Bill Siksay

[Statutes Repeal Act, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I am honoured to address Bill S-202, the statutes repeal act.

Let me begin by congratulating the member for Joliette on his appointment as House leader for the Bloc Québécois. I know that he will bring his not only his experience but his commitment to this place to that job. I also want to thank the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean for his work in that position up to this point. They are different MPs, I know, and they bring different perspectives to that important task in this place.

I also want to thank the member for Mississauga South for presenting this Senate bill, the statutes repeal act, here in the House for our consideration. I know that it comes out of his commitment to the functioning of this place. He takes a great interest in how the chamber works and I appreciate his initiative around this important legislation.

As we have heard, this legislation seeks to address the fact that a number of pieces of legislation have never come into effect. They have never been enacted even though they have passed through the legislative process here in the House and also in the other place. For some reason, the government has chosen not to enact them.

That came as somewhat of a surprise to me even though I have worked in this place for many years. The fact that the government could choose not to implement legislation that had been passed by the House of Commons and the Senate, that it had that prerogative, is something that I still find passing strange. I find it strange that governments would sponsor legislation, take it through the process in both chambers, with members giving it their due and careful consideration, and see it go through all the stages of the various readings in the House and Senate and ultimately be passed, yet for some reason choose not to implement that legislation, and it would also not seek to repeal that legislation. It would just let it sit there on the books without effect for many years.

Indeed, I understand how that is a problem and I understand the need for some kind of housekeeping measures, both to bring accountability for the legislative process and to ensure that governments are doing their duty and following the will of the legislative branch of our government. I think this bill is a very important piece of legislation. It is important to consider what we do with legislation that has been on the books for many years and has not been enacted.

Generally there are several ways in which this is dealt with in legislation. All legislation has a coming into effect clause, which is usually the last clause of the legislation and which talks about when the legislation will come into effect. In some legislation that is very clearly stated: that it comes into effect at the point of royal assent or sometimes on a specific timetable with specific dates. In those cases, there is not a problem in terms of that legislation not becoming effective, not being enacted and not actually being carried out.

The problem is in the situation where the coming into effect legislation talks about the date to be determined by the governor in council, when the government is given the opportunity to determine the timeline for the coming into effect of legislation. Often there is a good reason for that. It may be that there are further negotiations with other levels of government that have to happen. It may be that regulations have to be developed to allow for the implementation of that legislation.

However, it is in those situations that the prerogative begins for the government to delay or even not implement legislation. That is where I think we need to be more diligent, perhaps, as members of Parliament. I certainly will be careful to look at that clause in any legislation that I am directly involved with in this place in the future, because I think that is where we as legislators can exercise our abilities to ensure that the legislation we work on and support comes into effect in a reasonable length of time and actually does happen. I think that is a place where we need to be more careful.

I would also hope that governments might take more direct responsibility in a situation where problems do crop up with legislation that has been passed but which governments feel they cannot go forward with. They should take responsibility to bring back legislation to repeal something that has already been passed, to convince the people in this place, who have responsibility for the people of Canada to work on that legislation and to make judgments about that legislation. A government must give representatives the opportunity to understand the problems with the legislation as the government sees it and to make a decision about whether it should go forward or not.

We have heard that there are two complete bills, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act from the early 1980s and the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act from the early 1990s that have not been implemented. I do not know what was in those pieces of legislation that caused them to not be implemented by the government. When I see the title of the first one, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, I wonder if it had come into effect we might have solved some of the problems that we are facing today since it seemed to be an early attempt to deal with that important issue back in the 1980s.

I also understand that there are 57 other pieces of legislation that would be affected by this bill and it seems reasonable that there should be a review of that legislation. However, I want to make sure that we do not lose the opportunity to hold governments accountable for important legislation that was passed, and that we do indulge and we are careful about the politics between the legislative branch and the executive branch of government. We sometimes have to as legislators push the governor in council, the government, to act on legislation and for very good reasons.

I will use as an example my experience since I arrived in this place with a piece of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which was passed in 2001 dealing with the refugee appeal division. I know this is not exactly applicable to the Statutes Repeal Act, but it gives an example of the kind of situation we are talking about.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, was passed in 2001 and one feature of that act was the establishment of the refugee appeal division which was a paper screening process that gave refugee claimants an appeal of a decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board. That refugee appeal division was established in law as a compromise in the debate on the immigration and refugee appeal division.

The government of the day wanted to reduce the panels which heard refugee claims from two members to one member, but concerns of other members of Parliament were that a two member panel gave an opportunity for corrections of errors that might be made in the process, whereas a one member panel did not afford that opportunity for fairness and justice, hence the RAD was introduced as a compromise to ensure fairness in the system.

Since then, the governments of the day have refused to implement the refugee appeal division, and every refugee and immigrant serving organization in the country and many internationally have called on the government to implement that. The previous Liberal government and the current Conservative government have faced those strong calls from NGOs which work with refugees to implement that division to bring a modicum of fairness to the process.

The governments of the day have refused to do that. It is part of the law. It was passed as part of the law, but the fact that the law also gave the governor in council the ability to determine the timetable for the implementation of that law, these particular sections have never been implemented.

This brings us to the strange situation where the member for Laval, with the support of her colleague, the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, have drafted a private member's bill, Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171). However, this is a private member's bill to implement legislation that has already been passed by Parliament. It seems a strange step to have to take, but many members of Parliament in all parties have called for the government to take this action.

That is one example of the kind of situation we get into, where this chamber made a decision and the Senate also made a decision on this legislation. The legislation was passed. An important piece was added as part of the debate on that and yet the government has chosen never to implement it. Many of us feel that it is a very serious problem with our immigration law.

There are other examples. There is the wage earners protection bill, Bill C-55 which dealt with corporate bankruptcies and putting workers first in the lineup to receive compensation. Parts of that have not been acted on even though it was passed in this place. There are sections of the Labour Code which face the same situation. We do need an effective mechanism to review those pieces of legislation and I am glad that Bill S-202 gives us that opportunity.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to listen to the entire debate but I know the member likes to get up and ask that question of people in this corner.

The reality is that if people in his corner of the House had addressed the problems with income trusts when they were first pointed out to them, we would not have had the mess that exists now for so many Canadians.

We in this corner of the House will not take any responsibility for doing something wrong when the responsibility clearly lies in the corner of the House where the member who asked the question sits. Those problems with income trusts should have been addressed years ago. It is too bad it got to the condition that it was in. Something had to be done. Unfortunately, the Liberals had the ability to deal with it long ago and chose not to.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if the accelerated capital cost allowance for the oil sands were truly eliminated, it would be done now and not by 2015. This is something that has gone on for years. It is something that is inappropriate when Canadians need the kind of programs that that money could go toward. If the government were truly committed to doing this, why is there such a long timeline for dealing with that particular issue?

There are Canadians who need the kinds of programs that help them flourish, that help their children get an education, that help their children get cared for, that help everyone get the kind of health care they need. That is not happening in many cases. We need those resources to go to those kinds of programs that were so severely cut by the previous Liberal government and which the Conservative government seems to have no intention of addressing in its work.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-52, the budget implementation act. I want to share my time with the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

In this corner of the House, NDP members did not support the budget that was presented by the government at the end of March. The main reason we did not support the budget is that we do not believe that it addresses the growing prosperity gap in Canada. We do not believe that it helps ordinary and working class families meet their expectations, see the advancement they had hoped to find. It does not help immigrant and refugee families find their place in Canada and find that new life in Canada they had hoped for when they came to this country.

We do not see the budget as doing anything to end the growing prosperity gap that Canadians face. We could have made some progress on that. The government has a strong surplus at its disposal which it could have used to bring in the kinds of programs that would reduce the growing prosperity gap in Canada.

The government could have chosen to end some of the huge corporate tax giveaways that it has made since coming to power, $9 billion worth of corporate tax cuts that could have been used in other ways that would have been of benefit to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

This is pointed out very clearly by some of the work the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has been doing on the prosperity gap in Canada. A recent study it put forward demonstrated that most Canadians are not better off in recent years and that in fact most Canadian families are putting in more work time and 80% of them are getting a smaller share of Canada's growing economy. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has shown that over the last 20 years Canadians are working longer hours and for fewer benefits. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing largely because, as it points out, the lion's share of benefits of Canada's economic growth are going to the richest 10% of families. It is not going to the majority, the 80% of families whose income is under $100,000, and that is a huge number of people and a very high threshold.

The income gap is growing. In 2004 the richest 10% of families earned 82 times more than the poorest 10%. That is almost triple the ratio in 1976 when the richest earned only 31 times more; it was significant but it was only 31 times more in 1976. That gap is at a 30 year high.

It is also not just a question of incomes, but people are working longer for those questionable incomes. All but the richest 10% of families are working more weeks and hours in the paid workforce, 200 hours more on average since 1996, and yet only the richest 10% saw any significant increase in their earnings, a 30% increase. Everybody else either stayed the same or actually lost ground. In fact, the poorest Canadians saw their real incomes drop in that period.

We do not see that the budget has done anything to alleviate that situation. That is a pretty hard statistical overview of the situation. It does not look at the real hardships that are caused to families, families who cannot afford the drugs they need when they are ill, families who cannot afford the child care they need, families who cannot afford the education they know will help them realize some of their hopes for life in Canada.

The budget was a huge missed opportunity to address the growing prosperity gap in Canada.

I want to talk specifically about the post-secondary education situation in Canada. There are two major post-secondary institutions in my riding, Simon Fraser University and the British Columbia Institute of Technology, one of Canada's leading polytechnic institutions.

We know in my riding that affordability in education is a huge crisis for most families and for students. Students are graduating with huge debts. Families are struggling to ensure that their children can have a decent post-secondary education and build for their own futures.

Working and middle class families and immigrant and refugee families particularly know the importance of a good education. Many of them are struggling to ensure that their children have a good education here in Canada.

In this budget the Conservatives put students last. The measures that are introduced in the budget do not go any way to help reduce the cost of post-secondary education. The budget directly affects only 1,000 students by the graduate student scholarship. That is one-tenth of 1% of all students in Canada. There are one million students in Canada and the Conservatives have chosen to only look out for about 1,000 of them.

In fact, the Conservatives have given more money in the budget to attract students from other countries to Canada, $1 million, than to increase access for prospective Canadians to college, undergraduate, medical or law students. They have tweaked the RESP system, but the benefits disproportionately go to wealthier families. That is something that is completely unfair in this country at a time when ordinary middle class families are struggling to ensure that their children get a decent post-secondary education. With a $9 billion surplus and $8 billion in corporate tax cuts, the investment in post-secondary education is less than $1 billion in the coming years.

There are some marginal increases in core transfers, but the rate is so small that it is going to take years to accomplish anything significant. It is going to take years to even get back to where we were in the 1980s and early 1990s.

In 1983-84 the percentage of GDP for post-secondary education transfers was .56%. That dropped to .41% in 1992-93 and went way down to .19% in 2004-05. It dropped again to .17% in 2007-08 and has come up only very slightly in the projections for 2008-09 to .22%. We are still dramatically behind where things started out before the Liberals made their huge cuts to transfer payments for post-secondary education in Canada. There is nothing that will get us back to the point where there is some real assistance for students to ensure their education in this budget.

Students were explicitly excluded from the working income tax benefit even though hundreds of thousands of students have to work full time to afford their tuition fees and lower their eventual student debt. There is no plan to address student debt in the budget. There is no plan to address the expiry of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

That is not where the problems end with this bill for young people. Last week in my riding I attended a conference called Toward Effective Community Practice for High Risk Youth. Youth workers from Burnaby and New Westminster attended. There were many concerns raised about the lack of a coordinated approach to high risk youth and the problems they face in our society. There is no national strategy on youth, no coordinated effort to deal with the problems of high risk youth. There is no attempt to deal with the various boundaries and jurisdictional problems that face young people in difficulty in our country.

Programs for 8 to 12 year olds are particularly important, but they are the ones most dramatically lacking. Teens and those reaching the high end of the age limits of these programs are left without any kind of support whatsoever at a huge cost to Canadian society later on. The question of how we support youth in our society is also something that is very significant.

I hope to talk a bit about the situation of new immigrants and refugees in Canada and what this budget has not done for them. Maybe I will get a chance to do that later, but I want to mention three specific things in Burnaby.

There are three important projects for which the city of Burnaby was looking for support from the federal government and which did not appear in this budget. One is for the establishment of an immigration and refugee services hub in the centre of Burnaby. We need money for infrastructure in Burnaby to deal with the growing population of immigrants and refugees in the community. It is a good thing for our community, but the infrastructure is not there. We need a facility to do that. The city has put aside the land for it, but needs help from the other levels of government.

The city of Burnaby and other communities in the Lower Mainland also need support from the federal government for the World Police & Fire Games in 2009. We need to show support for our police and firefighters by supporting them in this project. The games were recently completed in Adelaide, Australia and the premier of the state of South Australia has indicated what a huge boon they were to the economy of that state and how important they were to its communities.

There is also the question of Burnaby Lake. There was money in this budget to help Lake Winnipeg and Lake Simcoe but there was nothing for Burnaby Lake which is quickly deteriorating from an open water lake into a swamp and marshland. We need to preserve this important habitat for all kinds of wildlife to ensure that Burnaby Lake remains an open water lake.

The city of Burnaby has been seeking a commitment from the federal government for years. It was not forthcoming from the previous government even though the Leader of the Opposition when he was minister of the environment visited and promised to look into it. Nothing was forthcoming and there is still nothing forthcoming from the current government even though the city and the province have committed to this important project.

There are many things missing from this budget, many things that do not address the prosperity gap, many things that do not address the particular needs of the community that I represent. The government could have done a better job.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for his interesting intervention in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-33, the income tax amendments act.

I want to ask the member to comment on the question that our NDP colleague from Hamilton Mountain put to the Minister of Finance this afternoon in question period. She noted in her question that on January 1, by the time that Canada's top CEOs are sipping their morning coffee on that New Year's Day morning, they have already earned more than the average Canadian earns in an entire year. I think that is a very dramatic example of the growing prosperity gap in Canada.

Indeed, our colleague went on to point out that CEOs earn 240 times what the average Canadian worker earns. That is a huge prosperity gap.

What is worse, she went on to point out that those companies that pay these CEOs those huge salaries can write off those huge salaries against their business taxes, which amounts to a subsidy by Canadian taxpayers of these outrageously huge salaries of these wealthy Canadian CEOs by people who are struggling to pay bills and to make ends meet.

I do not think that Bill C-33 deals with a change to the Income Tax Act or to our tax laws that would make it impossible for that to happen. In fact, the member for Hamilton Mountain has a private member's bill which suggests that any CEO's salary in excess of $1 million should not be deducted from business taxes. One million dollars sounds like a pretty high threshold and a pretty generous threshold to me, and an acceptable level.

I want to ask the member for Winnipeg Centre to comment on this issue of tax fairness. Could he comment on why this huge loophole in our tax laws has not been covered by the legislation we are discussing?

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State for Sport a question also regarding sport. In particular, it is about the World Police & Fire Games that are going to be held in the lower mainland of British Columbia and the city of Burnaby in 2009.

Recently, the government turned down a request from the organizing committee to be a sponsor and help fund these important games that will see 12,000 police and fire personnel from around the world gather in the lower mainland of British Columbia. In fact, right now they are gathered in Adelaide, Australia. The mayor of Burnaby is there to bring home the ceremonial torch for the next games.

In the past the federal Government of Canada has supported these games and most recently when they were held in Quebec City in 2005. It is very important for our fire and police personnel to have this important opportunity to meet their colleagues from around the world. It is also very important to the communities that host these games because of the positive economic value that the games bring to those communities.

I would ask the Secretary of State why the government has turned down this request? Why is there no money in the latest budget and why the government will not support the men and women of our police forces and fire departments in hosting these important games?

[Committees of the House, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for bringing this matter before the House today. It is an important issue around the preservation of an important Canadian heritage and certainly our railway heritage has been crucial to Canada's economic and social development.

I am glad he mentioned some of the important railway museums in British Columbia. I would also mention the West Coast Railway Museum in Squamish, B.C., which is one with which I am particularly familiar, but there are other excellent museums in Cranbrook, Revelstoke and Prince George, as well as operations of restored steam trains in British Columbia that are important to both heritage preservation and the local economy.

I want to ask the member a couple of questions about the coordinating role of Exporail in terms of coordinating with other museums across the country.

As a British Columbian, I am often envious of other parts of Canada because we do not have a national museum located in British Columbia. They are all in other places. We used to have the national museum of arts and crafts but it is no longer in operation. Sometimes we are a little envious of other parts of Canada having the designation of a national museum.

I would ask the member to talk a bit about how this coordinating role for Exporail will function so that other museums across the country benefit from this designation and the preservation of rolling stock and our railway heritage from coast to coast.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect I only have a few brief seconds to respond.

I appreciate that this was not done lightly by Parliament after the events of September 11. I know that many members worked long and hard on this and listened carefully to many opinions.

I am glad that at the time at the very minimum, parliamentarians chose to include the sunset of these two particular clauses.

I would like to remind all members of Parliament that one of those opinions in this place was that these measures went too far. Certainly the NDP put forward that position, that these kinds of measures were ultimately unnecessary.

I think our experience has proven that is true. They have never been used. There was one attempt but ultimately, it was not used. I think we now know that the Criminal Code of Canada deals with these kinds of situations effectively. I think that is the way we need to go. We need to make sure that the Criminal Code in that process is effective.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my speech, I believe any of the actions that might be part of terrorist activity are already covered very effectively in the Criminal Code. We know any activity related to terrorism or even plotting those kinds of activities is illegal and subject to severe punishment. There is no deficiency that would merit suspending basic civil rights, due process and interfering with the way our justice system operates to protect us from the possibility of terrorist activity.

We need to provide our police and intelligence agencies with the resources they need to do the job we require of them, to investigate issues around terrorism or organized crime for that matter. We need to ensure they have the resources they need to do those jobs appropriately and effectively. I do not think they need these extra provisions outside of what is already in the Criminal Code, outside of what is available in their usual process around investigation and toward laying charges.

We need to ensure that our police and intelligence agencies are cooperating. We know in the most difficult example of terrorism to face Canada, the Air-India bombing, there was a real problem in the investigation of this terrible tragedy where so many Canadians and others died.

We know the RCMP and CSIS had difficulty working together. Because of that there were very serious problems with the investigation and ultimately with the case that was presented against people who were ultimately charged after a considerable period. We know too that our police and intelligence agencies did not have the ability to do the kind of investigations they needed to do. For instance, they did not have the language capacity to do the important work.

This is not a matter of having all the new bells and whistles and the fancy technology of the intelligence system, the kind of James Bond and science fiction of intelligence work. It is a matter of having people on the ground, people who have very basic abilities such as language and to find the appropriate connections and basic investigative work to ensure the safety of Canadians in these circumstances.

This has been missing in the past. It has been so clearly proven to have been missing in the past in our approach to dealing with terrorism in Canada.

The clauses we are debating today have never been used. That should say something about how crucial they have been in protecting Canadians from acts of terrorism. Even in the circumstances where people have been alleged to be participating in some kind of terrorist activity, the provisions were not used. The Criminal Code was used in those circumstances.

Therefore, I am not prepared to say that we should compromise civil liberties to protect ourselves from terrorism. I believe our criminal justice system already has the ability to do that and it should be engaged fully. We should ensure that our police and security intelligence agencies have the ability to do the job that needs to be done around these kinds of issues.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on the sunsetting of two of the most serious provisions of the anti-terrorism legislation passed in this place a number of years ago after the events of September 11.

The two provisions we are discussing are I think two of the most far-reaching provisions of that anti-terrorism legislation. They call for investigative hearings of material witnesses in terror cases, and also there is the question of preventive arrest without bail for 72 hours. These were two of the most controversial and perhaps most dangerous provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act.

I think it was because of this that parliamentarians of the day, often spurred by representatives of the New Democratic Party, added the sunset provision. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the MP for Elmwood—Transcona, who was key in that debate. Because of the concern about those provisions in particular and how they upset due process and challenged civil liberties in Canada, the provision for a sunset after five years was added. Now we are up against the timing of that sunsetting of these two provisions.

I am pleased that in this corner of the House we remain consistent on these issues. We opposed these provisions at the time they were debated in this House and included in the Anti-terrorism Act and we continue to oppose them today. We see them as fundamentally problematic and cannot support their continuation, even for a shorter period of time.

As I begin, I want to remind members of the House and those who might be watching of the atmosphere that surrounded legislatures in the west after the events of September 11 in New York City and in Washington, D.C. For me, one of the key interventions in that debate was that of representative Barbara Lee, the only American federal politician to vote against the emergency measures introduced in Congress after September 11.

I think it was a very brave stance that representative Lee took at that time. It was very brave to stand in a vote that was 420 to 1 in the House of Representatives. A similar vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. She put herself on the line to say there was another way, to say that draconian measures, and in the case of the United States military action, were not the appropriate response, that they were not the only response to the situation that had presented itself, to the tragedy and the terrible loss of life that happened in the United States.

In her speech on the resolutions before Congress at the time, she quoted a member of the clergy. This has been attributed to her on many occasions, but I think she was actually quoting a clergyperson who said “as we act, let us not become the evil we deplore”. I think that characterizes the atmosphere and the difficulty that all legislators faced after those tragic events on September 11.

How do we keep in perspective the situation that presented itself there? How do we keep in perspective the fundamental values of our society when we are up against the evil of a terrorist act such as we witnessed on that day? I think we have to very careful that we do not let terrorism win by compromising our fundamental values. I fear that in the case of these two particular amendments that are sunsetting shortly, hopefully, that was in some sense what was happening even in this House.

The anti-terrorism legislation and these two particular clauses were I think very difficult in terms of protecting civil liberties in Canada, in terms of respecting the charter. I know that some of them have been tested in the courts, but I think I can still hold the opinion that they are a fundamental affront to civil liberties and the basic principles of fundamental justice in Canada.

I know that in particular communities there has been particular concern about the effect of that legislation and of these clauses, and I want to quote what I believe is another important moment in the discussion around these kinds of measures. I will quote from an address by Dr. Tyseer Aboulnasr from the University of Ottawa, who spoke several weeks ago on here the Hill at an event to mark the contributions of Monia Mazigh and Maher Arar.

Let me quote what she said at that time. I think it is very important and apropos to the current discussion. She stated:

Friends, let us never forget that nations are not judged by the laws they write up and lock up in libraries, nations are judged by how they act at times when their dedication to these laws [is] truly tested. Every country that has chosen to sacrifice the liberties of its citizens and hold them in shackles has done that out of belief that this is necessary for its security. We, Canadians, know better. We know that security without liberty is simply imprisonment. Nothing is more secure than a maximum security prison. We deserve better. We cannot let Canada turn into a maximum security prison by imprisoning one Canadian without the presumption of innocence till proven guilty and without the full opportunity to defend themselves.

That is the end of the quote, but I think it is a very crucial addition to the discussion we are having today.

Do we have ultimate respect for the system we have put in place, for the fundamentals of that system, for the kind of justice that is meted out in Canada, or do we believe we need to suspend those rules in the face of those who would seek to terrorize Canada? I fundamentally believe that we do not need to go down that road and that we can have ultimate respect and faith in the system we have put in place without special measures like the two clauses we are discussing today.

I am glad we have the opportunity to discuss these clauses. They were particularly problematic clauses of the anti-terrorism legislation. I am glad there was consent to include this sunset, but again, I think that shows how deeply parliamentarians were concerned about these two particular provisions and why there was agreement to have this sunset clause included in the anti-terrorism legislation.

Whenever we move to undo civil liberties and the key processes of our justice system, I think we must have, at minimum, that protection. Whereas I do not believe these clauses were necessary and certainly in this corner of the House we argued against them at the time, I am relieved that we have the opportunity to review them in this way today here in the House.

There is a significant question about whether these kinds of clauses are even necessary. I believe they are already covered by the existing Criminal Code of Canada and the Criminal Code amendments made at the time of the Anti-terrorism Act.

I want to quote from a report by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, the NDP justice and public safety critic, who addressed the issue about the need for these measures. He stated:

There is no act of terrorism that is not already a criminal offence punishable by the most stringent penalties under the Criminal Code. This is obviously the case for premeditated, cold-blooded murders; however, it is also true of the destruction of major infrastructures.

Moreover, when judges exercise their discretion during sentencing, they will consider the terrorists' motive as an aggravating factor. They will find that the potential for rehabilitation is very low, that the risk of recidivism is very high and that deterrence and denunciation are grounds for stiffer sentencing. This is what they have always done in the past and there is no reason to think they will do differently in the future.

My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh points out very clearly that none of the offences related to terrorism are dealt with lightly by the existing criminal law in Canada. The Criminal Code would treat any matter related to terrorism very severely. There is no doubt about that in our Criminal Code.

I do not think anyone in this place can imagine that anyone in the justice system would look upon those kinds of crimes lightly or that anyone in drafting our Criminal Code would suggest that there would be any light penalty for those kinds of actions. That is already part of our Criminal Code. I do not think that we specifically need these particular provisions.

I fear that when we make for exceptional circumstances, for the suspension of our basic process and basic civil liberties in Canada, we often get to the point where we use those kinds of laws. We may think that we are above doing that, but our own history has shown that we are not above using those kinds of measures at a time of panic and trouble. One of the best examples was the internment of Japanese during the second world war. Hundreds of thousands of people were removed from their homes and sent to the interior of Canada without probably good reason. In fact, we had to apologize appropriately for that and pay compensation for the internments. That was a very sad part of our history, a time when very draconian measures were taken, I believe without cause and inappropriately so, against Canadian citizens.

I worry that when this kind of measure is on the books in Canada, that despite our best intentions, our intentions of respecting civil liberties and due process, that at some point we may opt to exercise those and suspend those liberties inappropriately.

I also look to the experience of the War Measures Act in the early 1970s. Hundreds of people in Quebec were rounded up and detained, never to be charged. We know the extent of what happened at that time in Quebec was limited to a small group of people who could have been charged effectively under provisions of the existing Criminal Code. Yet hundreds of other people were caught up in a moment of panic and concern about what was happening in the country at the time.

A piece of legislation was used that I am sure most Canadians never thought would have to be used. Most Canadians were concerned about the use of that kind of legislation. I am glad the CCF and New Democrats spoke strongly against the imposition of those kinds of measures at the time. Again, it seems that we have attempted to be consistent in our concerns about the suspension of civil liberties and the use of those kinds of draconian measures.

It is crucial to remember that we cannot say we will never use those kinds of measures, that we need them as fail-safe measures. Our own history has shown that too often we have been prepared to sacrifice civil liberties for no appropriately good cause in the end.

I think it is clear that the current Criminal Code has similar provisions to the two clauses we are talking about now. The clause regarding preventive arrest is dealt with in a number of places in our law, particularly in section 495 of the Criminal Code, which states that a peace officer may arrest without warrant a person who on reasonable grounds he believes is about to commit an indictable offence. The provision says that the arrested person must then be brought before a judge who may impose the same conditions as those that could be imposed under the Anti-terrorism Act. The judge may even refuse bail if he believes the person's release might jeopardize public safety.

The current Criminal Code has this kind of provision around preventive arrest, but it does so without suspending civil liberties and due process and remains a part of the tested and honoured traditions of our justice system.

The other clause we are discussing is around investigative hearings. Some people say that section 810 of the Criminal Code also deals with this. This section states:

An information may be laid before a justice by or on behalf of any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will cause personal injury to him or her or to his or her spouse or common-law partner or child or will damage his or her property.

The other person is then summoned, and not arrested, before a judge who can then order the person to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for any period that does not exceed 12 months, and comply with such other reasonable conditions prescribed in their recognizance. The judge cannot commit that person to a prison term unless the person refuses to sign the recognizance. That is another provision.

In our current Criminal Code such provisions already exist within the given circumstances of the existing law and process. On that basis, I really have even further trouble supporting the extension of these two clauses.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court handed down an important decision that goes to some of the same issues. It was decision on the security certificates. In the unanimous decision the court made it clear that there was a serious problem with the security certificate provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in the way they suspended the accused's right to know the evidence against him or her and to test that evidence in court. The court suspended the provisions for a year to give Parliament the opportunity to take action to fix this serious problem. This drives home the problems that exist when these kinds of special measures to deal with perceived problems of terrorism or perhaps organized crime are introduced.

The question of secret evidence goes as a fundamental departure from due process in our justice system. I was pleased to hear that the court recognized this very clearly in its ruling.

The other fundamental problem with the security certificate intention is that deportation to face torture or death can also be contemplated. There is no excuse for ever deporting someone to face torture or death. Canada would be violating many of its international commitments if we ever took that kind of action.

The security certificate process is fundamentally flawed in many ways. This is driven home as well by the fact that three people are presently being held at the Kingston Immigration Holding Center on security certificates. They are participating in a hunger strike. This hunger strike has gone on for 83 days, a very serious length of time. It is about the conditions of detention at Kingston. It is about the lack of an appropriate grievance procedure. It is about the inability to do appropriate religious practice. It is about the inability to have private family visits. This hunger strike is about many important issues relating to the conditions of detention in that place. I am concerned for the condition of the men being held there.

Some of these men have existing health problems that make a hunger strike even more dangerous to their health. Hunger strikes that last over 49 days are considered a risk for permanent damage to one's health or even death. At 83 days, these hunger strikes have gone on well beyond that point. Still there has been no action by the government to find an end to the strikes, or to find a resolution to some of the issues that have been raised.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and ultimately the House have put forward a reasonable solution to the government. We have been calling on the government to appoint the correctional investigator to act as the ombudsperson in this case and to find a solution in exactly the same way he does for anyone incarcerated in a federal penitentiary. Given the majority vote in the House and given the fact that it provides an appropriate way out of this terrible dilemma for the government, I urge it to move on this without any further delay. I fear someone will die on the government's watch if action is not taken.

Indefinite detention without charge or conviction has no place in Canada. Some have suggested that the use of a special advocate would overcome that. It has been proven in the UK that special advocates cannot abide by the process because it is such a fundamental departure from due process and the principles of fundamental justice, and many of them have resigned.

My concerns about these clauses are very significant indeed.