Debates of Oct. 17th, 2012

Combating Terrorism Act

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made a number of references to concern for our youth. However, there are provisions in the bill to protect our youth, particularly against this growing phenomenon of foreign terrorist groups recruiting our young people.

The bill seeks to make it a crime to participate in any activity of a terrorist group, facilitate a terrorist activity, commit an indictable offence for the benefit of a terrorist group and commit an indictable offence that is also a terrorist activity.

Why would the member opposite not want to implement provisions to create deterrence to our youth being recruited by foreign-based terrorists?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my honourable colleague for her question.

Again, by focusing on the idea that there is terrorism and recruitment by terrorists, we go astray and we begin to engage in racial profiling.

My questions about the rights of youth have to do with the fact that a young offender is a young person in trouble who needs help rather than punishment. That is why we ask questions first, not later.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all recall the terrorist attacks of 2001. It was difficult for everyone. I was attending a rural university. Everyone was appalled by what we saw on television.

I would like to know what the member thinks about the following comments by Mr. Barrette:

The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and the Ligue des droits et libertés believe that the provisions dealing with investigative hearings and preventive arrests, which are intended to impose recognizances with conditions, are both dangerous and misleading [for a liberal society].

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question. It is dangerous and misleading to tell people that the threat of terrorism is imminent. What happened on September 11, 2001, is a tragedy, but it happened in the United States. I cannot imagine that it would happen tomorrow morning in Canada.

Nothing has happened in the past four years. There has been nothing and things have been quiet. I cannot understand why, all of a sudden, we want to scrap our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and forget about the rights it guarantees for children and adults alike. I believe that we have the tools we need with the Criminal Code, special statutes and international treaties. We need only invest in the police and intelligence services. That would be more useful than spending millions of dollars on phantom threats.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for an excellent and compelling speech today.

The hon. member, like others who have given speeches that focus on the issue of civil liberties and legal matters, has put forward a very compelling case that the police already seem to have the necessary tools to combat terrorism, using existing procedures and laws.

It is not as though that because these things have not been invoked and been useful legally that they have no impact. There is clearly a social impact in having these laws come before the House for debate and put on the books.

On the eve of September 11 of this year, I showed a film in my riding entitled, Change Your Name Ousama, which talks about the stigmatization of the Muslim-Canadian community in this country.

I am wondering if my colleague would have any comments on the social implications and impacts of such laws, like the one we are debating today, on certain communities in this country.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I am not an expert on Islam, but I do know that, in Montreal, Muslim communities feel ill at ease. September 2001 was a long time ago. Yet, when something happens elsewhere in the world, they feel as though they are targeted and victims of discrimination.

If it passes, will Bill S-7 heighten paranoia? I would say yes, and the fundamental rights of the people targeted will decrease in the same measure. Muslims and people of other faiths contribute to Canada's economy and culture. For the most part, they are not violent people. To answer the question, I would say that we do not need to pass Bill S-7. We should instead invest in collecting intelligence and training police. That is all.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's presentation. Social and environmental terrorism were mentioned in previous remarks. The speakers could have added aboriginal terrorism, while they were at it. They are fond of this term, on the other side of the House.

My colleague spoke of the imbalance in this bill between security and fundamental rights. I would like him to say more about this.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his brilliant question. It is indeed possible to speak about social, environmental, and aboriginal terrorism. However, Aboriginals—since we are talking about them—are one of the three founding peoples of our magnificent country. There are Anglophones, Francophones, but there are also Aboriginals who—we too often forget—were here before us.

There should be no racial profiling. Everybody's fundamental rights must be respected. When it comes to the economy, Aboriginals have for some time been put in reserves, and enough is enough. Progress has been made with recent decisions, and Justice Wagner, who is starting his career at the Supreme Court of Canada, has recognized this. Aboriginals are a plus in Canadian society.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during his speech, my colleague spoke frequently about the importance of focusing more on intelligence gathering in order to prevent terrorism.

I would like him to speak more about coordinating information among intelligence services. Provincial authorities, departments, or other bodies may be in possession of information. The fact that all this information is spread among several different entities may mean that a situation that should otherwise attract attention goes unnoticed. If the person handling the situation had all the information at their disposal, they could choose to act in accordance with the current provisions of the Criminal Code.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

In any fight money is important, but so too is information. Information received by intelligence services must be coordinated, but until such time as somebody has been accused, the information must be kept confidential.

It is, therefore, very important to coordinate information and to respect confidentiality until such time as formal charges have been laid.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech on Bill S-7, I would like to say something. Given that the government considers this bill so important and so significant, I think it is a shame that I find myself once again this week making a speech about it. On Monday, I spoke about Bill S-9. Both of these bills were introduced by the Senate.

I was elected on May 2, 2011, in a democratic electoral system. I was not appointed to a seat on an honorary basis just because I was a close friend to the Conservatives. Ministers should spend less time discussing bills before Senate committees and spend more time reporting to House of Commons committees and providing evidence to duly elected members.

We are opposed to Bill S-7. I would like to tell the government that, instead of getting the so-called other chamber to pass its bills, it should do so itself. If terrorism is so important to the government, why does the Senate have to take the lead after several years and introduce Bill S-9?

The government always says that talking is all well and good, but it is taking action. That is not true, because obviously the Senate is doing the government's work. Either the government does not want to admit that its resources are inadequate, or its priorities are different than it says, for instance, in terms of Canadians’ security.

Bill S-9 deals with food safety. According to the Minister of Agriculture, food safety is one of the government's priorities. If food safety is a priority for the government, why did the Senate have to draft the bill?

I would like to know why the government does not face up to its responsibilities instead of letting the Senate do all the work.

I would now like to begin my speech on Bill S-7, which concerns the important issue of terrorism.

Nowadays, people will cry terrorism at the slightest provocation, but the concept remains vague. It is used quite frequently to create a climate of insecurity. In fact, it is meant to create a climate of fear. As I said yesterday, the Conservatives have often used the concept of terrorism whenever they felt like it to justify the policies or decisions they made that were criticized by the public. The concept of terrorism creates fear, and more fear; it is a vicious circle. This is exactly what Bill S-7 does; it nurtures a climate of fear. It is a rather twisted approach and a concept that remains vague and is meant to make us believe that our rights and freedoms are much better served if they are taken away from us.

Moreover, I would like to point out that these provisions expired four years ago. We have not required these provisions over the past four years. Why bring them back now? They have expired but, when it comes to priorities, the government is well known for making flagrant errors in judgment.

Let us be clear: nobody in the House, especially in the official opposition, supports terrorism. We understand the importance of keeping Canadians safe, and it is one of our top priorities. What we are criticizing here are the provisions contained in Bill S-7. We are critical of this bill's failure to strike any balance whatsoever between two equally important concepts: security and fundamental rights.

The government constantly engages in petty partisan politics by pitting two important notions against each other in order to create confusion in the minds of Canadians and force them to choose between two principles: fundamental rights and security. Yet, this government should guarantee both these principles.

The two principles are at the very heart of our democratic society. The government should ensure that they are upheld without putting one ahead of the other.

The NDP believes that it is important to take strong action against terrorism while also, as I said, respecting the rights and freedoms that are at the heart of our society, our system of justice and our democracy.

In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, the Government of Canada responded, as it believed it should, and under extreme pressure from the United States, to what was an exceptional event. The legislation that was passed, although very strong, contained sunset clauses—and for good reason.

In the days and months that followed the attacks of September 11, the United States, with George W. Bush at the helm, declared war on terror. What I wish to stress here is that changes were made to some civil rights in the name of the war on terror, such as indefinite detention for presumed threats to national security, the creation of prisons, and even the legalization of torture, all shameful examples of the failure to respect fundamental human rights.

For example, the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war sets out fundamental rights. Omar Khadr is a case in point. He was imprisoned in Guantanamo as a mere teenager, which flies in the face of international law.

Canada's involvement in international conventions should never, under any circumstance, be taken lightly. It is very easy to forget our international obligations when the government chooses to do so. Child soldiers should never be imprisoned. This is an internationally recognized principle that Canada should stand up for, without exception.

Canada's involvement in this regard helps to combat terrorism while at the same time assisting in the eradication of child soldiers. Two such fundamental principles should never be pitted against each other. We have a charter of rights and freedoms. The United States may have a point of view that is different from ours, but here in Canada, our rights and values should prevail over any outside decision or influence. That is why it is important not to succumb to Orwellian paranoia, like our neighbour to the south.

The provisions regarding preventive arrest and interrogation techniques were subject to a sunset clause and expired in 2007. It is now 2012. These provisions were included in the Criminal Code for good reason. The balance between the need for security and civil rights is essential. We do not need others to tell us what standards we want to adopt, particularly when those standards infringe on our fundamental freedoms.

The NDP is of the opinion that Bill S-7 violates civil liberties and the most fundamental rights, particularly the right to remain silent and the right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial. I would like to remind the House of this.

Perhaps, over the past few years, the government members have forgotten to read our magnificent Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I strongly advise them to do so just to refresh their memories with regard to our values, the values upon which the Canada they hold so dear is built. The weight of the state should never be used against an individual to force him to testify against himself. Self-incrimination is internationally recognized as an illegal and undemocratic principle.

The Criminal Code contains the provisions required to investigate people who engage in criminal activity and to detain anyone who may pose an immediate threat to Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do not accept the fact that government members are telling me to be quiet while I am giving my speech. I was elected, and I have the right to speak in the House.

The battle against terrorism cannot be conducted by means of legislative measures, but rather through intelligence and appropriate police action.

There is no need to pass Bill S-7; the Criminal Code already provides all the tools that are needed, and it contains provisions to combat terrorism. I have a serious problem with establishing a system that forces people to incriminate themselves. Contrary to the recommendations of the Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act, witnesses clearly told the Senate committee that there were major problems in terms of the protection of children.

There is Bill C-10 and criminal justice for minors, the status of aboriginal children, and poverty among immigrant children: we have been singled out and criticized repeatedly for our violations of children's rights. Once again, the government should be ashamed to have been singled out as a democratic industrialized country that violates children's rights. And yet again, the government would like to pass legislation that would violate the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is shameful. The government members should be ashamed to be smiling as I remind them that they are violating children's rights.

It is also noteworthy that since 2001, over 10 years ago, none of the investigations that have led to charges or convictions has required the use of these extraordinary powers. There is still doubt about how, for example, a distinction could be made in practice between a terrorist act and other offences. For example, the incendiary bomb at the G20 in Ottawa was treated as a criminal offence and not an act of terrorism. The Criminal Code can handle such acts very well.

Bill S-7 would make people with no criminal charges against them liable to imprisonment for up to 12 months or subject to strict release conditions, and the NDP believes that this contravenes the fundamental values of our justice system. That the provisions were only ever invoked once, and the only time they were invoked it was a total fiasco, illustrates that the police have the tools they need to combat terrorism with existing procedures, without any risk to our civil liberties or justice. The provisions of this bill could be invoked to target dissidents or people involved in demonstrations.

I see a trend here. The Conservatives want to prevent people from protesting. I remind members that the right of association is a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is not the first time that the government has tried to restrict our fundamental freedoms and civil liberties. I remind them that the Canada they love so much was created with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and they should be ashamed of trying to take away the freedoms that people fought for.

This legislation shows a lack of balance between security and fundamental rights, and the New Democratic Party cannot vote for such a bill. We must give serious thought to the issue of terrorism, but we must also protect our rights and freedoms.

I would like to conclude my speech by saying that this bill shows a flagrant lack of respect for Canadian values. This is an ideological bill that threatens Canadians and their freedoms. The Criminal Code already contains all of the provisions needed to fight terrorism, and the government should be ashamed of trying to take away our civil liberties to further its own ideological and political agenda.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just as we saw in the asymmetric warfare conducted in Afghanistan, so too is terrorism a constantly evolving manifestation. What the bill seeks to do is to prevent an imminent attack and to provide the tools necessary to do so.

The member opposite spoke at length about the need for balance. Why would she want to put the balance of power in the hands of the terrorists?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, since 2001—over 10 years ago—none of the investigations that have led to charges or convictions has required the use of these extraordinary powers the government is trying to give itself.

I do not need a lecture from a member who made a speech in this House and mixed up the Canadian and American constitutions. She is not even familiar with Canadian fundamental freedoms. She does not even know the Canadian Constitution. I do not need any lectures from her.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her speech. She spoke at length about children's rights. I am especially concerned about that aspect of this bill.

We are talking about the risk of brainwashing teenagers or even the risk of children being enlisted to engage in terrorist activities.

First of all, does my colleague believe there are any non-legislative measures in place to avoid this problem? Also, does she believe that non-legislative measures would be more effective than legislative measures?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the concept of child soldiers is clear. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child is someone who is under 18. Any child who is captured during an armed conflict, regardless of whether or not he is part of a terrorist group, is considered a child soldier.

I would remind the government that it signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child—and proudly boasted about it, too. However, when it comes to applying the principles of protecting children's rights, we clearly see the government's ideology behind all of that.

Regardless of whether a child is brainwashed into committing violent acts, a child is a child. It is our duty as a society to protect children. Legislative measures that turn children into criminals and throw them in jail will never be good legislative measures.

How can we put a child in prison and then expect to be able to help that child? It makes no sense. Legislative measures are not the right way to address the use of child soldiers in armed conflict.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. I am glad she responds occasionally to the insults coming from across the floor, since those members often laugh, chat or heckle when she is trying to speak to the House.

Can the member tell us if she believes that the fear of a potential terrorist act or paranoia can cause collateral damage and restrict the individual and collective freedoms of Canadians?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, terrorism is a major problem. Nevertheless, a major problem, whether we are talking about terrorism or drug trafficking, should never undermine the values that Parliament is built on.

I am reaching out to every MP who was democratically elected under the Canadian flag, under the banner of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to ask them whether they are truly prepared to reject the freedoms that people fought so hard for. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a guarantee.

Does their paranoia make them believe that people would be better off without their fundamental freedoms? Are they prepared to tell Canadian soldiers who fought for our values that they fought for nothing? It is outrageous.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. If I understand correctly, Bill S-7 will leave the door wide open to injustices. It will tarnish our international reputation, which has already been battered by this government.

Can the hon. member tell us what values unite us as Canadians? She said that we fought for these rights. I should know, because I am a member of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. I know that many countries do not have a charter of rights and freedoms like the one we have in Canada.

Can the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île tell us what unites us as a people? Will Bill S-7 divide us rather than bring us together?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, because he is a lawyer, section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that fundamental rights guaranteed under the charter are subject only to such limits as can be justified in a free and democratic society.

My question is for the government, which has many lawyers among its members. Is a violation of our fundamental rights, which were won by people who fought for them, justified in a free and democratic society? I do not believe so.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member thinks the position of the NDP is due to its job-killing carbon tax.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives probably think so. That clearly shows the government's perspective. It is ready to invent all kinds of reasons to put its right-wing agenda ahead of Canadians' interests.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about personal security in the country, the other side seems to forget that there is far more danger to the residents in my riding from handguns than there is from terrorism. In fact, there were four funerals this summer of young men in their teens and early twenties as a result of handgun violence, all of them were from Somalia.

Our border is quite porous to the availability of handguns coming across the border. We are spending $92 billion to protect against imagined terrorism, but we are spending very little to beef up our security at the border and to keep these handguns out. Add to that the 22 people who were killed by listeriosis and a number of other people who were killed by tainted meat.

The government appears to have its priorities wrong. It is spending money tilting at imagined ghosts instead of getting at the real problems that make people feel insecure in country.

Could she comment on that?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to offer my condolences to all families affected by gun violence and all the victims. It is a terrible scourge.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the security of Canadians and fundamental freedoms are two elements that should be guaranteed by the government. Instead of guaranteeing Canadians' security and freedom, the government is creating a hierarchy in the defence of rights, freedoms and security. Instead of defending Canadians in their neighbourhoods against criminals who may live next door, the Conservatives are spending millions of dollars to protect against potential attacks. That is truly ridiculous. Canadians must be protected at home, in the streets, and not in an abstract way with a bill that will prevent a potential future attack.