Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing part here is that almost all the witnesses who appeared before the justice committee did so for absolutely nothing, because our justice minister, stubborn as usual, totally ignored the concerns of all these witnesses as well as their valuable and legitimate recommendations to improve the bill.
The minister has not only ignored their representations before the standing committee on justice, but she has also rejected out of hand the recommendations brought forward by the special Senate committee on Bill C-36.
For the information of our listeners, so that they can really understand how little the minister cared about the House and Senate committees and all Canadians, she stated this on October 18, in her introductory speech, at the first sitting of the standing committee on justice. I quote:
I also welcome consideration of possible refinements to the provisions you find in this bill. We must ensure that the bill is the most balanced and effective response possible.
And just before leaving the committee, at the end of the session, she added to this by stating:
On behalf of the solicitor general and myself, I also want to underscore how important it is for you to provide us with your best advice in some of these areas.
Therefore, it's going to be very important for you, in terms of the work you do, to help us make sure that we do have the most effective and fairest law. I know you will take up this challenge expeditiously and seriously
As for taking that challenge seriously, we have. Can the same be said of the minister? I am not so sure.
All of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois were based on the recommendations made by the large majority of the witnesses who came before the standing committee on justice, as well as those contained in the Senate report, of course.
Of all our amendments, just one was retained, but not in its original form. As for the other three opposition parties, their proposals suffered the same fate as ours. Considering that, the minister must take MPs for fools, when she makes a statement about being prepared to listen to us and benefit from the witnesses' expertise in order to improve her bill.
Besides, as regards promptness, again we can say mission accomplished. The bill we are debating is the most important one, in terms of curtailing rights and liberties, on the legislative agenda since the sad and famous War Measures Act of 1970.
According to projections, the legislative process should be completed before the Christmas recess. This shows how effective the government's steamroller is.
However, innocent people have become the victims of the biker war and, more generally, of organized crime in Quebec. Yet, Bill C-24, which deals with organized crime, is still waiting in the other place.
The situation is obviously urgent, but considering the impact of the measures considered, we had the right to expect something other than a slapdash legislative process.
Mark Fisher, a member of the Labour Party in the British parliament, said the following about the English anti-terrorist act, during the second reading stage last Monday. I quote:
When the House does something precipitous, it rarely acts wisely.
Referring to increased powers that the justice minister is giving to the officers of CSIS and to himself, the solicitor general simply said:
Canadians demand those measures.
We can question his sources of information, and I hope that it does not come from CSIS, because the facts are quite different.
I do not know if the solicitor general reads the electronic mail he receives, but if he is on the same mailing list as we are and nevertheless says a thing like that, there certainly must be someone in his office who is hiding information from him, because almost every message we have received expressed vigorous opposition to the provisions of Bill C-36.
Moreover, when a bill like this is called nonsense and act of treason, to quote only those two examples, there can be no doubt about the opposition of Canadian citizens to the state's interference with individual liberties.
I would now like to talk about the motions we have before us at report stage.
First, Motion No. 1 by the member for Lanark—Carleton proposes that the definition of terrorist activity be amended by eliminating any reference to political, religious or idealogical purposes. Members of the Bloc considered those references inappropriate and we certainly are ready to support Motion No. 1.
Motion No. 2 by the member for Calgary Centre would set out the criteria to be used by the solicitor general in recommending that an entity be placed on the list of terrorists. I think this is appropriate.
In the second paragraph of this motion, the member for Calgary Centre suggests that these criteria should be debated in the House before being adopted. We agree with that. However, I think that a vote should be held following this debate. I imagine that this is what the member for Calgary Centre wished, but I did not see it in the text of the motion.
As for Motion No. 3 by the same member, it would compel the solicitor general to give answers to the organizations listed. If he does not do so, with the present amendment, the organization will not have to pay to go before a federal court. There again, we consider that this motion is appropriate and that we will be in a position to support it.
As for Motion No. 4, I consider it superfluous since the right to a lawyer is already recognized. There is a paragraph added that reads as follows:
In any proceeding under this section, the presiding judge may appoint counsel to represent any person subject to the investigative hearing.
Notaries have a saying that if it is too strong, it won't break”. As far as I am concerned, this is the case here. We can obviously support it because it is already recognized.
These were my comments on the amendments before us.