Debates of Nov. 26th, 2001

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I can only tell the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough that I will look into the matter he has raised and report back.

Petitions

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by residents of Jonquière. The petitioners express their support for Motion No. 241, which asks that the British crown present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.

We know that numerous organizations within the Acadian community have supported this motion. That support came from organizations, individuals and municipalities. Hopefully the House will vote in favour of this motion.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Kind and 67 other people call upon parliament to enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of pesticides until such time as their use has been scientifically proven to be safe and the long term consequences of their application are known.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first is initiated by the Lost Shepherd society of Peterborough concerning Bill C-15, the animal cruelty legislation. The people from my riding who signed this support this legislation. They point out that recently there have been several very highly publicized examples of animal abuse and neglect including, I might add, some in the general Peterborough area. They point out that frontline workers such as veterinarians, humane societies and others are becoming more frustrated in their daily duties as they are required to deal with the results of this cruelty.

They note that legislation has already been introduced in the House in the form of Bill C-15, which will allow for much more significant consequences to apply for the abuse and neglect of pets, and also note that this legislation allows for feedback of recompense to humane societies. They call upon parliament to expedite Bill C-15 in the process of enacting it into law and ask all members to exercise good conscience in so doing.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the citizens of the Peterborough area who are concerned about kidney disease. These people recognize the fine work which is being done by our national institute for kidney research, the Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes, but my constituents believe that it would be even more effective than it is and would involve the public more effectively if the word kidney were included in its title.

These citizens call upon the House to encourage the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include kidney research as one of the institutes in its system, to be named the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Anti-terrorism Act

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in this very important debate on a number of motions put forward by various opposition parties to amend the antiterrorism bill.

Since the attacks on September 11, these events have been front-page news and have greatly upset people. The events themselves and the planned measures to counter terrorism have triggered various reactions. They have been contradictory or negative. However, one must stress the support for the bill.

Bill C-36 as it stands is not acceptable. In spite of a certain level of support, there are doubts as to the urgency of passing Bill C-36 as introduced by the Minister of Justice. Some say that it tramples civil rights and freedoms and that the fight against terrorism does not justify such legislation. On the other hand, others want legislation, but fighting terrorism through a bill like this one is not to their liking either.

Last week, together with our justice critic, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, I met with several groups in my riding. Several people voiced their opinion and, as a whole, they were against the bill as it stands now. Some told us that the situation in Canada does not justify such a piece of legislation. There is no real or feared emergency or threat and the current law, if properly implemented, is quite sufficient.

Moreover, an anti-terrorism act is very dangerous. It is a grievous attack on democracy and individual freedoms. The members for Berthier—Montcalm and for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert have worked very hard on this bill and put forward several amendments, 66 in all. However, we have decided not to move any amendment at this stage as it is very clear that the government does not intend to either support or follow through with the Bloc Quebecois' amendments.

We are very disappointed as the balance we were so eagerly striving for, a balance between national security and individual and collective rights, cannot be found in the bill put forward by the minister. The minister has not listened to what various witnesses had to say in committee.

There are currently a number of motions on the table, and we will support some of them. For example, we will support the motion that calls for greater transparency and Motion No. 5, which calls for entitlement to counsel. The Bloc Quebecois therefore supports some of the motions presented. These include the requirement for the solicitor general to act, because this is along the lines of the amendments sought by the Bloc.

The bill as presented by the minister is very likely to be passed before the holidays. A number of witnesses have told us of the need to rush the bill as presented through before the holidays gives us no opportunity to seek the support of the public. We can see how democratic this is, how important it is to the government and to parliament to get this bill through as is.

When all the ins and outs of the bill are explained, a number of people say they would oppose the bill if there is no respect for individual freedoms. The very broad definition of terrorist activity was drawn to our attention.

Motion No. 1 refers to the definition of terrorist activity, although the minister wanted to change the terms illicit and licit. Groups that are not licit would be covered by such a bill. That does not satisfy us.

The Bloc Quebecois must go beyond simple opposition. Our opposition is well known. This is why the Bloc voted in favour at second reading, although we had reservations. I knew very well we would be straitjacketed before Christmas to get a bill that does not have public support. This bill should have been explained more to the public. Doing so would have meant more time and putting off its passage as long as possible. We would like to have explained it more to the public.

This bill will not get at the root of terrorism. The government would do better to go after poverty, exclusion, globalization and the imbalance between countries.

We say we should deal with poverty, exclusion and globalization because we are aware of what is going on in conflicts such as the one in the Middle East. We know that young people who have no hope joined al-Qaeda because of the inequities experienced in the Middle East, in Israel in particular.

There is also the issue of the embargo against Iraq. It is a well known fact that depleted uranium bombs were used. I saw a documentary on what is going on in that country and its impact on the population.

When the people of the Middle East see Al-Jazeera media coverage and what the west has done to them, we can understand what happened, even if we do not approve of it. We can understand how these people may resent our interfering without repairing the harm done.

We hope that, in this conflict, we will help the Afghan people to recover so that they can enjoy some security.

This bill curtails civil liberties. We are very much disappointed by the government's lack of transparency in this bill and in the review process.

I recall the first speech I gave in the House on this issue. I indicated that the Prime Minister seemed to be saying that a sunset clause could be brought in by the Liberal government. I said I had my doubts about that. I recall how certain amendments were introduced and how the need for a sunset clause—to ensure that all the sections of the bill would have to be reviewed after a certain number of years, whether three, four or five years—was disregarded. We know that the government did not want to go that far.

The act could be renewed until it is decided that it is no longer needed in Canada. There is an urgency to act and I am very disappointed that the government persists in introducing a bill which disregards civil rights and liberties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to spend time talking about the amendments before us at this stage of Bill C-36.

I agree with many of the comments made by my colleagues. I first want to reflect on some of the comments made by our Liberal colleague from Scarborough East who quite appropriately said earlier in debate that he has some concerns about the bill. He referred to not being happy with the amendments but being less unhappy with the bill because of the amendments that were coming forward. He freely expressed an opinion shared by many members of the House that the bill curtailed the rights and freedoms of Canadians in ways that needed to be further defined and that if left undefined, as is the case in the current state of the bill, it could lead to some serious problems not only now but in the future in regard to fighting terrorism.

Of course we all agree with the notion of fighting terrorism. I do not think there is a member in the place who would disagree with that concept. However there are members who disagree with the intent and direction of the bill in its current state and would suggest that it needs to be fixed. That is why the right hon. member for Calgary Centre brought forward some of the amendments in this current grouping.

One of main concerns he has brought forward is that criteria be put in place for how individuals would be listed as terrorists under the bill. It is an issue that came up in question period today. Basically the solicitor general told us, in not so many words, that we should trust him. He will develop the list and the criteria and we should not worry. Those are the kinds of comments that do make us worry because quite clearly there seems to be a lack of any coherent systematic list or criteria that individuals will be subjected to before being put on the list.

Once individuals are on the list, how would they get off it? How would they find out if they are even on the list? My colleague from Pictou--Antigonish-Guysborough made that point in question period. Is it that they have to go to the bank, try to use their bank card to find that their assets have been seized before they even receive knowledge that they are on the list?

It seems quite incomprehensible that the government would move forward without defining this aspect of the bill. This is what the amendments attempt to do. That is why I am personally supportive of them and obviously the PC/DR coalition is supportive of them, as are many members of the House.

The government has asked us to put our full and unfettered trust in it to fight terrorism. If the government had proven over the test of time that it was worthy of such trust, I do not think there would be a concern by members of the opposition. If we look over the past record of the government in other dealings, we see there is a reason to question aspects of the bill.

I point specifically to the notion of access to information. I know that the Prime Minister's Office has been involved in court cases with the information commissioner in relation to viewing the Prime Minister's personal logs and agenda books. The nub of that particular issue is not that the information be released, but that the information commissioner be allowed to look at the information to then determine whether that information should be released. The Prime Minister's Office is involved in a suit against the information commissioner on that particular point; this notion of guarding information.

In this case we have a bill which has been brought forward where civil liberties of Canadians will be put at particular risk in certain circumstances and there will be no opportunity for individuals to find out what criteria are put in place that would have them put on the list and, if they should end up on the list, how they might ever get off it.

Clearly the government can see that this is a problem and that if it does not address the question, it will lose support on the particular notion of support for the entire bill.

Members have been generally supportive of course but have reserved the right to question the government and to refine this legislation so that it addresses these points. If they remain unanswered and if the government members fail to acknowledge that the questions the opposition members and individuals across the country have are important, they do so at their own peril because they will not only lose support of some of the members of parliament, but they will lose support from those they represent, their constituents at large, the people of the country.

I dare say that Canadians would be willing to give the government free and unfettered access to imposing these kinds of criteria lists on individuals without some assurances that this absolute power, which is what in essence happens in our parliamentary system when a government has a majority government, is not used to the detriment of individuals across the country.

That is why we need the amendments that are in this group. We need to look at further amendments before the bill. It is dependent upon the government to listen closely to the concerns that are being raised. If it does not, I would say it would lose support not only from members on this side but from members of the government who have already stood in this place during debate on report stage of Bill C-36. The government members have mentioned some of those grave concerns that they have with the bill and how it curtails the rights and freedoms and civil liberties of Canadians.

It would be my hope that we could find a way to improve the bill. We sound a bit of an alarm bell on behalf of Canadians because of previous actions of the government. We would hope the government would prove us wrong, but to put our complete trust in a group that has proved untrustworthy in other instances before--

[An hon. member]

APEC and Shawinigate.

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

My colleague reminds me of some of the more glaring examples, such as APEC and the Grand-Mère affair which is still brewing in Shawinigan. We need to consider what it is we do with the bill.

For that reason we simply need to support these amendments and make this legislation stronger. Without doing so, we not only send a wrong message to Canadians but we enshrine in law a message to Canadians that their rights will be hindered in the future. They will not have access as to why they may arrive on this list and why they would be in the position that they are in.

For that reason I support these amendments and encourage others in the House to support the amendments, including my colleagues on the government side. I encourage all of us to work together in passing these amendments and fixing up the bill.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill.

We are debating four motions to amend which have been put forward today and which form the first group of amendments. The Bloc Quebecois will be opposing the first amendment because we feel that it has absolutely no impact on the importance of the debate. We are in favour of the other three amendments put forward.

It is important that Quebecers and Canadians understand just how responsible the Bloc Quebecois was in dealing with the anti-terrorism bill. From the outset, the Bloc Quebecois has been favourable to the bill, given the tremendous harm terrorists could cause our society, as they did in the United States.

Obviously, the Bloc Quebecois has shown an exemplary sense of responsibility, while continuing to seek a balance between national security and individual rights and freedoms. In this connection, those Quebecers listening need to have a clear understanding of how parliament operates.

First, the anti-terrorism bill was introduced with great haste by the government. Let us recall that when the minister presented the bill, she told us that it was urgent. The Prime Minister even said that, given the bill's length—186 pages—there were perhaps some shortcomings and that, because of the urgent situation, we must accept this and that we could make amendments in committee. Thus it was that the Bloc Quebecois supported the anti-terrorism bill at first reading, at which stage only the minister makes a statement, followed by the respective critics of each party.

Since the Prime Minister himself told us it was such an urgent bill, and a lengthy one, that shortcomings were inevitable, but could be remedied in committee, we went along with him.

That is why, at second reading stage—this is the procedure, and I am pointing out for the benefit of Quebecers and Canadians who are listening that there is a second reading and the bill is brought before the House—all members had the opportunity to speak before the bill went to committee.

Of course, groups and individuals who are truly concerned about such a bill have the opportunity to come before the committee and be heard. So 80 individuals, groups and organizations appeared before the committee as witnesses. Representatives from each political party and the various critics can ask questions of the witnesses. Amendments are tabled after the witnesses have testified before the committee.

The Bloc Quebecois tabled 66 amendments at committee stage through its critic, the member for Berthier—Montcalm. These amendments are very important because the Bloc Quebecois has always had the same responsible position, which is to strike the right balance between national security and defending individual rights and freedoms.

The objective had been stated very clearly by our party's critic as well as by our leader. There were three main issues, three very important points that the Bloc Quebecois wanted to defend.

First, we wanted a sunset clause. It is very simple. The clause proposed by the Bloc Quebecois applied to all clauses of the bill except those relating to the implementation of international conventions. In that regard, we were willing to agree that those clauses dealing with international conventions remain in effect until the expiration of such international conventions.

For all other clauses providing for special measures, we wanted to include a sunset clause under which those provisions that, in several cases, could jeopardize individual rights and freedoms would no longer be in effect after three years. We understood that there was a state of urgency that called for special measures. We were willing to accept that this special piece of legislation, of which the majority of clauses dealt with special measures, come into effect, but only for a period of three years, except for all clauses resulting from international conventions, which could have remained in effect until the expiration of such international conventions signed by the government.

In spite of all the questions asked in the House, in spite of the fact that the witnesses who appeared before the committee supported the Bloc Quebecois's position, that they supported our demand for a sunset clause, the government decided to do the opposite, and rejected all the Bloc's amendments.

We also asked that the act be reviewed, among other things. We called for “an annual review of the law by all parliamentarians”. We wanted to ensure that parliamentarians would be able to take part in the annual review of this act, of its sections that would not come from international conventions, and to intervene if the law enforcement people in Canada and in the provinces abused the system. We wanted to have the opportunity to make changes and to review the act every year.

We wanted that an independent commissioner be entrusted with overseeing enforcement, that a commissioner report be presented each year to the committee or to a standing committee of the House, which would examine it and make recommendations or propose changes, as the case may be. Most of these proposals were rejected by the government.

We also wanted a definition of terrorist activities that would exclude illegal demonstrations and strikes. We had amendments to move to that effect. Our preference would have been to remove a paragraph to eliminate all mention of work stoppage or protest so that those who want to demonstrate peacefully can still do it. Only a very weak amendment has been moved about this.

Only one of the 66 Bloc Quebecois amendments was adopted, the one adding the word cemetery in the clause on hate propaganda. This being an omnibus bill, it will also prevent certain types of hate propaganda, and this legislation could be used to control all demonstrations in cemeteries. This is the only amendment we put forward in committee which the government accepted.

In the legislative process, the committee had to report to the House today, and we are allowed to move amendments at report stage. That is why we have before us 12 amendments we are debating in four groups.

The Bloc Quebecois did not think it was worthwhile to present amendments at report stage simply because it moved all of them in committee. It is at that stage that major changes should have been made, but all our amendments have been rejected, except the one adding the word cemetery in the clause on hate propaganda.

In spite of the 80 witnesses heard in committee, in spite of the position adopted by the Bloc Quebecois, which was in favour of the bill at second reading stage, and even if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice had said that, the bill being urgent and very lengthy, it might contain some flaws but that these would be corrected at the clause by clause stage, of the 66 amendments we moved, only one was accepted. It added the word cemetery to the notion of hate messages.

Here is the question we should be asking. The report was tabled on Friday, but the House did not sit on Friday. The government had decided the House would not sit on Friday. However, amendments at the report stage could be tabled until Saturday afternoon.

That is why, in spite of the urgency of the situation, the exceptional nature of the case and the length of the bill, which contained some deficiencies as the minister and Prime Minister said when it was first introduced, we took the time required—because many days and even months have gone by since September 11, two months and some weeks in fact—and we are ready; however, we are now asking for an open debate, we want transparency.

I repeat that the first objective of the Bloc Quebecois was that we act responsibly. We are a responsible political party looking for a balance between national security and individual freedoms. If the bill remains as it stands now, if it is not modified, the Bloc will have to vote against all of its provisions because the bill will be contrary to our premise.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-36. I am disturbed that the government has introduced another piece of legislation that is well intentioned but poorly drafted, defined and implemented. Once again the government is ramming legislation through the House without respecting input from parliamentarians, particularly opposition parliamentarians and members of the justice committee.

We must ask ourselves why the government is introducing this legislation in the first place. It is to defend free society against terrorism, but how can the government crush debate to defend freedom? The fact that the government is crushing parliamentary debate ostensibly to defend freedom should raise questions.

It reminds me of the Woody Allen quote that fighting for peace is like making love for virginity, if I can bring a bit of levity to this sad situation. The government is demonstrating near toxic levels of hypocrisy by crushing debate to introduce legislation which will supposedly defend freedom.

The government has not earned the respect and trust of Canadians in these areas. We have seen APEC where the government used measures that went well beyond what was necessary to preserve peace. In defending the interests of foreign dictators the government quashed the democratic freedoms of young Canadians.

With the Shawinigan affair the government has taken every step it can to twist and manipulate the facts and defend the untenable. In every case the government has covered up and manipulated the process. It has even gone beyond cabinet and used the highly centralized power of the Prime Minister's Office to run roughshod over ordinary Canadians.

The government uses every power at its disposal to run over the powers not only of ordinary Canadians but of members of parliament. If the government is capable of ignoring the rights of members of parliament who are elected by ordinary Canadians we should think of what the government is capable of doing with a piece of legislation this powerful in terms of running roughshod over the rights of ordinary Canadians.

The New Democrats had legitimate concerns and would have had amendments to make at this stage. Instead the entire New Democratic Party was disqualified because it was participating in an annual party meeting in Winnipeg. It is a great day for democracy when the government introduces a piece of legislation to fight terrorism and defend freedom and it attacks one party more severely than the rest.

My colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP and the PC/DR have expressed reservations about the bill. Every opposition party has expressed reservations. We have heard backbenchers on the Liberal side express serious reservations.

I do not think anyone doubts that the government should be trying to introduce legislation to fight terrorism and ultimately defend free and democratic institutions. We all agree with that. We disagree with a government that in trying to fight for freedom is denying parliamentary input and compromising parliamentary representation in Canada.

The solicitor general has all the cards. He has all the power. He is not accountable to anyone in terms of who goes on the terrorist list. In response to questions today the solicitor general said he would review the list every two years as per the legislation. This means that people could face two years of persecution and have their whole lives destroyed because they were put on the list unfairly.

The solicitor general has said that he would not put somebody on the list without some reason and that he would not take it lightly. How can we trust a solicitor general who has not demonstrated accountability to parliament to be accountable to Canadians in general? He has said that an individual Canadian can appeal to the solicitor general directly. When individual members of parliament lack accessibility to changing legislation of this nature, how can we expect Canadians would have any success in convincing the solicitor general that they in fact should not be on the list? I doubt if the solicitor general would be any more accountable them than he is to this parliament. In fact he would probably be less accountable to ordinary Canadians who had the misfortune to find themselves on the list. Of course, that would be catastrophic.

I have expressed concerns about the legislation and about the way the government has once again run roughshod over parliament. It has, through its fancy footwork in introducing the legislation at a time when it can minimize legitimate input and amendment, not earned the trust of parliamentarians and of Canadians. In denying that input it has said that it does not care if anyone trusts it or not, that it will go ahead with this anyway. In fact it does not even want our input.

A government that does not actually respect parliament and parliamentary input, clearly does not respect Canadians and individual freedoms. I think it is absolutely unconscionable that the government is again moving forward with such important legislation without listening to ordinary Canadians and the parliamentarians who represent those Canadians here in the House and in the justice committee. I think it is a very sad day for democracy in Canada.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we had great hopes for this bill. We thought that it was possible to reconcile security and freedom. It seems that we were expecting too much from the government.

Following the sad events of September 11, we recognized that we had to change our way of doing things and moreover of seeing things. We realized that we had to take real action to reassure citizens. Obviously, it is essential to ensure the protection of every citizen against the threat of terrorism.

Following these tragic events, we also learned to appreciate what makes us unique, that is democracy and freedom. So, why in this case put aside democracy and freedom in order to compromise them? Why put aside these values, which are so precious, instead of reaffirming them and making them even more precious?

At second reading, we said we were in favour of the principle, because we thought it was necessary to have an anti-terrorism act. However, this bill is unacceptable for us. We tried to amend it but only one of our amendments was accepted by the committee. As far as the amendments made by the minister are concerned, they are really not enough to re-establish a true balance between security and freedom.

The government saw fit to grab broad powers in this bill to justify excessive control of our freedoms. It is inconceivable that in the society like ours one might think that we are gullible enough to accept such an approach. Enough is enough. Any reasonably intelligent person will speak up against this abuse of power.

We could never have imagined that one day the world would be changed for ever by a plane crashing into the World Trade Centre, just as we could never have imagined that one day our government would decide to sacrifice our rights and freedoms, as is the case today. Where are we and where are we going? The answer scares me.

The principle—security— is noble, but the approach is harmful and hypocritical. It makes even less sense when it is our political leaders who are acting this way. This is a golden opportunity for the government to grab limitless powers while having a legal reason to do so. This is where we are at and where our so-called democracy is at.

The government put forward many amendments, but it is too little too late. In spite of these amendments, it is still grabbing excessive power and unfortunately freedoms are being denied as a result. Do not tell me that these attempts at amendments are broad and positive, this is not true. Once again, it is only window dressing.

First, the Bloc Quebecois was asking for a sunset clause. A sunset clause was aimed at putting an end to the bill except for the part implementing various international conventions. The sunset clause would have caused the act to cease to be in force after three years. That is what the Bloc Quebecois wanted.

True enough, one must react to these unusual circumstances, but one must not panic and fall into the trap. This is why the bill must be limited in time.

The Bloc Quebecois' proposal would have allowed the government to face the terrorist threat without losing sight of the fact that, at the end of the day, our freedoms must prevail.

The request was rejected. Instead, the justice minister amended the bill to include a sunset clause coming into effect after five years and concerning only two paragraphs. It involved preventive arrest and investigative hearings. This is obviously not good enough. As a matter of fact, it does not amount to a sunset clause, because one only has to obtain a resolution from both Houses to be able to extend the application of those paragraphs.

Second, as far as the review of the legislation within three years is concerned, this period is much too long. The Bloc Quebecois suggested one year, which would immediately have allowed us to avoid risks of violating individual rights and freedoms. We have shown that this bill could really violate to several aspects of the charter, and the Barreau du Québec has also underlined that possibility.

Moreover, given the haste surrounding the drafting of the bill, the risk of errors and, consequently, the probability of violating individual freedoms are heightened. It would be wise to review this legislation after one year in order to adequately deal with its obvious flaws.

The government's reaction has been to refrain from changing the bill and to rely on ministers responsible for the enforcement of the law to produce reports on the number of arrests and investigative hearings. That is all, and that is not enough.

Third, the Bloc Quebecois condemns the fact that the attorney general can get around the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act concerning certain types of information. It is unbelievable that such a way of doing things is and can be proposed as being entirely justified and justifiable. The information and privacy commissioners must keep all their powers, rather than increasing those of the attorney general.

Fourthly, we also deplore the fact that Canada waited until such unprecedented tragedies took place before reacting and taking note of the two international conventions. This is something that ought to have been done a long time ago. While Canada is constantly boasting of what a lead role it plays, it is still clearly demonstrating that this is not the case.

A fifth point is that we protest the fact that this bill deviates from the appearance of justice, to implement provisions which, in fact, are a repetition of Bill C-16, the bill on the registration of charities.

Charities will not be able to believe in justice when evidence is given behind closed doors without the key parties even being present. The main question that arises here is this: how can one offer defence against something one does not even know about?

Sixth, the bill enables the governor in council to put entities on the list of terrorists without any legal authorization and without that entity having access to the evidence supporting its inclusion on the list. That is unacceptable. It is a reversal of the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt. What have we come to? It is easy to see where we are headed, which is why our present concerns are justified.

Seventh, it must be emphasized that the government did not consult the Quebec justice department. There is an emphasis everywhere on co-operation and collaboration. But this is a principle the Government of Canada seems not to grasp. It seems that advantage is being taken of the unusual situation to cast aside the constitutional provisions relating to exclusive areas of jurisdiction, such as the administration of justice. Looking around us, it is easy to see that co-operation is what will defeat terrorism.

Another point of concern to us is that the government has not seen fit to assess the costs associated with enforcement of this bill, if sufficient financial means to apply it properly are not in place. This is one more demonstration that this bill is triggered by the panic set off by the threat of terrorism. We can conclude that, if the means are not there, all of the objectives of this bill will be nothing but empty words.

Ninth, the Bloc Quebecois would like the Communications Security Establishment to be required to get an authorization from a judge before wiretapping. It is another example of appropriation of powers by the government, in this case the Department of National Defence, which will be able to intercept communications with a simple written note to that effect.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the individual freedoms and the freedom of association because of the broad and sketchy definition found in the bill. Despite the justice minister's amendment, the potential for abuse remains and many protest groups could be included in the definition. The amendments we tried to defend and to promote in committee were defeated. This is totally unacceptable in a democratic society that is based on freedom of information.

In short, the merit of this bill rests on the necessity to respond to the terrorist threat. But the extent of the impacts on our liberties is inordinate.

While it is certainly a great thing to take action in the current context, care must be taken not to overreact and restrict democratically acquired rights.

Instead of promoting the development of our rights and freedoms, the government is withdrawing, figuring this should reassure the public.

What is happening is the complete opposite, with the government becoming more crafty, overpowering, controlling and disrespectful through this bill.

The government is giving itself the power to act arbitrarily and is openly showing total disregard for the charter of rights and freedoms, which it insisted on imposing and is now at the centre of our freedoms.

History has always shown the contrary. It is in countries where the respect for the rights and freedoms is highest that public safety and security is best ensured. As suggested by the Bloc Quebecois, our freedoms must be promoted. In other words, we have to promote who we are.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my party believes we must have and is generally in support of the principles behind the legislation to fight terrorism, but we do have some major concerns. My leader and our justice critic have brought forth a number of amendments. These amendments should not only be addressed but adopted.

The government believes that the legislation is okay because the government thinks it will be used properly. It thinks that the solicitor general in place at the present time will always act correctly. I have to say that kind of thinking is dangerous, not only right now but for the future. Before the government enacts legislation the government MPs need to imagine what someone whose motives are not good could do under this legislation. That should be the test, because once the law is on the books anyone vested with these powers would be free to use them to the full extent.

Does the government not believe in oversight and in parliament? These are major concerns. It does not matter which party is in power. These are the concerns we would have no matter who is in power.

I stated that we are generally supportive of the principles behind this legislative response to fight terrorism, but we have also been made aware that in 1999 CSIS went to the government of the day, this government, and said it knew there were some terrorists in Canada. CSIS said it needed more money to hire more people to assist it in being able to find these terrorists and get them out of Canada. In fact, at that time the government, instead of giving more money to CSIS, cut its budget and it had to lay off people. That did not come up here. This is what we are saying. The government had the power but that did not come up for debate so that the rest of us here in the House of Commons could have an opportunity for input.

The bill attempts to achieve a balance between the measures needed to protect Canadians from acts of terrorism and the need to respect the civil liberties and human rights that Canadians cherish. We believe that a strong legislative response is necessary, as are the resources to allow our law enforcement community to be proactive in the important task of fighting terrorism.

That is why I say that right now we have to look at what the government has just done. The solicitor general has recently announced funding increases to the RCMP and CSIS. We are pleased that the government has done that, but considering that the government has been financially starving these groups for years prior to September 11, as I have stated, the recent funding will not even begin to address the additional responsibility for Canada's law enforcement agencies. The current reassignment of over 2,000 RCMP officers to duties outside their current postings highlights the personnel shortages. The government's decision to put RCMP in national parks and at borders is stretching security capacity to the breaking point.

Our understanding is that on December 10 there is a budget coming before the House. I pray every day that when that budget comes in it will be a budget that will give the RCMP, CSIS, our security forces and our country the dollars and cents that are needed, and our military forces as well. The military forces do not have the dollars and cents they need. I really fear for all of us in Canada because of what the government has done.

The government knows there is a need for the police to be able to immediately arrest someone they believe on reasonable grounds to be a terrorist threat, but many Canadians are concerned that the expanded powers of arrest and detention are in some instances open to government interference, as was highlighted by the APEC report presented by Mr. Justice Ted Hughes. Bill C-36 would enable police to arrest and detain an individual for up to 72 hours without any charges whatsoever. Not only could this type of police power be used to curtail the right of assembly and demonstration, but it is contrary to the thrust of the APEC report.

We have to get our priorities straight. I asked our security why Father Van Hee is down at the flame and not allowed to come near our doors here. Let me tell the House what I was told. They said that at this time they do not allow any protesters here. I said, “Protesters? He is down there reading the Bible each day. I hardly think he is a protester, and if all around the world we were all reading the Bible we would have peace”. They said that they had truly never thought of that.

One of the amendments that our leader has put forth, which amends clause 4, is as follows:

(1.2) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish the criteria to be used by the Solicitor General in making his recommendation to place an entity on the list under subsection (1).

(1.3) Before making the regulations referred to in subsection (1), the list of criteria, or any amendment thereto, must be tabled in the House of Commons and be debated within 10 sitting days after being tabled.

The governor in council would have the power to make a list of terrorist entities upon the recommendation of the solicitor general, not parliament. Some of that information about terrorist entities may come from foreign countries whose democratic values are considerably different than Canada's. There should be criteria that assist the solicitor general in assessing this information. For example, the human rights values of another country could be part of the criteria weighed in the consideration of a listing of an entity.

We believe that parliament should participate fully in the development of these criteria. We want to ensure that there is full debate in parliament. That is what we want: to bring forth debate. We want to make sure that there is protection in Canada. We want to make sure there is security. We want to make sure that our military and our men and women looking after our security have the tools to do the job, but we want to have our voices heard. We are not here just to be negative. That is not why we are here. We are here because of the security of our country. We want to make sure that what is brought forth here is something we have input into and something that is right for all Canadians.

Also, we have another motion that the leader has brought forth. It is an amendment to replace line 30 on page 17 with the following: “the applicant no longer be a listed entity”. In this section dealing with the listing of entities, the governor in council may establish a list of terrorist entities on the recommendation of the solicitor general. Someone who has been listed as a terrorist entity can apply to the solicitor general to have his or her name removed from the list. Currently the bill provides that if the solicitor general does not make a decision within 60 days, it is deemed that the solicitor general has decided to recommend that the applicant remain a listed entity.

However, many times we ask for information from the solicitor general and it takes longer than 60 days to get an answer. Good heavens, that happens with just about everybody on the government side.

The amendment that we have put forward would reverse the procedure. If the solicitor general has not made a decision within 60 days it would be deemed that he or she is recommending that the applicant come off the list, not remain on it. This would require the government to deal quickly with applications to ensure that people's lives and reputations are not being ruined if there is a mistake.

We want to make sure that Canada is safe. We want to make sure that our people are safe and feel safe in Canada. We look at our children and our grandchildren and we want to make sure that things are right here in Canada for them.

Therefore, in regard to the amendments that we, our justice critic and our leader, have put forward, we ask that the members of parliament on the government side and all of our colleagues on the opposition side look positively at them and make these amendments take place.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the amendments let me say, as I believe several other members of our party have indicated, that the NDP is heartily opposed to the bill. We intend to vote against it when it finally gets to third reading if it remains in anywhere near the shape it is in now.

I want to specifically address the amendments that are part of Group No. 1 and congratulate my Alliance colleague from Lanark--Carleton for his first amendment, which is before us today. I believe it is one that we have a particular reason to support. This section deals with the categorization of a terrorist activity as “an act or omission in or outside Canada that is committed in whole or in part”, and these are the crucial and offensive words, “for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause”. This wording is offensive. It is offensive because of what it does. It is also offensive because it is not necessary. In terms of what the government is trying to do with the bill, it is sufficient in the rest of the sections to deal with the issue of the use of violence for the purpose of intimidation et cetera. This item (A) is not necessary.

The offence comes because of the mindset that I believe it creates in the country, the message that we are sending to our security and police forces, those men and women who will be conducting investigations and who will be targeting certain groups of people specifically because of this section. Those people who will end up being targeted are those members who practice the Islam faith, members from the Arab community and, yes, members of this party, social democrats, union members and social activists generally.

The reason I speak forcefully on this is because of the information that came out last week about the investigation and surveillance that a former leader of this party suffered from the RCMP for his entire career, from the time he was a student in university until he was the leader of this party in the House. He was under surveillance for all that time.

This type of legislation simply reinforces the thinking of some of the members of our security forces who immediately think that if a person is a member of a union or of the NDP that person is somehow suspect. I believe that will extend to people who practice the Islam faith or are from the Arab community. I do not want to criticize our entire security force in this vein, but I do want to be critical of the government because what this does is reinforce the thinking of people like that within the security forces.

It is reported from the archives that with regard to Mr. Lewis the reason they were investigating him, according to one of the intelligence officers, going back to 1940, was that he was “disposed to criticism of the existing political structure”. That is all he had to do to warrant investigation that followed him for his entire adult life. He had to be “disposed to criticism of the existing political structure”. Would that take into account 50%, 60% or 70% of the public who from time to time are critical of the existing political structure?

They surveilled him because he decried the suppression of free speech in Canada, so are all the opposition parties who say to the government that it would be suppressing free speech in Canada with the bill going to be subject to investigation and surveillance? I have heard the suggestion that it may already be happening. Mr. Lewis was investigated because he opposed new military spending and because of his efforts on behalf of the unemployed. Is my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst, who has done so much with regard to that, now going to be investigated because that is a political objective that may be offensive?

I am not suggesting it will result in any charges but it will precipitate investigation. He was tracked for his involvement with various anti-establishment causes including nuclear disarmament during the sixties and seventies. He fought for that and was put under surveillance. His opposition to the Vietnam war also put him under surveillance.

This section is not necessary for the purpose of the bill. However the door that it opens is offensive. I ask the government to do some rethinking on this point and accept the amendment moved by the Alliance member for Lanark--Carleton.

Another amendment I would like to speak to is the fourth in the group which comes from the leader of the fifth party, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. His amendment recognizes that the bill does not go far enough in terms of protecting people's right to counsel.

If people were charged under the law which would flow from the bill, they would be entitled to legal representation according to the standards and values of the country and our legal system which has been built over several centuries. To put a section in the bill that says that is not enough.

The amendment asks the government to allow a judge to appoint counsel if a person cannot afford one. Under the Immigration Act 30-odd people have been detained for lengthy periods of time since September 11. A good number of those people are recent immigrants. They are still entitled to legal representation whether or not they committed any offence. A good number of them are in financial situations where they cannot afford it.

Earlier a member of the Alliance gave some background information on how poorly off the legal aid system was across the country. I want to echo that sentiment because it is very real.

If a judge does not have the authority to appoint counsel, we would see a good number of people who do not have the financial means to deal with this very complex legislation requiring very sophisticated defences to deal with it. Subsequently if arrangements could not be made to cover the cost of defence then there would be no defence at all. An accused would be left on his own.

That is offensive to our legal system. That was changed about 30 or 40 years ago when the legal aid system was introduced. We recognize the need for counsel. We know many people are accused and convicted improperly if they do not have legal counsel. The system does not work well. I applaud the motion by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and the NDP will be more than happy to support it.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right at the beginning of my speech, I would like to congratulate the hon. members for Berthier—Montcalm, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, as well as the hon. member for Châteauguay, for the work they have accomplished. They worked extremely hard to try to make Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, an adequate bill that responds both to security needs and to rights and freedoms needs.

We must remember that in attacking the two towers of the World Trade Center, fundamentalist terrorists—they are unfortunately of every creed and political stripe—attacked first and foremost freedom, democracy, justice and fairness.

The best way to show them that they were wrong, that they did not win and that they did not undermine our basic, societal principles, is indeed to make sure that we uphold these values that they are fighting against.

To do the opposite would be to say they are right, to let all fundamentalists throughout the world see that, in fact, so-called liberal societies are vulnerable to terrorism and terror and respond by seeking greater safety, but at the very expense of the values that they claim to be upholding.

In this sense, there is a very important societal debate surrounding Bill C-36. I am surprised and shocked to see how casually the Liberals are dealing with these fundamental issues.

While we look at Bill C-36, we must not forget that Bill C-35 is also on the table. This bill gives new powers to the RCMP, including the power to set up security perimeters without being accountable to anyone.

During question period today, the leader and the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois both asked very relevant questions regarding Bill C-42 and they only got sarcasm in return.

A certain madness is now affecting our friends opposite. At the Sub-Committee on Investment, of which I am a member, they made a proposal to try and solve the traffic problem at the Canada-U.S. border, because there is a traffic problem there, by imposing a mandatory identity card.

Just imagine the disproportion between a necessary debate, and I am not saying that I am against this idea, and the fact that we are using the excuse that we have to ease the movement of people between Canada and United States, to impose an identity card to all Canadians without further debate.

There is some sort of a drift in Bill C-35 and Bill C-42, and in general, in the government approach to security. It is also obvious in Bill C-36.

I have the feeling that we are sailing on the Titanic and that the Liberals are having a ball without realizing the iceberg they have created.

Bill C-36 destroys the balance between rights and freedoms and security. Meanwhile, they are having fun, as if nothing were the matter, refusing to hear what the witnesses said and refusing to accept what the opposition parties, particularly the Boloc Quebecois, have brought forward in committee, in a non-partisan fashion. I am glad to see that the Progressive Conservative Party/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition is bringing in a number of amendments to make some adjustments, but those amendments will likely not pass.

So, we are now witnessing some very worrisome indifference and nonchalance. The Liberals' haste in that regard is cause for concern, all the more so—we should not be naive—as there is a very strong temptation on the part of the Prime Minister and the government to take advantage of the legitimate concerns of Quebecers and Canadians in order to strenghten, in every respects the power that rests with the executive and with the police.

I want to remind the government that, of course, in the post-September 11 context, there is now major support from the Canadian population in particular, and to a lesser extent from Quebec, for the federal government to overcome that crisis.

I also remind this government that we saw the same kind of support during the gulf war. President Bush Sr. was on top of opinion polls after the gulf war. A year later, he lost the elections to Clinton. Why? Because he had not dealt with other issues of social justice and economic development. Let us recall how casually he dealt with the economic crisis of the early 1990s.

This government will continue to drift if it is not careful. Since I am not in favour of developing policy based on worst-case scenarios, I hope that the Liberal government will adjust Bill C-35, Bill C-36 and Bill C-42 and stop using the current climate to try transform us into state that is more totalitarian than democratic.

We will be voting against Bill C-36. I think that the previous speakers explained that this bill—with the inadequate, cosmetic amendments proposed by the minister—upsets the fair balance between security and freedom.

We supported the bill at second reading, because we support co-ordinated, special legislation to deal with the terrorist situation, as was the case with criminal biker gangs. Incidentally, we are anxious to see what the other place will do with the legislation.

We attempted to propose amendments in committee. The minister and the Liberals simply discarded the main amendments in an off-hand manner, except for one, as we mentioned, that was fairly obvious.

Once again, these were not amendments that we hatched out of the blue. They were developed after hearing the witnesses that appeared before the committee. This is the reason that we called for a sunset clause. Because we do not know where this bill will lead us. There needs to be a time limit to ensure that any problems that we have not been able to predict, despite all our good efforts, can be corrected.

Obviously we support maintaining all of the provisions in the bill dealing with international conventions. As for the rest, there would need to be another debate in three years' time. And the need for that debate still exists. All that the minster is proposing is a clause whereby only two provisions would be dropped after five years, that is preventive arrests and investigative hearings. It really is a complete farce.

Despite the fact that the bill comes up after three years, we still need to correct problems as they arise. Therefore, the annual review process is essential. What we are proposing is that different departments report. How will this work when they are acting as both judge and jury?

However, I want to focus on the definition of terrorist activity, particularly subsection 83.01( b ). I will give a fictitious example.

Suppose this is May 1, 1974. In September 1973, General Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected Allende government. Now, suppose that a group of students decided to peacefully occupy the Chilean consulate. If we go through all the clauses we have before us, we will see that this act corresponds perfectly to what is considered a terrorist act under the bill.

I will quote the subsection in question:

(a) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

Opposing the dictatorship of Pinochet in Chili, in 1973-1974—which lasted much too long—that is a political purpose.

...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...

That is not relevant.

...or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act...

What did these young people want to do? They wanted to make sure that the Chilean government would restore democracy in Chili. And this answers that.

Let us read a bit further. Clause ( e ) reads:

...causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private...

Of course, occupying a consulate can be considered serious interference with a foreign service.

Honestly, if you look at this bill, at this definition, because of they did in 1974, that group of students could be considered as terrorists under this bill.

However, it is not too late to bring in appropriate changes. By the way, I find it paradoxical, and I will conclude on that, that at the very same time that we are honouring Nelson Mandela by making him an honorary Canadian citizen, we want to pass a bill that would have made him a terrorist in the eyes of the Canadian government.

In dealing with terrorism, our main concern is unity. In the present context, the Liberal government is the one that has broken this unity and is forcing us to vote against Bill C-36. It is very disappointing.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism as reported with amendments from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody understands that we are once again witnessing one of those appalling, unacceptable and undemocratic practices so typical of this government, which speaks out of both sides of the mouth, especially the government House leader.

Following in its authoritarian way, which has made people lose confidence in the institution of parliament in the first place, the government introduced a bill, Bill C-36, which we would have liked to support. We believe that the events of September 11 cannot go unpunished. The members for Berthier—Montcalm, Châteauguay and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert worked very hard in committee to move amendments that would have improved the bill.

What is it all about? This bill asks us to fight against terrorism without authorizing any recourse to the courts and the rule of law. That is the problem. I chose randomly and read four briefs containing an analysis of Bill C-36. Let us look closely at the threat now looming over this parliament.

Take, for example, Amnesty International. Is there an organization more concerned about human rights than Amnesty International? What did Amnesty International say to parliamentarians? What warning did it give to those who will have to make a decision on Bill C-36? In reference to the definition of terrorism, which is extremely broad and which involves both political and religious convictions, Amnesty International said:

We are concerned that the provisions may be too broad in scope and may include activities conducted in the full respect of the international standards that apply to human rights. In fact, the individuals that Amnesty International considers to be prisoners of conscience could very well be prosecuted under that definition.

This is serious. Earlier, the hon. member for Joliette, who is well known for his interest in the labour movement and, more globally, for social justice, reminded us that in a context similar to the one that existed in 1973-74, we could have found ourselves in an illegal situation.

I do not understand the glibness, the flippancy and in fact the contempt shown by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, considering that when he sat in the opposition, he, along with the current Minister of Canadian Heritage, swore that when his party would be in office, it would restore democracy, it would bring about a new way of doing things and it would respect the work done by parliamentary committees. I do not understand why, after receiving warning after warning, the government is coming up with such a broad definition of terrorism.

But what is even more serious, and I doubt the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell will sleep well this evening, is what information commissioner John Reid said. We find ourselves in a situation where some provisions of the bill may supersede the Access to Information Act.

This is very serious, because it means that the commissioner, who is in control, who is above everything, who should have the confidence of this parliament and ensure transparency and access to information regarding national defence and the Department of Justice, will not be able to fulfill his role.

Let us look at what he said on page 3 of his brief. In my opinion, this is the most important brief. Here is what he said:

It's my strong belief—

This is not the member for Joliette speaking, or the member for Châteauguay or the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, but the information commissioner in whom this government should have confidence. Well, what did he say? He said this:

It's my strong belief, based on a review of 18 years of experience under the act—experience during times of war and crisis, involving exchanges of highly sensitive information among allies—that our Access to Information Act poses no threat whatsoever to international relations, national defence, or the security of Canada.

This is what the information commissioner told the parliamentary committee, what he told members.

In spite of that, the bill contains a provision that says that, for security reasons dealing with national defence, international relations and justice, the Access to Information Act would not apply.

Indeed this is not the first time we see something like this. All opposition members know the kind of contempt this government has shown for the Access to Information Act. That act was revised as recently as a year and a half ago. The reality is that this government does not like debate. It is very authoritarian.

The government is made up of people who say one thing when they are in opposition but do exactly the opposite when they are in government. They are the ones who create this shroud of suspicion causing our fellow citizens to lose confidence in Parliament. I hope the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell will think about that.

I would now like to deal with another extremely important aspect of the bill. I am not as old and experienced as the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, but I am in my third mandate here. I say old in the parliamentary sense of the word, as we know the eternal youth of our colleague.

Let us recall Bill C-95, the first antigang act that was passed by this parliament. This legislation provides that the solicitor general must rise each year in the House and present a report on organized crime in Canada. We can debate it. We can discuss it.

We know the importance of organized crime. There are 36 criminal bikers gangs across Canada. They represent a very serious threat in big cities. For organized crime to succeed, we know that certain conditions must exist: the existence of communication lines, the existence of charters that protect individuals and, of course, the indication of wealth.

Why would it not have been possible, after one year of enforcing the legislation, which is recognized to be important in terms of its objective, to reevaluate the legislation, to assess the results achieved, to examine what worked and what did not work?

We are talking about three years. Why wait three years? Let us not forget that if the revision is general, only two provisions of the legislation are subject to the sunset clauses. We know that.

These points were extremely important for the Bloc Quebecois, but not just for the Bloc. For example, they were also important for the defence lawyers association or the Canadian Bar Association. I am asking the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell to think closely about these issues.

We are presented with legislation that will reduce human rights. Why then do we have a bill of rights that was introduced in this House by John Diefenbaker; why do we have a charter of rights and freedoms; why do we have a supreme court and why do we have judicial reviews, if the government ignores the legal guarantees that are contained in those provisions?

I am very disappointed with this government. We are all very disappointed with this government.

The list of terrorist organizations is another very disturbing provision. Imagine, the government will establish a yearly list of all terrorist organizations without any judicial control? Those who are given that status will have no access to disclosure of evidence, which means that they will automatically be considered as a terrorist organization.

In the current context, the government must recall this bill for the opposition to be able to play its role. The government must allow the Bloc Quebecois and all opposition parties to improve it substantially. This bill is the first step in the negation of all democratic liberties that we hold so dearly.

All the Bloc Quebecois members and all the opposition members will fight tooth and nail to make sure that this does not happen.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on the proposed amendments, which have been introduced by a number of members, to Bill C-36, the terrorism bill.

At the outset, the events on September 11 in New York City were absolutely terrible and of course we have to respond to terrorism around the world and the potential on our own country. However, this could have been done through the existing provisions of the criminal code.

The criminal code allows a great deal of flexibility for the RCMP, for CSIS and for police authorities to do what they have to do in terms of terrorism, along with some additional money to the RCMP and for security that I expect to come down in the budget on December 10 from the Minister of Finance. That would have been the route to go.

One thing that always concerns me, when we get into these kinds of situations, is that we have to watch out for what is an overreaction by government. Democracy itself is pretty fragile and we have to watch for an overreaction to events. We have seen this before. If we went back through history, we would see what happened to the Japanese Canadians in the second world war when there was an overreaction to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Japanese participation in World War II.

More recently in 1970, we had the invocation of the War Measures Act. I was one of the members of parliament in the House of Commons in 1970. Sixteen of us who voted against the invocation of the act. I remember those days very well. There was a great deal of fear, anger and concern for what might happen.

All of a sudden in the middle of the night the War Measures Act was invoked by the government of the day. There was a real trampling on civil liberties and civil rights by the police, particularly in the province of Quebec. I can remember the extra police precautions around this place. I remember our soldiers were on Parliament Hill. We were all caught up in this frenzy that there was an apprehended insurrection about to occur, which was the warning of the War Measures Act. After a bit of discussion in cabinet, it was invoked. No discussion took place in the House of Commons before it was invoked.

I remember very well the pressure that occurred when we had a vote and only 16 of us voted against the invocation of that Act.

In terms of the overreaction, I remember the then leader of the opposition, Robert Stanfield, a very honourable, decent and progressive man, said after he retired from this place that the biggest political regret that he had as a member of parliament perhaps in his whole political career was that he did not vote against the invocation of the War Measures Act at that time.

There was a real panic and a real mood of the moment. I remember the fear that people had in my riding and around the country because of the frenzy in the media at that time.

A few years after that, most people concluded that it was a tremendous overreaction by the government of the day to invoke the War Measures Act and that it did not have to be done. What had to be done could have been done under the criminal code and the provisions in the criminal code.

Once again we have a very similar situation with the terrible thing that happened in New York City on September 11. We have a minister bring in the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36, which in my opinion is an overreaction. It gives more than necessary powers to police authorities. It suspends for a longer period of time than is needed, civil liberties. There are sunset clauses on certain provisions of the bill but not on all of it. These things do not need to occur nor should they occur.

When I look at the list of witnesses who appeared before the justice committee hearings in the Centre Block, many of the changes they recommended are not part of the package that was tabled by the Minister of Justice.

Many of the amendments that are not part of those are in the package we are debating today. I encourage the government across the way to live up to the tradition of the Liberal party, historically at least, a party which was concerned about civil liberties, human rights and adequate protection of the individual living within the criminal code and having the balance in a free and democratic society. These are the things in which the Liberal party has historically believed.

It is ironic that we had the invocation of the War Measures Act by a Liberal prime minister, Pierre Trudeau. Now we have another Liberal Prime Minister, who was a justice minister in those days, bringing in the anti-terrorism bill. Both of these things have been done by Liberal Parties, not the Conservative Parties and not the Alliance Party.

It is with a great deal of concern that I encourage members across the way to accept some of these amendments. I know many members across the way are not happy with the bill of the Minister of Justice. There are at least two cabinet ministers who have spoken privately and expressed a great deal of concern about the bill. In our parliamentary system of cabinet solidarity that is a big no-no. I suspect many other ministers are concerned about this as well.

If we had a free vote in the House, I think we would have a radically different bill. I guess this is another reason why we need some parliamentary reform in this, so that members are more free to vote with their consciences or in accordance with what they think their constituents want or desire.

I hope before this debate is over that we will have a change of heart and that there will be some new amendments tabled by the government. Perhaps some members across the way will get up and speak against certain provisions of the bill and will ask some of the questions that I think need to be asked.

My prediction is that when we go down the road another five or ten years, many people on the Liberal side, who voted for the bill, will say, if not publicly at least privately, that they made a mistake, that the bill went too far, that the bill was not necessary and that we had adequate provisions in the criminal code. I believe we will have the same reaction to this as we had to the War Measures Act when the incidents of October 1970 became history.

I will close by saying we should withdraw the bill. It is not necessary. Democracy is a very fragile thing here or anywhere in the world. These kinds of bills are a threat to the democratic process. They are a threat to due process, and it is an overreaction. It is using a sledgehammer to crack open a peanut. I think the government will live to regret the day that it passed this bill into the history of our country and that it put whips on their backbenches to make sure that they all voted in unison for a bill that was totally, in my opinion, unnecessary because of the powers in the criminal code.

I hope that some government members who feel that way will get up and express their points of view. We will not change the rules of this place until that starts happening in a more systematic way.

A member who ran for speaker was concerned about some of the rigidities in our parliamentary system and how we were really handcuffed in our parliamentary in terms of a real freedom of speech and votes. We are perhaps the most handcuffed parliamentary system in the world when it comes to our freedom to vote.

Even in Britain, which is the mother of parliaments, the Tony Blair government is very popular, and the Margaret Thatcher government before that was very popular in its first term. In both those governments, bills that were introduced by those prime ministers were defeated when the backbenchers of their parties joined in unison with the opposition parties to bring the bills down. In those cases the government did not fall. The government continued on. There were no measures of confidence.

This should not be a measure of confidence. It is not a money bill and it is not a throne speech which is giving a vision of where the government wants to take the country. It is simply another bill in the path of the parliamentary journals. I hope some members will speak their minds and then vote according to their consciences or the wishes of their constituents.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in this debate from the perspective of my short experience as a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Even though this bill deals with internal security in Canada, I would like to express my views with that new experience in mind.

Witnesses from various countries and international associations who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and International Development told us how important and urgent it is that Canada intervene to uphold human rights in other countries.

We should acknowledge that, over the years, Canada has earned an excellent reputation because it advocated the protection of human rights and it has been, to use the Prime Minister's words, the best country in the world as far as the defence of human rights goes.

But, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the government has introduced a series of bills, including Bill C-36, dealing with judgments, arrests, and so on, in response to terrorist activities.

At the same time, the government has introduced Bill C-35, aimed at changing international conventions, and Bill C-42, on public transportation safety. We realize that the government reacted in a state of panic.

Although the importance of the terrorist actions of September 11 must not be diminished, including what occurred at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, actions that are unacceptable, we have reacted, because something had to be done. But it had to be done without losing sight of the balance to be maintained between safety and the right to individual freedoms.

Otherwise, as some members of my party have said before me, it would be an inappropriate reaction, playing into the hands of those who were responsible for the September 11 terrorist actions, that is, changing our democracy, our system of individual and group rights to suit the objectives of those rightly called terrorists.

This is not the intent. Safety may be increased and all measures improved, with new ones even being added, in order to increase security.

I personally have nothing against the fact that, for example, we spend more time in line-ups at the airports in order to get to our ridings, because I understand that to fight effectively against attacks like those carried out with planes on September 11, we must all accept that things take longer. I do not think many people in our country are against that.

We have all accepted measures, and there could be others, of course. But there is a limit. I am going to make a comparison. A bill was unanimously passed by MPs last spring against organized crime. There were a lot of deaths—I do not have the figures, but it seems to me there were over 160—which resulted from bikers' wars. Sometimes, it was a settling of accounts among criminals, but sometimes there were innocent victims too. The bill is still awaiting passage in the Senate. It must be following a fairly singular process, since, according to the government, there is some urgency.

There are therefore two processes, so that they are jostling each other at the doors, so to speak. So the bill was passed in a panic during the night.

My colleagues, the hon. members for Berthier—Montcalm, Châteauguay and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, spent the night proposing a series of amendments in reaction to the pile of amendments proposed by the government, and discussed very rapidly. The whole thing had to be passed within hours.

They proposed some 60 amendments themselves, close to 66, in keeping with the Bloc Quebecois’ objections and aimed at improving this bill. To us, these amendments were a way of being consistent with our vote on second reading, which addressed the principle of the bill and was aimed at improving the situation in order to adopt new measures so that there could be an effective battle against terrorism and at the same time protection of our rights and freedoms.

When one speaks of preventive arrests, these are based on presumptions and on information received, without much idea of where it will lead. Preventive arrests are going to be made only on that basis, without complete evidence, supposedly in the name of national security. This information may sometimes come from the information services of other countries without any decision on them being made by the information commissioner; instead it will be the Department of Justice, or one might almost say the Minister of Justice, because there is sometimes much differentiation.

Hon. members will realize that the definition of terrorism is not clear, even though an attempt was made by a colleague to clarify it. In our opinion, this is not enough. This is why we feel that Motion No. 1 is incomplete. We agree with the other three motions, which are in line with the amendments that the Bloc Quebecois proposed in committee, but that were rejected.

The democratic process is at stake. The government prides itself in being a model for democracies. It keeps making that comment at every opportunity, whether it is when making representations or sending a delegation abroad, and even within the country. The government is very concerned about how human rights are respected elsewhere, but here some parts of the legislation will not be governed by the 1982 charter of human rights, the Trudeau charter. And it wants us to pass this bill very rapidly, after hearing witnesses very quickly.

This is an extremely important bill, yet the provinces were not consulted and no consultations took place outside Ottawa. And the government is gagging us once again. It is telling us that it will use closure, because it is in a hurry to pass this bill as quickly as possible.

As the NDP member said earlier, generally speaking, when a bill has a major impact and includes several new measures, parliament takes all the time necessary to review it. Hon. members do not feel pressured, as is the case now, to do things as quickly as possible and to discuss the legislation as little as possible.

Yet, the government has the necessary tools, including the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which could broaden its consultation. But instead the government is resorting to closure. We must always go faster. It is this kind of pressure which, in the end, generates even more concern, as was pointed out by several organizations, including one in particular.

I went to the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development. Amnesty International is concerned. It feels that the definition of terrorism is not specific enough and that this puts at risk those who may openly express their opinions. We should at least have the support of an organization like Amnesty International.

I would still have a lot to say but I will conclude by congratulating once again my three colleagues who worked really hard to try to propose an acceptable position.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about Bill C-36, and I am honoured to speak to it tonight.

I believe the legislation in its present form is disturbing and unless some changes are made we in the New Democratic Party will not be able to live with it. We believe the bill has to be changed. It is currently anti-democratic. It fails the basic test of protecting our civil liberties from the state. We are a country with a proud tradition of fighting for democracy.

I came here today from a taping in a studio where I taped a message to our armed forces serving overseas. I represent many members of the armed forces in my community.

I find it ironic that we have thousands of people who have gone overseas to protect democracy and the values we care about, but right here we are looking at some pretty scary legislation which I think will jeopardize the things they are fighting for.

Last week, along with my leader, I met with women from the Muslim community in Halifax and Dartmouth and we heard their real fear of this bill. Many of them came to Canada because they believed that our democratic institutions would protect them from oppressionn but Bill C-36 makes them afraid to answer their doors. Once again it may be the police taking them away because of the ethnicity of their names.

I have also been with teachers opposed to the bill because of its attack on our civil liberties. I have met with immigrant service organizations that tell me of the fear of their clients.

The bill goes way too far, way too fast. I would like to talk about some of the specific concerns we have. I will start with the sunset clause.

One of the ideas touted by numerous witnesses was the idea of an American style sunset clause. This would have the effect of forcing the government to reintroduce, debate and amend the legislation for it to take effect for another period of time. A three year time limit affecting different aspects of the legislation was suggested by numerous witnesses.

The NDP proposed an amendment that would have addressed those concerns. However, the government had already decided that it would only include a watered down sunset clause by which the House and the Senate would vote after five years for a motion to extend the investigative hearing and preventative arrest sections, two of the more controversial measures in the bill. Though this is better than no clause at all, it is not a sunset clause in the true sense. Rather than having to introduce and re-examine legislation, this would simply require the government to tell its members and senators to vote an extension of that which currently exists in Bill C-36.

There is much more in Bill C-36 that should have been sunsetted and properly so. The definition of “terrorist activity” would have been a good candidate for sunsetting, as well as provisions extending powers of surveillance and wiretapping given to Canadian security agencies, along with new ministerial permits allowing the attorney general to exempt information from the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

The only significant amendment made to these final sections was to put a 15 year limit on the life of these certificates as well as to provide for a limited judicial oversight. Though this is a minor improvement, it in no way addresses our concerns about the power concentrated in the hands of the attorney general.

When it comes to the definition of terrorism in the bill, we have substantial concerns. Though we proposed amendments to improve this section, none were accepted and amendments recommended by witnesses, which would have gone a long way toward addressing our concerns, were also rejected. Our amendments would have included the words “extreme terror and intimidation” as motivations for terrorist offences, to make it clear that only acts with those motivations could be considered terrorist acts.

Second, we proposed the exclusion of threats to economic security in that section.

Third, we proposed removing the section that would include the disruption of essential services as a terrorist act.

Finally, we proposed that the government amend the same section to clarify that no acts involving peaceful, civil disobedience could be considered terrorist acts.

We also have concerns with the wiretapping and surveillance provisions. Provisions which, among other things, allow the communications security establishment to monitor communications in which Canadians are a party as well as allowing Canadian security agencies more latitude in seeking and using various surveillance tools are still part of the legislation, unamended and unsunsetted.

We have a great deal of concern about the issue of listed entities. Some important amendments have been put forward by members of the Conservative Party on the issue. We found the section around listed entities to be worrisome. A listed entity has its assets frozen and confiscated. Though there is an appeal mechanism for a listed entity, an appeal is only possible once an entity has already had its assets frozen. Numerous charitable and religious groups are very concerned about this section because the freezing would be tantamount to a death sentence.

In the media we have heard from members of the Somalian Canadian community who see the bill as an attempt to criminalize their attempts to support their parents, brothers and children in Somalia.

We proposed two amendments to this section but none was accepted. We also supported two amendments from the member for Calgary Centre. One would report the seizing of assets and one would reverse the legal onus around the listing of entities, which used to be called labelling of a terrorist group, so that there is some presumption of innocence.

The idea that the government suggests that a person is guilty without trial simply based on a secret accusation from the intelligence community is terrifying. The process allows CSIS to legalize witch hunts.

The Minister of Justice did not listen to the justice committee or to the witnesses who appeared before it. The amendments that were introduced did not adequately address our key concerns.

The definition of terrorist activity is overly broad in the bill. The sunset clause is limited in what it covers. It is incomplete in what it requires and amounts in the end to a 10 year sunset on two provisions of the bill.

Ministerial certificates are still part of the bill and the government has done nothing to address the concerns of charitable and cultural organizations, as well as business that could find themselves unfairly listed. The amendments are at best superficial.

We want to see amendments to the legislation that would make it absolutely clear that this new law cannot be used or abused against Canadians who participate in demonstrations, strikes or other customary forms of political or institutional dissent, or to create big loopholes in our privacy and freedom of information laws. The limited amendments from the government have left the door open for all of these things.

Why should the government be trusted with new powers, which it may use to distinguish between real terrorists and non-terrorists, if at the moment it cannot seem to distinguish between peaceful protesters and violent protesters? If the minister is concerned about the reputation that the government has developed, one would assume that she would make a much more diligent effort to try to clear up this very important issue.

About 10 days ago there were demonstrations less than a kilometre away from the House against the G20, the world bank and the international monetary fund. Television crews caught young protesters breaking windows and spray-painting public signs. This was after scenes of violence at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City and at the APEC conference in Vancouver.

Members should not get me wrong. I oppose vandalism, even of McDonald's, but I also oppose any law that would equate their actions with the evil events of September 11.

I am frankly suspicious of the government, and the tens of thousands of peaceful protesters are also suspicious of the increasing use of police force against demonstrations. The stubbornness of the government in refusing reasonable amendments in this historic legislation gives credence to the suspicions that we have.

I believe in a democratic Canada. I take the civil liberties given in our charter very seriously. I beg that we now take the time and make the effort to produce a piece of legislation that protects our security while defending our civil liberties in this anxious and difficult time.