Debates of Nov. 27th, 2001

Anti-terrorism Act

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there has been lengthy debate including an emergency debate, in the House, surrounding the events of September 11 and the appropriate responses on the part of the government to protect the safety and security of Canadians.

Canadians believe it is time for us to act. I thank hon. members who served on the justice committee and the Senate for their deliberations. At this point we have legislation that is both effective and fair. In our opinion that clearly balances Canadian values including the charter against the rights of all Canadians to safety and security.

I suppose we could talk about this. I make no value judgments. It is possible we could talk in and around the bill and change a word and a comma if that is what the opposition wants to do. It fails to understand the deep desire of Canadians to have their government act to protect their safety and security.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister well knows, the reality is that since the bill was amended some hundred times in minor ways by the government there has been less than one day's debate on the amended final bill.

Moreover, the minister knows that through a parliamentary trick that held documents back from members of parliament who were out of town it was not possible over the weekend for more than a handful of members in the opposition to present amendments to this very serious bill. She would also know that the Senate reported explicitly:

The bill provides for a parliamentary review of the operation of the act within three years. The Senate would want to satisfy itself that any review is rigorous and sufficient. It will be important for parliament and Canadians at large to be kept informed about the way in which the powers in Bill C-36 are used.

This was ignored entirely by the government as it ignored most of the recommendations of the Senate.

My question is specifically about a parliamentary oversight provision. We all know that the world changed on September 11 and that there needs to be a response to terror. One of the ways in which that change has to be reflected is to ensure that members of the House of Commons, whose responsibility it is to report to the people of the country, have some opportunity to know that a minister is not--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I hate to interrupt anyone, but I would ask the right hon. member, in the spirit of co-operation with everyone, to please put his question.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, why is the minister so opposed to oversight committees that would give parliament a role in this decision?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have standing committees of the House of Commons and the Senate. Those committees represent in part the essence of the strength of our parliamentary democracy. Committee members spend hours talking and studying among themselves as well as hearing from witnesses.

The reality is that Bill C-36 includes many aspects of parliamentary oversight, be it in parliamentary committees such as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights or the Senate committee, the privacy commissioner or access commissioner, the federal court or provincial courts or by calling ministers under the legislation. Our obligation is to report on an annual basis. It is the right of committees to call those ministers before them and to question those ministers in detail.

However, at the end of the day parliamentary oversight is provided by the men and women who sit on the floor of the House and who sit on standing committees where ministers could be called to defend that which they have done.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is arrogance or a lack of awareness, but this sort of response is incredible.

The debate was held before the bill was tabled. This is the only consideration of the bill possible, and we thank the members for their participation in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where I was present. The amendments arrived between 4.15 and 5 p.m. Some were even tabled on the spot.

How do they expect us to consider these amendments? As a lawyer, I have often wondered how the legislator could produce anything so vague and incomprehensible. Now I understand how. It is as if a bulldozer ran over it. I was there and I did not even get a chance to look at the amendments. All we could see in committee was the Liberals voting in support of the amendments.

When the minister says she is listening—even in her answers to questions put outside the House, she said she was listening—she listened to none of the 66 amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, not even the—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we believe it is time to move forward on behalf of Canadians. Their safety and security is our primary obligation.

I take the hon. member's point that opposition parties had amendments. However, those amendments were considered. The committee voted on those amendments. Some were accepted and some were not. That is the parliamentary process. I remind everyone that at the end of the day the government stands on that which it did. We will be accountable to the Canadian people.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of legislation that is coming out of the justice department is legendary for being challenged in the courts.

Section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act obliges the Minister of Justice to examine every bill produced in or presented to the House of Commons by the minister of the crown in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Furthermore the Minister of Justice is required to report any inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity. What the government has done is taken another method for checking whether it is consistent. Debate in the House brings forward concerns that every party would have and time allocation has been put on it.

Despite that obligation, we have seen that many other bills have ended up in the courts: Bill C-68, Bill C-41, the rape shield law--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that he would deprive, for example, accused persons and their counsel the right, if they wish to take that right, to challenge a section of any federal or provincial law that is germane to the cause at issue. I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that somehow he wants to restrict the right of Canadians to challenge the constitutionality of legislation, be it Bill C-36 or any other legislation.

We have reviewed the legislation in detail. It has gone through the most intense scrutiny in terms of whether or not it is consistent with the charter of rights and freedoms. We believe that this law is consistent.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it seems that the more important the legislation is, the less opportunity the House of Commons has to debate and consider it. This is a pattern which worries me very much.

Would it not have been better to have had some time to debate the authenticity of the sunset clause that the minister put into the legislation and whether or not it was justified being called a sunset clause? If she was judging a paper by one of her former students, would she not see the distinction between debate about what should follow from September 11 and debate about a piece of amended legislation, that is the difference between legislation unamended and legislation amended?

We are talking about a new situation which came out of committee. We should have a right to debate it and not have time allocation moved on the first day after it is out of committee.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not get into a debate with the hon. member around sunset clauses. We have been very clear in relation to our desire. We listened and understood that there were two provisions that caused the gravest concern. We indicated that we were willing to provide a sunset clause in relation to them.

If the hon. member feels it did not go far enough that is his right. We had five hours of debate yesterday, some of which I listened to intently in my office. Hon. members had the opportunity to put on the table their discussions around and their understanding of the sunset clause. There will be another full day of debate today in which those who choose can continue to talk about the sunset clause.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government knows that the bill will pass anyway. It knows that as long as it can keep its backbenchers in line it has the numbers to push the bill through. Yet it moved time allocation after it heard members on its own backbenches starting to raise concerns like they will be voting with heavy hearts and a great deal of skepticism; the bill has an immense power for abuse and the bill is a deal with the devil.

I had the extraordinary experience recently of actually being lobbied by a Liberal backbencher who was concerned about the bill and said that we had to carry on the fight. Is the real purpose of time allocation in this debate not just to shut down the opposition, the usual Liberal tactic? Is it not really about shutting down Liberal backbenchers?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. It is too bad the hon. member could not have been present last Wednesday morning at our caucus where there was complete support for Bill C-36 and the amendments that were made.

The purpose of time allocation is to ensure that the government discharges its obligation in relation to the safety and security of Canadians. There has been much debate. It is now time for action.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill ratifies at least two or three international treaties that have been in limbo here for the past few years.

What explanation is there, under the circumstances, for the minister's desire to rush through consideration of this bill now, when she dragged her feet in having parliament ratify the international treaties? How does she justify so much political power being given to determining the famous certificates?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the hon. member that Canada is one of a relatively small number of countries that signed all 12 UN conventions which deal with the suppression of terrorism. Ten of them have been ratified and implemented.

Work was well underway and had the drafting been completed on the 11th convention dealing with terrorist bombing I would have been bringing that forward this fall regardless of the horrific events of September 11. Much of the policy work had also been done on the 12th convention dealing with the suppression of terrorist financing. That would also have been coming before the House. Far from what the hon. member says, this--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will take one question. The hon. member for MacLeod.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that when the Liberals were in opposition they criticized the Tories for bringing in time allocation and closure 21 times. They have brought in this reprehensible process 73 times.

I can understand the minister bringing in time allocation on the bill if we or any opposition party were obstructing the bill. That is not taking place. If parliamentary oversight is so important, could the minister explain why she is shutting down debate so early?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to parliamentary oversight of the operation of the legislation. Ample opportunity for parliamentary oversight and other forms of oversight is built into Bill C-36.

The vast majority of Canadians expect the government to act to protect their safety and security. Canadians have participated in the debate. They have watched the debate. All of us in our individual ridings have heard from Canadians. It is now time to act.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.