Debates of Oct. 19th, 2012

The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the motion that Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. I want to state at the outset that New Democrats will be opposing the bill.

Since 2001, we have had an opportunity to revise the bill, which was adopted in reaction to a particular event that sent people into a state of panic. We have learned that there is actually no evidence to support such legislation. When these provisions expired in 2007, we found that there had been no investigative hearing and no situation that required a recognizance with conditions. Since 2007, the investigative hearing has only been used once as part of the Air India inquiry, but that led to no conclusive results. I am going to talk more about that later.

Bill S-7 has four objectives. The first is to amend the Criminal Code to authorize investigative hearings and authorize the imposition of the recognizance with conditions or preventative arrest. Second is to amend the Canada Evidence Act to allow judges to order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information on a trial or an accused, once the appeal period has ended. The third is to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences for those who have left the country or tried to leave the country to commit a terrorist act, and finally, to amend the security of information to increase maximum sentences incurred for harbouring a person who committed or intended to commit a terrorist act.

I am going to focus on the investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions. I want to give some context here. New Democrats oppose the bill because it is an ineffective way of combatting terrorism and because it is an unnecessary and inappropriate infringement on Canadians' civil liberties. New Democrats believe that Bill S-7 violates the most basic civil liberties and human rights, specifically the right to remain silent and the right not to be imprisoned without first having a fair trial.

According to these principles, the power of the state should never be used against an individual to force a person to testify against himself or herself. However, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutionality of hearings. We believe that the Criminal Code already contains the necessary provisions for investigating those who are involved in criminal activity and for detaining anyone who may present an immediate threat to Canadians.

We believe that terrorism should not be fought with legislative measures, but rather with intelligence efforts and appropriate police action. In that context one must ensure that the intelligence services and the police forces have the appropriate resources to do their jobs.

I want to quote from Denis Barrette, a spokesperson from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, at the review by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on former Bill C-17, which was an earlier version of Bill S-7. Mr. Barrette said:

—the provisions dealing with investigative hearings and preventative arrests, which are intended to impose recognizances with conditions, are both dangerous and misleading. Debate in Parliament on these issues must draw on a rational and enlightened review of the anti-terrorism law. As we know, that legislation was rushed through Parliament after 9/11 in a climate of fear and under very considerable pressure from the United States....

At this point in time, what is the real objective need for these two provisions? From the time of their introduction in 2001 until their repeal in 2007, the only time they were used was in relation to the Air India case which, as you all know turned out, sadly, to be a total fiasco.

Since 2007, police investigations have succeeded in dismantling terrorist conspiracies using neither one of the provisions we are talking about today. Furthermore, since 2001—in other words, in the last 10 years—none of the investigations that resulted in charges or convictions required the use of these extraordinary powers, whether we're talking about the Khawaja affair, the Toronto 18 or, more recently, the four individuals in the Toronto region....

We know as well that these provisions could, as we see it, be abused. I am thinking here of the Air India case. We believe that Canadians will be better served and better protected under the usual provisions of the Criminal Code, rather than others that are completely unnecessary. Reliance on arbitrary powers and a lower standard of evidence can never replace good, effective police work. On the contrary, these powers open the door to a denial of justice and a greater probability that the reputation of innocent individuals...will be tarnished.

There are a number of concerns that have been raised with particular aspects of the legislation. It is important to note that sometimes it also gives Canadians a false sense of security. Again, what we need is appropriate resources to ensure that these activities are monitored and prosecuted where appropriate.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada on national security from 2002.

The Supreme Court stated:

On the one hand stands the manifest evil of terrorism and the random and arbitrary taking of innocent lives, rippling out in an ever-widening spiral of loss and fear. Governments, expressing the will of the governed, need the legal tools to...meet this challenge.

It goes on to say, however:

On the other hand stands the need to ensure that those legal tools do not undermine values that are fundamental to our democratic society — liberty, the rule of law, and the principles of fundamental justice — values that lie at the heart of the Canadian constitutional order and the international instruments that Canada has signed. In the end, it would be a Pyrrhic victory if terrorism were defeated at the cost of sacrificing our commitment to those values. Parliament’s challenge is to draft laws that effectively combat terrorism and conform to the requirements of our Constitution and our international commitments.

Again, I think it is important that we balance the safety of Canadians and the need for Canada to play its role in combatting terrorism, domestically and internationally, with those civil liberty rights.

In an op-ed referring to Canada and 9/11, which was originally published on September 6, 2011, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association stated:

Prior to the attacks, we demonstrated a high level of commitment to certain core values -- rule of law, due process, equality, habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, and the absolute prohibition against torture. These values lay at the heart of our Constitutional and international law obligations.

We knew, from contemporary history, that the absence of such legal protections resulted in societies where exceptional measures became the norm. Such societies could devolve into accepting presumptions of guilt, secret trials, secret evidence, extrajudicial execution, arbitrary detention, torture, even ethnic cleansing and massacres. To prevent such devolution, Canadians knew that any incursion into civil liberties must be legally and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society; unjustifiable incursions must be remedied.

It goes on to do an analysis about whether or not we, in Canada, can make that same claim today, and I will only read the sections that are actually applicable to this act. It states:

Our national security actions since 9/11 require our attention:

It talks about a number of things, including Afghan detainees and using immigrant and administrative processes and counter-terror initiatives.

However, the piece that I want to highlight is:

Canada seeks to re-introduce post 9/11 amendments to our Criminal Code that will enable interrogation and preventive detention without criminal charge. Civil liberties concerns include the undermining of due process, fair trial, and lower evidentiary thresholds to trigger proceedings.

These concerns are being raised on a number of fronts about the lack of due process.

Later on in its article, it acknowledges that:

...Canada has not taken the extreme legislative or administrative measures seen in other countries, including the United States, following 9/11.

However, it goes on to state:

But we have not always got it right. And when we fail to take timely action to provide accountability, transparency, and redress, we risk morphing from a state anchored on the rule of law and democratic guarantees, to a state that condones illegal actions and disregards human dignity.

Terrorists have little regard for human dignity, human life, human rights, or the rule of law. We cannot effectively fight terrorism and protect our national security if we operate from a paradigm that also disregards these objectives. If, as Canadians, we no longer shrink from the injustices of wrongful conviction; torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; racial profiling; arbitrary detention; impunity; then what exactly are we protecting?

I think that is a very good question, one that we need to ask ourselves as parliamentarians and as Canadians. I think that most Canadians would want to continue saying that we in Canada do protect those civil liberties, that right to due process.

I want to put into context where the Conservative government has missed an opportunity because the review of the Anti-terrorism Act was conducted over a number of years. Someone who did the analysis on it pointed out that the review that was supposed to happen at three years became the three-year review.

In 2007, the subcommittee on the review of the Anti-terrorism Act submitted a report. I want to quote from the minority report that was put forward by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I do not have time to read the whole report but many Canadians probably have not read that report and I just want to highlight a couple of the points that come back to the challenges we are facing with this bill before us.

In that report, the members noted:

Terrorism cannot be fought with legislation; it must be fought through the efforts of intelligence services combined with appropriate police action.

There is no act of terrorism that is not already a criminal offence punishable by the most stringent penalties under the Criminal Code. This is obviously the case for pre-meditated, cold-blooded murders; however, it is also true of the destruction of major infrastructures.

Moreover, when judges exercise their discretion during sentencing, they will consider the terrorists’ motive as an aggravating factor. They will find that the potential for rehabilitation is very low, that the risk of recidivism is very high and that deterrence and denunciation are grounds for stiffer sentencing. This is what they have always done in the past and there is no reason to think they will do differently in the future.

We must also consider that, when it comes to terrorism, deterrence has limitations. First, it will have very little impact on someone considering a suicide bombing. Second, those who decide to join a terrorist group generally believe that they are taking part in an historic movement that will have a triumphant outcome in the near future and that will see them emerge as heroes.

Therefore, one cannot expect that new legislation will provide the tools needed to effectively fight terrorism.

Legislation can, however, be amended if police do not seem to have the legal means needed to deal with the new threat of terrorism.

Consequently we must ensure that the proposed measure does not unduly disturb the balance that must exist between respect for the values of fairness, justice and respect for human rights, which are characteristic of our societies, while also ensuring better protection for Canadians and for the entire world community.

This is an important point. We have had the Supreme Court point this out and we have had civil liberties organizations point this out. It is the continuing need to balance the right to protect Canadians in terms of due process with our role domestically and on the world stage.

This dissenting report goes on to say that the Criminal Code already contains this solid arsenal of provisions for combatting terrorism. The Anti-terrorism Act has simply added two more that no police force has yet seen the need to use. Further in the report, it states:

But the ATA is also dangerous, because it is a frontal attack on a number of fundamental principles that underpin our system of law, the system that distinguishes us most sharply from the ideology motivating the terrorists who confront us.

The report continues:

The Civil Liberties Union and the Canadian Association of University Teachers drew up a long list of such principles, including: the presumption of innocence; the right to privacy and to be secure against searches and any kind of invasion of privacy; the right not to be stopped, questioned, arrested or detained based on mere suspicion or on racial, religious or ethnic profiling; the right of every individual to a public, just and fair trial, and the right to appeal; the right to make full answer and defence; the right to be secure against arbitrary imprisonment and torture; the right to bail while awaiting trial, and to have the validity of detention reviewed by way of habeas corpus; the right of asylum; the right to information and to freedom of the press.

We must also learn from our overreactions in the past when faced with danger. As the danger recedes, we feel obligated to compensate the innocent victims of useless measures taken out of fright.

Not only did these measures do nothing to increase our security, but we devoted a great deal of energy to them that could have been better employed in fighting the real danger more effectively.

Sadly, Canada does have a history of reacting to something that ended up not being a threat to Canadians' security at all. The report cites:

One example is the way we treated Canadians of Japanese origin during the Second World War. In 1942, 22,000 people of Japanese origin were arrested and detained, and their property confiscated. 75% of them had been born in Canada. And yet, government documents finally made public in 1970 revealed that both the Department of National Defence and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were convinced that Japanese-Canadians in no way threatened the country’s security.

I want to repeat that. It states, “...in no way threatened the country's security”. As a result of that, of course, the federal government eventually made an official apology and some financial restitution and put some money toward creating educational, social and cultural programs and activities.

However, it is an example of a response to a frightening world situation that unjustly penalized many Canadians.

During the First World War, some 5,000 Ukrainians were interned and 80,000 others were required to report regularly to the police. A number were forced to endure harsh living and working conditions and more than a hundred died during their internment.

There are other examples of how Canada has behaved in a way that many of us would argue did not respect due process and the liberties that many men and women in this country have fought so hard for.

Later in the report, it states:

Respect for our values is an important element in the war against terrorism. At the plenary closing session of the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security in Madrid on March 10, 2005, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan declared once again, “[T]errorism is a threat to all states, to all peoples.” He added,

[Terrorism] is a direct attack on the core values the United Nations stands for: the rule of law; the protection of civilians; mutual respect between people of different faiths and cultures; and peaceful resolution of conflicts.

But he then went on to say,

[T]errorism is in itself a direct attack on human rights and the rule of law. If we sacrifice them in our response, we will be handing victory to the terrorists… I regret to say that international human rights experts, including those of the UN system, are unanimous in finding that many measures which States are currently adopting to counter terrorism infringe on human rights and fundamental freedoms… Upholding human rights is not merely compatible with successful counter-terrorism strategy. It is an essential element.

In the conclusion of the report, one of the things that was recommended was a parliamentary oversight committee. This report was back in 2007. It states:

Canada is unique among western nations in its lack of a Security oversight committee. Over the course of the review we heard testimony from individuals and organizations who stressed the importance of creating a mechanism for overseeing disparate national security activities. In 2004 an Interim Committee of Parliamentarians on National Security was set up to make recommendations to the government of the day, it presented a report to Parliament in April of 2005 and on November 24, 2005, the government tabled a bill (C-81) to establish a National Security Committee of Parliamentarians.

This dissenting report goes on to say:

We would support recommendation 58 in the majority report. We would, however, further strengthen the recommendation to ensure that any Committee has authority to oversee all security agencies. In the examination of the Air India tragedy and the events surrounding the deportation and torture of Maher Arar, to cite but two examples, we have seen and heard of too many problems created when information is improperly shared or withheld from one agency to another.

The National Security Committee must in addition to providing a review function, be empowered to oversee current polices and conduct to ensure their adequacies. We have throughout the course of the review heard that vast amounts of information are deemed of national security interest and therefore inaccessible to the public or judiciary. Therefore, the proposed National Security Committee must be able to examine this information and where appropriate provide a graduated scale for the release of previously classified information.

Of course, over the years we have increasingly seen a government that withholds information. This is not part of this bill, but we recently we saw a very public feud between the government and the Parliamentary Budget Officer because of the government's refusal to release information and there were threats of court action in order to get information that the Parliamentary Budget Officer needs to do his job.

The same can be said to be true of many of the government departments. One almost needs a full battery of people working on access to information and analysis of the different ways this information is presented because when information is available, it is not presented in such a way that it is easily understandable and many times there are huge difficulties even accessing information which should rightfully be available to parliamentarians in order for them to do due diligence in doing their jobs.

This minority report went on to make a couple of recommendations. I will not read them all, but it states in part:

While the purpose of the ATA review was to examine the existing legislation and, while we cannot write an entirely new law, we would recommend that the existing ATA be terminated. However, if a new law were to be drafted, the following considerations should guide the process:

That new legislation seek to provide the utmost protection to, and not oppression of, our citizens;

That the new legislation be guided by the spirit and principles of the Charter;

That new legislation would prohibit “evidence” garnered from torture domestic or international, in our courts or tribunal;

That there be an absolute ban on sending people back to their country of origin or any other country where there is a reasonable risk of torture or death.

The reason I raised that report from 2007 in the context of the legislation that is now before us, Bill S-7, is that we can see that Bill S-7 largely disregards some of the recommendations that were made, principally around due process. We have a re-introduction of the clauses that were sunsetted around preventative detention and investigative hearings.

It is on those grounds that the New Democrats will be opposing the legislation.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations concerning the provisions of the second budget bill dealing with members' pensions. I hope to receive the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. It is a slightly edited version of what was proposed by the Liberal House leader yesterday.

I move that the House recognize that the provisions of Bill C-45 dealing with members' pensions should be enacted as quickly as possible and passed without further debate; that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be divided into two bills: Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures; and Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; and that Bill C-46 be composed of: (a) clauses 475 to 553 of Bill C-45 as it is presently composed; (b) a clause inserted before all of the other clauses to provide that this act may be cited as the pension reform act and; (c) a clause inserted after all of the other clauses to provide this act comes into force or is deemed to have come into force on January 1, 2013; that Bill C-46 be deemed to have been read the second time and deemed referred to committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed; that Bill C-45 be composed of the remaining clauses; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior the adoption of this order; that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; and that Bill C-45 and Bill C-46 be reprinted.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. Minister of State have the unanimous consent of this House for this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her very comprehensive overview of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. She has given us a very good history on why this bill is so problematic.

I was actually in the House in 2001 when the original anti-terrorism bill was passed. It is correct that there were the sunset clauses concerning preventative arrest and interrogation. Those were put in because they were such serious elements in that bill. That bill was rushed through. I really appreciate the comments the member made today about why this bill should not be supported.

One of the concerns that we in the NDP have is that every response by the Conservative government is a legislative response, such as new legislation, new clauses to the Criminal Code, as opposed to relying on what we believe is the Criminal Code that already has existing provisions and the fact that we should also be relying on and supporting resources for intelligence efforts and appropriate police action, not a new legislative agenda.

I wonder if the member might comment on that in terms of where we are now with this bill and the fact that we do not actually need new clauses, that the existing Criminal Code is sufficient, and that we should be supporting intelligence resources and law enforcement action as something that is more appropriate to this situation.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one does question why those clauses are back in the legislation because we have known since the review of the act was put in place that there are measures in the Criminal Code to deal with some of these matters. Except in one botched case with the Air India inquiry, these measures have not been used. We do wonder what the government's intention is by reinserting these two clauses in this legislation. Is it to cover its lack of inaction in terms of providing adequate resources to police and intelligence forces in order for them to do their job?

I did point out that we sometimes indicate to Canadians that we are passing legislation that will keep them safe but then we do not put resources into it to ensure that the people who are responsible for enacting the legislation are able to do their job. Arguably, this case is another example of the kind of smoke and mirrors that the Conservatives have become very good at when it comes to passing legislation but not putting the resources in place.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's excellent speech included reference to quite a few members of the community who articulated clear positions.

I, myself, do not see how it makes sense to reintroduce provisions into legislation that have basically proven ineffective because they have never been used. What does my colleague think the government is trying to achieve by reintroducing such harsh provisions into our legislation, f measures that have never been used since the legislation was created?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Paul Copeland, a lawyer with the Law Union of Ontario, said, “First of all, I would like to make a comment with respect to the Air India case because it is the only time when provisions of the anti-terrorism law were invoked, and the circumstances surrounding it were quite strange. We characterize this episode as a fiasco and this description seems perfectly appropriate to me. In my opinion, the provisions that you are examining here in committee will unnecessarily change our legal landscape in Canada. We must not adopt them, and in my opinion, they are not necessary. Other provisions of the code provide various mechanisms for dealing with such individuals”.

It is a good question and one that we would hope the government is prepared to answer. What is the government's motivation? Many witnesses from across this country have talked about the fact that those particular measures, preventative detention and investigative hearings, either have not been used or, when they have been used, they have been used to no particular effect. Why is the government continuing with this kind of agenda?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question I have is about the general taking of civil liberties by the government. This is not the first occasion we have seen civil liberties being attacked and they are being attacked by the other side. In this particular case, we have the right to habeas corpus and the right to investigative hearings suddenly being thrown back on us as though this is the most important thing facing Canadians, and I doubt that most Canadians will believe that.

I wonder if my colleague could comment about the civil liberties aspect of this and how this is just another symbol of a government that does not seem to care a whole lot about civil liberties.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put this into a broader context. This is an analysis from “The Impact of Post-Enactment Review on Anti-Terrorism Laws: Four Jurisdictions Compared”, from February 15, 2012.

I mentioned the review process that took place, and now we have a piece of legislation that disregards all of the concerns that were raised around civil liberties. There is a bit of a context, and what the review says is that:

Governments seem all too vulnerable to the pressure to react to terrorist violence with fresh legislation and they frequently try to ensure that the legislation is given as little opportunity as possible to impede the swiftness of that response. The fact that legislators are at a distinct disadvantage in this scenario from the outset due to their very limited access to security intelligence assessments means that the deliberation over the government's measures hardly ever occurs on an even playing field.

This is a review that took a look at a number of different jurisdictions and talked about Canada's lack of ability to actually review the effectiveness of its legislation and problems with that review process.

When this original piece of legislation, Bill C-36, was first enacted, it was in response to a very horrific incident that took many lives. Therefore, the government of the day reacted swiftly, but with an omnibus bill that did not allow the kind of oversight that is required on very serious measures that start to infringe on Canadians' civil liberties.

We then had the review process that gave the Conservative government of the day an opportunity to bring forward a piece of legislation that reflected these concerns from Canadians. However, once again, there was disregard for those concerns that had been raised around due process and civil liberties. Why is it that the Conservatives are continuing to disregard the concerns that are raised around due process and civil liberties?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to that same point that my hon. colleague just ended on. We know these provisions were created right after September 11, 2001. In February of 2007, these provisions came up for review. They were brought to the House, were voted on and rejected by the duly elected officials of the House of the day. Is this another example of the government not having the ability to respect decisions that are made by elected officials in the House?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. What we saw happening in minority governments, where members were expressing the will of the people, has now been disregarded. The Conservatives will often talk about having a strong stable majority, but the reality is that they got 39.8% of the vote. That is hardly a majority of Canadians who are reflecting their point of view.

One of the things the report says about fixing the deficiencies in parliamentary review of anti-terrorism laws is, “Anti-terrorism provisions are too radical to be left unscrutinized. Independent reporting may also serve to galvanize more regular and transparent policy thinking within executive governments, as it appears to have done in the United Kingdom.”

The government often touts that it is a leader in transparency and accountability. If that were actually the case, then there would be the kind of reporting and oversight that is very important for this kind of legislation.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering whether the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan could provide the source of that report that she is quoting from? I just want see how those comments might be leaning.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is not really a point of order, but the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan may wish to respond.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two reports. The first is the IRPP's Choices, “Fixing the Deficiencies in Parliamentary Review of Anti-Terrorism Laws: Lessons From the United Kingdom and Australia”. The other report is from the Journal of Legislative Studies entitled “The Impact of Post-Enactment Review on Anti-Terrorism Laws: Four Jurisdictions Compared”. This is the version of the record that was first published on February 15, 2012.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

We talked a few seconds ago about transparency and accountability. However, I think that the bill is yet another example of smoke and mirrors. It is intended to deflect Canadians from the things that are really important toward things that are not pressing or urgent. It is intended to scare and strike fear into the hearts of Canadians. Apparently, the Conservative government intends to govern this country through fear.

The bill would reintroduce measures that all parties agreed in 2007 should disappear, and they did. Those measures were severe incursions into civil liberties. As it turned out, the measures never were necessary to be used to combat any kind of terrorism that went on this country, and that is both for the terrorism we heard about and the threats I am sure the public did not hear about because the police were able to find it and stop it before it happened.

Why is this being reintroduced now? Why is the bill the single most important thing facing Canadians now and on the top of the agenda for the Conservative government to carry forward? I think the answer is because it would deflect Canadians from thinking about some of the more serious problems that are going on.

Apparently, the anti-terrorism bill turned out to be unnecessary in 2007, but the Conservatives are introducing it anyway. NDP members will not be supporting the bill, as we believe it is an unnecessary incursion into civil liberties.

I believe the government is perhaps being a little two-faced on the whole notion of civil liberties. Members will recall the rancour and rhetoric over the gun registry. During the past several months of the Conservative's term in office, the use of a gun registry was a huge incursion into a person's individual private right to own a firearm, which is, of course, an American right and not a Canadian one. Nevertheless, the Conservative government was saying we had to protect civil liberties. However, here it is saying that it wants to diminish civil liberties. I do not think it should go unnoticed that the government is two-faced about this.

As a union representative in my previous life, I often had to be on guard against employers and others who were attempting to create incursions into civil liberties under the guise of protecting their investments and public safety, and their profits ultimately. For example, although it was ruled by the Supreme Court to be in violation of Canadian law, employers often wanted to have the right to test the urine, saliva and blood of their employees. It was for no apparent reason but just because they wanted to. Unlike the United States, the courts in this country have determined that it is an unreasonable incursion into our civil liberties; yet, employers keep trying to do it. They keep trying to find ways to get around these laws.

One has to wonder what would happen if, as a result of these pressures by employers, insurance companies started to take these kinds of incursions into our civil liberties. I fear that if the insurance companies looking after our health and well-being were able to accomplish these civil liberty incursions, they would be able to refuse to insure people on the basis of something they discovered as a result of a saliva test or blood test that took place long before. We have to be ever vigilant against that.

On this side of the House, we are ever vigilant against incursions of our civil liberties. However, the Conservative government believes that it needs to rule through a climate of fear. It needs to create a sense of fear in the public of Canada so that Canadians will be cowed into being appreciative of the few good things the government might happen to do. If there is anything the government has proven over the past year and half, it is that it is single-mindedly using a law and order agenda as its entire raison d'être.

There is no reason that this particular piece of legislation should be top of mind. There are far more important things that we should be doing and that we should be afraid of. However, the government would rather distract us with threats that there are imminent terrorist attacks and we must therefore change the law to allow the forces of justice in this country to have access to things that it turns out they do not need.

We believe that as a result of the application of the original Anti-terrorism Act in 2001, that $92 billion has been spent, over and above what would normally have been spent, to combat terrorism in this country. Is that a just way of spending our money? I do not think anybody would be able to tell. However, if what we are doing is creating this climate of removal of civil liberties and spending money to do it, then we must be vigilant against that, and in turn perhaps save some taxpayer dollars.

The government wants us to be afraid of terrorism, economic turmoil in other countries and environmental groups, but it forgets that Canadians are afraid of more important things that are closer to home. We should be afraid of carbon dioxide emissions and what that is doing to the planet. The government has apparently turned a blind eye to that. It has decided that there will not be a reaction from the government to implement the Kyoto Accord, or any other method of restricting the use of CO₂ emissions to change our climate.

The other thing that is alarming Canadians is the ever-escalating price of energy, particularly in the east part of the country, and the imbalance that is created between the government's determination to ship our energy supply to other countries while starving other parts of the country of energy. We do not have a national energy strategy from the government. We do not have a security of energy, and people are starting to feel it. The government is clearly reacting in a way that is not in keeping with what Canadians are fearing.

There is a twisting of democracy going on. Canadians should be afraid of that. With the implementation of time limits, of prorogation, and with these giant omnibus bills that are coming forward to Parliament, we have a twisting of the democratic process, in such a way that Canadians ought to be afraid. The government would rather distract them with talk of terrorism than to actually get at the real problems that face Canadians.

It is also an example of the weird priorities of the government. We are the only ones talking about this because the government has not put up any speakers on this particular act. The government appears to think this is the most important thing facing Canadians. However, in terms of public safety, there are more important things that are closer to home that we should be talking about.

In my riding, there are gun crimes almost every month. In Toronto, six Somali youth were killed by handguns. We are not doing anything to combat the proliferation of handguns into our cities in this country. We would do something to take away some civil liberties and combat terrorism, but that is not what is killing people in this country. Handguns are killing people in this country, and certainly in the city of Toronto.

We also have the spectre of tainted meat. People are more afraid of tainted meat right now than they are of terrorism. Yet, the government's response is to say Canadians should pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, that things will be fine and this company will resurrect itself.

We have the very real problem of jobs. There are not enough jobs to go around. There is only one job for every five people who are unemployed, and we have no indication from the government of any strategy to deal with that, other than to suggest that more temporary foreign workers are necessary. We now have something like 300,000 temporary foreign workers who have come into this country.

The people in my riding are more afraid of losing their jobs than they are of terrorism. Yet the government's approach has been to bring forward an anti-terrorist bill as the most important measure that needs to be faced by Canadians and the most important fear that Canadians should have.

Therefore, the NDP will be rejecting the bill on the basis of the lack of accountability, transparency and the incursion into civil liberties that is going on in the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and concur with many of his thoughts, especially when he talked about the issue of priorities and the fact that there were many other things with which we could deal.

I must admit that I am a little surprised. He made reference to the omnibus bill, saying that it should have been broken down. I thought it was interesting that just yesterday the Liberal Party suggested that the omnibus bill in fact be broken down and the pension portion be taken out, yet the New Democrats said no to that. He made reference to priorities for the government. We would have thought that would be a priority for the NDP also, as opposed to wanting to protect our pensions possibly. Who knows?

Why did the NDP say no to allowing the omnibus bill to broken down to take out the pension issue? I agree with him that maybe the government is using this bill as a diversion. Would the member mind answering that specific question? Why did the NDP say no?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not privy to the conversations that went on behind the scenes on that, but I am aware that the omnibus bill is yet another example of the twisting of democracy by the government, creating systems of enormity that force the members on this side to vote against their consciences, even though there are things they may agree with in the bill.

The Prime Minister himself has expressed reservations about the use of omnibus bills as a method of getting many pieces of legislation done at the same time that have a wide variety of topics that need to be studied by different committees. Instead, this one will be studied by the finance committee. It is wrong, it should stop and we should watch out for it, as should Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for his brilliant speech, in which he pointed out that the NDP supports the fight against terrorism and that Bill S-7 gives Canadians a false sense of security.

The bill does not provide police and intelligence services with the resources they need. We have the legal tools needed—in international treaties and the Criminal Code, for instance—to combat illegal terrorism activities.

What stood out for me was when my distinguished colleague said that the Conservative Party had spent $92 billion and had therefore poorly managed this project. Furthermore, in terms of people's quality of life, it completely ignored any notion of respecting human rights.

This bill acts as a smoke screen and avoids talking about the real problems. As for quality of life, Canadians care a great deal about their health and safety. Canadians want a national energy strategy and a national transit strategy. These are priorities and they would help tackle the real problems that the Conservative government refuses to talk about.

My questions, therefore, are as follows: will Bill S-7 take away the freedom of expression of Canadians who wish to demonstrate or engage in acts of dissent that have nothing to do with terrorism? Will it eventually lead to social profiling or labelling someone an environmental extremist for asserting their rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has hit the nail on the head. This bill is a diversion. It is really not the most important thing facing Canadians. The most important things facing Canadians now are the economy, jobs and the ecology. Those things the Conservative government has refused to talk about or introduce matters dealing with those things and, instead, is giving us increased penalties for terrorism. I doubt there are terrorists who would read the bill and say, “I'd better not do that because the penalty went up”. It does not work that way. Increasing jail sentences for certain terrorist-related offences is not a deterrent. It does not stop terrorists from doing their jobs.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill S-7, which originated in the Senate. I have a question. Why did it originate in the Senate and not in the House of Commons? The Senate is less democratically elected than the House of Commons. It is very important that it is the representatives of the public, not the people appointed by the Prime Minister, who debate these important bills.

Bill S-7 has four main objectives, which I will summarize here. First, it amends the Criminal Code in order to provide for investigative hearings and to allow for the imposition of a recognizance with conditions—the so-called preventive arrest; second, it amends the Canada Evidence Act to allow judges to order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information about a trial or an accused once the appeal period has expired; third, it amends the Criminal Code to create new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit a terrorist act; and fourth, it amends the Security of Information Act to increase the maximum penalty for harbouring a person who has committed or is likely to commit a terrorist act.

Again, the government is cracking down on imaginary terrorists. In 2001, the Chrétien government had similar provisions passed in the House. None of those provisions have been in effect since December 31, 2006. Since then, given the very small number of terrorist acts or presumed terrorists acts in Canada, the laws that were in effect between 2001 and 2006 have not been necessary.

Why was this bill introduced in the Senate? What motivated the government to introduce it? Let us not forget that it was the government that introduced this bill in the Senate. It was not a senator who did this on his or her own initiative. It was truly the government that introduced it and that is telling us that it is important.

What is motivating the government? What exactly should we be cracking down on? This bill will have serious repercussions for human rights in Canada. Canada has always been a world leader when it comes to human rights. They are enshrined in our Constitution.

Bill C-45—Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the House recognize that the provisions of Bill C-45 dealing with members' pensions should be enacted as quickly as possible, and passed without further debate;

That Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be divided into two bills: Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and Bill C-46, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; and

That Bill C-46 be composed of

(a) clauses 475 to 514 of Bill C-45, as it is presently composed,

(b) a clause, inserted before all of the other clauses, to provide that “This act may be cited as the Pension Reform Act”, and

(c) a clause, inserted after all of the other clauses, to provide that “This act comes into force, or is deemed to have come into force, on January 1, 2013”;

That Bill C-46 be deemed to have been read the second time and deemed referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed;

That Bill C-46 be composed of its remaining clauses;

That Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order;

That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; and

That Bills C-45 and C-46 be reprinted.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. Minister of State have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.