Debates of April 22nd, 2013

Combating Terrorism Act

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is pretty remarkable coming from a member on that side of the House, when every time we try to bring forward legislation that supports law enforcement, as is evident today, members vote against it and do not support it.

The fact is that we have increased front-line officers at the border by 26%. However, it is no surprise that when the NDP members do not have a valid argument for their shallow dismissiveness of a very serious threat, they spew inaccurate talking points. It is this government that has time and time again given more resources to law enforcement, whether it is at the border or it is the RCMP, with Bill C-42. There have been legislative changes, whether we are talking about legislative changes to support victims, or in this case, where we are bringing forward legislation that has been asked for by law enforcement across the country who know terrorism is a real threat. They have asked for this legislation, and the members opposite have voted against it.

If NDP members want to argue against the legislation, go ahead. I would be happy to debate any one of them head-to-head on this legislation. Instead, what are we hearing from them? We are hearing that we do not need to do it right now.

Last October, the NDP member for Brome—Missisquoi expressed his reservations for this legislation by saying, “since 2007, nothing has happened in Canada. The country has not been subject to terrorist attacks”. Frankly, that kind of irresponsible head-in-the-sand attitude is not only disappointing, but it is very troubling. I think Canadians will look at the NDP members and look at their reaction.

When they have a chance to support important legislation, they could do one of two things. They could support the legislation or they could stand up and give an informed and intelligent response. However, what we are hearing so far today is pretty shallow, and I would say intellectually bankrupt.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat interesting that we have had this legislation sitting on the books for quite a while. The Liberal Party has indicated its support for the legislation.

However, the government chose last Friday, an hour before the House was going to adjourn, to raise this issue. We were supposed to be debating a motion today dealing with democracy and reform. However, the Conservatives used the excuse to say it is because of the Boston incident, which every Canadian from coast to coast to coast would acknowledge is horrific and for which they want to see consequences, to bring this issue forward. They did not say they would bring it forward on Friday or last Thursday; they wanted to bring it in on Monday. I will explain why I think that is the case when I get the opportunity to speak.

If the bill were to pass today, would the government then go back to an opposition day tomorrow? Would that be the inclination of the government?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by assuring both the NDP and the Liberals that this is not about them. They need to stop the navel-gazing and thinking the whole world revolves around them, because it does not.

Here is what we are doing with this legislation. We are giving law enforcement the tools they need and that they have asked for time and time again. The initial Anti-terrorism Act was under the Liberals, and that was sunsetted. I hope my hon. colleague from the Liberal side would indicate that even under his new leader they will still support this important piece of legislation and these amendments.

It is perhaps hard for the opposition to understand, but when we are in government, we have to make the right decisions and we have to make them at the right time. It may sometimes be easier for them to sit and pontificate about what might be causing all of this, but this government will act. We will act decisively. Law enforcement needs these tools. They need these provisions. We will move swiftly to make sure it happens. We will not be deterred by the opposition's constant wondering if it is all about them, because it is not: it is about the people of Canada.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York South—Weston.

I would like to begin by expressing my condolences on behalf of the NDP to the families and loved ones of all those who were injured or killed last week in Boston. What a terrible tragedy.

When I heard the news, the first thing I thought of was the final message left in a letter to Canadians from our former leader, Jack Layton. He said he hoped our world would have more love and less hate, more hope, less despair and more compassion. When I heard about what happened in Boston, my first thought was that we still do not live in that kind of society.

Parliament has already brought in anti-terrorism legislation and I am so happy that it has been successfully protecting Canadians and the Canadian government for the past 12 years. My initial stance is that Canada's existing anti-terrorism laws are satisfactory and adequate. That is one reason the NDP will be opposing this bill.

As my Liberal colleague mentioned earlier, this bill comes out of nowhere. We have not heard anything about it since December. Now, suddenly, the Conservative government is exploiting the Boston tragedy for partisan purposes. I am disgusted by this display of partisanship, which has no place in Canada.

We are still waiting for the House of Commons to raise the level of intellectual debate in Canada. While I believe the Conservative government cares about the safety of Canadians, its decision to bring Bill S-7 back into the spotlight stinks of partisanship. I strongly condemn that decision.

I hope the people at home realize that. I hope they will not think the Conservatives are white knights sworn to protect Canadians from terrorism. If the Conservatives were really in power to protect people from terrorism, they would not have waited until April to dust off this bill, which has been on the shelf since December.

A responsible Canadian government would not have kept hitting the snooze button until tragedy struck somewhere else in the world. It would not have made a last-minute decision on a Friday afternoon to discuss terrorism on the very next business day. That is poor planning. A responsible government would step up and introduce good bills.

Bill S-7 is not wholly without merit. Nonetheless, the Conservative government and the parliamentary secretary had no business saying that the NDP's approach was not serious.

To prove just how serious the NDP is, I will point out that when this bill went to committee, the NDP put forward 18 amendments to improve it. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives proposed a single amendment. In committee, the NDP fought tooth and nail to debate and improve this bill.

As I said, nobody is against doing the right thing. We want to protect Canadians from terrorist acts. However, we have to be careful, because passing this kind of bill can cause major problems in terms of freedoms. I am not talking about the freedoms of actual terrorists. It is clear that real terrorists must immediately be handed over to police or even military authorities, depending on the circumstances.

I have particular concerns about people in a position of power. We know that the Conservative government, which is in a position of power, abuses Parliament, which is supposed to be democratic. Last week, the Conservatives invoked closure for the 31st time. That is a Canadian record. Congratulations on killing democracy bit by bit.

I am concerned that Bill S-7 will give this type of freedom to the Conservative government and will create problems that will become clear only in a few months or years. By then it will be too late, because other problems will have been created.

Earlier, I mentioned that the NDP takes the issue of terrorism very seriously. We proposed 18 amendments in committee, but all of them were rejected by the Conservative government, which has a majority. Obviously, Canadians do not know about all of these useful amendments that the NDP proposed in order to improve this bill. If some of them had been passed in committee, we might not be debating this bill. It could have been passed quickly, with the NDP's support.

The Conservative government continues to believe that every bill it introduces is perfect, in every sense of the word, but the past has proven the government wrong. One example is the minister's bill that proposed spying on people on the Internet. That bill was quickly withdrawn because of a public outcry. This government believes itself to be perfect, but it is not. That is why we need to have debate in the House and pass amendments in committee, but that is not what happened with Bill S-7.

The first amendment the NDP proposed was rejected. We wanted SIRC to look at the possibility of an inter-agency co-operation protocol to ensure that it would be effective and that rights protected by law would be respected. We wanted that protocol to be put in place before the leaving the country offences could come into effect. It was deemed as being beyond the scope of the bill, and on that basis, the government decided to reject the amendment outright.

Clearly, the people watching at home understand how good it would be to do this type of review of our techniques and protocols. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused our request. It is no big deal. The NDP is very reasonable and continued to propose other good amendments to improve the bill.

The second amendment we proposed was to ensure that testimony gathered from investigative hearings could not be used against an individual in extradition and deportation proceedings, not just in criminal proceedings. Once again, the Conservative government said that this did not fall within the scope of the bill and that this amendment would therefore not improve the bill.

The third amendment we proposed was to establish the right to state-funded legal aid if a person had to attend an investigative hearing. Common sense dictates that people who are charged must at least be able to defend themselves and have their point of view heard. In many trials in human history, allegations have been proven to be unfounded. Clearly, that is not what the NDP wants. We want the real criminals to be put behind bars. We have to give these people a chance to prove their case.

When we proposed this amendment, we were told that it would encroach on the Crown's financial initiatives. This is just another ridiculous excuse as to why we could not propose this amendment.

Since I am running out of time, I will not be able to list all the amendments. However, I would like to try to quickly share some of them. Incidentally, they were all rejected.

The fourth amendment was to ensure that the annual reports included detailed information on any changes to the legislation, policies and practices related to exit information or exit control. This amendment was rejected.

The fifth amendment was to ensure that the comprehensive review included the implementation of four new offences related to leaving the country and that the issue be dealt with by elected members, not just by the Senate. This amendment was also rejected.

The sixth amendment was to add a comprehensive review of the government's implementation of the Arar commission's recommendations with regard to accountability and oversight mechanisms, with particular attention to oversight and activities among agencies. Once again, the amendment was rejected.

We wanted to include the advice of the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the racial discrimination and profiling issues surrounding Bill S-7. This amendment was also rejected.

My time has expired, but I would like to reiterate that the NDP takes terrorism seriously. We will continue to fight to ensure that Canadians are protected and feel safe in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the NDP will not be supporting the bill, but my question for the member is in reference to his earlier statement with regard to the Conservatives bringing forward this bill at this point in time. The Boston tragedy has been pointed out as something on which Canadians, Americans and anyone who lives in North America can really sympathize with the families and the city, and we want to see justice prevail in this issue. However, we find it unfortunate that the government wants to use that tragedy as a legislative tool.

Would the member agree with that assessment?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, the Conservative government is putting this bill on the front burner in order to make tomorrow's headlines. It wants the editorials to say just how proactive the Conservative government is being on the issue of terrorism, and that it is protecting Canadians' way of life and security. Bill S-7 has come from nowhere. The Conservative government dragged its feet for many months before reintroducing it.

As my Liberal colleague mentioned, this legislation was passed 12 years ago when the Liberals were in power and it still stands up today. Since coming into force, it has done a good job of protecting Canadians. The Conservatives have yet to convince me that the old law needs to be changed. If that is the case, the amendments I mentioned earlier should be incorporated. We should improve the bill by making these amendments and we should not be creating an incredible loophole that could wreak havoc with the civil liberties of people who are not criminals.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. Certainly the horrific killings in Boston remind us of the recent killings and senseless violence in Newtown and in Colorado.

However, I am thinking about why this bill is being brought forward today, and I think of Annie Maguire and her six family members in London who were sentenced to 15 years in jail for the crime of being Irish because the government at the time thought it would fight terrorism and it would get rid of all liberties. I am thinking of Maher Arar, whose only crime was that he was a Canadian citizen who came from the Middle East, and the Liberal government at the time did not mind his being taken off and tortured. Of course, years later we saw that it had been a fundamental abuse.

Today we are being called upon to push this through. We are being accused of being soft on terror and all the other crazy stuff that the Conservatives talk about.

I would like to ask a question of my hon. colleague about today's Globe and Mail editorial saying that the government's anti-terrorism legislation smacks of political opportunism, that the debate is politicizing the Boston Marathon bombings and that the debate should not happen until we have a chance to ensure that basic civil liberties would not be undermined in an attempt by the government to simply embarrass the Liberal Party. I do not know why they are worried about embarrassing the Liberal Party; the Liberal Party has been supporting the undermining of civil liberties for years on this issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord has 50 seconds.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about partisanship in the House of Commons. Naturally, the House is a very partisan place. It is common for the government to accuse the opposition of a thousand and one things, and vice versa. However, when Canadian newspapers point out that what Parliament or the Conservative government is doing is partisan, that is appalling.

The Conservatives accuse the NDP of not taking terrorism seriously, even though that is not true. However, when a newspaper as illustrious as The Globe and Mail says the same thing as the NDP, it means that the government must change its tune and stop using the House of Commons as a soapbox for spreading such rubbish for partisan purposes. It is unbecoming.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak again to Bill S-7. I must agree with my colleagues on this side of the House, the timing is somewhat suspect.

The bill was reported back to the House of Commons on December 12 of last year and it was not until today, more than four months later, that it suddenly appeared. The only notice was given last Friday, by the government House leader, that the bill would be replacing an opposition day motion that dealt with Conservative backbenchers' rights to speak here in the House. Therefore, the timing of the bill is very deliberately political. We could not come to any other conclusion than there is a political method and madness in the timing of Bill S-7.

However, putting the timing aside, we in the NDP believe in the freedoms and rights of individuals in our country. We do not want to see unnecessary and unhelpful changes to our laws that make people in our country subject to unreasonable search, seizure, and detention. That is one of the core problems with the bill that the Conservatives have refused to consider amending. Every step of the way we have suggested that we could support the bill if some of the freedoms that were being taken away by the government were put back or protected in another way. They have refused at this stage to consider any amendment whatsoever.

When the Conservatives bring a bill before Parliament they have all the right answers in their minds. They believe everything they have written is perfect and cannot be improved upon. We take considerable umbrage at that approach. In fact, there are some serious problems with the bill that we would like to correct.

We would like to work with the government in preventing terrorism. No one on this side of the House would like anything more than to prevent terrorism in our country. There has not been a lot of it in our country. Of course, we have the recent events in Boston to remind us just how close it could be. However, the police have been successful, without these changes in the law, in preventing serious terrorist acts in the country and without using its predecessor in preventing serious terrorist acts in the country.

Why then is it necessary to create this new regime? Why is it necessary to withdraw some more Canadian fundamental rights and freedoms? The right not to be imprisoned unreasonably and the right not to have to give evidence against oneself in a trial are two fundamental rights that we believe Canadians think they enjoy. However, the government would take those rights away with Bill S-7 and in so doing remove some of the very fundamental protections that Canadians have.

Bill S-7 is very complicated and technical, so let us bring it down to a more reasonable and understandable level. When we talk about the notion of preventative detention, what the heck does that mean to an ordinary Canadian? What it means is that a peace officer, and that means a police officer, an RCMP officer, a border officer, or anyone who is classified as a peace officer, can, without a warrant, put someone in jail. That is now what the Conservatives would like us to accept, if that peace officer believes that doing so might help prevent a terrorist act from taking place. It is true that after a short period of time—we do not know how long exactly, but they suggest 24 hours—that person would have to go before a judge and the peace officer would have to justify the detention of that individual or, in the words of the act, “the preventative detention”, which means that individual would have restrictions placed on his or her ability to get around, on whether or not he or she could have firearms, for example, and whether or not her or she could leave the country.

We have a situation then, without any trial and without any conviction.

That individual is not a person suspected of being a terrorist, by the way. That is a person who is maybe a relative, maybe a friend. That person, then, would be subject, under the bill, to serious, preventative detention measures.

As it turns out, this kind of preventative detention was there in the previous act and was never used. Police have managed without this kind of measure to stop terrorism. So, what would its effect be?

I would like to refer to good, old Uncle Albert, in Moose Jaw, whose nephew, for whatever reason, is suspected of some kind of terrorist act. And so, because they cannot find the nephew, the police come to Uncle Albert's door, put him in jail for a day, then take him before a judge and argue that Uncle Albert might know where the nephew is, so we cannot let Uncle Albert have any more guns. We cannot let Uncle Albert leave the country because we have to be able to interrogate Uncle Albert, Uncle Albert in Moose Jaw, who has done nothing. The police do not suspect him of any terrorism. He just happens to be the uncle of the nephew they do suspect.

What happens? Uncle Albert says, because he is from Moose Jaw and because he is a farmer and has to keep the varmints off his property, “I can't give up my firearms. I'm not giving up my firearms. I refuse.” There would be no choice, then, but to put him in jail for up to 12 months.

That is the kind of thing that could happen to Uncle Albert in Moose Jaw, who has absolutely no terrorist inclination whatsoever. However, because he is related to somebody the police are only investigating because they suspect there might be some kind of terrorist activity, Uncle Albert would be put in jail for up to 12 months.

That is not the Canada that I want to be part of. That is not the Canada that Canadians have come to expect, to have as part of their rights and freedoms the right and freedom not to be imprisoned without conviction, with a trial, without a judge.

That is exactly what the Conservatives are suggesting should happen. That is one of the things to which the NDP said, “Whoa, that goes too far”, and the Conservatives said, “Too bad. This is the way we like it. We want this preventative detention to apply to anybody, not just people we suspect of being terrorists, but people who are peripherally related.” That would take the bill way too far.

With respect to the timing of the bill, people can read for themselves what The Globe and Mail has to say about the timing of the bill. They can suggest for themselves what the Conservatives are doing to create the timing of the bill.

However, the bill would not do what the Conservatives suggest it would and put Canada in a place where we could prevent the kinds of things that we all want not to happen. The bill would go too far in a number of respects.

The NDP supports the notion that we should be giving our police forces, our border protection people, the powers and the tools they need, and the resources to prevent crimes from being committed in Canada. The border services is having its budget cut. At the same time the Conservatives are suggesting that we want to prevent terrorism and we want to prevent terrorism from occurring overseas. We want to prevent terrorists from being trained overseas. At the same time we want to prevent those kinds of things from happening, we are in the position of having to say our border services it has to make do with less.

The Border Services Agency is already having a terribly difficult time preventing the huge influx of smuggled guns into this country, which I would suggest is doing more to harm our citizenry and to put people in a state of fear than the bill would ever solve. At the same that the bill is being presented as a necessary part of police officers' arsenal, we are taking away money from the Border Services Agency, which is trying to prevent illegal handguns from reaching this country. It is a two-faced system.

We in the NDP believe that there are things we should be doing and spending more time on than this one. This one is seriously flawed.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for having spent a fair bit of time on an area that had NDP members leaving the committee after clause by clause quite shocked. We had attempted to propose an amendment that would make clear that anybody who was not suspected of being involved in or potentially involved in terrorist activity could not be subject to the recognizance with conditions regime. We wanted to make that clear, because we thought that the provision had been drafted badly. It turns out that is what the government wanted.

The parliamentary secretary said the following, which I am wondering if my colleague could comment on. She stated:

The recognizance with conditions in its present form would provide the potential for a recognizance with conditions to be imposed...[on a] person who would be subject to the recognizance with conditions [who] is not necessarily the person carrying out a terrorist activity. The proposed amendment [from the NDP] would seek to restrict the application of this measure....

Because that is inconsistent with the policy intent underpinning the provision, we are opposed to it.

I wanted to put on record what my colleague has been saying because many in the House might have thought this was a fanciful example of Uncle Albert. Maybe it is a stretch to think that anybody in Canada would do to Uncle Albert what my colleague suggested, but the possibility of that or other scenarios is very much what the government affirmed in committee.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his position in committee, having had the ability to actually hear from the government what it intends. What it intends very clearly is that the scope of preventative detention and recognizance provisions of this bill are intended to cover a very wide scope of individuals. It may be a stretch to suggest that somebody in Moose Jaw would be held in prison as a result of being related to somebody who was, in fact, the subject of a terrorism investigation, but that is precisely what the bill would permit and that is precisely why the NDP had suggested the bill goes to far.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will have the opportunity to provide some comments in more detail, but I was wondering if the member could reiterate the timing and comment on the Boston tragedy and, in very few words, explain why he believes the bill is before us right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stated earlier that the timing is somewhat suspect. No one in the House, least of all the NDP, suggests that what happened in Boston is not something we should pay very close attention to and be very concerned about. Our hearts, thoughts, and prayers go out to the individuals who were affected by what must have been a very difficult, trying, and frightening time.

The bill has been sitting in limbo for the past four months. For the government to suddenly decide to bring it forward today smacks of some political opportunism, if ever I saw it.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I would like to hear what he has to say about this government's measures. On the one hand, the government is advocating law and order and says that it wants to combat terrorism. On the other hand, particularly in budget 2012 and successive budgets, it has made significant cuts to public safety.

Could he elaborate on this?

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

Mr. Speaker, the importation of illegal handguns is a serious and pressing problem in my riding and in the city of Toronto. There was a bank robbery just yesterday, which was probably with illegally imported handguns, because just about all of them are. Two individuals were shot during the bank robbery in Toronto, in my riding. That kind of thing needs to be prevented. The importation of illegal guns needs to be prevented. Cutting the budget for border services officers is not the way to prevent illegal guns from coming to Toronto.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-7, which is before us.

Before I get into my comments, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard.

What happened last week in Boston was a heinous crime. It was a horrible situation that affected real people. It terrorized a community. We were all moved by it when we saw the images on TV.

As someone who likes to run and who takes part in running, I can personally say that it is normally a place of celebration. If members have never seen a marathon run, I would recommend that they go. It is a magical place where people of ages, sizes and genders come to celebrate participation and civic action. It is one of the most wonderful expressions of civic participation, because it involves not only the people participating in the race but also those who are on the sidelines cheering people on. When people come to Ottawa during a race weekend, they see people by the canal cheering on people they do not even know. It is a magical thing to see. That is why it was so difficult to witness this heinous assault on a public space.

Boston is known for its friendly citizens. The Boston Marathon is world renowned, and we were all moved. None of the members in the House have the licence to say they were moved or more concerned than another member. Let us start with that premise, the premise that everyone in the House thought what happened last week was horrific and that we need to do things to make sure that we prevent those kinds of occurrences from happening again. Let us make that point, because sometimes the debate gets heated and people become passionate. I think we have to avoid being personal and partisan when it comes to this issue.

However, when it comes to the application of this bill and the agenda, it is very important that we underline what appears to be the motive of the government. As members know, this has been stated, and it needs to be restated: it was on last Friday at the last minute that the government decided to put this bill in front of the House. Let us remember that it has been around since 2007. In 2001, there were provisions brought in by the previous government, with a sunset clause in 2007. In 2007 a bill was brought forward, and since 2006 we have had a government that has had the opportunity since 2007 to pass it.

It works against the logic of the Conservatives when they say they have to do this right now, because they have had the ability to pass the bill for years, not only with a majority government but before that, because the Liberals were supporting them when we had a minority Parliament.

Let us be clear about where everyone stands on this. The Liberals support the bill, notwithstanding the fact that there are concerns around civil liberties. We have concerns mainly because since 2001 and 2007, the provisions that were put in place by the Liberal government were never used. If we look at some of the concerns we have had in this country with respect to terrorism, such as the infamous Toronto 18, that was not dealt with by using these provisions but rather through good old-fashioned investigative police work and coordination. That was how it was dealt with.

The Liberals want to support the Conservatives on this bill, and that is fine. However, the point is that the Conservatives could have passed this measure even when they had a minority Parliament. They have had a majority Parliament, yet last Friday they claimed they had to pass it immediately because it is urgent. The government has no credibility on that—zero.

Some members get angry when they think about what is being done here, but I will say it is unfortunate. It is with deep sadness and regret that we see a government using this issue and this bill in the way it is today.

We heard the parliamentary secretary say that this is very important and that they wanted to hear from everyone. I am not seeing that so far from the other side today while we are debating this bill. I am not seeing the opportunities to ask questions and the opportunities for senior ministers to get up and speak. I will leave it to citizens to figure out what it is all about.

What is so incredibly unnerving is to see what happened last week being used in this way. Canadians really have to understand what the agenda of the government is. If it was on this issue, it would have passed this law back in 2007. It could have. It had the support of the Liberals. The Conservatives have had a majority since 2011. Did they pass the bill? No. How many bills have the Conservatives rammed through this place? If it was so important, they could have had this done. They have had time allocation and they have had omnibus bills and they could have done it.

For the government to stand and say that this is urgent and we have to pass it in light of what happened in Boston lacks credibility, to put it mildly. If the government is seriously concerned about this issue and wants to see results, then it has to put its money where its mouth is.

To that end, what we do have is a government that has actually done the opposite. It has cut border services, the people who are responsible for being our eyes and ears when it comes to threats of terrorism. It has cut RCMP budgets as well.

We have to ask ourselves what is at play here. We have heard from experts, as members on the committee would have heard, who have deep concerns around how the bill could be misapplied. Giving up rights—which, let us be clear, is what we are talking about in this bill—has to have a premise and there has to be evidence for it.

The evidence to date has been that we have never used these provisions when they were available and that we have been able to prevent terrorism by using the tools we have available to us. I mentioned the Toronto 18 case, and there are others. If the government is going to take away rights, then it has to make the argument and it has to have the evidence. We do not believe an argument has been made that is cogent enough to actually undermine civil liberties.

As has been mentioned a couple of times, The Globe and Mail did say in its editorial today that there are a lot of questions around the timing, but there is also another a key question. I will quote from the editorial today:

More worrying is the fact that there are aspects of the proposed bill that raise questions about balancing civil liberties with the need to protect citizens. A wise course of action would be to postpone the bill’s final reading so that any emotional fallout from the Boston bombings doesn’t colour an important debate about public safety in Canada.

I could not agree more, regardless of whether members think this is the way to go or not. The time to push this through, ram this through, is not immediately after an incident like this, because it will have made no difference to the incident we are talking about, which is in the United States. To date we have not seen any evidence that it was connected to Canada. Certainly these provisions would not have helped.

Again, it really is up to the government to explain why it is doing this now and for my friends in the Liberal Party to explain why they support it.

We heard about the importance of the charter last week from Liberals. I have to say we are proud as a party to have stood against the War Measures Act. We stand against this bill, but most of all we stand for being clear and honest about the reasons and the rationale for actions one takes in this Parliament.

Today we stand with the victims of the horrific terrorism case in Boston and we stand with all victims of extremism, but we stand against cynicism and we stand against political gains when it comes to protecting citizens no matter where they are. That is the position of our party, and I say it proudly.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his remarks. He is, as members know, our international affairs critic and as such has a very firm and knowledgeable grasp of situations that impact us here in Canada and that impact Canadians around the world.

I want to pick up on part of his remarks.

I think that this is an issue of leadership. We need leadership in how we respond to events both within and outside Canada, but we have none from the Conservative government.

If we had leadership, the Conservatives would not have cut the security budget by 29.8% in 2012-13 and 2013-14 and put our communities at risk in regard to our preparedness for emergencies and in terms of the personnel we need to respond to them, such as police officers. The recruitment fund has been gutted, with no renewal.

What should the government be doing instead of cutting and dismantling? If the Conservatives truly believe that we need to be secure, what should they be doing?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for London—Fanshawe for her question and her work. I was recently in her riding and I know that she has done a remarkable job of connecting with the constituents within her riding and, in fact, had a meeting with members of the Arab and Muslim community after they went through a very difficult time. She has shown real leadership on the ground in her riding.

However, to answer her question, one should invest in the very people who are our eyes and ears in preventing terrorism or extremism. It is quite surprising to hear the audacity of the Conservatives when they say on the one hand that we have to move on this issue because it is so important while on the other hand they are cutting the budgets of the very people who would prevent extremism and terrorism. The answer is that we invest in people to ensure that we prevent acts of extremism and terrorism. One does not just talk about it; one actually does it.

In the budget put in front of us and in previous budgets, we have seen cuts, so it is inconsistent for the government to say that it is serious about this issue when it actually cuts the budgets of the very people who help prevent extremism and terrorism.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, back in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling indicating that investigative hearings are in fact constitutional. We have seen numerous attempts by the government to try to bring in legislation, and on one it prorogued itself to kill the legislation. Now we have this bill before us today.

My question is related specifically to the need to provide for investigative hearings for the purposes of gathering information. We see that as one of the tools that our law enforcement officers could be using to combat terrorism. I wonder if the member would like to provide his take on the importance of that particular tool.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when one takes a right away, one had better be sure it is for the right reason. The Liberal Party has decided it will support the government on this bill. However, we do not support the government on this bill.

As I said in my comments, to date we have been able to prevent acts of terrorism by investing in the police, CSIS and others. We have to be vigilant on the balance between rights and security. We do not think the bill is necessary, and we are not alone.

I would suggest that just because it has gone through the court system and the court system says it is okay, that does not mean we should do it. That is why we had a different position years ago when it came to the War Measures Act.

Rights are things that are built up. They are things that we had better ensure are not taken away unless it is absolutely required. We do not believe, as the Liberals do in this case, that we should take rights away. The argument that we need to do that has not been adequately made.

We need to invest in people to prevent terrorism. That is what we would do.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am confused and concerned as I rise in this House today to speak on Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, as the Conservatives call it.

I am confused because the government expressed no intention of putting this piece of legislation back on the agenda. It had instead opted to have successive opposition days. As a result, I have some serious questions about the real reasons we are debating this bill right now. I am not the only one. This morning, The Globe and Mail stated:

The two-day debate in Parliament on the...government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation smacks of political opportunism, and it is regrettable that it will take place.

The editorial concluded:

More worrying is the fact that there are aspects of the proposed bill that raise questions about balancing civil liberties with the need to protect citizens.

I am also concerned as I rise in the House because, regardless of what arguments the opposition puts forward, their arguments will be twisted around and demolished by the Conservatives, who, instead of debating this issue, want to use this time to get their message out.

First of all, I would like to start by defining terrorism and talking about how it has evolved over time. My research opened my eyes, especially to the motives of perpetrators of acts of terrorism, motives that are not always fully known to us, contrary to what we may often think.

Terrorism goes back a number of centuries, and the term was particularly used after the fall of Robespierre in France to refer to the reign of terror in 1793 and 1794. The dictionary continues to define it as the systematic employment of violence to achieve a political goal.

The United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as the calculated use of unlawful violence, or the threat of unlawful violence, to inculcate fear intended to coerce or intimidate governments or society in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.

The Department of State continues by saying that acts of terrorism are often perpetrated against civilian—or non-combatant—targets.

Terrorism dates back to antiquity, when groups used systematic assassinations to spread fear and promote their cause. As I already mentioned, it was after the French Revolution that the government at the time used a climate of terror to take down its opponents. Even now, this type of terrorism is used and institutionalized by governments. The rise of nationalism during the last century exacerbated instances of terrorism. Terrorism has gone global and we are seeing a change in the types of terrorism and in the groups or individuals who are conducting these activities.

How can we combat terrorism in Canada, especially as this bill proposes to do?

We must know what kind of terrorism Canada has experienced in recent decades. In Terrorisme et antiterrorisme au Canada, the authors state:

The threat of terrorism—meaning the probability that a highly destructive incident will take place in Canada—is practically non-existent....

For several reasons, it is ridiculous to think that Canada can prevent terrorist attacks, although we can certainly prepare for emergencies and develop strategies to minimize destruction and provide assistance to victims. Some plots will be foiled. However, this is very rare and when we look at the plots that have recently been uncovered in Canada and the United States, we cannot help but notice that they are amateur in nature and have a slim possibility of being successful. First, the evolution of international terrorism must be taken into consideration. Instances of truly international attacks (instigated, financed or run remotely from outside the target country) have been considerably declining in the past ten years. The fact that they are so rare means that they are too unpredictable to be prevented: there is no pattern or detectable model. However, most acts of terrorism in western countries are carried out by individuals born in the country they are attacking or by naturalized citizens. These people are recently radicalized and ill-prepared. This means that their actions tend to be uncommon...and organized quickly—also difficult to detect in advance. Second, since there is a nearly infinite number of vulnerable targets in a country like ours, it is not a good idea to focus on protection. There is no way to prepare...

Bill S-7 is not the right way to go about combatting terrorism. The bill reintroduces measures that have proven to be unjustified and ineffective in the past. Over the weekend in The Globe and Mail, Doug Saunders described the silence following a tragedy like the one in Boston, and how politicians try to fill that silence:

...we point to the neglected menaces and failures within our own society, we raise our security and perhaps lower our tolerance for reduced civil liberties, and in the process we allow a new political moment to take shape.

Further on, he also says that major attacks against civilians are extremely rare, but every time they occur, they seem to have the same effects and elicit the same reactions: confusion, horror, fear and profound sympathy for the victims, who are all too numerous in tragedies like this.

However, I do not believe it was those reactions that pushed the Conservatives to bring back Bill S-7, which will not fight terrorism but is simply an example of political opportunism. Our laws already fight terrorism. Terrorism is a crime, and we already have laws in place to bring to justice those who plot or commit acts of terrorism. This bill is useless and will not combat terrorism in Canada.

I should add that this government has a very strange way of addressing safety. In the 2012 budget and budgets before that—and those that are to come, I imagine—it announced considerable reductions of $687.9 million to public safety, whether it was at the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or the RCMP.

That is a strange way of addressing public safety. The Conservatives come up with a bill like this one, which is completely useless, while their actions run completely counter to protecting and increasing public safety in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Supreme Court ruling from 2004, which talked about investigative hearings. With terrorism being what it is now, it has really changed the dynamics in many different ways. We understand that our law enforcement officers are looking for the opportunity to use this as a tool.

I am interested in knowing if the member feels that there is a need, from her or her party's perspective, to give law enforcement officers this tool that allows an investigative hearing. Is that something she believes is necessary and needs to be amended to allow it to take place, or it is not necessary?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Since 2001, the provisions in the bill that was passed in the wake of September 11, 2011, have never been used. That is a clear response to my colleague's question. These provisions have not been used. We have enough tools already. I believe that investigators have the tools they need to do their jobs.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a day when we are still mourning the loss of so many people in Boston, we are debating a bill that could have enormous implications.

I am interested in my colleague's opinion. Bill S-7 is a law of general application, which means that it would affect not only adults but juveniles as well. Canada has certain obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international instruments to protect children from unnecessary detention. The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children proposed amendments to the bill that would ensure that children under the age of 18 would be taken into special consideration and not be subject to these measures. The government ignored that recommendation. We are concerned about this.

The Liberal Party is supporting this legislation. Last week the Liberal leader said that New Democrats were somehow soft on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although the first charter of rights and freedoms in this country came in with Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan. New Democrats, as opposed to the Liberal Party, fought to ensure that first nations were included in the charter.

The Liberal Party is supporting a bill that would not offer clear protection to those under the age of 18 from these kinds of detention measures. What does my hon. colleague think about that?