Public Safety Committee on Dec. 10th, 2012

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Basically, we see this proposed amendment as unnecessary. Bill S-7 already calls for annual reports to Parliament on the investigative hearing and the recognizance-with-conditions provisions and their operation, and it calls for a comprehensive parliamentary review of these provisions and their operation.

To the extent that these provisions are used in advance of the parliamentary review, both the sections themselves and their operation will be examined. To the extent that there is any connection between the operation of these sections and prosecutions of any of the leaving Canada offences, no doubt this information will be before the committee or committees without there being a need to amend the bill, as is proposed by this motion.

We therefore cannot support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Findlay.

Are we ready for the question on NDP-15?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

NDP-16.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

NDP-16 simply is a proposal, through amendment, to allow for enough time to pass before extension of the provisions that are being resurrected in this bill, giving enough time for the report to be digested, analyzed, and debated. Ninety days is the suggested time for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Ms. Findlay, please.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The impact of this motion, as we see it, would be to add complexity to the procedure unnecessarily. The proposed amendment, by adding a timeline into the procedure, makes the matter more complex, and would reduce a certain degree of flexibility. Thus, if the report of the parliamentary committee were delayed so that the proposed timeline could not be met, then the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions would be sunsetted by default, without Parliament as a whole being able to consider the question.

For these reasons, the proposed amendment is not supported by the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

The amendment is in order. Are we ready for the question on NDP-16?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have no amendments from clauses 12 through to 28. If we have unanimous consent, we can group them and save some time.

Do we have unanimous consent to group?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

(Clauses 12 to 28 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 29)

We have amendment NDP-17.

Go ahead, Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I won't belabour this. Earlier we dealt with a harbouring-related offence. Our suggestion was that the mens rea has to be tightened up to move from the likelihood of committing an offence to intentionally carrying out an offence. Ms. Findlay responded with her concerns. I suspect they're the same. I won't say any more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Ms. Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Yes, as indicated previously, the proposed amendment would be problematic for the same reasons.

How does one prove knowledge of what another person intends? To us, this amendment makes it far more difficult. Moreover, the harbouring and concealing offence addresses the situation where the harbouring or concealing is not done for the purpose of enabling a person to escape, but rather must be committed for the purpose of enabling the person to facilitate or carry out any terrorist activity.

This amendment would have the effect of further narrowing the ambit of the offence, which already, again, has a very narrow and precise focus. We do not believe that the further narrowing is warranted given the purpose element of the offence.

For these reasons, we are opposed to this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Findlay.

Are we ready for the question on NDP-17?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 29 agreed to)

On clause 30, the NDP have I think their final amendment—NDP-18.

Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I was just going to help the chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Oh, yes—

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

This one is inadmissible, I think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You still can introduce it, but because NDP-1 has been ruled out of order, NDP-18 cannot be put, so that is denied.

(Clause 30 agreed to)

Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Shall the bill carry?

[An hon. member]

Can we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes. I'll ask Mr. Chaplin to proceed with the recorded vote.

(Bill S-7 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall the chair report the bill to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much. That went through more quickly than I thought it would.

We want to move to future business, to committee business, which is in camera. We will suspend just momentarily to give the opportunity to go in camera. We will come back and discuss a delegation that wants to visit our committee.

[Proceedings continue in camera]