Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on the
Anti-terrorism Act
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of February 14, 2004 (afternoon meeting)
OTTAWA, Monday, February 14, 2005
The Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism Act met this day at 12:45 p.m. to undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of the Anti-terrorism Act, (S.C. 2001, c.41).
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are now ready to continue our review of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act. This morning, we began our work by hearing from the Honourable Ann McLellan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. While the minister's commitments to the House of Commons did not permit her to remain this afternoon, we are fortunate to be joined by the officials from her department who were with her this morning and, specifically, we have with us Paul Kennedy, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, and Bill Pentney, Assistant Deputy Attorney General. I would remind members that we do have a significant amount of work to accomplish this afternoon and we would ask that both questions and answers be as concise as possible. We are very grateful to both of you for staying with us and hope that we can continue to about two o'clock, if we all get together and are as crisp and concise as possible. Mr. Kennedy, do you wish to say a few words yourself to start off the afternoon?
Mr. Paul Kennedy, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada: If you wish, I could pick up on the question that was posed before the break, and that allows you to make the best use of your time.
The Chairman: Excellent. Maybe you could repeat that question.
Mr. Kennedy: Yes, I believe the question referred to the statistics on the seizing of funds related to terrorist activity. There are three different listing regimes, and I cannot disaggregate by regime the numbers I will give you in the list, but they all have the same effect of providing the power to seize and in the appropriate case forfeit. Currently, there is $114,000 domestically frozen under that particular regime. Worldwide, approximately $100 million U.S. is frozen relative to that. One of the issues was that they wanted to craft a worldwide regime to stop the movement of money.
The other piece of information that would be relevant to you is that FINTRAC, which is the financial intelligence and analysis group that was set up as part of the Department of National Defence, issued a report recently that indicates that there was approximately $70-million worth of what they considered suspicious transactions that would have been in Canada that they would have had occasion to look at. Suspicious transactions do not necessarily translate into illegal money, but that is information they would then be able to share both with the RCMP and with CSIS so that they could do appropriate follow-up action. That is the context to keep in mind.
Some of you might be familiar with the provisions for the seizure and forfeiture of money related to proceeds of crime. We will separate terrorism from that. Normally, we are seizing profits from criminal organizations, that is, their accumulated wealth. That can tend to run anywhere around between $50 million and $70 million, although I have not looked at the recent statistics. It differs from the amount of money that we seize on terrorism, because terrorism is looking for money to finance their activities, whereas with organized crime we are picking up the profits that they have invested into drug sales and things of that nature. To give you an idea of how much money we are talking about, I think I saw that the damage that was done to the World Trade Centre cost about $400,000. Terrorists are looking for ways to finance their activities.
Hon. Joseph A. Day: I wondered if there has been any decertification of charities and any seizure of funds. What happens in that event?
Mr. Kennedy: No, we have not had occasion to use what was then part 6 of Bill C-36 vis-à-vis charities. I should indicate to you though that information is clearly exchanged between the revenue agency and other enforcement agencies to assist them in their deliberations. We had always taken the position — and I appeared before both the Finance Committee and the subcommittee of the House justice committee — that one of our concerns was to prevent the abuse of charities. In other words, once terrorists knew that we had blocked that hole, they would remove themselves from that area. Our concern would be people who would insinuate themselves into the organization and cause the monies to be misdirected. Once we had the capacity to identify that, it no longer became an attractive venue for them. Likewise, those that were expressing an interest in obtaining that charitable status were deterred from it. We said at the very beginning that we did not want to hurt charities, that what we wanted was a prophylactic action that in fact would protect charities and cause others to stop trying to move into that area. To that extent, we believe the legislation was successful.
Hon. Serge Joyal: On that same issue, do I understand that those provisions raise Charter issues? When you reverse the onus on someone to prove where the money comes from, are you not in fact, in practical terms, presuming that the person might have got it illegally? Is there an element of impingement on the Charter that in fact is in court presently in Toronto?
Mr. Kennedy: There is no reverse onus provision under the money laundering legislation either in respect of terrorism or in respect of organized crime. Some jurisdictions, Ireland for one, have a reverse onus presumption. I believe recently one of the parties in the House had recommended that there be a reverse onus provision. In Canada, if you have possession of something it is presumed to be a valid title. The obligation is on the Crown then to show that it is tainted.
Senator Joyal: I don't have the details, but I read recently of the case of a Canadian citizen who crossed a border with a sum of cash money over $10,000 and the person had to justify where the money came from. In other words, the mere fact that a person has over $10,000 leads to the presumption that he is in possession of money that is not legally acceptable.
Mr. Kennedy: You have struck a problem. There is a reporting requirement that mirrors legislation. It has been in place for a long time in the United States. You can take sums larger than $10,000 out of the country but there is a requirement for you to notify when you are taking large sums of money out. I believe the situation you are dealing with is where the person did not provide any notification and was found to be in possession of a large sum of money and the money was seized. There is a positive obligation to notify the authorities when you are taking money out. In this case, it was a failure to do so, which was a contravention of the law.
Senator Joyal: Yes, but the law is an attack on the Charter provision. That is what I want to state here. In other words, the mere fact that you have with you an amount of money in cash over $10,000 give rises to the presumption that the money is not legally in your possession.
Mr. Kennedy: No, it is presumed that you have an obligation to report the fact that you have the money. That legislation was put in place for large cash transfers. The challenge for a criminal with money is how to launder it, how to re-inject it back into legitimate society, how to move across the border. Clearly, under the legislation, bank account officials have an obligation to look at what might be suspicious transactions and to notify authorities. Individuals wishing to avoid that suspicion are going to amass large amounts of cash. They have to do something with it to get it back into the system, and one challenge they face is moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, crossing borders. We want people to declare if they are bringing money across borders. There have been cases where people have been found with hockey bags stuffed full of money — you can get into this with FINTRAC and the RCMP. A bag about the size of a loaf of bread stuffed with thousand dollars bills can be worth well over a million dollars. The objective is to stop the cross-border movement of illicit money. If you have $11,000 and you cross the border and you fill in the form to declare how much it is, that is the reporting requirement. No problem.
Senator Joyal: I do not want to discuss the policy of it. To me, once you are over the $10,000 limit, red lights go off in the system and you have to justify everything. We live in such a world now that we cannot close our eyes to this reality. The point I want to make is that people who refuse to declare it challenge the provisions on the Charter basis. That is what I want to put on the record today and that is why I asked that question originally.
Mr. Kennedy: I wouldn't be surprised. With Bill C-36, we took the existing mechanisms and said, ``By the way, in addition to looking at organized transactions, will you please also look at the context of monies used for funding terrorism and provide that data to the Commissioner of the RCMP and to the director of the intelligence service.''
Senator Joyal: The point I want to put on the record is that there is a mentality created by this whereby if you do not have anything to report yourself, you should be able to state everything. Of course, if you are an honest citizen you do not need the law, you abide by the law. Of course, we want to catch the person who has obtained that money illegally, so we submit each citizen to scrutiny. That is where the balance that we spoke of before has to be reviewed.
Mr. Kennedy: We can get more detail for you. I believe that this is part of an obligation under the Financial Action Task Force to try to stop the flow of money. We can give you a little more history on the thinking behind it. I believe you are referring to a worldwide phenomenon in this case.
Senator Joyal: The problem is that with borders being closely scrutinized on every aspect of movement, on which I hope we will have an opportunity to question later, any other legislation that is applicable to Canada receives very intrusive implementation, and legislation that before did not strike us as being contrary to Charter rights may now be found to be so because the way it is implemented does not maintain a fair balance.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I will begin with a new topic and, if we have time, I will get back to security certificates, on which I just want clarification.
Since the minister agrees that we go beyond Bill C-36 and cover all aspects of security and terrorism, can you tell us if there is such a thing as a fly list, that is, a list of the names of passengers, along with their records, on every flight in and out of Canada and, if so, what happens to it?
Mr. Kennedy: It is actually called a ``no-fly list.'' We do not really have such a vehicle in Canada, but we do have a process whereby information is shared among the enforcement agencies, those being the Canada Border Services Agency, CSIS and the RCMP. That information would include information on people who would possibly pose a threat. If there is a threat to the security of Canada, it might be a person for whom there is an international warrant outstanding on Interpol, or a domestic warrant. That information would be shared with CBSA, which also, as you know, has immigration and customs enforcement. CBSA can notify the Minister of Transport and his designee, and they have the ability to prevent the person from boarding the aircraft.
The Americans have a no-fly list such as you are talking about. We do not actually have a no-fly list, but we do have the ability to identify people and prevent them from boarding an aircraft.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Is it correct that when we buy a ticket the airline has to provide certain information?
Mr. Kennedy: You are probably referring to the provisions under the public safety legislation, Bill C-7. That provision has passed but has not been enacted. Pursuant to that legislation, the information is made available and checked against data banks.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Has the legislation not been enacted or has the machinery not been set up?
Mr. Kennedy: No.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Does that mean that American authorities have no information on Canadians flying into their country?
Mr. Bill Pentney, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety, Department of Justice Canada: Advance passenger information is provided.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: What is provided and to whom?
Mr. Pentney: There is a list of information under the regime. It is boiler plate information that is provided about passengers. Advance passenger information is provided.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: It is more than just name, address and destination. There is much personal information included in that, is there not?
Mr. Pentney: There is a specified list of information that is provided.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Is it extensive?
Mr. Pentney: It is reasonably extensive.
Mr. Kennedy: Just to correct the record, in Bill C-7 there is a provision that allows the Minister of Transport to have such a list as you have described and to hand it over to the airlines, but that, to my knowledge, has not yet been done. We have a process whereby we can do it with individual cases, but the mechanisms you have talked about and the degree of elaboration is not yet in place.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I will reword the question. When I fly to New York City, what information about me is given to the American authorities that I would consider intrusive, private or not even pertinent? Do they want to know my religion?
Mr. Kennedy: Senator, one of my colleagues, Mr. Christian Roy, has joined me. He is one of our legal counsel and he can give you more refined detail.
Mr. Christian Roy, Counsel, Legal Services, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada: There are currently obligations placed on airlines flying to the United States to provide information on their passengers to what was at the time the commissioner of customs for the United States. I am not certain that that is the name of the agency at this time. However, it is an obligation on the air carrier, not on the Government of Canada, to provide that information. The carrier has to provide that information to the U.S. authorities.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Do you know what that information is?
New Speaker: I do not know the extent of the information, but I suspect it is the equivalent of what we refer to in Canada as AIP — advance passenger information — which is basically your tombstone data, as well as passenger name record or PNR. Currently it is the advance passenger information that they are disclosing and, upon request, they can obtain the passenger name record, which is a much more detailed list of elements that would include things like your seating, your method of payment and any other destinations you might be going to within the country.
Mr. Pentney: We would be happy to provide the detailed list of information that is now provided under API and PNR. I am sorry that I do not have it with me.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is information provided by the carriers to what was then the commissioner of customs and is now Homeland Security or someone under that department. I would appreciate it if you would provide that. Thank you.
Senator Andreychuk: I am getting confused. My understanding was that the Canadian government and/or the air carriers were sharing some basic data with the United States — and it would be interesting to know what that basic data is — but that Bill C-7 was going to oblige or allow, and I cannot remember which, the provision of information to the United States authorities about passengers flying within Canada. I understand that it was discretionary there but, if there was an agreement between the U.S. and Canada, we would be giving up information about ourselves flying within Canada to the United States authorities.
That was my recollection of the testimony we heard when we dealt with that bill. Am I correct? Is there new information being provided to U.S. government authorities by virtue of Bill C-7 that would not be collected otherwise?
Mr. Roy: There is nothing in Bill C-7 that allows the commissioner of the RCMP and the director of CSIS to require passenger information and send it in bulk to the U.S. or any other government. There could be a possibility of sharing information, but it is within the specific restrictions set out in the legislation. Those are set out quite clearly and the sharing of information is very restricted. There are safeguards included that involve such things as having to create a record or an audit trail whenever you disclose information.
There is one provision under which one could contemplate information going to other government agencies in other countries, and that is what is referred to as the health and safety provision. For instance, if an RCMP or CSIS- designated officer receives passenger information from an air carrier and based on his analysis of that information has a reason to believe that he needs to share that information because there is an immediate threat to life, health or safety of persons or to transportation security, then because it is an emergency situation, he would be permitted under the legislation to pass that information on to an external body. That body could be government or it could be airport authorities. The legislation simply refers to ``any person.'' That is for emergency situations where life is at risk.
Senator Andreychuk: Unless my recollection has failed me completely, under Bill C-7 there was going to be the ability or the onus placed on Air Canada, for instance, to collect this data and it could be passed on by agreement to the United States or other countries. However, the data would include only my patterns and information within Canada. I recall the testimony. Mr. Kennedy you were there for part of it, but not all of it.
Mr. Kennedy: No, I was thankfully spared for Bill C-7.
Senator Fraser: Madam Chair, I was there for Bill C-7, as was Senator Andreychuk. Other complicated bills have taken up my mind since then and my fine memory detail has also faded, but I know that there was useful material put together at that time by the Library of Parliament; that material ought to be resurrected for the use of this committee because it is part of the whole system that we are looking at.
Senator Joyal: There is a provision in Bill C-7 whereby, if you have been found guilty of an offence punishable by more than five years in the Criminal Code, the entire file is accessible. We had a tremendous debate on this subject, because it means that if you look into the Criminal Code and list all of the offences that are punishable by more than five years, you will have many offences that have nothing to do with air safety or, as the witness has said, emergency. There is no question that in the last few years the border crossing for Canadians has been made much more difficult. If you have ever had any criminal record, you are immediately refused at the border. Any country can turn away whomever he or she wants, but it belongs to Canada to maintain the mobility rights of its citizens. Mobility rights are Charter rights. It is up to the country to maintain the privacy rights of Canadians.
There is a balance there to be made between the mobility rights, the rights to privacy and the information that is passed on to the American authorities to refuse systematically at the border Canadians who want to cross and happened to have at one point a problem with the legal system in Canada. It has nothing to do with safety or emergency. That is an important element of the holistic approach to safety in Canada.
This is a question of different elements, but at the end of it, when you look at the broad picture and you ask where we stand now versus where we were before, there is no question that Canadians are submitted to more scrutiny today than previously.
Mr. Kennedy: I am not sure if there was a question I was to answer.
Senator Joyal: My question is this: could you look into the provisions of Bill C-7 and report to us what kind of information you share with the American authorities on criminal records of Canadians? Is that clear now?
Senator Andreychuk: There are issues other than health and safety, as stated. I recall the scope being more far- reaching than that.
The Chairman: This is an issue of interest. Perhaps after this session is over today we can work out a presentation later on in our hearings on this particular subject. I am sure that our officials will assist in that and we can get the appropriate people to appear. That would perhaps answer our concerns better than back and forth discussion today.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Meanwhile, we have been offered background information.
Mr. Kennedy: Yes, senator, to follow up, because it is a complex area and you can see there are different silos of information. We will try to obtain something in written format for you as well as fly in officials who can talk to you about how the process is actually implemented.
Senator Joyal: The witness mentioned something very important: there are silo approaches to those issues. We are trying to dig one piece here, one piece there, one part there. It seems to me that the situation has changed and not necessarily for the better.
It is up to members of this committee to try to fight these matters out, but I understand that the witnesses who are experts on the subject deal with these issues on a daily basis and have an idea of the impact of the various pieces of legislation on the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That is what we are talking about. That is why we are here. We are trying to understand that.
I hope the witnesses will understand that we need their support.
Mr. Kennedy: Yes, I do.
The Chairman: We have the message, Senator Joyal. We will ensure that we have a session that deals more broadly with this particular issue.
Senator Fraser: On a different element, gentlemen, I have a question that betrays my crass ignorance of the way the judicial and police systems work in Canada. On the topic of recognizance with conditions and preventive arrest, we have reports from the Minister of Public Safety and from the Attorney General. In both cases they say that the RCMP and the federal prosecution service report that nothing happened, so there is nothing to report.
In order that I understand how this system hangs together, could you clarify for me whether anybody at the provincial level could have used that provision of Bill C-36?
Mr. Kennedy: Yes, the provision is in the Criminal Code and could obviously be used by municipal and provincial police officers.
The model that actually has been put in place, though, is one where the RCMP tends to work in collaboration with the other police forces. Principally we have four INSET units, or Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams. They have representatives from the provincial municipal governments in them. They are located in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver.
To my knowledge, there would be a similar requirement for the provincial attorneys general to make a report that those powers have not been used.
Senator Fraser: However, we do not know. There is not a reporting requirement for them, is there?
Mr. Kennedy: There is a similar reporting requirement. The provincial attorneys general would have that as well to my knowledge, though there has been no application.
Senator Fraser: Can we in a federal statute oblige a provincial minister to take an action?
Mr. Pentney: It is because it is a matter of shared jurisdiction.
Senator Fraser: We can do that. Therefore, we have a degree of certainty when we say that this provision has not been used. It is not just that it is been kept out of the federal jurisdiction; is that correct?
Mr. Kennedy: No, although the reports you are referencing deal with the activities of the RCMP and the federal prosecution service. The RCMP, however, is also the provincial police force in eight of the provinces and three of the territories and is represented in over 200 municipal jurisdictions.
Senator Fraser: We also have the OPP and the Sûreté du Québec, which cover a big chunk of the country between them.
Mr. Kennedy: I am advised as well that the provinces have done their reports, which we can make available to you.
Senator Fraser: If you would, please.
Senator Stratton: I want to return to the comments of the minister who had said that the legislation was more or less in balance. While I can accept that to a degree, I find it hard to comprehend that you would have things done to perfection the first time around in such a complicated issue as this. Could you give us an overview of the modifications that you have made and are contemplating, because I imagine that this is a living and moving document to a large degree? Surely those exist. This will take away the sense that what we are dealing with here is perfection.
Mr. Kennedy: I can approach that a little bit, but we would like to wait for the Minister of Justice to come, or, if you are agreeable, we could put panels before you that will take you through this in more detail. However, to make the best of today, I will put in context some of the comments that the minister made.
Although the legislation was introduced in October and passed in December, much of the thinking was done prior to that. There is a temptation to look at it in the context of September 11 and to assume that somehow we madly dashed about — and there was a lot of mad dashing about — but the reality is we had been working on elements of this document for quite a while before it was tabled. The minister quite candidly pointed out that the UN conventions and some of the supporting protocols date back to 1998. Canada would have been part of those UN discussions about how the legislation would develop, because we are part of the UN. We had intellectual capital invested in that UN document. As well, Canada was signatory to all those UN documents and had ratified all but two. We have to introduce them into our domestic law to have them ratified. In fact, we are 100 per cent there now. Clearly, the intention of Canada during discussions with the UN was to have that imported back into Canadian law.
The other thing is that amendments to the Official Secrets Act had been going on for years before then. You can probably go back to the 1980 Speech from the Throne about modernizing the Official Secrets Act. This is legislation that in substance dated from the late 1890s, had been modestly tweaked between each of the two world wars, and was a document clearly in need of an update. I attended more than a hundred meetings for that work. After I left the department to go to the Solicitor General, my colleagues continued with this. There was an awful lot of intellectual work done well before 9/11.
For the charities provisions, I was before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance dealing with the de- registration of the charities. That legislation was already being bandied about in the House. Many of the comments that they made at that time to improve it were wrapped in as part 6 of Bill C-36 after 9/11. We heard many comments from ethnic communities that wanted to have terrorism defined. That influenced what we came up with for the other provisions.
Also, the government had gone through its second bill dealing with organized crime. That was very relevant to what we are doing here, because terrorism and organized crime are very similar in the sense that you are dealing with institutions that have life beyond the individual members who come and go. Therefore, the tactics you need to attack organized crime are similar to the tactics you need to address terrorism.
Bill C-24 — which I believe this Senate had also passed around the same time — and this bill both came in place around 2001. The language is very similar. The tactics used to attack organized crime were remodelled to attack terrorism. We recognized that for organized crime long-term tactics are needed. Instead of a wiretap warrant for 60 days, you get a wiretap for a year. Those provisions are needed for terrorism as well. A year-long wiretap recognizes the dynamics of these particular institutions.
However, one element that is different is that we have a listing. Normally, we do not list anything, but of course the UN certainly listed through the UN regulations. That change was fairly significant, and was in response to a cry — if I can call it that — from various groups asking who is good and who is bad. There is the debate about freedom fighter as opposed to terrorist and how they are defined. As I indicated, at that time there were over 192 definitions of terrorism, so we had to come up with something.
The intent provision for a person involved in criminal activity, for example, was significant. The emphasis was on prevention. You will hear the minister and others refer to the fact that it is no good for us to charge someone after the fact. As a matter of fact, there was no one left after 9/11 because they killed themselves. However, there is way to increase prevention with the listing.
We had at that time a chap who was actually instructing people on how to fly 747s, not how to take off or to land, but how to fly them. Well, we put in a requirement. It used to be that my knowledge of a terrorist had to be fairly specific for me to be implicated. I could know that my colleague was a member of a terrorist organization, but as long as I did not know his specific activities, I was sheltered. There was a significant loophole that allowed a lot of people to carry on activities in support of terrorism and yet escape any kind of penal consequences. That was addressed in the legislation.
There is the provision about preventive arrest. It is not exactly the same, but modeled on the concept of a peace bond where you think there might be spousal abuse, for example. The other provision deals with the hearing process. We currently have the ability under various statutes — I believe under the Competition Act and the Income Tax Act — to bring someone in to testify. There are safeguards for the right against incrimination where you cannot use the evidence used, but there is a requirement to testify. The vehicle of mutual legal assistance was modified for this purpose; if a foreign country wants testimony from a person in Canada, under mutual legal assistance, that country can come to Canada, ask for the testimony, and have the person testify under oath before a judge in Canada. It seemed logical that we should avail ourselves of the same things we give other countries. The United States has a grand jury process that allows them to do that; we did not have that process here.
Many of the provisions are modeled on what had been crafted for organized crime or had been there for mutual legal assistance or for some other purpose, or they are modifications of elements from other legislation such as the Official Secrets Act, which had been worked on for years, or the charities piece that was already before another committee. All those pieces were brought together and formed six elements of Bill C-36.
Mr. Pentney: Briefly, maybe I can go at it in a slightly different way. You asked whether we had an overview of modifications made or contemplated. As the reports made clear, the legislation has not been used a lot. We should be thankful for that on the one hand, but it also means that the government at this time is not coming forward to propose specific modifications to the legislation.
The context within which the legislation operates, with respect to both threat and risk and also in terms of what the government has done to advance the protection of national security, has changed. We have a national security policy. We have the Canada Border Services Agency. Several steps have been taken to improve border security and the free and fast flow of people. No doubt this committee will hear more about that in the course of your work. A number of modifications have been made to operational policies and practices. We have the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre. Improvements have been made to the sharing of information. However, at this stage the government is not coming forward to this committee to propose a list of recommended amendments to the Criminal Code. That is not to say that nothing has changed. A tremendous amount over and above Bill C-36 has been done to try to address the national security context, but at this stage there are no specific recommendations. There are also areas relating to national security that fall outside of Bill C-36 that are under continual review. However, in terms of Bill C-36 itself, no amendments are currently being brought forward for consideration.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Would there be modifications made in other areas?
Mr. Pentney: There is always a review. Mention has been made of the House of Lords' decision. The government has to consider the difficult situation it faces, for example, in dealing with people whom we would have sought to exclude from Canada had we had the opportunity.
We have an opportunity now to exclude people who are serious criminals, terrorists, war criminals from coming to Canada, and we do. The Border Services Agency is active in seeking out and sharing intelligence and trying to exclude those people from coming.
When we find that they have come to Canada, there is an issue about what is to be done; and that is where the security certificate process has been used on a few occasions. However, one has to consider what the best approach to dealing with that situation is.
There are other situations that other government departments deal with, where security issues are considered. There is an ongoing review as part of the regular operations of government, and partly it is to deal with whether or not the tools that exist elsewhere are adequate to deal with national security considerations. As we learn more, government will have to consider whether other steps are needed.
Senator Stratton: That is what intrigues me. While you are saying that Bill C-36 is not going to change, there are other issues that you have changed, or are in the process of changing, as a result of terrorism threats.
Mr. Pentney: Yes, it is a continual review.
The Chairman: Colleagues, our officials are willing to be here with us up until 2 p.m., and we have Senator Jaffer, who wishes to ask questions. Then we will go into a second round, and I will give notice, with Senator Lynch-Staunton, Senator Andreychuk and Senator Joyal.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. Just from what Senator Andreychuk was saying, when we had the Bill C-7 hearings, one preoccupation was that the government would be allowed to share information with other governments. We were very preoccupied about this. Could you give us some detail on that?
I should like an answer to my question to the minister about vandalism. You just said that changing the legislation is always fluid. Have you thought about the issue of religious buildings being vandalized, besides the mosques, the churches and the synagogues? What about additional penalties for that?
Mr. Kennedy: Your comment would be better directed to the Minister of Justice when he appears. That is his area of responsibility.
Senator Jaffer: On the definition of terrorist activity, we know that the Anti-terrorism Act did not attempt to define terrorism, but it added a definition of terrorist activity in the Criminal Code.
The definition of terrorist activity includes the wording ``any act or omission that is committed in whole or in part for political, religious or ideological purposes.'' I am concerned about why you have added ``religious'' to the definition. Communities come to speak to me about it. This is a real preoccupation and I should like to understand why you would still continue, after all you hear about profiling, to put ``religious'' in the definition.
Mr. Kennedy: The minister indicated in her comments — and I think this would be in the record from the hearings before both houses, probably back when Bill C-36 was first put in place — that they were intended to be limiting words that would proscribe what terrorism was. As you are probably aware, we try to be consistent internationally with like- minded countries that have useful examples of similar legislation. I believe that there is similar language in Australia and New Zealand and probably even in the U.K. Some pieces of legislation have those as core items and some have gone even further in terms of groups that are included.
That was the reason for it at the time. We would have to look back to see if there was fuller debate. The definition itself was subjected to vigorous debate the first time through in the House. The wording that came out at that time met their satisfaction.
Companion wording in the definition clarified it further; I am looking at the section here and it says: ``For greater certainty, the expression `a political, religious or ideological thought, belief or opinion' does not come within paragraph (b) of the definition of terrorist activity unless it constitutes an act or omission that satisfies the criteria of that paragraph,'' which clearly means someone who wants to use violence or the threat of violence against persons or property for the purpose of intimidating the general population or to force the government to do something.
I am not wedded, and it is not my job to be wedded, to any particular definition. At that time, 192 different definitions were around; there are now maybe over 200 definitions. There may be a number of ways to look at this and come up with various models, but that was the thinking at the time.
You are touching upon a key concern, which is the perception of communities, and those communities can change at any point in time. The minister alluded to that; at one time, it was the Sikh community that was significantly challenged in terms of perception. These are historical phenomena. The legislation itself purports to be neutral. Some would say that Timothy McVey was inspired by extremist views from the Christian perspective.
Certainly, our intent is to make the legislation as neutral as possible, where all Canadians could rally behind it and say that it speaks to us and we support this legislation, that it helps protect those communities as well.
Mr. Pentney: It is important for the committee and all Canadians to understand that these are not words that are intended to single out religious groups or other groups. These are words of limitation that are added on. It is only where acts are being done to threaten widespread violence, for example, that the terrorist activity definition in the Criminal Code applies.
Unfortunately, if only political acts could fall within the definition of terrorist activity under the Criminal Code, the criminal prosecutions of what everyone would agree was a terrorist act would get taken up with the definition of whether or not the action was motivated by a political cause.
The definition was expanded and clarified as it was to make it clear that in no way does the legislation single out religious communities as communities, but that a religious or political fanatic, or someone else who was threatening the community with widespread acts of violence, ought to fall within the Criminal Code definition. That has not been as well understood or as widely communicated as might have been helpful.
However, if only political acts could fall within the Criminal Code definition, we would have the spectre of someone who had blown up a building saying that it was not a political act, it was religious act, or an ideological act or something else. The code tries to find a balance between capturing that which we would call terrorism by a wide community consensus and not singling out communities for targeting or labelling in any way. That was the balance that we attempted to strike in the definition.
I would agree with Mr. Kennedy; whether that definition, in this committee or the House committee's view, is still the most appropriate one is certainly something that we would hope would be subject to further discussion. It was a large part of the discussion the first time. I think that the task of the committee is to decide whether, knowing what we know now — having lived through three years, having seen what has happened in the world, having assessed the threats and risks we face — this tool kit, as one part of a much bigger tool kit for the government, is adequate to criminalize that behaviour which we believe ought to be criminalized. Can we think of plausible circumstances in which this legislation would still be needed?
Those are the questions we need to ask viewing the legislation from today's perspective. Looking at that definition, we have to ask whether we would like to see one of our criminal trials taken up with that sort of a definitional question. That is what those words and the definition were trying to avoid.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Now we will go to second round.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I should like to get back to the question of the security certificates. This morning the minister left me with the impression that the courts had ruled on the constitutionality of the process. I do not think that that is what happened. My understanding, and I gladly stand to be corrected, is that the Supreme Court has ruled on deportation to places where torture is known and has said that this can be done only in exceptional circumstances, but it has not defined ``exceptional circumstances.'' I do not think the Supreme Court has ruled on any other aspect of certificates.
Mr. Pentney: In an earlier case, called Chiarelli, the Supreme Court ruled on the information-sharing aspects and the restrictions on information sharing and the court upheld those. The Federal Court of Appeal has recently released a couple of decisions in which it has pronounced on the constitutionality and fairness, in terms of administrative law fairness, of the process.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: There are two Federal Court decisions. Are they being appealed?
Mr. Pentney: Not that I am aware of, but they may be in the future.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Nonetheless, in the case of Mahjoub, the government still insists that he be sent back to Egypt, with full knowledge that he may be tortured. After the decision that came out not long ago, the government said he could be and the defence lawyer said he would be, but both sides said the probability is quite high. One is a certainty; the other is a possibility.
By insisting on this, is Canada not in violation of certain international conventions whereby we just do not allow citizens to be sent to an environment where torture is a near certainty, or at least is being practised and can be practised on them?
Mr. Kennedy: First, I hope you will appreciate the fact that I cannot comment on any of the cases before the court, so I do not want my comments to be viewed in that light.
With reference to the threat of torture, the reality is that many of the individuals who would pose threats in this area come from parts of the world that are, unfortunately, unpleasant. It is the practice of the Government of Canada, if a person is to be returned to a country of which they have citizenship, to intervene and seek assurances that the person will not be subjected to any torture and that their rights will be respected.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in Suresh, where a similar allegation was raised, indicated that it is within the purview of the government, if there is an exceptional case, to send a person even though that person would face a risk of torture, because there is a corresponding obligation to the people of Canada for security. I want to emphasize, however, that it is the unstinting practice of the Government of Canada to get assurances from those countries that that will not happen.
The other reality is that all those countries require international cooperation in order to fight what is clearly a global problem of terrorism. The reality is that it would be contrary to the interests of any country to alienate one of its international partners by doing anything that would jeopardize or embarrass it, such as maltreatment of a person who was returned.
We have no knowledge of anyone being subjected to torture, but we would consider that to be very serious and that is why we seek assurances that it would not happen. If it did happen, there would be conventions in terms of future dealings with that country with regard to information sharing and things of that nature. It is in the interest of those facing this challenge to be on their best behaviour.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: When the government says that a person has posed threats and therefore should be sent back, the posing of threats is shown only through evidence selected by the government without any right of reply for the accused.
Mr. Pentney: That is not so, senator. The individual subjected to the security certificate has a full right of reply, and in several recent cases these individuals have taken the stand and brought forward evidence. In several of the cases, the judges are specifically calling for evidence about time in Afghanistan between 1991 and 1994, association with named persons, and specifically outlining for the individual that which is of concern to the judge, and the individuals have full opportunity to bring forward their own evidence, testify themselves or bring in other witnesses to answer those concerns, or to bring forward whatever other evidence they wish and to cross-examine the government witnesses.
We have a difficult challenge in this area. You have heard the categories of persons who would be subject to this process. War crimes, crimes against humanity, organized crime and terrorism are the categories we are dealing with, and we have had 28 or 29 cases since 1991, so fewer than two a year.
The state has an obligation to make the case. A dossier is prepared and given to two ministers, on which they are required to sign off. As soon as they sign off, all the information they consider is automatically given to a judge. The judge looks at it and prepares a summary to maximize the amount of evidence that can be disclosed to the other party, excerpting only that which would be damaging to national security. That would include identity of sources, identity of techniques or the identity of third-party relationships. However, once that is protected, the substance of the information is given to the other side, and it is the judge's decision to do that.
The other party has all of that so they know what the allegation is. They then have the ability to cross-examine the government witnesses. The only thing they cannot extract is information that would damage national security, but they clearly know the substance of the allegation.
This model has been looked at internationally, and my recollection is that the European Court of Human Rights found the regime to be acceptable in terms of balancing the need of the individual for due process with the need of the state to protect information. If we did not have that ability, we would have to disclose, in an open forum, the source of the information or the techniques used. We would arm terrorist organizations with information as to what you know, who your sources are, what techniques you are using and who is cooperating, and that would strengthen the terrorists.
Put to that task, you would not likely want to lead that evidence in an open hearing, because you damage your ability to protect against future terrorist activities, which means there would be no evidence against the person and no ability to move against them. Our challenge is balancing. We have tried to put a process in place that balances those two competing interests.
The other challenge about returning a person, which I think the Supreme Court recognized in Suresh, is what to do when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a member of al Qaeda, which has identified Canada as one of its targets. What do you do if you cannot ship them back? Do you release them into Canadian society when the object of their terrorism is Canadian society? That is the dilemma.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You are aware of Judge Hugesson's thoughts on this. I believe that Judge Lufty also spoke, as did one other judge. Surely their position is most awkward and should be respected. As Judge Hugessen said, as related in an article in the Ottawa Citizen on December 12, 2004:
We hate hearing only one party. We hate having to decide what, if any, sensitive material can or should be conveyed to the other party.... We greatly miss, in short, our security blanket which is the adversarial system that we were all brought up with...
Mr. Kennedy: I believe the Federal Court of Appeal recently indicated that, as difficult and as uncomfortable as the process is, it is constitutional, that it is the process to which the judges must adhere and that judges are in fact capable of doing so.
Mr. Pentney: There is a more recent decision in which a Federal Court judge spends some time outlining the kind of inquiry that happens in the in camera process. It is a two-stage hearing. Part of it goes ahead with the judge. This is what Justice Hugessen was speaking of. The judge, generally with CSIS witnesses, goes behind closed doors. Without disclosing any state secrets, having talked to some of the people who have come out of that inquiry, I can say that they get a going over by the judge. This is not a walk in the park in terms of the judge's awareness of his or her responsibilities. In a recent judgment a Federal Court judge talks about the probing nature of the inquiry, as Mr. Kennedy said.
A summary is provided, as much information as possible is provided to the individual subject to their certificate, and ultimately the judge has to decide whether the certificate is reasonable in the first instance. If the judge finds, on the best evidence the government can mount through in camera and public hearings and on the evidence that the individual brings forward, that the certificate is not reasonable, that is the end of the story. The individual is then not subject to the certificate. It is only if the certificate is found to be reasonable that we get into the second question, which is whether, having concluded that the minister has acted reasonably in signing a certificate and finding that the individual poses a threat to the security of Canada, it is necessary to remove the individual and send him to where he may face certain threats in order to protect the security of Canada.
That is the difficult balance Mr. Kennedy is talking about and that the Immigration Refugee Protection Act provides for. It is a very difficult balance to strike, and it is one that Britain is struggling with now. The House of Lords decision was referred to. What does one do? I think that other countries are struggling with that as well.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I appreciate all that and look forward to any information you can send us.
The Chairman: I would be grateful if we could be as concise as possible so that we can finish our hearings and let our officials get back to their jobs. We also have some work to do ourselves.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: They are doing their job, and very well, too.
Senator Andreychuk: Is this not part of the dilemma? We built a system in Canada. You have the right to answer a case being made against you. That inherently makes our system so different than other systems of the past.
You talk about the fact that you have to balance national security and the right to answer a case for the defence. It is very difficult, as the Arar case points out to us. People do not know what the full case is against them. If you get half of it, you may try to defend yourself in one way, and then you find out they meant it in a slightly different way. You find yourself ensnared and entrapped, not being able to give a full defence.
Would not part of the dilemma be to have some sort of proper scrutiny of the process? We have heard the RCMP complaints commission saying that they do not have full control over that. CSIS and CIRC, the Canadian Intelligence Resource Centre, do not have full control over that. Parliament does not have control over that.
As we are finding in Arar, there are legitimate disputes as to what is in the national interests and national security. The judge in that case was saying that this should be disclosed and, weighing the two sides, the public has a right to know. The government on the other hand was saying that no, we are not going to disclose it. Is that not the conundrum unless we get some oversight? Both have a vested interest. The government is making its case, and so is the defence. Surely there should be some objective oversight of that.
Mr. Kennedy: Perhaps I could speak to some of that, because there are many issues on the table.
You referred to the Arar decision in terms of the matter currently before the Federal Court. To put it in its proper context, the provisions of section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act were designed in such a fashion that there would be a trial process or some kind of a hearing process, and there would in fact be a disagreement as to what could or should be released. That would go to a Federal Court judge to decide, and you can appeal further from there. That is how it would play out.
That provision was amended as part of Bill C-36, and it was amended in a positive fashion. Prior to Bill C-36, if the Crown used an objection under section 38, it was like a nuclear bomb. It was all or nothing. But it was modified to give the judge the power to come up with a judicial summary so it is not all or nothing. The debate would be going to a Federal Court judge, saying, ``Maybe you could give more, depending on how you edit the document and how you say what you are going to say.'' That is actually a plus for those who want to have access to national security information, because it allows a refinement of the editing process to let more out yet protect the essential elements the state is concerned with.
The other thing to bear in mind is that there is a difference between a person charged with a criminal offence under the Criminal Code who will face a period of incarceration and the stigmatization that goes with it; you are a criminal and that is beyond a reasonable doubt. However, we are not dealing with a criminal case here. We are dealing with a person who is not a Canadian citizen, who has come to the shores of Canada, and there is reason to believe he is a terrorist, has done terrorist activities, is involved in terrorism or will commit a terrorist act. That person does not have the same rights as a citizen. They do not have a right to come to Canada. They are not Canadians. You can put in place an administrative law regime tailored to recognize these different competing rights. That is why you have the regime currently in place. Under administrative law, it is not a criminal law process.
The individual is here in custody because they wish to stay here in this country. The goal is to stay here. They are saying, ``I do not want to be deported from Canada. I wish to stay in Canada.'' The incarceration is because, as long as they are here, the concern is that we have reasonable grounds to believe he is engaged in terrorism or will be engaged in terrorism, and you cannot release that person upon the Canadian public. If they want to get on an aircraft and go back, they are free to do so. They have chosen not to. They wish to pursue their right to stay here in Canada. There is a difference between a criminal law process and an administrative law process, a process where you are charged under the criminal law and are going to go to jail as opposed to someone wanting to stay here to pursue a legal remedy because they want to stay in Canada and not be removed from the country. There are differences.
Senator Andreychuk: With respect, that is not precisely what I was getting at. I think we have elements of natural justice, and we have an obligation for justice to those who come to this country, many of whom have spent twenty years here. I have been following deportation and denaturalization. I am saying that we have moved a lot of the concepts around from administrative to criminal, and that leads to my second question.
Is it not time to look at the extent to which we have veered off what we thought was acceptable? You were talking about the six pillars or six areas of Bill C-36. At that time we were told, either in that hearing or the subsequent legislation, that many of these things were asked for by police investigators in various topics and areas, whether criminal court or deportation, and they were found to be wanting. There was not an appetite to do it in the public, as perceived by the government of the day. When organized crime came on, we moved the barriers, and now terrorism has moved them even further. All of the guidelines that we used for justice issues were moved on those two issues. Is it not time to reassess whether we moved them in the right area and to determine whether, under the guise of terrorism, we are not utilizing these tools, as you call them, to get information about citizens for other purposes, and for those purposes, i.e., criminal activity, we would not have moved the barrier that much? It is a philosophical debate.
Mr. Kennedy: I point out, as mentioned this morning, that security certificates are not part of Bill C-36, although I have heard your expression of interest in the matter in the sense that the regime that you saw in place and that I have just described to you was in place independent of the events of 9/11. It is rooted back, I believe, to 1978, dealing with some of the phenomena we were dealing with at that time. It was modified in 1991, again, 10 years before the events, because the world was in fact dealing with terrorist phenomena.
The question of whether you can have evidence that is heard in-camera, ex parte, which the other side does not have, was one of the issues looked at by the Supreme Court of Canada in Chiarelli. We are sensitive, as lawyers, to try to make public as much as is humanly possible, but you hit a point where if you are transparent then you will not use the tool. If you use the tool, you will never get a terrorist or a person we believe is involved in terrorism out of this country. We would not be able to take that preventive step. Unfortunately, our choices are that stark.
That really is a separate debate; it was not driven by the events of 9/11. It was driven by the question of how you use evidence in an administrative hearing to remove a person who you believe is involved in terrorist activity where you have to use classified information or organized crime activity? The Chiarelli case is, in fact, an organized crime case. The same issues are there for sources in organized crime cases. In terms of terrorist activities, we have had groups alleged to have killed 100,000 people or 50,000 to 60,000 people over the course of their history. We are dealing with serious problems here in terms of the need to protect information.
Mr. Pentney: Have we not moved too far in point of basic principle? I think the point the minister made was that the parliamentary debate that went on around Bill C-36 was all about values and principles, and substantial changes were made. I think that the task for this committee is to decide whether or not in light of the current threats and risks further changes are required. Many of our core principles actually find expression in this legislation to the extent possible. This has not given powers to the executive without judicial oversight. This has not completely turned our legal system on its head. This builds on existing legislative frameworks that have been applied, as Mr. Kennedy has said, to organized crime, for example. Where applicable, some of it has been moved over now to apply to terrorism.
From the beginning, we were a country dedicated towards peace, order and good government. Section 7 of the Charter talks about security of the person as being one of the fundamental values. We are not prepared as a country to abandon our right to live in freedom and security. The threat we face was somehow crystallized by 9/11. It is not that 9/ 11 was the only event, but it certainly brought a sharp focus to the nature of the threat. We need once again perhaps to get that sharp focus on the current and anticipated threats we are facing and then to decide how our principles and values should find expression.
Bill C-36 contains anti-hate provisions. We have created a cross-cultural roundtable. We have tried to ensure judicial oversight. There are a number of ways in which the basic values of Canadians have not been abandoned but rather expressed through Bill C-36 and related activities. I think the question for this committee and that of the House is to determine whether, in light of the current threats and risks, our values are sufficiently protected, including the value of living in a secure and free society. This is difficult, as has been acknowledged. This will be a wonderful opportunity for this committee to sit back and take stock, but we should not do so in a vacuum. We need to do so in the context of the current threats. I think we also need to be cautious about understanding the extent to which basic values have been changed. A number of concerns have been raised in the scholarly literature about the scope and amplitude of it, but I do not believe anyone has said that we fundamentally turned our values on their head. The question is, have we gone too far. I think that that is a very valid question, but one cannot measure that simply by asking whether the law been used a lot. We have to consider whether there is a context right now where the law might be used. If there is, then I think we need to reflect on whether or not the tools that we have given ourselves through this and other steps are adequate.
In terms of basic values, there have been some changes. This law addresses a new type of activity and a new type of threat. There are some fairly extraordinary powers given. It is clear that they have not been widely used, which is something to be thankful about. In examining them we do need to consider whether or not we can see a plausible circumstance where they would be used.
Mr. Kennedy: I refer you to the preamble to the legislation. I think that is useful to guide all of us. In other words, did it make sense then and does it make sense now. It is a lengthy preamble which is quite unique, as preambles generally are not the big thing to do. The preamble captures the consequence we are all concerned with as citizens; Canadian people everywhere are entitled to live their lives in peace, freedom and security. It talks about taking these actions while continuing to respect and promote the values reflected in and the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. It talks about all the principles. Is any one of those principles any less applicable today? Does this legislation violate those principles? That is the touchstone, I think, that is guiding us.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Senator Joyal: Who is responsible in your operation for the follow-up on the implementation of the Charter principle in your daily operation when you devise policy, programs, interpretation of the legislation? Who is responsible in your shop for that?
Mr. Kennedy: You will probably recall that one of the criticisms of the legislation was that it was made bullet proof or Charter proof. When legislation is prepared an internal challenge process goes on with the privacy folks and the Charter folks. As you know, the Minister of Justice has to sign off that any legislation is compliant with the Charter before it even goes to debate by cabinet and when it is introduced. That is part of what we do.
The Charter clearly has two aspects: one is the legislation itself and the other is the execution or application of that legislation. If your behaviours are in excess, that is like a search or seizure. Every unit, whether it is CSIS or RCMP, clearly has a legal services unit. When these policies are crafted, they are looked at in the context of what is reasonable, proportionate, balanced and all the rest of it. That is in the lifeblood and fabric of civil servants in this country. That is part of the matrix of how you think.
Senator Joyal: We all know that. In your shop, your business, what you do, in your own way of defining your priorities and your initiatives, who is responsible for the Charter application? I know the RCMP has its own legal adviser. I know the justice department should certify legislation. We are not talking about legislation being adopted here. We already have Bill C-36. I am asking who exercises oversight on the Charter in the day-to-day operation of your responsibility.
Mr. Kennedy: It is part of what we do. Everything we look at, we look at through the lens of the Charter. That is a given. We have our own legal service unit. They are not our lawyers. They are Department of Justice lawyers who provide a service to us. If there is a warrant or activity like that or targeting activity decision made by the intelligence service, my people sit on that. If there is a problem, that comes back to me. Every warrant application comes up and goes through our legal service unit. I look at it personally, as do the deputy minister and the minister. My people sit on all the committees that draft all the policies. Post 9/11 we put in some additional ministerial directives for the RCMP in light of the fact that they would be playing a more enhanced role in this area. Those directives are akin to what we had put in place for CSIS dealing with sensitive educational institutions and religious institutions. Part of our job is to make sure that this legislation is properly applied, not only in terms of the legislation but also in terms of the behaviour of the other actors.
On the intelligence side, the CIRC will look at it, and the CIRC has exceptionally wide powers in terms of what it looks at. The Inspector General, the eyes and ears of the minister, independently looks at compliance with policies and makes recommendations. On the policing side there is a committee for the commission for police inquiries. We have of course the courts as well. There is a whole apparatus that ensures that there are checks and balances and that things do not go awry. It is not to our advantage to have things go awry.
Senator Joyal: When we did our pre-study, we did recommend that a permanent parliamentary oversight mechanism be entrenched in this legislation. Once we have spelled out the section of the bill on which we have gathered today, there won't be any other mechanism to do the kind of work that we are doing or to evaluate the changes and the way that the values are interpreted in the context of today's and future threats. To me, this remains a key issue for this committee. I am still satisfied with the recommendation that we made three years ago about a parliamentary oversight mechanism. That is as important today as it was then. We should address that in the context of what we have done before.
The Chairman: I am certain that, as our hearings proceed, these issues will very much become part of our discussions.
I want to thank you again, all of you who have stayed. This has been quite an extraordinary beginning for our committee. We have covered some of the very deeply felt views on important areas within this bill. Certainly, there are parts outside the bill that offer themselves, whether we like it or not, for discussion, but this has been an excellent beginning for us. We will proceed. Do not be surprised if we call on you again to come back for another session. You have been very thoughtful and patient and we thank you. Now you are free to go back to your day jobs.
Mr. Pentney: Let us just reiterate our openness to be of assistance to the committee in any way that you may find helpful. If we can assist you in finding other information or in identifying other bureaucrats who can come forward and have the pleasure of appearing before you, we would be happy to do so.
The Chairman: I did not give you a proper recess.
Senator Stratton: Briefly, this is important. You have been very helpful to us. You have stated clearly that Bill C-36 is not going to be modified in any way as yet, but you had said that there are other areas that will be or are being considered for modification. In order to put Bill C-36 into context while we study it, should we not at least be aware of what is happening around it with respect to terrorism? To really put Bill C-36 into context we need to understand what is being done elsewhere. I think that would be very helpful.
The Chairman: Senator Stratton, are you suggesting that this is an issue now for our committee to take a look at as we work our agenda forward?
Senator Stratton: I think we should, yes.
The Chairman: That is what we will be beginning to do for the rest of the afternoon, and so your question is well put.
Thank you very much.
The committee continued in camera.