Debates of Nov. 27th, 2001

Anti-terrorism Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from November 26 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 amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 6.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take this opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-36 and Group No. 2 of the amendments that were put forward.

I would like to preface my remarks by voicing my concern as well. Since I have been a member of parliament in the House of Commons, closure has become the norm rather than the exception. Every single time we get a contentious piece of legislation the fact that the government moves so quickly to stifle and limit debate has become, since I have been in this political life, the norm rather than the exception. I condemn that in the most forceful way possible.

We are happy to be able to support the amendments in this group of motions. We believe that the opposition parties were unanimous in their condemnation of Bill C-36 and unanimous in the thoughtful presentation of meaningful amendments. There was a sincere spirit of co-operation in our efforts to make Bill C-36 a more enforceable and more meaningful piece of legislation, to make it something that would in fact have the desired results and still not compromise those things that Canadians feel very strongly about.

We are comfortable that the motions in this group of amendments would have improved the bill, but we are critical of the Minister of Justice, who gave every indication that she would in fact entertain meaningful amendments. In virtually every press conference or public comment she gave she was trying to give the impression to the Canadian public that she would entertain meaningful amendments if they were presented in the proper spirit of improving the bill. Yet what we saw ultimately was absolutely no flexibility on the real substance of the bill. I can point to the most obvious and glaring issue, which is the idea of the sunset clause.

Virtually every presenter that came before the committee demanded that there be a sunset clause provision in the bill in order to assure Canadians that the move to trivialize or minimize their civil rights would not be a permanent thing in the country, that the bill was meant to deal with an emergency that was a real and present danger, and that Canadians wanted to feel secure in their own country but not at the cost of giving up civil liberties. The sunset clause is the most glaring example of the intransigence on the part of the Liberal Party, the ruling party, in listening to the concerns brought before the committee.

There is not a sunset clause in any meaningful definition, as we understand it. The member for Winnipeg--Transcona said it is a sunset clause like June in the Yukon. That is about as sunsetting as it gets. It might reach dusk, but it certainly is not what we understand to be a sunset clause.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wonder if I might interrupt. Presently before the House is Group No. 2, which consists of one motion. It is a motion in the name of the hon. member for Lanark—Carleton and states:

In no case shall a person be bound to secrecy for a period exceeding fifteen years, unless otherwise indicated by the deputy head.

In fairness to everyone, I will remind the House that we are on Group No. 2. There is one motion in it. If the member for Winnipeg Centre wants to continue I will give him the floor. If he chooses to wait until we get into the other groups that is for him to decide.

Does the member for Winnipeg Centre wish to continue on the motion in Group No. 2?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do. I apologize if my speech wandered from the actual substance of Group No. 2, which I understand is a motion by the Alliance member for an amendment to limit the secrecy provisions for individuals working for a security agency to a maximum of 15 years. I was planning on getting around to that issue, but in framing the context of those criticisms or pointing out the shortcomings of the bill, I found it necessary to also point out some of the other shortcomings on behalf of the Canadian people.

We in our party feel that this is perhaps the most significant issue that we have dealt with since I became a member of parliament in 1997. No other bill has had the potential to have such a dramatic effect on the way we live as Canadians as Bill C-36 does. I think it is easy to understand the level and degree of interest. The number of letters, cards and phone calls that we are getting at our constituency offices is overwhelming.

The bill has captured the imagination of Canadians, partly because of the sheer horror of September 11, partly because of our very real desire to feel more secure in our own homes and our own country and partly because of the expectation Canadians have that our government will introduce meaningful legislation that will make us feel more secure about the fact that it is doing its job. As the Minister of Justice has pointed out, the primary obligation of the government is to deal with the security of Canadians. We are being challenged with that right now.

Therefore, we are finding ourselves faced with Bill C-36, this broad, sweeping piece of legislation, which will in fact change the way we live and the way that Canadians view themselves as a nation and as a people. We are finding ourselves limited in the amount of debate we can have. Even though those of us on the opposition benches have co-operated extensively to put forward meaningful amendments, we are finding that the ruling party, which did imply that it would listen to and entertain amendments, is in fact using closure to shut this down and move this bill forward even though, I believe, the bill has not matured or has not been thought through to the point that it should be.

I know that early on in the debate on Bill C-36 a recommendation was made because we know the bill will be challenged in the Supreme Court. The recommendation was that we should submit the substance of the bill to the court and ask for a ruling ahead of time or that we should do it in conjunction and have two parallel paths so that we would be debating the bill in the House of Commons and at the same time the courts could be ruling on whether or not there would be an acceptable challenge to the bill. Frankly, that would have served Canadians well. It would have been an expedited form of introducing the type of protection Canadians expect.

However, the government chose not to listen to that good advice. It was sound counsel. It was the member for Winnipeg--Transcona who asked directly why we could not have a dual, parallel path on the bill because it is of such importance. It is too important to play politics with. That is the opinion of the NDP caucus at least. We have discussed this in our caucus meetings. We do not seek to play politics with Bill C-36 because we are all concerned. Canadians are concerned. It is a disservice to Canadians to actually grind this thing down into one of those exchanges we have seen so many times.

I am glad to be able to speak to Group No. 2 of these motions. I understand that the amendment being sought by the member from the Canadian Alliance would limit the secrecy provisions on individuals working for security agencies to a maximum of 15 years. This seems like a worthy provision. It is obviously a thoughtful, heartfelt position taken by the member from the Alliance. I would hope that there would be flexibility on the part of government, if it is serious in moving forward with Bill C-36, to at least entertain the legitimate concerns brought forward, not just by the members of the opposition benches but by the many people who have made presentations at committee.

I know that the committee sat until three o'clock in the morning recently dealing with this. There is no question about the sincerity and the level of interest expressed on the government side and on the opposition benches. We realize how necessary the bill is. Canadians do as well and are coming to us asking for some satisfaction.

We found it necessary to speak against Bill C-36. I believe we are the only caucus in the House of Commons and the only political party that has actually voted against Bill C-36 at all the stages up to this point, although I understand the Bloc Quebecois has reservations about the bill as well.

We are not comfortable at this point. We would like to be able to say that we support the intent of the government to ensure the security of Canadians by tightening up bills and legislation in the aftermath of September 11. The NDP caucus would like nothing more than to be able to say we are acting in response to the legitimate concerns of Canadians, but we cannot support the bill at this time nor can we support the heavy handed actions of the government to limit debate at this time. Canadians are still following the debate with great interest and great concern. I am sure most Canadians are disappointed to see the House leader for the Liberal Party stand up and once again move closure on an issue of great national interest and concern.

We have heard questions and debate on the bill from virtually all the opposition parties, which are challenging the government with the legitimate questions that do arise when we infringe on civil liberties. To what extent should we infringe on them? For how long should we infringe on them?

Even though we are speaking today to Group No. 2 and the motion dealing with the secrecy provisions, we have to focus on the bigger picture. The bill in itself is so flawed that I do not believe any of the opposition parties can in all good conscience vote for it.

With regret, we are finding ourselves debating with a gun to our heads again because time allocation has been invoked. I do not believe that quality decision making can come from that process. I do not believe in the Stockholm syndrome, for instance, where people are thrown into a room and not allowed out until they come to a resolution. I do not believe that process would result in a quality piece of legislation. However, that is the position we find ourselves in again today.

It is with regret that we are critical of the government on this issue. It should be a non-partisan issue. Canadians would like to think we can all agree on this particular issue. The motions put forward by the opposition parties are worthy. They have merit and they deserve to be introduced into the bill so that we could adopt the bill unanimously. We do not sense that will be possible.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to debate Group No. 2 in this very important Bill C-36.

As a member of the justice committee and as part of the process I must say that it was a long and arduous task in terms of the kinds of witnesses and groups that we heard from across Canada. Certainly we appreciated the calibre of their fine insights into this very important bill.

It seems to me that when we finally had the opportunity to review the clauses and take a look at the amendments being proposed from all sides, we had a very good opportunity to fully debate each and every one of the clauses. At the end of the day we were able to come together to present the bill that is now in the House at report stage.

It seems to me that we can take great heart in the fact that we listened to Canadians. We listened to people from all perspectives on the bill. I found it especially important that we did so through the lens of human rights and civil liberties, as well as national security. They were three important lenses for viewing the bill, and that is precisely what we did.

I was heartened to know and fully understand, as all members of the committee, who if they did not, should have, that the Minister of Justice wisely was able to take advice and come back in a way that brought the bill into even better sync with what Canadians value and believe is correct. That is really what we are here today to do. We are here to debate this further, to take a look at the fine amendments that have been brought forward and to move forward knowing that we have to put Bill C-36 in place because it is part and parcel of the anti-terrorism legislation that the government was very quick to introduce.

Now, having had a full debate, we are able to bring it to a conclusion. I think it is very important to move expeditiously at this point in keeping with the commitments we made not only to the Canadian people but to the wider international community as well.

I cannot emphasize enough that the Minister of Justice and this side of the House listened very closely to all people who presented. Specifically on Group No. 2 I think it is important to note that the motion being presented, while it is of interest and certainly worthy of note, cannot be supported. I will tell the House why.

The motion has to be rejected because a person permanently bound to secrecy is defined in subclause 8(1) of the Security of Information Act. We already know that. Furthermore, a person may become a person permanently bound to secrecy if the person is a current or former member or employee of a scheduled entity, or if designated by a deputy head and personally served with a notice to that effect. Those are important considerations in terms of where we are at specific to this motion. I should further add that the criteria for designating a person to be a person permanently bound to secrecy are twofold.

I am not telling the Speaker anything he does not know at this point. He knows that, first, the person has had or will have authorized access to special operational information and, second, it is in the interest of national security to designate the person.

Again it comes back to the lens of national security tempered with civil rights, human rights and the liberties that flow based on the charter of rights and freedoms. That is something that the committee took a long hard look at in terms of making sure we analyzed everything that we did consistent with the framework that we have taken as part of Canada's great value system, which is underscored by the charter of rights and freedoms.

I should further add that the new offences, specifically clauses 13 and 14 of the Seurity of Information Act, create a special regime for those persons who have privileged access to the most vital, special operational information and criminalizes on their part the unauthorized disclosure or purported disclosure of this narrow band of information going to the essence of Canada's national interest.

We need to ensure that is in place which is precisely what we have here. At the end of the day the national interest for Canada, the national security for Canada and the tools that enable us to maintain the national interest and national security is paramount. Canadians wherever they live in this great country understand that. They support the government knowing that the government is bringing forward these kinds of measures in the best interest of national security in a very meaningful way.

I should further add that the security and intelligence community has certain operational requirements that need to be fostered. These operational requirements include an ability to ensure secrecy and project to others that they have the ability to protect the information entrusted to them.

That too is fundamental to the gathering of intelligence, to ensure that peace officers and people who are involved in these kinds of processes are given the kinds of tools and legislative support, quite frankly, that enable them to do the job that is consistent with what we as a country under national security and for interest for Canada are able to give them and they are able to carry out and do.

We need to ensure that is the case, and we are doing that. I believe it is paramount that we carry on with this because it is what Canadians expect.

While I am on the point, I want to add that while the person is designated for life with respect to the motion in Group No. 2, the character of the information may change. The definition, for example of special operational information makes clear that it is information that the Government of Canada is taking measures to safeguard from disclosure.

There again that too underscores the commitment of our government to ensure the right processes are put in place to make sure we do the right thing to enable our people to gather that kind of information and not have to disclose it, to make sure that it is done properly and consistent with the charter and all the safeguards that Canadians take for granted in this very important area.

I want to take a moment to talk a bit about some of the concerns that were raised at the committee with respect to unlawful strikes and protests that could qualify as terrorist activity. That was a repeated theme.

The definition of terrorism, as we have now made it to be, as it was from the outset, and refined, and, more to the point, terrorist activity related to the disruption of essential service, was changed at the committee, as I said, fine tuned, to delete the word “lawful”. This will ensure that protest activity, whether lawful or unlawful, will not be considered a terrorist activity unless the activity was intended to cause death, serious bodily harm, endangerment of life or serious risk to the health and safety of the public.

We listened very closely to those people who ensured that they got their points across on this very important matter. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice made it very clear at the outset that the committee had its work cut out for it. The committee was to do its job. It was to listen very closely, carefully and consistently to witnesses who came in good faith and presented their testimony. That is precisely what it did. As a result we were able to bring forward amendments that reflected the representations made by individuals and groups. We did so consistent with the civil liberties, human rights and national security projections that we wanted to ensure were always there and we were able to do it consistent with what I believe are the great values of this country, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Another concern that was expressed was that expressing a political, religious or ideological belief could constitute a terrorist activity. For some people that was a very real thing. I want to take great pains right now to say that is simply not the case.

In order to make it absolutely clear, the government proposed an amendment in committee to add an interpretative clause to the bill. The clause states for greater clarity and certainty that an expression of political, religious or ideological beliefs alone is not a terrorist activity unless it is part of a larger conduct that meets all the requirements of the definition of terrorist activity.

What I am saying is that we at the committee listened to the witnesses and listened to people who brought forward very good ideas. We changed accordingly to make sure that at the end of the day this would be the best bill possible, and I can guarantee that it is.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in respect of this particular motion brought forward by my colleague, the member for Lanark--Carleton.

I want to take two general approaches to the motion. First, I think the motion illustrates why there should be continued debate in the House on the bill.

I listened with care to the comments of the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general. He did indeed work hard, as did all members on the justice committee. I am a member of the justice committee and we did listen very carefully to the evidence. We suggested amendments and amendments were made. A Canadian Alliance member brought forward an important amendment and I thank the Liberal members opposite for supporting it. We had extensive debate. One night the members sat until three o`clock in the morning.

However what goes on in committee is not what goes on in the House. Some members in the House did not have the opportunity to be at committee and to hear the minister's explanation, to hear the minister question witnesses or propose amendments. This is the time that members in the House can generally bring forward amendments, and that is what my colleague, the member for Lanark--Carleton, has done.

The amendment process illustrates the need for continued debate and assures members of the House that this is the best bill that can be brought forward to deal with this very troublesome and, yes, pressing issue.

For the government to bring in closure and time allocation is wrong. It sends out the wrong message to the people of Canada. It tells the people of Canada that the government is afraid of debate, afraid of discussion and afraid of publicly justifying the steps it has taken.

This amendment is an important one in that line of amendments. Specifically, the provision for which amendment is sought creates a permanent embargo and secrecy in respect of a specific individual. I recognize there are valid national security concerns that require people with certain types of information to be embargoed from disclosing it.

I think we all accept that in the House. However, when we think about it, this is an embargo against that individual for the rest of his or her life. This is a significant limitation on the freedom of expression that all of us often take for granted.

The member is not proposing this specific amendment to jeopardize national security. Indeed, it is to respect it. The amendment would ensure that for 15 years a person's right to freedom of expression is limited in the greater interest of national security. Again, all of us would agree with and recognize that.

The amendment then goes on to say that should there be a valid national security reason after 15 years, the deputy head can then designate that it continue. That is only fair.

We are dealing with national security and broader interests. Sometimes we as individuals do not understand the full implications of the information we carry around with us. Sometimes we cannot understand why we would be prevented from disclosing that information.

The government has that information at its disposal and can make those determinations. However let it do so when it is satisfied that after the passage of 15 years it is still necessary to impinge on an individual's freedom of expression. This would not leave national security vulnerable. There would be an option to extend. It would remain in the hands of those charged with the provision of national security.

I urge members opposite and all opposition members to look at the amendment as something that would reasonably allow freedom of expression and at the same time ensure the interests of national security were not compromised. I urge each and every member to vote in support of the amendment.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask hon. members to reread my speech of yesterday on Bill C-36, if they can.

Today, we are dealing with the amendment on the Official Secrets Act. Will people be permanently bound to secrecy or, as proposed in the amendment, for a maximum of 15 years?

I will begin with the motion and, later on, I will discuss the issue in a general manner. We have no choice but to support the proposed motion, because it is the lesser of two evils. In a bill of such importance, we are forced to choose an amendment with which we are definitely not pleased, but which is not as bad as the alternative. It is with some reluctance that we will support this amendment.

We moved 66 amendments in the standing committee on justice. Out of that number, only one was accepted. That was done perfunctorily. The amendment simply added the term cemetery in the clause on hate propaganda. Imagine that.

We discussed very important issues, including the sunset clause. We talked about the definition, which was too broad. We provided examples, even after the amendment by the Minister of Justice. During that sitting of the committee, we were told that, yes, to use our examples, protesters could be deemed to be terrorists under such a clause, even duly amended. It is not because a clause is amended that the whole issue is settled.

Let us not forget that this clause on definitions includes several possibilities. There is a cumulative effect. In a number of places, including in paragraphs (d) and (c), protesters are included in the definition of terrorist activity.

This motion is important, but it is with some reluctance that I say so. The Bloc Quebecois could have brought forward many motions, but we saw what happened.

As I said, out of the 66 amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois, only a minor one was accepted. One wonders how such a result can be arrived at.

It is a well-known fact that the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour of the bill at second reading because we were convinced in principle that we had to pass an anti-terrorism bill to make our fellow citizens feel more secure. However, we are not fools, and we are not blind. It does not take much imagination to see the scope of the powers granted under this bill. I am not just talking about the powers of the government in general, but about the powers of ministers, such as the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Defence, who will wield extreme power. This bill was supposed to be an exceptional series of provisions.

Beyond the exception, situations must be dealt with. Is there a balance between security and freedom? We worked on amendments to bring some balance to the bill. There is no balance in it. Amendments were put forward. The government put forward several amendments on the first day. The amendments were presented to us. I am a member of the standing committee on justice. The government amendments were presented to us at 4.15 p.m., between 4:15 and 5. Moreover, some were added as we moved along.

When I hear government members say that they had the time to look at the amendments, I must say there is something I do not understand.

As a lawyer, I have often wondered why the wording of acts is so imprecise, so vague and how it is that it can be interpreted in so many ways. Now we have the answer. I had the answer for the first time.

As a new MP and a lawyer sitting on the standing committee on justice, I have seen how it is done and I must say it is not just a matter of going over some things with a steamroller, but it is also that people do not understand these amendments. In this regard, I would have loved to put a few questions to the members who voted so recklessly. They accepted the government amendments but not the ones we had put forward and worked so hard on. We had worked hard to put forward sound amendments to strike a balance between security and freedom.

How can these members say today that they have studied the bill? How could they study the amendments? It was impossible except during the proceedings of the committee, which ended at 3 a.m.

You should have seen how quickly the vote was taken and how little time we had to look at each amendment and read it. Some amendments were several lines long and we only had three to four seconds to read them before we had to vote on material received at 4.15 p.m. We had a binder three to four inches thick full of amendments. How can we say that the impact of those amendments was considered?

Not only are we witnessing window dressing but things are being concealed in a bill of great importance. I am very disappointed with the kind of work done in committee. I was sure that through our involvement as members of parliament we would have a say. We tried to give these amendments serious consideration.

At one time, we were not even discussing the amendments. Those moved by the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party or the Progressive Conservative-Democratic Representative Coalition were all rejected. It was a charade.

I am disappointed as a citizen, as a lawyer, and most of all as a member of parliament. I thought we were seeking a balance between security and freedom. To enjoy freedom, however, we must maintain democracy, but this is not the way to build it.

What happened on September 11 was definitely a breach of democracy, but we are doing the same thing here in another way. What message are we sending to the rest of the world? This is but a facade: we keep hearing that ours is a democratic country, but it is completely false.

We would have liked to have a well thought out legislation that would have provided a balance between security and freedom. However, we are being deprived of any chance to ensure that this bill truly meets the expectations of Quebecers and Canadians.

When the government says that Canadians agree with what this bill is trying to do, that is completely false. In order to achieve that kind of balance, first the Minister of Justice would have had to do more than say “I will listen”. During oral question period in the House, she said “Yes, I am open to your ideas, I will listen. I will listen to the members, I will listen to the witnesses”.

More than 60 witnesses appeared before the committee, and it is not true to say that they were listened to. There was so little listening done that not even the Senate was not heard. The Senate put out a report that was not even followed by the government.

How are we supposed to take the government seriously? It cannot be taken seriously, and that is a problem. This is not simply about taking the government seriously; it is about our democracy, our institution known as the House of Commons, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is a complete stalling tactic, because the government is fooling people into believing that there was an opportunity for debate, but the debate took place before the bill was introduced in the House.

It gets worse. Yesterday was the first day of the report stage for the bill. After only three hours, notice was given that there would be a gag. Today, we voted on this motion. After only three hours of debate at report stage, a gag was ordered, not only for the report stage but also for third reading. It cannot get any more anti-democratic than that. It is really unbelievable.

I would like us to be really serious and examine the amendments. There is a problem when in committee we are told by senior officials and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice that demonstrators such as those in Quebec City would fall into the definition of terrorists.

We cannot allow this government to run roughshod over democracy and freedom.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-36. It is an important piece of legislation. Concerns have been expressed by many and I will dwell on them shortly. The bill is needed because it is important that we address the issue of how to combat terrorism. Canadians want the bill but they are apprehensive.

It is critically important that all Canadians have an opportunity to discuss the bill thoroughly, bring in amendments and allow debate to take place. It is important that Canadians do not feel apprehensive about the bill. After a thorough debate they should feel satisfied with the direction it is taking.

However today the government has invoked time allocation to stifle debate on the bill. Hundreds of Canadians have expressed concern about the issue. More and more Canadians are expressing concern because they have not had an opportunity to provide input into the bill.

We had an opportunity this morning to ask the Minister of Justice why she brought in time allocation. That is a good step toward reforming parliament. Time allocation used to come in and we never had an opportunity to ask the minister about it.

What was amazing was the response the Minister of Justice gave. She said there had been extensive consultations and that 13 hours of debate were held in committee. What is 13 hours of debate for a bill of this magnitude? Most of us in the House have not had an opportunity to speak. Colleagues of mine would like to speak to the bill as would colleagues from other parties. We want to express our concerns about what is right and what is wrong with the bill but we no longer have the opportunity.

The government has put time allocation on the bill, yet the minister stands proudly and says the government has had extensive consultations with hundreds of Canadians. The most amazing thing is that she said parliament has had a full debate on the issue since September 11.

As was pointed out to her, the bill is coming before us after all the amendments were done in committee. As parliamentarians we would like to be able to discuss the issue and look at the views of colleagues. That opportunity is being denied us by time allocation.

A lot of concerns are being expressed about the legislation, especially by visible minorities and immigrant communities. They want assurances that they will not be targets. While the intent of the bill is not to target anyone they need assurances that the bill will contain provisions to make sure their freedoms are not taken away or curtailed to some degree.

We have heard about incidents where bigots and others have targeted minorities. This is wrong and totally undesirable in Canada. As recently as last week I heard a report about Sikh truck drivers from Montreal who were subject to harassment because they have beards and wear turbans. This kind of thing must stop. These people are not part of terrorist groups. However it can only stop when we have the opportunity to debate and bring out these issues and say this is the wrong thing to do.

The government has invoked time allocation and stifled the debate. People will be apprehensive. For the bill to effectively fight terrorism it needs the support of all Canadians. We cannot have people sitting out there feeling apprehensive about the bill and not fully supporting it.

The bill is needed. It is required after September 11 to fight terrorism. We are fighting people who do not obey the laws, people whose own narrow view of life prompts them to disregard human life and curtail the freedom of others. The most important thing is that they do not respect the freedom of others.

The bill is needed to fight these guys so we can maintain our freedom. At the same time we cannot stand here and create a bill that makes a huge section of the Canadian community apprehensive because they figure somehow or other they could be subject to unnecessary harassment. That is the most necessary thing we must do here.

An important example is the incidents that happened in Montreal when Sikh truck drivers were harassed. That is absolutely wrong. I hope the Minister of Foreign Affairs will do something about the issue.

We find it amazing that we have had extensive committee hearings, a bill has gone through committee and come in here, and the first thing the government does is invoke time allocation. The amazing thing is that the Minister of Justice is saying our allies, the Americans and the British, did the same thing.

That is fine. Our allies also need to fight terrorism and they brought in their own bills, rightly so. However we need to discuss the issues in a Canadian context and take into account the Canadian environment. We have our own laws. Our society is slightly different from other societies. We need a thorough debate in the House so we can address the issues many are raising.

My colleagues on this side have expressed many concerns. They want to tighten the bill where they think it is lax. The bill will not achieve its objectives. That must be done not only in committee but in debate in the House. The hon. member for Calgary Centre said we need parliamentary oversight of the bill to see that it fulfills its mandate but does not take anyone's freedoms away.

The minister said to the right hon. member for Calgary Centre that parliament is the oversight for the bill. That is exactly what she said. Yet it is in this parliament that time allocation has been brought forward so we cannot debate. Perhaps she can explain how this works. One minute she is saying parliament is the watchdog over the bill and the next minute we cannot stand to talk about the bill because she brings in a time allocation order. Does this make sense? No, it definitely does not.

Sitting here and listening to the Minister of Justice give all the reasons she has brought in time allocation,I feel Canadians will have no confidence in the bill. There will always be a little apprehension. We as members of parliament must go out and talk to our constituents. They are telling us they have apprehensions or they feel the bill is flawed in certain areas. All that can be dealt only with when there is a thorough debate in parliament.

Perhaps the minister could open an emergency debate on the issue this evening, let it go all night and allow every member of parliament to speak and give their points of view. If amendments are needed we could debate them in the House because we can always improve on the bill. She could then can pass the bill in the normal course of business. Members of the Canadian Alliance have said they are supportive of the bill. I do not see what the problem would have been.

I am extremely disappointed at what has happened today with the move for time allocation. The government talks from both sides of its mouth. As parliamentarians we will be keeping a close eye on the bill.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate today. This is the second time this week, and we could have gone on with the debate a little longer. Besides, we are blaming the government for its decision to cut the time allocated for debate and to proceed very quickly with passage of this bill.

People are now watching the Liberal government and will come to the conclusion that it does not want to give them the opportunity to know about all the issues underlying this bill and what impact it will have on civil liberties.

The terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington must not change the principles guiding our way of living and doing things. That would be a great victory for the terrorists. We would then have yielded to terror. In our reactions and attitudes, we will above all have to maintain a balance between improved security measures and the tremendous importance of freedom in our society.

Let us recall that in committee, the Bloc Quebecois put forward 66 amendments, which were all rejected. As a matter of fact, those amendments sought to strike this balance between freedom and security.

On the face of it, I was completely against such an anti-terrorism bill. I knew for certain there would be excesses on the part of this government. Its determination to rush this bill through the House is proof of its bad faith.

The Prime Minister had said he was quite open to a sunset clause, but we know very well that what we now have is not a real sunset clause on all the provisions of the bill. This legislation will not be terminated after a certain number of years. The sunset clause applies only to two clauses. Therefore, it is not really a sunset clause that will automatically terminate this piece of legislation.

This bill also has implications for human rights and freedoms. We should have provided for a transparent and open review process, including the examination of day to day enforcement activities to identify any negative impact on civil society.

We are getting a little bit too easily caught up in the partisan war game the United States is waging in the Middle East. According to Professor Jean-Pierre Derriennic of Laval University partisan wars have three characteristics. They are:

—exaggeration of the importance of the issues, the ability to polarize society around a key conflict, the antiterrorist struggle between good and evil, between the civilized and the so-called uncivilized worlds.

Clearly we do not get very far with this view of the world in which good and evil are divided into two camps. This is simplistic sociology that rigidly links social realities when in fact things are much more complex.

The causes of violence are numerous, and the western world must not close its eyes. It is our job to explain to the public the responsibility for the economic inequalities among international systems. A number of people from different ridings have come to tell us at our offices what the attitude of the government and parliament should be to our responsibilities toward the Middle East, for example.

The war being waged at the moment in the Middle East is not the only solution to the problem, according to Laval University Professor Albert Legault, who said:

First the issue of the antiterrorism war as such must be dissociated from the operations in Afghanistan and, unfortunately, this is the linkage currently being made.

The government of the United States is also utilizing the horror of the events of September 11, events that cannot be justified. At the same time, however, these events must not serve as an excuse to encourage domestic and international support for these military operations. There are risks in this, according to Mr. Legault. I will quote him a second time:

The United States will have much to do to prevent the current conflict from turning into a worldwide civil war.

We pressed for this message to be put across to the government and that the Liberal government, namely the Prime Minister, put pressure on the United States.

Extreme caution is required in dealing with that part of the world. For example, when they planned their fight against the Taliban, the United States called upon two neighbouring countries hostile to one another, Pakistan and India. By allowing the northern alliance to play a major role in Afghanistan, they marginalized the majority ethnic group. Iran declared that it would never tolerate an international force in the region.

Moreover, it is reported that Iraq could be the next target of the United States. By voicing these concerns, I express the views of many of my constituents. Having met with members of the Afghan community living in Quebec City, I can say that they are very worried about the forces that will be in place in the post-Taliban regime.

Going to war, one always knows when it started but can seldom say when it will end. The same goes for anti-terrorism measures. This is why we should be very careful. The government is also trying to take advantage of the anti-terrorism mood to pass repressive legislation that might be used against innocent people.

We will recall that in October 1970, not that long ago, the power of arrest was abused. At that time, some MPs held their own, daring to go against the strong atmosphere of panic, and did support the War Measures Act.

A video was broadcast, which offers a very good explanation of how this psychosis among the population was stirred up in order to gain its acceptance of the war measures in Quebec City. People imagined terrorists at our gates, terrorists everywhere, maybe even living next door; anyone who belonged to the Parti Quebecois was suspect. Often sovereignist and terrorist were associated terms.

In the anti-terrorism legislation the government is trying to shove through, that same fear exists. This will be confirmed over the years. We will see how the government is going to be able to make use of it.

In the aftermath of September 11, critical thought has undergone a great deal of pressure. People felt as if there were pressure to be for or against the victims, for or against the U.S.

Our analysis must go far beyond the simplistic “for or against”. As well, we saw that there was no room for criticism. Members need just think about the harsh criticism of a former president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, who dared to speak her mind about the United States. Worse yet, because she was present but did not protest, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism was taken to task by the press. In such a context, because she listened to someone expressing divergent opinions, she was found guilty by association.

This is one of the things that concerns us in this anti-terrorism bill: one can be found guilty by association. Talking about being guilty by association conjures up memories of the October crisis and the War Measures Act. In those days, being part of the sovereignist movement meant that one was a member of some FLQ cell. They deliberately tried to have the public believe that if sovereignists could be members of the FLQ, then they could pose a threat to society.

Even in wartime or quasi-wartime, we must protect our freedom of expression and our civil liberties if we want to safeguard our so-called liberal democracy—with a small “l” not to be confused with the Liberal Party. What is the use of protecting our democracy if we are going to break it down it at the same time?

Motion No. 6, which we are studying today, deals with the fact that a person would be bound to secrecy for an indefinite period, maybe even for life. We want that measure to be more flexible, so that a person would be bound to secrecy for only15 years.

This is the lesser of two evils, but we would have liked the provision to be much more flexible. Why is it so urgent to have the anti-terrorism bill passed just as it stands today? I do not believe it will wipe out terrorism in Canada.

We should have asked ourselves where terrorism is occurring in Canada. We should have discussed the issue. If we had been sufficiently watchful, given all the measures we already have at our disposal, we would not be forced into passing this anti-terrorism bill that is being rammed through the House and does not take basic freedoms into consideration.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how pleased I am to address the bill one more time but I am not at all happy, of course. Many members on the opposition side, and I would not doubt on the government side too if they would stand up and say it, agree that to put closure on this piece of legislation is not a wise thing to do. There is much more to be discussed yet. Given that, I am going to spend my time addressing some more points on the bill, which I think need to be addressed on the issue of resources.

For the last eight years in the House issues of security have always been of high interest to me, having come from a police background. Resources have always been a key point in getting any job done. The more thoroughly one wants the job to be done, the more boots on the ground are required to do it. Whether that is in intelligence gathering or investigation itself or even in the prosecution courts system, those are the areas where people are required to make things happen.

What concerns me not so much with the legislation but with the posturing on the government side is that the real issue has still not been addressed. We could have the best policies in the world. I for the most part do not disagree with much of what is here; there are some exceptions and my colleagues have addressed them quite adequately previously. We can have the best policy which looks really good on the books and even reads well but if we do not have the resources to make things happen, then that policy is all for naught.

Back in 1994 the issue for just about every enforcement agency, and here we are talking about enforcement again but I will throw defence into the mix, was the need for more manpower, resources and up to date equipment so the agencies could effectively do their jobs. That was the call in 1993 and 1994.

In the last four months I have taken trips not only to the border crossings in the country but also to an immigration office overseas. In speaking with some of my police colleagues and immigration enforcement officers, the message was far more urgent to resource the enforcement agencies than it was back in 1994. I cannot understand concentrating on this piece of legislation when it is resources that are going to make things work. In other words, let us put some money into it. Let us tighten up in the areas where it is not working.

If those two issues alone were looked after, if they alone were addressed by the government, I wonder how much legislation we would really need. What does it take to do intelligence gathering? If we have policy that restricts the use of the intelligence we have gathered, it is necessary to address that restriction. One example is shared information with our neighbours to the south. What are the inhibitors on this side of sharing information with them and what are their inhibitors that would prevent them from sharing information with us? To me, legislation for the most part does not come into play here. Or does it? If it does, it should be changed accordingly.

We can have these policies that address certain issues on terrorism and try to make an impact and make our country more secure, but for the most part the government has fallen far short of resourcing those particular agencies that need help. I am going to address some of those agencies, including the immigration offices.

When I was last in Vancouver, the immigration officers spoke of the need for 140 or 150 people right there at that time just to deal with the issues of increased security and processing of immigrants and refugees who came to those ports of entry in British Columbia. Maybe 140 or 150 does not sound like too many, but that is only one district. The minister has declared openly that she would supply 100 officers for the entire country, but technically that does not even fill the bill for the British Columbia district.

What will happen now? There is no question that with Bill C-36, Bill C-11, with the add-on of Bill C-42, which also has to do with immigration, the pressure will be on those frontline officers to deal with it. If they do not deal with it effectively, there will be a slipshod, haphazard job of security checks done on people coming into the country. Again, it is not because of the legislation per se, all of it, but because it is not being resourced. We are not bolstering up the manpower where it counts.

I will give one example. The immigration department alone, in the words of the immigration minister, presently has 27,000 applications that need security checks and security analysis. These cannot be done overnight. Immediately that puts a burden on immigration, on CSIS and so it should. The burden is undue given that both of those agencies are under-resourced. It also puts a burden on immigration enforcement. The enforcement section is already under-resourced.

There are 27,000 applicants now. On top of all of that, throw in another 20,000 claimants who have abandoned all claims. They have abandoned all claims of attempting to go through the refugee process. Where are those individuals? Who are those individuals? No one knows. No one has a clear indication of where or who those people are or if they belong to a questionable organization. It is an unknown factor.

There is much that can be done in dealing with issues such as these. This is a security issue and should be a priority for the government and for parliament. This gives me the opportunity to address those concerns which the government side is not addressing.

Having talked about immigration, I now turn to customs. The frontline officers are the first contact for individuals coming into Canada. They are the first contact, the front line. Their emphasis has always been on goods and services and the revenue generated as a result. It has not necessarily been on immigration. Although some of those officers do a fine job, their training is outside that whole realm. There is not a piece of legislation necessarily that could change that process and put the emphasis where it should be, again to further protect our country, to further protect those who have come here and those making their home in Canada. That is the situation.

The next agency that needs assistance is the RCMP. I am going to name CSIS as well. There is no question that between those two agencies right now the pressure is on our national police force, the RCMP, as well as CSIS, the intelligence gatherer, the analyzing agency that will disseminate much of what is found to other points and agencies in Canada.

The list could go on and on. It all comes back to the whole issue of resources. It is not so much the legislation, not so much the matter that we have another bill we can throw on the shelf and say that we did our job again. It is not that. It is where is the money and the resources to fund what we now claim to be the best piece of legislation going? That is my question to the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, my comments on this group of amendments will be brief.

Obviously, with that rousing round of applause from the government members present, I am sure that they like me want to get on to the next group of amendments which were put forward by my colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. I am sure they will listen very attentively when we get to Group No. 3 amendments and hopefully give them due consideration despite the limited time we have to deal with all the amendments, not just the group that is presently before the House.

On behalf of my constituents of Prince George--Peace River, I want to make a point regarding the seriousness of what took place this morning. It is not at all unusual that the government forces through time allocation on bill after bill. In fact one of the members from the NDP, who spoke immediately following the time allocation vote, made the very strong point that unfortunately this has become the rule not the exception, in the House.

I was present in the Chamber this morning after the motion was put forward, when we had a new process, for the first time, whereby the minister, who put forward a motion for time allocation, had to defend it to the House, although I did not get a chance to pose a question to the minister.

This is a new process and a great many members from all of the opposition parties wanted to be involved in posing questions to the minister about why she felt it imperative to bring forward time allocation after only one day of debate on perhaps one of the most comprehensive and incredibly complicated bills ever been brought before this place, certainly in the eight years I have been a member of parliament. The opposition only had 24 hours to consider the amended bill, which has far-reaching ramifications for civil liberties and the freedoms for which men and women have been called upon to fight and die for the life of Canada.

After a short half-hour debate regarding the time allocation motion, the Minister of Justice said that the opposition was stonewalling. Yet, after one day of debate, she brought forward time allocation to ram Bill C-36, the so-called terrorism act, through the House of Commons. That is appalling.

Canadians need to understand that while I believe all opposition parties support certain aspects of this bill, it is completely ridiculous to say that we are stonewalling the bill because we have some opposition to it. It is ridiculous that a minister of the crown, especially one holding such an important portfolio as the Minister of Justice, would make those types of allegations after only one day of debate on the amended bill.

Given all the concerns that have been expressed over the past number of days and weeks, from the access to information commissioner, from the privacy commissioner, from other highly placed individuals, from the Senate, about certain clauses and powers contained in this legislation--

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

Liberal backbenchers.

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

Yes, my colleague from Dewdney--Alouette points out that even a number of backbench Liberal members have raised some of these concerns. Yet the government brought in time allocation, the heavy hammer of closure on this bill.

I can only imagine how nervous they are. If Canadians are not, they should well be nervous about the type of procedure that has been brought in on a bill that is known widely now. This is in part thanks to the efforts that have been made by my colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, the House leader of the coalition, to raise these issues of concern about the democratic rights, their infringement and the possibility that this will impose upon Canadians. It is incredible.

I will talk about one specific issue before I bring my comments to a close on this group. I raised this with the minister and I was going to raise it again this morning had I had the opportunity during the half-hour of debate on the time allocation motion. It has to do with the list of supposed terrorists that would be drawn up and the fact that to get their names off the list they would have 60 days to call upon the solicitor general to make a decision as to whether their names should or should not have been on the list. If the solicitor general decides that their name should have been on the list or if he makes no decision at all and the 60 days expire, then individuals would only have recourse through the courts.

If people are wrongfully accused and their names appear on the terrorist list and their assets are frozen, how would it be possible for those individuals to obtain the monetary means to actually receive their day in court? It is something that should be considered by a government that is intent on ramming a bill of this importance through with closure and with time allocation, a bill about which clearly people have concerns about the possible infringements on civil liberties and freedoms that Canadians hold near and dear. The government is using a very undemocratic method. If there were ever a piece of legislation that should not have resulted in closure or time allocation, surely to goodness this is the bill.

I wanted to raise that issue while I had the opportunity in debate. I only wish the Minister of Justice listened as attentively to the concerns of the opposition on this bill. Just because we have raised concerns and have brought forward a number of amendments does not mean we do not support the general thrust of the legislation. Certainly we want our law enforcement agencies, border and perimeter security to be as strong as possible to protect Canadians and Canadian society. There is no question of that. Regardless of party, all parliamentarians want that.

By suggesting that somehow we are stalling because we are trying to improve yet another clearly flawed bill before it becomes law and gets challenged in court, then clearly the government is not listening. The minister is not listening to Canadians and parliamentarians, even those from her own backbenches.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we had to vote on the gag order imposed upon us today, I would like to begin by telling you, speaking for myself, my party, and I believe the members of the opposition parties, that I am totally outraged.

Once again, for the 72nd or 73rd time—we are no longer sure of numbers—the Liberals are imposing a gag on us, after a history prior to 1993 of objecting to this approach, calling it the most undemocratic of parliamentary procedures for preventing the members of this parliament from expressing their views on various bills.

At the time, they accused the Conservatives in power of making abusive use of this parliamentary procedure. Yet they have now succeeded—maybe trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records —in beating the Conservatives' score by 100%, that is having twice as many gag orders.

I believe it is very important to remind all those who are listening to us or who will one day read the Debates of the House of Commons or those who are students of the “great democratic tendencies of the Liberal government”. They will be able to see how the government has gagged parliamentarians. Today, after a mere three hours of debate, if I am not mistaken, we are now being gagged and deprived of our right to express ourselves on this bill.

Perhaps the MPs could go before the supreme court and argue that this is contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms, restricting their freedom of expression. Who knows? But I am just joking about that, because it is one of the government's prerogatives to do so.

Motion No. 6 proposes, after line 14, to change permanently to 15 years in connection with secrecy and national security.

This amendment deserves our attention and deserves to be discussed, yet we have seen how the Liberals have dealt with amendments. The Bloc Quebecois proposed a number of amendments. Witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and suggested several ways to amend the bill constructively. Yet, each time the government, which had said that it wanted to hear from opposition members and witnesses to improve the legislation, turned a deaf ear to the constructive criticism and recommendations that were made to improve the legislation. According to many editorialists and specialists in the field, the bill fails to meet the objectives it was designed to fulfill, that is, ensuring greater security and fighting terrorism while preserving the importance of the freedom and safety of Canadians and Quebecers.

This bill could have been improved thanks to the proposals made to the government. Many people believe that this type of bill is completely new,and that prior to September 11 no one had examined the issue of international terrorism, but this is wrong.

Several international conventions have been signed and ratified by the Canadian government. The government has signed 12 of the United Nations conventions and protocols on terrorism, and has ratified 10. Two still await ratification, but I will discuss them later.

Thanks to the anti-terrorism measures proposed, Canada could ratify the two final counter-terrorist conventions. Under the proposed bill, Canada could ratify the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, a convention that would freeze the assets of terrorists by preventing the use of assets belonging to a person who is involved in terrorist activity and by preventing assets and financial and related services from being made available to terrorists.

These measures enable a federal court judge to order the freezing and seizure of property used to support terrorist activities. We heard the Minister of Finance boast about having had a good idea—it happens, but not as often as he would have us believe—to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. All he had to do was sign the UN international convention and Canada would have had a convention to monitor and fight terrorist financing.

Another convention that could be ratified by Canada at the United Nations is the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings, which contains provisions on the targeting of places of public use, government facilities, infrastructures and transportation systems for attacks using explosives or other lethal devices, including chemical or biological agents.

Canada could also ratify the convention on the safety of United Nations and associated personnel, which seeks to ensure the safety of United Nations personnel.

I just mentioned two conventions that Canada signed but has yet to ratify. I will spare hon. members and not mention the other ten conventions against terrorism that Canada signed.

This bill must be based not only on the views of opposition members, but also on those of government members who, in committee, through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, supported by the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, expressed their support for a true sunset clause.

These government and opposition members, as well as the experts who testified before the committee, tried to guide the government toward a more effective Bill C-36. Moreover, the public servants who drafted this legislation must or ought to have taken into consideration the various international conventions ratified or signed by Canada to deal specifically with counter-espionage.

This bill will amend a number of acts in Canada. Indeed, we are not dealing merely with Bill C-36. My colleagues, the hon. members for Berthier—Montcalm, Châteauguay and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert clearly demonstrated that Canadian legislation as a whole will be affected by this bill.

The criminal code will be amended so as to include provisions for dismantling the activities of terrorist groups and incapacitating these groups and their supporters. The definition in the criminal code of terrorist activity as “an act that is committed in or outside Canada” makes it an offence under one of the ten UN conventions or protocols against terrorism.

What we see is that the government wants to implement a law in Canada which contravenes a convention signed or ratified by Canada with other countries. We must therefore be very careful.

Another of the laws which may or will be amended by the passage of Bill C-36 is the Official Secrets Act. It would be amended to cover national security concerns, including threats of espionage by foreign powers and terrorist groups, and coercive activities against communities in Canada.

Other laws will be affected by the implementation of Bill C-36. The Canada Evidence Act would be amended to include changes in court and other proceedings for the purpose of ensuring the protection of sensitive information, if need be.

The National Defence Act would also be amended to clarify the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment so that it could intercept communications directed at foreign entities and do security checks of the government's computer networks. The permission of the Minister of National Defence would be required to intercept any private communication.

I have tried to show that this is a piece of legislation which will have an impact on other legislation and many other international conventions.

The criminal code would also be amended so that any person with information relating to an ongoing investigation into a terrorist crime could be compelled to appear before a judge for the purpose of disclosing that information.

Other legislation could be amended, including the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act. This act could be amended in order to give powers to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. I have listed a few of the acts as well as some of the international conventions.

In conclusion, I wish to tell this government that while there is indeed a serious situation following the events of September 11, and while this situation calls for emergency measures, there is also an obligation to consult, to listen, as the minister said, and also to be willing to understand. Listening is one thing, but there must be a willingness to understand.

I believe that by voting in favour of the bill at second reading, we have shown very clearly that we wish to support it, but we are not going to support it at subsequent stages unless it is actually improved.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the filing of annual reports to parliament, particularly with respect to the preventive arrest and the investigative hearing sections.

When the bill was first presented it proposed only that the annual reports be prepared. However there was no obligation to table the annual reports in parliament. I was pleased to see that the minister responded to that concern. She is prepared not to only produce an annual report but also has agreed to file the report in parliament.

I am hoping that will in turn trigger an investigation by parliament and I, in turn, would hope that the justice committee would see fit to take it upon itself to review those reports and to ask some of the questions that necessarily need to be asked of those reports.

There are some obvious questions that members would like to ask. I hope the report is something more than so many arrests, so many investigative hearings, so many here and so many there and that there is a little more meat to the report than one would necessarily otherwise expect.

Some of the questions could be: What are suspicious grounds? What is the basis for making these kinds of preventive arrests? What was the length of detention? Were they individuals trying to enter or leave the country? What is the mix between citizens and non-citizens? What were the grounds for the detentions in the first place?

There are other obvious questions that will come to members' minds as they look at the reports and I hope we get responses that are consistent with the need for parliament to know.

I appreciate that one of the responses by ministers and others might well be that they cannot tell us anything because of national security. It is sort of like the James Bond scenario, “If I told you, I'd have to shoot you.”

In the questioning that comes up I hope we will have the opportunity to ask meaningful questions. I recommend to all ministers and members the book by the member for Scarborough--Rouge River on The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers & Records: , and some other great long title.

There is actually no question that parliament cannot ask and there is no privilege that any person can claim in responding to those questions.

I do not think it is acceptable to simply dodge under the security umbrella and say that the question cannot be answered on the grounds of security. No member is interested in compromising investigations, security or sources but I respectfully suggest that parliament is entitled to know how these sections will play out.

I come from probably one of the most multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-racial constituencies in the country, and my constituents have spoken very clearly to me. These are groups from the Tamil, Muslim and Arab communities. Their fear is that they will become targets for police attention. They are concerned that the bill would have unintended consequences of isolating them from the larger fabric of Canadian society.

If the unintended consequence is isolation then the perverse consequence would be people who find themselves on the margins of society and feel at home only in their own communities. The net result would be a sort of self-perpetuation of isolation.

As one witness put it to the committee, punishing many to potentially catch a few is not necessarily a good direction for this great experiment we call Canada.

Canada's strength has been its ability to welcome a variety of people from a variety of countries with a variety of understandings of what is right and appropriate in a country. In the welcoming process, we in turn ask ourselves how we can accommodate the concerns of others but simultaneously we ask ourselves how they can accommodate to our country and its democratic traditions. Meaningful parliamentary oversight would go a long way toward addressing those concerns.

The minister, to her credit, responded with a one year review of the sections in question, a three year review of the overall bill, a five year sunsetting on the contentious sections, an implied understanding that the justice committee will remain seized with the bill through the one year review and the striking of a justice subcommittee on security issues and other measures under the able chairmanship of the member for Scarborough--Rouge River. Therefore there is a bit of a cascading effect that parliament does remain seized with the most contentious sections of the bill.

While members of the committee can take some comfort from the minister's response to the concerns, there is also a self-interest in the department and in the minister's office which should be self-evident. I believe the bill will be challenged in court. I say that with virtually absolute certainty. I do not argue the point that members of the department have looked at the charter concerns but it is almost inevitable that there will be a challenge, particularly on these contentious sections.

I believe that parliamentary oversight in the bill will make it easier when the crown inevitably is challenged. In my view it will be much easier to meet the Oakes test, which is the challenge the crown will have to meet in seeing whether this is in fact charter proof.

The first part of the test is the limitation of rights rationally connected to the objective. There is no doubt that this is a bill directed to the threat of terrorism. Therefore there is a rational connection between the rights to be limited and the objective of dealing with this existential threat.

The second test is the use of the least intrusive means. The government does not wish to intrude into the lives of Canadians. If there is a less intrusive means I would be interested in it, as would all members in the House, indeed as would the government. I do not think any democratically elected government imposes itself on its people with any great enthusiasm.

The third test is a proportionate balance between the effects and the limitation of rights. We do not have absolute rights in this country. There are times when we have to repeat that. I use as an example the criminal code. The criminal code is a circumscribing of people's rights to behave in fashions they wish to otherwise. The criminal code in fact circumscribes those rights.

Therefore, when a government proposes to limit the rights of its citizens, it has to show there is proportionate balance, that the government took into consideration the impact of the effects. Preventive arrests and investigative hearings, et cetera, in my respectful submission, are areas where the government has felt the most concern and has responded with as many protections as it can in the circumstances.

I believe that the cascading effect of the one year reports, the three year review and the five year sunset, and the parliamentary oversight concomitant with those sections, is a clear signal by parliament that we recognize this is a limitation of rights. We recognize that it is intrusive. We are not happy but we feel this has to occur. We have limited the application of the sections as much as possible.

As a former solicitor general said “This is an exceptional bill to deal with exceptional circumstances”. I think he is right. This is an exceptional bill to deal with exceptional circumstances. No one here is pleased to be dealing with the bill. We would rather be debating the budget or something else but September 11 occurred and changed all our lives.

Therefore, I respectfully submit, as I ended yesterday, that we are all voting for this with heavy hearts and, frankly, with no great enthusiasm.

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

Mr. Speaker, before commenting on Motion No. 6, I would first like to respond to the remarks by the hon. member for Scarborough East, who has a lot of hopes riding on this matter. He is probably quite sincere. I know him, and he is sincere in what he is saying.

He has high hopes that with the tabling of the annual report a number of his questions will be answered. He spoke of reasons for detention, of the proportion of citizens and non-citizens and of how the relevant provisions will be applied. Apart from the third question, he would have been more prudent had he made sure these questions were transformed into criteria determined ahead of time so he would have some assurance of their being considered.

The law currently provides that the annual report cannot be debated in the House; it is merely tabled. Theoretically, it could be examined by a committee, but a House committee is not the House.

I think the member has gone as far as he can as a Liberal backbencher. He could go no further. He said the people in his riding have made him aware of their concerns. He said the people in his riding are of diverse backgrounds, and some are afraid of being targeted by the police.

I am picking up his remarks, because, under the circumstances, it is probably the best speech we have heard from the members opposite since the start of the debate on this matter. Unless I have misunderstood him, he is sure this bill will be challenged and for well founded reasons.

In the situation where I was faced with a bill I was pretty sure would be challenged by people in my riding, and for good reason, I would oppose it. I do not know whether the member for Scarborough East is listening, but in such a case I would oppose it. This is not what he seems to want to do. It is incredible to hear that. I do not doubt his sincerity and his honesty, but I have doubts about his sense of consequence.

[An hon. member]

His courage.

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

If he has concerns and was not able, as he said, to convince the committee of the validity of his arguments, then there is only one thing left to do. We in the Bloc Quebecois brought forward amendments at committee after having voted in favour of the principle of the bill at second reading. However, since the amendments that we moved and that were important to us were not adopted by the majority, neither in committee nor here at report stage, as we will see during the vote, I suggest that he vote against the bill, or abstain. This is generally not viewed as a good thing, but if he is worried about the Prime Minister's reaction, I would invite him to consider the alternative.

He also stated that this bill allows for the use of less intrusive means in terms of people's privacy. He is referring to electronic surveillance. It is fairly intrusive. We are talking about wiretapping citizens based merely on the suspicion of the Attorney General of Canada, and not a judge.

We would love to believe in the minister's objectivity, as attorney general, but she is nevertheless an elected member from the Liberal Party. She is therefore not immune to certain attempts to influence her. I do not mean to question her motives, but personally, I do not feel any reassurance regarding the interpretation that a future attorney general might have regarding people in my riding who would have the same concerns and worries, and there are some.

Members of the House received numerous e-mails and phone calls and met with people who are concerned for all kinds of reasons, sometimes unjustified, but how are they to know this when it is left to the potentially very broad interpretation of the attorney general and those who advise her? We still do not know to whom this refers. It is not specified in the bills.

If a citizen is not satisfied with the interpretation made for these famous certificates for the so-called protection of secrets, he can go before a judge, where he might win after numerous legal proceedings and considerable legal costs, because we all know how much it costs to hire a lawyer or notary. There is one sitting right behind me. It could end up costing quite a bit for a citizen who is wrongfully accused.

However, I must say that while lawyers cost a lot, my colleague sitting behind me is the cheapest you will find. I will not advertise any more for the member for Chambly. Given the importance of this bill, I think that there has been enough humour as it is.

The hon. member over there admits, and I find some reassurance in the fact that there are some over there who admit it, that this clause of the bill is an unfortunate limitation of rights. He also says that no one on that side is happy dealing with this bill and would have preferred to deal with the budget, and so on.

As far as Motion No. 6 is concerned, as the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm said yesterday, the amendments proposed by colleagues on this side of the House have a certain merit. However, limiting secrecy to 15 years instead of permanently, as before, has, since yesterday, since we started looking at the bill at the report stage, placed us in a situation where we have to deal only with the lesser of two evils. We have the hon. member speaking of the least intrusive means of infringing on people's private lives, while the opposition is trying to find the least bad approach. The best ones have not necessarily been looked at.

Between the least bad and the worst, we are going to vote in favour of the least bad. There will be a period of 15 years during which we will not know exactly what the situation is because these people will not be allowed to disclose.

As I said yesterday, the events of September 11 were terrible, but at the same time, this bill, as was confirmed this morning, would allow us to ratify two international treaties that have been stalled for years.

Prior to September 11, the attorney general was in no hurry to ratify international agreements on terrorism. After that date, she has taken a certain amount of time to examine the situation, but once she gets an idea in her head it is full steam ahead.

This morning what she told us was that other countries had moved faster on this than we have. What came across in her answer this morning was an issue of pride, of seeing who would be the fastest now. She has realized that we have not been as fast as certain other countries and she wants to be in the fast group.

We should take all the time required to examine a bill that violates the fundamental freedoms of individuals and to allow the public to express its views, but what is happening is the opposite. Once the steamroller gets going, time is limited to the minimum under the standing orders; not a minimum plus a quarter of an hour or plus two hours, but a strict minimum, because this is urgent. The Minister of Justice is in a hurry and that is how it is going to be.

The other day a member asked me a question about the organized crime legislation. This bill has already been passed. It took time, but in the end, the Bloc Quebecois and the other parties took a unanimous stand after some 160 deaths. But there have been no deaths from terrorism in Canada yet, and this has been dragging on for a long time. What else are we to make of it except that the minister's pride is involved?

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on Group No. 6, the motion specifically dealing with information and the designation of a certain class of individuals.

The motion should be rejected by the House for a number of reasons. As it is right now, a person would be permanently bound to secrecy if the person is a current or former member or employee of a scheduled entity or if designated by a deputy head and personally served with a notice to that effect. The criteria for designating a person to be permanently bound to secrecy is twofold: first, if the person has, has had or will have authorized access to “special operational information” and, second, if it is in the interests of national security to designate the person.

Also, new offences, in particular sections 13 and 14 of the Security of Information Act, create a special regime for those persons who have a privileged access to the most vital information, special operational information, and criminalizes on their part the unauthorized disclosure, or purported disclosure, of this narrow band of information going to the essence of Canada's national security.

As well, the security and intelligence community has certain operational requirements that need to be fostered and respected. These operational requirements include an ability to ensure secrecy and project to others that they have the ability to protect the information entrusted to them.

While the person is designated for life, the character of the information may change. The definition of special operational information makes it clear that it is information the Government of Canada is taking measures to safeguard from disclosure.

The issue goes to the heart of what the bill is all about. The intent of the bill is to create a situation whereby we would have what we call a pre-emptive action in regard to a potentially destructive action by a group of terrorists whose main objective is to destroy our democracies, destroy our lives and disrupt the way in which we conduct our business.

Let us say, for example, that one of our law enforcement officers is authorized to seek information from a second or a third source and that officer is to give assurances and a clear commitment that the source of the information will not be disclosed. I am at a loss as to how we would turn around and say that we will protect the source of information and the individual or the entity that has given us the information but we will do so for only 15 years and then after that it is fair game, the information will become public.

Frankly, I would take the position that this amendment would render this whole section of the bill, and in fact the whole of the legislation, irrelevant. It would not really allow us to put into force what we are trying to do, that is, to create a preventive mechanism so we can ensure the safety of our citizens and others around us. In essence, while the intent might be good the result of it is absolutely counterproductive and fairly disruptive.

I ask members to consider that some of the operational work our officers get involved in is very sophisticated. Their work involves a whole range of things such as decoding information, looking at encrypted data being transmitted, the interception of information and so on.

Imagine for a moment if we were to say that whatever technique an individual officer or particular entity is using is going to be made public within 15 years. Frankly, that would not serve the public interest. It would not serve national security. Nor would it serve our law enforcement officers who are entrusted with the job of ensuring that our communities are safe and our nation is protected from those who have ill-conceived ideas and ideologies.

My submission is that as it is the bill goes a long way in creating a balance between what we call the public safety, the protection of information, and on the other side the respect for the individual and the privacy of the individual. At the same time it creates a situation whereby, notwithstanding anything, when we test it against Canadian values it will stand up and there will be no problem.

Even the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would mean nothing if the security of the nation as a whole were threatened. We have to ensure that we have a balance whereby we continue to respect the individual's rights to expression, to privacy, to the ability to move, to the ability to practise his or her religion, to the ability to associate. We also have to ensure that public safety and the will of the people have not been infringed on in a way that would create a situation where our democracy would be threatened. Once our democracy is threatened, notwithstanding any law, those laws will become irrelevant if our society is to be faced with a situation where the very heart of it, its raison d'être, is threatened.

All I am trying to do in a long-winded way is bring home the point that we have to ensure that our law enforcement officers have the necessary tools to conduct their jobs, to do their work in an effective and efficient manner. Having said that, we have to protect the information, the mechanisms, the entities and the identities of those who provide those special operations. We have to protect them forever if we are really sincere about trying to set up a system with the proper integrity.

We are not talking about any kind of information. We are talking about information that affects national security, that affects the national standards and affects the safety of Canadians. When there is a national risk to our safety, under those circumstances automatically those people may fall into this particular category. To turn around and say that we are going to have an open field and a free-for-all, I do not think that is going to be productive at all.

On the whole, the bill is balanced. The act will be reviewed on an ongoing basis. If and when it comes to the attention of the government that there are issues which need to be addressed, they will be addressed.

The best thing the House can do is pass the legislation as quickly and as efficiently as possible so it can move into the other house. Then we can make it a law and fulfill our commitment on the United Nations statements.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill. It is unfortunate we are debating it under pressure and with the dark cloud of closure hanging over us.

Many of us never thought we would have to deal with this issue during this parliament or even during our lifetime, however, it is here and we have to deal with it and give it the best shot we can. Not being able to debate it fully and at length in this place in front of the Canadian public is wrong. To hurry it through and limit the amount of time each and every one of us has to speak to the bill is something which I hope Canadians will remember as being common practice for the government and when the time comes for reckoning, it will still be on their minds.

We do not take the bill lightly. A number of people came out to a recent town hall meeting in my riding of Lethbridge. This legislation was the topic of debate and of utmost concern in their minds. They want this terrorism legislation to be strong, fair and balanced but in the end, it must make Canadians not only feel safe and secure, but make them safe and secure here in Canada so they can go about their lives in a fashion that is appreciated and cherished in a free democracy.

The aftermath of September 11 has reached into every aspect of our lives. As parliamentarians we travel a lot and are certainly aware of that by the things we have to go through now to get on and off a plane or any means of public transportation. This is going to become a reality in our lives. I personally do not mind people going through my bags as long as they go through everyone's bags so that when we do get on a plane, we feel safe and secure.

This issue is the number one concern among Canadians. Many people have concerns with the legislation. Some want to soften it and some want to make it harder. It is important to find the proper balance to make it right. Every opportunity should be given to people to put forward their ideas on what should be done to the bill.

There is the issue of the definition of terrorism. On TV we saw somebody breaking a window at a McDonalds here in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago. Is that terrorism? Is somebody who is demonstrating and carrying a placard letting his or her views be known terrorism? The definition is something that has caused great concern and needs to be looked at.

What is the critical balance we must find? There are opposing views on almost every piece of legislation dealt with in the House. We are always trying to reach the middle. We in the opposition have different views than the government but it is the mix and balance we are looking for. We sometimes have trouble getting our point across. We put forward amendments that we would like to see put into legislation but sometimes they are not. Usually we can come to some kind of agreement. There is a lot in the bill that we support but there is also a lot that we do not support and that is why we have to bring our views forward.

Today I am bringing forward some of the views of my constituents that I heard at the town hall meeting. I have written them down and I have let the ministers responsible know how our people feel. Some of those concerns have been addressed. Having our constituents' voices heard through us, their elected representatives, is what democracy is all about. That is why I am here and why I choose to represent the people of my riding, as did all of our members. Having our voices stifled by closure is not the way to do things.

Most Canadians put their trust in what the government is doing and what we are doing as parliamentarians. They do not pay a lot of attention to what is going on here on a daily basis because they feel that we must be doing the right thing.

Some of the people who pay more attention to what goes on in this place on a day to day basis are really concerned that some of the trust they put in us and the government is being compromised, or that we cannot fully voice our opinion and debate the issues at hand.

Something which we feel is needed in the legislation is a review mechanism. That is one of the items in the Canadian Alliance platform. All policies, programs and legislation need to be reviewed on a regular basis to make sure they are appropriate for what they were initially intended to do. To make sure that the legislation is current, it should be brought up on a regular rotating basis for review.

The amendment we put forward would require the attorney general and solicitor general to look at what this legislation does. How it applies in one year or down the road in two to four years is important. We have to make sure that it gets reviewed on a regular basis.

Also, the investigations that occur under the power of the bill are of concern to many people. To be able to go back after a period of time and look at it to make sure the investigative powers are not being abused is important for Canadians.

We have also called for an independent review of the ministerial certificates issued to prohibit disclosure of information. The amendment mandated that the certificates be reviewed by a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal. That is very important. That aspect of it has laid to rest some of the concerns I have heard about the legislation.

With regard to the protection for certain religious and political groups, in the aftermath of September 11 we saw some instances where an entire group of people was singled out. We cannot have that. The acts on September 11 were perpetrated by terrorists; they were not done by any large group of people. They were criminals and they have to be treated in that way. The people of like beliefs around the world are not part of that group. We have to make sure that certain religious groups and political groups have protection under the legislation. We are glad to see that was addressed.

One of the things we wanted to see in the bill was not put in the bill. It is one of the deficiencies of Bill C-36 and something we will continue to fight for as we go through the albeit somewhat shortened process. We will still put forward our ideas. It is the whole idea that the bill fails to eliminate the possibility of parole for people who perpetrate terrorist acts.

In looking at what happened in the United States, there was mass murder on a unknown scale and it happened in a lightning flash. We need to treat terrorists in a very special way. They should not be eligible for parole after 25 years. Consecutive sentences and keeping people who have the potential for that kind of destruction away from the general population need to be addressed.

The bill does not make it illegal to be a member of a recognized terrorist organization, one that has met the burden of proof set out in the bill to be included in the list of entities. While the minister assures us that it is the activity that is of consequence, we feel that joining a terrorist organization has only one purpose and that is to participate in and facilitate terrorist acts.

We have seen cases in Canada where organizations exist to help raise funds to sponsor terrorist organizations. I for one support the notion that President Bush has put forward in the United States, that if a person is involved actively in terrorist activities, if someone houses, feeds, or raises funds for terrorists or allows them to be involved in someone's area in any way, that puts the person into the same category as the terrorist who blows up buildings.

It is important that we address all of those issues. There are some things in the bill that we appreciate and some that still need to be worked on. We will continue to force that issue here in the House of Commons.