2008-04-18

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday during members' statements, I spoke without thinking when I described the government's unfair assessment of the actions of the Bloc Québécois regarding justice matters. I used some language that was quite likely unparliamentary. 
Members know that I am committed to this institution and to decorum. I apologize and I withdraw my remarks.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his apology.
Criminal Code[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 17 consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions). This bill raises some very important issues and fundamental questions about our justice system and our respect for civil liberties and human rights. I believe that this legislation compromises key principles of our justice system.
I want to begin with a quotation cited by Yusra Siddiquee, a representative of the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, when he appeared before the Senate committee studying this bill. He quoted Justice Binnie of the Supreme Court of Canada, who said:
 The danger in the “war on terrorism” lies not only in the actual damage the terrorists can do to us but what we can do to our own legal and political institutions by way of shock, anger, anticipation, opportunism or overreaction. 
It is important to keep this in mind. We have to remember that these provisions and ones similar to them in many other countries grew out of the period immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, a period when all of us were concerned for our security and anxious and fearful.
There are two major provisions in the bill before us, one for investigative hearings and the other for preventive detention. These were part of the Anti-terrorism Act that was passed in the period immediately following September 11, 2001. In that original legislation, these particular provisions sunsetted after five years.
Under the terms of the sunset clause, the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act relating to investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions were set to expire on March 1, 2007 unless extended by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. A government motion to extend the measures without amendment for three years was defeated in the House of Commons on February 27, 2007 by a vote of 159 to 124, and the provisions ceased to have any force or effect. 
That was the right decision. I am glad that the House took that decision. Now the government has reintroduced these provisions in this new legislation and that is the wrong decision. Both of these measures fundamentally compromise key principles of our justice system. 
Let us consider first the provisions for investigative hearings. These provisions force someone to testify before a judge if he or she is suspected of having information about terrorist activity that has already occurred or that might occur. This provision directly compromises the right to remain silent, one of those fundamental principles of our justice system. 
The refusal to testify at an investigative hearing can lead to one year of jail time. This can also reduce the right to silence for persons who are questioned by the RCMP or CSIS, in that if they are uncooperative with a police investigation, the possibility of having to go to an investigative hearing can be used to compel cooperation and compromise their right to remain silent.
Not everyone who chooses to remain silent is guilty. People may have very legitimate fears and concerns, such as fears and concerns about their own personal safety, for instance. Given the broad definition of terrorism in the Anti-terrorism Act, this provision is a problem, and the definition has come in for criticism over the years as well.
Many members who support this bill have said in debate that these are extraordinary measures that will be used in only the most serious of circumstances. I appreciate what RCMP Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell said before the Senate committee. He stated:
 First, and most importantly, the RCMP recognizes that these provisions were intended for extraordinary situations and, as such, we approach them with restraint. 
My preference would be to not go down that road until it is proven clearly that the measures already at our disposal are not effective in dealing with the challenges of terrorism faced in our country. Those good intentions are noble, and I believe the commitment made by the assistant commissioner is sincere, but as the expression goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 
These provisions represent a very serious departure and in reality could be used against people who are legitimately protesting or are viewed as dissidents by our society. They could be used to harass or even imprison such people.
This provision also puts a judge in the position of having to oversee an investigation. This is not the practice of our justice system and is not something that most judges have any experience with. This is a major departure, since investigations in our system are undertaken by police authorities.
Jason Gratl, the president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, put the concern this way:
 The primary difficulty with investigative hearings is that they distort the functions of the judiciary and the Crown. In essence, the course of order-making power of the judiciary is brought to bear on an investigation. That power places prosecutors in the role of investigators, which is unlike their usual role. It also places the judiciary in the position of presiding over a criminal investigation. 
The other provision, preventive detention or recognizance with conditions, is the other key part of this bill. Again, this compromises a key principle of our justice system: that one should be charged, convicted and sentenced in order to be jailed.
 This provision would allow the arrest and detention of people without ever proving any allegation against them. It could make people subject to conditions on release, with severe limitations on their personal freedom, and again, even if they have never been convicted of any crime.
Jailing people because we think they might do something criminal is very problematic, to say the very least, and it is easily apparent how such a measure can be easily abused. It is very similar to the provisions of the security certificate legislation in our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Under that legislation, five men remain either in jail or subject to incredibly strict release conditions, house arrest conditions, even though they have never been convicted of any crime in Canada.
Hassan Almrei remains in jail at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, a double maximum security prison. He has been there for almost seven years now, ever since just immediately after September 11, even though he has never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime.
Adil Charkaoui, Mohamed Harkat, Mahmoud Jaballah and Mohammad Mahjoub are prisoners in their own homes, guarded by their spouses and others. These situations are very unjust. It is wrong for this to be included in the immigration legislation. It is wrong to include this same kind of measure in our anti-terrorism legislation.
These measures open very serious files on individuals, files alleging that they have some connection to terrorism. These files are opened on people who have never been convicted of any crime. They can be based on allegations that have never been proven. How do they defend themselves in such circumstances?
In this corner of the House, we believe that the Criminal Code is the best way to deal with issues of terrorism. The NDP justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, in his minority report on the Anti-terrorism Act review, said the following:
 There is no act of terrorism that is not already a criminal offence punishable by the most stringent penalties under the Criminal Code. This is obviously the case for premeditated, cold-blooded murders; however, it is also true of the destruction of major infrastructures. 
 Moreover, when judges exercise their discretion during sentencing, they will consider the terrorist motive as an aggravating factor. They will find that the potential for rehabilitation is very low, that the risk of recidivism is very high and that deterrence and denunciation are grounds for stiffer sentencing. This is what they have always done in the past and there is no reason to think they will do differently in the future. 
I can think of no offence related to terrorism that is not already included in the Criminal Code. I can think of no circumstance of a crime committed as part of an act of terrorism that would not be dealt with in the strictest, toughest way by our courts.
 For instance, counselling to commit murder is already an offence under the Criminal Code. Being party to an offence is also a crime. 
The crime of conspiracy is well established under the Criminal Code and deals with the planning of criminal activity. Let us be clear. In the conspiracy category, no crime actually has to be committed for someone to be found guilty of conspiracy under the Criminal Code. 
We also have hate crime legislation that outlaws the promotion of hatred against a particular group. 
It should also be noted that peace bond provisions already exist in the Criminal Code and can be exercised when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person's life or well-being is threatened by another person. This provision has similar power to preventive detention, but more significant safeguards are built into the Criminal Code provision. No one has demonstrated to my satisfaction that this existing provision will not meet the needs of dealing with terrorist activity. 
As Denis Barrette, spokesperson for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and la Ligue des droits et libertes has said:
 —Canadians would be better served and better protected if the authorities rely on the standard provisions of the Criminal Code. The use of arbitrary powers and the lowering of the standard of proof are no substitute for police work carried out in compliance with the rules. Indeed, these powers open the door to miscarriage of justice and the significant likelihood of damaging the reputation of individual citizens... 
If our police and intelligence authorities do not have the resources they need to investigate potential terrorist acts and to charge those responsible, then we should review their needs immediately. 
We cannot consider the bill without considering the question of racial and religious profiling. Racial and religious profiling is a problem in terrorism related investigations and prosecutions. It is a reality for many Canadians, especially those in the Arab and Muslim communities, but also to other people in other racial minority groups.
The provisions of Bill S-3 do nothing to reduce such concerns or to protect Canadian citizens from such profiling. We have to struggle with the experience of Arab and Muslim communities in Canada in the post-September 11 period.
Imam Zijad Delic, the national executive director of the Canadian Islamic Congress, and formerly the Iman of the mosque in my community, brought some of the concerns of Canadian Muslims before the Senate committee. He noted their position that the Criminal Code could deal fully with terrorism-related crimes and that it best balanced security with human rights. He also noted that ensuring all Canadians participated fully in our society without having to be regarded with suspicion was very important. He said:
 Education, engagement, participation and institutional integration through inclusion are far better alternatives....moving forward with good faith will create the atmosphere of trust, cooperation and engagement we need to make progress. 
He also made a very direct plea at the committee when he said:
 On policies and practices, profiling Canadian Muslims is an issue on which the Government of Canada and Canadian Muslims differ significantly. Muslims cannot accept that we are profiled as a security threat to our own country. If government policy is not engaged in profiling, its actual operational practices speak differently, as evidenced by many cases in Canada. Please do not give our law-and-order people more power without appropriate accountability....Canada does not need laws that will prevent its citizens from feeling accepted, embraced, safe and secure. Canada needs to rethink its approach toward this bill and to focus on bridge-building between government and the many communities and groups that make us the unique mosaic we are. 
There is an important message in his statement. We must pay clear attention to the effect that legislation like Bill S-3 and its extraordinary provisions have in our communities, the effect that it will have on some law-abiding, honourable Canadians. If the legislation increases their insecurity, if it does not promote their safety, how can we believe that somehow it adds to the overall protection of Canadian society?
J.S. Woodsworth, the first leader of the CCF, once said, “What we desire for ourselves we wish for all”. We would be well advised to struggle with the meaning of that in the context of developing anti-terrorism and security measures that are experienced positively by all those Canadians who seek peace and justice, respect the law, promote values of equality and oppose terrorism.
I should point out that the NDP has a proposal to address racial and religious profiling in Canada in Bill C-493, which I tabled in the House. The original version of this bill was tabled by the member for Vancouver East and after consultations with members of the Arab, Muslim, black, aboriginal and South Asian communities, it was revised and re-tabled as Bill C-493.
That bill states that enforcement officers from the RCMP, Canada Customs, Canada Revenue Agency, the immigration department, Canada Border Security Agency, those operating under the Aeronautics Act or CSIS must not engage in racial or religious profiling. Those agencies must collect data to ensure this practice is not engaged and must put in place explicit policies and procedures to prevent it and to respond to complaints. They must also undertake an analysis of racism and how it functions in the context of the particular agency.
Racial and religious profiling is hugely detrimental to the stability and success of Canadian society. It must not be tolerated in any form. We must be explicit in our condemnation of it and ensure it is prohibited in law.
Denis Barrette also stated at the Senate hearings on Bill S-3:
 These laws are used in emergencies, where fear and panic are at the forefront—somewhat like what happened at the time of September 11, 2001. 
 Fear is never a good adviser. It is rather in moments of peace and quiet that the importance of preserving rights and freedoms should be rationally assessed. It is obviously important to defend them in difficult times, but we must plan for how to protect them in difficult times. 
 It is easy to protect rights and freedoms in peaceful times. We must provide for the unpredictable and ensure that, in a moment of panic, legislation does not result in innocent victims because it was poorly conceived or because it was dangerous or useless. 
I say clearly that I am opposed to Bill S-3 and the revisions it makes to the Anti-Terrorism Act, to reintroduce investigative hearings and preventive detention. We should instead let the Criminal Code of Canada do the job, a job it is fully capable of doing. We must also ensure that our police and intelligence authorities have the resources they need to carry out their investigations effectively and with respect for all Canadian citizens for human rights and for civil liberties.
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague across the way.
What happens when an individual is a suspect and then ends up being found not guilty? What happens then? Does the bill provide for any compensation or anything else? What happens to that person who was labelled and whose reputation was tarnished by accusations that turned out to be untrue?
Could the member tell me, and everyone listening today, whether there are any provisions in this bill that provide something for those individuals who were suspected and turned out to be innocent?
[Interjection]
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the legislation provides anything in that regard, and this is a serious problem. The legislation opens the door to people being subjected to extreme penalties, like detention, like having severe limitations put on their everyday activities, based on allegations that have never been proven in a court of law. That is one of the most unjust things a society can do to anyone.
The fact one can have allegations that are never tested by our rules of evidence, that are never tested in a court of law and that this can determine whether a person is free to move in society is extremely unjust.
Yesterday during the debate, we heard one member talk about his experience in a standing committee. I believe a representative of CSIS brought in an example of the kinds of dossiers it had on some people who were of concern to it. The member described this as being a very significant document, which outlined many very serious concerns. He said that he found it very disturbing.
He said that he put a question to a representative from the Civil Liberties Organization. He asked if the person wanted to live next door to a person like that. He said that the answer was no, that the person did not want to next door. I would have to look at the context of that discussion and question.
 However, if I were to answer that question, I would consider the document provided to be a large dossier of allegations and until the day it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, that person deserved to live in my neighbourhood, or anybody else's neighbourhood. When we begin to make judgments about our fellow citizens, based on unproven allegations, we have gone down a very slippery slope to a place where I think most Canadians would have very serious concerns about human rights and civil liberties in our country.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Burnaby—Douglas on his speech. I know that he is a parliamentarian who always prepares his speeches carefully.
This bill raises a number of concerns. In fact, it is giving grey hair to all the parliamentarians in this House who are concerned about human rights. 
We are discussing provisions that the House did not vote for and that someone is trying to bring back to life. I would like our colleague to tell us how many objectionable provisions there are in this bill in terms of the major constitutional guarantees provided by the charter, for example, the presumption of innocence and the right to remain silent.
[Interjection]
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, the member for Hochelaga is absolutely correct. Those of us who are concerned about civil liberties and human rights in Canada are very concerned about the legislation, and it causes significant worries for us. We have to be very clear.
 The House did something proper, at the time the provisions were about to be sunsetted, in voting down an extension of these provisions. It is very clear that there has been no demonstrated need for them in Canada. We have good Criminal Code legislation that makes it very clear. Any of kinds of criminal activity associated with terrorism are of the most serious kinds of crime and they have some of the harshest penalties associated with them. The Criminal Code provides for processes of long-standing that balance the need to protect individual freedoms and the security and the needs of the state. There have been many years, centuries even, of jurisprudence to get us to that point in Canada, where we have a system that balances those concerns. It is very important we show respect for that system.
I am not convinced extraordinary measures have been necessary. In fact, they have never been used when they existed in that five-year period. It does not seem they have been part of what has been necessary to protect us in the circumstances that exist in the world today. We have to be vigilant about these kinds of provisions that would take us to a different place, that would suspend some of the basic rights that we have.
I think if we told many Canadians that we currently had someone in jail in Canada for seven years who had never been charged or convicted of a crime, they would find it unbelievable and shocking and would want to know how that was possible in Canadian society. However, we already have this with the security certificate legislation and with the situation of Mr. Almrei, who is in the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. This is a very draconian legislation and is currently being used in Canada. 
Despite assurances that extraordinary measures are not to be used or are only to be used in very extreme or difficult circumstances, here we have someone who has been detained for that period of time without any possibility of being released. It looks very bleak in that sense right now, given the extension of the legislation.
We have to be very vigilant about our commitment to human rights and civil liberties, to the principles of the charter and to ensure we judge this legislation in that light before it comes to a vote in the House of Commons.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the speaker is raising unnecessary concerns that these provisions will somehow be abused. In fact, there are many safeguards with respect to the recognizance conditions.
First, I should point out that the consent of the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general or solicitor general for the province has to be obtained.
Second, it is only if the person refuses to enter into the recognizance that her or she can be incarcerated, and that is an important point. Also, the person who enters that recognizance has the right to apply to change or to vary the conditions under the recognizance order.
 It seems to me that many of the concerns he has raised are unnecessarily raising fear among Canadians that this will somehow be abuse.
 Would he respond to those comments?
[Interjection]
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, why would we put someone in jail who has never been convicted of a crime in Canada, which is what this provision would do? Why would we put extreme limitations on people's personal freedoms when it has never been proven that they have committed a crime or posed any threat to Canadian society?
The problem with the legislation is that it takes those kinds of cases out of our usual justice system and makes an exception. It basically says that allegations have been made against a person, even though nothing has been proven in a court of law that the person has actually done anything, and we need to restrict the person's freedom in order to protect society. 
We already have the possibility of doing that under the Criminal Code. Conspiracy is a crime under the Criminal Code, as is plotting a criminal activity. We should use those provisions and subject the person to the rigours of the Criminal Code, and the state to the rigours of the Criminal Code in those instances as well.
I see no excuse for short-circuiting that process. No one has been able to show that this has been necessary in the five years since September 11. We have charged people with offences related to alleged terrorist activity but we did not use these kinds of provisions to do that.
I think it is very dangerous to have this kind of extraordinary sweeping provision on the books when we already have legislation in the Criminal Code that can deal effectively with any situation that might arise and also balances the need for security and respect for human rights and civil liberties in Canada.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to mention that yesterday marked the departure of the head of parliamentary interpretation, Monique Perrin D'Arloz, who worked at the House of Commons for 35 years. On behalf of all parliamentarians, I want to thank her for being our voice. I attended the reception in honour of her departure. I thank her for being so dedicated to all the members of this House. 
It is rather troubling to talk about Bill S-3. To understand this bill, you have to start with the 2001 terrorist attacks, which showed us that there was a connection between civil societies and terrorism. There were many expressions of solidarity from Canada. In his memoirs, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien talks at great length about the close historical relationship between Canada and the United States. President Kennedy once told John Diefenbaker, “Geography made us neighbours. History made us friends.” We have a special relationship with the United States that sometimes has advantages and sometimes disadvantages.
All Quebeckers and Canadians were shocked and saddened to see the twin towers collapse, because they felt for the people involved.
Nevertheless, a few months later, Anne McLellan, who would become the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, but was then the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, acted with some haste. Certainly, those were troubling times. No one in this House wants to minimize the events of September 2001.
But now we have had time to look back on things. The Anti-terrorism Act that was introduced was studied, clause by clause, by a special legislative committee. If I remember correctly, our colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and the current defence critic, the member for Saint-Jean, represented the Bloc Québécois on that committee.
There was a certain collective anxiety and very strong pressure from the Americans, who had passed the Patriot Act. I do not want to talk about that American legislation, which goes much further than the Canadian legislation, but there was a sort of collective psychosis that may have led us to ignore human rights and major civil liberties a little too easily.
That does not mean the Bloc Québécois is minimizing the risk terrorism presents to society. The Bloc Québécois has long been interested in the entire issue of organized crime. An entire generation representing this House followed the work of CIOC. I was eight when the work of CIOC began, but others will remember quite clearly the tainted meat scandal. Many Quebeckers followed the CIOC proceedings. This was an opportunity to see that organized crime was not just a theory, but that it had taken root in the community. 
Then there was a period of calm. In the 1990s, unfortunately, organized crime began to run rampant again, especially in large cities like Montreal. There was a fierce battle over the drug market. In my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, this battle resulted in the car bomb attack that took the life of young Daniel Desrochers on August 9, 1995. This led us, and all parliamentarians in this House, to wonder how effective the measures in the Criminal Code were for dismantling major organized crime networks.
Today we are going a little further: we have to deal with terrorism.
Terrorism, in its contemporary form, attacks civil society through what are called undifferentiated attacks. It can be bombs in a subway, where groups, not individuals, are the target. When public buildings are attacked, no one in particular is targeted. Civil society is under threat. It is more serious and more difficult for law enforcement agencies to foil, investigate and dismantle terrorist networks that have a much broader scope than organized crime ever did.
I recently read a piece by Charles-Philippe David, the brother of the leader of Québec solidaire. He wrote that the driving force behind terrorism in the 21st century has largely, but not exclusively, been based on religious considerations. No country is safe from terrorism, but some countries are targeted more than others. In political science and history classes, we learned that the United States was the world's police officer. Their interventionist international policy obviously makes them a bigger target.
I do not want to leave out an important component of the historical background. Shortly after 2001, the Liberals introduced a bill that the Bloc Québécois did not support. There was a lot of pressure at that point in time. The Bloc Québécois did not support the bill because we questioned how effective it would be. We did not want to downplay the potential for a terrorist attack. We knew that it was a real possibility, and we wanted emergency measures and plans to be in place. I know that the civil protection people were working on this. However, we did not believe that the measures proposed at that time were the right ones.
For example, there was the possibility that people might be arrested without charges. And that goes against a fundamental principle of our justice system. When we want to bring people before the courts, we have a constitutional obligation to present evidence in order to charge them. If it is a serious matter, we proceed by way of indictment so that we can bring the entire justice system into play, with a defence lawyer and a crown prosecutor. We present the evidence. If it is a very serious matter, we proceed with a jury, and a trial will follow.
Former minister McLellan's bill twisted the administration of justice in two ways. When Anne McLellan's bill was introduced in the House, it contained a sunset clause. At the time, we were told that the provisions of the act would expire after a certain period of time, following which a parliamentary committee would study them and we, as parliamentarians, would decide whether it was appropriate to extend them. I would point out that the House did not consider it appropriate to extend provisions in the Criminal Code concerning sections 83.28, 83.29 and 83.3. Accordingly, we voted against it, and most members of the House decided to allow the provisions to expire. The feeling was unanimous among members of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. If I remember correctly, the Liberals were divided and the government was unanimous.
What are we concerned about? First, we are concerned about the so-called investigative hearings. This is all based on allegations. No charges have been laid, nobody has been convicted; nobody has even been put on trial. The government is getting ahead of the justice system and once again, it wants us to support sections 83.28 and 83.29 of the Criminal Code. These are what they call investigative hearings.
Let me explain because this is somewhat technical and I would like our fellow citizens to understand what it is all about. A peace officer—a police officer to put it simply—may make an application to a provincial court judge—in Quebec, warrants are issued by provincial court judges—or a superior court judge with the prior consent of the Attorney General. It is correct to say, as our friend did earlier, that the consent of the Attorney General is required for an order for the gathering of information to be issued.
A peace officer or his agent may go before a superior court judge or a provincial court judge and explain that he would like to gather more information on a given individual because he has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual in question may have terrorist connections.
I remind the hon. members that we are talking about information in a context where no charges have been laid and no trial held, and that such an approach is totally arbitrary. The individual is required to appear before a judge. Hopefully, he or she will be notified in writing. The individual would be ordered, for example, to report to the Montreal courthouse next Tuesday, at 10 a.m., for an examination and to face justice. We are talking about an examination before a judge, where the individual will be required to answer questions. He or she may not refuse to answer. 
In addition, the general principle whereby one has the right not to incriminate oneself does not apply under sections 83.28 and 83.29. The only exception, of course, is a person who has privileged information, for instance someone working for Criminal Intelligence Service Canada. These people are never required to disclose privileged information, the same way that police officers are never required to divulge their sources. 
So, the examination is held before a judge, and the individual is required to answer the questions. Naturally, one might want to trivialize this. I heard earlier a government member say that the Attorney General was certainly necessary and that the person has the right to counsel. But do members not realize that we are talking about a situation where no charges have been laid against the person, yet he or she had to undergo questioning before any formal judicial process has been initiated? That is worrisome. 
I must remind the House that this is similar to what happened with security certificates. That is another issue, but it follows the same logic. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration along with the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada can sign a certificate ordering that an individual be arrested, tried and convicted, without having any access to the evidence that led to his or her arrest.
At the time, it was my colleague, Michel Bellehumeur, member for Berthier—Montcalm, who is now a member of the judiciary, given his talent and experience, who had raised this issue. When we of the Bloc Québécois said this was somehow detrimental to justice and showed a lack of respect for fundamental freedoms, at the time, the Liberals refused to accept our arguments. The case went before the Supreme Court of Canada and, in January 2006 or 2007, the whole thing was of course declared unconstitutional. The government had to go back to the drawing board and introduce another bill. But we are not satisfied with that bill, because it designates a kind of amicus curiae, a friend of the court, who would have access to the evidence. Yet that friend of the court, who would be defending the accused, cannot share the evidence with his or her client. 
Thus, we see some logic that is completely twisted and completely inexcusable with regard to some major constitutional guarantees. I would be willing to bet on this, even though I am generally quite cautious. I am not a man of great wealth, which is why I tend to be cautious. But I would be willing to bet that these provisions will find their way to the Supreme Court of Canada and that the government will lose again regarding the drafting of this bill.
It would be even more surprising given that sections 83.28 and 83.29 of the Criminal Code have never been invoked. Law enforcement organizations never used these sections once over a six or seven year period, that is from the time they were passed until the day of the failed vote to extend the sunset clause.
Why? Because there are other provisions already in the Criminal Code. As we learned in our law courses, pursuant to section 495 of the Criminal Code, a peace officer may arrest an individual and bring him before a justice of the peace if there are reasonable grounds to do so. Naturally, there must be some basis for this action. In fact, anyone can do this. For example, if I have reason to believe that my neighbour will rob a bank, I can go before a judge and lay the information. This person may be summoned to appear and may have to enter into a peace bond.
Naturally, these provisions apply to the issue of terrorist networks. We could not understand why we needed a new law when such provisions were already in place.
As for investigative hearings, they provide a means of obtaining information about individuals who have not even been charged. They may be brought before a judge and undergo an actual examination, even though they may have legal representation, without ever having been charged.
The second clause of Bill S-3, which seeks to bring back the two clauses which expired after the vote in the House, pertains to section 83.3 of the Criminal Code, which deals with recognizance and preventive arrest and detention.
The scenario is as follows. Again with the consent of the Attorney General, who is generally the Minister of Justice, a peace officer who believes that a terrorist act will be committed can require that a person sign a recognizance with conditions or ask that the person be arrested, if necessary, to prevent a terrorist act from being committed. This peace officer will lay an information before a provincial court judge. The judge will order the person to appear if the judge is convinced that this is necessary. According to the bill, the person will have 24 hours after the information is laid to appear. A show-cause hearing will then be held to determine whether or not the person should be arrested or whether conditions should be imposed on the person. Generally, these conditions pertain to the person's movements and contacts with certain people.
In short, the difference is that this person can be formally arrested.
It is true that the Criminal Code already contains section 810, which, if memory serves, was adopted when we studied the first anti-gang bill. The Bloc Québécois won that battle, which resulted in an anti-gang law. I clearly remember that at the time, senior officials wanted to bring down organized crime using the conspiracy provisions. They had a hard time understanding that we were facing a new situation where people were very well organized into networks and formed a veritable industry that terrorized big cities like Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto.
Consequently, there are already provisions whereby individuals can be required, preventively, to keep the peace or not have contact with certain people. For example, in cases of sexual assault, the person must not be allowed to have contact with victims. Here, though, we have a situation where people can be arrested preventively, without being charged or tried.
Clearly, this bill is rather disturbing. I do not believe that the Bloc Québécois can support this bill, and we invite all members to reject it.
 I will close by saying, once again, that the Criminal Code contains everything needed to intervene; we do not need these provisions.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the Bloc for his intervention.
The concerns that we have had on this side have been about due process. We have heard from the government and others regarding due process, suggesting that all is well and that the Conservatives have the right balance somehow. They have taken a piece of legislation, which they believe was riddled with problems, but nonetheless, enough was done to repair the concerns.
I am particularly concerned about due process, the provision of evidence and what happens when someone does give a statement and what happens to that. 
I would like the hon. member's take on the concerns he might have as a member of Parliament, as a legislator. Does he believe that the balance is right? We have certainly heard from his speech the concerns he has, but could he elaborate on that, particularly concerning evidence and due process?
[Interjection]
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, we do not believe this bill is balanced. First, as we have said, there are at least two constitutionally recognized rights being ignored in this bill, namely the right to remain silent and the right not to self-incriminate. When we start talking about preventive arrests, there is little room for those rights to be respected. 
We also do not understand why these provisions are needed when sections 495 and 810 of the Criminal Code already include everything we need to lay charges when necessary.
This is not a balanced bill. It only addresses the allegation stage. There is no room for proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, which is generally the threshold in criminal law. There is reason to be worried about the potential adoption of these provisions.
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague and I am very proud that he is taking an interest and trying to uphold the rights we have acquired over the years.
I know that my colleague is very young, so he likely does not remember that an entire society, Quebec's francophone society, was put on trial in October 1970. I was 20 years old, six and a half months pregnant, and I was a victim of and witness to the war measures unjustifiably instituted simply because a few people had misstepped and committed crimes. But an entire society was put on trial and things went too far. Hundreds of people were unjustly accused, without even being told what they were accused of.
This experience traumatized me for a long time. Now, when I hear about provisions that could infringe on rights and muzzle me, I have to question whether they are appropriate or legitimate. I wonder if my colleague thinks the government wants to include these provisions in the bill so that it can move forward with its right-wing agenda, its right-wing ideology.
[Interjection]
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. It is true that I was eight years old in 1970. I vaguely remember it. We can remember certain things, even from when we were eight. My parents also told me about the tanks on the streets of Montreal at that time. And they certainly remember the artists, the people who were targeted for arrest. 
Imagine that in 1970 we suspended habeas corpus, a provision of the law whereby people cannot be arrested without a warrant. The Charter did not exist then; there was only the Canadian Bill of Rights. As for all of the abuses described by my colleague, which were traumatic for both individuals and society, we were not protected because there were not enough legal rights. 
Even though there are charters in Quebec City and Ottawa, they still want to regress in terms of ensuring human rights. My colleague is right in making this comparison, and yes, we should be worried.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud my colleague's eloquence. As a new member elected in 2006, I have looked to him as a model. I am inspired by his very clear way of explaining the issues surrounding such an important bill—a bill the Bloc Québécois will not support.
I am not an expert in legal matters, but what I would like to understand is, does this bill include a section or a clause that explains what happens to the individual, the man or woman, who is under suspicion, is taken in for questioning and who is thereafter stigmatized and labelled and suffers the consequences because the community knows about it, even though the suspicions or allegations against that person turn out to be unfounded? What does this bill say about that? I would like my colleague to explain that. What is there in this bill for an individual who was under suspicion and turned out not to be guilty?
[Interjection]
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
In the case of preventive arrest, during the judge's questioning, an individual can find out on the basis of which allegations he or she has been brought before the judge. The member is right: this bill, combined with what we know about the security certificate process, means that individuals will not have access to the evidence or to the normal process that is supposed to be followed for a trial. The only way for an individual to find out what he or she is accused of is through questioning, through interaction with the judge who questions him or her. 

Statements By Members
Amateur SportsMr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is that time of year when Canadians are enjoying the excitement of the NHL playoffs.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House a local hockey organization that is working to provide amateur athletic sports programs to persons with developmental disabilities.
The Cambridge Ice Hounds began in September 2006 and has grown to over 35 participants, making Cambridge the centre of one of the most successful special hockey programs in the province. 
As well, congratulations go to the Galt Minor Hockey School for celebrating its 40th year of operation. Believed to be one of the oldest in Canada, it started in 1967 with an enrolment of 40 kids and has since grown to over 12,000 registrations.
Finally, congratulations to our local athletes of the year at their respective universities: Anthony Maggiacomo, Wilfrid Laurier; Carly Cermak, McMaster; and Lindsay Carson, University of Guelph.
Congratulations, Cambridge. Go, team.
Peace it TogetherHon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House a non-government organization in my riding which, though small, does great work.
Peace it Together, as the organization is called, is run by an Israeli and a Palestinian. It began in 2004 as a summer camp, but its success is such that it now functions all year long bringing together Israeli, Palestinian and Canadian youth in a safe environment in B.C.
The youth interact, build bridges of understanding and learn the skills of conflict resolution. They confront the difficult problems they face back home in the Middle East as they forge common bonds and goals. The Canadian youth act as a buffer and they learn about the reality of hate and the solution of negotiation. The youth use film, multimedia and dialogue as their tools.
This group has no government funding. The group needs it urgently because there is a huge demand to expand the program. We all know that the youth of today can be the peacemakers of tomorrow given the right help, yet the government has refused to meet with this group. What a shame.
Robbert FortinMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were saddened to learn of the passing of poet Robbert Fortin on April 14, 2008.
This great Quebecker, poet, painter and engraver had a magnificent career—especially as a poet—which saw him earn the grand prize at the Salon du livre de Toronto in 1996 for his book Peut-il rêver celui qui s'endort dans la gueule des chiens and the award of excellence from the Société des écrivains in 1998 for his book entitled Je vais à la convocation, à ma naissance. In 2006, he published his tenth collection, Les dés du chagrin.
He was a member of the Union des écrivaines et écrivains québécois and senior editor, with the publishing house Éditions de l’Hexagone, of the poetry collection L'appel des mots, dedicated primarily to Quebec poetry.
On behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I would like to extend deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of this great poet, Robbert Fortin.
Foreign TakeoversMs. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since 1985, more than 12,000 Canadian firms, or the equivalent of over half our manufacturing sector, have become foreign owned. In Hamilton, steel giants Stelco and Dofasco were sold off, as were other Canadian icons, like Molson, Labatt and the Montreal Canadiens. When ownership leaves Canadian hands, jobs often follow.
But last week, we found out that it is possible to stand up for Canadian interests and stop these takeovers. We almost lost cutting edge space technology that was designed to protect our Arctic sovereignty and monitor climate change because the previous Liberal government privatized it, but pressure from NDP MPs and average Canadians blocked the corporate buyout that would have handed vital Canadian space technology to a U.S. weapons contractor.
The industry minister rejected the deal for not providing a net benefit to Canada. Unfortunately, this is the exception, not the rule. Since 1985, not a single foreign takeover had been rejected and 87% had been approved without even being reviewed.
It is time for real leadership. The minister has announced that he will consider a new national security test for takeovers, but why can he not enforce an economic security test as well? He owes it to hard-working Canadians to ensure that decent paying jobs are not put in jeopardy by foreign takeovers.
Prostate CancerMr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, governments can and should do more to fight prostate cancer, which is the most common cancer among Canadian men.
According to the Canadian Cancer Society, this year it is estimated that almost 25,000 Canadian men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer and 4,300 men will die of it. On average, 475 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer every week. On average, 83 men die of prostate cancer every week. That is 11 men a day.
The Motorcycle Ride for Dad is Canada's biggest annual motorcycle event dedicated to fighting prostate cancer through research, education and awareness. In 19 cities across the country, from St. John's to Vancouver and all points in between, Canadians on motorbikes will raise money and awareness to help fight this terrible disease.
I encourage anyone who can to visit www.motorcycleridefordad.org and join me on this ride.
On behalf of Parliament, I want to thank all the volunteers, the donors and sponsors for making this event the incredible success it has become. We hope that 2008's ride will be the best yet.
Lucien and Adrien BosséMr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that people have the good fortune to celebrate their 80th birthday together. But twins Lucien and Adrien Bossé from Saint-François-de-Madawaska, born April 12, 1928, are doing just that. 
They each have their own way of sharing their memories. They both like to say that since they were identical twins, they confused more than one person. They would change places to fool their teacher and had fun playing tricks on people.
The twins grew up and took different paths, but always remained close. Lucien had many careers. He worked in construction, for example, at Nadeau &amp; Nadeau and as a cabinetmaker. He also enjoys doing volunteer work in his community. As for Adrien, he enjoyed a long career as a barber and later worked for Nadeau &amp; Nadeau. He is also involved in various activities in his community.
On this unique and joyous occasion, the citizens of Madawaska—Restigouche join with me in wishing both Lucien and Adrien Bossé a very happy 80th birthday.
PhilippinesMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Philippines faces serious human rights challenges, notably the ongoing extrajudicial killings and the apparent culture of impunity. Canada raised these concerns on April 11 during the Human Rights Council's universal periodic review of the Philippines.
Canada also encouraged the Philippines to ensure that its security forces are aware of human rights and their responsibility to protect human rights defenders.
Canada is encouraged that the Philippines has expressed its commitment to end extrajudicial killings through undertaking initiatives such as Task Force Usig, the Melo commission, and the visit of UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston. We also commend the laudable role of the Supreme Court in the preservation of human rights and in the pursuit of justice.
We encourage the Philippines to work at implementing the recommendations and to make progress on convictions. Canada supports the Philippines in implementing measures to promote and protect the human rights of all Filipinos.
Science FairMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this year, for the fist time, a record number of students will be representing the Outaouais region at the Science Fair's national finals to be held in Montreal from April 17 to 20.
Four of the eight projects selected at the Outaouais finals were presented by students from high schools located in my riding of Gatineau: Célyanne Couture, Milène Paquin, Talia Losier, Émilie Courchesne and Émina Alic from the Polyvalente Nicolas-Gatineau, and David Gagnon from the Polyvalente Le Carrefour.
The top prize went to Émina Alic, a grade 10 student enrolled in a math and science concentration, for her science popularization project entitled “The hidden face of cosmetics” dealing with the dangers associated with these products.
It is with great pride that the Bloc Québécois joins me in congratulating everyone of these students for their drive, creativity and contribution to this major event. They own the future.
Harold BuchwaldMr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canada lost a great Canadian, Harold Buchwald. 
After completing his Masters of Law at the University of Manitoba, he went on to establish one of the pre-eminent law firms in the country. He became known in Manitoba as the “go to guy” for community organizations and often was their saviour. 
Mr. Buchwald was chair of the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra and became its director emeritus. He was director of countless community organizations, including the Jewish Foundation of Manitoba. 
He received an honorary doctorate degree from his beloved University of Manitoba and was honoured by the Hebrew University. Most recently, he was involved with the Canadian Human Rights Museum and initiatives to save the Upper Fort Garry gate. Mr. Buchwald was inducted into the Order of Canada in 1993. 
He is survived by his wife Darlene, sons Jeffrey and Richard, daughter-in-law Tracy, and grandchildren Rachael, Serena and Adam.
Whenever a musical note is heard in Manitoba or a piece of art is appreciated, a part of Harold's soul is present.
Organ and Tissue DonationMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week, which will begin April 20. Next week will help raise awareness of the vital importance of organ and tissue donations to help improve and extend the lives of so many.
I would also like to recognize my constituent, Emile Therien, for arranging a donation following the loss of his beautiful daughter, Sarah Beth.
In 2006 Sara Beth became a pioneer in Canadian organ donation. Prior to her actions, organs were not accepted from those who had died of heart related issues. Before becoming ill, Sarah Beth had signed an organ donation card and the Therien family worked with hospital staff to ensure that her generous and compassionate wish to help others was granted.
Filling out a donor registration form is not time consuming, but it can change so many lives. As medical technology increases, more transplants will become possible, but more donations are desperately needed.
I encourage all Canadians to sign their donor cards.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, leadership means that when one makes a decision, one sticks to it. Leadership means having a vision and a plan of how to get there. Leadership means recognizing the truth from fiction. These are all things that the Liberal Party is sorely lacking.
The Liberals are out of touch with the issues that matter most to Canadians. They choose to focus on scandals that do not exist, and cheap smear jobs based purely on fantasy. They just do not get it.
Thankfully, our Conservative government does get it. 
We recognize the issues that are important to regular citizens and we have taken concrete action. For example, continuing with our strengthening of justice legislation, just this past week we moved to toughen penalties for auto theft. We are making life more affordable for working families, and we are taking action to improve the health of Canadians.
While the opposition continues to demonstrate its lack of leadership, this government is getting the job done.
Special EventsPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to support the Friends of Ethiopia and join in its celebration of the Ethiopian millennium.
To mark this historic event, Friends of Ethiopia is sending some of the basic tools for self-sufficiency and independence to Ethiopia. 
I attended the launch of its first event when it approached the City of Ottawa to donate an ambulance. Soon the ambulance will be sent to Ethiopia.
I congratulate Friends of Ethiopia and its founder, Samuel Getachew. I wish the Friends of Ethiopia every success.
I wish to pay tribute as well to the Public Service Commission which is celebrating its first centenary this year. On behalf of my hon. colleagues, I extend best wishes to all of its employees who continue to help the Public Service Commission do its important work on behalf of Canadians.
I encourage everyone to visit the Library and Archives of Canada from April 29 to May 2, when the library will be hosting a special historical exhibit that highlights the Public Service Commission's achievements during the past 100 years.
Earth DayHon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while the rest of the world celebrates Earth Day on April 22, Canadians will be left to wonder why the government has abandoned Canada's role as an environmental leader. 
Earth Day 2005 was a high water mark for Canada's commitment to the environment. The leader of the official opposition was our environment minister. We announced the greenest budget in Canadian history. The world had asked Canada to chair the UN conference on climate change later that year. 
How far we have fallen in the last two years. On Earth Day 2008, we will be left with an Environment Minister who cavorts with known climate change deniers. He advises the Prime Minister, caught funding ads through the University of Calgary, claiming that global warming does not exist. 
The government's climate change plan has been denounced by every environmentalist, scientist and economist who has studied it. 
On Earth Day 2008, we will have met the government's appalling lack of action on the environment. We also know that Canada has done and can do much better. 
Olympic Hall of FameMr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 12, Danièle Sauvageau and Guillaume Leblanc were inducted into the Olympic Hall of Fame, both of whom have distinguished themselves as athletes in Quebec.
Initiated to Olympic race walking when he was merely 10 years old, Guillaume Leblanc already had the love for that sport in him. After winning a fourth place at his first Games, in 1984, he finally climbed on the second step of the podium in 1992, in Barcelona. This was the first time in 88 years that a Quebec athlete accomplished the feat of winning an Olympic medal in track and field.
In 2002, as head coach and managing director of the Canadian women's hockey team, Danièle Sauvageau led her team to victory and a gold medal at the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. Never in the history of that sport had that happened before. She has been the first female coach in Quebec's major junior hockey league and the first female hockey commentator on the CBC French network. 
On behalf of all my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, I want to congratulate today these truly exceptional Quebeckers and to thank them for the inspiring example they set.
Justice SystemHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week, the Conservatives launched their stronger justice system week. On Tuesday and Wednesday, as part of the Conservatives' justice week, the RCMP raided their party headquarters. 
The facts are clear. Elections Canada has ruled that the Conservatives broke Canada's election laws. The Conservatives have refused to cooperate fully with the Elections Canada investigation, which has led to the unprecedented RCMP raid on Conservative headquarters. 
The Ontario Supreme Court issued a search warrant authorizing that raid. Canadians deserve to know what is in that Ontario Supreme Court warrant.
 What are the Conservatives hiding? Why are the Conservatives so soft on Conservative crime?
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the Liberal Party for their continued support of our government. 
In the past several months, the Liberal Party has opposed our budgets, our tackling crime packages, our environmental plans and our immigration proposals. While the Liberals have rabidly attacked these proposals, when push comes to shove and it is time to vote their convictions, the Liberals can be seen scurrying from the House, sitting on their hands and abstaining, actually voting to support our proposals, or just not showing up. 
The Liberal leader has threatened an election monthly since becoming the leader of the party, only to retreat and retrench. 
Is it any wonder Canadians have absolutely no idea where the Liberal Party stands on any issue?
While our government continues to improve the lives of Canadians by standing up for them, the Liberal Party continues to ride the pine collecting splinters.

Oral Questions
Elections CanadaMr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fundamental issue in the Conservatives' election spending scandal is relatively simple. They exceeded legal spending limits of the national campaign by over $1 million. They violated the Canada Elections Act. They broke the law.
When will the government admit that was why there was a search warrant and why there was a police raid?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the fundamental issue at play is one of interpretation of the act. Our interpretation of the act is that it is entirely all right for Conservative candidates to talk about their national leader and their national party policies in running election campaigns.
The position of Elections Canada is that we cannot do that. That is the interpretation that is at stake and the interpretation that is at the core of the proposition that was put forward by the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
We have gone to court to fight an interpretation. Why one needs a warrant to understand how to fight an interpretation, we do not know. We have provided every--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore.
Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Speaker, this is a smokescreen.
The Federal Court made it clear two months ago that the Conservatives were the only party guilty of wrongdoing in this matter. 
The government must be aware that there are some very serious punishments which result from breaches of the Canada Elections Act. It must be aware of the possibility of jail time. It must be aware that it can even be stripped of its status as a political party.
Are those not the real reasons that it has tried so desperately to obstruct Elections Canada? The issue here is obstruction.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore came here with high heights as a man who it was thought would be a saviour and set a new standard for discourse. He talks about obstruction. There has been not one iota.
We have produced every document that Elections Canada has asked for with regard to our lawsuit initiated on this issue.
We have been quite open about it. We do not understand why that search by Elections Canada was necessary, the same way we do not understand why Conservative Party candidates are treated entirely different from Liberal Party candidates in this matter.
Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Speaker, they continue to put up a smokescreen. Yesterday, we asked the Conservatives to table the search warrant in this House but we were told that the affidavit was still sealed. The warrant and the affidavit are two different documents and they know it as well as we do. It is the warrant that is important for the time being.
Therefore, will they table the search warrant here and now in this House?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I have made the same response before.
We have not seen the affidavit, so obviously I cannot table that. A party official saw the search warrant but we are not in possession of that either, so I am in no position to table that.
Those are things the member will need to ask Elections Canada for. From the questions the Liberals have posed, they seem to know a lot more about this than we do.
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government House leader refused to confirm where the Prime Minister was the morning of the RCMP raid at Conservative Party headquarters, so we will try again.
Was the Prime Minister at Conservative Party headquarters at any time on Tuesday morning, April 15, before or during the police raid?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, talk about the absurdity of the questions put forward by the Liberal Party. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, following in the footsteps of the member for Wascana, is laying out exactly that proposition. 
The answer is no. The Prime Minister has not been to party headquarters in all of 2008. I do not believe he has been there in the past 12 months. However, that does not stop the member for Wascana from asserting it as if it were a fact. 
The problem with members of the Liberal Party is that they stand up and say things in this House that have no basis in fact, for which they have no evidence, because the only thing they can grasp onto, absent a leader and policy, is smear and pretend scandal.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, all he had to do was answer no yesterday.
Will the Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party table a copy of the search warrant in the House and agree to make public the affidavits pertaining to the warrant?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, apparently the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine did not hear my response to the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore on that issue. I would invite her to review that.
 I would also invite her to review my comments yesterday and my questions about her in and out scheme, how she accepted money from the Liberal Party of Canada, spent it in her local campaign, gave an identical, exact to the penny, amount of money back to the Liberal Party, while claiming a rebate for her riding campaign. 
That is what the Liberals say is wrong but that is what the member did. If it is okay for her, why is not okay for us? That is the core of why we took Elections Canada to court. Why is she--
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Joliette.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the facts provided by Elections Canada, the Prime Minister continues to repeat that the Conservatives' election practices are legal. That is exactly the same argument he used when Elections Canada challenged the treatment of registration fees collected at their March 2005 convention. Six months later, the Conservative Party was forced to admit that it had neglected to report several hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Chief Electoral Officer.
Rather than waiting until his back is up against the wall, will the Prime Minister just admit that, in the last election, the Conservatives broke the Elections Act, period?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we absolutely will not because we did not. We have followed the law on every aspect in this matter. We took Elections Canada to court because we think we should be treated the same as everyone else.
He mentions the convention fees issue, which is an interesting one. I was president of another party, the PC Party of Canada, back in the days when Elections Canada said that it was perfectly fine to make those registration fees fully eligible for contributions. As a result, when it changed its interpretation, somebody did not tell us. Guess what? We were the only ones it picked on.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives must stop treating Quebeckers and Canadians like fools. If the Conservative Party offices were searched, it is because they are hiding information and documents from Elections Canada. The phoney excuses we have heard all week only serve to discredit the Conservatives day by day.
Before losing their remaining shred of credibility, will they admit that they broke the law and will they table the Elections Canada and RCMP search warrant in this House?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, yet another member who has not been paying attention.
We did not break the law. We followed the law. We do not have the warrant in our possession, so we cannot be in a position to table it. We certainly, in this regard, have followed practices that every party has followed.
Our dispute is one with Elections Canada. We have produced every document Elections Canada has requested in this regard. We have not done anything the member has suggested. We have been totally forthcoming and have provided every document Elections Canada has sought. That is where we stand. We are always prepared to cooperate fully.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Leader of the Government said, and I quote, “We have offered every document to Elections Canada”. But that is impossible. There was a search, and in order for there to be a search, Elections Canada would have had to prove to a judge that it could not obtain the information without a warrant. He should stop misleading the House.
What is the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons waiting for to table the warrant in the House right now? 
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would have to wait for in order to table it would be to actually have it, so I am in no position to table it. Elections Canada would be the one to do that, and the member can go talk to it.
In terms of the question of our having to produce documents, we have produced every document sought.
Members should remember that we were the ones who initiated this case against Elections Canada. We have put the evidence on the table. We have been open every step of the way. The issue is one of interpretation. There has never been a question of availability of documents. 
The issue is a legal interpretation of the law, where it says that our candidates cannot talk about their leader and their policy. It does not make sense to us. It does not make sense why the other parties are different.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, he should stop playing games. When the law states that the content of a warrant cannot be disclosed, it is to be fair to the party named in the search warrant. Nothing is stopping the Conservatives from simply telling us what the warrant said. They must know, since the police would have had to show it to the party officials before entering the building.
Why are they not telling us what the search warrant said if they have nothing to hide?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we do not have the warrant. We have never seen the affidavit and insofar as the warrant is concerned, we understand it is about the issue that we have with Elections Canada, over which we have taken it to court. I will review for the benefit of the hon. member what that is. 
Elections Canada takes the position that Conservative Party candidates at the local level cannot advertise or promote their national leader, their national campaign policies and their national issues. We think that is absurd. We know that in the case of the Bloc Québécois, it had posters and banners all across the province in its local campaigns promoting its leader.
I can understand why perhaps the Liberal Party does not want to promote its leader in the next election. I can understand why it might not have any policies to put in its brochures, but we do and we are ready to do that in the next election, too.
Conservative Party of CanadaMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are fed up and appalled at the litany of scandals plaguing the Conservative government. None of them have been resolved. The Quebec adviser is under investigation. The Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. is under investigation. The chief of staff to the Prime Minister is under investigation. The Conservative election campaign is under investigation, complete with search warrants.
When is the government going to release the results of the five ongoing investigations into Conservative misdeeds? When is it going to release those results?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we have been quite clear on this issue. I thought it was only the Liberal Party that liked to pursue the imaginary scandals because it does not have a leader or any policies. The NDP actually has some policies. We think they are very misguided but we actually thought it had them.
I can say quite clearly, as we have in the past, that in the case of all these imaginary scandals, there really is nothing there other than a Liberal Party desperate to dredge up stuff to hide its own leadership problems and its own policy problems.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader seems to have forgotten that in the last election the Conservatives falsely promised that the years of Liberal style corruption in government would end. They promised clean, accountable government where nothing would be hidden. Well, nothing has changed. There are insulting answers in the House, obstinate ministers, RCMP raids, investigations by Elections Canada, and now we get stonewalling.
I ask again. When can we expect the release of any of the five ongoing investigations into the Conservative misdeeds? When are we going to get to the truth? When will Canadians get the truth on these investigations?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, what has happened in every case so far is that we have gotten to the point where we put the results on the table and we find out, for example, that after allegations that a cabinet minister did something inappropriate, no less than the OPP says absolutely nothing wrong was done and he is totally clear. That is what happens every single time on every single issue. 
I could go through them all, but it turns out that, guess what, there is nothing there because this is a government that is cleaner than any government before and certainly cleaner than the government that right now has the legacy of having its executive director for Quebec arrested on charges of all that money that was taken from taxpayers for the sponsorship scandal.
Elections CanadaMs. Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government House leader continues to mislead the House. The Conservative overspending scandal was not initiated by the civil court case. The Chief Electoral Officer has determined that Conservatives blew the election spending cap, tried to hide it, and then tried to hide national party advertising expenses through 66 local campaigns.
Elections Canada has confirmed that the raid was not related to the civil lawsuit. Why does the Prime Minister insist on ordering his people to mislead Canadians? What did the search warrant say?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, it relates to the exact same question. The question is how to interpret the Elections Act and whether it is appropriate and permissible for local candidates to talk about their national leader and their national policies in their campaigns. 
Apparently, it is all right for the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, and so many other Liberals, to take that kind of approach. It is all right for all the candidates for the Liberal Party, for example, in New Brunswick to do group regional advertising, pool funds and get rebates, but it is only the Conservative Party that cannot do that. That is the unfair treatment that led us to bring this matter to court.
Martha Hall Findlay: Mr. Speaker, they are not answering. We can only conclude that they have something to hide. And it starts with the Prime Minister.
What is in this search warrant that they are trying to hide from Canadians?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we have the same curiosity that the hon. member has. We have not seen the affidavit in support of the search warrant and it is indeed a puzzle because we have produced every document, in this interpretation dispute, that Elections Canada has sought. 
In fact, we find the whole investigation kind of suspicious, where it came from. But Liberal Senator Campbell said yesterday in the Senate that he knew where the investigation came from. The Liberal senator said, “We initiated the investigation; you initiated the lawsuit”. That seems awfully clear to me what he thinks about where it came from.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative spending scandal is about one thing: national party spending limits. The Conservative Party of Canada broke the law. That is what Elections Canada is investigating with police raids and search warrants. The law puts a limit on how much any party can spend in total at the national level. The Conservatives broke that law and had to find somewhere to hide the illegal spending.
Will the minister now consent to any court proceeding today or next week on unsealing the affidavit supporting the search warrant?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we share the same curiosity because, as we said, we provided every document that Elections Canada has sought with regard to our dispute on how the election spending should be interpreted, and you know what, Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada does make unduly rigid interpretations.
 I know that because the guy that the member for Wascana supported for the leadership, the member for Toronto Centre now, actually took Elections Canada to court too on an interpretation. Guess what? He won and he is $50,000 richer as a result, so is his party leader, and so is the deputy leader from Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a personal vendetta against Elections Canada. Back in 2001, he called Elections Canada officials “jackasses”, his words, not mine. Time and again Elections Canada has blown the whistle on his right-wing schemes to violate the rules that guarantee fair and honest elections in Canada. So when he came into office, he changed the people at Elections Canada. But guess what? Those new officials believe in the law. They are the ones who raided the Prime Minister's party office.
Why is the government trying to reduce Canadian election laws to tin pot standards?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, apparently, that member should look to his left, look to his right, because every single one of those frontbenchers who ran for the leadership of his party, other than him who never ran for the leadership of his party in the end, every single one of them benefited from the fact that they said Elections Canada does not know how to interpret the law. They took Elections Canada to court. I guess they do not respect that institution either. But you know what, Mr. Speaker, they won because Elections Canada makes mistakes sometimes. 
JusticeNicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed the following motion:
 That the National Assembly indicate to the Parliament of Canada that Bill C-484 should not be passed since it could give rise to significant uncertainty as regards the criminalization of abortion and the legal status of the fetus. 
Will the government join with Quebec and defeat this completely unacceptable bill?
Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we have stated many times in this House and as the Minister of Justice has stated, the government has no plan to reopen the debate on abortion.
Nicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, when will the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages have the courage to stand up and defend women? The free vote argument is not good enough. We clearly see the Conservative Party's reform agenda: to criminalize abortion through the back door, as was the case in more than 30 states in the United States. The religious right is thrilled, and so are pro-life groups.
Unless it is intending to criminalize abortion, will the government ask its members to vote against this bill, yes or no?
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the government has no plan to reopen the debate on abortion. 
While I am on my feet, I would like to ask the hon. member: When is her party going to start standing up for justice in Canada? When is her party going to stand in favour of our bill to reduce drug offences and crack down on crime, people who sell drugs to kids in schoolyards, crack down on identity theft, and crack down on auto theft? That is what Canadians are wondering.
Public SafetyRéal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, we have learned that not only was Quebec opposed to police intervention in January 2004 on Kanesatake Mohawk lands, but so was the RCMP. We now know that this federal government decision was strictly political—just one more reason for it to reimburse its share of the costs incurred as a result of this operation.
Will the federal government assume its responsibilities and reimburse the Quebec government for that operation?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government will not tolerate mismanagement of Canadian taxpayers' money. Unlike the previous Liberal government, any allegation of mismanagement is a matter that our government takes seriously. That is why we launched a forensic audit and the Minister of Public Safety expects to receive the final report in the upcoming weeks.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives can hide behind an operation undertaken by the Liberals all they want, but by refusing to reimburse the Quebec government, they are in league with the Liberals and endorsing a bad decision.
Now that they have an opportunity to act, will they correct the situation and reimburse the Quebec government?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, unlike the government under which the alleged mismanagement occurred, we will shed light on these allegations. The Minister of Public Safety does expect to receive a final report in the upcoming weeks and the minister will take an appropriate course of action once he has reviewed the independent report.
Minister of Foreign AffairsMr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is an embarrassment to Canadians. The minister has done nothing to help Brenda Martin, who is still in a Mexican prison. The minister has done nothing to ban cluster bombs. In the only matter in which the minister has decided to take action, Afghanistan, he created an international incident last week.
How can the Prime Minister still have confidence in this minister? When will he ask the minister to step down?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, the government has full confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, what I would like to ask the hon. member is: When will he ask his leader to resign because his leader is the one who said that he would invade Pakistan.
Brian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, last week the minister embarrassed Canada, just like that last response did, and put the government of Afghanistan in an impossible position. If it removes the governor of Kandahar, it looks like it is caving into NATO pressure. If he stays, its ability to combat corruption has been seriously compromised.
How many mistakes of this magnitude will it take before the incompetent Minister of Foreign Affairs is finally fired for his incompetence? How long will it take?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that Afghanistan is a sovereign state that makes its own decisions about government appointments. Why does the hon. member not ask his leader why he wanted to invade Pakistan, which is a sovereign country? Why would he want to invade it? He should go ahead and ask his leader that question.
Foreign AffairsHon. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a government member, who was once labelled a foreign political saboteur by CNN, has undermined Canada's ability to have constructive dialogue with China on human rights.
The member for Calgary West has compared the Beijing Olympics to Adolf Hitler's 1936 Berlin Games. He has even mused about an insurrection.
With his foreign affairs minister  calling for the overthrow of the governor in Kandahar and a backbencher calling for riots in Beijing, when will the Prime Minister put some diplomacy in his foreign affairs policy?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the member for Calgary West are his own views and do not reflect the views of the Government of Canada.
Canada has no plans to boycott the Beijing Olympics. However, Canada has serious concerns about human rights and we will continue the dialogue with China on that issue. 
However, let me say very clearly, the comments of the member for Calgary West were his own views and do not reflect the views of the Government of Canada.
Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, maybe it is time to build a firewall around the government caucus members. This is not the first time the member for Calgary West has helped to put this Conservative government on the world stage.
He is also infamous for calling Nobel peace prize winner Nelson Mandela a communist and a terrorist. Just recently, the foreign affairs minister has trashed the governor of Kandahar with allegations of corruption.
When will the Prime Minister rein in his foreign relations wrecking crew--
The Speaker:  The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, the foreign policy of this government is very clear. The Prime Minister has stated it on many occasions. We will stand for human rights. We will stand for the rule of law. We will stand for democracy. Those are the driving forces for the foreign policy of this country. That is what this government will run on. That is the record of this government.
JusticeMr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canada's Supreme Court rendered its decision in two cases dealing with the “two beer defence”. This defence has been used for years as a way for drunk drivers to escape responsibility for their actions. 
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice tell the House how this decision interacts with Bill C-2, our Tackling Violent Crime Act, to safeguard Canadians against those who commit serious and violent crimes?
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interest in justice issues and in making Canada a safer place for all Canadians. 
Obviously our government welcomes this decision. I am pleased to say that the portion of the Tackling Violent Crime Act dealing with impaired driving will come into force on July 2, 2008. The new law will strengthen investigation, enforcement and prosecution in cases of alcohol or drug impaired driving.
 We are taking a practical approach to criminal justice, one that is tough but fair. We are eliminating inappropriate technicalities and finally giving victims a voice.
Gasoline PricesChris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, we all know that hard-working families are paying too much at the pump. It is not complex: the big oil and gas companies are gouging. The Competition Bureau claims it cannot figure it out even after countless investigations, yet gas prices spike just before a weekend and when the weather gets nicer.
There is a fairer way: appoint an ombudsman and hand that office the power to regulate and make sure the law has teeth. When will this government stop standing up for the oil companies and start standing up for consumers?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government has been standing up for Canadians ever since we got elected.
 We have had three very successful budgets with over $200 billion in tax cuts. The GST has gone down from 7% to 5%, corporate income tax is down, and personal income tax is down. We are doing a lot for Canadians.
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that Canadians are getting hosed at the pump, but now they are getting hosed by this government. Consumers are not looking for rhetoric. They are looking for help.
 Last weekend I spoke to a hard-working Hamilton dad who was forced to pull his son from soccer because, even for one of the most affordable of sports, the out of town tournaments come with a hefty gas bill. That is not a choice any working family should have to make. 
Why will this government not show real leadership and legislate an oil and gas ombudsman?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, we have shown real leadership. We have a sports credit for parents who have their children playing sports.
Let me say that it is the height of hypocrisy for the NDP to be talking about the price of gasoline. The NDP stands for carbon taxes. It has advocated putting carbon taxes on top of our current price. If the NDP policy and the policy of the official opposition were implemented, gas would go up another 25¢.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's record of broken promises led to yesterday's launch of a second day of action by Canada's aboriginal people.
There are promises such as the one the Prime Minister made to former students of Île-à-la-Crosse, not once but twice, that they would be included in the residential schools agreement. There are promises such as the campaign commitment that the government would put the wheels back on the Kelowna Accord.
Why will the minister not live up to the promises his government has made? Or is it that the Conservatives just say anything to get a vote?
Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Labrador. In fact, I have to commend him for his recent trip to take part in the sealing industry's hunt off the east coast. I must admit it is appreciated that there are some members over there who support that industry.
In relation to comments recently made in relation to the upcoming day of protest, I note that when the national chief was before committee this week he had a lot of good things to say about our government. I look forward to addressing that in my next question.
National DefenceTodd Russell: Mr. Speaker, there are more empty promises. Let us look at the promises to Labrador, which were broken not once but twice. Where are the military commitments to 5 Wing Goose Bay? Where are the 650 troops? Where is the UAV squadron? 
Is the Conservative government going to meet even one of its commitments or, again, will it just say anything to get a vote?
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government has made more commitments to the Canadian Forces in the rebuilding of Canada's place in the world than any government in recent history, in decades.
We have set a lot of priorities. They include 5 Wing Goose Bay, as they include all parts of the Canadian Forces. In fact, our priorities are logical. They are being funded. It is going to take a long time to get over the decade of darkness, but we are doing it.
 We have priorities to set, unlike the party opposite. It had more priorities than Disney had dalmatians.
EthicsMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government believes that everyone is out to get it: Elections Canada, the Nuclear Safety Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board. There is even an audiotape of a senior Conservative admitting the party tried to bribe Chuck Cadman, so I guess the Prime Minister is out to get it too.
What did the Prime Minister mean when he said they offered to replace “financial considerations” that Chuck Cadman might lose due to an election?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, the member gets zero points for originality and 100 points for consistency. I have answered that question a number of times. 
The only offer that was made to Chuck Cadman was that of rejoining the Conservative Party, presenting himself as a candidate and getting re-elected as a Conservative member of Parliament. That was the only offer made to Chuck Cadman.
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, just to correct the parliamentary secretary, he has been asked this question over 150 times and not once has he provided an answer.
This Chuck Cadman affair has ruined the reputation of Doug Finley and ruined the reputation of Ian Brodie, and I am concerned about my friend the parliamentary secretary and how it is sacrificing his credibility in the House.
The Prime Minister is on tape. Dona Cadman is on record. Has the parliamentary secretary asked the Prime Minister directly to explain the tape?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the concern from my friend from Cape Breton. He forgets that of course Dona Cadman has said she believes the Prime Minister and has said that he is telling the truth. 
We have been clear about the only offer that was made to Chuck Cadman, which was the one that I just described. That is the simple fact of this case. 
Of course I sleep well at night knowing that I am not sacrificing myself to anything but simply the truth.
International AidClaude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, the World Bank is calling on all governments for emergency action to prevent the food crisis from plunging 100 million people in poor countries further into poverty. The president, Robert Zoellick, is calling on the international community to give the UN world food program the $500 million in emergency aid it needs by the end of the month.
Will the government follow the example of France, which has just doubled its emergency aid to poor countries, and respond to this call to support these countries in great need?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, this government is very much concerned about the crisis in food aid and the rising cost of food. In fact, the Minister of International Cooperation has just had a meeting with her counterpart in Japan about how to address this issue. However, I would like to remind the member that Canada is the second largest contributor to the World Food Bank. Our country is doing that.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, speaking of the food crisis taking hold in many countries, we were told in this House that the government planned to discuss it during major conferences to be held in the coming months.
Will the minister responsible for the Sommet de la Francophonie take the initiative and suggest putting this very important matter on the agenda for the Sommet de la Francophonie?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that this is a very important issue. It is already on the international agenda of this government. The Minister of International Cooperation talked about it in Japan with the G-8 development ministers. We will continue to work with our counterparts around the world on this crisis in food aid.
Canadian Wheat BoardHon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when asked this week about his attempt to breach the Privacy Act, the Minister of Agriculture gave a ridiculous response. The fact is that he tried to break the law twice by writing letters to the president and CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board asking for the names and addresses of and specific commercial information about individual producers.
Why did the Minister of Agriculture put in a second request to receive personal information after being warned the first time that he would be breaking the law?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Secretary of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister was clear this week. He acted within his powers. Instead of creating diversions here, the member should follow the wishes of the farmers to bring changes to the Wheat Board, as we do as government, and he should stand up in the House and vote once in a while. 
Sponsorship ProgramHarold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, today the RCMP arrested Benoît Corbeil, the former director-general of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada. He will face charges including fraud, exercise of influence, and conspiracy to defraud as a result of the investigation into the Liberal sponsorship scandal.
Canadians rejected this kind of corruption by voting in the Conservative Party in the last election. Can the government tell us what it has done to clean up this kind of corruption?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have introduced the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history. That anti-corruption law has brought in whistleblower protection, expanded access to information and banned big money from the political process.
 Now I would like to take the opportunity to invite the Liberal House leader to stand in his place and issue a formal apology to all Canadians for the massive criminal conspiracy known as the Liberal sponsorship scandal.
InfrastructureMr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, despite years of delay we are finally getting down to selecting a new border crossing in Windsor.
The government has three proposals on the table that involve crossing the Detroit River. One of those proposals will require bulldozing through a historic community called Olde Sandwich Towne, the oldest European settlement west of Montreal. Another proposal will also require bulldozing of forests next to the Spring Garden ANSI, which is of significance for the environment. 
Will the minister reject those two proposals and support a crossing that protects Sandwich Towne and the environment?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I will do no such thing. As the hon. member knows, this process has been ongoing for a number of years now. An organization has been put in place. It has looked at different alternatives. It looked at a number of options.
As we know, and I will repeat this in the House, this is the most important border crossing between Canada and the United States. This government is committed to making sure that this gateway is maintained and continues to progress.
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, it will be a cabinet decision at the end of the day and the minister has the power to do the right thing. We are calling upon him from my community to protect the children, to protect the environment and to protect Sandwich Towne, which is an area of historic significance. We do not take it lightly.
This is an opportunity to do the right thing for the community. There has been a long history of bad mistakes on the border. It is time to clean it up and do it right. This minister has to take his responsibility seriously, show some leadership and make sure we do it right this time.
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, this question from my colleague is somewhat premature. He knows full well that everything has been put in place, every action has been taken, every rule and regulation will be followed, and everybody's concerns will be met.
Official LanguagesJean-Claude D'Amours: Mr. Speaker, the merit of the court challenges program has been proven once again with Ms. Paulin's victory in the Supreme Court. The ruling acknowledges that the RCMP maintains its status as a federal institution under the Official Languages Act and must ensure bilingual services in Canada.
Why does the government refuse to recognize that the court challenges program is a useful tool in defending the rights of linguistic minorities? Why does the Conservative federal government not want to respect the will of the linguistic communities?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government strongly supports official language minority communities. We announced $30 million in funding and that hon. member and his party voted against that measure.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when I go home to my riding I hear from my local farmers that our Conservative government is delivering real results for Canadian farmers.
I hear how we listened to industry and made changes to the advance payments program. I hear how we delivered $50 million for the cull breeding swine program. I hear about how we delivered $600 million for Kickstart.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food speak to some of the other accomplishments of this Conservative government?
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, finally, I have a question from a member who really cares about agriculture.
This past week the Minister of Agriculture received a standing ovation from over 250 farmers attending a dinner in my riding. The loudest ovation of the night came when the minister talked about the real results we had achieved for supply management.
 After 13 years of nothing but talk from the Liberals and the irrelevant Bloc, our Conservative government is providing real results for our farmers. Unlike the party opposite, Canadian farmers are standing up and cheering for our actions.
The EnvironmentBill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, Oceans Day is exactly 51 days, 16 hours and 4 minutes away. The Living Oceans Society, David Suzuki Foundation and the Sierra Club have called for action on a Pacific north coast integrated management plan by that time, an ecosystem-based management plan that is sustainable, protects the environment and provides for human well-being as needed.
First nations, the province and the federal government must be directly engaged in this development. Will the government commit today to launching a formal Pacific north coast integrated management plan process by Oceans Day?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the member for his genuine concern for the environment.
We are taking real action to try to address the challenges on the west cost. One of the first announcements we made, when I became Minister of the Environment, was the investment of $30 million in the Great Bear Rainforest. It is one of the largest coastal temperate rainforests in the world, with the Haida Gwaii islands and the coast of British Columbia.
We are also working to stop the dumping of raw sewage in the Pacific Ocean in Victoria. This is something that has been endorsed by the former Liberal environment minister, who now sits within the Liberal caucus, and the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
 Days of dumping raw sewage in the Pacific Ocean are over under this government.
Tourism IndustryHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the snow is melting across Canada and the tourism season is upon us, one thing we do not see is real action by the government to enhance this vital industry.
The industry has put forward concrete steps that the Conservatives should act upon, like air access, the individual GST rebate and the approved destination status with China. Why do they not act? Why do they not care?
Hon. Diane Ablonczy (Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member did not read our last budget, which has put millions into building tourism products along the St. Lawrence and Saguenay River, which will build a new port, which will help the cruise industry in Pangnirtung, Nunavut, which also will put money into our border crossings to ensure visitors will have a speedy entry into our country.
We spend $400 million a year on tourism. That is in addition to what is spent by all the provinces and many municipalities. Tourism is doing very well in Canada.
Broadcasting IndustryMr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, Paris and its francophone partners continue to disagree about the role of the multilateral channel, TV5 Monde. Belgium, like Switzerland yesterday, has threatened to withdraw if France continues with its plan to integrate the francophone television network into the proposed France Monde holding company and if TV5 is no longer a multilateral resource for francophone countries?
Does Canada concur with Switzerland and Belgium that, no matter what the governance of TV5 may be, it should not be controlled by France Monde?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada sent a letter on April 15, 2008, addressed to all the TV5 partners. It included the Canadian proposal and reiterated the importance of safeguarding the multilateral nature of the TV5 Monde project.
TV5 Monde is an important tool in the promotion of the culture and values of the international francophonie and must remain a shared project.
EthicsScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, if the financial considerations, the offer the Prime Minister spoke of in the tape, were simply to secure Mr. Cadman's candidacy and not to buy his vote, how many meetings did Mr. Finley and Mr. Flanagan have with Mr. Cadman after that crucial vote to continue efforts to secure his candidacy?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, there was just the one meeting on May 19, 2005. That is the only meeting that took place on this matter.
It is good to see that the member for Kings—Hants is in the House of Commons today. It saves me a trip to the Clerk to ask her a question as to whether we have a vote in the House of Commons tonight. Now that I know he is here, I know we do not have any votes.
The Speaker: I am sure the parliamentary secretary knows that votes on Fridays are deferred to Monday in any event. It is just for fun.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions. 
Committees of the HouseMr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in support to the Minister of Industry of Canada's decision concerning RADARSAT-2.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development with respect to RADARSAT-2.
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in relation to the RADARSAT-2 satellite.
Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to gender budgets.
PetitionsChris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table another petition today that arises out of my national campaign to fight for fairness for ordinary Canadians and, in particular, for seniors, who were shortchanged by their government as a result of an error in calculating the rate of inflation. The government has acknowledged the mistake made by Statistics Canada, but has refused to take any remedial action.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to take full responsibility for this error, which negatively impacted their incomes from 2001 to 2006, and to take the required steps to repay every Canadian who has been shortchanged by a government program because of the miscalculation of the CPI.
The petitions are signed by hundreds of people from Duncan, Ladysmith, Vancouver, Gravenhurst, Bracebridge, Huntsville, Burk's Falls, Hamilton, Thessalon, Sault Ste. Marie, Whitby, Toronto, Sackville and Bedford. All the petitioners are asking for is a bit of fairness from their government.
 It is a privilege to present this petition on their behalf.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by almost 75 of my constituents from towns in my riding in Alberta, including Camrose, Armena, Kingman and Hay Lakes. There are also other petitioners who come from Bow Island and Brooks, Tisdale, Saskatchewan, and really across Alberta and Saskatchewan.
 The petitioners share our government's concern about the violence in Darfur, Sudan and the displacement of millions of people. They call on our government to increase humanitarian aid and ensure access for its safe arrival. They also call on the government to treat the situation in Darfur as a genocide.
I have received representation from many people in my riding in the past year concerning this matter, both from high schools and from Augustana University. I am very proud of my constituents for taking action to express their views.
 I am pleased today to present this petition on their behalf.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first petition is signed by hundreds of citizens who ask the government to do the right thing and to locate the national portrait gallery in the appropriate place, and that is here in the national capital region. They note that other nations have their national portrait gallery in their capital cities. They also note that keeping the portrait gallery in Ottawa would save the federal government $2.5 million a year.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from citizens who want the federal government to restore support to and stop the funding cuts to the operating budget of the Status of Women of Canada.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, finally, I have a petition from citizens who want to see the government protect the Nahanni National Park and the entire south Nahanni watershed. The petition is signed by people from Ottawa as well as people from outside the Ottawa region.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 221.
Mr. Dennis Bevington:  With regard to the Northern Residents Tax Deduction: (a) what is the rationale for changing the way the travel portion of the deduction is calculated; (b) how will this change affect the amount of money paid out through this deduction; (c) what is the estimated difference between what will be paid out following this change compared to what would have been paid out if this change had not been made; (d) what is the estimated amount that would have been paid out had this change not been made; and (e) what is the estimated number of tax filers who are affected by this change?
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the northern residents deduction, NRD, consists of two income tax deductions that are available to residents of the north who live in the prescribed northern zone or intermediate zone: a travel deduction and a residence deduction.
The travel deduction allows taxpayers to deduct the value of up to two employer-paid vacation or family related trips per year and an unlimited number of employer-paid medical trips, the benefit of which is included in income for tax purposes, from their income for income tax purposes. Since the deduction is based on the cost of travel, any inflationary increases are effectively accommodated for under this deduction. Accordingly, since the introduction of the NRD in 1987, no changes have been made to the travel component. The budget presented in the House of Commons on February 26, 2008, proposed a 10 percent increase to the residency component in support of a comprehensive northern strategy to help the north realize its full social and economic potential. The increase in the residency component is designed to further assist in drawing skilled labour to northern and isolated communities. This measure will be effective as of January 1, 2008.
In particular, the maximum daily residency deduction will be increased from $15 to $16.50. This increase will bring the maximum annual amount of the residency deduction to $6,022.50, $16.50 multiplied by 365 days, from $5,475, $15 multiplied by 365 days, for residents of the northern zone and to $3,011.25 from $2,737.50 for residents of the intermediate zone.
When combined with the basic personal amount of $9,600 and the Canada employment credit of $1,019, a single resident of the north will be able to earn up to $16,600 tax free in 2008. For that same year, it is estimated that about 189,000 individuals will benefit from the increase. Including this increase of $10 million in additional tax relief per year, it is estimated that the NRD will reduce federal revenues by $150 million in 2008-09 and by $155 million in 2009-10.
Widespread support for this important Government of Canada initiative has been noted from northern leaders. For instance, Yellowknife Mayor Gord Van Tighem noted it was, “something we've been asking for a significant period of time…(it) will mean more spending into local economies and further reduce the cost of living”.
In addition to increasing the generosity of the residency component of the NRD, the budget presented in the House of Commons on February 26, 2008 also announces new measures that will protect and secure Canada’s sovereignty and create more economic opportunities in the north, including: $34 million over two years for geological mapping to support economic development; extension of the mineral exploration tax credit for an additional year; and $8 million over the next two years for a commercial harbour in Pangnirtung, Nunavut.
Since 2006, the government has made important investments in the north, including investments to advance social and economic development in the territories through a $300 million northern housing trust and $195 million between 2006-07 and 2008-09 in increased territorial formula financing payments. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 218 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Bill Casey:  With respect to acts of torture committed in the private sphere in Canada: (a) how many Canadian organizations and individuals have written to the Minister of Justice over the past five years requesting to make these acts illegal in Canada and to make Canada a designated torture free zone; (b) what official discussions or conferences have taken place within Justice Canada in regards to this request; (c) why is non-state actor torture not named or listed as a specific crime in the Criminal Code; (d) does the government intend to make changes to the Criminal Code to correct this omission; (e) what official discussions or decisions have been made by the Minister of Justice or officials of Justice Canada on the designation of Canada as a torture-free zone; (f) has Justice Canada studied the laws of other jurisdictions or countries on the specific issue of defining non-state actor torture as a crime; (g) what official discussions or decisions have occurred within Justice Canada, involving the Minister of Justice, to recognize that there are various forms of non-state actor torture in Canada; and (h) what services, programs or policies does Justice Canada use to support Canadians who have been victims of non-state actor torture?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Business
Criminal Code[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).
People listening to us need to understand that the Bloc Québécois opposes the principle underlying Bill S-3. The Bloc Québécois has taken a responsible approach to analyzing this issue. All legislative measures concerning terrorism must strike a balance between safety and respect for other basic rights.
That was the principle guiding the Bloc Québécois in its involvement in the review of the Anti-terrorism Act and its application, a review called for in the act itself. Between December 2004 and March 2007, the Bloc Québécois heard witnesses, read briefings, and interviewed specialists, civil society representatives and law enforcement agencies.
During the Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act's specific study of the two provisions in Bill S-3, the Bloc Québécois made its position on investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions clear. The Bloc Québécois felt that the investigative process needed to be better defined.
 In our opinion, it is clear that “this exceptional measure should be used only in specific cases in which it is necessary to prohibit activities where there is imminent peril of serious damage, and not in the case of misdeeds already committed”. 
We were also firmly opposed to section 83.3, dealing with preventive arrest and recognizance with conditions. Not only do we feel that this measure is of little, if any, use in the fight against terrorism but, more importantly, there is a very real danger of its being used against honest citizens. 
The Bloc Québécois finds that a terrorist activity deemed dangerous can be disrupted just as effectively, and in fact more effectively, by the regular application of the Criminal Code, without the harmful consequences that a preventive arrest can trigger.
Therefore, we recommended abolishing this approach, and we won our point on February 27, 2007. Today, our position has not changed.
The investigative process should only be reinstated if major changes are made to it, which Bill S-3 does not do. Moreover, preventive arrests have no place in the Canadian justice system, given their possible consequences and the fact that other provisions which are already in place are just as effective.
Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions) was introduced and read for the first time on October 23, 2007. This bill seeks to reinstate two provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act that were abolished when their sunset clause was allowed to expire. The vote on the sunset clause took place on February 27, 2007.
I was a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in 2001, when we passed the Anti-Terrorism Act, which provided for a five-year review. It is during that five-year review that the vote on the sunset clause was held, again on February 27, 2007, and that is when Parliament decided not to extend that clause. 
Sections 83.28 and 83.29 of the Criminal Code, which were abolished following the vote on the sunset clause, dealt with investigative hearings. Under these provisions, a peace officer could, after obtaining the attorney general's prior consent, ask a provincial court judge, or a superior court judge, to make an order for the gathering of information.
If granted, the order required the person named therein to appear before a judge, to be questioned and to produce everything in his or her possession. The person named in the order had the right to retain a lawyer, and was supposed to answer questions put to him or her, but could refuse if answering a question would disclose information protected by any law relating to non-disclosure of information or to privilege. The presiding judge was to rule on any refusal to answer. The person was not to be excused from answering questions or producing things on the ground that it might incriminate him or her. Essentially, individuals were to be deprived of their right to remain silent. 
However, no information or statement obtained during an investigative hearing could subsequently be used directly or indirectly in any other criminal proceedings, other than a prosecution for perjury or giving contrary evidence. Investigative hearings were not useful. They were never even used, thus proving that section 83.28 was not necessary.
Moreover, as part of a regular investigation, the police can already question witnesses and carry out search warrants to obtain documents. 
Bill S-3 seeks to reintroduce this mechanism, section 83.28, which was abolished by the vote against the sunset clause, in a nearly identical form.
With respect to recognizance, arrest and detention, section 83.3 of the Criminal Code addressed recognizance with conditions, with the prior consent of the Attorney General. A peace officer who believed that a terrorist activity was about to be carried out and who suspected that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person, or the arrest of a person, was necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity, could lay an information before a provincial court judge. The judge could order the person to appear before him or her. A peace officer could arrest the person without a warrant if the arrest was deemed necessary to prevent the terrorist activity from being carried out.
The person detained was to appear before a provincial court judge within 24 hours or as soon as possible thereafter. Then a show-cause hearing was to take place to determine whether the person should be released or further detained. The hearing could not be delayed longer than 48 hours.
If the judge determined that it was not necessary to have the person sign a recognizance, the person was to be released. If, however, the judge determined that the person did have to sign a recognizance, then the person was required to keep the peace and comply with the other conditions that had been imposed for up to 12 months. If the person refused to sign the recognizance, the judge could order that the person be incarcerated for up to 12 months.
This provision was never used. Section 83.3 was added to the Criminal Code but, five years later, when it was abolished, it had never been used.
That is not surprising, because police officers could and still can use other Criminal Code provisions to arrest someone about to commit an indictable offence.
Section 495 of the Criminal Code states:
 (1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant 
 (a) a person...who, on reasonable grounds, he believes...is about to commit an indictable offence; 
Section 495 already existed. There is a good reason why the police never made use of the new provisions in section 83.3, which is why it was allowed to expire in 2007.
 The dissenting opinion in the report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security gives the following explanation with regard to section 495 of the Criminal Code:
 The arrested person must then be brought before a judge, who may impose the same conditions as those imposable under the Anti-terrorism Act. The judge may even refuse bail if he believes that the person’s release might jeopardize public safety. 
Section 495 already enables the police to make preventive arrests. There was therefore no need for section 83.3.
The dissenting opinion goes on about section 495 of the current Criminal Code:
 If police officers believe that a person is about to commit an act of terrorism, then they have knowledge of a plot. They probably know, based on wiretap or surveillance information, that an indictable offence is about to be committed. Therefore, they have proof of a plot or attempt and need only lay a charge in order to arrest the person in question. There will eventually be a trial, at which time the arrested person will have the opportunity to a full answer and defence. The person will be acquitted if the suspicions are not justified or if there is insufficient proof to support a conviction. It seems obvious to us that the terrorist act thus apprehended would have been disrupted just as easily as it would have been had section 83.3 been used. However, it is this provision that is most likely to give rise to abuses. It may be used to brand someone a terrorist on grounds of proof that are not sufficient to condemn him but against which he will never be able to fully defend himself. This will prevent him from travelling by plane, crossing the border into the United States and probably from entering many other countries. It is very likely that he will lose his job and be unable to find another. One could compare this situation to that of Maher Arar upon his return from Syria before he was exonerated by Justice O’Connor...If this new and temporary provision of the Criminal Code were used, it would be a judicial decision to impose conditions because of apprehended terrorist activity. The general public would see that person as almost certainly, if not definitely, a terrorist. Terrorist movements often spring from and are nourished by profound feelings of injustice...The fight against these injustices is often conducted in parallel by those who want to correct the injustices through democratic means— The former made a positive contribution to the transformation of the societies in which we live today. They are often the source of many of the rights that we enjoy. 
 It is inevitable that political activity will bring the first and second groups together. Very often, the former will not even be aware that the latter are involved in terrorism. The planning of terrorist activity is by its nature secret. 
 ... 
 In order to determine whether a person is part of a terrorist network, security officers make use of electronic surveillance, but, as we saw in the Arar case, they also monitor the contacts of someone— 
 Now, to be able to order incarceration and, subsequently, the imposition of conditions of release, it is sufficient that the judge be convinced “that the detention is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including the apparent strength of the peace officer’s grounds...and the gravity of any terrorist activity that may be carried out.” 
 In other words, the apprehension of serious terrorist activity and grounds that appear founded will suffice— 
 It should also be noted that the person arrested need not be the one that is thought likely to commit a terrorist act, but only and simply a person whose arrest “is necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity.” 
 There is an important nuance there that is both astonishing and disturbing. It can include innocent people who are unaware of the reasons for which terrorists are soliciting their aid in a planned activity while concealing the real reasons they are asking for aid. 
 Some see in the reference to section 810 of the Criminal Code an indication that our criminal law already uses a procedure similar to that set out in section 83.3. While there is a similarity in the procedure followed, there is a very big difference in the consequences of applying these two sections. 
Under the current section 810, a person can be summoned before a judge, but not arrested. The judge can order that person to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace.
 The judge cannot commit that person to a prison term unless the person refuses to sign the recognizance, after listening to all the parties and being satisfied by the evidence adduced that there are reasonable grounds for the fears. 
 If the person signs the recognizance and respects the conditions, he or she remains at liberty, will not be sentenced and will thus have no criminal record. 
 ... 
 This provision and section 83.3 that we [rejected] are very different in nature and have radically different consequences. 
 There is also no comparison between the impact that the use of section 83.3 and section 810 would have on someone’s reputation. 
 When the decision is made to depart from the fundamental principles underlying our system of criminal law, there is always a risk that these measures will later be applied in a manner totally different from those foreseen. That was the case with the imposition of the war measures act in 1970, which saw the incarceration, among others, of a great poet, a pop singer, numerous relatives of people charged with terrorist activities and almost all the candidates of a municipal political party. 
In light of this analysis, we have decided not to support the extension of these provisions. First, it is of little, if any, use. These two sections went unused during the five years they were in effect. Second, there is a very real danger that this provision might be used against honest citizens.
 A terrorist activity deemed dangerous can be disrupted just as effectively, and in fact more effectively, by the regular application of the Criminal Code. 
That is why I have taken the time to explain sections 83.28 and 83.3 of the Criminal Code: Bill S-3 is practically identical to the two measures that were eliminated, namely investigative hearing—sections 83.28 and 83.29 of the Criminal Code—and recognizance with conditions, which is similar to section 83.3 which was eliminated. If we count technical amendments, such as minor clarifications, there are still only three substantial amendments. 
They amended the investigative procedure in order to standardize it. The previous investigative procedure depended on whether or not the terrorism offence had already been or would be committed. If the terrorism offence had not yet been committed, the judge had to be convinced—along with other criteria—“that reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information” outside of the investigative procedure. This was not required for offences that had already been committed.
Bill S-3 standardizes the procedure and requires “that reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information by other means” through investigative hearings in both cases. 
The second minor amendment concerns the limit on detention. Bill S-3 adds a limit on detention when someone who is under investigation is being detained because there is a risk that they will evade service of the order or because they did not attend the examination. 
An examination of the review in committee led to the following. Aside from the fact that the Attorney General of Canada and, in the case of section 83.3, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, must include in their annual report on the use of the two provisions their opinion on whether the provisions should be extended, the most important amendment is to ensure that the provisions will be subject to a comprehensive review, before the sunset clause expires, either by a Senate committee, a House committee or a joint committee that Parliament or one of its houses will have designated or created for this purpose. Within one year after the committee starts the review, it must submit its report to Parliament, along with recommendations on whether the provisions should be extended.
In short, not only were the comments of the Bloc Québécois not taken into account, but neither were the numerous recommendations by the two committees, both House and the Senate, who seriously examined the issue. The Conservative government prefers to do whatever it likes, forgetting that in a democratic and free society, there must be a real balance between ensuring safety and respecting other fundamental rights.
The Bloc Québécois has been acting in this responsible manner since 2001. I was on the Standing Committee on Transport when the Anti-terrorism Act was passed and we were the ones who presented the famous sunset clause to ensure that there would be a five-year review. In 2007, Parliament decided to abolish these provisions because they were never used. Again, the Conservatives do not care about the different committees and recommendations from all the experts and they decide to restore measures that had been abolished by this Parliament in 2007.
Perhaps I should read from the Bloc Québécois dissenting opinion. 
The Anti-terrorism Act, a measure adopted rather quickly following the events of September 11, 2001, required its provisions to be reviewed three years after the bill became law.
The Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act was responsible for reviewing the legislation, as a five-year review was required. In October 2006, the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security tabled an interim report specifically on the two measures contained in Bill S-3. Although the Bloc Québécois agreed with some of the subcommittee's findings, it felt that the two provisions should not be kept as they were worded then.
The Bloc Québécois explained its reasoning by signing a dissenting opinion, which I will now read.
 From the outset, it must be understood that this is a preliminary report that addresses only two sets of provisions in the Anti-terrorism Act; namely, those pertaining to investigations and preventive arrests as provided for in sections 83.28, 83.29 and 83.3 of the Criminal Code, as amended by section 4 of the Anti-Terrorist Act. 
 We concur with the description of the specific historical context that led to the adoption of the Anti-terrorism Act. 
 We also agree with most of the recommendations made in the majority report of the Committee, which aim to provide better guidelines for the investigation process. This exceptional measure should be used only in specific cases in which it is necessary to prohibit activities where there is imminent peril of serious damage, and not in the case of misdeeds already committed. 
 We, like other members of the Committee are also of the opinion that another review of the provisions ten years after their coming into force is needed and would make it possible to better assess whether the provisions should be extended or allowed to expire. 
 We would have preferred a three-year period; however, we are willing to support the opinion of the majority... 
 However, we do not agree with the Committee members’ opinion regarding the preventive arrests provided for in section 83.3 of the Criminal Code, as introduced in the Anti-terrorism Act. Our reasons are as follows. 
 Terrorism cannot be fought with legislation; it must be fought through the efforts of intelligence services combined with appropriate police action. 
 There is no act of terrorism that is not already a criminal offence punishable by the most stringent penalties under the Criminal Code. This is obviously the case for pre-meditated, cold-blooded murders; however, it is also true of the destruction of major infrastructures. 
 Moreover, when judges exercise their discretion during sentencing, they will consider the terrorists’ motive as an aggravating factor. They will find that the potential for rehabilitation is very low, that the risk of recidivism is very high... This is what they have always done in the past and there is no reason to think they will do differently in the future. 
Thus, given this representation by our members on the sub-committee, it is important that Parliament understand that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill S-3, which seeks to reintroduce measures abolished by the House in 2007. The Bloc Québécois continues to have an advantage over the other parties in this House. We are always responsible and true to ourselves.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the closing remark of my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. He always comes to the House well prepared. He made a very informative and well-researched speech on the concerns he has with Bill S-3. We have many of the same apprehensions about the bill. I was particularly interested in two points my colleague raised on which I would like him to comment. 
One is the lack of respect shown to the will of Parliament and to the voice of committees. In fact Parliament and the standing committee at the five year review rejected the implementation of these terms and conditions and wanted them to cease. We believe that the voice of Parliament should have primacy. The government of the day should have listened, taken note and acted accordingly, not to reintroduce these same measures through an unelected chamber like the Senate.
There is a second thing on which I would like the member to comment. I believe that one of the basic fundamental tenets of our judicial system is the right to remain silent when accused, or in a hearing, or in a courtroom setting. We only suspend the right to remain silent with very robust corresponding measures, such as, in the case of a parliamentary committee, there is no right to remain silent, but the information gleaned at that committee cannot be used against the person in any subsequent proceeding.
That does not seem to be the case in Bill S-3. There is no right to remain silent and the information given cannot be used directly against the person, but it may be used as derivative testimony, or derivative evidence in some further proceeding.
Would my colleague agree this has to be addressed? The right to remain silent cannot be compromised unless there are corresponding protections introduced.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his two questions.
With respect to the first question, the Conservatives are obviously acting in bad faith. The Anti-terrorism Act adopted at the time provided for a review of the act. Why? And why were we such staunch supporters of this issue? It was because we did not want there to be abuses. At the time, it was pointed out that the Criminal Code contained provisions that could do the job. Five years later, the clause had never been invoked. That fact was so clearly presented that Parliament decided, on February 27, 2007, to allow these clauses to expire. The two provisions were simply abolished.
Now the Conservative party has decided to reintroduce these provisions by way of the Senate. Once again, the Conservative way of governing is quite simply disrespectful. They say, “We are right; everyone else is wrong.” That is very harmful to a society. This brings me to the member's second question, the right to remain silent.
The measures in the Criminal Code were adopted by those who came before us and who gave us the opportunity, today, to take our place in this House. It is a model of society recognized throughout the world and one that Quebec would choose if it were a country. Thus, we are able to guarantee to all individuals that they will not be found guilty for acts they have not committed and that they have the right to remain silent if they deem that the questions asked would be incriminating.
Yet decisions are being taken to change this way of doing things on which our society is founded because, once again, the Conservatives have decided that there have been terrorist threats. Five years, six years or seven years later, these clauses have never been invoked. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois does not understand why, today, these provisions are being reintroduced after already being abolished by Parliament because they were never used.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask my colleague some questions following his heartfelt presentation. I was under the impression that he too was a member of the parliamentary committee in 2002, along with our defence colleague, if memory serves.
Clearly, the Bloc Québécois has been concerned about this bill since 2002, when Anne McLellan was the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness. First of all, the bill violated certain constitutional guarantees.
I have three questions for my colleague. Can he please refresh our memories regarding what constitutional guarantees are violated? He already mentioned the right to remain silent, but does he not think the presumption of innocence and the right not to self-incriminate are also jeopardized by this bill?
Second, can he please describe for us the Criminal Code provisions that already exist on this matter? Of course, I am referring to section 810 in particular. Can he please confirm that the existing legislation already contains every preventive measure necessary to counter terrorist threats?
Furthermore, can he please explain how the Conservatives have shown a lack of respect in this House? I cannot imagine that all ministers could have supported such a denial of democracy by failing to respect the House's vote. Does my colleague think there is one minister in particular who is less democratic than the others?
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Hochelaga for his question. He is doing an excellent job as justice critic for the Bloc Québécois. He works very efficiently, is a thorough researcher and gets to the bottom of things. He is not like the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities who is often unprepared when he rises in this House. That, however, is his problem. I am very pleased that my colleague from Hochelaga is doing such great work.
It must be noted that our police forces have never used the sections we are discussing here or the provisions in the Anti-terrorism Act, precisely because sections 810 and 495 already exist in the Criminal Code. So one must wonder why the Conservatives insist on trying to reintroduce measures that were abolished in 2007 by this Parliament. Why would they do this, besides the fact that they think they are right and want everyone to think the same way?
The problem with the Conservative Party is that it is in the minority in this House. If an election were called, it would no longer form the government.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on his excellent presentation.
I have a quick question for him. I have been listening to the debates all morning, and I am hoping that he can explain what is between the lines in this bill. 
Why are the Conservatives doing everything they can to reintroduce this bill? What is the hidden agenda that would push this party to disrespect the will of the House? 
I am really wondering, and I am certain that my colleague can answer my question.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
It is mostly likely the fact that the Constitution protects certain rights, such as the right to remain silent and the right to fair and full defence. That is what the Conservative Party wants to take away in order to control not only politics, but also people's lives. 
This reformist way of continually reintroducing right-wing values is really starting to grate on Quebeckers and, as we now see, Canadians as well. They truly understand that the only way to protect their interests is to elect social democrats, such as the Bloc Québécois, to the House, people who believe in protecting citizens' interests from those who would take them away. 
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill S-3 again, because I have spoken previously on it. 
I would like to spend a few minutes retracing where this bill came from. I was a member of Parliament when this bill came forward in its first incarnation. It was Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation. It came forward after the attack on the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. It went through the House very quickly.
 I remember at that time getting up to speak to the legislation. In fact, the NDP caucus opposed the legislation. We believed that the path being taken by the then Liberal government in this massive new venture of anti-terrorism legislation was not warranted. 
We had grave concerns at that time about the impact it would have on life and civil liberties, particularly on Canadians who were originally from the Middle East, who were part of the Canadian Arab or Muslim communities, because after September 11, there was a shift in what was taking place in our society. Many things changed, one of which was the legislation that came forward.
The debate was not that long. In fact, one of the concerns the NDP had back in 2001 was how quickly the legislation was being pushed through Parliament. This was very serious legislation that made very significant departures from the process of law that we understand in this country. We said that the two clauses we are dealing with today, seven years later, were particularly offensive. 
Because there was so much debate about those two clauses, which happened to deal with investigative hearings and preventive detention, it was agreed by the government, finally, that those clauses could be sunsetted. They would come under a review so that Parliament would have to examine the legislation and those specific clauses again.
The Anti-terrorism Act passed very quickly. The Bloc at that time may have opposed it as well, I am not sure, but it was basically the NDP and maybe the Bloc who voted against it. The Conservatives and the Liberals voted for it. We knew it would come back for debate and of course that happened. We had that debate a short while ago, because we knew those two clauses would become null and void unless they were somehow continued or reintroduced by March 1, 2007.
On February 27, 2007 there was a vote on those two clauses and, interestingly, they were defeated. It was a very important moment in the House of Commons to see that after a full debate in the House by all political parties, the NDP, the Bloc and some members of the Liberal Party defeated those amendments.
The government has reintroduced, with virtually no changes or very small changes, the same two amendments dealing with investigative hearings and preventive detention. The NDP is standing for the third time to speak out against this legislation.
 These clauses have actually never been used. They are an affront to a democratic society. They create a path and a process that we do not want in this country.
Whenever I have spoken at community meetings or public hearings about security issues, more often than not, people voice their very significant concerns about the kind of legislative initiatives that are being undertaken as a result of September 11, and about how much has changed in our society in terms of security. Many people have been targeted, particularly visible minorities.
I want to pay tribute and respect to the organizations that have never given up in speaking against this kind of legislation, and this legislation in particular, whether it is at parliamentary hearings or at hearings that have been organized in the community. There are people in this country who have remained vigilant even in the face of sometimes a public appetite to have greater security measures. There have always been organizations like the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Arab Federation, the Muslim Association of Canada and many others who have always come forward to warn and alert parliamentarians about the dangers of this legislation.
It is very important that we remember that. Sometimes in the furor and frenzy of when things happen, people feel threatened and insecure, and it is very easy for governments to play a very opportunistic role, to play on those fears and to bring in the kind of draconian legislation that we have seen with the Anti-terrorism Act.
We have come to see over the passage of a number of years now that that legislation was not needed. Therefore, it is somewhat concerning and surprising that yet again we are debating this bill, that we are debating these two particular clauses. The Conservative government, with the support of the Liberals, is prepared to re-enact these amendments that have already been voted down by the Canadian Parliament.
When I speak to my constituents, they are very concerned about what is taking place in this country. For example, this weekend is the fourth annual summit of the security and prosperity partnership. It is taking place in New Orleans. Our trade critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, is one of the members who will be participating in a very broad people's summit, as opposed to the leaders' summit in New Orleans that is going to be discussing what is called the SPP. 
The Council of Canadians, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, CEP, the United Steelworkers, and many other organizations will be heading to New Orleans, probably today, to participate in the SPP people's summit. Just as we saw at Montebello at the leaders' summit, where the Prime Minister of Canada, the President of the U.S. and the President of Mexico met behind closed doors to discuss security and trade issues, that will take place in New Orleans. 
I am very glad that those members of civil society, and there are 30 organizations that are hosting the people's summit in New Orleans, will be there to push for and demand accountability from these leaders, who are trying to further this incredible agenda, the economic, political, cultural and security agenda between our three countries, and the integration of Canadian society politically, economically and culturally into the United States.
Many people are hugely concerned about this. I wanted to raise this today as we are debating this bill because I think that they are very much related. We have seen so many different processes that we are not even barely aware of. Sometimes we get leaked information. Sometimes we find out about what is going on, but all of these processes are taking place behind closed doors. 
There are some people who have access. Business elites have access to this process. In fact they have their own forum for raising these issues and bringing them to government. In terms of the Canadian Parliament, people generally, or organizations or the labour movements, civil society, have no access to this process. A lot of this process, in terms of the security and prosperity partnership has to do with security measures in developing a common front of security measures, a merging of the American system with the Canadian system.
We know that anytime we cross the border. There are many of my constituents who, for no apparent reason, have experienced terrible interrogation and investigation at the border, and sometimes have been refused, all under the guise of security.
It really comes back to the broadness of the bill and what it represents. Although the bill has very specific measures in it, to me, former Bill C-36 and Bill S-3, the one we are debating today, exemplify this environment of heightened security, of control by the state, of the clampdown on civil society, the clampdown on individual rights and liberties. This is something that we should really stand up against. 
I am very proud that in the NDP we have done that historically. Whether it is the War Measures Act in Quebec, whether it is the internment of Japanese Canadians during the second world war, there are these moments in our community's history where we have to make a decision as to whether or not what is being laid down has a basis and merit, or whether it is actually, in the long run, undermining the fundamental principles of a democratic society. We in the NDP believe that the anti-terrorism legislation did just that. It fundamentally changed Canadian society.
There was a feeling at the time that this really would not affect many people. It was somehow those people; it created an environment of them and us. It is a very dangerous situation when we identify a group of people as being a threat. That is precisely what this legislation does. We have to take the attitude that when civil liberties of any minority, whether it be religious, ethnic, sexual orientation, gender or whatever it might be, any discrimination, any singling out is not only a threat to that group, but it is a threat to all people. 
Even if we do not feel immediately threatened or if we do not feel that we are the ones who are being targeted, we have a responsibility to speak out in defence of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. In my community there are people who feel very strongly about that. They are very concerned about the direction that we have taken in the last seven years.
 It was actually because of the anti-terrorism legislation that a few years ago I introduced a bill to eliminate racial profiling in Canada. It was a very interesting experience to introduce that bill. When I introduced it, I held a number of hearings across the country, and I was quite taken aback by the response I got in different cities from people who came forward with personal experiences about having been targeted. It has always taken place. 
Racial minorities in this country have always been targeted, but it escalated and went off the charts after September 11. I heard from people that it was both random and systemic. The chances of being held up at the border, particularly at airports but also at ground crossings, greatly increased if one looked like a member of a certain community, if one was Muslim, or wore the hijab, or was a member of a minority from the Middle East. That became very clear in talking with people and hearing about people's experiences.
The bill that we introduced to eliminate racial profiling is very important. I am very pleased that the bill has been reintroduced by my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas and it is now Bill C-493. We hope it will come forward for debate in the House one day because I think there is very strong support for that bill.
We also know the experience of Maher Arar and the horrendous situation that that one individual faced in terms of a complete denial of his basic human rights. He was sent to the U.S. with Canadian complicity and then to Syria, where he remained in jail for so long. He was tortured. It was only because of the work of his wife, Monia Mazigh, his family, his community and broader civil society that the issue finally came forward and there was a public hearing. 
It is again one of those moments in Canadian history where people feel that a grave injustice was done, although it is good to know that because of the public pressure, there was a public hearing and finally an apology made.
However, what that family went through is something that probably none of us will understand or be able to relate to because it was so deep, so grievous and so harmful. We must learn from that experience.
In light of all of those things that have happened, here we are in 2008 debating whether or not two clauses in the bill should continue. We have already voted once that they should be defeated, that they should be left null and void as a result of the date the sunset clauses came into effect.
 I would hope that we in the House could abide by that. We have had a vote. It was taken in February 2007. The clauses were defeated by 159 to 124 members. I am hoping that might happen again this time. The Conservative government has reintroduced these clauses and is hoping they will go through.
 I am hoping very much that there is enough expression, will and solidarity in the House from the NDP, the Bloc and maybe some members of the official opposition that we can again defeat these amendments as unnecessary.
We look at our global community and Canada's part in that, and read about what is taking place in the world today. People do not want to see this kind of legislation. This legislation will not do anything to stop food riots, to improve food security, whether in Canada or around the globe. It will not do anything to improve the health of developing nations, eliminate starvation or help the millions of children and families who are suffering needlessly because of the incredible inequities in resource development and wealth distribution on our planet. 
This legislation does not address those issues at all. In fact, it exacerbates a global system that is based on U.S. domination in terms of foreign policy and the war in Iraq, and certainly Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan. All of these things are connected. 
Yet, if we talk to people and ask them what they are worried about and what they want to see us, as parliamentarians, focus on, people will tell us that they want to look at legislation, programs and policies that actually improve equality and social justice in our world. They want to see us focus on those priorities and to deal with those terrible inequities that exist.
I am coming to the conclusion of my comments today and I am glad that I was able to speak to the bill, as I have before. I will speak whenever it is necessary, as will my colleagues in the NDP, because we believe that we play a very important role in the House of standing up. 
We take our role very seriously. We come here to vote. We do not sit on our hands. We challenge the government's agenda and we speak for a majority of Canadians who, if they had a direct vote in this, would not be supporting this legislation, Bill S-3, today.
I hope that when we get to the vote, there will be enough members of the House to defeat this, as we did before, and to recognize that these amendments are not necessary. They have not been used. They are not needed. We should focus our attention and our priorities on the issues Canadians really want us to in terms of building healthy, safe communities, respecting our environment, and promoting social justice in our world. 
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to most of the hon. member's comments with regard to the proposed legislation. I do not have time to hit on every point she raised, but there is one thing I would like to mention, and it has to do with our responsibility in the House and the issue of human rights.
 People have a right to go to bed at night knowing there are laws in place to protect them from people who would come into our country, or are already in the country, and who want to do them harm through terrorist acts.
One of the reasons the legislation has been brought before the House is because there were concerns with regard to human rights. We went to the one body in the country, other than the House, that deals with these issues day in and day out, and that was the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has addressed these issues and the legislation conforms to the court's concerns.
We have talked about people being inconvenienced, while travelling, by some of the heightened regard we have for terrorism. We do not mind having the odd bottle of hairspray thrown in the garbage at the airport because we know it is being done to protect us. An organized terror group in another part of the world planned on blowing up aircraft by concealing these types of things. That is why we are being inconvenienced. The vast majority of us do not necessarily like it, but we understand why it is necessary.
That is why we do not necessarily like this type of law, but we know it is necessary to protect us so we can continue to be a country that is respected around the world for our human rights and how we take care of our citizens.
The hon. member mentioned Maher Arar. That incident happened under the previous Liberal regime. We are making all the changes that Justice O'Connor recommended. We did that almost immediately upon receipt of those recommendations, and that has been the hallmark of this government.
We will continue to defend Canadians against people who would do them harm, and the legislation does absolutely that.
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the member and I have different perspectives on the legislation.
This bill is overkill. No one here is disputing the fact that Canadians want to experience safety, that they want to go to bed at night and not worry about a number of things. There is no evidence that anything in the bill would make us safer. On the contrary. We could make some strong arguments that the purview of the bill and what it represents would create a global community so focused on incredible security measures that it fosters greater destabilization.
What is security? Security is being safe. Security is about having enough food to eat every day. Security is having a roof over one's head. These are also basic forms of security.
Where I depart from the member is the Conservative government has an obsession with legislation that is focused on a law and order approach, that everything will be solved by some new little boutique bill or a big bill such as Bill C-26 on mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes and that this somehow will answer all the problems in our society.
There is a fundamental difference in what I am speaking about and what the member is speaking about, but I certainly respect his opinion. 
With respect to Maher Arar, I do not care whether it was the previous government or the Conservative government, but it happened in our country and we all bear responsibility for what happened to him. I am glad there finally was an apology. However, if we do not understand what happened and if we are unable to link it back to this bill and how we have dismissed the liberties of people and have taken away the due process of law, then what have we learned? That is the question I put forward. 
This is why NDP members cannot support the legislation.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from across the way on her speech. She defends her arguments and her party's position passionately and with conviction. Further, she knows very well that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP will vote against Bill S-3
This makes me think about how each time I see a woman rise in this House, I am reminded of how few of us there are. I would like to take this opportunity to urge the parties to recruit more women so they can speak out in this House. Perhaps then the debates would be more informed and they would be different. I think members know what I mean. We would like more women in this House, and I urge the parties to recruit more for the next election, so we can have equal representation by men and women.
That said, I would like to ask my colleague what bothers her the most about this bill. What bothers her and affects her the most? What does she think is hiding behind this bill? I would like to know.
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I think that is just about the best question and comment I have heard all day. I would concur with the hon. member. 
I think if we had a majority of progressive women in this House, and I am sure she would agree with that qualification, it would be a very different place. Think of the things that would be different. We would have child care at the top of the agenda, housing, food security and the environment. We would not be going to war. I very much appreciate the comments of the member from the Bloc. I am very happy that the Bloc will not be supporting this bill. I think we certainly stand together on that question.
The hon. member asked a very good question. What is behind this bill? What is behind this bill is a political climate of fear that is created for ideological reasons. We have seen it in the United States, whether it is on drugs or security, and we are seeing it now in our own country. It began with the former government and it is now being continued at a very rapid rate by the Conservative government.
It is all the more important then that we stand up as a voice of reason and in effect blow the whistle on this kind of legislation, and point out that it is not necessary. It is overkill. Most importantly, we respect our democratic society, respect people's human rights, and respect the due process of law. I am glad that we will be voting against this legislation along with the Bloc.
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, it is amusing to see the NDP and the Bloc pat each other on the back for not protecting Canadians. I am actually appalled. I listened very carefully to the speech from the member for Vancouver East. I know she said that the way to address terrorism is by having a roof over one's head and having food on the table.
 Quite frankly, if she looks at the Air India disaster, the people who were accused and convicted in the tragedy, having a roof over their heads and having food in their belly was not an issue. It was a matter of religious and political extremism. 
I want to ask her, in light of the Air India disaster and the inquiry that followed, how can she still justify not supporting some reasonable anti-terrorism measures that our Supreme Court of Canada has already provided us guidelines for and we are complying with those guidelines?
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting at all that where there are acts of terrorism that we should not act in a very forthright and strong way as a state. Certainly, we have seen those instances. When the member uses the Air India bombing as the example, I think it begs the question.
 Clearly, legislation is already in place to deal with that. It comes back to the question: Why are we debating this legislation. Why is it necessary? It is overkill. It is not needed. There are more than adequate provisions within our existing laws and Criminal Code to deal with acts of terrorism.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this debate on Bill S-3. I will start by saying that the Bloc Québécois is opposed in principle to Bill S-3.
The Bloc Québécois has a responsible approach to analyzing such bills, because we believe that any anti-terrorism legislation must strike a balance between maintaining safety, which is very important, and respecting the other fundamental rights.
With this in mind, the Bloc Québécois became very involved in the review process of the Anti-terrorism Act and its application, a review which is provided for in the act itself. From December 2004 to March 2007, the Bloc Québécois listened to witnesses, read submissions and interviewed specialists, members of civil society and law enforcement officials. As usual, the Bloc Québécois was passionate, professional and thorough in its work. 
During the specific review of the two provisions in Bill S-3 by the Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act, the Bloc Québécois clearly stated its position on the investigative hearings and on recognizance with conditions. The Bloc Québécois thought better guidelines for the investigative process were needed.
It is clear to us that this exceptional measure should be used only in specific cases in which it is necessary to prohibit activities where there is imminent peril of serious damage, and not in the case of misdeeds already committed. 
The Bloc Québécois also firmly opposed section 83.3 dealing with preventive arrest and recognizance with conditions. Not only does this mechanism appear to us to be of little, if any, use in the fight against terrorism, but also, we believe that there is a very real danger of this provision being used against honest citizens. 
The Bloc Québécois believes that terrorist activity deemed dangerous can be disrupted just as effectively, and in fact more effectively, by the regular application of the Criminal Code, and without the potentially harmful consequences of preventive arrest. 
As a result, we recommended the abolition of this mechanism and we won on February 27, 2007. Today, as always, the Bloc is consistent, and our position on the issue has not changed. 
I would add that the investigation process should not be reinstated unless major changes are made to it, which Bill S-3 does not do. Moreover, preventive arrests have no place in Canada's justice system because of the potential consequences and the fact that other, equally effective, provisions are already in place.
As we all know, Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), was read for the first time in the Senate on October 23, 2007. The purpose of the bill is to reinstate two provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act that were abolished when the sunset clause was allowed to expire. The vote on the sunset clause was held on February 27, and parliamentarians did not extend the provisions. That was the will of the House as voted.
I am surprised that the government is bringing back in this bill two clauses that have already been debated and defeated in a vote right here in the House of Commons.
Perhaps we could look at what section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, on investigative hearings, was all about. Under this provision, a peace officer could, with the prior consent of the Attorney General, apply to a provincial court or superior court judge for an order for the gathering of information. The order, if made, required the named person to appear before a judge for examination and to bring any thing in his or her possession.
The person named in the order had the right to counsel and was required to answer questions, but could refuse to do so in order to avoid disclosing information protected by any law relating to privilege or disclosure. The presiding judge was to rule on any refusal. The person was not excused from answering a question or producing a thing on the ground that that could incriminate him or her. In fact, the person simply lost the right to remain silent. However, no information or testimony obtained during an investigative hearing could subsequently be used directly or indirectly in other proceedings, other than a prosecution for perjury or contradictory evidence.
In our opinion, investigative hearings were not useful. Moreover, they were never used. In the normal course of an investigation, the police can already question witnesses and conduct searches to obtain documents. This is possible under the current law, which means that, in a way, Bill S-3 is seeking to reintroduce almost exactly the same provisions we refused to extend.
If we look more carefully at recognizances, arrests and preventive detentions, section 83.3 of the Criminal Code dealt with recognizance with conditions. A peace officer who believed that a terrorist activity was going to be carried out and who suspected that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions or the arrest of a person was necessary to prevent the terrorist activity could, with the prior consent of the Attorney General, lay an information before a provincial court judge. That judge could order that the person appear before him or her. A peace officer could arrest the person named in the information without a warrant if the arrest was necessary in order to prevent a terrorist activity from being committed.
The person detained in custody had to be taken before a provincial court judge within 24 hours or as soon as feasible. A hearing known as a show-cause hearing was then to be held to determine whether the person should be released or held longer. This hearing could not be adjourned for more than 48 hours.
If the judge determined that there was no need for the person to enter into a recognizance, the person had to be released. If the judge determined that the person should enter into a recognizance, the person was bound to keep the peace and respect other conditions for up to 12 months. If the person refused to enter into such a recognizance, the judge could order that person to be imprisoned for up to 12 months. 
I will repeat, this provision had never been invoked before it was abolished. That is not surprising because police officers could, and still do, use the other provisions of the Criminal Code to arrest someone about to commit an offence.
Section 495 of the Criminal Code states:
 (1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant 
 ( a) a person ... who, on reasonable grounds, he believes ... is about to commit an indictable offence; 
The person arrested must then be brought before a judge who can impose the same conditions as those in the Anti-terrorism Act. The judge can even refuse bail if he believes that the person's release would endanger public safety.
 If the police believe that an individual is about to commit a terrorist act, it is because they are aware of a plot. They probably know, based on wiretap or other surveillance information, that a criminal act is about to be committed. Therefore, they have proof of a plot or attempt, and need only lay a charge in order to arrest the person in question.
 They will eventually go to trial, at which time that person will have the opportunity to present a full answer and defence. The person will be acquitted if the suspicions are not justified or if there is insufficient proof to support a conviction. 
 It seems obvious to us that the apprehended terrorist activity would have been disrupted just as easily as if section 83.3 had been used. However, it is this provision that is most likely to give rise to abuse and this concerns the Bloc Québécois greatly. 
It may be used to brand someone a terrorist on grounds of proof that are not sufficient to actually accuse him but against which he will never be able to fully defend himself. This will prevent him from travelling by plane, crossing the border into the United States and probably entering many other countries. It is very likely that he will lose his job and be unable to find another. These are serious consequences for the person affected by this provision.
One could compare this situation to that of Maher Arar upon his return from Syria, before he was exonerated by Justice O'Connor. If this new, temporary provision of the Criminal Code had been used, a judicial decision could have imposed conditions because of apprehended terrorist activity. The general public would see that person as almost certainly, if not definitely, a terrorist. 
Terrorist movements often spring from and are nourished by profound feelings of injustice. A parallel fight against these injustices is often conducted by those who want to correct them through democratic means. Such people have made a positive contribution to the transformation of the societies in which we live today. They have often been the source of many of the rights that we enjoy. 
 It is inevitable that political activity will bring terrorists and non terrorists together. Very often, the latter will not even be aware that the former are involved in terrorism. The planning of terrorist activity is by its nature secret, of course. In order to determine whether a person is part of a terrorist network, as we saw in the Arar case, security organizations will monitor a person's contacts. For a judge to be able to order incarceration and, subsequently, the imposition of bail conditions, it is sufficient that the judge be convinced, and I quote, “that the detention is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including the apparent strength of the peace officer's grounds and the gravity of any terrorist activity that may be carried out”. 
In other words, the apprehension of serious terrorist activity and grounds that appear founded will suffice. 
 It should also be noted that the person arrested need not be the one that is thought likely to commit a terrorist act, but only and simply a person whose arrest “is necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity”.
There is an important nuance there that is both astonishing and disturbing. It can include innocent people who are unaware of the reasons for which terrorists are soliciting their aid in a planned activity while concealing the real reasons they are asking for aid. 
Some see in the reference to section 810 of the Criminal Code an indication that our criminal law already uses a procedure similar to that set out in section 83.3. While there is a similarity in the procedure followed in these two sections, there is a very big difference in the consequences of applying these two sections.
Section 810 states that a person can be summoned, not arrested, before a judge, who can order that person to be of good behaviour.
After listening to all the parties and being satisfied by the evidence adduced that there are reasonable grounds for the fears, the judge cannot commit that person to a prison term unless the person refuses to sign the recognizance. 
If the person signs the recognizance and respects the conditions, he or she remains at liberty, will not be sentenced and will thus have no criminal record.
This provision and section 83.3 that we rejected are very different in nature and have radically different consequences. There is also no comparison between the impact that the use of section 83.3 and section 810 would have on someone's reputation.
When the decision is made to depart from the fundamental principles underlying our system of criminal law, there is always a risk that these measures will later be applied in a manner totally different from those foreseen. That was the case with the imposition of the War Measures Act in 1970, which saw the incarceration, among others, of a great poet, a pop singer, numerous relatives of people charged with terrorist activities and almost all the candidates of a municipal political party. 
In light of this analysis, we decided not to support the extension of this measure. For one thing, it is of little, if any, use in the fight against terrorism, and second, there is a very real danger of its being used against honest citizens. In addition, a terrorist activity deemed dangerous can be disrupted just as effectively, and in fact more effectively, by the regular application of the Criminal Code. 
As we mentioned on several occasions, Bill S-3 is virtually identical to the two measures that were abolished, namely the investigative hearing, under sections 83.28 and 83.29 of the Criminal Code, and the recognizance with conditions, under section 83.3 of the Criminal Code. Except for a number of technical amendments, such as the rewriting of some parts to make minor clarifications, there are only three substantive changes.
Let us take the change made to the investigative procedure. As regards the standardization of that procedure, the “old” investigative process made a distinction based on whether the terrorism offence had already been committed, or was going to be committed.
 In a case where the terrorism offence had not yet been committed, the judge had to be convinced—in addition to meeting other criteria—that “reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information”— 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
The hon. member for Vancouver East is rising on a point of order. 
Business of the HouseLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the member in the last moment of her speech but keeping my eye on the clock, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, between noon and 2 p.m. on Monday, April 28, the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): (Motion agreed to)
Criminal Code[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. 
When we return to the study of Bill S-3, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will have 10 minutes left for questions and comments. 

Private Members' Business
Employment Insurance Surplus Transfer ActThe Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue is not present to move the order as announced in today's notice paper. Accordingly, the bill will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. 
It being 1:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, April 28 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:30 p.m.)