House of Commons Hansard #96 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was security.
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11, which is before the Senate at this time, does exactly what the member opposite is saying today that he would like to see happen: streamline our procedures and make it more easy and more efficient for us to be able to remove those by denying access to the IRB and by removing appeal rights.
They voted against the bill. Further, they tried to reinstate appeal rights for security tests to Canada. They cannot have it both ways.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated yesterday, and I quote “If any piece of extraordinary legislation should no longer be necessary, there should be a requirement for it to be withdrawn”.
The Prime Minister also specified, and rightly so, that some elements of the anti-terrorism bill should be maintained. I am referring to Canada's adherence to the latest conventions on terrorism, for example.
Given the Prime Minister's openness, will the Minister of Justice acknowledge that there should be a time limit on certain clauses of the anti-terrorism bill?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, both the Prime Minister and I have indicated that we look forward to a discussion at committee on whether the review mechanism in the legislation is appropriate. We believe it is. Obviously we believe it is the appropriate mechanism in relation to the entire legislative package before the House.
However, I am the first to concede that reasonable people of good faith might disagree on this and might be able to offer the government their best advice as to other approaches.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, speaking of different approaches, I would like to refer once again to what the Prime Minister said regarding the need to protect freedom.
He said, and I quote “that even in the wake of September 11 we can live our lives on our terms, according to our values”.
In order to show that we value freedom, will the minister acknowledge that sunset clauses are necessary, particularly in the case of preventive arrest, and will she clearly indicate our intentions in this bill by stating that there is a time limit on certain clauses?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously our responsibility to ensure we do not put forward in the House legislation that violates any of our important values or principles, including those found in the charter of rights and freedoms. That is why we believe our anti-terrorism legislation is fully compliant with the charter of rights and freedoms.
However, as I have said, I have no doubt there will be discussion at committee in terms of possible review mechanisms. I look forward to that discussion.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, our fears about the danger of agreeing to overly vague and sweeping definitions in Bill C-36 were confirmed. One of the minister's cabinet colleagues compared the demonstrators at the Quebec City summit to terrorists.
With an example like that, does the minister not realize that all manner of abuses are possible and that she should tighten up the definitions in her bill?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the definition of terrorist activity in Bill C-36 has been very carefully crafted to ensure that we do not apply these provisions to lawful protest activity.
I would ask the hon. member to keep in mind that the activity we are focusing on, the centre of this legislation, the objective of this legislation, is to attack activity, the motivation of which and the purpose of which is terror.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister can keep telling us that these definitions are just fine, but when a member of the Liberal caucus interprets them as meaning that demonstrators are terrorists, what is going to happen when thousands of police officers, secret agents and security personnel interpret the definitions in the proposed legislation, if the Liberals themselves cannot sort them out?
Should she not be more prudent and define things more clearly?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, lawful protest activity is fully protected in this legislation. I ask the hon. member again to focus on what we are truly getting at here, which is those activities, the goal or the intention of which is to create terror.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It has to do with what we all know to be the case, that is the extra moneys that have to be spent combating terrorism.
A lot of us on this side, and perhaps on the other side, are concerned that other commitments the government has made with respect to aboriginal people, fighting poverty, the environment, et cetera, not go by the wayside.
Could the Minister of Finance tell us when he will bring in a budget to display to us that they will keep these commitments and how they will keep these commitments?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I do not need to bring in a budget to tell the hon. member and the House that the government remains loyal to its commitments and to its obligations.
There is no doubt the events of September 11 have certainly changed some of the priorities. National security is a number one priority. We will provide the funding that is required to protect Canadians.
As the hon. member knows full well, I will be bringing down either a budget or a fiscal statement. I am very open to bringing down a budget, but I want to make sure I have all the facts at hand before doing so.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, what we are concerned about and I hope the minister would be concerned about is that the financial burden of fighting terrorism be distributed fairly.
In his economic or fiscal statement, or budget we hope, will the minister give consideration to eliminating some of the tax cuts that he brought in for the very comfortable and wealthy in the country, as one of the ways we could pay for this instead of cutting social spending?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should go back and take a look at what those tax cuts did. Overwhelmingly, those tax cuts were for medium income and low income Canadians. For example, the national child benefit was substantially increased. That was for medium and low income families with children.
The whole question of indexation, which protects Canadians against taxation by stealth and which provides low income Canadians with a guarantee that they will live comfortably, we are not going to cancel that.
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, on October 4 the solicitor general told the House that CSIS has all the tools it needs to gather intelligence abroad, yet the current head of CSIS admits that he can collect intelligence abroad only when he can afford to do so. Now the foreign affairs minister has flat out contradicted the solicitor general by saying that to protect Canadians we need to establish a permanent, foreign intelligence agency.
Will the solicitor general take the advice of the foreign affairs minister and get the mandate and the money to create a permanent foreign intelligence gathering agency?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member has it wrong. I have said that one of the issues that we need to consider in our committee that is doing extensive work on a whole range of issues is the degree to which Canada has capacity in foreign intelligence gathering and whether that needs to be increased. Many are arguing that it should be, but the committee certainly has not taken a view on that.
In any event, there are foreign intelligence gathering capacities in existing agencies. They are not equivalent to a full scale foreign intelligence gathering service however.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G-7 nation that does not have a foreign intelligence agency and since 1993 CSIS has been downsized significantly. If the solicitor general does not know that he should. We need a greater international understanding of external threats through an increased intelligence gathering capacity.
Could the solicitor general tell the House how many foreign officers trained to collect intelligence are working overseas and how many have cultural awareness, geographic and language skills to integrate into foreign communities?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we will certainly take the preamble of the member's question as a recommendation and I can assure him that the government will take it into account.
However, I do not think we need to look very far to realize that a full scale, highly funded foreign intelligence agency is not the only solution to the problems that exist with respect to terrorism. If so, perhaps the CIA would have prevented the attacks on September 11.
Kevin Sorenson Canadian Alliance Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, Nabil Al-Marabh was released on bail in Canada in July. He has since been arrested in the United States in connection with the September 11 attacks. A few weeks ago the RCMP raided a print shop and found evidence linked to Marabh.
Will the minister confirm whether false documents created in Canada were used by the September 11 hijackers?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is aware, and I have mentioned it many times in the House, that CSIS and the RCMP are working around the clock with the FBI to make sure that these terrorists are brought to justice.
I am sure my hon. colleague is fully aware that I cannot disclose information about an investigation. It would be totally inappropriate.
Kevin Sorenson Canadian Alliance Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, we brought information to the House repeatedly to show Canadians that the country is being used as a safe haven for terrorists. In the United States John Ashcroft gives regular briefings about the investigation going on in the United States. Prime Minister Tony Blair takes his evidence and puts it on the website.
Why will this minister not give simple, factual answers about the state of investigations here in Canada. Is he aware?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is probably aware, I did meet with the attorney general of the United States, John Ashcroft. We had a news conference that was covered worldwide. He was asked questions about investigations. Mr. Ashcroft explained quite clearly to the public that he could not disclose information about investigations because all it would do would be destroy the investigation.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice says that the provision in the anti-terrorism act giving her discretionary power to withhold information from the public is necessary in the interests of national security.
How can the minister justify this provision, when the current Access to Information Act already allows her to withhold any record which could threaten national security?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is supplementing existing provisions in access to information. As I have indicated to the hon. member before, it is very important, not only for us but for our allies, to ensure that certain information is not disclosed in a public forum, judicial or otherwise.
In our new legislation we propose that I be able to issue a certificate to ensure that in certain limited circumstances certain kinds of information will not be made available to the public. I think that is important to ensure our national security.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, subsection 15(1) of the Access to Information Act provides, and I quote:
The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information the disclosure of which could ... be injurious to... the defence of Canada or any state allied ... with Canada or the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities.
How can the minister justify this arbitrary power, unless it is to sidestep the information commissioner and thus open the door wide to government censorship?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, there are certain limited circumstances in which highly confidential information should not be disclosed in a judicial or other proceeding. This information, in many cases, is provided to us by our allies. In fact, they will not provide us with information that may help us in judicial or other investigations unless we can provide them with a guarantee of confidentiality. That is what the provision in the anti-terrorism bill speaks to. I would hope that the hon. member would understand why this is so important in our global--