Anne McLellan

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that what Canadians want is to be protected effectively and fairly from the scourge of terrorism. That is what we believe our anti-terrorism legislation provides.

However, I have already indicated that while we believe we have struck the appropriate balance, some of these issues that are implicated in the legislation are things on which reasonable people of good faith can disagree. That is why we have a parliamentary committee process. That is why we will hear from the committee. I look forward to its advice and recommendations.

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact as we have said on a number of occasions, we believe that we have struck the right balance in our legislation to deal with the evils of terrorism. We recognize that this is an important task. It is one that we take up very seriously.

It is also one that I look forward to working with our Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to, because in fact as I have said in the House on a number of occasions, I look forward to their advice and their recommendations to ensure we get that balance.

[Immigration, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should be aware this matter is before the court. In fact, I may well be called upon to make a final decision as to whether or not this person is extradited. It would be inappropriate for me to comment at this point when this matter is before the court.

[Immigration, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that my lawyers were in court opposing the bail application and we argued against the provision of bail. I have to respect the decision of the court in that case. It did grant bail to the individual in question.

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the definition in the new act does not make it difficult. As I said yesterday, the definition in the anti-terrorism legislation speaks to activities in which the motivation is the instilling of terror. Lesser forms of violent protest will be dealt with by the criminal code.

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I understand the hon. member's question. I think I was very plain yesterday that the definition of terrorist activity has been drafted carefully to exclude lawful protest activity. That includes examples of lawful advocacy, dissent, strikes and a wide range of other lawful protest activities.

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 18th, 2001]

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the government believes that the three year review period is the appropriate mechanism of protection. We considered this issue very carefully.

Having said that, I am the first to acknowledge that there are views being expressed by members on all sides of the House as to whether that is in all cases the appropriate protective mechanism.

I think the committee is the place to have that discussion. I know the government looks forward to hearing the advice of the committee this afternoon.

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, we considered this issue very carefully. The government has determined and we think the three year review provision is a fair and adequate mechanism of protection.

However, since I know there are strong views on this issue on all sides of the House, my colleagues and I look forward to engaging in this discussion at committee this afternoon.

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the discussion that will begin this afternoon at committee.

My colleague, the solicitor general, and I will be appearing before committee and I know that members of the Bloc, as well as other opposition parties, have much to offer and advice to provide in relation to how we ensure we have effective terrorism legislation in this country.

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 18th, 2001]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.