Peter Van Loan

[RCMP, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we thank the commissioner for his report on this matter. We are of course still awaiting the outcome of the Braidwood inquiry, which has conducted very extensive hearings on this matter and which we expect to be quite authoritative in its findings.

In terms of acting on the rules for taser use, the RCMP has made improvements. However, I am very pleased to report to the House that at the recent federal-provincial meetings, we did propose to the provinces, and they did agree and accept, the proposition that we should establish national standards for all police forces in the country. Work on that is now under way.

[Firearms Registry, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our government of course is very concerned about the cause of supporting the safety of women, and protecting the rights of women and protecting women from violence. That is why our government has embarked on an agenda of aggressive changes to our criminal law, to create real consequences for those who wish to engage in gun crime and otherwise. We will continue to do that and we will continue to memorialize and remember the victims of the École Polytechnique massacre.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

We didn't think it was necessary to ask you.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we have a witness protection program run by the RCMP which is an important part of assisting us in combatting organized crime. Of course, terrorism is one of the most serious crimes. We certainly want to take the benefit of witness protection when necessary.

I am not entirely sure what the member is driving at. I believe he is referring to some of the past experiences with the Air India inquiry and the difficulties in obtaining successful prosecutions. On that basis, again we are awaiting the outcome of Justice Major's report. We expect that he will have something to say on that matter. We are waiting to have the benefit of his very important study.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I think it goes back to the time of my predecessor as public safety minister, following the resolution of Arar affair, again something that did not happen under the previous government, an apology and compensation that only came under our government. Interventions were made by my predecessor with the Secretary of Homeland Security in the American government to make clear our view of Mr. Arar's situation, to request that he be removed from their no-fly list. We do not control the American no-fly list. We do not control the no-fly list of any other country. As a result, they have the benefit of our information, as has been discussed by me on subsequent occasions with the current homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano.

Each country, of course, has the ability to make its own determinations of national security threats. We have provided the benefit of our knowledge, but we cannot alter their list. We have provided that intervention, provided that information, but at the end of the day, the American government is the American government. I am sure my friend understands that if the Americans were to tell us how to run our own list, which I am sure they would love the opportunity to do, he would be upset if we simply did what they told us, in the same fashion as the Americans simply are not going to do what we tell them.

What we can do is provide the information on the best basis possible and then depend on sovereign governments to act on the basis of the information we provide.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, there are several parts to that question.

The first part I think I have answered previously.

The second part is what steps have been taken to clarify the situation of the individuals in question and to get the facts out in clear public view.

We did that by commissioning the Iacobucci inquiry. We have a 455-page report from Justice Iacobucci that does exactly that, something that would not have happened if it were not for the actions of this government. So I believe we have certainly carried out our obligation to do that. That is something that we wanted to see done, that we did in good faith, and I think we are in a better position because of having done that as a country.

In terms of other agencies, we have outstanding requests into other agencies in other countries. I think that is also a matter of public record. We of course have limits in terms of what other countries will do with the information and the records they have. However, we made our position clear, and the Iacobucci inquiry, thanks to Justice Iacobucci, has laid out in expansive detail the facts as he determined them following his inquiry.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is important to distinguish the sub judice convention, which of course relates to parliamentary process, that which governs the parliamentary committee's affairs. I in fact agree with the members of the government's side, the Conservative side, on that parliamentary committee, in their reading that it was not appropriate for the committee to undertake an investigation or an inquiry into matters that were before the courts. Certainly that is something that is well established.

However, that is a principle separate and apart from the reasons that the government itself would not comment and would not implement that recommendation at this time. Because it is a matter before the courts, a matter of civil litigation, that is not something that any government ever does by taking its direction from a parliamentary committee.

The government has an obligation, a fiduciary interest to the taxpayers, the people of Canada, and to the legal position of the taxpayers of Canada, and that is what the government does in those circumstances in carrying them out. That is why it is not appropriate to comment on this matter.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

If I could continue, Madam Speaker, the government's responsibility is to counter new threats and challenges within a national security framework that guarantees accountability and the protection of civil liberties.

That is why the Government of Canada is unwavering in its commitment to give law enforcement the tools they need to safeguard our national security. That is why we are bringing in changes, for example, by expanding the access of police through modern forms of technology so they can execute warrants in our intelligence services as well to deal with changing technology and how it might be used by those wishing to harm our national security. At the same time, we need to empower our national security review bodies with mandates that allow them to conduct thorough reviews of our law enforcement and security agencies and their actions.

As highlighted in the response to the standing committee's report, the government remains steadfast in its commitment to strengthen Canada's national security review framework. I want to take this opportunity to address some of the recommendations contained in the standing committee's report, because that is, of course, what is before us.

The report itself includes a number of recommendations that the government supports in principle. For instance, the committee's report recommends that the government immediately implement all of the recommendations arising from the O'Connor inquiry. The government has made its position very clear in this regard. Much of the work to address both the O'Connor and Iacobucci commissions of inquiry is already complete or very well under way.

As hon. members are aware, Justice O'Connor's part I report contained 23 recommendations concerning such matters as improving domestic and foreign information-sharing practices, creating clear policies around the provision of consular services, and improving training for all individuals involved in national security investigations.

This government took immediately action to accept and implement the recommendations put forward in Justice O'Connor's part I report. I am pleased to say that process is now largely complete, which is again something we might not have heard from the hon. members opposite, and 22 of the 23 recommendations have already been implemented.

I would also like to highlight that many of the issues raised by Justice Iacobucci were similar to those raised by Justice O'Connor, and as such, have already been addressed by this government's actions.

The government is also moving forward to address Justice O'Connor's part II report, which dealt with Canada's national security review framework more broadly. For instance, much work has been accomplished in developing proposals to strengthen the Royal Canadian Mounted Police review and complaints process, including a review of its national security activities. We expect to move forward with legislation on that soon.

Work is also well under way to enhance our national security review structures, including providing a mechanism to facilitate inter-agency review of national security activities. As I indicated, while that work is very well advanced, we do want to see what Justice Major has to offer as a result of the extensive work that has been done on the Air India inquiry, and I think any reasoned person would recognize the importance of looking at what Justice Major reports and his recommendations regarding national security oversight.

Canada is not immune to the threat of terrorism. In fact, we know full well from a series of recent prosecutions that Canada faces terrorist threats, both abroad and at home, and that we are working effectively to address those threats, but we also have to be aware of the changing nature of terrorist threats and adapt accordingly. Today we know, for example, that because threats to our security are global, so too must our response be. We also know that co-operation and coordination are vital. Today, more and more departments and agencies are working together to address emerging challenges and threats.

We need to work closely together with international partners, and that need has never been greater than it is right now. In fact, in every particular terrorist incident we look at, there is almost never a unique situation related to one country. Even what we call homegrown terrorism here in Canada has often shown linkages to several other countries through communications, through financing, through support, through training, through moral support and instructions, so we know that those linkages are very, very real, and we have to respond in that fashion.

The Government of Canada is doing this and will continue to do so. The government is committed to modernizing and strengthening our national security review framework to reflect that, to respond to the shifting security and threat environment, and to respect the principles of independence and accountability. In doing this, the government will continue to consider the advice and recommendations of key stakeholders and advisers, as I said, including Justice Major.

As the government proceeds with the implementation of these reforms, we are committed to keeping Canadians informed of policy initiatives that will affect their lives and the lives of fellow citizens.

In response to the committee's second recommendation, the government is pleased to note that a comprehensive progress report has been tabled that provides the committee and Canadians with a detailed account of our work to date in implementing Justice O'Connor's 23 part I recommendations.

I also want to emphasize that this government is presently developing proposals to address the gaps identified in Justice O'Connor's part II report with regard to the review of national security activities. Here the government has also pledged to keep members of Parliament and Canadians generally informed of the developments as they arise.

With respect to the committee's third recommendation, concerning Messrs. Almalki, Abou El Maati and Nureddin, it should be noted that the government acted decisively on the recommendation of Justice O'Connor to establish an independent and credible process to review the cases of these three individuals, again something that did not happen under the previous government. However, I would like to remind the committee that it would inappropriate for the government to address its third recommendation as it pertains to matters that are the subject of ongoing civil litigation.

The government supports the spirit of the committee's fourth recommendation, calling for clear direction against torture. Indeed, the government considers that this recommendation has already been fulfilled. In contrast to the views expressed in the committee's report and by some members here today, the Government of Canada's policy on torture and the use of information elicited through torture is clear.

As I indicated through my statement as Minister of Public Safety, issued on April 2, 2009, we clearly reiterated on behalf of this government that this country does not condone the use of torture in intelligence gathering. Moreover, the committee's recommendation also fails to take into account the ministerial directive issued by me as public safety minister to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which clearly states that the government is steadfast in its abhorrence of and opposition to the use of torture by any state or agency.

The committee's fifth and final recommendation calls for a greater role for parliamentarians in the review of national security activities. While neither Justice O'Connor nor Justice Iacobucci specifically addressed the involvement of parliamentarians in this area, the government strongly supports their continued participation, which they do of course through a number of forums, as we see in our ongoing parliamentary committees even today.

In closing, I would like to reiterate this government's appreciation to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for its work in examining these very important issues. However, while the government supports some of these recommendations in principle, notably those that seek to implement the recommendations of Justice O'Connor's report and those calling for clear policies against torture and for the continued involvement of parliamentarians in the area of national security, the government cannot support the committee's report as a whole because it frankly fails to acknowledge the work that has already been accomplished in this area.

Canadians actually have a lot to be proud of. We have come a long way since 2001, 2002 and 2003 when these abuses occurred, since we had a government that refused to allow a public inquiry into the Air India terrorist incident. We have come a long way since that time and have implemented a lot of changes to adequately balance human rights and the need to protect the national security of Canadians.

We will continue to do that, because that is what Canadians expect of us and that is what we are delivering.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

In response to that point of order, Madam Speaker, I think you will find the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe did so. However, the member for Ajax—Pickering did not do so. I have no fault with that. My concerns were related to the comments made by the member for Ajax—Pickering, and the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe did accurately report, as my friend the member for Elmwood—Transcona--

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise to speak to this motion, notwithstanding that other important business has been delayed by it. It is an important question.

I want to start by responding to some of the issues raised by the Liberal member for Ajax—Pickering, because he did speak in a tone that I can only call high sanctimony. It was a tone that is highly inappropriate for a Liberal on this matter, because of course the events the Iacobucci commission looked into were all events that occurred under the watch of a Liberal government.

If we are to look for true accountability, it is not the Liberal Party that should be complaining. The Liberals should be looking into themselves to explain why they failed to provide appropriate oversight and adequately protect the rights of Canadian, rather than making a ridiculous assertion that the events that happened in 2001 and 2002 are somehow the responsibility of a Conservative government here in the year 2009.

That said, I want to address some of the specific issues. I will point out that the report before us from the parliamentary committee and, in fact, the Iacobucci commission itself would not even have existed if it were not for this Conservative government having inherited the problems that existed before and that needed to be addressed. I will read from Mr. Iacobucci's report. It says:

By Order in Council dated December 11, 2006, I was appointed under Part I of the Inquiries Act to conduct an internal inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin.

Therefore, this is actually a report that was initiated by the Conservative government. I heard words from the Liberals about the importance of these kinds of public inquiries and how they should be regarded. Let us remember that the Liberal government refused to hold such an inquiry. It is only because of the Conservative government initiating it that we are able to address these issues and respond to them as we have.

I also heard a complaint that one of the things we have not implemented from the O'Connor report and the Iacobucci report is a national oversight body for national security. As I have stated many times publicly, including in the House, we have not done that yet because we are awaiting the outcome of the major commission on the Air India terrorist event. That is a major commission of inquiry that, once again, was initiated only by this Conservative government. That was after the previous Liberal government refused for over a decade to undertake such a commission of inquiry.

The members say that we do not need to wait for that commission of inquiry. I can understand that he does not want to wait to hear what it says, because the Liberals of course spent a decade obstructing, delaying and preventing such a commission of inquiry from happening. Keep in mind that it is an inquiry into the worst-ever terrorist incident in Canadian history. The Liberals, who claim to care about these things, refused to establish a commission of inquiry into that.

We have done that in our government. Everyone I have spoken to who is associated with the commission of inquiry has urged me to await the outcome of that inquiry so that we can take into account what everyone agrees were serious failings in co-operation among intelligence agencies and how that investigation and prosecutions were handled. There is much value that will come of it.

As a responsible government, we will continue to await it. I would like it if the report came sooner. That being said, the information that will be gleaned from it will be very important for us, by all accounts, to be able to have effective national security oversight. Unlike the previous government, we are not interested in the appearance of doing things; we are interested in delivering real results and improving the way we manage our national security and oversight to ensure that the errors we have seen in the past are not repeated again in the future.

I did want to outline these points at the outset because those who may have been following this debate might have had a very different impression if they heard the words of the Liberal member for Ajax—Pickering. In no way did he ever reflect on the fact that the problems we are dealing with are very much the responsibility of his party when they were in government. They are things we are trying to address.

I do want to thank the members of the public safety committee for the work they did in examining the important issues that were raised by both the O'Connor and Iacobucci commissions of inquiry. National security and the protection of Canadians is obviously one of the most important priorities for any government and that, of course, applies to—