Debates of Feb. 12th, 2007

Anti-terrorism Act

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for the member. I wonder what we have committees for. Are people going to committee meetings just to waste time? Do committees not have some relevance in this Parliament? That is my question for the member.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a wonderful question. I am not surprised that my colleague across the floor would say that. My colleague across the floor has the habit inside his own party of following the party line 100%. The member always follows the party line that his leader always gives: that they vote this way and there is no other way.

On this side of the House, I am very happy to say, many of us think before we vote and think before we discuss. That is what the Liberal Party is all about.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the motion to renew two provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act that are subject to a sunset clause, I suggest we are not faced with a difficult choice today.

As the House knows, the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions provisions introduced by the act are due to expire very soon. I respectfully submit to the House that the way forward is clear. These provisions should be extended.

Some may remember last May when the Hon. John Howard addressed a joint session of Parliament. The Prime Minister of Australia reminded us that:

Terrorism will not be defeated by rolling ourselves into a small ball, going into a corner and imagining that somehow or other we will escape notice.

He went on to say that wishful thinking was not a policy and failure to act was not an option. He said that combating terrorism requires that we have tools that are appropriate to defend ourselves.

The investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions provisions provide police and prosecutors with those essential and appropriate tools.

At the same time, we should also remember our own history and experience with terrorism. Twenty-five years ago, the McDonald Commission said something that was reiterated by Justice O'Connor in his recent report:

Canada must meet both the requirements of security and the requirements of democracy; we must never forget that the fundamental purpose of the former is to secure the latter.

As parliamentarians, we are responsible for ensuring the safety and security of Canadians in the face of known threats. Canadians look to the federal government to protect them from terrorist violence.

When it comes to the terrorist threat, one thing is crystal clear: prosecution after the fact is simply not an adequate response. We need strategies that differ from the traditional reactive approach of ordinary criminal law investigation and enforcement.

The underlying principle of the Anti-terrorism Act is the prevention of terrorist activity.

It is worth noting that preventive legal mechanisms are used regularly in this country to protect our citizens and those mechanisms are absolutely essential in order to preserve our right in a free and democratic society.

For example, the Minister of Justicedescribed section 810 of the Criminal Code, which authorizes the use of a mechanism known as a peace bond. These are used in dealing with domestic violence, organized crime and serious sexual offences where the risk of particularly abhorrent forms of violence is such that we as a society have decided that it is preferable to take preventive measures rather than wait to prosecute after extreme violence has occurred.

Every free and democratic society must retain an appropriate legal power properly supervised by the judiciary to investigate and to take preventive steps before criminal violence occurs. These provisions have consistently been found to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I will briefly outline the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act at issue today if only to demonstrate why they are appropriate and necessary.

The investigative hearing is available when necessary to assist in the investigation of terrorism offences that have been or will be committed. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence has been or will be committed, a court may issue an order for the gathering of information. A peace officer may only apply for this order after obtaining the consent of the attorney general at the federal or provincial level, as the case may be.

Then the judge hearing the application must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence has been or will be committed and that information about the offence is likely to be obtained as a result of the order.

The investigative hearing power is unusual in some respects but it is not unique in Canadian law. There are investigations by coroners in Canada where this type of thing happens quite regularly. Someone who has been or may be accused takes the stand and gives evidence in open court.

There is another procedure under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act that allows for an order for the gathering of evidence.

At an investigative hearing, the charter right against self-incrimination is fully enforced. The subject may be compelled to answer questions but anything entered into evidence or evidence derived from testimony given by the person cannot be used to prosecute the person for any offence except perjury or the giving of contradictory evidence.

The investigative hearing of the Anti-terrorism Act is a well-balanced measure that does not in any way diminish the liberties of witnesses. Compelled witness testimony at the investigative stage is new to Canadian criminal law but witnesses have always been compellable at trial.

Let me stress that investigative hearings are not criminal prosecutions. The person compelled to appear is not an accused but a witness. In that sense, it is very similar to the American grand jury system, which has been found to be constitutional over and over again.

In fact, if we were to put our own legislation alongside the anti-terrorism laws made in other free and democratic societies, such as the U.K., Australia or the United States, I think we would find that Canadian legislation is probably the least stringent. The measures we have taken are well within any constitutionally appropriate response.

Our legislation is replete with various safeguards to ensure an open and transparent process. I believe these safeguards demonstrate that Parliament has given due and proportionate recognition to the unique setting in which investigative hearings would take place.

For example, the provision explicitly states that the person appearing has the right to retain and instruct counsel at any stage of the proceeding. The judge can impose any conditions on the hearing to protect the witness, third parties and the integrity of the investigation.

The Supreme Court of Canada in June 2004 upheld the constitutional validity of the investigative hearing provision. The court noted the important role played by the judge and counsel in the hearing procedure, to ensure appropriate regard for due process and to uphold constitutional rights.

In a companion case, the Supreme Court held that there was a presumption that investigative hearings should be held in open court. The burden of demonstrating a need for secrecy in such proceedings rests with the government. The court also noted that the protection against self-incrimination afforded to witnesses at their hearings actually went beyond charter requirements.

The final safeguard that Parliament put in place with respect to this provision was to make it subject to a five year sunset clause. The five years are almost up and I respectfully submit that we are not able to take the position that it would be prudent to dispense with this provision.

this is well-designed legislation. It is uniquely Canadian. Canadians should take comfort that restraint and careful judgment have characterized the approach taken to these measures.

The other provision subject to the sunset clause of the Anti-terrorism Act is the recognizance with conditions. This has sometimes been called preventative arrest but in fact a more accurate term might be preventive release.

The purpose of this provision is not to arrest a person but to put that person under judicial supervision in order to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity. It is designed to assist law enforcement officers in disrupting terrorist attacks and the onus is always on the state to justify keeping a person in custody or imposing conditions. If a judge determines that there is no need for the person to enter into recognizance, the person will be released.

This provision is only available under strictly defined conditions and is also subject to numerous safeguards to ensure that individual rights are protected to the greatest extent possible.

Generally, the prior consent of the relevant attorney general is required before the person can become compelled to appear before a judge and a provincial court judge must be satisfied by the evidence presented that the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity will be carried out and suspects, on reasonable grounds, that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions is necessary to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity.

Once the hearing is complete, the judge may order that the person should enter into a recognizance, in which case the person will be bound to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and respect any other reasonable conditions for up to 12 months. Only if the person refuses or fails to enter into the recognizance can he or she be detained for up to 12 months.

Parliament has also provided for the possibility of arrest without warrant in certain circumstances. There has been a great deal of comment about this provision. I will only remind the House that it was designed to prevent a terrorist attack and save innocent lives.

If arrested without warrant, a person detained must be brought before a provincial court judge within 24 hours or as soon as possible if a judge is not available within that period. The consent of the relevant attorney general must be obtained by then. The presumption is always that the person will be released as soon as possible.

Upon being brought before a judge, there are four possible outcomes for the person for whom a recognizance is sought: First, the hearing takes place and the person is released without signing a recognizance; second, the hearing takes place and the person is released under a recognizance with various conditions as determined by the judge; third, the hearing is remanded to a later date and, under no circumstances can that be more than 48 hours later, however, the person can be detained in the interim; and fourth, the hearing takes place and the person can be detained for up to 12 months because of his or her refusal to sign the recognizance.

Finally, the sunset clause referred to earlier, providing for the expiry after five years, also applies to the recognizance with conditions. It can only be extended by parallel resolution of the two Houses of Parliament.

These are not radically new powers. A similar capability is afforded by section 495 of the Criminal Code which permits a peace officer to arrest without warrant anyone he or she believes on reasonable grounds is about to commit an indictable offence. Some have asked how useful this power is. Can a peace bond for terrorists really prevent terrorist activity? Of course, it is unlikely to stop suicide bombers but that misses the point. The recognizance with conditions is designed to disrupt preparations for terrorist activity and prevent attacks from being carried out.

As chair of the subcommittee reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act, I have had the opportunity to review the complex public policy issues involved in formulating an appropriate response to a terrorist threat. I believe I speak for the majority of my colleagues on the subcommittee when I say that these provisions are important tools in support of the prevention and prosecution of terrorism.

Others have argued that they should not be renewed because they have hardly been used at all. While neither provision has been used to date, this should not suggest that they are not important or may not be needed in the future. We should not gauge the importance of these tools by how often we use them. Certain offences in our criminal law are rarely prosecuted, such as treason. Should we jettison those as well? I should think not.

I will now turn to the question of the sunset clause which applies only to the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act at issue today.

We now face the very real prospect that these essential devices will be taken out of our hands. We have only a few days left to ensure that we are not left with a hole in our safety net or, as Prime Minister Howard put it, to ensure that we have the appropriate tools to defend ourselves.

To deprive the government and the people of Canada of these tools would not be prudent. I could compare it with an insurance policy. We would not cancel our insurance policy because we have not had any problems in our neighbourhood. Some day someone might break into our house and we would like to have an insurance policy in place at the time.

I share the Minister of Justice's desire to ensure that we as a country have the necessary legislative tools to protect the safety and security of all Canadians and to prevent, disrupt and deter terrorist activity in Canada. In fact, I believe Canada can do more and that we can play a stronger role in the global effort to defeat terrorism. By strengthening our own national security, we can contribute to the international fight against terrorism.

The House of Commons subcommittee on the review of the Anti-terrorism Act, of which I am the chair, released an interim report on these two provisions on October 23 last year. The recommendations in the majority report called for a five year extension as well as amendments to the investigate hearing power so that it could only be used to investigate imminent attacks and not past terrorist activity.

The Bloc Québécois and NDP members of the subcommittee issued a dissenting opinion in which they called for the abolition of the recognizance with conditions, but otherwise supported the recommendations of the majority. No government decision has yet been made with respect to the subcommittee's suggestions.

A three year extension, two years shorter than recommended, would provide the necessary time to consider the subcommittee's proposed changes and to introduce legislative amendments, if the government decides to do so.

In addition, the government has not yet received the recommendations of the subcommittee with regard to the other provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act. We expect a report to be adopted in the very near future. A three year extension would provide the necessary window of opportunity for adequate study and to table and pass legislation, if necessary.

As I mentioned a moment ago, the appropriate response to terrorism involves complex public policy issues. I believe the government would also benefit from a three year renewal of these provisions in the sense that it would provide adequate time to consider the outcome of other related reviews, such as the recommendations of Justice O'Connor in the Arar inquiry, the ongoing Air-India inquiry, and the Supreme Court's decision on the process used for security certificates. All of these other processes are related to and will, in some way, bear on the government's course of action on counter-terrorism.

It is no secret that Canada, like other democratic societies around the world, introduced these kinds of preventive measures in response to the 9/11 terror attacks. Five years later we unfortunately see that the threat of terrorism is more complex, extreme, sophisticated and more global than ever before.

Canada and Canadians are not immune from terrorist activity. We cannot roll ourselves up into a ball and hope it will all go away. Twenty-four Canadians died in the September 11 attacks. Two Canadians were victims in the bombings in 2002 and most of the 329 victims of the Air-India bombing were Canadians. Let us not forget that Ahmed Ressam, the so-called millennium bomber, was arrested as he left Canada on his way to bomb the Los Angeles airport.

Our intelligence services tell us that there are active terrorist cells in Canada and they provide information about their contacts around the world. Recent arrests in Canada and elsewhere suggest that there is an ongoing willingness on the part of groups and individuals to use violence in support of political, ideological and religious agendas. The pervasive nature of terrorist activities in the world today means we will continue to need the provisions of the act for some time to come.

I respectfully submit that the recognizance with conditions and the investigative hearing provisions enable Canada to continue to respond to the threat posed by terrorism. These two provisions should, at a minimum, be extended by resolution for another three years. I urge all hon. members to support these extension of these provisions.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate my hon. colleague. He spoke quite eloquently about the safety concerns facing both our country and our nation, but these safety concerns have to also be balanced with our beliefs and rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When we brought in the Anti-terrorism Act, we specifically put in a sunset clause so it could apply to things like investigative hearings and preventive arrest. We did that because we saw a potential threat to our civil liberties.

The question I have is whether these measures been effective and the answer thus far has been, no, they have been not been effective. We have a situation where all are concerned. All of us in the Liberal Party and other members of the House are very much concerned about issues of safety both at home and abroad, but we have to balance that with our concern for civil liberties and if they are under threat.

I believe the sunset clause was put in the bill specifically to address that concern. We are not addressing do that however. That is the reason why all evidence has shown that the sunset period should in fact expire, as it has been proven that this law has not been effective. The issue of civil liberties and rights are very much of concern to us, which we strongly cherish. They are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend for Davenport asks a good question. The court has found that in fact there has been recognition and balance on this. They were found to be constitutional. I suggest the hon. member spend some time speaking with the members of his party, who spent many hours working on this very important issue.

I also want to speak about something that I mentioned in my speech, which is the fact that so much work is going on right now in terms of dealing with the terrorist threat. The government is only asking for three more years. More recommendations will come forward from the committee. If all members would support a three-year extension, it would allow the next elected Parliament to also have an opportunity to review this with another three years' experience.

We have found that the provisions have not actually been used, but I think it is important for Canadians to have these tools remain in the toolbox to fight terrorism.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that you have a strong competitor in the person of the member for Leeds—Grenville, who chaired this sub-committee and demonstrated his ability to be impartial and understanding. At times, these discussions were extremely difficult. I believe that he will recognize that we delved into the matter in great detail and that all points of view were calmly expressed. It is unfortunate to note that the media ignore us when there are no petty politics.

I believe that the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook asked a question of the member for Laval—Les Îles, a question that was quite relevant in these circumstances. I would like to put that question to the chair of our sub-committee, the member for Leeds—Grenville.

What is the use of these committees? Why did we study these matters for hours and hours? Why did we try to reach a consensus whenever possible? Why did we immerse ourselves in so many reports to end up with ten majority recommendations and then find that the government has not retained even one? What was the purpose of all this work by a committee that was chaired in an exemplary manner? Why did we waste our time? The government does not know how to listen to those it consults.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for all his very thoughtful work on the committee. He knows, as do other members of the committee, the many hours that have gone into reviewing this very important legislation, which many Canadians are watching very closely. They want to know the results.

The fact is the sunset provision motion, which has been forwarded to the House, was unable to be amended. The hon. member will know that work is still ongoing. I expect that we will be done in the very near future and that we will bring forward those recommendations. I hope at that point the government would bring forward some of those recommendations and allow the House to vote on them.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening, with interest, to this debate. It seems to me that we are talking about striking a balance between personal liberties and public security.

The member has put forward, and it can be framed and termed in legalese or in more common parlance, the notion of some kind of pre-emptive arrest, which is contained in the bill, where someone can be taken into custody without charge and without presentation in front of the public or without representation. The personal security we all hope to enjoy, the ability to have freedom of movement and to not be arrested without charge, is offset against the notion of some potential future security threat. It seems somehow to parallel, and I do not say this glibly, the notion of pre-emptive war, the idea of a perceived threat from another nation would thereby condone an attack against that said nation.

This seems to have raised greater security threats in our world. It seems to have made our planet more insecure. One of the principles of dealing with each other, whether it is nation to nation or the citizenry to its government, is we presume innocence until proven otherwise. The notion of taking someone into custody, not presenting any charges, certainly not presenting anything into the public sphere, seems to tip the balance too far, that security must trump all individual pursuits. In a sense this allows the terrorists to truly win. When the U.S. changed its constitution, changed the notion of war and who had the right to do it, the terrorists won. He called up the spectre and images of 9/11.

When we do away with our personal civil liberties, we then truly give in to what the other side hopes to take advantage of. Could the member comment on that?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians have concerns about this impinging on civil liberties. I had concerns along those lines when I first was on the committee. After reviewing the testimony and recommendations from our law enforcement agencies and other folks who had made presentations to the former committee, I came to the conclusion that we were not ready to dispense with these provisions yet.

I believe that another three years, along with the other recommendations and other legislation brought before the House, will contribute to safety for Canadians. I urge the hon. member to take the time to read the interim report because that is the basis of which the suggestions have come forward. At this point, only the recommendation to extend the sunset provisions has come forward because that motion was unable to be amended.

I know the government members and members of the opposition are working very hard on that committee and they are looking forward to bringing forward those recommendations to the House.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, from his conversations with the Liberal members opposite, who were also on the same subcommittee, the members for Etobicoke North and Scarborough Southwest, does the member believe they will vote with the government to support an extension of these provisions, which help in our national security, or will they be part of the Liberal flip-flop and do the opposite from what they did immediately following 9/11? Does the member believe the members of the committee will continue to vote in the same fashion as they did at committee?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would never speculate on how Liberal members might ultimately vote on a motion or a bill in the House. I would be very disappointed—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke North.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being the member for Etobicoke North, I will not be saying how I will be voting either on this matter.

I am pleased to enter the debate on this motion that has been brought before the House by the Conservative Party to extend for a period of three years the provisions related to preventive arrests and investigative hearings.

I serve on the subcommittee and in fact I served on the subcommittee in the previous Parliament as well. We agreed to revive the former testimony from the last Parliament so that we could get on with the recommendations. We are working still very feverishly on the main body of the report. Unfortunately we had to uncouple the provisions related to investigative hearings and preventive arrests because they have the sunset clauses. I believe they will sunset this week. Those provisions had to be uncoupled from the main body of the report and that is why they are on the floor of the House today.

I know that the committee is doing a lot of hard work on the Anti-terrorism Act generally. There will be a report at some point, hopefully in the not too distant future, which I think will respond to many of the concerns raised by many Canadians.

I am disappointed that the government has chosen to ignore the 10 recommendations of the subcommittee and has brought in only two of the recommendations. In fact, the two recommendations with respect to extending the provisions differ from the recommendations of the subcommittee. The subcommittee recommended that they be extended for five years. We did that because we know how long it takes to review these provisions. These are very complex matters. They require a lot of testimony and witnesses on both sides of the issue. If there was a three year review, I would suggest that some subcommittee would have to begin that review almost immediately.

Some of the other recommendations were more of a housekeeping nature, but there were a couple of recommendations that were important and the government has chosen to ignore them. I raise the same concern as my colleague from the Bloc. I am hoping that as we are putting in this effort at the subcommittee that the government will actually listen to what the subcommittee has to say.

On a general theme, it is very difficult to get balance in life. That could be at a personal level. How does one balance one's professional life and career with a family? How do we balance so many different competing demands on us as citizens? That is very true, in fact more profoundly true, for governments and parliaments when they have to find the right balance between protecting their citizens against threats to their security, whether those threats are internal or external, and balancing that against the legitimate rights of Canadians to have their civil liberties protected and respected, for their privacy rights to be respected, and for their rights and freedoms to be protected. It is never an easy task and it will never be an easy task. It was not an easy task in 2001 and it is not an easy task here today when we are presented with these issues.

It would be easy for me to hide behind the fact that I was on the subcommittee in both Parliaments. I heard all the testimony. In fact, I had the great honour to serve as parliamentary secretary to the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness in the last parliament. I am not going to hide behind all that because I think all of us in this House know what the issues are.

There are questions around the fight against terrorism and the protection of civil liberties. That is what it is about. At the committee we heard from both sides. We heard from civil libertarians that these provisions were excessive and we heard from many other witnesses that the provisions were necessary or in fact did not go far enough.

This is what life is about. We have to wrestle with these issues and we have to make some decisions.

What I would like to do first of all is to come back to the recommendations that the government, at this point and perhaps forever, has chosen to ignore.

What the subcommittee recommended was that investigative hearings only be available when there is a reason to believe there is imminent peril that a terrorist offence will be committed. It surprised me to learn that right now an investigative hearing can be called into play when a terrorist act has already been committed. We challenged the government members at the time to bring forth evidence that would justify that provision, not just looking forward, but looking backward. We were not able to get that evidence, so we made that a recommendation.

With respect to preventive arrest, we said that a peace officer must have reasonable grounds to believe a terrorism offence will be committed. The government has chosen at this point not to deal with that one. It is difficult, when the government comes in with two out of ten recommendations and two of the recommendations are different from what the subcommittee recommended, to respond to that.

In a general theme, my view is that since 2001, nothing much has changed. We still face the threat of terrorism. I would agree with my colleague from Leeds—Grenville that perhaps a terrorist threat is more complicated, more intense, more sophisticated than ever before. I do not think much has changed since 2001. If anything, the terrorist threat could be worse.

It is no secret that our forces are fighting in Afghanistan. That has many people not very happy with us. We are on the al-Qaeda list, not necessarily because of Afghanistan, but perhaps for other reasons as well. I do not believe that the terrorist threat has diminished very much, if at all. In fact, I think it has probably increased.

I can certainly respect the judgment of my colleagues in the House on this side and the other side that 2001 was a grand compromise. Many in the House felt that preventive arrest and investigative hearings were instruments that were too severe and, as a compromise, the sunsetting provisions were written into Bill C-36. Today, five years later, the debate is if they have not been used, they are not needed, and therefore that is why we did sunset them. That was the purpose of it. Because we were not comfortable with them back in 2001, and therefore we should be sunsetting them.

I certainly respect that point of view. It is not a point of view I agree with, but that is what this place is all about, having debate. I do not agree with it because I believe that the other argument is equally or, in my judgment, more valid. If those provisions have not been used, then clearly the concerns of those in 2001 that maybe law enforcement or authorities would abuse these provisions has not been borne out. They have not been used. For me, that makes the case that we should extend them.

We know that with respect to investigative hearings there was a time during the Air-India inquiry when an investigative hearing was requested, but by the time the Supreme Court ruled, and the Supreme Court ruled that it was an appropriate instrument, it was too late because the Air-India work had been completed. That was a decision of the Supreme Court. The investigative hearings as a function have never been used, nor have preventive arrests.

Last summer 15 young people were arrested in the Toronto area. Some ask if the provisions of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, were used. They were not used. Some argue that if they were not used, then why do we need them. It is a good debate.

What we are missing here is that there will be occasions when there is enough evidence to arrest people under the normal provisions of the Criminal Code, but we do know that with terrorism offences, sometimes all that the security people or the law enforcement people are seeing is maybe email messages, sometimes encoded, but they have a very strong feeling that some terrorist attack might be imminent. In a case like that, they might not have all the evidence they need to arrest people under the current provisions of the code and they may need the provisions under Bill C-36.

I recall the testimony of the ombudsman from the United Kingdom who came to our committee. He basically oversees the anti-terrorism regime within the United Kingdom. When pressed about why these provisions were necessary, he used the analogy of when the police believe that a bank robbery is imminent, but they do not have a lot of evidence and they just put two and two together. The police have been around and have seen it all and can figure things out sometimes that something is about to happen. With a bank robbery, if they thought that something might be happening, they could stake out the bank and just watch for signs of suspicious activity.

This witness from the United Kingdom said, and I think he is so right, that with a terrorist attack we cannot stake out the place. If someone comes in with a bomb and blows up a building, it is too late because the person, who probably would look like any of us, would walk in and might have bombs or other terrorist instruments and therefore we cannot stake out the joint. We have to deal with it.

That is why these provisions were put into Bill C-36 and that is why I believe that they are still required.

I think there is misinformation circulating with respect to these provisions. There are already provisions in Canada's law that are equivalent for example to investigative hearings. Investigative hearings are investigatory and not intended to determine criminal liability within the context of the law related to public inquiries, competition, income tax and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. There are already provisions for investigative hearings in those areas.

With respect to recognizances with conditions, that is preventive arrest, there are equivalents with respect to peace bonds that are issued to deal with anticipated violent offences, sexual offences and criminal organization offences.

Both these legislative measures, preventive arrest and investigative hearings, already have some grounding in the criminal law of Canada. Unfortunately, these provisions themselves do not apply to terrorism offences so they had to be written into the law to be applicable to terrorism offences.

The member for Leeds—Grenville chaired the subcommittee. I was surprised that he was not able to have all 10 recommendations dealt with by his government. That is a disappointing aspect for me.

With the reports coming out of the Maher Arar inquiry, we are anticipating increasing demands for oversight over the RCMP and over CSIS. In fact, it was our Liberal government in the last Parliament that tabled a bill to set up a committee of parliamentarians to oversee our national security policy and agenda. I am hoping the government proceeds with that legislation or something akin to it because I think it is appropriate to have these oversights.

The drafting of the bill was worked out with all the parties in the House in the last Parliament. Whether it would have the support of all parties in this Parliament I do not know, but I suspect many of the same people are around and that we could reach some agreement on what should be in a national security committee of parliamentarians. I think more oversight is needed and that would be an important step.

Also, the Maher Arar inquiry has recommended certain initiatives to increase the oversight of our agencies: CSIS, the RCMP and perhaps the Canada Border Services Agency.

We also need to deal with some concerns by Canadians about the sort of star chamber aspects of some of the provisions of Bill C-36 and also the security certificates. Even though security certificates are outside the realm of Bill C-36, the subcommittee, in its wisdom or lack thereof, decided to include security certificates. I know that these are of much concern to many Canadians. The government refers to them as a three-walled cell. People can be detained under security certificates if they pose a national security threat to Canada but they are free to leave at any point in time. There are star chamber elements about that and I would like to see those dealt with.

There are also questions from various charitable organizations, and I think rightfully so, that feel they could be delisted when something inadvertently happens even though they applied the due diligence that would normally be expected.

There are many things that we can do to deal with the balance between civil liberties and the need to protect society against threats. In fact, I think there is a lot of outreach that the government and all parliamentarians should be doing. Under the previous Liberal government, we started a major dialogue with the Muslim community in Canada. I attended a meeting with the then prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, when we met with 35 imams from across Canada. These imams were speaking out against the violence in the United Kingdom in which terrorists bombed buses and innocent people lost their lives.

These imams spoke out against that violence, so the then prime minister and my colleagues and I met with these imams, first to thank them and congratulate them for speaking out against violence and the injuries to and deaths of innocent bystanders, but also to begin a dialogue on how to reach and connect with the Muslim community in Canada. In my riding of Etobicoke North, I have the third largest Muslim community in Canada. These people are very much against violence and against injury to and the death of innocent bystanders. The imam there spoke out against that as well.

We need to do more. I think we need to do more at our border. We know what the policy is: no racial profiling. But we know about, and I have heard of, real life experiences of people coming across our border who have been treated unjustly, unfairly and with a discriminatory sort of bent. That is why our government launched the fairness initiative, which would have given everybody coming across our border an outlet to go to if they felt they were treated unjustly or discourteously at our border. They would have had an objective observer to complain to, where those matters would be dealt with and disciplinary action would be taken if that was what was uncovered. I hope the Conservative government introduces that.

We started a consultation process under the previous Liberal government, but I do not see anything coming forward to give people dignity and respect at our borders and to cut out racial profiling. Threat profiling? Absolutely. Racial profiling? Never. We should not allow that. We can take measures to start to deal with that.

We need to do more work. The government needs to orchestrate this with CSIS, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to redo the outreach to these communities, because there is a lot of misinformation. There is a lot of miscommunication. I do not mean to single out the Muslim community, but the Muslim community is affected. We have to deal with that. Muslims are largely affected. There are some misunderstandings. There is some miscommunication going on. We need to deal with it.

I hope this government seizes upon those opportunities to dialogue with the Muslim community, because the vast majority of the Muslim community is made up of peace-loving people. They too want peace and security in Canada. They tell me, “We live in this country as well, and we want peace and security for ourselves and our children and our children's children”. We need to do more dialogue and outreach. As I said, our Liberal government started that process, but I think much more needs to be done.

Twenty or more years ago now, in Canada we witnessed the Air-India terrorist attack, so anyone who argues that Canada is immune from a terrorist attack just simply does not get it, in my judgment. We cannot be naive about these things. These terrorist organizations are very organized. They are prepared to do whatever it takes to make their point.

To wrap up, nothing much has changed since 2001, in my judgment. I think we still have terrorist threats. While we do not like to infringe on civil liberties, in my judgment the balance is still appropriate. It is not Draconian in my view. I think it is still necessary to ensure that we protect our citizens, give them peace and security and, at the same time, reach a good balance with their civil liberties.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the time to commend the member for Etobicoke North for the great work he has done on committee.

After all, as my friend pointed out, there has to be some use for committees in this place. Our committees need to have some teeth. At committee members hear from all the witnesses and are the experts on this issue. The member for Etobicoke North is not going to flip-flop on the issue, as will many members opposite. I would like to ask the member a brief question.

For compelling reasons, he voted that the investigative hearing and recognizance with condition powers should be extended for five years. Given that he believes these measures should be extended for five years, and given that we are debating whether they should be extended for three years, will he commit today to meeting with the leader of the official opposition and discussing the matter with him, discussing the witnesses' testimony that he heard at committee and the reasons why, in his expert opinion as a committee member, these provisions should be extended? Will he perhaps write to the rest of his colleagues as well and express that? Will he meet with the leader of the official opposition and explain his perspective?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all to the member for Palliser that I will respect the point of view of the members of our official opposition who will vote against this motion, because this is not a black and white situation although for me it is black and white. For many of my colleagues it is black and white as well. In fact, many of them will say that in 2001 that was the compromise, that putting in of the preventative arrest and the investigative hearing. Now that they have not been used, they are not needed, they say, so that was the whole idea of the sunsetting. That is not my judgment, but I respect that judgment.

As I said earlier, I am not going to hide behind all the testimony I heard. I heard testimony on both sides of this issue. What it comes down to is that we have to make individual choices. Our leader knows full well my views on this. That is political life. We win some and we lose some.

I am not sure how my colleagues in the House are going to vote, but I certainly can respect different points of view. My own point of view is that these provisions are still necessary.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleague and namesake that, having lived in the riding of Etobicoke North for a number of years, I know his riding well. I know the diverse community that he represents. There are a number of different views and a number of different origins. People from around the planet have chosen to reside in what is no longer the city of Etobicoke after amalgamation but the great beast of Toronto.

The question I have for the member is a serious one. A government member just rose to say that committees must have more teeth. Since coming here, I have felt that committees actually have quite a bit of influence over the direction of government. A minority Parliament certainly helps with that. In the dark days of Liberal majorities past, we know that committees could be whipped into a frenzy and directed by the central powers of the PMO, which was unfortunate for democracy, but right now committees have quite a bit of influence.

I am perplexed, though. The committee sent out 10 recommendations and the government has chosen to take up two, but my colleague seems satisfied by that. That is my first point.

Next, the sunset clause, he said in his speech, was in a sense a trade-off. This was born directly out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To that point, the conversation had not been held previously, to any great degree, in Canada or in America. I was not in the House at that time, but I remember watching and listening with great interest. The tone of the debate was elevated. It was heated. We had never seen something like this before so close to home. Canadians had been killed. The intensity of the debate was quite extreme. The need to build this legislation was called for, but there was some measure of a cooling off period, with the five years given to re-decide.

The member raised the Arar case, which is what my question is about. We saw with the Maher Arar case that mistakes were made. Assumptions were made on the basis of ethnicity and location. Wrong information was spread by our own authorities, with no oversight at all, yet built into the act and into these provisions is the same room for it to happen again. I do not know how he can call forward the name of Mr. Arar as an example. The NDP defended him from the start while other members in this House were confused as to his guilt. Why would the member see this bill as not needing a proper review and--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Etobicoke North.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley that in the subcommittee we are looking at all other aspects of Bill C-36. It is a very comprehensive review. That report will be finished in the not too distant future. Really, I hope the government looks at that report seriously.

With respect to Mr. Arar, my argument would be that these provisions have not been used. If the provisions of investigative hearings and preventive arrests had been abused since 2001 until today, I would be the first one to say we should sunset them. In my judgment, and I think in the general consensus, they have not been abused because they have not been used.

Therefore, my argument would be that because they parallel many of the provisions currently available in the Criminal Code, although they are not precisely what is needed under Bill C-36 and that is why they were written in, my argument would be that they have not been abused, they are still needed, and they therefore should be extended.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Etobicoke North practices the same profession as my father. He is a chartered accountant. Accordingly, I will ask him for an approximate value.

Can he imagine himself in the shoes of someone who is a victim of one of these errors? In law, we often look for certitudes. In this case, we are indicating that we can act on reasonable grounds. Furthermore, the judge can incarcerate someone simply because the grounds seem well-founded. This is serious. One day or another, we will certainly make mistakes.

If the hon. member for Etobicoke North fell victim to such an error, having been labelled a terrorist, the undertaking he would be required to give the court would mean that he would lose his right to travel by plane, he would probably lose his job, he would lose a great deal.

How much compensation would he ask for?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. I appreciate his question.

As I was saying at the beginning of my speech, there is always a balance between protecting citizens against terrorist attacks and protecting the civil liberties of Canadians.

That is not very easy, and I am not going to get into the question of compensation today, but would like to point out that some think these investigative hearings and preventive arrests are done without application to a judge. That could not be further from the truth.

If anyone is invited to an investigative hearing, it has to be with the prior consent of the Attorney General, and an application can be made to a superior court or provincial court judge for an order for the gathering of information. This thus has the approval of the Attorney General and the approval of a provincial court judge. There also are many protections with respect to investigative hearings. People cannot incriminate themselves and also they have a right to legal counsel.

With respect to preventive arrests, again it is with the prior consent of the Attorney General that peace officers can carry out these arrests, but they must bring these people before a provincial court judge within 24 hours. A provincial court judge would have to be confident that these people need to be detained, the prosecution or authorities would have to show cause, and the judge might put conditions on the arrest or how they might behave after that. I think it is wrong to suggest that these people do not have access to counsel or that judges and the Attorney General are not involved in this.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the opposition who took part in the subcommittee report. The broader community should know that a great deal of the study was done before this Parliament convened. The members on this side of the House were all new to the committee and we received a great deal of assistance from the opposition, for which we are thankful.

I am pleased to stand today to show support for the three year extension of the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act that deals with preventive arrest and investigative hearings. I do so with the knowledge of the critical importance of these provisions for the work of law enforcement agencies across the country.

As a former police officer, I understand what a difficult job it can be to keep Canadians safe. I also understand the need to do everything possible to get that job done. Canada's new government has made the safety of Canadians one of its top priorities.

Over the past few months, the government has taken many steps to bolster the security of Canadians. We provided more funding to hire more federal police officers, to enact new measures to enhance the security of passenger rail and urban transit, to improve Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, and to strengthen Canada's capacity to respond to catastrophes and emergencies of any kind.

We have also begun the process to arm border guards and to eliminate work alone border crossings. All these measures and others demonstrate the significance that we place on the security of Canadians. The Anti-terrorism Act is important to our efforts and those of all stakeholders involved in keeping our country safe.

The Anti-terrorism Act was enacted in response to the tragic events that befell our American neighbours on September 11, 2001. On that day we realized that we were not as prepared as we had thought to deal with such devastating acts of terrorism.

The Anti-terrorism Act provided some of the tools we needed to root out terrorists and prevent our nation from falling victim to their cowardly crimes. We needed them then and we still need them now, measures to allow us to stop such events before they happen. That is why, in my opinion, recognizance with conditions and investigative hearings are crucial.

There is an old adage that definitely fits this bill, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. I believe most Canadians would agree and they would do so because they understand that these provisions are not used every day, that they are to be used in extreme circumstances.

To use recognizance with conditions and investigative hearing provisions, law enforcement professionals must adhere to precise criteria. In the case of recognizance with conditions, it can only be used where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity will be carried out and reasonable grounds to suspect that imposing conditions or arrest is necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity.

The threat must be credible and involve a specific individual. The consent of the attorney general must be obtained. In all cases, the person in question must be brought before a judge within 24 hours or as soon as possible. In order for the investigative hearing provisions to be used, the judge must be satisfied that the consent of the attorney general is obtained and that, among other things, there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist offence has been or will be committed.

In addition, during the hearing the witness is protected from self-incrimination and laws relating to privilege and the non-disclosure of information, as well as the right to counsel, continue to apply.

As all members of the House can see, these provisions are subject to strict checks and balances. This is consistent with our values. The rights and freedoms that we hold dear as a nation have been integrated into the development of these measures.

The fact that these provisions are not used often does not mean they are not needed. Some people may believe that because we use these provisions so infrequently they are not necessary. That is dangerous and even irresponsible reasoning. We do not pass laws against grievous crimes in the hopes of having to use them. We, rather, hope that we never need to use them.

However, there are instances where these laws are necessary. Having ways of dealing with the most extreme of events, however infrequent, is vital to keeping our society safe. Removing these provisions because we have not used them is like saying that we do not need air bags in our cars because we are very good drivers. These provisions are there against the eventuality that using them will save lives and will bring those who commit or plan to commit these cowardly, indiscriminate acts of destruction to justice.

Keeping these provisions is the responsible thing to do and the right thing to do. Should something terrible happen on our soil I do not believe Canadians would accept the excuse that we got rid of preventive measures because they had not been used enough in the past. I know I would not.

Extending the sunset provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act for a period of three years is a necessary part of our duty as legislators. Back in 2001, members of Parliament understood the tremendous need for this act and all of its provisions. The tragic events of September of that same year were fresh in our minds. Images of the collapsing towers were burned in our minds. We remember the thousands of innocent Americans and 25 Canadians who lost their lives needlessly.

While those wounds run deep, time has passed and we have healed a great deal. However, since that time, 30 countries have been victims of terrorism: England, Spain, Russia, and the list goes on. We have a duty to our people to learn from these terrible events, to be prepared and to take steps to keep Canadians safe in light of the horrific nature of terrorist crimes. We cannot be complacent. We cannot let ourselves believe that our country is immune. We have been mentioned as a possible target by certain groups.

I am not here to be a fearmonger but I want to make it clear that we need to have these provisions. Police officers must be able to count on effective tools when they carry out their work. They need to know that they can indeed take steps to keep us all safe.

The government does support our police forces and all those who work tirelessly to track down terrorists, uncover plots and protect our families. These provisions make that work easier. We should not create unnecessary challenges and burdens for our law enforcement officials.

The question before us today is simple: Do we continue to provide the tools needed by police to counter terrorism or do we take those tools away and help stack the deck against our own country? I know where I stand. I stand with the country, with Canadians and with our security professionals who put their lives on the line in what is the most civic of duties, the protection of our security and our prosperity.

I urge all members of the House to stand with me as we extend the preventive arrest and investigative hearing provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act.

I will end with a quote by the former minister of justice and public safety dealing with the Anti-terrorism Act. She said:

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.

That was taken from Hansard, November 27, 2001.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his discussion, participation and contribution to the debate. It is always a difficult question when we look at it as reducing somebody's rights to protect the public.

I was part of the debate when the original bill went through. At that time we had a sunset clause so the debate would happen again and we would have an evaluation as to whether it was necessary to reduce the rights of individuals to protect society and to have preventive detention the hearings if we had reasonable grounds.

However, nobody felt too great about reducing rights. Now we have had five years experience and they have not been invoked because it has not been necessary. Officers of the law have made arrests in Toronto and they have used existing and other provisions of our Criminal Code and our legal system to protect Canadians.

Now we come to that discussion again. In light of not having had to use it, does the member feel that it is necessary to keep this or are there systems in place where the law protection organizations can protect us adequately?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code contains many laws that govern a great deal of what Canadians can and cannot do, and most of those laws do not have a sunset clause.

The sunset clause in this case was put in for us to have that opportunity to review what has happened in the five years since its implementation. The fact that it has not been used does not mean that it is not a good tool to have in the tool box. As a matter of fact, I suggest that it is a wonderful tool to have there.

The subcommittee viewed it in the light that although it had not been used that it should be retained. Our original intent was that it would stay for another five years so it would have a full ten years of experience in the country.

However, with all due respect, I believe that the past five years has proven it to be such a good idea that it should be retained. I think Canadians expect us as legislators to provide those tools for the law enforcement community in the battle against terrorism.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am going to turn to the expertise of a member whom I know well. I know he worked for the police for many years. I think he was even chief of police.

I would like to ask him whether he has truly thought about some of what happened to Maher Arar. At first, Mr. Arar met with investigators several times. He answered many of their questions and, at one point, he had had enough and said, “I do not want to continue without a lawyer present”. From that moment on, the police stopped asking him questions.

Was this not a case where the police should have let him see a lawyer, who would have explained the provisions of the interrogations and that his rights were protected? Eventually, he appeared before a judge. Why did the police not exercise these new powers they were given?

When police are given powers, it is generally not the police we have in mind that we are worried about.

We understand that so far the police have not abused the law. Nonetheless, sooner or later others who do not need it will end up using it and putting basic liberties at risk. In my opinion, the police do not want to interrogate someone in the presence of a judge and a lawyer.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for all his help during the subcommittee process that we just went through.

With regard to police officers and the relationship with accused or persons in custody and lawyers, as illustrated in the case of which he spoke, a lawyer could have been present if he had asked. The hon. member has already indicated that the conversation ended when there was talk of a lawyer being there. I do not think there is any question that anybody's rights to legal counsel have been removed or somehow hindered in this process.

However, he is right that lawyers frequently enter into discussions with accused and police officers or people being arrested. As a member of the bar, I think my friend would tell us that usually the conversations were as a result of the lawyer's intervention.