very proud as a Canadian that I see those groups. I do not see them as a nuisance. They are here demonstrating peacefully about causes that are important to them. They cover everything from an individual priest here day after day expressing his strong pro-life views to groups like the Falun Gong. They have been out there recently demonstrating about activities they feel are discriminating against them in China.

It is very important that we have this balance and that the safeguards are there. They are important and good safeguards. The burden of proof, the onus, is on the state, as it should be. In other words an individual would still be innocent until proven guilty even if he or she is accused of a terrorist activity. That is fundamental to our democracy.

There are other safeguards built into the legislation that I do not have time to enumerate right now. Suffice it to say that I think the bill is very important.

I know that my constituents overwhelmingly support the bill. My constituents have some concerns about not having this legislation go too far. The bill addresses those concerns very well and I am pleased to support it.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the member opposite.

In the context in which we now find ourselves, it is not easy to criticize such a bill, but my duty as a parliamentarian does compel me to point out that the only acts of terrorism I have ever known in my entire life in Canada were committed by the RCMP. They burned barns. An RCMP officer had a bomb explode in his hands on the steps of the Steinberg family residence. I recall this incident, which took place in 1970.

Law enforcement officers running wild are very dangerous. While full of good intentions, this bill fails totally to provide a control mechanism or structure.

Just days ago, we received some 150 recommendations from the Canadian Police Association. If we were to grant their request, you and I both, Mr. Speaker, would be stuck in some holding tank, in a glass enclosure, and stripped of our individual freedom.

I understand that it is the nature of police work to exercise control over just about anything that moves. Policing, we are told, is a necessary evil, but parliamentarians must not be too easily swayed by these kinds of claims.

The bill to combat terrorism lacks controls. It is permanent. Yes, it is up for review in three years. Does the member not think that when those three years are up it should be extended by a vote in parliament rather than continuing in force forever, as long as parliament has not recalled it? I would recommend the opposite approach. This is a very dangerous bill.

Even in its wildest dreams, the Canadian Police Association never dared hope it would be given so many powers in a single document as it would be with this bill.

Does the member not see a certain threat to individual freedoms in this, despite the good intentions?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely dumbfounded to hear any member of parliament, but particularly one from the province of Quebec, tell me that he has no recollection of terrorist activities in Canada except for those of the RCMP. That is absolutely incredible.

I would suggest that the hon. member talk to the family of the Hon. Pierre Laporte and hear what their views are about the absolutely incredible statement he just made. I cannot believe it. I will not go into a full explanation of the 1970 FLQ crisis and the murder of Pierre Laporte. I do not need to do that, although I certainly could. I am afraid I would probably become quite annoyed if I did that.

I want to answer the hon. member's question. He is proposing a built-in sunset clause or a clause that would automatically cause the bill to no longer be in effect at the end of three years. I do not think that is a very good idea at all. It is unnecessary.

First of all, the Parliament of Canada, which the hon. member was elected to and is a part of, can achieve that in any number of other ways that are already in existence. The bill can be revoked.

The Prime Minister in his speech last night very clearly indicated that although the bill calls for a parliamentary review automatically at three years, the government is open to a review sooner if it is deemed wise by parliament to do that. There is no intention of having some never ending bill that cannot be reviewed.

I invite the hon. member to come over and have a discussion. I will tell him the rest of the story about the FLQ crisis which he conveniently ignored.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that parliament has before it, as we often say, an exceedingly important bill. I really think it is the most important bill the House of Commons will pass. This bill responds to an event that occurred on September 11 and to much more than that as well. The bill, the way it is drafted at the moment, goes perhaps a bit too far.

Let me explain. If there is one thing we must make sure of it is that the House does not improvise in passing the bill, not with a bill like this one. We must take time to examine every angle of the bill. As many people as possible and the experts must be consulted in order to produce a law that meets our objective of fighting terrorism effectively.

The attacks on New York and Washington must certainly not change anything in the way we live and do things in Canada, but neither, given that the laws are passed here, must anything be changed in Quebec's approach either. To succeed in getting us to change and alter our practices would be the supreme victory for the terrorists. They would know we are afraid and would change the way we live and deprive our fellow citizens of their freedoms in exchange for security on paper.

In our reactions and attitudes we must look primarily for balance between heightened security measures and the need to keep freedom in the central and vital space it occupies in our society. We must protect ourselves, but we must also be aware of the fact that liberty will always be fragile whatever we do and whatever legislation we may pass in this House so long as there are men and women prepared to die for a cause and through hatred. No legislation will be able to stop them.

We can, however, have legislation that will enable us to prevent attacks such as the those that have recently taken place. We can have a bill that will help us gather information on terrorists, on the people we really want to target with such a piece of legislation, but caution is required.

We must not have just any old law to stop such people. Legislation is needed, but not at the expense of our collective and individual rights and freedoms. Sacrificing our freedom would in fact be capitulation, because freedom is, more than anything else, what defines life in a democracy. The choices we will be making are not, therefore, only choices for security, they are choices for society. Such choices, informed choices, cannot be made overnight. A sense of balance must inform our analysis of Bill C-36.

At the present time, looked at as a whole I believe the bill's purpose is laudable. The bill as a whole will be applied in conjunction with other existing Canadian statutes. The criminal code will continue to apply, as will the anti-gang legislation. Hon. members will recall that Bill C-24, now in the other place awaiting royal assent, enables police officers to commit illegal acts.

With the anti-gang legislation and this bill, Bill C-36, which amends over 20 Canadian statutes and a series of regulations, the powers of the police force appear out of balance with the liberties we enjoy.

I know it is not mentioned in the bill, but at some point the police, thanks to the anti-gang legislation, will be able to commit illegal acts under the law and perhaps break it. This was certainly not the government's aim, but we must not lose sight of the fact that these two laws apply concurrently. Neither blocks the other.

By allowing a police officer to act illegally under Bill C-24, we cannot be sure he will not use this part of the act to do things that are illegal under Bill C-36. Yet he would be justified in doing so for purposes of national security. Is this just rhetoric on my part? I hope so.

I do not think it is rhetoric to say that because it is important to watch what is going on and to try to produce the best legislation. I think this is what the people of Canada and Quebec expect of us.

A look at the federal government's anti-terrorism plan and its objectives reveals four major objectives. There is no reason to oppose them. Perhaps the way it goes about achieving them in the legislation gives us the right, in a country like ours, to question them.

The first objective is to prevent terrorists from entering Canada and to protect Canadians against acts of terrorism. I have no problem with this objective. I would certainly not defend the terrorists or say that their rights were protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was saying on the subject of gangsterism and organized crime, that it is not true the charter exists to protect them. I say the same thing about terrorists. However, the rights and freedoms honest people enjoy at the moment must not be denied them.

The second objective involves providing the tools to identify terrorists, bring them to justice, sentence them and punish them. This needs no explanation and there is no doubt that we support this objective.

The third objective is to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being taken hostage by terrorists, which would have repercussions on the Canadian economy. That is obvious. Moreover, this is not the first time the Bloc Quebecois has questioned the work being done by customs officials on the borders of Canada and Quebec.

As far as money laundering is concerned, for at least five or six years now the Bloc Quebecois has been saying over and over that the borders between Canada and the United States are as full of holes as a sieve and that Canada enjoys the wonderful international reputation of being a country where money laundering is easy and where there may be the least monitoring of this.

I know that this is being corrected. I know that we have not been a voice crying out unheard in the wilderness for those five or six years. I know that the government has amended some laws in response to overtures by the Bloc Quebecois. I know that as far as Bill C-36 is concerned the criminal code is also being amended, with a far more specific objective: terrorist groups. This is a good thing.

I do not, however, think that the wake up call of the events of September 11 was necessary for this to happen. Actions could have been taken back when we started talking about the situation, back when we began to address the problem represented by Canadian customs and the Canada-U.S. border.

The final objective is to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and address the root causes of their hatred.

We can see that these are four praiseworthy objectives. On that basis one could not be opposed to a bill to implement provisions to attain those objectives.

However, the questions that arise have to do with the text we have before us. The bill is more than 170 pages in length and contains dozens, even hundreds, of amended sections and expanded definitions regarding the threat to national security among other things. There are increased powers conferred to some members of the cabinet. The Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of National Defence would all have increased powers when it comes to electronic surveillance, for example. They would be able to decide if an individual will be monitored. It is the minister who would be responsible for the final decision. Have they gone too far? That is a tough question.

Are we asking enough tough questions? I hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I emphasize the words human rights, will do just that in a calm manner with all the time it needs and that this bill will be carefully examined.

If Canada had pursued these four objectives by ratifying international treaties that it has already signed, by making them law, then in all probability I would not be standing here right now giving a 20 minute speech on this subject. In order to attain its four objectives, the government included two conventions in this bill.

The first one is the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. It freezes terrorists' assets by preventing the use of assets belonging to a person who is involved in terrorist activities and in preventing the provision of property and financial or other related services to terrorists. These measures enable a Federal Court judge to order the freezing or seizure of property used to support terrorist activities.

This is the convention that had been signed but never had force of law in Canada. This convention is included in Bill C-36.

In order to achieve the objectives I outlined earlier, there is no problem with this approach and I applaud the government on this. Indeed, the government should have done this before September 11. This was its responsibility. It failed when it came to implementing the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

Frankly, I imagine that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service knew before September 11 that there were people raising funds for terrorism in Canada. I certainly hope it knew. If it did not, I have my doubts about the effectiveness of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. If it did, why was it waiting to tell somebody? If it did pass the information along, why did the solicitor general or the Minister of Justice do nothing when a convention had been signed to that effect? There is a problem somewhere.

The other convention is the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings. This convention contains provisions on the targeting of places of public use, government facilities, infrastructure and transportation systems for attacks using explosives or other lethal devices, including chemical or biological agents.

Here again, I hope that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was on some sort of trail in Canada while groups were on Canadian soil and had certain similar objectives. It is perhaps not as clear as in the first convention, but I hope that CSIS, with the millions of dollars, close to a billion, which it regularly receives to manage its affairs, had a good idea of what was going on.

These two conventions are therefore implemented by Bill C-36. Once again we have no problem with this.

There is one point about which we have some legitimate concerns and I think that anyone interested in individual and collective rights and freedoms must share those concerns.

A large number of sections in the criminal code are amended and many new ones are added to deal with terrorism.

I invite hon. members to read the definition of terrorist activity; it is not a simple definition. It refers to ten conventions that Canada signed and implemented over the years. It is a definition that makes reference to other sections, to international conventions, to a large number of possibilities.

Terrorism as such is not defined, just like the federal government refused to define the notion of criminal activity--

[An hon. member]

Gangsterism.