Evidence of meeting #65 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand what Mr. Scott's—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
That one is deemed inadmissible as it goes beyond the scope of the bill.
Thank you. I apologize.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Ditto, ditto, and ditto, yes. It is deemed inadmissible as it goes beyond the scope of the bill.
Moving down to clause 11, there have been no amendments brought forward for clause 11.
(Clause 11 agreed to)
(On clause 12)
On clause 12, we have a number of amendments.
Amendment NDP-11, Mr. Scott.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Basically, amendment NDP-11 does two things, because there is a second amendment that follows if this one gets voted down. The first thing it does is specify that if there is only going to be one committee doing this study, it has to be a committee that the House of Commons has voted to create, either its own House of Commons committee or a joint committee. By definition, any joint committee would also need to have the Senate on it.
With the way the current provision is written, and then with the follow-on provision that refers to “The committee”, it seems fairly clear to me that it's possible we could have this review done only by the Senate, and it would then knock on as being “The committee”. I honestly think, given the subject matter and the concern we've expressed from the beginning—which is that this particular bill started in the Senate—that we really want the House of Commons to have a say in the committee that ends up doing this. That's in the middle of this.
All that the rest of this is doing is just being more specific about provisions that have to be reviewed, including the fact that we're very keen to make sure that the interaction of the leaving-the-country offences and the resurrected investigative hearings and recognizance provisions is looked at, so we can see whether or not investigative hearings and recognizance are being used in tandem with the leaving-the-country offences. We had a fair bit of testimony along those lines. I'm not saying it would be illicit if that were to happen, from a legal perspective, but we wouldn't want to see it too much. I think there needs to be transparency. That's why it's there.
December 10th, 2012 / 3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are two aspects to this amendment. The first one might be called interaction. The utility of the investigative hearing and the recognizance-with-conditions provisions is not necessarily linked to the leaving Canada offences, and thus requiring this additional information to be included in the annual report, in our view, is not necessary.
The investigative hearing, for example, was invoked in the past in respect of the Air India trial, and at that time there were no leaving Canada offences as are contemplated in this bill. To the extent that there might be any interaction between holding an investigative hearing or imposing recognizance with conditions and the leaving Canada offence, it is likely that such a connection would be noted, in any event, without the need for this particular proposed amendment.
The other aspect of it is the Senate committee. Senate committees have traditionally played an important role in reviewing anti-terrorism measures, and this amendment would be inconsistent with the provision in the bill that seeks to keep this option open and not restrict any subsequent comprehensive parliamentary review in this way.
In summary, we say that the proposed amendment is unnecessary and is inconsistent with the policy underpinning the bill. We will not be supporting it.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Just to reiterate, it's important to note that the end of this amendment reads, “the review shall include a study of the interaction”, because the first part indicates all the provisions that could be looked at on their own. We would simply prefer not to leave it to chance that the interactions would be looked at, and it's much more likely to be looked at if it's sitting there expressly in the text.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Scott.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment NDP-12.
Go ahead.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Chair, I won't spend too much time on this, because I worked it into the earlier explanation, and Ms. Findlay has also replied.
I would simply say that the importance of the Senate from the government's perspective and the possibility that it could only be a Senate committee that would do the review are clear from the text and from Ms. Findlay's counterpoint. I would simply like to reiterate that the NDP, the official opposition, very much sees that as a problem and would like to retain the wording that is suggested here:
[That the committee must be] of the House of Commons or of both Houses...that may be designated by the House of Commons
So when it says, “both Houses”, that would mean a joint committee.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
This is tied very much to the last proposed amendment, and as with the previous motion, this amendment seeks to exclude a Senate committee from conducting any review that is to be undertaken pursuant to the bill.
As I stated earlier, because Senate committees have traditionally played an important role in reviewing anti-terrorism measures, we feel this motion is inconsistent with the policy intent of the bill, and therefore we cannot support it.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Ms. Findlay.
Are we ready for the question on amendment NDP-12?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Do you want to introduce amendment NDP-13, Mr. Scott?
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Yes.
I'll simply say that on reading it, I think it is clear what our concern is. The provision basically indicates that prior to starting the five-year comprehensive review, a separate report should be done around recommendations of the Arar commission report that have not been implemented regarding certain kinds of monitoring and accountability mechanisms over a range of agencies or within inter-agency relations.
We heard a lot of testimony about how inter-agency relations will be at the very centre of the new leaving-the-country offences as well as the resurrected procedures. We're not asking for this to be done in advance or as a condition of this entering into force. We're simply saying that at the five-year review, we should be in a position to have a frank debate about where we are with the Arar commission recommendations, and that should form part of the report prior to the report.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
This one is deemed inadmissible, as it is beyond the scope of the bill.
NDP-14.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
It's a similar kind of logic to the last one, although this one would be embedded within the review process of whatever committee—now possibly a Senate committee—is engaging in the review and report.
We have expressed the concern that especially the leaving-the-country offences, but also the way in which investigative hearings could potentially end up being used in practice, do create some concerns around possible discrimination. We're not saying this will happen, and we're not saying it's in any way the intention of our law enforcement or intelligence agencies, but we recognize it's a possibility.
Therefore, we're proposing that the Canadian Human Rights Commission be built into the process to report on what's been happening under the act from their perspective for its first five years of operation. Once that report is there, then a committee of the Senate or the House, or a joint committee, takes it into account as they would.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Scott.
This one also is deemed inadmissible, as it goes beyond the scope of the bill.
NDP-15.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I think this amendment is self-explanatory. It falls under the category of I think two of the earlier amendments—namely, making more express and explicit that which we might think would more or less obviously be covered in a review process.
Because of the stakes, because of the concerns about the extraordinary nature of investigative hearings and recognizance without conditions, we think it's just better to be clear about the kinds of information that would be minimally needed in a report. We're just setting out some of that in this provision.
4 p.m.
Conservative