Debates of June 9th, 2009

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the previous speaker on the seriousness of the arguments he advanced.

I just want him to understand that the reason why I think the anti-terrorism provisions should not be maintained is that they are insignificant, for all intents and purposes. In those cases, though, where innocent people are unjustly suspected, their lives will be badly affected and they will find it very difficult to travel or to find and keep a job. I do not think the injustice is worth it. I am convinced that these provisions will never be used against real terrorists. What will be used are the provisions of the Criminal Code, and conspiracy charges will be laid, as has already happened.

I would like to know his opinion as a police officer on the investigation he did not talk about very much. He must have conducted some police interrogations in his career. Does he think they would be at all effective with someone who did not want to reply from the beginning, did not want to cooperate, and was accompanied by his lawyer before a judge?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I, since my tenure here, have sat on the public safety committee, and now I am on the justice committee. We share a responsibility that I know we both take very seriously.

With regard to innocent people, any innocent people, when they are arrested by the police on reasonable probable grounds that they have committed an offence, all of that is done in good faith. There is, of course, some stigma attached to a person who is eventually found innocent of a crime. That is very traumatic to the person involved, and traumatic to any decent, caring person.

The saving grace in our criminal justice system is that as long as all parties participating in that, the police, the prosecution, the defence and the individual who is charged, are all acting in good faith, the Criminal Code basically says that the right thing is done.

The bottom line here is if a fear that we might do something wrong, or that someone might be ill done by, prevents us from doing what the international community under the United Nations obligations, that we are a party to, expects us to do, we have to do something. We need to work toward this new threat of terrorism, and give the tools that are necessary to the police and the Crown to get that job done.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the member for Saint Boniface, admitted that mistakes are made by police officers in the course of duty. It is not perfect legislation. The question I would have, and the member from British Columbia asked the question before, in this member's opinion what crimes related to terrorism are not already covered by the current Criminal Code? He, himself, has mentioned that conspiracy would already exist and would be covered under the Criminal Code as it stands right now.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I go back to the statement of the former member who admitted that police officers make mistakes. I believe everyone in this world, other than one man, makes mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. I think the successes in this country with regard to criminal investigation, criminal prosecutions, far outstrip any mistakes.

Again I say, if the fear of something going wrong prevents us from doing the right thing, then why are we even here? Terrorism is a new threat. This country has not had to deal with the kind of terrorism that we see around the world today. We have not had to deal with that in our past.

We have to bring in the tools necessary to fight that threat. In committee we are passing some new laws and enhancing things like the DNA data bank because there are new tools that allow us to do our job. This part of our anti-terrorism legislation will do just that. It will give us the tools to allow us to do the job and that is to protect Canadians from the threat of terrorism.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).

The Liberal Party of Canada supports this bill, in principle. I say that because this bill has a history linked with September 11, 2001.

Governments the world over were charged with establishing anti-terrorism legislation to protect their countries in the event of an attack on their security and safety.

The security and safety we took for granted no longer exist. In today's world, rapid travel, changes in values and attitudes and strained international relations have become an unavoidable fact.

Many members no doubt recall that Canada approved initial anti-terrorism legislation in December 2001, because of a sunset clause that entitled Parliament to review the legislation after five years. Members were concerned and rightly so at seeing fear make a mockery of Canadians' fundamental rights, especially those of cultural communities and, in particular, let it be said, of individuals identified as being from the middle east or the near east.

Even though Parliament improved the legislation, what remained was the criminalizing of peaceful activities and the possibility of unfair trials.

Today we have witnessed the ongoing challenges faced by Mohamed Harkat, a refugee from Algeria, released from jail in 2006 after spending three and a half years incarcerated without a trial. He is accused of having ties to terrorist organizations. Very recently, at the end of May, 16 officers carried out a search of his home in the south end of Ottawa, accompanied by three sniffer dogs trained to find weapons, explosives and money, all because they wanted to know if he was complying with the terms of his release.

Here is a man, and he is not the only one in Canada, detained without trial, whose human rights have been consistently violated in the name of safety and security. This is unfortunately not the only case of this kind in Canada.

Further, the Federal Court later ruled that Canadian border agents were “the most intrusive”. According to Justice Simon Noel, “fairness has to prevail”. He felt the agents had gone too far in seizing items such as family photos. The ruling also called into the question the performance of CSIS, the fact that its informant was not trustworthy. Therefore, the information that put Harkat behind bars could be false. It is information that the government, including the Conservative Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, has been using to deport this family man.

The question was raised by Justice Noel, who presided over the case and who is apparently known as one of Canada's most respected and experienced judges in terror cases, that CSIS also could have deliberately withheld information that could have cleared this man's name.

Are these the values on which Canada now stands, ones of unfairness and inequality, the inability to have the opportunity to be proven innocent by a jury of one's peers? Surely there is another way to do that. Let us tell individuals like Harkat and Adil Charkaoui, a schoolteacher from Montreal, that these are not the pillars, values and principles upon which Canada has built a strong democracy before the Conservative government came into power.

Allow me to recall the facts pertaining to Bill C-19. First, the provision of the Criminal Code pertaining to investigative hearings allows authorities to require an individual to testify without giving them the right to refuse to answer questions on the grounds that the responses might be self-incriminating. The aim of this provision is to compel those involved secondarily in a terrorist plot, who might have vital information, to testify instead of the prime suspects, who are prone to lie in order to protect themselves.

The second provision of the Criminal Code concerns preventive arrests. It allows the police to arrest and detain an individual, in some cases without a warrant, on the condition that they have reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest would prevent the commission of new terrorist acts.

A number of points must be remembered as regards the position of the Liberal Party of Canada. First, my party takes very seriously the safety of Canadians and the protection of their rights. Next, as in all cases of legislation concerning national security, we think a balance must be struck between public safety and individual freedoms. We obviously welcome the government's decision to include security safeguards, proposed by the special committees of the Senate and the House of Commons, which had studied the matter. That has already been mentioned by others before me. These precautions improve the bill and help calm the concerns over individual freedoms we raised when previous versions of this text were studied.

Bill C-19 hearkens back to another bill introduced previously in the other place as Bill S-3. That bill was discussed in a committee of the other place, and dealt with investigative hearings and preventive arrest. This text was introduced in 2007 and then reintroduced with some additional safeguards. Considerable work has already been done on this bill. The 2007 revision required police officers to prove to the judge that they had used all other methods to obtain the needed information.

It also required the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to make an annual report to Parliament explaining their opinion on whether provisions should be extended. In October 2007, prorogation resulted in the bill, which had been referred to the other place, not getting back here to the House of Commons.

Bill S-3 included certain improvements worthy of mention. First, police officers must prove to the judge that all other reasonable and legal means have been used to obtain the information. Second, any person called to a investigative hearing has the right to retain counsel . Third, the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness are required to make an annual report to Parliament justifying extension of the provisions. Fourth, any provincial court judge may hear arguments relating to preventive arrest. Fifth, the special anti-terrorist provisions may not be extended for more than five years unless both House of Parliament agree to extension.

The bill we are examining here in the House, Bill C-19, is identical overall to the version of Bill S-3 amended by the Senate, whose key provisions I have just reviewed.

I realize there will be very emotional points of view on the bill. I had to take a long time before I decided the pros and cons of the bill because it is very important to the population and our way of life in Canada as well.

There are groups who have historically been targeted by those who would deliberately wish to carry out terrorism acts against them. Protection and safety are important. If it means reducing the human rights of others, then we have to accept that.

What is good about the bill is that clause 2 adds new subsections to section 83.31 of the Criminal Code, which calls for separate annual reports on sections 83.28, 83.29 and 83.3 by the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The reports would include opinions and reasons on whether these sections should be extended within the act.

What is important is that the bill be sent to committee so it can be thoroughly reviewed and discussed in detail. I want to remind everyone in the House, and people who will be reading this debate, that this is not the end of the debate. If the bill is accepted by the members of the chamber, it will then go to committee. The members of the committee will amend the bill. The groups that are either for or against the implementation of these hearings will go before the committee to provide input and suggestions.

When it is referred to committee for consideration it can be amended, and I hope that the amendments will provide a better balance between collective security, which we all care about, and another thing we all care about too, individual freedom in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member who spoke before me whether she really thinks a recognizance signed by a terrorist is a good guarantee and protects us against whatever terrorist plan that person might be hatching.

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to terrorism there are no guarantees. If there were guarantees, we would not have gone through what we have both in Canada, the United States and England and elsewhere in other countries, including France. There are no guarantees.

What we can and must do, and this is our responsibility as parliamentarians, is try to put the most effective possible obstacles in the path of people who might organize a crime like terrorism.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to sort out where the Liberal Party is on this bill. In 2001 the Liberal majority government of the day passed the Anti-terrorism Act . It was set to expire under a sunset clause in February 2007. A five-year sunset clause sounds very reasonable to me.

In February 2007, after the act expired, a resolution was introduced in the House to extend the provisions by three more years. That resolution was defeated on February 27, 2007, by the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals. The Liberals were against extending it.

Now we move to our current situation today, where the Conservatives have introduced a new bill. It sounds to me, after listening to the member, that now the Liberals are in favour of the bill.

Could the member confirm that I have this chronology in the proper order and that it is accurate?

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

Mr. Speaker, the reason why I laid out the chronology since 2007 was precisely to try to show what we have been through in the Liberal Party and to illustrate the relationship between Bill C-3, Bill S-3, which came from the other chamber, and Bill C-19. That is the jargon we parliamentarians use.

In other words, we had a bill in the other chamber, Bill S-3, which introduced some provisions that were extremely important, I would even say fundamental. Unfortunately, for all sorts of parliamentary reasons, Bill S-3 could not be brought forward in this chamber and so the government decided to reintroduce Bill S-3 in the form of what we are now calling Bill C-19.

If Bill C-19 reiterates the elements of Bill S-3, as I really have the impression it does, those being safeguards and protections for individual freedom, then I will have no problem supporting Bill C-19.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question.

She herself acknowledges that we cannot get guarantees from terrorists. This provision leads to only one thing: the person must sign a recognizance to comply with certain conditions. So it cannot guarantee anything. Why, then, would we keep it, when we consider how it could be used against political adversaries or innocent people who would be stigmatized as terrorists? They would be only too happy to sign the recognizance because they are not involved in any terrorist plans.

This measure offers nothing and that is why it has not been used. What has been used is arrests for conspiracy. We also have to remember that the Criminal Code provides that a police officer may arrest without warrant a person who is about to commit an indictable offence. That is the answer, not this meaningless signature on a recognizance for the future, meaningless and yet capable of being used against adversaries to stigmatize them.

That is what the former leader of the Liberal Party understood when he spoke—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Laval—Les Îles.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my speech just now I touched on a number of items that I believe protect the individual.

The first is that the peace officers must prove to the judge that attempts have been made to obtain the information referred to by other reasonable and legal means. Second, the fact that the individual has the right to retain counsel at the investigative hearing, strikes me as being the basis of our entire justice system. Third, there is the annual report to Parliament, not only by the Minister of Public Safety but also by the Attorney General. I do not want to revisit all those points, but I would like to add one thing.

If the bill is passed by Parliament, it will then be referred to a committee. I assume my colleague sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and that is precisely where we expect to hear his suggestions for improvements to the bill. That is what I propose to him very seriously.

The bill is far from perfection and we need all the support and intelligent contributions of hon. members in order to improve it in committee. I know that, with all his experience, the hon. member is fully capable of contributing to this process.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Employment Insurance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to address hon. members in the House on the importance of the powers contained in Bill C-19.

The bill seeks to re-enact the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions provisions that were originally part of the Anti-terrorism Act, but ceased to be in effect as of March 1, 2007 when they were sunsetted.

The bill contains changes to the original provisions that are designed to respond to many of the recommendations that were made by two parliamentary committees that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act. I would also like to note that I chaired the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security which reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act. The subcommittee made a number of recommendations in the interim report that was tabled on October 23, 2006. The recommendations of the majority of the subcommittee included that both provisions be extended for five years to the end of the 15th sitting day of Parliament after December 31, 2011. It also recommended that there be further parliamentary review before there be any further extension, and that the investigative hearing provision be limited to occasions where a peace officer has reason to believe that there was imminent peril that a terrorist offence would be committed.

I want to speak to the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions provisions and also the things that the committee actually dealt with in the report of October 2006, as well as the Senate committee report that was tabled in February 2007. Additionally, the bill contains the amendments that were made last year by the Senate when it reviewed the predecessor to this bill, Bill S-3.

The result is that this bill would create enhanced human rights safeguards and would expand upon annual reporting requirements. Bill C-19 is the same as former Bill S-3 as amended by the Senate in March 2008, with one principal exception. That exception is the additional change made to subsection 83.28(12), which I will explain later. Bill S-3, subsequently died on the order paper due to the fall 2008 election. This bill picks up where Bill S-3 left off.

The investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions provisions were designed to assist law enforcement agencies and strengthen their ability to prevent acts of terrorism. First I am going to talk about investigative hearings. It seems that I already spoke about this in the House when I spoke to Bill S-3 in the 39th Parliament, but these are very important tools for law enforcement agencies to ensure that we are protected against terrorist attacks.

The investigative hearing provision would allow the courts to compel a witness who may have information about a terrorism offence to testify and provide information about the offence. The process relating to this provision works as follows. With the prior consent of the attorney general, a peace officer investigating a terrorism offence that has been or will be committed, may apply to a judge for an order requiring a person who is believed to have information concerning the terrorism offence to appear before the judge to answer questions and/or produce something.

If the judge believes there are reasonable grounds that a terrorism offence will be committed in the future, if the person has direct and material information and reasonable attempts have been made by other means to obtain the information, the judge may make an order for the gathering of information. It is important to note that this investigative hearing provision and the process was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004. The reason this provision was found to be constitutional lies in the safeguards that are intimately attached to the exercise of this power. I will note these safeguards.

First, only a judge of a provincial court or of a superior court of a criminal jurisdiction can issue the order to hold an investigative hearing.

Second, before an application for the investigative hearing order can be made, the Attorney General of Canada, or the attorney general or solicitor general of the province needs to consent to making the application for the order.

Third, the person ordered to attend at the investigative hearing has the right to retain and instruct counsel at any stage of the proceedings.

Fourth, any incriminating evidence given by the person at the investigative hearing cannot be used against him or her in a further criminal proceeding, except for prosecution for perjury and giving contradictory evidence. This prohibition also applies to derivative evidence, that is, evidence found or derived from the evidence initially gathered in the context of the investigative hearing.

Fifth, the Supreme Court of Canada has also ruled that through the use of this provision, there is a constitutional exemption against self-incrimination that precludes testimonial compulsion where the predominant purposes of the proposed hearing is to obtain evidence for the prosecution of the person. In other words, a person cannot be brought before a judge and be compelled to provide evidence if the predominant purpose is to gather evidence against that person to lay charges against him or her.

Sixth, the Attorney General of Canada and the attorney general of the provinces were and continue to be required to report annually on the use of the investigative hearing provisions.

Finally, it has been noted that the Supreme Court of Canada held that the protection against self-incrimination at investigative hearings, carried out in the context of criminal investigations, also extended to deportation and extradition matters.

There are a number of new things in Bill C-19. There are new human rights safeguards that are not found in the original legislation. For example, new to the provisions is the requirement that in all cases, a judge to whom an application for an information gathering order is made must be satisfied that reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information by other means. The previous legislation required this when investigating possible future terrorism offences, but not past terrorism offences, and only in relation to reasonable attempts to obtain the information from the person subject to the investigative hearing, as opposed to third parties more generally.

Another change alluded to earlier which is proposed for the first time in this bill would be made to subsection 83.28(12). It would clarify that the judicial power to order things into custody on an investigative hearing is discretionary rather than mandatory. This change would align this provision with the Supreme Court decision and application under section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, which held that a judge at an investigative hearing has considerable discretionary power to the effect that the word “shall” in the provision would be changed to “may”.

Additionally, subsection 83.29(4), not found in the original legislation, would clarify that the witness detention provisions of section 707 of the Criminal Code apply to investigative hearings. As a result, witnesses at the investigative hearing would enjoy the same procedural safeguards with respect to detention that applied to witnesses in criminal prosecution.

I would also like to speak about the recognizance with conditions provision. This provision would give the court the power to issue an order requiring a person to enter into an undertaking whereby he or she accepts to respect certain conditions imposed upon him or her to prevent the carrying out of terrorist activity. The purpose of the provision is to create a mechanism that would allow the authorities to disrupt the preparatory phase of terrorist activity rather than after the fact.

The provision is not designed to detain a person, but rather to release the person under judicially authorized supervision. The process by which the recognizance with conditions operates is as follows:

With the prior consent of the Attorney General, a peace officer who reasonably believes that a terrorist activity will be carried out and who also reasonably suspects that the imposition of recognizance with conditions or the arrest of a person is necessary to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity may lay an information before a provincial court judge. That judge may then cause that person to appear before him or her or any other provincial court judge. In very limited circumstances, the peace officer may arrest that person without a warrant in order to bring him or her before the judge.

In any event, a person will be brought before a judge within 24 hours, or as soon as possible, if a judge is not available within this time period. If the person is detained to protect the public or to ensure his or her attendance at a subsequent hearing, the matter may be adjourned for a maximum of 48 hours. Thus, generally speaking, the person can only be detained for up to 72 hours.

If the judge determines that there is no need for the person to enter into a recognizance, the person will be released. If the court determines that the person should enter into a recognizance, the person will be bound to keep the peace and respect other specified reasonable conditions for a period not exceeding 12 months, and only if the person refuses to enter into such a recognizance can the judge order that he or she may be detained for up to 12 months.

As in the case of the investigative hearing, the recognizance with conditions is also subject to numerous safeguards. The consent of the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general or solicitor general of the province, of course, is required. The peace officer could also lay information before a judge if he believes there is reasonable grounds that the activity could be carried out. The judge receiving the information would have a residual discretion not to issue process, for example, where information is unfounded.

Continuing on, these two provisions that were sunsetted back in 2007 were important tools that were used or can be used to help keep Canadians safe as we ensure that we do not suffer from terrorist attacks. These are things that Canadians do fear, and they do want to ensure that law enforcement has the tools required to ensure that Canadians remain safe.

There was the attack, of course, in the U.K. back on July 7, 2005.

There was the case just a few years ago here in Canada where there were some Canadians arrested on the threat of the potential for a terrorist attack.

So we must remain vigilant. Canadians expect that.

The committee I chaired back in the 39th Parliament that reviewed this act spent a great deal of time. I spoke a little earlier about what the committee brought forward in recommendations to the House that very much mirrored the recommendations that were brought forward in the Senate.

In 2007, after the committee released its interim report back in the fall of 2006, with just a few months to go before the sunsetted provisions were set to sunset, where the majority of the committee had brought this forward, it turned out that when we were running out of days in order to maintain these two sunsetted conditions, the Liberal Party withdrew their support, or at least the members of the committee who had supported the extension of these sunsetted provisions withdrew their support.

We brought back Bill S-3 in the 39th Parliament. We had the fall election in 2008, and that bill died on the order paper.

Bill C-19 seeks to deal with bringing back those two provisions that we know can be used in the arsenal to continue to keep Canadians safe, to fight against terrorism.

Part of this as well is that it would continue to be reviewed on an ongoing basis. That was one of the recommendations that came forward in the 39th Parliament out of the subcommittee, that we do in fact ensure that these provisions continue to be reviewed. They are quite strict. These are important tools. They do need to be reviewed, because we do not know the implications. These are extraordinary measures.

At this time I do not see any compelling reason we should not seek to reinstate these provisions and have them in the toolbox that we and law enforcement can to use to ensure that Canadians remain safe.

I urge all hon. members to support this legislation. Let us get it to committee and move it forward.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville.

I found what he had to share today very interesting and a bit of the history lesson of how we ended up where we are and the encouragement to support this good bill. He reminded us that he was the chair of the subcommittee that dealt with this Anti-Terrorism Act a number of years ago, and I want to ask him what happened. He touched on it briefly.

My understanding was that the Bloc and the NDP did not support the majority of the recommendations and had their own report, a dissenting report. Why was that?

I have served on the justice committee and now serve on the environment committee. Often what I see is the taking of a strong stance against crime or terrorism in public, but when it actually moves to committee, we see the NDP, the Bloc, and often the Liberals starting to play games and they do not support it. They use those parliamentary games.

My question to the hon. member is, why did they not support it, and what happened at committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his excellent question because these are important things that did happen back in 2007. The fact was that the committee spent a great deal of time reviewing all the provisions within the act. Of course, there were the two provisions in the act that were set to be sunset after the five-year period since the bill was originally brought into effect back in 2002.

There were the two sunset provisions that were not supported by the Bloc and the NDP originally. They were supported by the members of the Liberal Party that were on that committee. When it got to the point where we were going to have a vote, because it did have to go through a vote here in the House to continue to have those two provisions in effect, the Liberal Party withdrew its support. It was not prepared to support that.

There was a great deal of work done by that committee. It was only those two parts, those two sunset provisions, that were not supported unanimously by the committee, and I found it very disturbing when that happened.

There seemed to be general consensus on the committee that we move ahead with that, and I hope there is going to be support in the House to move this bill forward.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what I have been hearing all afternoon seems to be a debate about legal rights, the rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the right of freedom, and so on.

Obviously the hon. member has had quite a bit of experience in looking at section 83 and on, the terrorism section of the Criminal Code. It is a separate section of the code. It has been recently enacted. It is some 26 pages. It is designed to deal with terrorism, is it not? It is not dealing with the average person on the Clapham omnibus, as Lord Denham said. It is not about average Canadians' rights. It is a particular definition of rights against the landscape of terrorist activity. Thus there are many provisions about seizing property that do not apply to normal offences about seizing assets that have to do with terrorist activities. There is the naming of terrorist organizations. It is a different context.

Can the member better describe what I am trying to get at, that this is a different section of the code dealing with an exigent circumstance—that is, terrorism?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question and I want to congratulate the member for recognizing exactly that. These are important provisions.

These are not things that would be used against law-abiding citizens. These are specific parts of the act that were brought in by the Liberal government back in 2002 in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. At the time, it was moved through the House and became law very quickly. That was an important time. Many countries in the world at that very time were enacting similar legislation.

Canadians and Parliament decided at that time that they wanted to see these two provisions of the act that we are dealing with now reviewed. They wanted them to be reviewed five years after. That is what the committee did. It is a balancing act between security and human rights. It was believed by the committee at the time, and I believe today, and I know many hon. members here believe, that there is a balance there.

In case there are any issues with it, five years hence there would be another opportunity for a committee of Parliament to once again review that and bring it back for Parliament to make a decision.

It is true that these provisions of the act are specifically designed to deal with terrorism.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank my colleague for his commitment and all his hard work on this.

I have two questions. When a bill goes to a standing committee there is often the comment that it would not withstand a constitutional challenge. Therefore, are investigative hearings constitutional; and do other countries have investigative hearings?

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

Mr. Speaker, some individuals have felt that this legislation would not pass the constitutional test, but back in 2004, the Anti-terrorism Act did pass the test and was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Other countries have these investigative hearings and they use them as important tools to protect their citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member who has spoken whether he was given any example of a situation where the preventive arrest provision would have been used and where it would not have been just as easy to use the Criminal Code by laying conspiracy charges or using the provision in the Code which clearly states that a police office may arrest without warrant a person who is about to commit a criminal act.

That person could, of course, eventually be acquitted if innocent, while an innocent party who has signed a document would be stigmatized for the rest of his life.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was an important part of the committee that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act back in 2006 and 2007. As he well knows, we did have a great deal of discussion about this.

It is true that these other provisions of the Criminal Code can be used, but the committee and I believe that what we are proposing today in the bill are two important tools. They may be controversial, but they are important tools that should be available to law enforcement. The safeguard that would continue to be there would be that these would be reviewed every five years.

It was an excellent question, and I do want to congratulate once again the hon. member for all his hard work on that committee a few years ago.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on Bill C-19, whose purpose is to re-introduce two provisions that the House did not want to approve when we dealt with them back in 2007.

I remember the debate we had in 2002. I was in the House then, having been elected a few years previously. If I remember correctly, Minister McLellan was responsible for public safety at the time and there was a legislative committee on which the Bloc Québécois was represented by the hon. member for Saint-Jean. It was not the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security or the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that dealt with these proposals. I remember the situation very well. It was just after the attacks of September 11, 2001. There was a kind of psychosis in the air and all countries felt the need to be much more vigilant about terrorism. This widespread psychosis made us realize just how vulnerable we were as a society.

I can remember reading documents and going to conferences where we were told about the new phenomenon of terrorism. It was mass terrorism, in which innocent civilians were attacked. We had seen examples on subways and in airports. The terrorists were pursuing ideological ends. These were not various groups confronting one another but people trying to find ways to destabilize and terrorize civilian populations. We were trying to find methods—and very legitimately so, I can easily understand it—to avert these threats.

It was a time when the American congress had quickly passed the Patriot Act. I think the United Kingdom passed some legislation too, as well as France. Canada did not want to be left out and passed an act.

It would be a mistake for the members to allow themselves to be guided by reasoning that is fundamentally flawed. The provisions proposed here give the impression the government wants to find people to convict. It wants to force people before judges without having to meet a certain burden of proof, and that is clearly unreasonable. They argued at the time there was an emergency. I am very proud that the Bloc Québécois never yielded to this psychosis. There was also a very strong feeling of sympathy for the Americans. Prime Minister Chrétien went to walk around Ground Zero, along with all the party leaders.

We obviously have a special relationship with the United States. In speaking of it, former President Kennedy said geography made us neighbours and history, friends. There really is a symbiotic relationship between Canada and the United States. Whether it is the border, the American dream or trade flows, we are integrated in ways that can sometimes be very harmful. It is not my intention, though, to talk about that now.

I am proud that the Bloc Québécois managed to resist voting for these provisions, which are not the right approach given our objectives. When members do not agree with these provisions—one of them more than the other, if I understood correctly, especially when it comes to preventive detention in section 83.3—that does not mean we are less concerned about terrorism, we are not vigilant, we do not think we should anticipate terrorist acts, or we think there is no such thing as terrorism.

It was even explained to me that, in the world right now, there is an alarming proliferation of terrorist groups and that the most threatening terrorism, the most active, should I say, is that guided by considerations that are often ideological based on religious practices. That said, we are parliamentarians, democrats. We do not lose sight of the balance that must be struck in Parliament between rights, and of course, the end, in this case, is to protect the public. In 2002, it did not seem to us that this balance was reached and that the means being proposed to us were likely to achieve this end. Through my colleague, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who sat on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we are renewing our position and concerns of 2002, when we considered the provisions put before us then.

Why did we have concerns? Because, for a parliamentarian, the end can never justify the means. We can never take shortcuts with warrants, assessment of the evidence or detention, even if we are talking of 24 hours. We can never take shortcuts, because to do so in this matter, there will be no more limits and there would be a loss of vigilance that is beneath the office we hold.

People here lived through the 1970 crisis. I was a little too young, but I am well aware, having heard the oral history, of the extent to which 1970 was a blot on our collective history of individual rights. Freedoms were suspended and because of that excesses were committed against poets, women singers, people who were moved by freedom, who believed in a certain ideology but represented no threat to society.

In the Bloc Québécois, we are not prepared to give our support to this type of democratic shortcut, even less so when we consider the history of these provisions, a short history, I grant you. Investigative hearings are mechanisms by which a provincial court or superior court justice of the peace can be asked to compel a citizen to testify and answer questions. While certain mechanisms may prevent it from being prejudicial for later testimony, the potential for compelling someone on the basis of suspicions remains. These investigative hearings, while they are more clearly defined, still represent a threat to procedural balance and democracy. I will come back to this.

Investigative hearings, like preventive arrest and detention, exist in provisions but have never been used. That is rather surprising. I heard the government members telling us earlier that these are tools needed by the various law enforcement agencies. It is contradictory, not to say paradoxical, and perhaps even inconsistent to suggest that tools are vital to law enforcement agencies, when they have never been used. Could we take into consideration the fact that the reason we have never used them is that there are alternative means in law, provided in the Criminal Code, which the law enforcement agencies can use?

We all understand that when terrorism is involved, somewhat like when organized crime is involved, these are not things that come about through spontaneous generation. They are things that call for lengthy investigations and a huge amount of resources. The Bloc Québécois does not dispute that intelligence is needed or that wiretap warrants are required. I was also in this House when wiretap warrants were extended. Not only may those warrants be necessary, but there may also be surveillance operations.

Terrorism and the networks that make it possible are things that depend on organizations. It is reasonable for a state to be able to use all means available to it to try to anticipate what is going to happen. Not only is it reasonable, it is also our duty. Society would not feel safe without the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP and all of the organizations that are responsible for intelligence. I agree, and I understand, that the state must have agencies that will keep an eye on these various networks and will use wiretaps, surveillance, undercover operations and counter-espionage, and all lawful means available to its leaders, to anticipate, foresee and engage in extremely vigilant monitoring of these people’s behaviour.

Let us consider the question of preventive detention. Obviously there is a considerable risk of abuse and stigma. In our legal system, the first consideration is fairness. If the state, with its prerogative powers, uses coercion against individuals and intrudes into their private lives, it is reasonable for there to be something to offset this, that being the knowledge that the individuals will have evidence against them that will lead to a conviction. In order for them to know and understand that evidence, and be able to prepare their defence, they must know what they are charged with and they must be arrested in accordance with the procedure set out in the Criminal Code.

In the case of preventive detention, that balance is upset somewhat. If I understand correctly, in the case of preventive detention, individuals may be arrested based on grounds or suspicions. Suspicions, in legal terms, are much less sound considerations. When there are reasons to think that individuals will commit terrorist acts, we generally have information we can use to assess the situation. There are various provisions. Why not use the conspiracy provision? If I remember correctly, it is in section 467 of the Criminal Code. Why not use the conspiracy provisions?

If we want to force someone to behave in a certain way and enter into a recognizance to keep the peace, why not use section 810? There is a big difference between clause 83.3 in the proposed legislation and section 810. They both have the same objective, namely to avoid something and ensure that someone enters into a recognizance to keep the peace. Under section 810, however, the person is summoned before a justice of the peace but not arrested. That is the first very important distinction.

The justice can require him to sign a peace bond, and he is arrested only if he refuses. If I remember correctly, the person can only be arrested for 12 months, although I think that might have increased to 24 months, at least in the case of section 810.

Those are provisions, therefore, that can be used by the various people responsible for enforcing the law. Unfortunately, clause 83.3 goes much further than that. A person can be held for 24 hours. The justice can also impose conditions for keeping the peace, there is no doubt about it. There will also be a stigma attached to the person involved because he was brought before a justice of the peace and associated with things that lead one to think he was involved in terrorism.

Being stigmatized in this way can have repercussions on a person’s job. If his employer hears about it, his reputation could be tarnished in the organization he works for. His employer may well question his allegiance as an employee and even his contract.

If an employer finds out that one of his employees has been associated with terrorism, even if only suspected of it, he could very well lose confidence in him. This is understandable but very detrimental, especially as it is based not on a charge, or solid proof, or a trial conducted under the established rules but simply on a process that takes someone to a peace officer who sends him before a justice of the peace, all on the basis of suspicions.

Once someone has been associated with terrorism, even if only suspected of it, there are repercussions not only on his job but also on his mobility, for example if he wants to travel by plane or any other means.

In thinking about our objective, neither Canada nor Quebec is safe from terrorist incidents. We understand that. But why ask parliamentarians to take shortcuts with our democracy when there are no assurances that these shortcuts will ever be used by law-enforcement agencies? In fact, until there is proof to the contrary, they certainly have not been used so far.

In connection with the prevention of acts of terrorism, section 495 of the Criminal Code provides that a peace officer may arrest without warrant a person whom he believes on reasonable grounds is about to commit a criminal act. As we can see, the provisions are already in place.

I must say with no ill will, because I am totally incapable of it, that I am surprised by the attitude of our colleagues in the official opposition. The Liberals supported the charters and just society of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and I thought they always responded positively to the call to end practices that might be considered highly discretionary and of concern in terms of individual rights. I do not understand that the official opposition is today supporting the government. If my calculations are right, that means that Bill C-19 will likely be passed. Even if the Bloc and the NDP oppose it, we can realistically expect it to pass.

That is shameful, especially since the leader of the Liberal Party, when I was a law student, was recognized as an authority in individual rights. How can he today drop his guard and allow his party to support a bill that is extremely worrisome in terms of individual rights and the potential abuses it may lead to?

My time is up. I appeal for Bill C-19 not to be passed.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the presentation by my colleague from Hochelaga with considerable interest. His speeches are always very wise and moving. He stressed the importance of not making provisions that would enable the government to attack people's rights in a just and democratic society.

I would like his opinion on a concern I have. The government is already violating its own laws. It rejects the opinions and decisions of the courts. We have seen this with the Abdelrazik case recently, in which the court ordered the government to comply with its own laws and to honour the rights of this Canadian citizen who wants to return to his country and against whom there is no shred of evidence of his being a terrorist. With it not being permissible under the law but the government doing it all the same, what would it be like if the government were permitted to do this sort of thing under the law?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber is usually enlightened and moderate, in addition. The one does not necessarily come with the other, but this member is the happy synthesis of both. My colleague is quite right. During the more than 16 years I have been in Parliament, no government has ever had such a pitiful record in human rights. Obviously, the matter of the death sentence of Canadians abroad comes to mind. The courts had to intervene to ask the government to commit to providing a more rigorous defence than what it had been offering. There are people held in foreign prisons, which the government refuses to repatriate. This government, frankly, is pitiful in the field of human rights. We have all the more reason to be concerned about the future use that might be made of these provisions.