Michel Bellehumeur

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would greatly appreciate it if the Chair were to rule immediately. A decision cannot be left until later, since we are about to begin discussing the issue.

What I mean to say, is that you must decide as to whether or not the point raised by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party is acceptable or not. I think that he has raised some very good points.

However, we must look at the entire context of this bill. Everything has been done very quickly. Since it was not done in committee, we must take the time to think about the amendments proposed for Bill C-36.

It is not true that the bill was considered properly. When one studies a bill clause by clause for eleven hours in a row, with no opportunity pause and reflect on the amendments that the government is moving, thereby being forced to react immediately, that is hardly what I would describe as proper consideration.

Furthermore, the government is proceeding without providing us with a reprint of the bill with the government's amendments. Let me remind the House that the government proposed 91 amendments. This is no mean feat, in a bill.

It is all well and good to tell us that we have until Saturday to submit amendments, but quite frankly, that is a joke. Earlier, there was a request made to suspend the sitting for ten minutes.

Mr. Speaker, if you need time to think about this issue before we begin debate, in order for the debate to truly be a proper one, please take ten minutes to consider the arguments or review what was said before you arrived, in order to rule properly and in order that the debate begin on the right note.

In closing, I would like to say that this bill is important, and our goal here is to establish a balance between national security and individual and collective rights. I fear that if we proceed at the current speed, in the drafting stage, as the government said, and in consideration by the committee, and with amendments being proposed on a weekend, and now today moving on to report stage, that we will never strike this balance. There are mistakes being made right now.

Mr. Speaker, I invite you to rule, examine the matter as you always do, and decide whether or not the member's point of order is valid and whether or not we should do this before moving on to report stage of this bill.

[Computer Hackers, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in order to better understand the debate, it is worthwhile rereading Motion No. 80, introduced by a member of the opposition, and I quote:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately amend the Criminal Code to create a separate category of offences and punishments for computer hackers and persons who wilfully or maliciously export computer viruses, both of whose activities disrupt the normal conduct of electronic business in Canada.

The first question that arises with such a motion is: why should this motion be supported? It is clear from a look at the use made of computers and this new technology that cyber crime and Internet crimes are on the rise. More people use them, more are tempted to leave their mark, on certain Internet sites and programs, for example.

In this regard, the young, people with a thorough knowledge of computers, the computer whizzes, who have had training and developed their expertise by using them, are clearly the ones likely to be most affected by this motion.

The question is whether or not this motion is justified and, if so, whether this issue is a source of concern, whether it deserves our attention, whether there is a flaw in the criminal code, whether Canada's current legislation meets our concerns and whether it is adequate, considering the use that can be made of the Internet?

I believe that this is indeed an issue that deserves our attention. It is an issue about which we must be vigilant, considering that this can develop very rapidly and, as I said earlier, it is often young people who have to deal with the problem, since they are major users of the Internet and all these programs.

This issue is indeed a source of concern and it deserves our attention. But do we need legislative amendments, as proposed by the hon. member in Motion No. 80?

Let us take a look at the criminal code. Current events allow us to see whether the criminal code is properly used and applied. They provide some answers to our questions. Does the criminal code include offences for people who, as the motion says, wilfully or maliciously export computer viruses which, as everyone knows, can disrupt electronic business in Canada?

The answer is yes. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said earlier—and I do not always share his views, but I agree with him on this specific issue—the criminal code already includes offences carrying heavy penalties for people who might be tempted to wilfully export computer viruses, considering the seriousness of the problems caused to computer programs and the Internet system.

In order to have a balanced criminal code to deal with reprehensible actions, there must be a gradation when it comes to offences. We cannot deal with someone who attempts to introduce a computer virus in the same way that we would deal with a person who commits an act of violence, who assaults someone or commits a similar type of offence. There has to be a progression in the offences and in the sentences.

For certain cases now under study, I think that the criminal code has the necessary provisions, with respect both to offences and to sentences.

We can tell from the news whether or not the criminal code is sufficiently clear, whether it is easy to apply and whether it covers this kind of offence. The example I want to use is that of “mafia boy”, who managed to introduce computer viruses into Internet sites and throw the entire web-based economy into disarray. The legislation appears to be applicable because, first of all, this individual was traced. Second, the individual, who was in fact a youth, was charged, found guilty and sentenced.

The legislation is therefore effective. Because this is a field which is evolving very rapidly, however, we must be vigilant and look at whether the legislation will be increasingly applied and whether it will meet needs. But this goes hand in hand with the use that is made of it.

In fact, there is a series of amendments which have been in effect only since 1997-1998. The system must at least be given the time to apply them before we should contemplate changing the rules of the game.

This is rather typical of the Canadian Alliance, which does not wait for the results, particularly where young people are involved. It does not wait to see whether or not the legislation is inadequate, whether or not it should be amended immediately. In its view, what is needed is to crack down as quickly as possible, to hand out tougher and tougher sentences, because young people are involved.

I urge Canadian Alliance members and the government as well to take a good look at what is going on in the field of informatics. There is no reason right now to jump in and start amending the existing legislation.

Today, I feel safe when it comes to informatics because the criminal code has provisions to cover this. Should young people or adults try to introduce viruses into computer programs, we have the legislation necessary to arrest them, bring them before the courts, and deal with them. We have what is needed.

Members will therefore understand that the Bloc Quebecois is voting against Motion No. 80.

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Justice showed some openness and said she was prepared to review the definition of “terrorist activity” and to provide a control mechanism regarding access to information, two issues that the Bloc Quebecois identified as being problematic.

The minister also said that sunset clauses could apply to some clauses of the bill.

Like her colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, is the Minister of Justice prepared to make a firm commitment that her bill will indeed include sunset clauses?

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, with special legislation, such as Bill C-36, it is important to maintain a balance between security and civil liberties. In committee, witnesses have told us that this bill is dangerous, goes too far and grants outrageous powers. This is serious.

In turning a deaf ear to those who recommend striking a balance between security and freedoms, and in listening only to those who are concerned with security, is the minister not herself upsetting the balance that the Prime Minister wished to preserve at all costs?

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday information commissioner John Reid told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that it would be preferable to remove from the anti-terrorism bill all the clauses granting the Minister of Justice the exceptional power to suspend the application of the Access to Information Act as she sees fit.

Given this eloquent testimony from a protector of individual rights, will the minister, who has always said that she was anxious to hear from witnesses, listen to this expert rather than listening to her own department's hardliners on security?

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let us be serious here.

A simple review of the act is recognition of the permanent nature of the so-called exorbitant powers, whereas sunset clauses are a recognition of the temporary nature of certain exceptional measures it contains.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Does she recognize the necessity, in order to reassure the population, for certain clauses in this bill to be temporary in nature, and that sunset clauses are needed for this?

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, after the privacy commissioner and the information commissioner, now we have Mr. Claude Bisson, of the Communications Security Establishment, a former chief justice of the Quebec appeal court, telling the government that the bill gives it exorbitant powers.

The more the experts analyze this bill, the more they fear the potential use of these powers.

Does the minister, who also has an obligation to protect individual rights, not feel she has a duty to state clearly that this bill must include sunset clauses?

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

Mr. Speaker, since the tragic events of September 11, the government has been telling us that we must not give in to terror and that we must change nothing in our way of life.

Does the government realize that it has fallen into this trap itself by dangerously encroaching on civil liberties and by changing our way of life without giving any clear guarantees that this special legislation will only apply for a limited time period?

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States, which suffered an unprecedented attack on September 11, and France, which has been the target of numerous terrorist attacks in the past, did not hesitate to include sunset clauses in their special legislation.

Why would Canada, which prides itself on being a model when it comes to protecting human rights, refuse to include sunset clauses to protect these rights over time, as other countries are doing?

[Privilege, October 19th, 2001]

Then the briefing should not have begun at that time.