Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation

(Alliance Motion)

Tuesday September 18, 2001

 

    Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the floor of the House of Commons is always an interesting place. We see a development in the debate today, which is interesting and which I hope will yet resolve itself in a way that permits the House to speak with one voice on this important matter of anti-terrorism and the need to refer the subject matter of anti-terrorism legislation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

    I listened with care earlier to the Leader of the Official Opposition who talked about the need for unity and the fact that what his party was engaged in was not any kind of political posturing, but rather an effort to enable the House of Commons to appropriately act.

    I think what has happened so far, but I reserve judgment because the day is not yet out and the jury is not yet in on what the final response of the Alliance will be, is that there certainly seems to be unanimity in the rest of the House about referring the subject matter of anti-terrorism legislation to the justice committee so that the committee, on behalf of all us, can begin the serious work that I think Canadians want us to do, and that it is a good idea to do.

    Twice members of the House have sought unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion that we now have before us and to permit the putting of a motion which would have that effect, and twice that unanimous consent has been denied. I hope that by the end of the day members of the Alliance will see that it is in its interest to agree, but not perhaps in terms of political tactics.

    Perhaps the Alliance's intent was to make the rest of us look somehow soft on security or terrorism, but I hope it will see that it is in the interest of the country to have the House of Commons act in an appropriate way, both procedurally and politically.

    I say procedurally because a lot of the concerns I have with the motion that we had before us were not just matters of substance. We certainly had some concerns about the motion, not just in terms of the substance of the motion but also procedurally.

    We were being asked to refer a matter to committee, but in doing so to adopt in principle approval of the anti-terrorism legislation of the United Kingdom. Thinking about this procedurally, without any reference to the substance of the matter, to me this is a bit like having second reading before the matter is even discussed or before we even know what the legislation is. Often we have second reading before we hear witnesses, but we do not have second reading before we have the legislation.

    If the Alliance thinks about it for a minute, it will realize that if the government were to have come forward with a motion referring something to committee with this much work of the committee already predetermined, it would say that this is unacceptable, that this was not the kind of motion it could live with and that it would like a motion which created the maximum possible freedom for the committee to look at whatever it felt was relevant to the issue at hand.

    I hope that by the end of the day, perhaps by repeated argumentation of this sort and repeated opportunities for the Alliance to show it is serious about having the House act in a unified manner, we may yet be able to agree on a motion to refer the subject matter of anti-terrorism legislation to the justice committee. I do not want to say yet that it is calling the Alliance's bluff with respect to posturing. Someone else may want to say that later in the day, if the situation does not change.

    I have a few more comments even though I think we have made our position clear. We would like to see the standing committee study this matter. We believe that Canadians expect it of us. It may well be that there are a number of improvements we could make in our security and legislation having to do with anti-terrorism.

 

    A number of suggestions have been made by the Minister of Justice with respect to things that have to be done in order to bring our legislative regime into compliance with conventions that we have already signed. All this is something the committee could look at.

    I find it passing strange by reference to the motion before us now that by the Alliance's own admission it is not just a question, and in fact it may not be a question, of the need for the kind of legislation that it has laid out. It may also be--and I listened to the Alliance critic on this--a matter of resources and a matter of current laws not being used appropriately, or not being used as extensively as they could be or not being able to be used as extensively as they could be because of a lack of resources. The Alliance critic himself pointed out that this was a problem in his view.

    One is tempted to ask him where the call came from in Canada's political culture for the radical cuts to government that worked their way through all the departments, including the ones he now laments the weakness of. One is tempted to ask him that question, but let us leave that aside for a minute and say that the motion which we have before us would bind the committee to looking only at what kind of new legislation is needed rather than questions having to do with other issues that the Alliance itself has raised with respect to the adequacy of the resources that the Government of Canada makes available to the agencies and departments that concern themselves with this issue.

    On the face of it, the motion before us is inadequate. However the idea behind it, that the justice committee should have a free, frank, open and concerted look at this subject matter, is a good idea and we are behind it. We hope that the Alliance will permit that to happen by agreeing at some point in the day to the request unanimous consent to withdraw its motion and move that the subject matter be referred to a committee. That is a good idea.

    It seems that the Alliance is trying to do basically what its members would object to if the government did it, both procedurally and substantively, by presenting us with a kind of omnibus list of all the things that it is sure about. The Alliance does not like it when the government does it. The Alliance does not like it when the government gives us an omnibus list of things which other people are asked to agree to or be made to look bad, or hope that they will be made to look bad. If the Alliance is going to be consistent, it cannot expect to criticize the government when it does this and then do it itself and expect to be free of criticism.

    For all these reasons, I would certainly urge the critic for the Alliance party, who I see in the House, to consider the wisdom of accepting the suggestion being made by all other parties, that the committee be given a mandate to look at this matter and that the House be given the opportunity by agreement on the part of the Alliance to act in this united way.

    Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion now before the House and to move: That the House mandate the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study the matter of anti-terrorism legislation and report to the House not later than February 12, 2002.

 

    The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to the member for Winnipeg--Transcona to propose the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent. Resuming debate. Will the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona be splitting his time with his colleague from Burnaby--Douglas, who I see rising, or any other member of the New Democratic Party?

 

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was not splitting my time and I have come to the end of my remarks.

 

    The Deputy Speaker: Then we will proceed with the hon. member for Elk Island on questions and comments.

 

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer some of the questions that members in the House have with respect to the motion. I think that their request to have this sent to a committee is embodied in the motion and the amendment. If they will vote for the amendment, it proposes to replace the words “to introduce” with “to send to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, no later than November 1, 2001 draft” anti-terrorism legislation. In other words, our motion does say we should get it to the committee and fairly fast. That is obviously due to the fact that we now are aware that there is considerable urgency to this issue.

    There seems to be concern on the part of members of the House who are opposed to, or are giving an indication that they will probably vote against our motion regarding the six issues. I believe instead of facing it head on they are trying to talk around it and let the Liberal committee come up with legislation.

    We have specifically stated six items here, each of which deals with terrorist activities. We are not talking about nice people. We are talking about terrorists. We are talking about the type of people who would do what was done last week in the United States. We are saying that it is time we dealt very harshly with these people. Our motion states very clearly that we want the government to create draft legislation which does not omit the specific points on how to deal with terrorism.

    My intervention is more a comment than a question. I certainly would like the member to respond to why members suggest that they cannot support the motion. It gives the government clear direction on the type of legislation it should draft. The committee still has the power to amend it and the House still has the power at report stage to amend it and get on with the task at hand.

 

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke accuses the government members, and I suppose perhaps myself by implication as well as others who do not agree with him, of not wanting to deal head on with the matters listed in the Alliance motion. We do want to deal with them. We want the committee to deal with them in a way that is not predetermined by the wording of a particular motion. That is the point.

    The member says that it will just be dealt with by a Liberal committee. I hope this is not the case. The member is not demonstrating much confidence in the members of the Alliance on the justice committee and their ability to make a case for whatever arguments they feel they wish to bring to that committee.

    We know that the committee is dominated by government members. The member's leader himself said that he hoped that this would be an issue on which members of the committee and the House could unite in solemn deliberation and reflection to come up with a solution we all think will help deal with the problem.

    When it comes to this issue, I do not think the member should prejudge either the substance of what the committee should come up with or the quality of the process the committee might enter into.

 

    Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George--Peace River, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, following up in that vein, I can certainly understand the concerns being expressed by the member for Elk Island. With all due respect, all too often in the past we have seen the government launch a study. The wording of the substitute proposed motion, if I can call it that, would be exactly that, to study the matter of anti-terrorism legislation. As I said, all too often in the past, even with a deadline imposed, a study constitutes a lot of things, and different things to different members, parties and people.

    I agree that the motion as it exists, even as amended this morning, may be too restrictive. In that regard I am certainly concerned with the wording in some of the points contained in the motion and will be addressing that later. However, I am also concerned that if we accept this alternate motion, it basically leaves that wide open.

    I wonder if the member for Winnipeg--Transcona could address that.

 

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member means by the alternate motion, if he means the motion to refer the subject matter to committee.

    It is not completely open in the sense that there is a date for reporting and not just referring the subject matter to the committee and the committee then decides if it does not want to deal with it. It will be difficult for the committee because there is also a sense of urgency in the country that we deal with Bill C-15 and that we get the anti-luring on the Internet laws passed and laws passed having to do with child pornography, home invasion and disarming a police officer. All of those are urgent on the agenda of the justice committee this fall and properly so. Members of the justice committee will have their work cut out for them to deal with those issues and to deal with this issue.

    I am not sure whether to refer to the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough as a colleague of the hon. member, and I do not want to prejudice other arguments that may be coming tomorrow. I may refer to him as a geographical seatmate perhaps. In any event I am sure that the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and other members of the justice committee as well as Liberal members on the committee are not going to allow this to become just another study. If they do, they will be properly judged by the Canadian people.

 

    Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments on this motion and to take a very brief opportunity to raise some serious substantive concerns as well about the proposal made by the Alliance in its motion today.

    That party suggests that we should adopt legislation similar in principle to the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000. When we look at some of the provisions of that draconian legislation, deep concerns have been raised about the potential for abuse of that legislation.

    One of the prominent and respected labour backbenchers, the chair of the select committee on foreign affairs Donald Anderson, said that the legislation was trying to restore the divine right of kings. He pointed out that the legislation would in effect deny the right of British citizens or people who had fled from tyrannical regimes the opportunity to speak out against those regimes under this legislation. It is an extraordinary piece of legislation. Whether it is members of the Kurdish community speaking out against repression in Turkey or elsewhere, or whether it was those of us who spoke out against apartheid in South Africa or against the atrocities of the Indonesian government in East Timor, under the provisions of this legislation that the Alliance is so eager to embrace, we could be locked up. There are serious substantive concerns here.

    I would remind the Speaker that one of the Canadian Alliance members of parliament from Calgary defined Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. Under this legislation that provision could be used to deport Nelson Mandela or another person fighting for liberation and human rights and freedom to their death in another country.

    It is an assault on refugees. It is an assault on human rights. Certainly it should not guide this parliament in its work in attempting to respond to the very serious concerns that my colleague has addressed on the issue of terrorism.

 

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby--Douglas did not really ask me a question but he did make a comment or two. He expressed concerns that I share.

    Here again, the nature of the motion before us is to adopt in principle the legislation in the U.K. about which there are obviously many concerns without the committee having the opportunity to study it. There may be merit to some aspects of that legislation but there are obviously very real concerns about that legislation.

    One of the things that concerns us throughout this debate, and not only on this issue but on the debate on Bill C-16 and others is, what is a terrorist? We know that there are people who have been regarded as terrorists by their national governments but have not been regarded as terrorists by the international community.

    In anything that we do, there is a strong need to indicate the need for a definition of terrorism that does not include people like Nelson Mandela and others who may be engaged in legitimate forms of struggle against racism and oppression. That need certainly does not manifest itself in the rhetoric or the analysis of our colleagues in the Alliance.