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.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much.
So that is deemed inadmissible.
Next is NDP-6: good news, Mr. Scott, in NDP-6.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Well, it would have been good news, except that the reason just given by the legislative clerk does require me to go on record and say that for the purposes of democratic and parliamentary reform under any government, whether it's this one or a future one, that's a deeply problematic situation that we find ourselves in, being bound in the House of Commons by where the bill starts in terms of the whole question of the relationship to the purse.
I think I see a lot of semi-nodding heads here, that this might be looked at in the future.
Thank you.
3:40 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Actually—thank you for your introduction to it—NDP-6 is in order.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
I think NDP-7 and NDP-8 are more in line with NDP-4 and NDP-5.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
Now we're dealing with NDP-6, which is a different matter.
This proposed amendment would seek to alter the second branch of the grounds by which a peace officer may lay an information before a provincial court judge in applying for recognizance with conditions, such that it would require that the peace officer suspects, on reasonable grounds, that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person, or the arrest of a person, is necessary not just to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity but to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity by that person.
In our view, the proposed amendment would be inconsistent with the policy intent of the recognizance with conditions as presented in the bill, given the grave nature of the harm posed by the threat of terrorist activity. The recognizance with conditions in its present form would provide the potential for a recognizance with conditions to be imposed to disrupt the nascent phase of a terrorist activity, even where the person who would be subject to the recognizance with conditions is not necessarily the person carrying out a terrorist activity.
The proposed amendment would seek to restrict the application of this measure. Because that is inconsistent with the policy intent underpinning the provision, we are opposed to it.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Very briefly, I did want to say that on this one I very much thought it was an amendment that would probably be resisted because it was adding unnecessary clarity to the section—
3:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
—and I must admit it now causes me greater concern that this provision does clearly apply to somebody who can be put under recognizance with respect to terrorist activity that is not their own terrorist activity. It's important that this is on the record. We know now what this is intended to mean; I didn't understand what it was intended to mean.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Scott.
Are we ready for the question on amendment NDP-6?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment NDP-7—
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Here I'll stop. I've already had my say about the Senate, so for amendments 7 and 8, you can do what you will.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right.
Amendment NDP-7 is inadmissible as it provides for measures that would infringe on the financial initiative of the crown by imposing a charge on the public treasury—it's the royal recommendation—so that is inadmissible.
On amendment NDP-8, it's the same deal. Amendment NDP-8 is inadmissible as it needs a royal recommendation. I deem that inadmissible.
(Clause 10 agreed to)
(On clause 11)
Amendment NDP-9 on clause 11, Mr. Scott.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Effectively, for this one and the one that I believe is right after it—
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I had them grouped differently before we came in, and this is the problem.
We had extensive questioning and a fair bit of testimony, and there was testimony in the Senate, especially from the director of CSIS, on the connection between the new leaving-the-country offences and exit control, exit information: do we know who's leaving? And then exit control is premised on exit information.
I won't go into any detail other than to say that we spent some time asking different witnesses about this issue. I believe the record will show that a number of different approaches are being considered by the government, including possibly changing the passenger information system to make it an earlier-in-time system.
Our concern, frankly, is that we may be semi-sleepwalking towards an exit surveillance system that hasn't been presented as part of what is needed to implement the leaving-the-country provisions, so we simply wanted to make sure that the reporting had this in mind, and that the whole idea of exit information and exit control doesn't slip under the radar at the stage of the accountability around this bill. That is the reason it's there.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative