Anne McLellan

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny that the government, in its anti-terrorism legislation, is trampling civil liberties or fundamental freedoms. We believe everything in our anti-terrorism legislation is within the spirit of the charter of rights and freedoms and within those values of any free democratic society.

To go back to the earlier point, we have indicated our preferred option for a review mechanism. I understand that this is an issue on which reasonable people of good faith can disagree. Therefore, we look forward to hearing the advice and recommendations of the two committees reviewing this legislation.

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, some democracies have sunset clauses, some do not. Our recommendation to the Parliament of Canada is a three year review clause.

I come back to the point that the Prime Minister and I have reiterated in the House that we are interested in hearing what the House of Commons committee and the Senate committee have to say. We will listen very carefully and study very closely the advice and recommendations of both committees.

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the government does believe that the three year review period is the appropriate guarantee and review mechanism. However, we have also made it very plain that this legislation needs to be carefully reviewed and studied by both the House of Commons and the Senate committees. We look forward to the advice and recommendations that both those committees will provide us.

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and I have been quite clear that the preferred approach of the government is a review at the end of the three year period.

However, the Prime Minister and I have been equally clear that we are very interested in the advice and recommendations from both the House of Commons and the Senate committees. We will take that advice very seriously when it is provided to us.

[Justice, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members should be aware that I have the discretion to determine and I will exercise that discretion on a case by case basis as to whether I think there are exceptional circumstances that justify not seeking assurances.

Can that decision made by me, a public official, be reviewed by the court at the request of the accused person? Yes, of course. It would be a shocking proposition to suggest that it could not be reviewed.

[Justice, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware what the supreme court said in Burns and Rafay. Among other things, it said that the attorney general retains his or her discretion to seek assurances or not in exceptional circumstances.

The court acknowledges there may very well be exceptional circumstances to be determined initially by the attorney general as to whether or not assurances need to be sought. I would intend to exercise that discretion on a case by case basis.

[Anti-terrorism legislation, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member that the ultimate control over any action taken by me in my capacity as Attorney General of Canada is the Parliament of Canada.

[Anti-terrorism legislation, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the House before, the power to which the hon. member refers is an exceptional power in which I, in my role as Attorney General of Canada, the chief law officer of the country, can issue a certificate to ensure that in exceptional circumstances highly confidential information is not released.

I should remind the member that the power that is seen in the anti-terrorism legislation is very similar to powers found in legislation of our allies with whom we share information and receive information.

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what I find interesting is listening to the hon. member who is always very quick to criticize that which we on this side are trying to do, but not when called upon for constructive recommendations to help us.

I indicated yesterday at committee that we believe the definition of terrorist activity is sufficiently precise and clear. However, I made it plain to the committee that if it can help us in terms of language that will achieve what I hope are shared objectives I will be very interested in hearing that advice. So far all the hon. member does is--

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in fact let me point out to the hon. member that what we are defining is terrorist activity. We are not defining violent activity. We are defining terrorist activity. Therefore I would ask the hon. member to keep in mind that is what we are concentrating on. That is what we are focused on in this legislation: those who would use terror to achieve their goals.