STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 7, 2001

• 1531

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Good afternoon.

[Translation]

Good afternoon everyone.

[English]

I call to order the 46th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Today, we will be considering Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism.

This afternoon, we are very pleased to have the following witnesses: representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Centrale des syndicats du Québec, the CSN, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Since we do have six different groups represented, we will be asking each group—and I understand this was requested in advance—to make a five-minute opening statement, as opposed to our usual ten, just so that we have more opportunity for members of the committee to interact with our panellists. I will be indicating when one minute is left in that five-minute opening statement, and I would hope everybody can try to get it in within those five minutes, to prevent me from having to bring it to your attention.

Without further ado, to begin our afternoon's exercise, I will call on

[Translation]

Nicole De Sève from the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, who has five minutes.

Ms. Nicole De Sève (Adviser, Centrale des syndicats du Québec): Good afternoon.

I would like to apologize for Ms. Monique Richard's absence. At this very moment, she is meeting with Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and children from a local school. She then has to rush back to Montreal to take care of some union business.

The Centrale des syndicats du Québec would like to thank you for this opportunity to share its thoughts on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. Our organization may not be very well known in Ottawa. We represent over 150,000 women and men, who work mainly in the field of education, health, social services, early childhood services, culture and communications.

To begin with, we would like to tell the members of this committee that the CSQ condemns terrorism and fanaticism. Many people have said, and we agree, that it is legitimate for a government to strengthen or update its legislation to combat the new terrorist forces better and to attempt to prevent terrorist networks from operating on its territory. Special legislative changes may be needed to provide for better mechanisms to ensure security in our airports and on our waterways and railways, and to protect at-risk sites like nuclear plants.

Cooperation among States is of crucial importance in the fight against terrorism. This is reflected in the bill, with its references to many international conventions and protocols.

Beyond that agreement, what concerns us is that the war on terrorism is being used as an excuse to put in place, in the name of national security, a new Canadian social contract based on a restriction of human rights and freedoms. Under this bill, combating terrorism is no longer just one of many ways to protect the democratic landscape; it becomes an end in itself that justifies substantial changes to the legal system we live under. Restrictions to human rights and freedoms, for which section 1 of the Canadian Charter makes exceptional provision, are no longer limited to specific and exceptional circumstances; they become a permanent feature. We are moving from a constitutional State to a national security State.

We find this paradigm shift unacceptable and call on the Minister of Justice—and trust that you will convey this message to her—to make substantial changes to the bill.

• 1535

In particular, we feel that all of the acts—acts or omissions—covered by the sections added to section 83 of the Criminal Code go beyond the desired goal because they apply to a whole range of situations that involve the exercise of fundamental freedoms under the Charter, such as, in our case, freedom of association or expression. Under a narrow interpretation of this bill, any illegal strike by my organization or my colleagues' organization could be considered a terrorist activity. Any moral, technical or financial support that might be given to a union, to our union colleagues, here or abroad, in violation of restrictions on the exercise of union rights, the right to demonstrate—and we know that in a number of countries, those rights are hard to come by and are even disregarded—and even the right to strike, could thus, for all kinds of reasons, be considered a terrorist act.

Any group opposing a government's policies that organizes demonstrations, as has been done in Canada, could ultimately be considered a terrorist group. What is worse, the bill states:

...a terrorist activity is facilitated whether or not:

(a) the facilitator knows that a particular terrorist activity is facilitated;

We feel that the activities as defined in the bill—apart from those activities covered, as I said, in the conventions and protocols—constitute an abuse of power that is unprecedented in our democracy. We call on the minister to table a new definition of terrorism in Parliament.

The bill also provides for the creation of a list. The CSQ is concerned about the potential for serious mistakes in connection with the mechanisms by which entities become listed, especially since entities may appear on that list without ever finding out the actual grounds that led to such a decision.

Anti-terrorism legislation is extraordinary legislation. It must only apply in special circumstances. There must be limits on investigations. The presumption of innocence must be protected. The legislation must include an assessment mechanism. While it is in force, annual reports must be tabled in Parliament, dealing with the evolution and application of the legislation, whether it is in terms of the conduct of investigations, preventive detention or sentences. In addition, the act must have a three-year expiry date, after which it is no longer in force. If Parliament then feels that the circumstances require it to do so, it can table new legislation.

To conclude, allow us to express our doubts about the effectiveness of this bill. We already have legislation in force in Canada to exclude anyone who is a threat or commits terrorist activities. The Criminal Code already provides for preventive detention. Airplane hijacking and parcel bombs are already punishable by law. The problem is the lack of human and financial resources.

You have huge responsibilities as members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It is your duty to protect Canada's democratic landscape, to retain political control over the forces of law and order, to reject this bill as it is currently drafted and to tell the minister to rewrite it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Next, we have Jane Stinson,

[English]

research director with the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Ms. Jane Stinson (Research Director, Canadian Union of Public Employees): Thank you. I'd like to send regrets from our president, Judy Darcy, who is unable to be here today.

We welcome this opportunity to present our views and our concerns about Bill C-36.

As you may know, CUPE is the largest trade union in Canada. Our membership includes about half a million workers across the country who deliver a variety of public services, but we also include flight attendants, people in the communications sector, and others in the community sector.

We were very shocked by the events of September 11, as were other Canadians, and we recognize that the government needs to take measures to effectively respond to terrorism. But some of the legislative changes contained in Bill C-36 go well beyond what we think is required as an appropriate response. We believe the government can use the many powers that already exist in legislation.

Specifically, we call on the committee to recommend a number of changes, which are outlined in our submission. One is to narrow the definitions of “terrorism offence” and “terrorist activity”. Currently, they are far too broad and far too imprecise. As a result, they threaten our civil liberties and our legitimate political dissent here in Canada. As the sister just said, the legislation can encompass trade unionists who are involved in illegal strikes. Some of our members are in what are deemed to be essential services or what may be deemed essential services once they go out on strike. Surely their participation in these strikes, illegal strikes, or other actions like Days of Action, does not make them terrorists. This legislation needs to be modified to ensure that this type of legitimate dissent and democratic behaviour isn't considered a terrorist act in this country.

• 1540

As well, we're concerned about how the legislation threatens our ability to do international solidarity work—which was referred to earlier. Our union believes international solidarity is a very important part of our work, and it seems this current legislation could be invoked if we were supporting organizations that are deemed terrorist. We have supported the ANC and the Congress of South African Trade Unions when they had to be underground. We currently support organizations in Colombia that may be considered terrorist by their government, but which we see as fighting for very important and legitimate economic and democratic change. We need to be able to continue to support these groups. The way the legislation is now, I think it threatens our ability to do so.

We call for a much more carefully tailored definition of “terrorism offence”. It should include only specified acts of serious violence or intended serious violence. It should be much more functional, and less of a generalized definition.

As well, we think it's very important that this committee and government protect civil liberties. I'm sure you'll hear much more about this, but, specifically, the areas of investigative hearings and preventative detention are areas of concern. The legislation introduces really broad and sweeping new powers that are unnecessary, in our view. These are extreme measures that are not necessary, and they certainly should have a sunset clause attached to them.

Thirdly, we want to advocate that you maintain government transparency. Specifically, we're referring to the proposed changes to the Access to Information Act. We urge you not to allow the Attorney General to exempt ministries. Rather, continue to rely on the current judicial oversight that exists.

Fourthly, we're asking that you protect against spying on Canadians, that you not empower the Minister of Justice to authorize the Canadian Security Establishment to intercept private communications, and that you rely on existing protections and reviews for electronic eavesdropping.

Fifthly and finally, we encourage much more democratic debate on this. We're asking that you extend the period of time for debate and consideration of this bill. The bill is very large, very complex, and omnibus. I think Canadians really need to understand it much more thoroughly, and I urge you to have hearings across the country so that they can have that opportunity.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Hassan Yussuff, of the Canadian Labour Congress.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress): First of all, Mr. Chair, on behalf of the 2.5 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, I should thank you for the opportunity to present. I should warn you, though, that I'm likely to go a minute over your time, in the interest of highlighting some very important points that I think need to be made, so that we can engage in a constructive discussion with the committee. Let me try to do that as briefly as I can within the given timeframe.

The Canadian Labour Congress shares the concerns of many organizations that have appeared before this committee. We are deeply concerned with what we perceive to be unnecessary restrictions on our civil liberties. The congress has unequivocally condemned the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and has spoken out on terrorism in general. These attacks must not, however, become the excuse to undermine basic civil liberties and the rights to communication and democratic debates—in other words, those very practices and principles clearly not observed by the practitioners of organized terrorism.

The sense of loss of personal security and safety expressed by many Canadians should not be used to justify a weakening of our basic rights and freedoms. Many of the trade union movements in our hemisphere have first-hand experience with repression in the name of national security. We will not allow the democratic values targeted by terrorist attacks on September 11 to be sacrificed in the name of fighting terrorism. Like many other organizations, we share the belief that the government has yet to clearly demonstrate why existing powers are not adequate.

Because the bill is a 170-page omnibus bill that amends a number of existing pieces of legislation—the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, and other acts—while adding new measures respecting the registration of charities having to do with the financing of terrorist groups or activities, we're only going to comment in this submission on those provisions we find most offensive.

• 1545

The Canadian Labour Congress supports the expansion of what constitutes a hate crime by including the offence against religious property. Although we understand the concept of “mischief” as defined in the Criminal Code, we believe the government needs to ensure that the public understands the use of the term and does not simply imply some other form of lesser offence.

We also endorse a number of recommendations in the first report of the Senate committee on the subject matter of Bill C-36, and those recommendations are dealt with at the end of submission.

The definition of “terrorist activity” and, by extension, “terrorist group” and the facilitation of terrorism, is extremely broad and could make a number of activities undertaken by trade unions and their social allies vulnerable to some form of pre-emptive police activity. In terms of domestic activity, civil disobedience related to a number of actions could be construed to fall within the definition. For example, the Days of Action in Ontario, the 1987 B.C. general strike against Bill 19 and Bill 20, and many of the actions involved in 1983 solidarity actions against the Social Credit government, might all fall under it. The key question would be the degree to which any of these actions were unlawful or may be perceived to be unlawful before they are committed. While the definition appears to exclude lawful work stoppages, a wildcat strike or a general strike with a political objective may be considered by some attorneys general or judges to fall within this definition.

Given the range of people participating in the extensive civil disobedience and disruptions associated with demonstrations in Seattle, Prague, Washington, and Quebec City, police may feel justified in using preventive detention provisions of the bill against protesters.

In terms of international activities, the definition would also include those people in countries where no democratic outlets exist for dissent or changing the government. For many years, the CLC actively supported the African National Congress in South Africa, along with many groups fighting for democracy in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Chile, for example. Under the proposed legislation, the CLC will be charged with supporting or facilitating terrorist activity.

Turning to our recommendations, many of the problems associated with the proposed legislation derive from the very broad scope of the definition of terrorism. The definition of terrorism must be narrowed to clearly exclude peaceful civil disobedience, including advocacy, protest, dissent, or stoppages of work. The legislation must also recognize that in many countries of the world, people live under oppressive regimes and have no alternative but to engage in guerrilla or military action to seek democratic reforms.

On the issue of preventive detention, police have also been given significant powers to arrest and detain individuals for up to 72 hours without a warrant or without laying a charge. With the consent of the Attorney General, a peace officer without a warrant may arrest a person if it is believed on reasonable grounds that a terrorist activity will be carried out, or that the detention of a person is necessary to prevent terrorism activity from being carried out. The person must be brought before a judge within 24 hours, and be released within a further 48 hours unless a charge is laid. If the judge is satisfied that the peace officer has reasonable grounds, the judge may set conditions for recognizance, and if the person refuses to abide by them, the judge may imprison the person for up to 12 months without a trial.

Both the investigative hearing and preventative detention amendments to the Criminal Code are a significant, permanent weakening of the civil liberties of Canadians, and they are made even worse by the broad definition of terror. In addition to a narrowing of the definition of terrorism, these sections should also have a sunset clause and automatically expire after a period of three years.

The Canadian Labour Congress is very involved in a wide range of international activities and projects to encourage economic development, to educate and train trade unions, to support groups working to eliminate discrimination against women, to end child labour, and to eliminate forced labour and sexual exploitation. A number of the organizations—such as humanities funds or international solidarity funds established to assist in meeting these goals—are registered charities. The Canadian Labour Congress is deeply concerned about the lack of protection from abuse of process in decertifying a charitable organization. Again, the congress supports the recommendations of the special Senate committee that there be a right to appeal, and that the appeal procedure ensures that natural justice is guaranteed to the appellant, while ensuring national security.

To sum up our recommendations, the initial analysis and comments on Bill C-36 deal only with those sections that most directly threaten or undermine the existing civil liberties and rights that Canadians enjoy. The bill, which is 170 pages long, with over 170 sections amending a wide range of existing legislation, is very complex. These are provisions dealing with money laundering, the charitable status of organizations, prohibiting groups, developing a list of terrorist organizations, forfeiture of funds and property, reverse onus on bail, elimination of judicial review, extension of wiretapping, etc. The implications of many of these amendments cannot be fully determined in the short period of time the government has allocated for discussion and debate on the bill.

• 1550

The Canadian Labour Congress calls on the Government of Canada to amend the definition of “terrorist activity” to narrow the scope of activities in such a way that clearly excludes peaceful, civil disobedience, including advocacy, protest and dissent, and stoppages of work.

Recognize that in many countries of the world, people live under oppressive regimes and have no alternative but to engage in guerrilla or military actions to seek democratic reform. Exclude them from the definition of “terrorist activity”.

Limit the operation of investigative hearings and preventive detention sections to a maximum of three years through the operation of a sunset clause.

Reinstate all complaint and review procedures and provisions for judicial oversight.

Continue to apply all existing protections and reviews of electronic eavesdropping.

Extend the period of time allocated to second reading of the bill, and hold hearings in regions throughout Canada in order to give all Canadians an opportunity to review and comment on the many sections of a very complex piece of legislation.

Again, we also recommend some very specific areas in terms of the Senate's recommendations.

On behalf of the congress and its 2.5 million members, we thank the committee for the opportunity to present.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Turmel.

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel (National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada): Thank you. As you may have noticed, we have tried to cut parts of our presentation, but you do have the full document in French and English. I hope to stay within the five minutes provided. If, however, I do not manage to do so, I would ask you to kindly allow me to go on for a few minutes more.

On behalf of the Alliance, I would like to thank the members of the committee for allowing me to be here today.

The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon will go down in history as the day on which North America lost its sense of security and safety; a day when our economy and that of neighbouring States suffered one of the most significant shocks in recent memory.

PSAC believes that Bill C-36 should be withdrawn and redrafted to address only those gaps in the criminal justice system that can be precisely identified and narrowly defined.

Our collective voice is often raised in dissent, and in opposition to government policy in areas as diverse as pay equity, international trade agreements, budgets and the like. Individually, and in conjunction with social groups, we champion the rights of our many members in a number of fora ranging from the courts and labour boards to parliamentary committees and the media. But our voice does not stop there. It is heard, sometimes loudly on the streets during strikes and demonstrations, and sometimes that dissent is replete with confrontation.

On first reading Bill C-36, we were surprised to learn that the government has drafted a definition of "terrorist activity" that includes acts that are committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause", which is intended to:

(E) cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether private or public, other than as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work.

PSAC strongly takes the position that if the government is to legislate a definition of "terrorist activity", the definition must be far more precise and far narrower than is outlined in Bill C-36. Strikes and public protests that have traditionally taken place in Canada by unions, native peoples and other segments of civil society are in no way akin to terrorist activity, and should be clearly delineated from it.

We also take the position that Bill C-36 strays too far from the purpose of identifying, stopping and prosecuting those who may be responsible for activity that is identified as "terrorist activity" by seeking to amend the Access to Information Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Privacy Act, so as to suspend the acts whenever the Attorney General so determines.

Despite the circumstances that Bill C-36 seeks to address, governments must be accountable for their decisions, and cannot properly be held to account if information is withheld. The chilling effect that the definition of terrorist activities will have on organizations in Canadian society is self-evident to PSAC and to most organizations in civil society. Equally apparent to us is the legal right the State is giving itself to undermine individual rights.

• 1555

We have the privilege to represent the federal workers employed by the Communications Security Establishment. Under Bill C-36, CSE will, for the first time in its history, have the mandate to monitor Canadians in certain circumstances. As a result, communication between unions in Canada and our counterparts in countries around the world may well be captured in the CSE net, as will communication between lawyers and their clients, journalists and their sources, and a host of other private conversations, e-mail exchanges and the like.

The events of September 11 marked a watershed in the history of North America and many countries around the world. Most people were stunned at the brazen acts, and the ease with which they were accomplished. People have accepted the inconvenience of increased and enhanced security at airports, border crossings and government buildings. We would also hope and expect that our government will succeed in preventing a recurrence of the attacks in the United States and on Canadian soil.

But in a democratic society, there have to be limits on the power and authority of elected officials as well as law enforcement and security forces: limits that start with a narrower and more appropriate definition of terrorist activity; limits that protect the rule of law; and limits that respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One of the most appealing aspects of the government's response to the events of September 11 was the strong message with regard to racial intolerance. Despite this very public caution, the message has not been fully embraced in Canadian society, and incidents that are racially motivated have increased in Canada.

I will skip a few paragraphs in our brief, but as I said earlier, you do have access to the complete version of the brief.

Ultimately the bill will label some traditional forms of protest as terrorist activity, chill organizations involved in charitable fundraising for international work, undermine the ability of Canadians to monitor the actions of their government, and nullify many of the rights of accused persons.

While amendments can and should be made to address these and other specific concerns, the overriding problem will remain. That is to say, the intrusive nature of the legislation, and the limits that it places on Charter protection will remain, and if the government has its way, remain forever.

I would like to finish by saying that the authority vested in the Solicitor General with regard to the establishment of a list of terrorist organizations, in the Attorney General with regard to the access to information and privacy, and the Minister of Defence with regard to the Communications Security Establishment, shift the line of Canada's democratic system more towards an executive style than has previously been the case. That this shift is being undertaken with limited, and in some cases non-existent, review is quite simply untenable. The damage to individuals and organizations that can be done under many of the provisions of Bill C-36 is incalculable.

I shall end on that note.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

Before turning to Monsieur Roy, I'd like to bring to the attention of both the committee and the panellists that we are being visited by the Teacher's Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy. These are teachers from across Canada who are here to learn about the Canadian Parliament, and I'm sure everybody involved will give them our best behaviour.

With that, from the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, we have Mr. René Roy, the federation's general secretary.

[Translation]

Mr. René Roy (Secretary General, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec): Thank you, and good afternoon everybody. We would like to thank you for giving the FTQ the opportunity to put forward its point of view on Bill C-36.

The FTQ, which represents 500,000 workers in Quebec, agrees that we must tackle terrorism. However, our organization is concerned, for many reasons, about the legislative tool that the government intends to use to address terrorism. In the interests of time, we will only deal with two specific concerns. These are the definition of terrorism and the excessive powers given to the police.

If you are not careful, Bill C-36, as it stands, might become like the nets that you find on some fishing boats. These nets drag the seabed indiscriminately, picking up everything in their path and destroying the sea floor.

• 1600

I chose the image of the sea floor which has been destroyed by fishers looking for rich pickings to illustrate the fact that our legitimate sense of urgency in combatting terrorism should not endanger our commitment to the fundamental rights and freedoms that are the foundation of Canadian society. These are values which are enshrined in both the Canadian and Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The definition of the term “terrorism” is so broad and all-encompassing that many trade union demands and initiatives could fall under it. Not all legitimate labour action is deemed lawful by governments and courts.

You only have to think back to the latest strike by nurses in Quebec. Under the definition that you're proposing, these nurses would be deemed to be terrorists. There would be many times in the history of the trade union movement where activists would have been called terrorists. Just think of the role played by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Marchand in the asbestos strike at Asbestos in 1949 and the strike at Murdochville in 1957. And what about the general Canada-wide strike on wage control in 1976? More recently, we saw demonstrations in Quebec City last April. In addition, we have to mention the threat to trade union movements posed by the provisions in Bill C-36 on trade union training. From time to time, the FTQ trains foreign trade unionists. This does not mean that we control any action that they may take.

The FTQ is far from convinced that we need new legislation to address terrorism. If the government goes ahead with its intention to pass new legislation, at the very least, there will need to be a built-in cut-off point. In three years' time, the government should be required to show that this legislation should be maintained.

Our second concern focuses on the increased powers given to the executive and to the police. This issue worries us greatly, since in Quebec, we experienced the War Measures Act during the October Crisis in 1970. At this time, the Canadian government feared a possible insurrection. Some 500 Quebeckers were arrested without a warrant, with no rights, on the basis of information which had not been validated by the judicial system. The judicial system should continue to safeguard the constitutional State that Canadians have been committed to since the Magna Carta.

The provisions in this bill, as they stand, could mean that some people will be victims of abuse. Just think back to the terrorist-like action taken by federal police officers. What about officer Samson, who was a bomber, and who, today, is a lieutenant with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

To wrap up, the FTQ is urging you not to act hastily. There are several sections of this bill which should be looked at in more depth. Fundamental values should not be breached. We must strike the right balance between the fight against terrorism and the rights of Canadians. Quite obviously, Bill C-36 does not achieve this. Admittedly, the government is facing a major challenge, but it must also work to build a free and democratic society. Thank you.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy. I will now give the floor to Ms. Claudette Carbonneau who, I believe, is here today on behalf of the CSN.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau (Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to express our point of view.

I would like to say, right at the outset, that the CSN is keen to reiterate the fact that its 264,000 members were deeply affected by the dramatic events of the 11th of September. Our organization believes that it is quite natural that the federal government would wish to take action to address terrorism, to rid Canada of this threat, to meet the country's international commitments and, lastly, to bring terrorists to justice.

• 1605

Nevertheless, no matter how urgent the situation may be, we firmly believe that we need a thorough study of Bill C-36.

Before I get into specific areas of the bill, I would like—on the eve of this bill becoming law—to raise specific contradictions in terms of the current situation.

On the one hand we have the reassuring statements made by the Prime Minister of Canada, who points out continually that there is no imminent danger of terrorist attacks in Canada. On the other hand, we have seen that Canadian society has relatively little expertise in terrorism. We have seen, and deplore the fact, that there has been a certain dereliction of duty on the part of governments. Here, I am thinking about cases such as the one involving Ahmed Ressam. I'm also referring to investigations which have been requested by the French government.

Indeed, in our view, all legislation on this issue needs to be justified. We have to admit that we have a major lack of required experience on this issue. Given this backdrop, then, there is an increased danger of civil liberties abuse. We also run the risk of creating a repressive system which could potentially prove to be ineffective for the situation.

My FTQ colleague pointed to the impact of the War Measures Act in Quebec. The CSN shares this view, which has been expressed time and time again by our members. I would not say that the debate on this bill is one which deals with the need to act, but rather one which focuses on the appropriate course of action to be taken and the need to preserve the fragile balance between security and civil rights.

In light of this fact, we believe that we need to identify the desired goals and above all, to assess correctly the pros and cons of the tools that are to be put in place.

Indeed, we think that the government is finding it difficult to provide Canadians with credible evidence that this type of legislation is necessary. We believe, given the circumstances, that it would be more appropriate to use the provisions of the Criminal Code as they currently stand. We believe that these provisions provide sufficient legal tools to enable us to act effectively. I would just like to remind you that periods of crisis are unfortunately more conducive to abuses, especially in terms of rights and freedoms.

With your indulgence, I would like to speak to several specific aspects of the bill. Firstly, there is the issue of the definitions both in terms of clause 83.01, which deals with terrorist activities, the provisions on terrorist groups, and clause 27 of the bill amending the Official Secrets Act.

These definitions are very broad. This means that democratic groups could wrongly be deemed terrorists. This is especially true for issues of economic security. Therefore, based on the reasons put forward by my colleagues from the other organizations, we are demanding that any reference to the word "lawful" be cut from clause 83.01.

We should ask ourselves what the real objective of this type of bill is. Is this bill designed to cover democratic demonstrations against G-8 meetings, WTO sessions or any other summit which may be held in Canada? We do not believe that it would be acceptable to extend espionage authority and to classify these types of events as terrorist activities.

I would like to briefly speak to preventive detention. I wholeheartedly share the views put forward by the other organizations. We are demanding that the government stick to the current provisions of the Criminal Code.

I would also like to draw your attention to an issue which no one has raised yet. This issue is the right to information. I am referring specifically to clause 87 which amends the Access to Information Act. This section gives the minister the authority to prohibit the disclosure of a sometimes very wide range of information. I would like to point out that the bill does not provide for any mechanism to review the minister's decision. The Information Commissioner and the federal court no longer have any authority on this issue.

• 1610

The provisions of the Access to Information Act have been totally sidelined. We intend to make demands for a formal and credible legislation review mechanism.

To wrap up, I would like to say that although we believe deeply that the provisions of the current Criminal Code are sufficient, if the government were to decide to move forward and to bring this bill into effect, we would, in addition to the proposed amendments, request that the bill expire within three years. We would also like to see an automatic annual review of the bill with a view to identifying the provisions which could be amended or dropped if it is found that they have a negative impact on fundamental human rights and freedoms.

The CSN is asking that the government refrain from implementing measures of an overly wide-ranging nature which would not eradicate terrorism but would rather challenge the basis of democracy and the Canadian government's commitments to the principles governing individual rights which are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

To all of the analysts, you've done a very good job. I understand that it can be difficult to say what you want to say in such a short period of time. As you can see, though, we have a large number of members, and we'd like to give everybody an opportunity to engage in dialogue.

On that note, I'm going to go to Mr. Cadman for seven minutes. I would remind Mr. Cadman and the panel that the seven minutes are supposed to include both the questions and the answers.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Panellists, I'd like to thank you all for coming here. I know you came on quite short notice, and I appreciate that you are trying to cram your comments into a short period of five minutes. I know how difficult that must be.

I represent a riding that I would suggest has a large trade union population. It's Surrey North. We have a large taxation centre in Surrey, so I'm quite familiar with some of the PSAC votes. The IWA is another one with a large membership in my riding, the International Woodworkers of America.

We've heard a lot of the comments you have come forward with. Over the last couple of weeks, we've heard of a lot of similar problems. Certainly, some of my constituents have expressed those views. I think you can appreciate that we're struggling to find a balance here, because I'd also suggest that a large number of trade union members who have contacted me are just as concerned about their own security and the security of their families. So we're trying to find some kind of way to work this through.

I was interested in a couple of things that I'd like answered. I heard suggestions that we're moving too fast and that we should extend the consultation period. The government has essentially said it needs this now, so you obviously seem to be disagreeing with the government. I would like to know how much longer you would suggest we should extend this. Should we get into something for which we take a year to do cross-country hearings? Of necessity, does that mean we don't get legislation the government says we need right away?

I'd also like to know what you have to say to the various police associations we have heard from. They represent tens of thousands of front-line police officers who say they are not interested in tramping on the rights of legitimate protesters and on legitimate work stoppages, but that they need these tools. This is what thousands of police are telling us.

Specifically to PSAC, we've certainly heard from a number of Customs folks in particular about the resourcing problems. We've heard suggestions that maybe this legislation wouldn't be needed or wouldn't have to be as “draconian” as it appears to some people if we had more resources for the people who are doing the front-line work in Immigration and Customs.

If you could just address those issues, I'm sure you all have a few more comments you would like to add after your five minutes.

The Chair: We'll hear responses from Mr. Yussuff first, and then from Ms. Turmel.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: In regard to the issue that we raised about more time being allocated for cross-country hearings to give Canadians an opportunity to comment on the legislation itself, in absence of this bill becoming law on November 30 or whatever date the government is looking at, we still have other pieces of legislation that we can use effectively to deal with terrorism. This is not a unique phenomenon in the context of the criminal law system in this country. We already have that ability.

• 1615

In terms of the timeframe, it's critical to recognize that this is a huge country. Many Canadians are not going to have the opportunity to travel to Ottawa to participate in an important thing that is likely to affect their lives for quite some time. We are not even clear that the government is prepared to listen to the call for the sunset clause that some have recommended to this committee so far, and that others are likely to recommend as future hearings continue. In such a far-reaching piece of legislation, it's critical that Canadians across this country be given some opportunity to speak specifically. Many groups are not going to have the chance to come to Ottawa to comment on this legislation. Those of us who happen to be in Ottawa were quite fortunate, but I think we need to recognize that in terms of the rest of the country.

Your second point was about the assertion of police associations that they're really not interested in going after the trade unionists. Until such time when they have the powers under the law to come after us, a lot of people tell us they're not interested in going after us. We want to make it clear that this act should not give them the power to do so. It can't be trusted to good judgment. It ought to be enacted in legislation. Without it being in the act, we're going to have people interpreting the law and using the law to its fullest extent when they believe it serves their purpose.

As a trade union movement, in terms of our strikes or demonstrations, in fighting to improve the standards of living of workers in this country, we have always been defined as doing things that are illegal in some way or another. That has been done by the authorities, whether they have been with this government at the federal level or the provincial governments at the regional level.

It's critical for you to recognize that we're not interested in people saying they're not interested in attacking the trade unions. The minute the legislation gives them that power, we're very fearful that they're going to use it, and that they're going to use it to its fullest extent. We can't simply rely on goodwill.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Turmel.

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said in terms of the concerns raised by our members. However, this legislation will not address the problem of resources. If we have only one officer at border crossings, implementing this type of legislation will do nothing to address the current problem.

We represent people who work in immigration and at Canadian border posts. The problem is the same everywhere. The tools do not meet current needs.

As I said before, simply steamrolling this bill through will do nothing to solve the problem. Earlier, we referred to the measures which had been taken in the past. My point of reference is what was done in Quebec. When the government decided that it needed to take drastic action—I think that that's the right way to describe it—it didn't need legislation. It just acted and that was an end to it.

I believe that we already have the necessary tools and that the government is using them properly. However, it is perhaps using them too often. I think that we have to look at the human resources side.

The Chair: Thank you. We will hear Ms. Carbonneau and Ms. De Sève, and then Mr. Bellehumeur.

Ms. Carbonneau, you have the floor.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I will be brief, Mr. Chairman.

There seems to be a consensus developing on the need to adopt measures to eradicate terrorism. The real debate is on how best to do this.

As far as the police is concerned, I feel that we have not heard any clear, credible arguments that police forces need more powers. They are perhaps in need or resources or physical equipment, but there is no evidence that they currently have insufficient powers.

However, we are told that such a debate would go on for a very long time. One thing can be done very quickly. We spoke of definitions that were much too broad and we asked that any reference to the term “lawful” be eliminated. The Justice Minister has always attempted to reassure democratic organizations such as trade unions. I think it would be relatively easy for her to review her bill and bring it in line with what she is saying.

Ministers' statements, unfortunately, do not have the force of law. The law, and enforcement of the law, may lead to abuses, which is why it is essential to proceed rapidly with the adjustments that we requested.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. De Sève, go ahead.

Ms. Nicole De Sève: I understand your concern about finding a balance, Mr. Cadman. I would like to point out that, when the Canadian government was examining legislation to prohibit discrimination and the possibility of recognizing the rights of same-sex couples and the right to abortion, there were years and years of studies and consultations. We are being told now that we must rush through this and that we must restrict fundamental rights. We did not say that the government should not legislate to prevent terrorist groups from attacking the rights and freedoms which are important to us as a society. We are saying that this must not be used as a pretext to restrict fundamental rights and freedoms.

• 1620

Let's look at investigative measures. Police representatives would like to see an increase in the time period during which electronic surveillance on a person can be carried out from 60 days to one year, and the electronic surveillance would not have to be disclosed to the subject until three years later. They themselves admitted, when they were speaking to the media, that the reason for this was that it can take time to draw up an affidavit. We currently have measures allowing for this. There is the Canada Evidence Act. There are a number of mechanisms. Having acted as the spokesperson for the Quebec-Algeria Committee in Quebec for several years, I know that, in many cases, investigations and follow-ups cannot take place because of a shortage of human and financial resources, rather than because of a lack of legislative instruments that would allow them.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. De Sève.

Mr. Bellehumeur, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): I would like to thank you for coming to speak to us. I am well aware that you did not have much time to prepare your presentations on the position of your organizations. I can assure you that we were not given much time ourselves. It is not easy for us either, the way the government is pressing us on this bill.

The minister did in fact say, at the very beginning and on several occasions in answering questions, that we did not need a law to combat terrorism and that the Criminal Code was there to meet our requirements. Suddenly, with the wave of a magic wand, a lovely bill appears. I am truly concerned about how quickly it was drafted, how quickly we are studying it and how you are being rushed to give us your comments. At some point, we need to put this in perspective, although it appears we will not have this opportunity because the minister will be appearing very soon and the bill will be passed before Christmas.

That having been said, I think that part of this bill was necessary, at least the part dealing with international law and the conventions that Canada has signed but never implemented, as well as all the provisions concerning the hateful nature of certain actions. I believe there are some parts that we can keep.

You all talked about a sunset clause. That makes me quite happy because, in the beginning, the Bloc Québécois talked about this in the House of Commons and no one understood us. I believe that it is important to have a sunset clause. You all seem to be of the opinion that a three-year period would be acceptable.

I would like you to tell us whether you are in favour of a three-year period. We believe that such a time limit is acceptable, for reasons I will not go into because my time too is limited.

We would actually like to propose a series of amendments to the clause which defines "terrorist activity". Ideally, provision (E) of proposed subparagraph 83.01(1)(b)(ii) should be deleted. Proposed paragraph 83.01(1)(b) deals with "made in Canada" terrorist activity, while paragraph 83.01(1)(a) deals with international terrorist activity. We should simply remove subparagraph (E), which reads as follows:

(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...

We do not necessarily need this.

Furthermore, do you think that the word “intimidating” should be struck? The bill reads: “with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security”. The minister has always talked to us in terms of terror. Could we not replace the word “intimidating” with “terrorizing”? I don't think that there are many trade unions that terrorize. You perhaps use intimidation, but judiciously, and you have the power to do so and to continue to do so. However, I do not think that you terrorize.

Then there are the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and all the powers that the ministers assume for themselves. I fully agree with you and with the commissioners that they do not need those in order to safeguard national security. The law is clear on this subject.

I would also like to know whether you are in favour of deleting clauses 87, 103 and 104, so that we rely on the laws as they stand.

With regard to the Communications Security Establishment and the powers that would be conferred on it, do you think that we should limit ourselves to what is already available under the Criminal Code, rather than adopting an exceptional act that will no longer be controllable?

• 1625

I'm going to stop now to give you the chance to answer. However I would like to reassure you that I have already prepared a series of amendments, regardless of the minister's decision. We are going to put up a fight because this bill, in its current form, makes no sense.

The Chair: Mr. Roy, you have the floor.

Mr. René Roy: We limited our presentation to two main points because there was so little time, and you are asking us a series of questions. You have demonstrated that more time should be taken and experts consulted. There are some experts here who are not at the table. You have asked questions of a technical nature regarding the bill. We would find it quite easy to agree with you on removing point (E) of proposed subparagraph 83.01(1)(b)(ii) and replacing the word “intimidating” by “terrorizing”.

The word “licite” in the French version, which corresponds in the English version to “lawful” should surely also be replaced, because “licite” has a much broader meaning in French than the word “légal”. “Licite” has a legal and moral connotation. It is therefore a very broad term.

You asked us whether we should take more time. It took ten or so years to change the Canada Labour Code. We should therefore take the time to examine all aspects of these laws.

Mr. Bellehumeur, the last time that we appeared before a House of Commons committee, it was on the issue of employment insurance. The committee produced a unanimous report, but the minister did not take it into consideration one bit. We should perhaps set in motion a process other than a House of Commons committee, so as to elucidate all our issues.

The Chair: Ms. Carbonneau, go ahead.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I will be brief. We are in favour of a three-year period. I would, however, refer you to our brief, in which we suggest that, in addition to this three-year period, there also be an annual review mechanism. Nevertheless, we are in favour of a three-year sunset clause.

I also agree with removing point (E) of the proposed subparagraph 83.01(1)(b)(ii), for two reasons: first, because it refers to the word "lawful" and second, because it explicitly deals with economic security.

However, it seems to me that a more in-depth examination of the bill is required. I will give you an example. Does proposed paragraph 83.01(1)(b) concern physical safety and human security, or does it bring us back to economic security? If that were the case, I think that the bill would have to be modified to bring it in line with the elements you mentioned.

I am in favour of replacing the word "intimidating" by "terrorizing". We need a restrictive definition—this is an exceptional subject matter—and we need to accurately identify our objectives. The CSN has expressed its concern and made a recommendation on the issue related to the Access to Information Act, as it also has on the issue related to the Communications Security Establishment. We are of the opinion that the Criminal Code provisions are for the most part adequate.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Stinson.

Ms. Jane Stinson: First, I have to say I don't feel I've had ample opportunity to study the legislation enough to really feel confident answering some of the specific questions that you're asking, but I'd like to give two thoughts.

On a definition of terrorism, my understanding is that it has been debated quite a bit in the international community in terms of coming up with one. However, a generalized definition has been seen as inherently ambiguous, really hard to apply, and potentially encompassing too broad a range of actions. I worry a bit about fiddling with the definition the government has proposed for precisely those reasons. The definition needs to be much more specific to particular acts. As I understand it, the Criminal Code does define those acts.

Secondly, I just find it interesting that people have seized upon three years as the period of time for a sunset clause. I'm not arguing against it necessarily, but why three years? Why not less? What's magic about three years? If anything, I would suggest that it could be even shorter.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, for seven minutes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1630

I can't help but respond to something my colleague from the Bloc said to me. He said that when they were raising the idea of a sunset clause, no one knew what they were talking about. Well, we knew what they were talking about. We were raising it at the same time in the House. In fact, we took the absence of any sunset clauses in the legislation seriously enough to vote against the legislation rather than for it, like the Bloc did.

Witnesses, it won't come as any surprise to you that the NDP shares the concerns you have expressed today. In fact, in the CLC presentation, you note the Days of Action, etc., as a number of contemporary examples. The other day, though, we had one witness here from the Canadian Arab Federation who actually cited the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 as an example of when not laws against terrorism, but laws against sedition were used in a way in which people are worried these laws can be used against trade unions and others exercising their rights to protest or dissent, etc. I think that's a real concern.

The decision we have to make—at least those of us who are concerned about the definition of “terrorist activity”—is whether or not the current definition can actually be amended in any way that gives enough comfort, or whether it needs to be done away with altogether. Perhaps we have to ask the government to be satisfied with the definitions of terrorism and the tools it, as the government, is given through the ratification and implementation of the UN conventions, rather than adding on this extra definition of terrorism, which really seems to come out of British anti-terrorism legislation.

Having said all that, would you find that sunsetting certain aspects of the bill would be enough? I don't know. Maybe the government is thinking about this and it just hasn't told us. We haven't heard any talk of sunsetting the definitions of terrorism or of “terrorist activity”, for instance. So far, to the extent that people have been specific, they've talked about sunsetting preventive arrest, investigative hearings, and some of the more procedural aspects of the bill, such as the section on wiretapping or the sections having to do with eliminating the powers of the Privacy Commissioner and the Information Commissioner. What I'm asking you is whether or not sunsetting, without amendment to the definition of “terrorist activity” or, for that matter, without amendment to some of the other sections of the bill, would be sufficient in your view, or would you still find the legislation unacceptable?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: It might be a bit of a repetition of history in that there has been a clear recognition in terms of other legislation that we have had to live with in Canada vis-à-vis the War Measures Act. What we learned enormously from that experience is that we had, during the Second World War, a whole community of families that suffered internment, the loss of property, and the list goes on. That happened again during the FLQ crisis.

We also learned things during the royal commission that looked into the whole issue of the RCMP's activities. A series of recommendations came out over their activities, which we know were quite corrosive to the values of this country. Again, despite having a new Constitution that talks about our fundamental rights being protected, this legislation—sure, a lot of it will be subjected to a lot of Supreme Court challenges—is going to raise some serious questions politically. Can it withstand some charter challenges, given what is enshrined in the charter?

A bill can be very specific in terms of whether or not you can amend the legislation in regard to what aspects... It's like looking into a crystal ball and being very wishful. A lot of Canadians are expressing some very serious concerns in the sense that, while there is a need to fight terrorism in this country, you ought not to terrorize innocent people in this society. That needs to be said, and it needs to be said repeatedly, because that's what we're doing. We're all becoming suspects. I think the important thing here is to ask what legislation we don't currently have, but which we need to help us fight terrorism.

Again, if we want to be specific, we can be very specific. I think we made very clear comments in our brief, but we need to say in a very clear way that you, as legislators, have some fundamental responsibility to say this has caused such far-reaching implications in society. Given that some judges, prosecutors, and police forces have access to the powers enshrined in this legislation should it become law, we believe it will have a very corrosive value like they had in the United States during the era of McCarthyism.

• 1635

We're very seriously concerned that if we're truly interested in building a society that wants to fight terrorism, all of us need to be involved in it. If the legislation clearly targets us, as victims of what you're intending to do, we're not going to get very far as a society at the end of the day.

Again, umpteen recommendations have been made. We think three years is a long time, but as Jane says, there is no magic to our proposal in suggesting three years. It could be a year, or it could something less than that.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Turmel.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In our brief, we raise the subject of the sunset clause. In the first place, as we said at the start, the bill should simply be withdrawn. In our report, however, we say that, if it were to be adopted, there should be strict and independent oversight of the implementation of the legislation. This would be the only way. Will the government go in that direction? That's another question.

We have to base ourselves on past experience. A number of us are from Quebec and experienced the war measures. Even though I was living in a remote area at the time, I cannot tell you how many rumours and how many stories we heard. We would not want history to repeat itself.

Now, as for clauses 103, 104 and 87 of the bill: they should simply be struck. In our view, it would be important that these clauses simply be removed from the bill because they truly go against everything that we have said in our presentation here today.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms. De Sève and Ms. Carbonneau.

Ms. Nicole De Sève: I am somewhat uncomfortable because we are faced with a bill with which we have huge problems. I have two observations that I would like to make, which I was unable to do earlier.

A country like Great Britain—and this partly addresses your question a few minutes ago—which has what is perhaps the toughest anti-terrorism legislation in Europe, has not been successful in preventing its territory from becoming a haven for terrorist networks. Similarly, France, Spain, Italy and the United States, which all have police services, intelligence services and eavesdropping services, have not been able to prevent terrorist acts. We must therefore be careful and ask ourselves whether putting legislation in place will prevent the growth of terrorism.

Clearly, we must protect ourselves. I do not know whether you had arrived at that point, but one of the first things that I said in my presentation was that yes, exceptional measures can be taken, but a sunset clause, or an expiry date, would not solve all the problems.

I agree with Ms. Turmel, who said that there must be guidelines for wiretapping. The presumption of innocence must be protected. During its life, anti-terrorist legislation should be reviewed every year. There must be review criteria. There must be mechanisms by which to assess whether the situation still warrants the suspension of rights set out in section 1 of the Canadian Charter and whether, the lifting, at that time... I agree with my colleague, Jane, that three years... It could be one year for certain aspects and a different amount of time for others.

That is the purpose of an annual report. That is the purpose of assessing how investigations and detentions are carried out, since any legislation, however good it may be on paper, will not give good results if the necessary human and financial resources are lacking.

Similarly, without public education, without increased efforts to fight racism and exclusion, and without the development of peace activities, it does not matter what the act does because it will be impossible to create and build democracy in Canada. In the central labour body I belong to, the majority of members work in the education field. I believe more in educating people for peace than in educating them for war.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Carbonneau and Ms. Stinson.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: Of course, it is not just a question of when the sunset clause would come into force. I believe that bad legislation has too long a life, even if it is only two months, especially when we are talking about protecting civil liberties.

I would like to make a comment and remind you that it took four years before the Criminal Code was reviewed. This is supposed to be done in a few weeks. I would also remind you that, in this case, quite a different approach is being taken from what has been done in the past. Where the Criminal Code was concerned, there were first broad consultations to establish expertise and prove that changes were necessary. After that, a bill was studied. Here the process is exactly the opposite. The bill is brought before us and is supposed to be passed very quickly. We need to keep in mind what is at stake. We cannot achieve greater security by saying that by acting against terrorism, we are defending democracy and, at the same time, put in place hastily developed provisions that undermine democracy.

• 1640

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Stinson, you have the final answer.

Ms. Jane Stinson: Mr. Blaikie, I understood your question to be whether we would consider a sunset clause to be sufficient without an amendment to the terrorist definition. In our view, no, we would absolutely not consider it sufficient. The definitions of terrorism and acts of terrorism are the key of this legislation. They trigger the rest and must be amended.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. MacKay, seven minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, panellists—and not only for your testimony, but your briefs, as well. I think it has been expressed already that we have a Herculean task before us. Your work and your presentations help us tremendously with this balance, this see-saw that we are wrestling or grappling with over civil liberties and the need for renewed security in the general population.

The questions that I have in regard to your presentations focus very much on the transparency and accountability mechanisms that seem to be absent from much of this legislation. Ironically, they're found in some of the provisions that deal with charities, but as far as the actual civil liberties go, there is a glaring inadequacy, in my view, of judicial oversight or oversight of any fashion.

You've touched upon the certificate issue—that is, the ability of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General to withhold or refuse to disclose information for national security or defence reasons, or for international relations reasons. Well, those broad definitions could apply to virtually any type of evidence. As you know, that can lead to the invoking of preventive arrests and investigative hearings, wherein an accused person or group doesn't know the case against them, they don't know exactly why it is that they may be facing some form of prosecution—or some would say “persecution”.

The inclusion of oversight or judicial appeal seems to be the key to bringing greater balance to this type of legislation. I know there would be great concern on the part of anyone who might be covered by this bill for any type of activity that might be caught in this rather broad net.

Another element that very much troubles me was brought into sharp focus yesterday, when we heard from members of the Islamic and Muslim community. They made a very telling comment. We've heard a lot of rhetoric. It's a very emotional issue for everyone. But those individuals spoke of the terror that people in certain communities are feeling because of the looming possibility of this bill coming to fruition, the terror they feel because of the fact they could very much be targeted by this.

To that end, I would like your reaction to the apparent incongruous elements of this bill that deny individuals the opportunity to get counsel, for example, in this country. I'm concerned already about the lack of access to legal aid. If individuals, and particularly new Canadians, are not aware of their rights in this country, don't have access to a lawyer when they've been taken into preventive custody, and are forced to appear before an investigative hearing and not only are compelled to give evidence because the right to silence is removed, but may be compelled to even bring tangible evidence to these hearings, all of this leads to a very complicated malaise, and sometimes a great delay in being given access to justice. If they don't have the ability to get a right to counsel, to have a lawyer...

The bill makes a reference to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being available, but this surely will result in an increase in the necessity of the right to have counsel present to help them navigate this very complicated system, this very complicated bill. A manual is going to have to be drafted for judges, lawyers, police officers, and justice workers generally, just to try to navigate this legislation. The only thing I can think of that's more complicated is the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, but that's another story.

• 1645

I would just like your comments in response to the right to counsel for new Canadians, and for all Canadians who get caught up in this net.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Let's be very candid in this room about this piece of legislation. When we talk about terrorism as we understand it in the context of September 11, we're really talking about Muslims and Arab Canadians to a large extent.

My name is not Stephen Owen, nor is it Peter MacKay. The reality is that when I go through society, as I have to do as somebody who works for a trade union in a leadership position, I have to speak to all kinds of people. I don't know what suspicions arise. People say, “Where did Hassan Yussuff come from? What is his background? What's his involvement?” That's the kind of suspicion that this impending legislation creates in our society. That's what it creates with our neighbours, and that's what it creates with our friends. People are very suspicious, because after September 11, the general public debate from the CNNs of the world is that we didn't know these people were terrorists. People become suspicious overnight.

As Canadians, we have built something very wonderful in this country. It's the ability to share our culture, our language, and our differences. That is a strength in this society. That's now put in jeopardy because we're seeing one segment of society today that is now going to be subjected to added scrutiny. Regardless of legislation, your neighbours are more suspicious of who you are, so I think it's absolutely critical that you don't become dismissive of what was said yesterday before this committee. People are very fearful.

I went into a store, and a man there said to me, “Should I leave or stay?” He has a name. His name is Muhammad. I said, “What could you possibly be thinking of? What do you mean by `leave or stay'?” He has been in this country for 25 years, and he's not sure whether he should remain in this country anymore. He feels that, all of a sudden, he's now a criminal in his own country. We have a responsibility as Canadians, as parliamentarians, to say this is unacceptable.

Whatever the legislation is intended for, it can't criminalize innocent people in society. It cannot make one segment of our society feel the only enclave they have today is their houses and their backyards, not the general public space we share and debate each other in. It's critical that you recognize that as a very important point.

We have never accepted that people who get arrested don't have the right to legal counsel. That's not a Canadian tradition, it's a tradition of dictatorships in other parts of the world. I don't think we should allow the corrosive nature of the drafters of this legislation to allow that to seep into our national laws and our society. If you don't correct it, believe me, the damage you do to the fabric of this society will be far-reaching.

All Canadians would agree with all of you. Yes, we need to fight terrorism to a large extent. At the same time, I don't want to be seen as a criminal in this society, because I do believe I contribute to what this society is all about, and that's how we live in peace and harmony with each other.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

Mr. René Roy: He has said just about what I was going to say. The FTQ considers that this part of the bill is the most dangerous. The definition of “terrorism” should be reviewed, but the increased powers for the police... It is true that there are good police officers. It is true that Canada needs police officers, but some of them already abuse the powers that they have. We saw, with the War Measures Act, how far the police could go. That is why the FTQ's brief made a point of giving striking examples of how far the police can go.

We agree absolutely with what Mr. Hassan Yussuff has just said, to the effect that people in Canada who are arrested by the police absolutely need to have access to a lawyer, to legal advice, to be able to defend themselves. This is Canada, and we consider these things very important. These rights must be upheld. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Stinson.

Ms. Jane Stinson: Thank you.

I don't think there's any question that the specific right to counsel is essential. It should be a fundamental right in our country and should never be breached. But even making that amendment doesn't go far enough in this legislation. That addresses the points Hassan raised earlier. The legislation, by its very nature, casts a very broad shadow and has a chilling effect in lots of ways. We have focused on the chilling effect it can have in terms of legitimate trade union activity, but we also call attention to the concern that certain groups, like Muslims, may be targeted. This legislation helps to create an environment in which that's seen as legitimate, so it contributes to an inappropriate political environment as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Owen, for seven minutes.

• 1650

Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Thank you for being here. Your evidence is very important to us in these deliberations.

In saying that, I'd like to add what I hope is a note of sincerity by saying something about a comment made by Madame Turmel. It may have been a poor translation, but the translation in English came across to the effect that if the government gets its way, certain things will follow.

I'd just like to give you what I hope is some assurance that, in putting forward a bill to this committee, the Minister of Justice has asserted both in the House and outside the House that she and the government are taking the proceedings of this committee very seriously and are looking forward to its recommendations. I hope that will give you some assurance that the government does not see this legislation and this process as getting its way. It takes this whole process very seriously. In that sense, your testimony is very important to us.

I'd like to comment on a few things and get your response to them. One of them is the removal of the right to silence, which Peter MacKay has mentioned. This term gets used a lot in the conversation about this legislation, particularly in regard to the powers of investigative hearing.

I know people aren't trying to mislead anybody, but I just want to reiterate that we have no right to silence in our legal system, but for the right not to testify in our own criminal trial. The rules of evidence are very straightforward. People must give evidence if they're subpoenaed through due process, but there are rules against that evidence being used against you in a subsequent internal trial. This legislation does provide for that. If someone is summonsed before an investigative hearing, that evidence or any evidence derived from it could not be used against them in any criminal trial for any charge, not just terrorism. I say that only to add some reassurance around that section.

I think you have mentioned four categories of problems that you see with this legislation. One is the definition, and we have heard some very consistent, valid, important advice on that definition from you and from others before you. You're right. Everything else hangs on that definition in the bill, and we have to get it right.

I'd like your comments on another subject. As is the case with the British legislation, one of the reasons we have ideological, religious, and political motivations in there is to end the motivation of someone who would intimidate by crimes of great violence against people. You have to see those together, but many of us—witnesses and people on the committee—have recognized that this can have a very limiting effect. It may be well intended in terms of having a limiting effect on the scope or the reach of the legislation. With terrorist activity, we're talking about something very different, something very perverse. We're talking about a system of ideas, a system of political thought, or a system of beliefs that has been perverted and would cause people in a network to engage in a group activity.

What makes terrorism so dangerous is that these perversions are something so instilled that individuals would commit terrible acts of violence against innocent people and kill themselves in the process. It's something very specific and evil that we're all trying to come to grips with. To limit it to that...

I understand it has raised fears, Mr. Yussuff, particularly among different cultural communities—particularly ones with a Muslim or Arab background—because of this horrible event. So something we're grappling with is how to deal, in non-racial terms, with something that was put forward in a perverse, religious way.

Mr. Yussuff, you cited the Senate recommendation that there be a non-discrimination clause. That sounds like a very sensible idea, and I wondered if it might assist the concern you expressed very strongly about racial profiling and such.

• 1655

I'd like to make another comment on this general concern—which I share very deeply—that we deal properly and effectively with armed conflict in other parts of the world when it may be initiated against an oppressive regime, and that it somehow be distinguished here. That is another difficult thing for those of us in this country, at a distance, to grapple with. But this legislation has within it extraterritorial reach to comply with the international conventions, because terrorism does have this global reach and has to be combated.

I hope you might find some—

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Owen.

Mr. Stephen Owen: I'll just refer to the clause, so that I might get their reaction. After proposed item 83.01(1)(b)(ii)(E), the bill makes reference to “customary international law or conventional international law”, which would include the rules of armed conflict and non-assault of civilian and non-combatant communities.

The Chair: Madame Carbonneau.

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: You are asking us, sir, whether we are reassured. I can tell you right off that we have no reason to doubt the good intentions of anyone. But experience has taught us that it takes patience to be able to judge a tree by its fruit. So we will see in a few weeks what is actually happening.

However, when you raise the interpretation that no witness would have the right to remain absolutely silent, I fully agree with you, but I would like to reiterate a concern that was mentioned earlier. People are forced to testify and talk, but at least do so in the presence of a lawyer, and that reflects a democratic value that is very dear to Canadians.

I would also like to say, in connection with the point that you made about the language used to describe certain realities, that I believe that the debate goes much further than simple terminology. I would remind you of one thing. Yesterday a cross-Canada survey, which included Quebec, was published regarding the use of identity cards. This is often a very controversial question for us, but a large proportion of the public supports this measure, especially for immigrants.

So I think that we need to be extremely careful. It seems to me that the harm has already been done, and the least that we can expect from a government is that its legislation should not exacerbate the situation, which is already bad enough.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Yussuff first, and then Ms. Turmel.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: You raise a lot of important issues, and I won't be able to respond to them all.

In regard to the point on the right to silence, one of the points you raised was that evidence can't be used unless you have legal counsel. The other side of this is that, in reading the legislation as we understand it, in terms of testimony in private, we're not assured the right to silence cannot be used to further keep someone in detention. We don't know that. You said there is a period during which they can keep you, but, again, we don't know how long they can keep somebody. If a person gives certain testimony that should not be used against them... In other words, they cannot keep holding you because of a suspicion that you might be involved in something. It's a very complicated wording, and we need to look at it.

In regard to the question of motivation around terrorism, it is important to reflect that we have dealt with terrorism at the international level for quite some time. Not so long ago, we used to talk quite candidly about terrorism in terms of Northern Ireland. Today, there's a change in regard to that. While we need to recognize terrorism for what it is, we ought not to think some terrorists are somewhat different than other terrorists. Their objectives aren't very different. The motivation for some may be ideological, but normally terrorism's objective is to cause a lot of grief to innocent people. That's what terrorism does to a large extent.

In terms of dealing with Muslim or Arab terrorism, we have been using the terms “religious fanaticism” or “fundamentalism”, but I think we need to be very careful that we don't stereotype communities. We need to again reinforce what has been said so often these days on national television, and that's this idea that the people who were prepared to die are somewhat different. Terrorists throughout history have always been prepared to die. I can go through all kinds of causes in terms of history. We need to recognize that so that we don't start dealing with this in terms of a stereotype.

• 1700

In terms of the Senate recommendations, and specifically the non-discrimination clause, again, that would be helpful. But don't forget that in the backdrop of it all, we have legislation all over this country, provincially and federally, that deals with non-discrimination, yet many people still feel discriminated against. So that is not going to satisfy our community.

Also within the Senate recommendations, one of the important recommendations that was made is to have an oversight within 90 days after any sections of this bill get through legislation. The Senate recommended that Parliament appoint an officer who could monitor and report back to Parliament on how this legislation is dealt with. Again, this is a recognition that with flawed legislation, you're going to need other mechanisms. More importantly, we need to ensure that Parliament takes some responsibility for how this bill starts operating and how it functions from day to day. You may see results that you may not like, and you may have to do something very dramatic in making changes.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Turmel.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: I cannot make any assumptions about the intentions. However, I can speak from experience because I have represented Alliance members for 11 years now. As an employer, the government has brought in and imposed legislation that went against natural justice.

Now, if we are talking about an act that protects people, that is fair, that is intended to be realistic, and not one that is intended to react to the current climate of terror and fear affecting members of Parliament and the public in general, then this is what we want. I want legislation that is intended to protect and not to react. We also need to think—and this was raised earlier—about education. We have a multicultural society in Canada and there is a tendency to forget that. As a francophone and as a woman who has travelled across Canada, I have felt discrimination.

When I travelled in Canada at the time of the Meech Lake accord, I was not welcome outside Quebec. That is what we are talking about when we talk about discrimination. I am from Canada and a number of us are from Canada, regardless of our culture or our colour or our background. That is what is not recognized in this bill. That is what needs to be condemned. We need to talk about legislation that protects people, that is fair for Canadians and that does not flout our current laws.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cadman—and this is a three-minute round, everybody, so keep that in mind.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm following along Mr. Owen's line, except for the matter of degree. My question is of a lesser degree. We have certainly heard some suggestions that the bill should be withdrawn. I don't think I'm about to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

If the definition of terrorism were changed to your satisfaction, could a Canadian do anything domestically that you feel would fall under what you would perceive to be the definition? I'll tell you why I ask that.

I'm sure Mr. Owen will be familiar with the problem of tree spiking. For those who don't know, when we have had protests in the forests of British Colombia—and this is regardless of what your view is on logging practices—we have seen incidents in which people have driven large metal spikes into the trees. For any logger who comes along with a chainsaw, that's lethal. Your colleagues who work in the forests of British Columbia have certainly come out very adamantly that this should be considered a major and very serious crime, to the extent that it essentially is domestic terrorism, ecoterrorism, or whatever you want. I'd like to hear your comments on that.

Ms. Jane Stinson: To me, that demonstrates some of the dangers of how this act could be used. Everything then gets swept under the umbrella of terrorism and is defined in that way, and the incredibly harsh powers that exist in this act, can get used in that way. In your example, we have things like murder charges if someone is killed as a result of that. We should be relying on those things instead of considering those acts to be a form of terrorism.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I only say that because many of your trade union brothers who work in the woods would consider it to be a terrorist act.

The Chair: But you haven't said it should be included in this bill.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, I'm not suggesting that.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I want to be brief, and I don't want to distract from the legislation.

In terms of dealing with the environment, some of us are unquestionably more passionate than others, while others are more passionate about how to protect the environment. In regard to what's happening around the spiking of trees, it's a serious issue. It has far-reaching effects in terms of injuries and harming individuals doing their work. But those kinds of elements of society, those manifestations, need to be dealt with in a different context. If this legislation is a kind of catch-all for activities, I think we're really on a slippery slope in terms of how we govern ourselves as a country.

• 1705

I'm not dismissing the experience of my colleagues who are dealing with that issue, but we need to recognize that this legislation cannot deal with that kind of activity. At the end of the day, while recognizing that it may be harmful and that it may be criminal in intent, we need to figure out how to engage a dialogue between the environmentalists and those who work in the logging industry.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Carbonneau, and then Ms. De Sève.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I think that behind the member's question is a perfect illustration of the danger and slipperiness of this bill. Of course, I agree that we must not defend illegal activities. However, it seems to us that the Criminal Code has everything that is needed to identify these situations, and we really need to avoid going overboard and saying that all sorts of things are terrorist activities.

The Chair: Ms. De Sève.

Ms. Nicole De Sève: Along those same lines, I believe that this reflects confusion that leads to different things being juxtaposed. A little earlier, I heard someone mention the words “Islamist Muslim” and “fundamentalist,” as well as “Islamist,” etc. There is a lack of education, and I am an advocate of education. These terms are used left and right. She answered you very clearly that it was a criminal act. But there is a sort of paranoia, and any kind of opposition, reaction, protest or mobilization is automatically labelled a terrorist act. What constitutes terrorism is going to have to be explained. It is not explained here.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Charbonneau, you have three minutes.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the unions for their contribution to the debate. You have sought, in moderate but eloquent terms, to maintain a respect for democratic rights and civil liberties.

Personally, I would be against any legislation that included within the definition of terrorism certain activities, certain actions undertaken by organized labour in order to promote social, economic and sometimes even political rights. I realize that such actions have sometimes become acts of defiance against the legislative status quo, but that is how a society evolves, and Mr. Roy could have been more thorough in his list of such offences.

I will take the next three minutes to ask one or two questions.

We often use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a reference in passing legislation. What part of this bill do you feel represents a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? And if that is not the case, we would like to hear that as well.

Secondly, since this bill relates to the activities of organizations that are based in Canada, but that have ties to organizations outside the country, in other parts of the world, groups that might be engaged in wide-scale political action, do you feel that we must distinguish between terrorist activities and activities that might relate to a legitimate type of resistance? Would this be a valid distinction, in your opinion? How do we deal with this issue?

My questions cover three aspects: the Charter, resistance and terrorism.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Mr. Roy.

Mr. René Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To answer the second part of your question, I would say that we must certainly differentiate between criminal actions and legitimate protests. I believe that it was Gandhi who said that good laws must be supported and bad laws must be challenged. Within that context, there are actions that are legal in a given country and there are actions that are legitimate.

Mr. Charbonneau, I did, of course, have the events of 1972 on my list, but I didn't dare mention them because you are here. I would not have wanted some police officers to think that legislation could be retroactive. You have done that quite well yourself. You yourself have worked in the labour movement, and there are times when certain types of protests can be considered legitimate, even though they are not sanctioned in Canadian or Quebec legislation.

• 1710

On the other hand, with respect to personal rights and freedoms, we feel that giving law enforcement agencies more power while removing an individual's right to immediate legal defence under the laws of the country comes very close to affecting the fundamental rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why we told another member, earlier, that we should technically be allowed to have hearings on those terms in order that we might examine this more closely to clearly spell out similar issues.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Ms. Carbonneau.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: Is there or is there not a breach of the Charter in this bill? We think there is, and I believe we made that clear earlier when we spoke about the rights of association, the threat of slippage surrounding that right—and the same considerations apply with respect to the right of expression—all of which means that we should agree that the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is threatened.

With respect to your question on legitimate resistance, I would remind you of the same considerations. It seems to me that underlying the right to freedom of expression, underlying the right to associate, there is the general practice that has evolved in our society to provide mechanisms for progress and for the expression of legitimate resistance that becomes beneficial for society as a whole.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bellehumeur, you have three minutes.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Earlier, in my list, I mentioned other amendments. Here is one that others have already discussed.

You would like us to withdraw the bill, but I have never seen that happen since I was elected in 1993. Therefore, we will not be doing that today, there will be legislation. I understand that you all agree on the need for a sunset clause. Why three years? Among other things, in three years, we will be heading for a federal election. This might become an issue during the campaign. But there are other arguments that apply as well.

We discussed the sunset clause. Each of you, in turn, and in your own words, discussed a review. These are two different things. Even if the Canadian Jewish Congress told us yesterday that a review would suffice, we must understand that there is a clear difference between a sunset clause, which would put an end to the act, and review.

With respect to reviewing the act, you are aware that the Senate had suggested some type of commission. A commissioner would be appointed to deal with it. Let us take the example of a commissioner who submits a detailed report indicating the number of arrests that have been made, the number of warrants that have been issued, the number of cases of preventive detention, the value of the assets that have been confiscated, the number of terrorist organizations on the list, the number of organizations whose charitable status has been withdrawn. This very detailed report would be referred to our committee or some other one. We could ask the commissioner, ministers, and police officers to appear as witnesses in order to ensure that there is no abuse, and the report would indicate whether or not any abuses have occurred. Following that, there would be three months in which to table a report advising the House of Commons to either amend, repeal or better define certain provisions of the act. Would that make you feel a little better?

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. De Sève.

Ms. Nicole De Sève: In the brief that we tabled and which is to be translated, we indicated that our concept of a high commissioner or ombudsman had also been suggested by the Commission des droits du Québec. We said that we were in agreement with the proposal; that is to say that we subscribe to the suggestion of having a neutral party above the implementation of the act, someone who would be able to give it a narrow interpretation. Therefore, we are in agreement.

I would like to reiterate that yes, Mr. Charbonneau, this might violate the Charter, particularly with respect to the right one has to not be deprived of one's liberty, as is stated in section 24 of the Charter, because of the expression: “reasonable grounds to suspect”. So we must be careful.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Yussuff.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Very briefly, there's no question in terms of a sunset clause. As soon as the legislation disappears, I think we'll all feel more comfortable. In absence of that clause in the process, once the legislation is enacted, we need to keep tabs on how it is being implemented.

• 1715

The Senate committee recommended the appointment of an officer to monitor and to report to Parliament, but the parliamentary committee should not lose sight of its fundamental responsibility to hold hearings to hear what Canadians have to say about their experience with this legislation. That's the only way we give you the power to make arguments in Parliament, so I think it's incumbent on the committee to have regular hearings once this bill is put in place. You have to hear what the experience of Canadians is at the end of the day.

Very quickly, on the point about armed resistance and distinguishing it from terrorist activity, a fine line is drawn in terms of how you do that politically. At the end of the day, one government will use whatever the international definition is in order to label everybody who is challenging, including the Sudanese government, the Burmese government, or the Myanmar government. They will use that definition to label as terrorists all those who have been opposed to the undemocratic way in which these countries have been suppressing their peoples. As Canadians, we can't accept that. We therefore need to distinguish how to spell that out and how to give a Canadian definition to it. That will be very important, because many groups in the world are fighting for their dignity, for human rights, and for justice, and we need to recognize that in the context of what this legislation will do to those groups. It would now make them all terrorists.

The Chair: Madame Carbonneau, and then Bill Blaikie.

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: Within the CSN, we are never content to leave well enough alone. I believe that the description given by Mr. Bellehumeur is precisely the type of review our recommendation is seeking.

What we find troubling about the way in which the bill is being passed is the fact that there does not seem to be any expertise in this area. If someone did have that expertise, it would prevent us from being stuck with an act that seems to have been improvised without taking into account the real needs of our society.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Blaikie, for three minutes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: This is not as much a question, Mr. Chairman, as it is just trying to sort out all the different things on the table. If I get this right, it seems to me that when witnesses talk about review, they're not talking about a parliamentary review after three years, they're talking about some ongoing review mechanism. That may also be another way of talking about what the Senate recommended in terms of an ongoing oversight producing reports or whatever at certain points in time.

We have that kind of review or oversight, and then we have a sunset clause or the idea of sunsetting certain aspects of the legislation, which is not incompatible with ongoing review or oversight. In fact, we'd be better informed about whether or not you wanted the sun to actually set or whether you wanted the law to be reaffirmed if you had some kind of oversight and review, because you'd have some information on how the law was being applied. We only have the government proposal so far, and it is simply that we would have a parliamentary review at the end of three years. There would be no oversight, no ongoing review, just the regular old parliamentary review—with all due respect to Parliament—which may or may not happen. And even if it does happen, it may or may not be heeded by the government.

So if I hear you folks correctly, you're arguing for some kind of oversight or review during the period that would be the sunset period, so to speak. It's a combination of oversight and review with the sunset. Am I reading you right on that?

Ms. Jane Stinson: I think you are. You're hearing a lot of concern about what's in this legislation, and a reluctance on our part to even see it being brought in this way. It's absolutely essential to review the experience under it very thoroughly, and that review must not be three years down the road.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

Mr. René Roy: Yes, you have understood correctly. We are in agreement on that since the legislation must be adopted quickly. Mr. Bellehumeur is right: this bill will pass quickly. And since that is the case, we feel there must be some type of constant oversight of the act, and the sunset clause is important. The War Measures Act has only recently disappeared from Canadian legislation. I believe it was repealed two or three years ago, if I'm not mistaken. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was quite recent. I believe that a similar type of legislation should be subjected to a review after a short period of time. We think that three years should be the limit. We feel that this issue must be dealt with. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. De Sève.

Ms. Nicole De Sève: Oversight is the means by which we will be able to review the act. It is impossible to review an act every two weeks if you do not have the information you need to do that.

• 1720

So, the oversight procedures enable you to collect the evidence required to evaluate the act. Subsequently, the act is reviewed on the basis of the political context, because it is important as well, on the basis of the enforcement of the act, any slips or slides that may have occurred, and on the basis of any gaps that may have been noted. However, as far as I am concerned, the oversight must come into effect immediately and be carried out on an ongoing basis. As to the review, we mentioned an annual review, and it would be up to Parliament to decide on the changes required.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Yussuff.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Just to be very brief, in regard to the legislation itself, whatever aspects do become law, if the government feels so compelled that it's doing the right thing, it should not be afraid to subject the legislation to some process in which we, as Canadians, can actually engage with parliamentarians on our own experiences. Good laws should stand the test of time. If they don't stand the test of time, they're not worth defending.

A voice: Bravo.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Turmel.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: I would like to add something, because we mention it in the last paragraph of our presentation. It is true that there must be oversight, but there must also be regular reports so that we know exactly where we are at. That is in addition to a review, by a third party, of the steps taken.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Peter MacKay, for three minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: This is part of that same line of thought. I acknowledge very much what you have just said about the need for regular monitoring. Without it, the fear is that a lot of damage can be done in a three-year period. As Mr. Blaikie has pointed out—and he has been around here longer than most; I think he was here when they built the Parliament Buildings—

An hon. member: Certainly before the fire burned the original ones.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mandatory reviews often just don't take place. We've seen that with the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code. Seven years later, we're still waiting for that mandatory review to take place.

I find that suggesting a sunset clause would somehow interfere with police investigations is ludicrous. This is forcing Parliament to do its job. It's forcing Parliament to be efficient if it comes to pass in three years' time. Two or three months before the setting of the sun, Parliament can simply reinstitute it and re-enact the legislation. The argument put forward by the minister and others simply doesn't hold water.

Regardless of what that period of time is, whether it's three or five years, I think the legislation should still have the check of an office, whether it be an ombudsman or an existing officer of Parliament. But in fact, this bill goes the other way. It's taking powers away from existing parliamentary watchdogs like the Privacy Commissioner and Information Commissioner.

Would your preference be that we invent a new office, a new oversight committee, or would it be that we try to simply assign the responsibility for monitoring this legislation and these legislative changes to an existing office? Some suggestion was made of an oversight committee similar to what we've seen with SIRC, in CSIS. SIRC has a specific mandate to monitor the effects, implementation, and application of this new legislation. But would your preference be a parliamentary body or a parliamentary officer, or simply the assignment of this task to an existing officer of Parliament? Options are available. Many of us are still mulling over what would be the most effective way to ensure not just oversight, but also transparency and a process of some form of appeal.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Again, just to be brief, Mr. MacKay, I think what the Senate committee did suggest is that an officer of Parliament should be appointed to deal with this. But in the context of recognizing that, in terms of review, these hearings have generated what I think is a unanimous call from many Canadians of all walks of life. They have some serious concerns about this legislation.

I don't think we're all mad. I actually do believe we have actually figured out that something is wrong with this legislation. We're trying to give some direction on what can be done while recognizing that, after September 11, people also want to ensure that people who come to our shores—individuals, groups, what have you—don't abuse that welcome. In this regard, it's appropriate for us to be cautious that Parliament does have a role to play. An officer could be the mechanism, but it could be done differently. Many options could be explored in terms of how this is done.

• 1725

More importantly, we feel it is compelling that somebody should also actually be issuing a report, so that at least we could be transparent. In regard to this committee, it could be built into your recommendations that the government accept that the committee would convene meetings on a yearly basis to hear what the Canadian experience has been under this bill. You may find out that if the bill does get enacted without many changes, some of our concerns are going to be a reality, so there ought to be a way in which parliamentarians can say they didn't intend something, and that if that “something” is the reality, the course ought to be changed or the sunset, instead of occurring in three years, should be much earlier.

The Charter of Rights gave us a new set of values and rights in this country that we didn't have prior to repatriation in 1982. We may actually see a charter case that actually says many aspects of this bill will not stand the test. Do we want to invoke the notwithstanding clause to defend this legislation? I certainly don't encourage anybody to do that. The Charter of Rights is fundamental, and it ought to be defended for what it says.

The Chair: Ms. De Sève.

[Translation]

Ms. Nicole De Sève: As we said earlier, we think an ombudsman could be an extremely important alternative. However, one fundamental aspect of our system is the responsibility of Parliament. It must study the annual report—if it is an annual report—evaluate it and make certain decisions, because it is the only body that will have to be accountable to the people. As union organizations, we would not be able to support any procedure that would remove the responsibility of members of Parliament to be accountable to the people for their actions.

[English]

The Chair: The final question goes to Mr. John McKay, and he has less than two minutes.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Two minutes? Can I take the time over to the next session?

To the Canadian Labour Congress, your second recommendation says that

in many countries of the world, people live under oppressive regimes and have no alternative but to engage in guerrilla or military actions

and so on. You want those people excluded from the definition of “terrorist activity”. How do you tell who's who, especially from this side of the water?

Secondly, this whole thing is going to be a very slippery slope—and I'll use the example of my own riding, in which I have quite a number of Sri Lankans. If the Tamil Tigers, for instance, are considered to be a terrorist group, then a certain section of my constituency would be very happy. The other section of the constituency would be very unhappy. So I'm wondering how, in practical terms, this is actually going to work in terms of somehow excluding certain groups that engage in these kinds of activities.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Let me use the best example that exists. If you were to look at the United States before it became a country independent from Britain, most of the activities that brought the United States into being as an independent country would be considered terrorist activities as we know them today. So let's be very candid here.

In the context of liberation movements around the world right now, Burma is a good example. I don't think anybody would disagree that the Burmese military junta is not a legitimate regime, and I would not characterize the people who are engaged in activity to dislodge that government from oppressing the people in that country as terrorists. But this is a very subjective process. I have my opinion, you have yours, the country has one, and the international community has one.

In the context of the 21st century, we need to recognize that many people around the world are still living under very oppressive regimes, and they engage in activity to try and make changes. We are about to honour the President of South Africa with an honorary Canadian citizenship. He would have been characterized—and was characterized—as a terrorist. We're now going to let him into our country and we're going to give him Canadian citizenship.

So I'm saying we need to be very candid in regard to the challenges that we face. At the same time, we don't need be so draconian in terms of the measures that we are going to enact and that are going to make terrorists out of many of the people around the world who are still struggling to bring democracy to their respective countries because their respective governments have now decided this is a clever way of ensuring these individuals are put in jail and their activities are suppressed.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. McKay, Mr. Yussuff.

• 1730

I want to commend the panellists for their patience with us and with the time constraints that are on the committee. I have to say I have been very impressed with the coherence of the interventions. They have certainly given me a lot to think about, and I'm sure it's the same for all the members of the committee. I really want to commend you on a job very well done this afternoon. Thank you very much.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]