Peter MacKay

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to see the minister here. She absented herself from the debate yesterday, but this is an opportunity at least to ask direct questions to the minister on a very important issue.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the diligence and timeliness of your effort in examining the point of order I raised earlier today.

The debate has digressed somewhat into a concerted effort to deal with the issue of sunset clauses, which I think hon. members on both sides of the House have quite accurately described as not truly a sunset at all. It is very much an attempt by the government to give the appearance of it being a sunset clause, but we know that there is not a true lapsing. Therefore a procedure that begins, as outlined by the hon. member for Berthier--Montcalm, would follow a true passage of a bill, thereby giving due process and all the requisite examination that occurs in a process of the reintroduction of a bill.

The sunset clause, as contained in the bill as amended, touches only on two aspects of the bill, that being investigative hearings and preventive arrests, so it is very much focused. It is fair to say that the sun only sets, if it sets at all, on two limited provisions of the bill and the purpose of the sunset clause is essentially eclipsed by the fact that it does not truly set. The sun does not go down. It continues in effect by the simple revocation and reintroduction of the bill, which circumvents all those other checks and balances, including the committee stage and the true examination at all stages of the bill.

This legislation is complex. It is certainly a bill that is necessary. That perhaps is where the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative coalition can distinguish itself from other parties in terms of its opposition. We support the necessity of the bill. We support the focus of much of the bill, which is to give police increased preventive powers and, in some instances, even governmental powers that should exist in times of emergencies. It was the Progressive Conservative Party of the day that introduced the Emergency Measures Act that replaced the War Measures Act.

This is a bill that certainly comes about in a time of consternation and concern in the country. What we are worried about are the additional powers that are tagged along, the kitchen sink approach to the legislation, which would vest more powers in the offices of government and in its ministers. In this instance, I am talking particularly about the certificate process which would circumvent access to information.

Access to information, I am quick to add, was fought for long and hard in this place by current members of the government to ensure transparency, openness, accountability and all those things that Canadians have come to expect and to truly compel the government to follow. Yet this is a clawback of that. The issuance of certificates would circumvent and eviscerates many of those long sought after access to information rules.

The parliamentary secretary spoke in the House, in response to these amendments, about the need and the proportionality of this legislation. I would submit that, yes, there is a need, however the proportionality here, in terms of the powers that would be vested in the minister's office, is not proportionate to what is occurring. The long term implications that exist for Canadians are extremely worrisome.

I point to what we heard at the committee, at private meetings and read in correspondence and to what I suggest all members of the current House of Commons must be receiving, particularly from new Canadians who feel most vulnerable and threatened by these extraordinary new powers that would be vested in the minister's office by virtue of these certificates.

Pragmatically what this would allow the government to do, by virtue of that power being vested in police, is to make decisions that would affect the very liberties, securities and freedoms that are enjoyed by Canadians, without knowledge of what the accusation may be. By issuance of certificates, a cloak would be placed over the allegation.

The idea that due process and the right to make full answer in defence is firmly entrenched and sacred. Our legal system is challenged and shaken at the foundation by the issuance of certificates which are now available to the Minister of Justice under the bill.

I want to focus specifically on the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Lanark--Carleton that speaks of the extension of the 15 year period of secrecy. This period of secrecy would extend to deputy heads, the chief of the defence staff, departmental heads, ministers, crown corporations, the clerk of the privy council or other persons authorized by the clerk.

This is an attempt, as the hon. member stated, to conform and bring into line the period of time in which secrecy can be put forward. This cloak can be presented over important information that is held by the government. The parliamentary secretary stated that there are times when that secrecy needs to be invoked and I do not disagree with that.

The point is the government should have to justify using that extraordinary power. After 15 years it should have to reinvoke powers that allowed this to happen. It should not acquiesce or have the powers extend off into eternity, but it should go through the motions of distinguishing the time which those powers exist.

The same thing can be said of the power to have a person's name taken off the list. The solicitor general said that if after 60 days he had not made a decision the name would stay on the list. He would not do anything.

He added that if people's names were on the list the onus was on them. They may have been accused and not even known the reasons that led to their names being placed on the list. However the solicitor general said that if after 60 days he had not gone to the trouble of making up his mind or deciding why someone's name was there it would stay on the list.

The purpose behind the amendment put forth by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre was to force the government to act, to make it go through the trouble of justifying and openly stating the reasons for listing a person so that an individual had some obligation to go to court.

Under the current status and amendments in the bill individuals have to initiate a challenge in the federal court because the access request and the information that may be sought through those normal channels could be sidelined or brushed aside by the issuance of a certificate.

However individuals are now required to initiate an action against the federal government through the federal court if they have money, perseverance and are prepared to engage in a long protracted legal battle.

However there is another irony here. Individuals can have their assets frozen by virtue of being listed. They can have their ability to fund such a protracted and expensive process completely taken away, thus leaving them further exposed and leaving them to face the horrible conundrum of finding themselves on a list, perhaps wrongly.

There is ample reason to suggest that mistakes will be made. They have been made now. Last week we were informed that Mr. Attiah in Chalk River found himself on a list and the information was wrong. He lost his job after being questioned by the police.

That is why we are concerned about this issue. It is the process and ability to know the reasons a person may be suspected. The basic tenets of criminal justice are being completely whisked away by virtue of some of the provisions of the bill.

We are not raising these amendments or these concerns because we like the sound of our own voices. We are asking legitimate questions about this issue.

The professor of justice who was vaulted from the classroom into cabinet seems to take great pleasure in pointing out that if one supports the bill one should shut up and go away. It does not work like that. One can support a bill and try to improve it. That is why we have the process of proposing amendments. That is why we go to the trouble of trying to improve a bill right up until the time that it comes before the House to be voted upon.

This is what parliament is about. It is about an opportunity to intelligently discuss and constructively criticize legislation. When we see the government again invoking time allocation at a record number for no apparent reason, when we have two days set aside for debate yet the government House leader again drops the legislative equivalent of a nuclear bomb and eviscerates further debate, Canadians must slouch back and wonder what is happening to the democratic process.

It is enough to make the worst hypocrite blush when members of the government, who were so adamant when in opposition about not using these types of provisions, do so indiscreetly and with very little regard for what should amount to legitimate and very important debate on a bill of such importance.

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I called the attention of the Chair to the lack of public availability of the evidence adduced at the justice committee regarding Bill C-36. I note now with interest that the House website is in fact carrying the evidence of the justice minister given on November 20. Obviously the minister is in favour of the bill and we are glad to see that evidence is now there even after the cut-off time for the filing of amendments.

However, the evidence of many of the meetings where witnesses were critical of the content of the bill is still not published. It is highly unusual, I would suggest, that evidence is transcribed and published out of chronological order. On what authority is the evidence of these opponents or critics of the bill being withheld from the Canadian public?

We know that the government is pressing the House to expedite the bill, but why is precedence being given to witnesses who were in favour of the bill over those who are critical of the bill? Why are the normal practices being interfered with? Will the government not recognize that it is pushing the system beyond capacity and we need more time to consider Bill C-36?

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is not how question period usually works.

There are some provisions of the anti-terrorism bill that do put Canadians' rights directly at risk. Yes, there is a need for action from police to act quickly at times to prevent terrorism but with discretion and based on solid evidence. Bill C-36 creates the real possibility that individuals can be listed without due process on secret information. A person may not even know that they are listed until it is too late. Their bank account could be frozen. They could lose their job. Their reputations could be blackened.

With all the consequences flowing from a listing, could the minister explain how a person, if wrongly accused and unable to afford a lawyer, can get their name off the list?

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend, the member of the Bloc Quebecois, as well as the other members who have taken part in this debate until now.

Many members and many government members have already openly acknowledged the extreme importance of this legislation. Many members have pointed out that this may be the most important bill we will see in the life of this parliament. I very much believe that myself. Very fundamentally this legislation touches the lives of many Canadians. We have an obligation to get the bill right, to strike the proper balance in the first instance.

As a member of the justice committee and as a member of the House it is fair to say that significant effort has been made on the part of all members who have engaged in the process. I pay tribute to other members of the committee, in particular the member for Scarborough East whom I think gave a very compelling speech. He pointed out quite correctly that many members on both sides of the House have been struggling in a fundamental way with this particular legislation and how we find this balance. He went on to say that there will be immense intrusion into civil rights and acknowledged quite rightly that the process thus far has been messy.

Those were brave words. I hope the hon. member will not be made to pay a price for those words. I think raising the alarm, being intellectually honest the way the member has both at committee and in the House is how the process should work. We should encourage and embrace that kind of honesty, particularly on the government side.

The amendments that have been put forward are in that vein. They are an attempt to legitimately bring the bill around, bring it back to a point where Canadians will feel comfort, I would suggest particularly those in the immigrant community who are most at risk, those of the Islamic faith who are extremely bothered by the potential for abuse, by the potential to upset the balance that exists in the country they have chosen to come to live, to breathe and to participate in democracy. They are extremely worried by what the government has put before us in the form of this bill.

These amendments touch on so many acts. They touch in a very complicated and comprehensive way on as many as 10 pieces of legislation, but most notably the criminal code, the Access to Information Act, the Official Secrets Act and the Privacy Act. The amendments we are putting forward today are meant in a fundamental way to bring greater openness and greater transparency, words that used to mean something to the government of the day. Those words were littered throughout the pages of the now infamous fairytale red book promises that were placed before Canadians pre-election. We do not see that type of language any more. We do not see that type of commitment to being open as to what the legislation will actually do.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lanark--Carleton speaks of essentially deleting the political, religious and ideological purpose that is contained in this particular bill. As mentioned by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, the bill puts upon the crown, and by virtue of that the police, the requirement that they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been a specific motivation that is tied into this definition.

I submit strongly that is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible for the crown to prove. Short of a confession or short of reliable evidence of what a person was thinking when they carried out an act of terrorism, this aspect will be virtually useless in the prosecution of offences.

We had approached it differently. We had approached it in a way that it would be a conditional part of the crown's case and one in fact which would be broadened to encompass, for example, acts that were committed purely out of hatred which is often the case. There is sometimes great difficulty ascribing any motivation whatsoever that fits with reasoning and rational thought patterns when trying to prove a criminal offence of the magnitude that we witnessed on September 11.

The motivation behind the amendments presented by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre are very much in keeping with the need to establish openness, to put before the Canadian people the reasoning behind being listed, for example.

It is necessary for people to grasp just how damning and damaging it can be for individuals to find themselves placed on a list of suspected terrorists. That definition is broad enough to be listed if one has been deemed to facilitate or participate or in some way aid or abet a terrorist activity. These are very broad definitions that are open to immense interpretation.

What is wrong with having published, having placed before parliament and before the country, the reasons that would attach to this process of listing? What could possibly be offensive or inappropriate in individuals knowing the reasons and the criteria that will be applied to their actions being made open to them, what necessitates a person being placed on the list. Of course from that we want to know how a person gets off the list if he or she has been wrongly placed on the list. This is all very nebulous and open to interpretation.

This is an attempt to bring some precision to the law. The law is very often a blunt instrument. This is the bluntest of the blunt. This is simply saying a person can be placed on this list at the direction of the solicitor general with no reasons given. Oftentimes there is the potential that a person could be placed on the list and not even know it until perhaps that person put his or her card in a bank machine only to find out the account was frozen. Or perhaps the person is advised when he or she shows up for work. That was the case a few months ago with an individual who was mistakenly placed on a terrorist list by virtue of the fact that his name resembled that of another suspect.

There are pragmatic, practical implications that have not appeared on the government's radar screen. The motion with respect to this establishment of criteria gives some detail, some meaning to this listing process. It will give some further legitimacy to the solicitor general's decision that otherwise can be made in isolation, that otherwise can be made based on information, the veracity of which the individual has no opportunity to challenge. It may originate from a country with less than democratic principles that attach.

That luxury may not exist for an individual who comes from a country like the Sudan or Sri Lanka where there are administrations which may decide to pass on information to Canada upon which the solicitor general might act in making a decision to list and there is no ability whatsoever to examine or challenge that information. Publishing and placing before parliament the criteria would address this anomaly and injustice.

The second motion deals with reversing the onus, as the right hon. member for Calgary Centre suggested. It puts the onus back on the government. What can be wrong with suggesting that not only should the government be able to justify its actions in listing, but within 60 days certainly with the fleet of lawyers and the ample resources available to the government, it should somehow be able to justify that listing and if not, pay a price for it? Actually lighting a fire under the government requiring it to do its job and justify its actions is healthy for democracy.

Motion No. 4 found in this first grouping is a motion proposed by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. The motion brings about the potential, not the requirement but the potential, in assessing a situation and determining that an individual's right to counsel may be somehow neglected or overlooked or in some way compromised, this shall allow a judge to determine that an individual should have counsel appointed. This is not new. Duty counsel has been part of our justice system for many years.

The concerns raised by my colleague from the Alliance, a former attorney general, are legitimate, that this could be downloaded to the provinces. I strongly suggest that given the potential for injustice if an individual does not have counsel, and the potential harm to reputation and employment entirely impacting on his or her life, the right of the judge to have the ability to appoint counsel should supersede those concerns of fiscal responsibility and who will pick up the cost.

I would suggest that a judge acting in his discretion would certainly be aware of the status of legal aid in the provinces in ensuring that an individual does have that right to counsel and enforces it.

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of privilege put forward by the hon. member for Regina--Qu'Appelle, I believe you have referred him back to House leaders, including the government House leader. I am wondering, given the government House leader's presence in the House, if there is some willingness to accept amendments from those members of parliament who were not able to access either transcripts or the amended bill on such an important issue.

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2001]

The testimony, not the bill.

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today dealing with the report stage of Bill C-36, which is the first item on the order of business that will be called today. I want to ask the assistance of the Speaker in a difficulty that faces members of the House, particularly pursuant to Standing Order 40(2), which reads as follows:

Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.

This appears to be an absolute right for the government but the House is facing an extraordinary situation, which I want to suggest might cause the government House leader to alter his plans for today to go on with this bill. I will try to be brief.

The Speaker will recall that on Thursday afternoon I raised a number of difficulties that resulted from the government's decision to call report stage of Bill C-36 today. This resulted in the House passing two extraordinary orders to extend time deadlines for the filing of report stage amendments, the final deadline being 6 o'clock Saturday evening. I want to state that the deadline resulted in a number of House employees having their weekend plans disrupted. I want to thank those people and their families for putting up with the disruption that the government caused in its haste to bring forward this bill today.

One copy of Bill C-36, one copy, was available to myself as House leader of the coalition at 2.45 on Friday afternoon. The normal deadline that would have been in place had I not objected on Thursday would have been 2 p.m. on Friday. The bill showing the committee amendments, over 100 in number, was not posted on the House website until later that afternoon.

Let us be clear. The government decided to call Bill C-36 today without ensuring that amended copies of the bill would be made available to all members of the House before the normal deadline for filing report stage notices of proposed amendments. Those on the committee are at a distinct advantage. Not all members of parliament, including leaders in the opposition, could access the amended bill.

The responsibility for this must rest with the government. It is the government House leader who decides the business that he will call and when he will call it. I suspect that there are many members of parliament who very much would have liked an opportunity to participate fully in this process.

The justice committee heard about 100 witnesses on the contents of the bill and made more than 100 amendments. This is a highly important bill, which has had a number of significant amendments. The testimony of only half of those witnesses has been published. Half of the evidence has not been published, including the minister's own testimony wherein she outlines the important changes.

Our constituents have not been able to assess or even access the evidence that was adduced by the standing committee. Therefore they have been denied the ability to be active and informed participants in this democratic process.

There is an important lack of transparency in what we are seeing here and what we are being asked to do. The House is being asked to decide the content of Bill C-36 before the Canadian people have even been able to read the evidence of such important witnesses as representatives of the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Islamic Congress, the Canadian Arab Federation, the World Sikh Organization or the Canadian Council of Churches.

Nor is there a public transcript of the evidence of the Hon. Warren Allmand, PC, OC, Q.C., president of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development and a former solicitor general. One would think that the government would be willing to have Canadians access Mr. Allmand's testimony before it finalizes the language of Bill C-36.

Canadians are not able to access the testimony of Muslim lawyers. Nor can they see the testimony of the executive director of the national organization of immigrant and visible minority women in Canada. Nor can Canadians see the testimony of the representatives of the Canadian Police Association or the Criminal Lawyers' Association or the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

The evidence of over 50 witnesses who appeared before the committee on Bill C-36 is unavailable to Canadians. Those Canadians who made the effort to make representations to the justice committee have had in effect been told that their evidence does not matter. The government House leader wants the House of Commons to vote on Bill C-36 and its amendments before the community has had the opportunity to know what important organizations and individuals told the committee.

Access to and possible contact with members of parliament after the bill has been amended has been denied. Nor are Canadians to have access to what the Minister of Justice told the committee about the amendments that have been made to the bill. That too is unavailable. Our constituents are being kept in the dark on this issue. The minister's words are to remain secret from the population until after the bill has been passed with amendments and it has not been the practice of the Minister of Justice, I suggest, to listen to debate in the House.

As the member for Winnipeg--Transcona stated, the minister came before the committee not to listen but to lecture. I reiterate that these amendments were supposed to provide comfort. They were supposed to give reassurance and to reinforce concerns about the bill.

So far I have been speaking about the verbal testimony of witnesses, but there is a greater secrecy that exists with respect to the 50th meeting of the justice committee, a meeting, I might add, that concluded at close to 3 a.m. on Wednesday.

Not only is there no public transcript of the debate that occurred, but until late afternoon on Sunday the minutes showing all amendments proposed and defeated were unavailable to Canadians who might be interested in making representations to their local members, long after the deadline for filing notice of new amendments.

This denies members of the opposition, particularly those members like my colleague from Dewdney--Alouette and others who were not present at the justice committee, the ability to make a considered decision as to whether they in fact would like to file amendments as well.

The House is being asked to legislate in secrecy. There is no public transparency of the deliberations of the standing committee. Canadian citizens and residents whose liberty and security are very much the subject of this legislation have been denied the ability to influence, to be fully informed and to interact on this bill. Members of the House, because the government is proceeding with the bill, are being asked to do so blindly, before the public record is complete.

I ask the government to consider delaying the report stage until Canadians have had the opportunity to view the record of the justice committee. To shut Canadians out of the process in this way does not serve Canadians properly. In fact it is a disservice to our participatory democracy. I respectfully ask the government to delay the bill until the public record is complete. If we are to have full access then this important testimony must be available not only to all members of the House but to Canadians generally.

[The Acadians, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my dear friend and colleague as well as the other members who have taken part in this debate.

The motion moved by my colleague from Verchères--Les-Patriotes is an important one which encapsulates a great deal of emotion for the people of Acadia.

The motion with the amendment would not infringe on the government, the British crown or the monarchy. It simply puts forward a very reasonable request to recognize the harm and the horror suffered by the Acadian people.

It is with pleasure that I rise in the House this afternoon to support the motion brought forward by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

Some people may be surprised to see an anglophone from Nova Scotia speak in favour of this motion. After all, some people may have been tempted to see it as an insult to the British crown, the federal government or even English Canada.

However, in this third hour of debate on this motion, it is clear that it is simply not the case. This motion does not target the federal government and is not an insult to the crown. After all, the crown did apologize to certain people for similar acts committed in its name.

I support this motion. It is an official policy, a gesture we should give to the Acadian people for the wrongdoings done to them between 1755 and 1763. It is a statement of recognition of something that happened that is inextricably linked sadly to their history, and a proud history it is. It is simply an act that recognizes what was a horrific attempt at ethnic cleansing. A tragedy of this scale happening today would be horrifying and hard to comprehend.

I believe the mover of the motion recognizes this is not to set a precedent. This is not lending itself toward financial compensation or return of lands. Obviously this could potentially displace more people and cause further harm. However, we do recognize and feel that an apology is in order.

We feel that it is time to recognize this date that lives in infamy, of 1755 when the expulsion of the Acadians, le grand dérangement, occurred. Simply, it is time. It is time that we recognized this event which displaced somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 individuals from their homes, separating families. Their homes, as everyone may or may not be aware, were burned. The dikes that they built that were a tribute to the backbreaking labour that was done by hand still stand today in the Bay of Fundy area near Grande Pré, Nova Scotia.

The Acadian population at its peak in 1749 was close to 12,000. Between the dates of 1749 and 1753, tensions between French and British people increased and a couple of thousand Acadians were caught in the middle. Fearing the worst, many of them left and fled to French territory, currently places such as Ile St. Jean in Prince Edward Island, Ile Royal in Cape Breton and other parts of Quebec.

The Seven Years War was about to begin and the British people did not want the possibility of French living in the territories to undermine these colonial wars. The fact is that the Acadian people did not want to support either side. They simply wanted to live their lives. They wanted to farm. They wanted to live a peaceful existence, which is exactly what they were doing. There were numerous requests made over the years but Acadians consistently and principally refused to sign an allegiance to either government. They only wanted to farm their lands.

Acadians had been in North America for such a time that they had ceased to even view themselves as French colonists. They developed their own language, their own culture. They were their own people, les Acadiens, a very proud people. They had virtually no ties to either government and would not be forced to take sides.

Yet in 1755, under British Governor Lawrence, the deportation occurred. People were rounded up. Families were separated. They were herded like cattle onto ships and taken away. Much of this is chronicled in the famous book published by Longfellow that speaks of this horrific act. A statue still stands in Grand Pré, Nova Scotia, a statue that is in tribute to the Acadian people.

It is through these acts when they were deported; their homes as I mentioned were burned and it is thought that between 3,000 and 4,000 Acadians did not flee or did not get deported until 1755. However, many died of illness and many spent years roaming the land of North America searching for their lost loved ones. Most of the Acadians made their way out of the province. Many simply hid and were forced to again embark on this heartbreaking venture of trying to locate their families.

The deportation occurred along the eastern coast of North America. They were transported to Massachusetts, Georgia, many to Louisiana, Quebec and other parts of North America. They arrived unannounced, as Governor Lawrence did not inform the other colonies of their arrival. They faced many prejudices upon their arrival in their new places of existence. The English colonies did not want them. They felt they were too expensive to deal with. Thus Acadians were often at sea for long periods of time and endured immense suffering and hardship.

Some managed to evade the English and some made their way back to the French territories in Ile Royal and Ile St. Jean. Many came back to Nova Scotia. There are communities in Tracadie, Pomquet, Havre Boucher. There are certainly communities on the south shore of Nova Scotia where many Acadians still live today.

The hardship of Acadians, their sorrow, their struggle to return home, as I said, is chronicled in Longfellow's epic poem Evangeline .

The Acadians who were fortunate enough to complete the trek back to Nova Scotia could not return directly to the lands that they had once possessed. They were now being possessed by anglophones.

Even after years of war and even after the conflicts between the British and French had finally come to an end, the Acadians were abandoned. They were left to fend for themselves.

The lands that they were dispossessed of were occupied . Even though they were not rich lands, they were lands that their forefathers had worked. They were lands to which they felt emotionally attached. Their forefathers had shed their blood, sweat and tears on these lands, building these remarkable dikes that still exist to this today and stand as a tribute to their hard work and efforts. The land grants that were given to Acadians were generally located at the extremities of the province.

It is time that we deal with this historical event that occurred and address it. The particular motion, brought forward in very good faith and in a very comprehensive way gives us an opportunity to do that. It is a motion on which we will permit our members to vote freely. It is a motion of conscience. Certainly it is one that I would encourage all members, particularly the proud members of the House who share Acadian ancestry and many who have spoken to the bill, to support. It is a good motion.

Again, I congratulate my friend for his original motion. It is extraordinary. It is exceptional.

[Points of Order, November 22nd, 2001]

You were not accurate in your response.