Evidence of meeting #2 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay.
Do any of our research staff have any additional suggestions?
4:50 p.m.
Committee Researcher
There are some obvious witnesses that, for whatever reason, haven't contacted the clerk yet. One of them is the Canadian Council for Refugees, which I'm sure will have something to say about this. There's the Barreau du Québec, whom we always call—and I have to admit my conflict of interest as I'm a member of the Barreau du Québec. There's the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who may have something to say about it. There are probably Muslim groups as well who may have something to say about it. There are some defence committees as well, for some of the people who are actually subject to security certificates.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Chair, we're only dealing with two parts of what the Supreme Court sent back to us. It's not a case of reopening the whole bill; it's only those two things that the Supreme Court felt needed to be fixed. So it shouldn't be a long discussion about the bill.
November 20th, 2007 / 4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Perhaps I will just follow up on the clerk's comments, although these are just two parts. It is a very important bill and we want to make sure we get it right. The last thing you need is for a perception, whether erroneous or not, that groups who feel that they're directly affected by this have been excluded from the opportunity to appear and give their point of view. It does a disservice. Not every group is like the bar association, which follows carefully everything that goes on in parliamentary committees. There are groups out there that we have to be proactive with and to reach out to make sure we don't antagonize unnecessarily.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
Yes. Perhaps the researchers could put together a more fulsome list. These are people who asked themselves, but in order to have a well-rounded set of presentations so that we have a good feeling for it, for what we're doing, so that we have a level of comfort and the public has a level of comfort, maybe at the next meeting the researchers could put forward a list of people they think would be offended if they were left out.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
If they come with a list, are we all prepared to have extra meetings and all this?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
I think it's a good idea to have extra meetings to make sure we get the work done. If my memory is correct, some of these groups have attended this committee, but they have attended other committees to deal with the very same subject matter. Are they going to bring something new? Most of their considerations were related to the Supreme Court challenge. Now that we have the Supreme Court decision, and this based on it, if we're going to have 15 different organizations that want to come, I want to be able to restrict--that's why I think we can do more than two--the questioning and discussion to the subject matter at hand in the bill, and not do the whole issue all over again. All we'll be doing is going to hear testimony about things we've had before. The reason I said I'd be prepared to say yes to this is provided we restrict it, and you can ask the question and go through, so we could have three or four organizations attend, rather than just two.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I think we can make those kinds of accommodations--there's no question--and we need to because we don't have that much time if we need to meet the February deadline for the court.
We all agree I think that the most important thing is that there are groups in this society that feel singled out, and this may not be intentional in the legislation or in any government either past or present. I believe it's important that they be given the opportunity to come and speak to the committee, so Canadians have the feeling they've been heard by the committee. That's very important.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Would you agree with the point made here? They would comment on the court and what the court has mandated, the two points we have. Are you going to throw it wide open?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
My sense is, look, I think people come to talk to you, and if they want to say something above and beyond the two provisions, if you restrict them in time, then let them say what they want to say. I just think we should really be....
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Chair, with all due respect, and I understand what the member is saying, but this committee went through the Anti-terrorism Act. We've done study after study. The immigration committee studied it. The Supreme Court has studied it. What we're dealing with here is after the Supreme Court looked at the whole issue, they said, here are two issues that need to be addressed, and they have to be addressed by a certain time. It's not to cut them off, but maybe what we should look at is doing another study afterwards, but dealing with Bill C-3, which is only these two small issues. We're not trying to shut them off or not give them an opportunity, but....
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I'm assuming that when you have groups like the ones mentioned by the staff, they are smart enough to come and address the issues at hand. If they have any time left to say something else, they may or may not.
I'm sure you've been approached by various individuals and scholars, as we have been, and they tell us that there are many things we can do to make these two provisions better--not to eliminate them, but to make them better. So you might hear from some of those groups some ideas as to how we can make them better. I'd like to hear that.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
About those two issues that we're talking about, not the bill, and not the whole act.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Not the concept itself.
If I come before you as a presenter and I want to say two sentences about the whole piece of legislation and say this thing stinks, but now I'll address the two issues, we're never going to prevent the people from saying that. If they want to say that, then fine, and that's our function, to hear people.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
It's a fair comment.
I'm trying to wrestle, in my mind, with how we're going to do all this. Could I ask the members of this committee, if they have any more suggestions as to witnesses that they get them to the clerk by Thursday, in the next 24 hours hopefully? Then we can let the staff and the clerk try to figure out who can come when.
Can I also schedule some extra meetings? I'm looking at the calendar, and the officials come this week, then the minister comes, and then on the 29th we can have witnesses. We have to go to clause-by-clause and get this done before Christmas, because we have a February deadline. All of this has to go through Parliament, and it has to all be done, so we have to finish before Christmas in the House and everything. We don't have very much time, and if everybody wants to have an exhaustive list of witnesses to appear before this committee, we're going to have to put in a lot of late night hours. Are you willing to do that? Can I let the staff...?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't want an exhaustive list of witnesses; I just want to make sure that the researchers put in some of those, or all of those, people they suggested. The whole thing about what day we're going to meet and at what hour, etc., you shouldn't be worrying about; it should be the clerk and the researchers who put together a little calendar for your approval and then you bring it to us. You're agonizing over it.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
No. That was part of my suggestion, that they would put this all together; you bring in your suggestions in the next 24 hours and they'll put this all together. They can bring a proposal back to the committee and we'll discuss it Thursday after the officials are here. Hopefully in five to ten minutes we can put our little rubber stamp on what they bring forward.
At the same time, can they try to fit in the two suggested witnesses on the witness protection program? I don't know when they can come, but whatever, if they can come on a certain date before Christmas, we will try to fit that in. Those will be our two main agenda items that we're going to focus on and try to get into a calendar.
Yes, Ms. Priddy.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
Thank you.
There may be no better way to handle this, and I'm uncertain. There's the idea of talking to the officials on Thursday, the minister on Tuesday, and then having all these witnesses come and raise issues that we then cannot go back to the minister and officials on. Or perhaps we can, and I'd like some clarification on that. It obviously seems to make more sense that those questions are raised and then we have a chance to ask those questions of the minister or of the ministerial staff. Would this be the normal procedure, that the ministerial staff and the minister would come at the end of the discussion?
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
The committee can always invite him. It's something that we, as a committee, can always do if there is some issue that has surfaced that hasn't been dealt with.
5 p.m.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
I assume a number of issues are going to surface, given the witness list that people have talked about. I just want to know if there will be an opportunity to then return to either the minister or ministerial officials to ask if this is possible, or whatever.