Serge Ménard

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

Mr. Speaker, I would nevertheless like to point out that these provisions have never been used in the past five years. I would like to remind the hon. member who spoke before me that the offence of conspiracy also exists. Conspiracy is an agreement between two people to commit an indictable offence. I do not see how the police can believe they should arrest an individual if they do not have any information to indicate that that individual has demonstrated, in one way or another, their intention to commit a terrorist act. When an individual has discussed such an act with someone else, or when they have begun preparations, only then has a conspiracy offence been committed and the police can arrest a suspect, bring that individual before a judge and charge them with conspiracy. The judge can even refuse bail if they believe that the plans are advanced or are dangerous.

Lord Carlisle tells us that we should not allow terrorist acts to be committed. However, it also seems to me that, if we use the conspiracy charge to bring a suspect before a judge, we interrupt the terrorist activity the same as if we bring that individual before a judge to enter into a recognizance.

How would the hon. member react if his son or one of his friends had met terrorists at school or university and had contact with them without knowing they were terrorists? How would he react if authorities concluded—as it was concluded in the Maher Arar case—that he was likely a terrorist and ordered to enter into a peace bond, because there was evidence and grounds to believe, given those meetings, that he may have been part of a terrorist plot? Does the hon. member think that his son could later travel to the United States or even keep his job?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore the following question. Are there provisions other than those set out in the Anti-terrorism Act for preventing a terrorist plot in the works? How effective would these provisions be? Is it possible, among other things, to keep an arrested person in prison because they were plotting a terrorist act?

Could he also tell us what abuse he thinks there might be of these provisions, which would require persons arrested under the Anti-terrorism Act to sign a recognizance in order to be released, rather than be sent to jail. How could this be abused?

[Security Information, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has given the government a maximum of one year. Meanwhile, other people are remaining subject to draconian surveillance.

Out of respect for these men, will the government take swift action to address the security certificate deficiencies and allow these people to regain their rights as soon as possible?

[Security Information, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let us first recall that the Anti-Terrorism Act was passed in 2001.

The fears of those who have grasped how important it is to safeguard basic rights and freedoms have recently been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The government has gone too far in its drift in security policy, with the security certificates.

Will the government finally realize that nothing can be more important to the security of our fellow citizens than respect for basic rights? Will it amend the Anti-Terrorism Act accordingly?

[Public Safety, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the first question related to Maher Arar. Was he in one of those planes—yes or no?

We know the CIA flight numbers and the number of flights that have overflown Canada. An investigation into the Canada Border Services Agency has shed some light on this.

When the government of Canada says that there was nothing illegal when those planes used our air space, are we to understand that in each case, the planes were not transporting prisoners, that is, they were empty? Is that really what we are to understand? Can he tell me—yes or no—whether Maher Arar was in the plane that flew over Maine, alongside the New Brunswick border?

[Public Safety, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the European Parliament deplored the passivity and complicity of European states with respect to the secret CIA flights.

The O'Connor report said that Maher Arar was taken to Syria after stopping in Maine, on one of the CIA's prison planes.

Can the government provide us with assurance that this plane at no time used Canada's air space to take Maher Arar to Syria?

[Air Transportation, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister is also planning to use a committee. A committee is all well and good, but even if the committee members are competent beyond reproach and completely unbiased, even if they are the most objective and best informed people in the world, I think it would be impossible to make up such a list without making numerous errors.

How does the minister plan to compensate the victims of such errors? What exactly will he do to prevent racial profiling?

[Air Transportation, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government is preparing to compile a no-fly list. A similar list put together by the United States included some surprises: Senator Edward Kennedy, the singer Yusuf Islam—formerly known as Cat Stevens—and a number of peace activists and environmentalists. Maher Arar's name is still on the list, along with his wife's and those of his young children.

Can the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tell us what he plans to do to ensure that such errors do not occur in Canada?

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am going to turn to the expertise of a member whom I know well. I know he worked for the police for many years. I think he was even chief of police.

I would like to ask him whether he has truly thought about some of what happened to Maher Arar. At first, Mr. Arar met with investigators several times. He answered many of their questions and, at one point, he had had enough and said, “I do not want to continue without a lawyer present”. From that moment on, the police stopped asking him questions.

Was this not a case where the police should have let him see a lawyer, who would have explained the provisions of the interrogations and that his rights were protected? Eventually, he appeared before a judge. Why did the police not exercise these new powers they were given?

When police are given powers, it is generally not the police we have in mind that we are worried about.

We understand that so far the police have not abused the law. Nonetheless, sooner or later others who do not need it will end up using it and putting basic liberties at risk. In my opinion, the police do not want to interrogate someone in the presence of a judge and a lawyer.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Etobicoke North practices the same profession as my father. He is a chartered accountant. Accordingly, I will ask him for an approximate value.

Can he imagine himself in the shoes of someone who is a victim of one of these errors? In law, we often look for certitudes. In this case, we are indicating that we can act on reasonable grounds. Furthermore, the judge can incarcerate someone simply because the grounds seem well-founded. This is serious. One day or another, we will certainly make mistakes.

If the hon. member for Etobicoke North fell victim to such an error, having been labelled a terrorist, the undertaking he would be required to give the court would mean that he would lose his right to travel by plane, he would probably lose his job, he would lose a great deal.

How much compensation would he ask for?