Yes, gangsterism. The bill defines terrorist activity by referring to conventions. About terrorism or terrorist activity it says that it is as an act committed for “a political, religious or ideological purpose”, which threatens the public and national security because it “is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to a person”, “to endanger a person's life”, “to cause substantial property damage”, and might “cause serious bodily harm” as a result of “serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system”.
This is just one part of the definition. I did not mention the ten conventions that make reference to certain definitions of what may constitute a terrorist activity.
Just the part of the definition that I mentioned deserves a closer look. More than ten or fifteen minutes are necessary before adopting this clause. Experts are required, and no one in this House has the expertise to really be able to say whether or not this is going too far.
There may be members who have some expertise, but it is tinted by the party line of their political formations, and that includes myself, so outside experts are required to take a hard look at these definitions and tell us if we are right to be concerned about a possible violation of certain freedoms.
We could discuss this issue for a long time. I could talk about such a bill for hours, but since time is always a consideration I will deal with the core of the issue.
Another point that raises concerns is the whole question of electronic surveillance. Under the criminal code it is possible to use electronic surveillance by obtaining a warrant if surveillance is carried out for a specific time period, but the person being monitored must subsequently be informed of the fact.
Now all of this has been turned upside down. The monitoring period has been extended. The minister now has direct input. It will all be very vague. The way it will really operate is unclear. We do not know what limits there will be.
When more powers are granted to the police, as is the case here, whether it be preventive arrests, arrests without a warrant, or the Attorney General of Canada suspending the Access to Information Act whenever he pleases if he believes that national security is threatened and there is no one to oversee what he is doing, no one to question the minister's decision, this is of concern to me.
The fact that this law would not be reviewed for three years is also cause for concern in my opinion.
Why does the minister, and this is the question I asked her yesterday in the House, not promise to have this law reviewed or make it possible to have this law reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights after one year?
With everything that is happening on the national and international scene, I am convinced that following its adoption Bill C-36 will be more or less widely applied throughout Canada, depending on the case.
Over the course of the year, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights could properly examine what has been done and determine if there has been any abuses. What we need to keep in mind is that we must prevent any abuse in applying exceptional legislation such as this.
As I have run out of time, I am prepared to answer any questions.
