Debates of April 23rd, 2013

Combating Terrorism Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since arriving in the House in May 2011, I have realized that the government uses legislation to get media attention.

In terms of justice, law and order and public safety, this is not the way to properly manage legal and legislative issues, enforce the rule of law or ensure that we are a constitutional state that honours its Constitution and charter.

We do not even know if the Minister of Justice makes sure that his bills comply with the charter and the Constitution. One of his employees is taking him to court because he is claiming the minister does not do so. I am not surprised to see that everything he does is a sham. It is unfortunate that this is happening with these kinds of issues.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on Bill S-7, I would like to talk about the people of Drummondville, who organized a commemorative race last Sunday for the victims of the tragedy that took place in Boston, and for their families.

I would like to thank Carl Houle, Andrée Lanoie and Robert Borris for the 5 km race they organized in the city of Drummondville to honour and commemorate the victims of this appalling tragedy. It was a noble gesture on their part, because they were in Boston when the tragedy struck. They were taking part in the marathon there because they are regular participants in marathons. Andrée Lanoie is a former colleague of mine, and I wish to salute her today. She does excellent work with young people and promotes physical activity.

I would therefore like to thank them and the community of Drummondville for this fine event. Nearly 200 people from the greater Drummondville area took part in the race. That was just an aside before I begin my remarks on Bill S-7.

That said, the fact of a tragic event like what happened in Boston is no reason for the government to make use of it in order to play petty politics. Yet that seems to be the case, and it is regrettable. It should be condemned, and the NDP will condemn it.

I would also like to thank my hon. colleague from Gatineau for the excellent speech she just gave. She did well to note the opportunistic aspect of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act.

Quite obviously, we must combat terrorism and take every measure to do so. However, Bill S-7 is not an appropriate response to the need to combat terrorism. It is important to explain this and point it out to our honourable Conservative colleagues. They believe this bill is a suitable response in the battle against terrorism, but it is not in fact an appropriate response.

Why is that? I will begin by stating the four goals of Bill S-7. I will then explain how very seriously the NDP did its work in committee. As always, NDP members do outstanding work in committee by proposing amendments and improvements based on expert testimony. It will be important to come back to this later in order to show that unfortunately, once again, the Conservatives have no respect for the work done in committee. They are interested only in quickly presenting their political agenda, and we end up with flawed legislation that we have no choice but to vote against.

Bill S-7 has four objectives: to amend the Criminal Code to authorize investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions; to amend the Canada Evidence Act to allow a judge to order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information concerning a trial or an accused, once the appeal period has expired; to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences for a person who leaves or attempts to leave Canada for the purpose of committing an act of terrorism; and lastly, to amend the Security of Information Act to increase the maximum penalties for harbouring any person who has committed, or is likely to commit, an act of terrorism.

It is important to note these four technical points, because they are at the heart of Bill S-7. As my hon. colleague from Gatineau also mentioned, this bill comes not from the House but from the Senate, which we are opposed to. As we know, the Senate is not an elected chamber. Moreover, we challenge its very legitimacy.

What does “recognizance with conditions” mean? Simply put, it means preventive arrest.

Preventive arrest is one of the main problems with the bill. Why? It goes against the most fundamental principles of freedom and human rights. As I already mentioned, we presented amendments in this regard in committee.

I will now name the great NDP members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security who examined this bill. There is the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca; the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan; the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead, who is often by my side; and the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

These MPs presented 18 amendments, some of which sought to determine the definition of a person who can be arrested. Can just anyone be arrested? For example, if an individual who protested the Keystone XL pipeline—a project that will generate millions of tonnes of additional greenhouse gases in North America—is arrested, will that person be treated as a potential terrorist?

These are questions we had. Yesterday, during his speech on Bill S-7, the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead clearly demonstrated the major problem with the current definition. As my colleague was saying, the definition is very broad. Who can be considered a terrorist? Is someone who listens to heavy metal or a rocker considered a terrorist?

There are no criteria, which does not make sense. Of course, the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead is a heavy metal fan. That is why he is concerned about these issues. Personally, I am an environmentalist and so I am concerned about environmental issues. Environmentalists have often been monitored for fear that they will become radicals.

These are areas of concern with regard to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The first question we must ask is this: are good criteria in place to ensure that people are not put under preventive arrest just because we do not like them?

The NDP proposed amendments. The colleagues I mentioned earlier proposed very relevant, balanced amendments based on expert testimony. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against these amendments. We will therefore vote against Bill S-7. Why? It is incomplete and unfair, and it is not consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with fundamental rights, such as human rights. That is why we will vote against the bill.

We will also vote against the bill because it is not needed for combating terrorism.

I will now get back to what I mentioned in my introduction. I think it is very important to combat terrorism. Everyone agrees on that. I want the Conservatives to understand that I absolutely think it is necessary to combat terrorism. However, we must find the proper ways to do so.

As my colleagues from Gatineau and Compton—Stanstead, and others, have said, we must ensure that the necessary resources are there. First, we need police resources, such as the RCMP. We must support the RCMP, which recently did an excellent job preventing an act of terrorism in Canada. I commend its members for their work and for their diligence in dealing with a tragic and dangerous phenomenon. I thank them.

What I want to say is that we must combat terrorism. To do so, we must provide the necessary tools: financial resources, human resources and the resources needed to work with all cultural communities. That is what will help us combat terrorism.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about this at the beginning of his speech, but I would like to give him the opportunity to speak some more about the fact that the government seems to want to make this issue a priority.

Yet, the minister did not feel it was necessary to introduce the bill himself; he left it to the Senate. What is more, it was tabled a week after the events in Boston.

Is my colleague disappointed that the government is not taking this more seriously given the many times it has invoked closure since the start of the 41st Parliament and given the fact that this issue seems urgent because of what we saw yesterday and what happened in Boston a week ago? Instead, it introduces bills in the Senate and waits so that it can use them to score political points.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Chambly—Borduas for his question.

He is doing an excellent job in his constituency. He is doing a great job on the shale gas issue, for example, in order to protect the environment in his riding. His constituents are very proud of him.

He is quite right. The people of my riding, Drummond, commemorated those who sadly passed away in Boston and all the families affected by this tragedy. My constituents ran a 5 km race to express their dismay and show their courage in the face of such tragedy.

Yes, the fight against terrorism must continue and on several fronts. Yes, legislative measures might be necessary. The problem with regard to Bill S-7 is that the Conservatives did not do their job in committee, once again.

We put forward 18 amendments that had been recommended by expert witnesses. The Conservatives did not even bother to vote in favour of those amendments.

As my colleague mentioned, if the Conservative government is so serious about the steps it is taking, why is this bill not a government bill?

Why did this bill come from the Senate, an unelected, controversial body that is currently dealing with an endless series of financial scandals? These are all very pertinent questions. I thank my hon. colleague for his comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the fourth reincarnation of this particular piece of legislation. It has been what the member refers to as “C” bill, a Commons bill in the past. It is now a Senate bill.

There are some comments on which I agree with the New Democrats, and some issues that we have raised in the past, including the issue of providing the resources that are necessary to have boots on the ground at different borders, custom officers, and so forth, where we have seen significant cuts coming from the government. This will not do well in terms of dealing with the issue of combatting terrorism.

Having said that, it is important for us to recognize that we have had law enforcement officers and other experts come before the committee who have indicated that in fact there is a need for this investigative tool and that they do believe it would be of some benefit. Even if they have not used it in the past, that does not necessarily mean that it has no place in the future.

Does the member believe that this investigative tool could potentially be valid if in fact the NDP had gotten its amendments through?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North. He mentioned the work that was done in committee.

On that point, I would like to add that the NDP worked very hard in committee. We put forward 18 amendments based on the advice and recommendations of expert witnesses.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party did not propose any amendments in committee, as though it thought the bill were perfect. I find this a little strange on the Liberals' part.

However, I do agree with my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North on one thing: we do not need Bill S-7. What we need instead is more financial and human resources to effectively fight terrorism.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am conflicted somewhat as I begin my remarks today in that I object profoundly to the fact that this bill is designated S-7 instead of C-7, or whatever number it may get when it is introduced properly by the democratically elected members of Parliament in Canada's parliamentary system. I have never seen, in my 15 years as a member of Parliament, such a proliferation of bills originating in the other place. It used to be a rare exception. I think you will be able to back me on this, Mr. Speaker. It was the exception, not the rule.

Let us remind ourselves and make a statement here and now, and I urge members of Parliament present to make a statement today, that we should not tolerate, or entertain, or debate, or accept bills that come from the undemocratic, unelected and, we believe, ineffectual and even embarrassing other place, the Senate of Canada.

My views on this have changed dramatically. I have known you a long time, Mr. Speaker, and I think we have had this conversation. I used to be one of the only New Democrats who I knew of who did not want to abolish the Senate, even though the original Regina Manifesto that was the guiding document of the founding of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, the predecessor to my party, did. Article 9 of the Regina Manifesto was to abolish the unelected, undemocratic, ineffective, et cetera, Senate. We wanted to get rid of it back then because it was a repository for hacks and flacks and idiot nephews of some rich Liberals and Conservatives that they could not find another job for, a place-holding thing for a bunch of hacks and flacks. They wanted to get rid of it then, but I did not agree, only for one reason.

There was a time, a dark period in our history, where we lost party status and were down to nine members. The Conservative Party was down to two members. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, how wildly the pendulum swings in Canadian politics. In Brian Mulroney's second term, I believe it was, he had 202 members and by the time that term of office finished, it was down to 2. Our party did not fare that much better. We were down to nine. The difference was that the Conservative Party had two members of Parliament but 35 or 40 senators. It still had all kinds of resources, money and things it could do. Its caucus consisted of 30 or 40 people. Even though it only had two elected members, it had 35 unelected members in its caucus. The NDP had nine members of Parliament and no senators.

I thought to myself that it might be a good idea if we accepted some of the invitations to sit in the Senate. Why should there not be a New Democrat in the Senate? Some of my colleagues are objecting to my reasoning and the thought process that has brought me there. As I say, my thinking has changed once again because I have been so profoundly offended by the antics of the other place in recent years that I now fully and wholeheartedly believe and accept that the Senate cannot be repaired. It has to be abolished. A Triple-A Senate—

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Is that your final answer?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That is my final answer. I doubt that I will prevaricate any further, and let me provide one compelling reason why.

I do not know if you know this, Mr. Speaker, but you will be shocked. Talk about an inherent conflict of interest. Senators are allowed to sit on boards of directors of companies and some sit on as many as 10 or 12 boards of directors and get paid for each one. How can they objectively deal with legislation? Some of them would have to recuse themselves from everything if they sit on the board of directors of Onex Corporation. Onex Corporation has everything in its portfolio. Senators would never be able to legitimately, objectively adjudicate and vote on any single thing. They could not even phone out for pizza because Onex Corporation, in fact, owns a whole bunch of pizza parlour chains. That is one problem.

The other thing is senators take fees for speaking. Can anyone imagine the audacity of being appointed for life a sinecure of $150,000 a year, plus travel, plus expenses, and yet when they speak somewhere, they charge a big, fat speaker's fee? That offends me. That offends the sensibility of any thinking democratic Canadian, I would think.

Also, many senators engage in purely partisan political work. Let me give an example. The head of the Conservative campaign for my home province of Manitoba was a senator, Don Plett.

If you are wondering about relevance, Mr. Speaker, I am giving my reasons why Bill S-7 should be marched down the hallway back to the Senate and presented to the senators. I am tired of getting marched down there to ask them to give royal assent to our legislation. Let them traipse down here for a change, and I will give them a piece of my mind. In the meantime, if we ever do go on another parade, we should pile up all these pieces of legislation that originated in the Senate and bring them back to them. They can keep them down there.

Another thing that bothers me is why senators would use public money to buy Obama's database. They spent a couple million dollars to buy the best political database in the world, a voter contact system. It is the best in the world, and we know this because we tried to buy it ourselves. However, we cannot buy it, because if it has already been licensed to one person or one party in a country, it will not be sold to another party. The Liberal senators used their budget to chip in and buy a database for the Liberal Party. Why would senators need a database? They are not elected. They do not to contact electors. Why are they spending public money to buy a database? Again, it offends the sensibility of any thinking Canadian.

The last thing I will say in preface to my remarks on the bill is what is really crazy. The entire Conservative war room is on the public payroll. The Conservatives appointed their party president, chief fundraiser, campaign manager and communications director to the campaign to the Senate so they could all operate on taxpayer dollars. It is not just their salaries, it is their travel privileges and their staff. They have become an organ of the Conservative Party of Canada.

The same is true of the Liberal Party. I know who the chief bagman for the Liberal Party is. I know him well. He does not apologize for it. He comes from Manitoba. It his job to raise money for the Liberal Party, but now he is paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. The Liberals do not have to pay him a salary anymore to do that; the taxpayer does. That is such an egregious abuse of any of the original intent forming the Senate of Canada as a chamber of sober second thought, et cetera.

Manitoba used to have a senate. We got rid of it back at the turn of the last century. Other provinces used to have senates, and they got rid of them too. We do not need a senate anymore. We do not need it, and not only is it not serving any useful purpose, it is counterproductive to the democratic process, because those guys are interfering. When Senator Don Plett comes to Manitoba and is paid full time to run the Conservative Party election campaign in the province of Manitoba, does nobody see what is wrong with that?

It just rubs salt in the wound to have to stand in the House of Commons and deal with legislation coming from the Senate. Nobody elected the senators to make legislation. Nobody gave them a mandate to create legislation. Why the hell is it coming to us in the form of Bill S-anything? We should make it abundantly clear that we will not tolerate it anymore. That is my view.

I see that I only have one minute left to deal with the substance of the bill. The main message that I wanted to convey today is how chronically disappointed I am in the system. It is broken down to the degree that the government of the day has to slip things through the Senate at its convenience.

I believe that the opportunism of raising this bill at this time speaks to the very worst of neo-conservative fearmongering of politics. It trivializes the tragedy of Boston and it does a disservice to the important debate that we need to have regarding the first duty of any government, which is to keep its citizens safe. This is the wrong way to go about it.

The Conservatives are probably feeling quite sheepish that most of them are better members of Parliament than that, having to be put in the situation of promoting this bill at this time and in this context.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agreed with some of the final points of my colleague's intervention. We can have a discussion about Senate reform, but it is also important to recognize this. The member provided one view of the Canadian Senate, but he did not recognize a lot of the important and constructive work done in the Senate. I will reference a couple of contributions to public policy that have made a difference in Canada and have contributed significantly to solutions to some of the most difficult issues facing the country.

The Kirby report on health care reform and the recommendations on mental health are one example. We need to do a lot more on mental health issues, but those are a couple of examples of very important contributions made by former Senator Michael Kirby. However, more recently, and I am being constructive here because I know the hon. member is fair and will share with me the admiration for some of the good work being done in the Senate, Senator Percy Downe has done extremely important work on the issue of tax havens. I know the member for Brossard—La Prairie, the former revenue critic, has worked closely with Senator Downe and his staff on this area. I know the new NDP member for Victoria is working with Senator Downe's office and benefiting from that research.

It is important to recognize, as we discuss the other place, that there are very positive contributions to the work that we do here and from time to time to provide at least a balanced view of the work done in the Canadian Senate.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my friend from Kings—Hants knows full well that much of the work that he cited as being worthwhile could be done by parliamentary committees if they were given the power, the authority and the resources that were promised to us in the Reform Party days when we used to have these conversations about giving meaningful work to committees and giving them meaningful resources to do it. We do not need a senate to have a comprehensive study on the situation of mental health in our country. I too have worked with senators on various projects, and again, that work could be done by elected members of Parliament.

I think the Senate is beyond reform. I used to think that everything that was wrong with the Senate could be fixed through Senate reform, through various changes we could make. I have given up on that idea. It has been abused so egregiously in recent years. It has been stacked and stuffed with hacks and flacks to the point where it is irredeemable. Having a two-tiered Senate is only going to compound the problem and make it worse.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's remarks. I found a parallel to what he was talking about with the Senate and the current government in a majority situation. The point on Bill S-7 is that the government can act just like senators. The Conservatives do not care when they have a majority situation at committee. When we put forward 18 amendments to the bill, they were all voted down and ignored. In fact, expert testimony was ignored.

I have a quote I would like the member from Winnipeg to talk about. Mr. Paul Calarco, who is a member of the National Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association, says:

There is no question that the prevention of terrorist action is vital to preserving our society. This requires effective legislation, but also legislation that respects the traditions of our democracy. Unfortunately, this bill fails to achieve either goal.

Would my friend like to comment on that, perhaps even referencing the Senate again?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on what was a very legitimate and serious question. In my view, the way the bill is being treated on this day in the aftermath of one of the greatest terrorism attacks in North American history and the undermining of another attempt at terrorism, trivializes and politicizes the issue and does a disservice to how serious it is an obligation of a government to keep its citizens safe.

If the government were serious about doing all it could to co-operatively work with Parliament to act in the best interests of Canadians, if we were in fact under siege or under attack, there should be a war cabinet attitude where the leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister, would bring together the leaders of the other parties and work collaboratively to act in the best interests of Canadians, not to rehash this flawed legislation, especially through the back door of the other place where it has no business originating.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, or the combating terrorism act.

Of course, we must begin today by marking the events that have taken place in recent weeks. Last Monday, two bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring 183 others. That event touched every one of us in the House. We were deeply moved by the news and that is probably the reason why the entire House has risen to condemn that attack.

Yesterday, we also learned the facts surrounding the VIA Rail conspiracy. Our security services were successful in dismantling a terrorist plot. This was an outstanding achievement on the part of our law enforcement agencies, the RCMP and CSIS, which worked together with the FBI and Homeland Security. This situation clearly demonstrates that we can work together to combat terrorism, and that is very important to the NDP.

Before analyzing Bill S-7, we have to talk about its history. We must not forget that the Anti-terrorism Act that was brought forward in 2001, after the September 11 attacks, changed Canadian law. In response to a very tragic event that moved the entire world, Canada brought forward a number of initiatives and laws that tackled the problem of terrorism. At the time, this was a spontaneous reaction; the government then was not sure whether these provisions should be retained or re-enacted. It passed a sunset clause, so the provisions and measures would expire and it could re-examine the situation to see whether the laws should be brought forward again.

In 2007, in the House, by a vote of 159 to 124, those measures were rejected. At that time, the Liberals were also opposed to them. The present Conservative majority government, however, has decided to bring these provisions back in the form of Bill S-7, which comes from the other Chamber.

We have spoken out against it and, as the media have reported, we are outraged that the Conservatives have exploited a tragic situation in a way that is unworthy of parliamentarians. I am talking about the Boston bombings and the plot that was foiled.

That is a very political and partisan way of using a situation that impacts everyone to push a bill through. If the Conservatives were serious about this, they would have introduced it in the House, not in the Senate. The Conservatives have been dragging their feet on this bill since February 2012. Taking advantage of this kind of situation to push a bill through and score political points is very partisan and cheap.

It is not surprising that we are opposed to Bill S-7. We are simply reiterating our 2007 position. Plus, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has done studies. I would like to thank our critic, the member for Toronto—Danforth, who has worked so hard on this file. He utilized every resource, studied the subject in detail and capably advised us and guided us on this matter.

Bill S-7 has four main objectives. First, it will amend the Criminal Code to allow for investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions. Second, it will amend 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 will amend the Criminal Code to create new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit a terrorist act. Fourth, it will amend 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.

I have spoken a little about the background to these provisions, but I would like to go into greater detail about the reasons why the NDP is opposed to the bill.

We believe that Bill S-7 violates civil liberties and human rights. Having sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I will say that we increasingly feel we must strike a balance. On the one hand, the purpose of the bill is to protect the public, but, on the other hand, we must look out for our rights and freedoms, which really are the basis of our democracy.

Unfortunately, and we see a lot of this in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Conservatives increasingly introduce bills that violate the charter and violate rights and freedoms. Not surprisingly, many of the Conservatives' bills are now before the Supreme Court. Even the provinces have to oppose them and institute legal proceedings. This process costs us an enormous amount of money. If the Conservatives did a better job, we would be sure to strike a better balance between rights and the purpose of the bills.

Consequently, one of the problems with Bill S-7 is that it violates the right to remain silent. It also violates the right not to be sent to prison without a fair trial. I personally do not sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but some of my colleagues there have heard witnesses from the legal community and civil liberties advocates, who really have said that the provisions of Bill S-7 are pointless, that there is a lack of balance between security and fundamental rights, particularly as regards the role of the Attorney General.

Let us briefly look at what happened after the Anti-terrorism Act was passed in 2001. There was the Maher Arar affair. The government went ahead with these types of measures and Mr. Arar, a Canadian, was deported. He was arrested in the United States and deported to Syria, where he was tortured. It later came out that all this had been done based on false information. The Prime Minister recently had to apologize and to pay $10.5 million in compensation, if I am not mistaken.

Let us not forgot that all that happened when the Liberals were in power. So that shows what the Liberals want to continue doing. I am a bit surprised that they have not learned their lesson. In 2007, they voted against the legislation, and now they have changed their minds. That may be because they have changed leaders and are therefore more supportive of what the Conservatives want to put forward. However, we find it quite surprising that the Liberals, who claim to be proud defenders of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are voting in favour of this bill as presented.

We in the NDP have studied the bill. We have proposed amendments designed to put forward a more balanced bill. As we often say, we must not just oppose, but also propose. So we made proposals and put forward 18 amendments that improved the bill's transparency, for example. They would have reduced the negative impact on civil liberties. Unfortunately, since the Conservatives were in the majority, all those amendments were, of course, rejected.

Mr. Paul Copeland, a lawyer from the Law Union of Ontario, said that in his opinion, the provisions we are looking at here—we were talking about Bill S-7 in committee—would unnecessarily change our legal landscape in Canada. He said that we must not adopt them and that in his opinion, they were not needed. Other provisions of the code provide various mechanisms for dealing with such individuals.

We also have the statement from Reid Morden, former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, who stated, in 2010, that police and security services “have perfectly sufficient powers to do their jobs.... They don't need any more new powers”.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, enlightening as usual.

I would like to ask him about the government's way of doing things. He already talked about it in his speech. I actually think the bill could have been passed a number of weeks, if not months, ago because it is here and we have been debating it for some time. The government brought it back as a way of setting aside a Liberal motion that would have embarrassed them. The government tends to avoid some debates and to bring others back on the agenda, when sad events take place.

Could the hon. member comment on the government's opportunistic attitude?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

He is absolutely right in saying that the Conservative government is being opportunistic. As I said, the tragic and horrific events that took place have affected all of us. However, the bill from the other place was introduced in February 2012, if I am not mistaken. That means that it has been sitting on the Conservatives' desk for some time. If the government had really been serious about this bill, it would not have introduced it at the other place. It would have done so itself.

We have seen it, the media have seen it, the Liberals have denounced it and we are denouncing it too. It was the government's response to avoid debating a motion on an embarrassing topic. To change the subject and to dazzle everyone, it brought back Bill S-7.

Last Friday, we saw the Conservatives respond in a knee-jerk way to protect themselves. Unfortunately, considering how important our rights and our discussions on major issues are, I think the government must not be opportunistic or partisan, but rather, must think about the interests of Canadians before it acts in such a manner.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched on this issue during his speech. I wonder if he could elaborate on the constitutionality of the bill, considering what we learned recently about a lawyer from the Department of Justice who was suspended without pay for saying that the Conservative government had lowered down to 5% the degree of certainty that its legislation complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the past, the Department of Justice would try to be at least 90% or 95% sure that a proposed piece of legislation was constitutional and would pass the test of compliance with the charter. Currently, that degree of certainty is somewhere between 5% and 10%.

I would like to hear the hon. member on this issue and on the possibility that Bill S-7 may not comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This issue was also raised by our justice critic, the hon. member for Gatineau, at the Standing Committee on Justice. We know that the government does not really have any structure to review government bills, and even less so for reviewing private member's bills.

We know that no study is done and that there is no established system to ensure that a bill does not go against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We asked that this matter be looked into, but since the Conservatives hold a majority they refused to do so. I was disturbed to find out that, even internally, it is no longer as important for a bill to comply with the charter. This opens the door to legal proceedings, which costs Canadians dearly. The government must go before the courts, including the Supreme Court. The costs involved are huge and, unfortunately, this is because the Conservatives behave in a partisan and ideological fashion, without really verifying what their laws introduce.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North, Public Safety.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for this warm welcome.

Considering what we are dealing with, what happened yesterday and what happened in Boston a week ago, I want to begin by offering my condolences to the families and loved ones of the Boston bombing victims. I am speaking on behalf of all my constituents, regardless of their political allegiance, and I also want to thank all those who helped foil the plot that we were informed about yesterday.

I travel regularly on VIA Rail, and I am pleased to see that people whom we do not always see in action, are doing an exceptional job, and I thank them for that.

Having said that, it is important to reflect on this issue, even though it is always a bit awkward to ask political questions after such incidents, because it may be interpreted as partisanship. However, that is precisely what we are seeing here today.

Since the beginning of the 41st Parliament, the government keeps resorting to gag orders and closure motions. We have to ask ourselves if this is really a priority for the government, considering that it has so often tried to ram bills through, under the pretext that they are important for the economy or for public safety. The reasons given by the government are sometimes trivial and are sometimes made up. We must ask ourselves that very important question. We must ask ourselves whether it is truly appropriate to suddenly bring this debate back in order to score political points.

We must also ask ourselves another question. If the minister is serious about improving legal actions relating to terrorism, why did he not present the bill himself in the House of Commons? Why delegate such an important task to the Senate, which is unelected and unaccountable to the public?

We were elected by the public as part of their civil rights to represent them. Given his numerous responsibilities, rising in the House to introduce a bill is the least a minister of State can do. This was another concern we had about this bill, and again it makes us wonder how serious the government is about this issue.

The Conservatives claim to be the great defenders of public safety and like to spit on the work of the opposition parties, particularly the work of the NDP. We have good reason to wonder whether they are serious about this matter, when they send bills to the Senate and impose gag orders.

I am very interested in this issue. At the risk of sounding young to some of my colleagues, the events of September 11, 2001, had a tremendous impact on me and affected a lot of people. Those events marked the beginning of my interest in politics. I was a teenager then. It is actually a big deal for me to admit that in a debate in the House. However, it is true, because I find it very interesting to look at it from that angle. As I result, I followed all the debates around those events and they sparked my interest in politics. We are all familiar with the debates that were held in the U.S. on the infamous patriot act and all those debates on civil rights and civil liberties, as well as constitutional issues.

In Canada, we have not been immune to those issues. A lawyer once said that just because unfortunate events take place and we do not support certain legal decisions, does not mean we automatically have to change the law. It is important to keep that in mind for debates like this.

After all, we cannot say that we want events like that to occur. Those attacks are clearly tragic events. It is shameful that members of our society think about doing such things, but we have to be very careful before we make any changes. The fact that a tragedy takes place does not mean that we must automatically change things. We must really take the time to look at existing measures. Before we change the law, we must look at what we can do for the people who are already doing this work.

Yesterday, members of the RCMP and various public security forces thwarted a plot despite the budget cuts imposed by a government that claims to be the champion of public safety.

In recent months, the NDP has raised a number of questions in the House. The members for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and Alfred-Pellan, our public safety critics, and the member for Gatineau, our justice critic, have asked questions about why the government has been talking up public safety while cutting staff at organizations that are working very hard to maintain this safety.

Before making major changes that will violate civil liberties, we must ensure that people already on the ground who are using existing measures are well equipped to continue doing what members of every political persuasion recognize as excellent work. This is a fundamental issue in this debate, given the major changes being proposed.

My colleague, the member for Brossard—La Prairie, and all my colleagues who spoke before me, talked about the debates on public safety that have taken place in the House over the past 10 years, since 9/11. The issue was whether or not a person should be detained for 72 hours.

Is it appropriate for Bill S-7 to be so broad in scope that it allows people who are not even suspected of committing terrorist acts to be detained? In committee, we saw that this was deliberate on the part of the government.

In my opinion, it is very disturbing to know, as my colleague from Gatineau said, that the government wants to keep things vague when an amendment is suggested. That is very problematic. We must be very careful when introducing bills about safety that could violate civil liberties. We have to be as clear as possible, no matter what our political leanings. We have to protect people's safety while ensuring that we continue to live in a free society that protects fundamental rights and civil liberties, which are extremely important.

The Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision along those same lines. Since it pertains to the subject of debate, I would like to tell the House that I had a conversation with my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth. He already mentioned this to the House. He told me that despite the Supreme Court decision, there are some good points in the existing legislation and that it is very important for us to keep in mind that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to make our own decisions.

I think it is important that we not view the Supreme Court as a body that decides for Parliament, but rather one that works in co-operation with Parliament to ensure that our laws properly reflect the values of our society.

For this reason, if the court has a problem with a bill, it can simply return it to Parliament. It does not always prescribe corrections, if I remember correctly from my courses on political and constitutional issues. It is important to have this dialogue. This debate has been going on for many years.

In 2007, about five years ago, it was noted that legislation proposed in the past had not changed anything in terms of people's safety and that the existing legislation was more than adequate.

I would therefore ask the government to reconsider its proposed legislation. We cannot support this bill because it infringes on civil liberties.

The government needs to take a good look in the mirror and decide to continue to give the necessary resources to the people we saw hard at work yesterday. That proves that they are doing an excellent job. The tools are already available to them. We need to continue to work with what we have. We should not be trying to make any major changes like the ones proposed in this bill. Those changes will achieve nothing and will only violate our civil liberties.

In closing, I want to point out once again that regardless of the political debates we might have, I think we all agree that we need to fight terrorism and protect Canadians. Let us do so responsibly. That is crucial to protecting the values of our society.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I bring in the comparison once again in regard to Bill C-55 and Bill S-7.

Bill C-55 deals with wiretapping. I quote what a judge indicated, and this is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling:

Section 184.4 contains a number of legislative conditions. Properly construed, these conditions are designed to ensure that the power to intercept private communications without judicial authorization is available only in exigent circumstances to prevent serious harm. To that extent, the section strikes an appropriate balance between an individual's s. 8 Charter rights and society's interests in preventing serious harm.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is there difficulty with the system? Does the member have his BlackBerry on his desk?

I think that the member for Chambly—Borduas is ready to respond.

We will go back to the hon. member for Winnipeg North to finish the question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the point is that when we do the comparison between Bill C-55 and Bill S-7, both of them deal with individuals' rights. Both of them deal with issues related to the charter.

On the one hand, as the party that introduced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada a number of decades ago, we are very sensitive to the importance of individual rights.

Bill C-55 deals with wiretapping. This particular bill deals with investigative hearings. Both concerns were in regard to individual rights.

When it came time to vote on Bill C-55, every member of the House voted in favour of it. In the case of this particular bill, the NDP will be voting against it. The same arguments the NDP used to vote against it here in principle could have been used for Bill C-55. My question is this: why the inconsistency?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they are two separate issues.

I do not want to put myself forward as an expert in the law, but what is important here is the issue of detention and the definition. I am referring, for example, to the fact that there is a definition under which it is possible to arrest people who have not necessarily been accused of an act of terrorism.

Without wanting to get involved in another debate, I would like to make a distinction between what I understood of the issue and the member's comments. There are two different issues at play.

I will stick to the debate on Bill S-7. When we talk about civil liberties, the key issue is the way in which people are defined when it comes to detention. That is what is important here, today. Once again, I stress that I am not an expert in the law. However, this nuance is extremely important.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comment. He could perhaps tell the member for Winnipeg North that, in fact, Bill C-55 was a response to an attack on sections of the Criminal Code that were amended in an exaggerated fashion. The response, given in the form of Bill C–55, met the Supreme Court's criteria. Moreover, as I said earlier, it was a slightly more prudent way of responding in terms of human rights.

We now have Bill S-7 before us, and it will probably be challenged. We will be forced to return with a bill that complies with the Supreme Court's requirements.

Indeed, it would seem that the NDP is the protector of the rights and freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would ask the member to comment on that. The Liberal Party no longer seems to understand the charter, or may have forgotten it; I do not know which is the case. Perhaps my colleague can shed light on this.