Tuesday October 16, 2001

  Mr. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood-Transcona, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to address Bill C-36 and to put on the record the concerns of the New Democratic Party.

  I want to begin by saying a few words about the context in which we are having this debate. Obviously the context is set primarily by the events of September 11 and the need which follows from those events for Canada to consider whether or not its current legal regime is adequate to prevent terrorist activity here in Canada, or prevent Canada from being used as a place where terrorist activity in other countries can be financed or in other ways supported.

  This drive for new and better anti-terrorism legislation is driven by the legitimate concerns and the legitimate fear that have arisen out of September 11. It arises also out of the motion passed at the United Nations subsequent to September 11 which calls on all nations of the world to implement anti-terrorist legislation and to implement UN conventions with respect to the prevention of terrorism within 90 days. The government is moving to do that. That is a good thing and something which we welcome regardless of what particular concerns we might have about the legislation that is now before us. That is part of the context, i.e., September 11. However, we are not doing this in isolation. Unfortunately we also are considering this legislation in the context of the last few years here in Canada.

  What I mean by that is the events which happened for instance at the APEC meeting and subsequently in Quebec City. They are on the minds of many people. The government might say that is an entirely different thing. The question is whether or not the bill is designed in such a way to make sure that the kind of protest activities which took place in Vancouver at the APEC meeting, in Windsor at the OAS meeting and in Quebec City at the FTAA meeting will be treated differently than the kind of activity which is addressed in this particular legislation. That is one of the concerns we bring to the table, because we know that it is a concern out there within a certain constituency in the Canadian public.

  In the end, all of this is really a question of trust. It is really a question of not what the legislation says and not what the government says, but whether or not Canadians trust that the spirit and the letter of the law will be followed and not in some way or another abused. That is really what is at stake here. No amount of citing the relevant clauses of the bill and saying that something cannot happen will do. If people believe out of their own experience or from reading or learning about the experiences of others that either the government or the police have an inclination in some circumstances to abuse powers and to treat as unlawful that which is lawful, then they find themselves in a position of not being able to give the kind of approval they would otherwise probably like to give.

  All Canadians feel there are things that need to be done, particularly in the parts of the bill that have to do with the ratification and implementation of the UN conventions. That is not something that anyone is taking any issue with at all. There are other things in the bill that are more problematic and which need to be further discussed, explored and explained in committee.

  We need to hear from Canadians who have concerns about particular aspects of the bill. We want to have a good process in committee where time is taken to hear from these Canadians so they can put their concerns on the record and so that we might even be able to amend the legislation, if necessary, if that is the will of the committee.

  I would like to deal with the issue of trust. The definition of a terrorist activity, not the one that comes out of the UN conventions but the one which the government has put into the bill, in section 83.01 states:

(b) an act or omission, in or outside of Canada,
   (i) that is committed
   (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
   (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
   (ii) that is intended
   (A) to cause death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
   (B) to endanger a person's life,
   (C) to cause a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
   (D) to cause substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of the clauses (A) to (C) and (E), or
   (E) to cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that does not involve an activity that is intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C).

  These are the clauses having to do with death or serious bodily harm, endangering a person's life or causing a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public.

  At first reading one might be tempted to think that pretty well covers it because the government has said that as long as it has to do with lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work and does not involve these other terrible things then everything is fine.

  However there are a couple of problems I would like to explore further in committee. I am not making a final judgment on the particular clause. For example, it does raise the question of what is lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work.

  If it was clear as to what was lawful and what was not, then there would not be a problem. However there is such a thing as unlawful stoppages of work or illegal strikes. The law is now able to deal with those, but it would be a legitimate concern that illegal stoppages of work might somehow fall under the ambit of this if other criteria were met. These are the kinds of things I hope to ask the minister and others about in committee.

  What is lawful? Lawful sounds good but a lot of young people thought they were engaged in lawful protest in Quebec City way beyond the perimeter and not challenging the wall or engaging in any property damage or anything like that. They were just sitting around, talking to each other, when all of a sudden they were tear gassed, fired upon with rubber bullets and treated as if they were doing something unlawful.

  This comes back to trust and I think it is regrettable. I would prefer that we were dealing with anti-terrorism legislation in a context of trust where all Canadians could feel they did not have a government that was careless about their civil liberties and right to lawful protest. Instead we are unfortunately not just dealing with the context of September 11, which should be the overriding concern, but the backdrop for this in the minds of a lot of Canadians is APEC and Quebec City.

  One thing the government has to do is persuade those Canadians who have skepticism arising out of those experiences that this is entirely different and that this would not be used to harass legitimate protestors or get in the way of legitimate protests.

  That brings me to the next concern that my party has which deals with the notion of preventive arrest. It is just a concern at this point. We know that in certain circumstances over the last few years certain people who were known to be participating in protests were all of a sudden charged with something, detained, and were not able to be at the protest. I will not mention any names but this is a known fact.

  The minister said in her speech, and it is stated in the legislation, that the preventive arrest issue is not arrest without warrant forever and ever. The person would have to appear before a judge after 24 hours and could be detained for another 48 hours. It is only a judge who can order further detention and then only if the person was unwilling to meet the conditions laid down by the judge.

  I understand all of that. That does not mean to say that in the wrong hands this could not be used as a way to harass people who were planning on attending certain events and suddenly find themselves the object of this provision.

  I know the minister said the legislation is not intended for that sort of thing at all, and I hope it is not. I even believe that it is not in the minister's mind. I am trying to convey the spirit of skepticism that exists among a great many people arising out of the experiences over the last few years. There would not be any more need to trump up charges against anybody because this provision in Bill C-36 could be used.

  Another concern I have was raised by the member for Provencher. It deals with the use of the phrase anything damaging to international relations as a reason for non-disclosure when it pertains to information made available in the context of various investigations, hearings or determinations by the government.

  The member for Provencher said that this was a very broad category. Almost anything could be construed as damaging international relations. We experienced this in the past when the government felt obliged to uncritically accept the views of other governments with respect to activity happening in Canada.

  I remember controversies some years ago when the Sikh community in Canada found itself at odds with the government because it was taking the view of the government of India as the uncritical truth about what was happening there or the uncritical truth about what was happening within that community here.

  As long as we have communities in Canada that are concerned about struggles and conflicts in other countries, there will inevitably be a divergence of opinion in many circumstances between what people here believe and what the government there believes. It does not mean that either of them are particularly malevolent in this respect. It is just a fact of life that there will be a divergence of opinion.

  What this could possibly suggest is that any disclosure of information, which would be found unacceptable or unfriendly to a foreign government with which Canada wanted to maintain good relations, would not be able to be disclosed in the context that the bill is describing. That is another concern which we will have to explore at committee because the views of other governments are not always pristine, balanced or objective, or certainly they may be different from views held in Canada either by a particular group of Canadians or by Canadians in general.

  There has been much said about preserving the balance between liberty and security. We must not just respect Canadian values in this regard. We need to respect Canadian values as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government claims that it has done this. We will want to hear evidence about this in committee and perhaps debate among ourselves whether this bill meets that challenge.

  In fairness to the government and to the charter, the charter has already had its effect on this legislation. My understanding is that the bill does not go as far as the British anti-terrorism legislation. This is because we have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Britain does not. That may well be the reason for the difference. For example, intellectual support for terrorist groups or causes associated with terrorism, or even membership in certain organizations, is not prescribed in Bill C-36.

  The charter has already done its work in changing what might otherwise have been brought before us by the government. It is still legitimate to ask whether or not what we have before us is not so much charter proof but whether it corresponds to what the charter demands of us.

  I suggest to the government that it consider whether or not the bill should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada at the same time as it is being debated and studied in the House of Commons and prestudied in the Senate. As we know, the Senate will begin to study the bill at the same time as the House is seized of it, which is an unusual procedure, but it is being done so that the bill can be passed expeditiously.

  Why would the government not consider referring the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada for an urgent judgment, not at its leisure but within the same framework of time as the House is dealing with the bill. If the House can deal with it and the Senate can deal with it, surely the supreme court could deal with it. Then we would not need this debate about whether or not the legislation meets the requirements of the charter.

  Another matter I would like to raise and which I hope we will be able to consider in committee has to do with the whole question of whether or not certain aspects of the bill should be sunsetted. The bill provides for a parliamentary review after three years.

  We live in extraordinary circumstances. It might be advisable to consider that what seems acceptable today to the government, to a majority of the House or perhaps to everyone ultimately, might not seem acceptable or necessary in a year or two.

  Therefore, because I have seen these parliamentary reviews before and they tend not to mean very much, there might be some need to consider looking at a sunset clause instead of having a parliamentary review.

  Finally, we need to consider the whole matter of resources, because all of this will be for naught if we do not give the agencies charged with these responsibilities the resources they need. In that respect we have to redress the damage that has been done to the public sector in so many ways by the government ever since it took office in 1993.

  Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member for Elmwood-Transcona has anticipated some of the concerns that I will be putting forward myself when my turn comes to make remarks.

  He mentioned the problem of protests and worried about whether the legislation applied to proper protest movements, labour marches and that kind of thing. I wonder, does he think the legislation should apply to protest movements where violence is planned, where it is deliberate?

  I do not think APEC is a good example, but Quebec is a good example of where protesters actually deliberately organized assaults on the police lines, if you will, and there was a deliberate planned intention to use violence. Should that type of individual come under the ambit of this act?

  Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I want to find out from the government members whether they feel that kind of individual falls under the ambit of the act. Regardless of whether or not such an individual would fall under the act, we have always made it clear that what we are trying to defend here and what we use as our benchmark for analyzing the bill and other things is the right of Canadians to legitimate peaceful protest and dissent.

  Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark--Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very thoughtful commentary. I was particularly happy to hear his suggestion that the legislation should include some form of sunset clause. Of course if necessary it could always be re-enacted by parliament with any necessary amendments to take care of any flaws that would have become evident after a couple of years in operation. I am glad he made that.

  I am wondering in looking at this, does the hon. member have any specific examples that he has seen in the past in his lengthy parliamentary experience where this sort of clause has been used effectively? Could he suggest a more concrete way in which this would be appropriate for this legislation?

  Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I am not sure to which clause the member is referring. I am not sure whether he is referring to the clause in the bill having to do with parliamentary review or whether he is referring to a clause that is not yet in the bill having to do with sun setting.

  In either case, clauses having to do with parliamentary review are ultimately upheld. That is to say the review takes place. Sometimes it does not take place on time. Sometimes there are good reasons for that because the committee that needs to do the review might be seized with something more important or whatever. Sometimes it does not take place because the government is not particularly interested in that happening right away so it is delayed.

  However, it is only a parliamentary review when a committee makes recommendations. Again, as is the case in our system, the government is not required to respond to whatever the parliamentary review comes up with. A committee could look at it and say that it is not working, that it has turned out to be an overreaction or that it has led to curtailment of freedoms that we did not intend, et cetera. Yet nothing happens because there is no obligation on the part of the government to implement whatever recommendations come out of a parliamentary review.

  The advantage of a sunset clause would be that the government would be obliged to reintroduce the legislation. Therefore it would be forced, if you like, to use the opportunity if it wanted to, to take certain things out, to amend certain things, or for that matter to add to the legislation. That seems to me to be the advantage of a sunset clause over a parliamentary review clause.

   Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, the hon. member probably realizes that at the present time the border crossings are under the regulations and guidance of Revenue Canada. I find it rather strange that at our border crossings people are being issued bulletproof vests and calculators. They are revenue collectors in most cases. As the events have turned in the last little while, I firmly believe it is time to remove Revenue Canada from being the controlling body of these individuals who are dealing with security of our borders and move it to a law enforcement agency, probably the solicitor general or someone like that, to protect the nation.

  What does the member personally believe in, protection or collection?

  Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the question sets up a dichotomy which I am not sure I accept. I confess to the hon. member I have not given a lot of thought to it. I did not see it as particularly relevant to the bill but as they say in question period sometimes, I will take his comments as a representation.