*** From [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomasz Iwanowski)
--- "Clark, Joe - M.P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Clark, Joe - M.P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Tomasz Iwanowski'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: say No to Bill C36. Dites Non a C36 > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:40:25 -0500 > > Dear Mr. Iwanowski, > > Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate your taking the time and the > effort > to write to me and share your thoughts on Bill C-36, the government's > proposed anti-terrorism legislation. > > Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 the new reality for > Canadians is that our priorities have changed with respect to > security in > our country. Bill C-36 is a comprehensive, 175 page bill, which > makes > significant amendments to the following: the Criminal Code, the > Official > Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act, the > National Defence Act, the Access to Information Act, the Registration > of > Charities Act as well as other Acts. It is expected to become law > before > the end of November 2001. > > The PC / DR Coalition is generally supportive of the principles > behind this > legislative response to fight terrorism. The attacks of September > 11th were > cowardly, inhumane acts, which have forced us to revisit and reaffirm > all we > hold dear. The bill attempts to achieve a balance between the > measures > needed to protect Canadians from acts of terrorism with the need to > respect > civil liberties and human rights that Canadians cherish. Our > Coalition > believes that a strong legislative response is necessary as are the > resources to allow our law enforcement community to be proactive in > the > important task of fighting terrorism. > > However, we intend to propose amendments to the existing legislation > to > ensure that in the efforts to protect Canadians, security and human > rights > can co-exist. The proposed legislation cannot needlessly infringe on > individual rights and freedoms thus, the focus of our amendments will > touch > on four main areas: the need for accountability and oversight; the > "sunsetting" of the application of the Act; minimizing infringement > of > rights and finally, greater clarity of new law enforcement powers. > Bill > C-36 was drafted quickly and is the first of at least two pieces of > legislation that will address terrorism. There is nothing in the > bill, > which addresses immigration laws directly. The second bill is > expected to > be introduced shortly and will deal mainly with transportation and > border > issues. > > Unlike other jurisdictions, this detailed piece of legislation does > not > define terrorism but defines "terrorist activity" as activity with a > "political, religious or ideological purpose". This has drawn some > criticism as it may be interpreted to broadly. There is fear that > legitimate peaceful dissent might fall under the definition. The > bill does > make the financing or the use of property in the furthering of > terrorism a > criminal act. It also provides for the listing of certain groups as > terrorists thus, freezing and seizing their property. It will become > a > criminal offence to participate, facilitate or harbour members of a > terrorist group and will criminalize the act of committing mischief > to > property or buildings owned or used for a religious purpose. In > addition, > spreading hate propaganda on the Internet and in other > telecommunication > systems will become a criminal offence. The bill expands methods for > the > taking of evidence outside the courtroom if it is felt that a > witnesses' > safety is at risk and gives new powers of investigation. > > Sadly, this bill will tread on the concepts of openness and > transparency in > government by allowing the Minister of Justice the power to deny > Canadians > access to information. To deny a request, the Minister of Justice > need only > invoke a reference to reasons of protecting national security, > defence or > international relations. This broad and somewhat nebulous provision > could > prevent sensitive information from potentially falling into the hands > of > terrorists but it overlooks the significant safeguards and > protections > already in place. > > Other changes include the modernization of the Official Secrets Act > to make > it an offence to divulge information that will prejudice the > interests of > Canada along with a provision to make economic espionage a crime. > Under the > Canada Evidence Act the Attorney General will be given the power to > pursue a > prosecution, and also prohibit the disclosure of information that > could > adversely affect the protection of international relations. The > Attorney > General could also determine whether the federal or provincial Crown > attorney will prosecute charges. > > The legislation for all intents and purposes nullifies the powers of > the > Information and Privacy Commissioners and removes judicial oversight, > wherever the government chooses to invoke the use of certificates. > Under > the legislation, the powers will be permanently removed, given the > reluctance of the government to sunset the application of these > extraordinary powers. > > The bill will also give the Defence Minister expanded power to grant > wiretaps for a longer duration. This will give listening powers to > police > for phone calls inside and outside Canada to monitor situations that > might > compromise national defence. There is a discretionary provision to > create > an oversight commissioner at the will of the Minister. > > Finally, the Minister of National Revenue will now be able to issue a > certificate stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that > a > charitable institution is engaged in funding a terrorist > organization. This > change is long overdue as it is necessary to cut off the lifeblood of > terrorist organizations. > > I do have serious concerns regarding the lack of oversight mechanisms > found > in bill C-36 and the aspects that will limit the free flow of > government > information to the public. Although I understand the need for > certain > government secrecy in matters of national security, Canadians should > be > alarmed by the potential loss of the right to government information > affecting their lives. During committee proceedings dealing with > bill C-36, > both Information Commissioner, John Reid and Privacy Commissioner, > George > Radwanski have indicated that the bill goes too far in excluding > disclosure > of information to Canadians. They were clear in condemning the > legislative > cloak of secrecy. The proposed amendments to Section 70 of the > Privacy Act > and Section 87 of the Access to Information Act would grant over > reaching > powers to refuse disclosure of any information. This power would be > open to > abuse by a Liberal government and Prime Minister who do not have a > good > track record for openness and accountability. I need only reference > the > APEC Inquiry, the Grand Mere scandal and the recent performance of > the > Health Minister to highlight that point. > > The Liberal government should not use the threat to public security > to > justify a Cabinet clamp down on the free flow of information. A > permanent > removal of the powers of review and disclosure vested in officers of > Parliament is not necessary given the safeguards that currently > exist. > Neither these officials nor the judiciary have the ability to > overturn > Cabinet security. Contrary to the Justice Department's assertions, > other > countries such as the U.K., the U.S.A. and Australia are not moving > to acts > of secrecy, nor are they requesting Canada do the same. The American > President is still subject to judicial and congressional checks on > his power > while our Prime Minister would become exempt. The privacy aspects of > bill > C-36 will nullify the powers of these independent officers of > Parliament. > As a result, future public attempts to obtain government held > information > and accountability could be rejected and hidden behind the broad > language of > these amendments. > > The PC / DR Coalition believes that bill C-36 is a good initiative in > Canada's response to terrorism. The legislation addresses a number > of the > concerns that have been raised since September 11th regarding the > inadequacies of a variety of statues that deal with acts which > threaten > peace, order and good government in this country. Bill C-36 creates > a > series of new; specialized offences designed to more particularly > capture > terrorist crime and the wilful, supportive activities. I feel that > the bill > takes some of the necessary steps to expand the scope of a criminal > offence > to include the participation in, facilitation of and harbouring of a > terrorist group. It is similar to the organized crime bill C-24 > which > criminalizes participation in organized crime as the offence, not > simply > belonging to the organized group. In this case, the definition is > wide > enough to include those who recruit and train terrorists and it > provides for > the offence whether or not the group actually participates in > terrorist > activity. > > However, I remain concerned that the bill may place too much power in > the > hands of government Ministers. Many of the bill's new legislative > measures > are vested solely in the office of a single cabinet minister. I > believe > that such power should either be given to, or at least checked by the > judiciary or an impartial oversight committee placing such power and > discretion in the hands of the executive could be open to abuse for > political purposes. As well, many of the new provisions require > proof that > the Criminal Act was committed for political, religious or > ideological > reasons. This places a very high standard of proof, which is > difficult for > the Crown and police to meet in securing the successful prosecution > of > offences. > > I am also concerned with the Liberal tendency to make grandiose > political > announcements without providing the proper funding to enact the > legislative > initiatives. The practical reality is that to implement this law, > more > personnel, training, equipment and overtime are needed to fulfill > these new > obligations and responsibilities. The additional authority and > powers that > bill C-36 will give to police must be accompanied by the dedication > of > additional resources to train them how to use these new tools. The > Solicitor General has recently announced funding increases to the > RCMP and > CSIS but considering that the Liberal government had been financially > starving these groups for years, prior to September 11th, this recent > funding will not even begin to address the additional > responsibilities for > Canada's law enforcement agencies. The current reassignment of over > 2000 > RCMP officers to duties outside their current postings highlights the > personnel shortages. The government's decision to put RCMP in > National > Parks and at boarders is stretching security capacity to the breaking > point. > > Clearly, there is a need for police to be able to immediately arrest > someone > they believe on reasonable grounds to be a terrorist threat. Many > Canadians > are concerned that the expanded powers of arrest and detention are in > some > instances open to government interference as was highlighted by the > APEC > report presented by Mr. Justice Ted Hughes. Bill C-36 would enable > police > to arrest and detain an individual for up to 72 hours without charge. > This > type of police power not only could be used to curtail the right of > assembly > and demonstration but it is contrary to the thrust of the APEC > Report. > > The powers of investigative hearings require further definition and > some > reasonable parameters. While a person can be compelled to give > evidence and > produce physical evidence, the traditional right to silence is > completely > overridden. > > There is growing evidence that the more intrusive sections of the > bill must > be subject to sunset clauses. A simple review will not suffice as it > is not > binding nor will it provide adequate protection. As we have seen in > current > "mandatory" reviews such as the supposed review of the mental > disorder > provisions, which were to be reviewed seven years ago, they are > simply not > followed. Therefore, I feel that previously mentioned sections of > concern > in the Act, which I have highlighted, should be subject to a sunset > clause, > forcing these provisions to expire at the end of three to five years. > I > support most provisions of the bill, which will fulfill Canada's > commitments > under the 12 United Nations Conventions and Protocols related to > terrorism. > These sections are aimed specifically at targeting terrorism without > infringing upon civil rights. It is my belief that these provisions > with > amendments should be passed quickly into law. The more controversial > sections of the bill should be subject to further scrutiny and sunset > clauses providing a mandatory re-introduction. Inserting sunset > clauses > would allow adequate time for the public to evaluate these sections > of the > bill and force the government to justify the need for a > re-implementation of > the bill in what we hope will be a more stable, secure period in the > future. > > > Despite these concerns, I feel that the circumstances facing > Canadians since > September 11th necessitate a heightened effort to combat the threat > of > terrorism. The very first obligation of government and all > parliamentarians > is human security. We will present our concerns to the Justice > Committee in > the hopes of improving Bill C-36 and providing Canadians with strong > legislation to protect the public and combat the threat of terrorism. > > Once again, thank you for your correspondence. > > Sincerely, > > > Joe Clark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tomasz Iwanowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: November 21, 2001 11:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Rob Sampson-CO > Subject: say No to Bill C36. Dites Non a C36 > > > I say No to Bill C36. > Je dit Non a C36 > > Tom Iwanowski > 440 Winfield Terrace > Mississauga, Ontario > L5R 1P2 > 905-890-6092 > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. > http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 =============================================================== Lista 'Forum Zagraniczne' Administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archiwum: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
