Public Safety Committee on March 1st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good morning, everyone. This is meeting number 57 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is Tuesday, March 1, 2011. Today we are going to the clause-by-clause stage in our consideration of Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).

We have with us, to assist us if need be, from the Department of Justice, Douglas Breithaupt, director and general counsel, and Glenn Gilmour, counsel, the criminal law policy section.

We have five amendments that were given to the chair this morning, and all five deal with clause 4, if I'm not mistaken, so we'll move right into it.

I should also remind the committee that we are prepared to finish this today. We have reserved this room until 2 o'clock, but that doesn't mean we have to stretch it out that long.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We do have the room until 2 o'clock. That doesn't necessarily mean we should feel like we have to keep it until 2 o'clock, but we do want to try to complete this.

We have our clauses. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 will be postponed.

(Clause 1 allowed to stand)

(On clause 2)

We will call clause 2.

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Before you start, did you say we have five amendments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That's correct.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think I have only two.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes. We have the two from the New Democrats.

Can we circulate the Liberal...?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Roger Préfontaine]

We can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, so until we get the go-ahead....

All right? They're all on clause 4.

Shall clause 2 carry?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

We have one more on the way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

One more? Okay.

Shall clause 2 carry? All in favour? Opposed?

It's carried.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay. It's on division.

(Clause 2 agreed to on division)

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Actually, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I don't think that was on division. I don't know exactly what you mean by on division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Well, it wasn't unanimous. There were two opposed.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Right. But when you say on division, maybe I could use some clarification. What exactly do you mean by on division?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It was not unanimous. There were votes on both sides.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I see. As opposed to a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes: on division.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

(On clause 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Shall clause 3 carry?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have a request for a recorded vote. That's a non-debatable motion.

(Clause 3 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I guess we take these in the order they came in. This motion is in order. It is tagged on your pages as amendment NDP-1.

Mr. Davies, we see it here: that Bill C-17, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 8 with the following:

“day of Parliament after the second anniversary of”

That is to change the sunset clause to two years from...I think in the bill it's five years.

Mr. Davies, did you want to speak to that?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, briefly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

As you know, the New Democrats are wholly opposed to Bill C-17 for all the reasons we spoke about when we were studying this bill and hearing from the witnesses. The New Democrats believe that no foundation has been laid by the government for this bill.

There are some serious concerns about the civil liberties impact that this bill would have, including giving police powers to arrest on a mere suspicion and the power to compel evidence and force witnesses to testify, and indeed, allowing courts to lock people up for up to a year without charge. We find this bill is a serious incursion against Canadian civil liberties, so we're wholly opposed to this bill, and we'll vote against it.

But we did hear from some witnesses, Mr. Chairman, about the sunset clause, which is currently set at five years in this bill. If this ill-advised bill were to pass, in the witnesses' views they wanted a very short sunset clause of two years so that Parliament could keep a very tight leash on, have a very close look at, and a very tight rein on what we all realize are serious derogations of Canadian civil liberties, justified in the name of fighting terror.

I think it behooves all of us as parliamentarians to protect Canadian civil liberties. We can do that by making sure that this bill, if it passes, which I hope it doesn't...but if it does, we can look at the impact of this bill in two years' time instead of five years' time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.