House of Commons Hansard #238 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was s-7.
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Privacy and Social Media in the Age of Big Data”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to specifically thank the member for Sherbrooke for his excellent leadership on the social media and privacy study because we know that Canadians are living more and more online. The importance of privacy and maintaining privacy protection in the age of big data is essential. The New Democrats were saddened that both the Conservatives and the Liberals dropped the ball on a number of serious areas, from what we heard at the committee.
We have numerous recommendations. The Privacy Commissioner should be given order-making powers to ensure compliance of companies that are not protecting people's data. We want to make sure that all data breaches are reported to the Privacy Commission as opposed to leaving them subjective because of the potential threat of fraud that people are facing. We want to ensure that Canada moves up with privacy protections in the digital age. We need a comprehensive digital strategy, and privacy is at the heart of it. I would like to thank my hon. colleagues for their work on this committee.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-499, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Alsek River and other rivers).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act to include a number of rivers throughout the three northern territories, rivers like the South Nahanni River. A number of years ago the Conservative government expanded the boundaries of Nahanni National Park and recognized the extreme importance of that area of Canada as a heritage area, an area to be protected. This is one of the rivers we are including within this bill to ensure as time goes forward that these rivers are given the type of protection that is required under the law that exists now. The law is not adequate, but this is the protection that we can provide for these rivers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, these petitioners, mostly from southern Ontario, ask that the provincial and territorial chief firearms officers be replaced by a civilian agency that is service-oriented.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present two petitions.
The first one deals with climate change. The petitioners are from Saltspring Island, in my riding.
They call for the House and the Government of Canada to put in place a plan to reduce emissions to those levels that are required by science—that is, 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by mid-century.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Thunder Bay, Sudbury, and Winnipeg, calling on the Government of Canada to abandon its promotional stance toward the northern gateway project and ensure it has a full and neutral review, bearing in mind that so far the proponent has not dealt with the subject it plans to put through the pipelines, bitumen and diluent.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of numerous citizens who are concerned in the wake of the crippled Fukushima power plan in Japan that continues to release dangerous radioactive substances into the air and water, something that we expect will continue for years. The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to immediately implement a comprehensive, ongoing radionuclide monitoring report program in Canada in coordination with respective national, provincial, regional, and local authorities.
Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition is signed by constituents who are calling upon Parliament to review Canada's 400-year-old definition of a “human being”, which states that a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to review that definition, to take into account modern science, and to revise that definition based upon modern science.
Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB
Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with gender selection pregnancy termination.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to condemn the practice of gender selection termination, wherein a woman finds out through ultrasound that a child is female and aborts the child.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have hundreds of signed petitions in which the petitioners are asking that the Olde Sandwich Towne post office be saved. Unfortunately, Canada Post has closed it. However, we are working with it to see if we can find another usage, and I know that the petitioners would support that.
Unfortunately, it is too late to save the post office, but at the same time, we are trying to work out a process to go forward that would benefit all of the community, including Canada Post.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a second set of petitions to present, these with regard to higher-speed rail. Petitioners from across Ontario are calling for higher-speed rail between Windsor and Quebec City. That corridor is very important. They want to see VIA Rail move to higher-speed rail in the near future.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, last, I have a petition in which hundreds of petitioners are calling for the age of eligibility for old age security to remain at 65 years of age. The petitioners are opposed to the eligible age being increased to age 67.
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by dozens of Canadians, not only from Guelph and southern Ontario but from across Canada, who wish to register their concern regarding human trafficking and the threat it poses to some of Canada's most vulnerable citizens, including youth, females, and first nations.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to address this matter by developing and implementing a national action plan regarding human trafficking.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed from April 22 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 third time and passed.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill S-7 at third reading. I am doing so not without some soul-searching because I do believe that members of Parliament must address the issue of terrorism seriously. The question remains: is Bill S-7 the right way, and the right response to the threat of terrorism?
In my speech at second reading, I mentioned my personal and family connections to 9/11, a day when my mother was flying out of Washington, D.C. and one of my partner's close friends was flying out of Boston. My mother was fortunate and she was located, safe, later that night on the ground in Denver. However, my partner's friend was not so lucky in his choice of flights from Boston, and we were in the unfortunate situation of having to inform his parents in Indonesia that indeed their son had been on that second plane to hit a tower in New York.
What I did not talk about during second reading was my international human rights work. I have experience working where the threat of terrorism was a constant. I worked in the field in East Timor, in Ambon in Indonesia, and in Afghanistan. In each of these situations, bombing campaigns were a daily threat and all too often a daily reality. I have seen up close, communities torn apart by terrorist violence. I still remember the day in Ambon where my partner and I were working on a peace-building project between Christian and Muslim communities. That was the day that the market was bombed, and from our office we could see the smoke rising. That was the same market where my partner was supposed to be at that moment, but fortunately was late and was not there.
Therefore, I do have some understanding of the reality of terrorist threats, and I have always taken a clear and unequivocal position against terrorism. I have always said there was no justification, no excuse for the use of violence against civilians, none, never, and I fully believe that those who use terror should be met with the full force of the law. I take seriously that we must take measures that will protect us against terrorism, but I also believe we have an equal responsibility to preserve the rule of law and respect for our basic rights and freedoms. Otherwise, what is it that we are protecting? As so many of my colleagues have said, this is truly a question of balance. How do we protect our society in a way that protects its most fundamental values?
In my second reading speech, I spoke not just about my own experience, but also about the unfortunate history of the deportation of Japanese Canadians during World War II. When we look back now, it is very clear that fear, and fear alone, caused us to trample the rights of a minority in this country, using the War Measures Act, an act which the majority at the time argued was necessary to preserve our rights, despite the lack of any evidence at the time or subsequently that this was the case. I emphasize once again that not a single Japanese Canadian was ever charged, let alone convicted, of any collaboration with the enemy during World War II. However, our panic and our fear caused us to uproot a community and the lives of thousands of Canadians for no reason other than their heritage. This is a fear that I have, that we will make these same kinds of mistakes if we panic and adopt measures that would lead to the targeting of certain communities today based on their heritage.
Therein lies the dilemma. How do we keep communities safe without trampling the very rights that are the foundation of a free community and a tolerant society? Then the question is, what are those threats that I see to rights in Bill S-7? What do we in the NDP think is the problem with Bill S-7? There are two major problems, and one associated problem.
The two major problems are that investigative hearings and preventative detention both run against the grain of our fundamental rights in our legal system. Whether we view these measures through our British legal traditions, through our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or through Canada's international legal obligations under international covenants, both of these would challenge our fundamental values. Investigative hearings wreck the fundamental protections against self-incrimination that we have built into our system for 300 years. Preventative detention would violate the principle that one should be punished only for a specific wrongdoing. Bill S-7 would allow the incarceration for up to a year of individuals never even charged with, let alone convicted of, a criminal offence, and, as we discovered in the debate in committee, the government intended for those provisions for preventative detention to be quite broad and to perhaps include people who were merely associated with or inadvertently giving assistance to those who might carry out a terrorist act. While intention is a fundamental element of a criminal act in Canadian law, intention alone has never before been the crime. Therefore, I find these two measures excessive and threatening of those basic rights and values.
In committee, New Democrats pointed out the most basic flaws of this legislation and introduced 18 amendments to address the most egregious problems. However, as usual, the Conservatives were having none of that. As we have seen time and time again in committee, despite statements to the contrary by ministers when they introduce legislation, Conservatives are not actually prepared to consider reasonable amendments at the committee stage, not even in the case of Bill S-7 when it came to an amendment that simply asked that the rights of children be protected under these two measures so that children might not be caught up in investigative hearings and preventive detentions. Not even that amendment on the rights of children were the Conservatives prepared to accept.
The third party, at the other end of the House, which initially introduced these two measures in 2001, not only failed to introduce any amendments of its own but also refused to support the NDP amendments. Now Bill S-7 is back in the House for third reading unamended.
The argument the Conservatives seem to be making in favour of Bill S-7, insofar as they are bothering to make any argument at all—and I should point out that we do not see Conservative members rising to try to convince both the opposition and the public that this measure is indeed necessary—is that if Bill S-7 does not pass, we will not be kept safe from terrorism and that we need investigative hearings, preventive detention and new measures to make it illegal to go abroad for the purposes of committing a terrorist act.
This necessity argument, I believe, fails on several grounds. First, as it is easy to point out, there were no successful uses of investigative hearings or preventive detention when they were previously in force. If they are so necessary to protect against terrorism, why were they not used? Why do we not have examples of how they contributed to that safety?
The second ground on which I would argue that the necessity argument fails is the actual record of the RCMP, which has been able to apprehend those involved in terrorism and get convictions in the absence of these extreme powers. Examples include the Khawaja case, the Toronto 18 and even the arrests just yesterday. If these powers were so necessary, how have the police been able to make such progress against terrorism over the last 12 years? If for 12 years we have appeared to get along well in the struggle against terrorism without these powers, where is the argument for their necessity now? I have heard no one on the other side actually make the argument, in any kind of fashion, that we must have Bill S-7 at this time to keep us safe.
Of course, when it comes to going abroad to engage in terrorist acts, anyone who looks closely at the existing law will find that it is already illegal to do so. Therefore, what is Bill S-7 adding to the existing law? It is really not clear to me why this new provision is there.
If the measures proposed in Bill S-7 are neither effective nor necessary, then are we, in fact, left helpless in the face of terrorism, as the Conservatives' insistence on passing this bill would imply? The timing of the reintroduction of this bill in Parliament and the timing of the arrests yesterday on charges of terrorism are indeed suspicious, which is I guess the best word I can use. The coincidence seems too large to me. It seems to me that the Conservatives are trying to use a climate of fear to push forward this legislation. Again, I refer to the example of Japanese Canadians in World War II, when fear caused us to do things that destroyed an entire community in Canada, which has taken many years to rebuild, based on fear and fear alone.
I fear that the Conservatives are using this climate in the aftermath of the tragic Boston Marathon bombing, and in the aftermath of very good police work done to bring charges against those who would have derailed a VIA Rail train through their connections with al Qaeda, to create a climate that will cause people to not ask the questions they need to ask about this legislation.
I was very proud that members in the House came together unanimously to condemn the tragic bombing in Boston, but I am a little less proud about the timing of the reintroduction of Bill S-7 in the aftermath of that bombing.
At the time of the bombing, I argued that we ought to be careful not to draw conclusions too quickly. I still argue that it is probably too early to draw many firm conclusions about how the U.S. should respond to what happened at the Boston Marathon. It is necessary to take reasonable precautions when we are met with terrorist acts, but it is also necessary to find out what actually happened before we can figure out what might be the proper measures to take.
However, I would argue that there is one quick lesson from the tragedy in Boston. The quick conclusion that can be drawn, I think, is that when law enforcement agents are given sufficient resources, they can produce results remarkably quickly. They can produce those results using traditional methods, and they can produce those results without resorting to extreme legal powers that threaten basic civil liberties.
The sad fact is that where the government is falling down when it comes to the everyday fight against terrorism is on the question of resources. Without resorting to a very long string of figures documenting budget reductions in everything from policing to emergency preparedness, let me cite just two facts. I think they are two very important facts when we talk about the struggle against terrorism.
The Conservatives are in the process of cutting 325 front-line CBSA officers and 100 intelligence officers from the CBSA. It is certainly good news for gun and drug smugglers and almost assuredly is also good news for potential terrorists. If we reduce our front-line resources, if we reduce our front-line intelligence activities, then, in fact, we increase our risks of terrorism. It is not a question of legislation. It is a question of resources at the front end to do the investigative and law enforcement work we need to have done, just as the RCMP has just done in the charges that came up yesterday.
Again, there are cynics who believe that the Conservatives are bringing forward Bill S-7 simply for political reasons and to create more support in their base community. There are cynics, and I guess in this case I include myself, who believe that the Conservatives are taking advantage of this atmosphere in which few are asked the hard questions about how we keep our communities safe without trampling the very rights that are at its heart.
When New Democrats have tried to address this fundamental question in debate in the House, I have frankly wondered if Liberals and Conservatives have even been listening. If this bill is so transparently necessary, why have the Conservatives refused to carry on a serious debate?
Instead, as far as I know, there has only been a single speaker at third reading from the Conservatives. It has been hard to take seriously their questions after opposition members have spoken, as their comments have been reduced to little more than sloganeering.
Yesterday afternoon in this House, I witnessed the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia and Winnipeg responding to a speech by one of my colleagues by asking about the NDP's “hug-a-thug” and “kiss-a-terrorist” policies.
I have referred to this member by his riding name only, even though he is a minister of the Crown. I did so not only because I believe that these comments fail to engage the substance of debate but because I do not believe that they are worthy of a minister in the Canadian government.
While the response of many Conservatives on this serious topic has disappointed me, the response of the Liberals has been perplexing. Here is the once proud Liberal Party, which likes to claim the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and which recognized the basic threat to civil liberties when they introduced the main provisions, which are coming back in Bill S-7, by including a sunset clause.
Here they are now taking part in the debate, actually almost even carrying the debate on behalf of the government in favour of Bill S-7, in favour of those very same provisions that were in the original Anti-terrorism Act but with a sunset clause. Now they are arguing for them without any sunset in sight.
In 2007, when the sunset date was approaching for recognizance with conditions and investigative hearings, and it was time to vote on the proposed renewal, the Liberals voted with the NDP to kill those provisions. Now, in 2013, they seem to be even more enthusiastic supporters of the bill than the Conservatives are themselves, reminding us, I suppose, that these ideas, which I believe threaten our basic liberties, were originally Liberal ideas in 2001.
I am probably coming close to the end, so let me start to conclude my remarks. I am speaking not with any hope today that Conservatives or Liberals will listen to reason on this bill. I do not believe that many of them have done the soul-searching that those on our side of the House have done about this threat to basic civil liberties. I am comforted only by my hope that most Conservatives are acting in good faith and out of a genuine belief that the measures proposed in this bill will actually keep us safe.
All I would ask is that a single Conservative stand up on that side and point to the evidence that investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions, or preventive detention, as it is called, would provide effective protection against terrorism. I have yet to hear from anyone on that side of the House making that argument and providing that proof.
I do not believe that these measures will make any contribution to our safety. Rather, they pose a genuine risk to the free society they are supposed to defend.
When I think back to my own experience with 9/11, which touched me in a very personal way, as it did many other Canadians who lost friends and relatives, I ask myself what was under attack that day. I believe that it was a free society that values tolerance and diversity and that protects the fundamental rights of all its citizens.
I think back to the time when I worked in zones of conflict, where bombing was a daily occurrence, where communities were torn apart over what in the end seemed to be trivial issues when compared to the losses in those communities. I think back to when we knew who were responsible and their supposed reasons for carrying out those attacks. It was impossible to understand how they could have inflicted such violence on their friends and neighbours over, when we take the time to step back from them, such fundamentally unimportant issues.
Instead of enacting measures that potentially undermine fundamental rights in Canada and measures for which there is no evidence of effectiveness, we should be strengthening our intelligence and enforcement programs in ways that would enhance as well as protect the rule of law and respect for rights.
Because of my experience on police boards and as a municipal councillor with the police force, I know that the vast majority of police officers are committed to the rule of law and are committed to respect for rights. I know that they would like to have the resources they need to keep our communities safe from terrorism. I again stress that my major concern with respect to terrorism is not the lack of legislative provisions or legislative powers. Rather, it is the lack of commitment by the Conservative government to providing the resources our front-line officers and front-line intelligence agencies need to do the hard, slogging work that keeps us safe from terrorism.
It is a parallel to the whole approach by the Conservatives when it comes to crime. They think the solution is to make more legislation, to make more acts criminal and to increase penalties. However, we know that in everyday policing what makes us safe are boots on the ground at the front line doing the enforcement and the social services that help reintegrate people into their communities.
When people eventually draw conclusions about the Boston Marathon, the conclusions I believe they will draw will be that the main protection of a free society is its ability to accommodate and tolerate diversity, its ability to respect rights for all, its ability to protect free speech, and its respect for those fundamental legal traditions that say that no one should go to jail who has not committed a specific criminal act and that people should not be forced to appear in an investigative hearing to give testimony against themselves, which is one of our fundamental legal protections.
When we draw those conclusions, we will see that rather than offering support in our fight against terrorism, Bill S-7 undermines those very values we intended to protect when we founded this country, when we introduced the Charter of Rights and when we signed those international covenants.
I will conclude today with a final appeal to both the Conservatives and the Liberals, which I know will not be listened to. Think again about what is most important to this country of Canada: our tolerance, our diversity, the rule of law and respect for basic, fundamental rights.
For those reasons I will be voting against Bill S-7 at third reading.
Dean Del Mastro ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's statements. He has put together a number of decent arguments. However, I say that he is missing the point in a couple of key areas.
He said what is most important is the protection of our freedoms and our civil liberties. I agree. The freedoms that Canadians enjoy are a big part of what makes this country so special, but it is those very freedoms that people in this place are tasked with protecting.
Every time we see a terrorist act that targets civilians, we see those freedoms taken away. We see some of them infringed upon as everyday Canadians and everyday citizens are asked to go through more and more clearances, more tests and more challenges simply to do the things we have always done. This is the cost of terrorism.
We also have people feeling under threat in their own neighbourhoods and in their own homes. They ask for us to be able to provide the basic protections.
Our law enforcement officials have asked for these measures to be put in place. They have asked for them as tools they can use to protect Canadians if necessary. It is only responsible that the people in this place would provide those protections so that we can protect Canadians at all times.
I would like to hear the member's response.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Peterborough for his response and for taking seriously the debate we are having here, because I think he raises important questions. However, when we talk about the tools that law enforcement has asked for, the tools they need, the main one they continue to ask for is the resources they need to do the job.
When we talk to CBSA agents who work on the front line, they cannot understand how they are expected to prevent gun smuggling, which is a fundamental part of most possible terrorist activities. How are they supposed to do that when gun seizures have been going up at the border over the last year but suddenly there will be 325 fewer people to actually do that enforcement work?
When it is a question of giving people the tools they need to do the job, the member and I agree. We just differ on which of those tools would be effective. The evidence says that traditional law enforcement and traditional investigation activities are what we need to put our resources to, and not these new measures, which actually, as I said, threaten our basic fundamental rights.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent analysis. All Canadians are deeply frustrated with the level of incoherent violence we are seeing, especially with what happened in Boston, and we have seen it in other communities.
In terms of the so-called solutions being offered here, two of the key provisions of the bill were brought forward by the Chrétien Liberals in 2001, at a time when they were telling us that basic freedoms could be done away with. It was an era in which they were going to support rendition and torture.
Those two provisions—the ability to hold someone without charge and to force someone before a judge to give evidence against themselves, which would undermine one of the most basic civil rights—were so contentious that even the Liberals agreed to sunset them. In the years they were in place, they were never used once.
I ask my hon. colleague why he thinks it is now, after the Liberals had promised to sunset these very fundamental threats to the legal landscape of Canada, that they are sneaking in behind the Conservatives to once again push through two provisions that undermine basic rights of any Canadian?
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, the question from the member for Timmins—James Bay points to something I mentioned in my speech, which is that I am very perplexed about the Liberals' response.
They have two choices: either they were disingenuous in 2001 when they suggested they needed sunset clauses and they were only doing it to get the support of the public at that time, or they are disingenuous now. They cannot have it both ways. Either these were dangerous things that threatened our rights, as they said in 2001, or they are dangerous things that threaten our rights now, when the Liberals are supporting the bill without sunset clauses.
I am, again, perplexed by the position of the Liberal Party on Bill S-7. I am very disappointed to see the Liberals voting in favour.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is also a neighbour in the riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
On a related but different point, I want to thank him for raising in question period yesterday the need to support our firefighters. Motion No. 388 went through, although we seem to have no action to bring it into place, and that relates to terrorist acts, as we noted in the Boston Marathon. Everyone was amazed to see the first responders run toward danger when everyone else was running in the other direction.
However, I stand with him in finding, despite my concerns about terrorism, that this current law, Bill S-7, goes too far, and that the existing tools and law in the Criminal Code are more than adequate. I stand with the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, the international civil liberties organizations, as well as with the concerns expressed at committee by the Canadian Bar Association, in believing that the bill potentially violates our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will therefore be struck down later.
I wonder if he could comment on the futility of passing laws in this place when there are significant doubts that they are charter compliant.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I stand in somewhat the same place on this issue. The NDP has had this question for a long time. When legislation is introduced, the Minister of Justice has a responsibility to certify that it would not violate the charter, but the minister has set a very low bar: we have heard reports that if there is even a 5% chance that the law will be upheld in the courts, the government is willing to go ahead and introduce that bill.
I also want to thank my colleague for raising the issue of first responders. The Conservatives say that we have the resources we need, that we have done the things we need to do. Firefighters would be one of our most important resources in any terrorist attack and they were one of the most important resources in Boston, so it shocks me that in this country we have failed to implement a compensation fund for the families of fallen firefighters. The only argument made by the government yesterday against this fund was that it would be simply too expensive. I was disappointed to hear that argument. It was quite a shocking statement, because the tragic loss of firefighters has a cost, and right now those costs are borne by their families.