Public Safety Committee on Feb. 26th, 2015

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Can I get on the speakers list, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Absolutely, sir.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have whatever you would like. It's unlimited.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Excellent.

Since our Conservative government is in full support of this bill, I would say that I have not much to say to this. I will go to the next speaker. If she isn't ready, Mr. Chair, you can go to the next one after that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Ms. Sims, the member has deferred to you. He had very little to say.

You now have the floor.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much. I have quite a bit to say on this, as you can imagine.

Mr. Chair, I want to say that I wish I wasn't here this afternoon taking part in this debate. I wish that by now we'd have a negotiated agreement to proceed. But I need to make a couple of statements before I get to the substance of what I have to say.

First of all, let's make it very clear that nobody on either side of the table, or on any side of the table, I should say, supports any acts of violence or acts of terrorism. We are all equally concerned about Canadian security and safety. As a mother, grandmother, and lifelong teacher, I have spent most of my lifetime fighting for peaceful communities, and I know a couple of times, when I've sat in here, there has been almost an inference that somehow we are encouraging and supporting terrorism. That is absolutely not so.

It's very clear that we have concerns with this piece of legislation. We've not kept that a secret. It's also very clear that we were very, very upset when the government used its majority, basically using the baseball bat of majority, to hit the opposition on the head by shutting down debate in the House. After the bill was introduced, two hours after debate began, there was a closure motion.

Members of Parliament like me and others around this table were elected by their constituents to come here to be their voice, to come here and represent them. I take my role as a parliamentarian very, very seriously. I'm not here just for the constituents in my riding; I also have to keep in mind what's good for all Canadians from coast to coast. I was very, very perturbed when I did not have the opportunity to take part in the debate in the House. I've heard that from innumerable—innumerable—members of Parliament who were very worried and concerned.

So today when I heard the minister in the House—no secret—say that we were just trying to block this legislation and block debate, I thought that was rather rich coming from a government that had shut down debate in the House themselves, and used their majority in order to do that. I know that when you have a majority you have the votes, but really what we're here to debate today is not the merits of the bill. We will get lots of time to do that, I hope, later on. What we're here to debate today is the merits of having a thorough committee stage for this piece of legislation.

We live in a parliamentary democracy which is modelled after Westminster. Because we live in a democracy and not an autocracy, we have all kinds of checks and balances built in, checks and balances that I have spent years teaching my students. But here we are, finding that those checks and balances are being truncated because one political party has a majority and they for some reason seem to be very scared of a public debate on a bill that they have introduced.

For me it's really, really critical that we go through the processes that are meant to provide for rigorous debate. The government failed in that during second reading when the bill was in the House. As I said, they used the hammer of their majority, or the baseball bat of their majority, to get their way and to shut down debate. When I was in the House, towards the end of the debate I heard ministers and parliamentary secretaries get up and say, “You know what? This is going to go through rigorous debate at committee.”

I had hoped for that. But yesterday when I appeared at this committee, we saw a proposal for three meetings, and a meeting with the ministers and all the staff. It didn't seem very thorough to me.

I've also heard that we don't want this bill to pass and we're just speaking for the sake of speaking. I would argue, Mr. Chair, that the proposal we have put forward is not to have open-ended meetings, and not to hear from each and every person who wants to come and present before the committee. What we put forward was a very reasoned argument for 25 meetings so that witnesses could be called by all parties.

Twenty-five is not an endless number. There's no infinity attached to the number 25. It is exactly that: 25.

I heard the critic, whom I have a great deal of respect for, my colleague Randall Garrison, say over and over again that we know the government has a timeline and wants to see this legislation passed in this session, and that we're willing to sit, to take part in evening meetings or additional sittings, to sit during the riding weeks to make sure this legislation goes through. So I think it's a rather spurious argument by some of my colleagues to say that we're just trying to draw out the timelines because we don't want this legislation. We would actually like to get to the point where we could hear from witnesses, but in my books, eight meetings with witnesses is thoroughly inappropriate for a piece of legislation that is going to fundamentally change the laws around Canadian civil liberties and at the same time do very, very little to address terrorism.

I want to say at this stage, Mr. Chair, that I believe there are things we could be doing. I would like to have seen this more as a three-party—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, we're here to speak about the subamendment to the amendment, which calls for eight meetings and 48 expert witnesses. That's in addition to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice. The conversation I'm hearing is dealing with what Ms. Sims wishes the bill might have been and all sorts of other things she's talking about.

I would like her to bring it back to the actual legislation that we're trying to bring to this committee and not to all of the things she would have preferred to have in the bill, because those are not part of what this conversation is supposed to be about right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I would just mention to both sides of the committee, as the chair has suggested at earlier moments, to do their very best not to be repetitious and of course to be relevant to the topic at hand. I would ask everyone to stick closer to that line.

Thank you.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Having sat through this morning's testimony, I was taking my cue from and responding to some of the issues that were raised. I wasn't creating any new issues at this stage. I really appreciate your intervention, and I will carry on.

First of all, in order for a piece of legislation like this to have received the thorough oversight and the kind of in-depth study it deserves, the second reading stage needed to have gone on a little longer so that we all could have participated. Having failed at that, here we are before this committee, and once again the government wants to limit the amount of time we're going to be spending on hearing from experts.

This may come as a surprise to many, but I'm not an expert in everything, nor do I have the kind of detailed knowledge that the RCMP, CSIS, SIRC, law professors, judges, or past prime ministers are going to bring before this committee. I'm actually looking forward to hearing that testimony, because I really believe in informed decision-making. If you believe in informed decision-making, then you want to hear from the experts, and they will have a perspective. But I also want to hear from people who have been impacted by our current legislation, because they will also point a pathway to us as to where some of the dangers lie. If we don't do that, I feel that we would be negligent in our duties. I believe it is very much our duty to push for extra time to hear from a variety of witnesses.

I just heard the parliamentary secretary say that there is an additional two-hour meeting to hear from two ministers and all their departmental staff. With most of the committees I've been sitting at, when a minister comes, they have four, five, or sometimes six staff with them. You put about 12 people together and you give them two hours? I really don't know what you could call that kind of testimony or investigation except “flyby”. This is not the kind of legislation where you want to have flyby testimony, a flyby discussion, and a flyby debate.

For me, there are many problems, but right now I know that we're dealing with a subamendment to the amendment. As a teacher, I always appreciated good behaviour, and I do appreciate the fact that the government has taken a baby step. They have taken a baby step. They've gone up from three to eight. They just have to take another baby step to go up to 25 and we'll have an agreement, and we can get on with studying the bill. It behooves me to acknowledge that, but I also have to say that it does not go far enough.

When it comes to terrorism, every one of us wants to fight terrorism. It doesn't mean that this bill is the only way or that this bill contains the magic pills that everybody is looking for. I want to mention for a second my community out in Newton, Surrey, where we are very concerned about terrorism. I live in a community that was very personally impacted by the act of terrorism that took place with the Air India flight, so much so that some people lost their sisters and others lost their brothers, aunts, and uncles. We gather annually at the memorial and we remember all those who passed away. Books and poems have been written, but people are still waiting for justice. Every year we remember where we were on that particular day when that happened and how families have been impacted.

I also live in a community where there is a very large Muslim community. They are very worried by the kind of targeting and the kind of finger pointing that is being done towards the community and about the community being told that they are not doing enough.

Let me assure you, Mr. Chair, that in my community, the BC Muslim Association has been doing a stellar job at taking on the topic of radicalization of youth.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the member is speaking about a particular group in her area that may be participating in some sort of process. It has nothing to do with the number of meetings we're discussing right now, and I wish you would bring that member back to the actual subamendment to the amendment that is on the table right now, which we're talking about.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The chair refers to a discussion we had earlier when the member wasn't here. I believe Mr. Garrison was here. We were starting to go through a number of examples relative to different ridings, how and why. At that time the chair encouraged Mr. Garrison to deal with the issue and the topic rather than the separate examples of such.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Chair, once again, thank you for your intervention.

Rather than talk about my specific riding, I will talk about the respect I have for the members of the Muslim community right across this country, from coast to coast to coast, who have been working very hard taking on this topic of radicalization.

There is nothing more disturbing for a parent than the thought that they could lose a son or a daughter who could take off to participate in a fight overseas, or take part in illegal activities in this country. I have been at forums where fathers and mothers have cried as they have talked about what steps they could take. I have met with community members, not just in my community, who have also said that they have turned to this government and asked for resources to do some proactive work on recognizing signs of radicalization, and also working with youth.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Again, on a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but we're talking about the number of meetings and the witnesses coming here. We're not talking about community organizations in her area or across Canada at this point in time. I'd like you to ask the member to come back to the actual subamendment to the amendment that we're discussing right now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Your point is taken.

Please try to tighten up.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

You know, I wish the parliamentary secretary would raise those same points when people from her side are speaking.

At any rate, I will go on to say that I do know members of the Muslim community who are working very hard. They are looking to the government for support and they are very, very concerned that there is very little in this piece of legislation that would actually address the serious issues of raising children and the kind of challenges they face, especially if they are being attracted into something that is violent and not good.

But let's get back to the number of days. What we're looking at here with the subamendment is eight sessions of two hours. That's 16 hours. During those 16 hours, we're going to hear from 48 witnesses. I just want us to take a moment to reflect on that and how little time that will give the opposition and people on the other side to actually ask informed questions but also to hear the testimony that we need to hear.

This bill is creating a lot of concern right across this country. It's not just the NDP. I know sometimes people across the way seem to think we are the only ones who are objecting to the timelines here, but we are hearing from people from coast to coast to coast that they want to see more debate. So I'm left with some questions here. Why is it that the government wants to rush this legislation through at breakneck speed? What is it they want to hide? What is it they don't want people or the opposition and expert witnesses to shine the light on?

Surely, like us on this side, they must want to have good legislation that goes through the next stage to ensure that we don't end up in litigation that could end up costing hundreds and thousands of tax dollars. I mean, come on; this government has a history of passing legislation that ends up in the courts. Then the poor taxpayers end up having to defend that. If only we could take the time to come up with good legislation, that is, go through the rigorous process, listen to the input, take a look at what is being said, and maybe even adopt a few of the amendments that might improve the legislation, that might not be a bad thing.

We realize that the Conservatives have a majority. They will get their own way on this bill. Whether they accept one of our amendments, or amendments from the other party, that is totally in their realm. What really puzzles me is not only are they going to get their way but they don't actually want us to have our say. That just doesn't seem right. Surely—surely—they have nothing to lose.

I would say that they have a huge signal they could send to the Canadian public: “We can work together. Yes, we're worried about this bill and its contents, and we want to reassure you that it's what we say it is, so let's hear from all the experts.” They have all the tools in their hands to get their own way at the end. Why, then, would you use a baseball bat to shut down the debate over and over again unless you really do have something to hide?

If I could see an imperative to pass a piece of legislation, i.e., we have to get it through tomorrow because we don't have anything right now, then I would say, yes, let's take a look at expediting it. But even in Halifax, when the police heard about a threat, they could do an intervention. They could intervene even now if they heard that somebody was thinking of doing something. They have those powers right now.

These additional powers, because they are so overreaching and because they do impact our civil liberties, really do deserve a thoughtful process, one that isn't being expedited or truncated and one where debate is not being shut down.

I look at the number of organizations—and these organizations, by the way, don't represent small numbers in membership. They are huge: Amnesty International, BC Civil Liberties—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, we heard all of this earlier on today. It's again becoming very repetitive.

I would ask that the chair ask the member to talk about the subamendment to the amendment at hand, articulating very carefully that she not be repetitive in nature to everything we've already heard today in this meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

However, every member is entitled to make their own comment, and even if it is repetitious with regard to the comments of another colleague, it is still permissible. It is just not permissible if it repetition by the same individual.

So, carry on.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Chair, and I want to say that I would never even attempt the eloquence of my esteemed colleague Randall Garrison, so I would not want to copy what he said at all. What I have to say actually comes from my own two brain cells.

Amnesty International, BC Civil Liberties Association, National Council of Canadian Muslims, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, the LDL, Ligue des droits et libertés—and my French is not that great, so I apologize—and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as well: these are not small groups with very tiny memberships that are raising concerns. I'm not planning to read what they said, because I do know that it was read into the record this morning. I could, but I'm not going to.

When you have organizations as esteemed and well thought of as these out there raising concerns, surely then the government could take one deep breath and say the sky is not going to fall; they're still going to get to achieve our agenda before Parliament rises, and they're going to give the opposition the very limited number of extra witnesses and committee time they have asked for.

We could easily have left it open-ended and asked that we would carry on until we had heard anybody who wanted to be a witness, but that would be irresponsible. I actually, when I was discussing it with Mr. Garrison, said to put in for 50 meetings. That seemed very reasonable to me considering the bill.

Does anybody have the piece of legislation in front of them? I looked at that legislation. I wasn't here last week when it was debated, but I was here this week. Looking at the bill itself and at the title of the bill, I think even looking at amendments to one part of this bill could take 10 or 20 public hearings.

Listen to what is actually in the title of the bill: an act to enact the security of Canada information sharing act and the secure air travel act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

How can we be taking a look at a piece of legislation that is going to dig deep and wide into such different pieces of legislation and then think we can skate through it in eight sessions? That is so irresponsible. I think if the opposition did not speak up at this time we would be abdicating the job we were elected to do. We're not going to abdicate that job, because we're going to fight for Canadians to hear the debate on this, to hear the experts' testimony, so that they can eventually make a judgement about this bill as well.

Therefore the eight hours, even though it seems like a baby step in the right direction, and it is, just doesn't go far enough when we're looking at what is in the bill. I'm still hopeful. You never could stay in teaching if you weren't optimistic and hopeful, so I am still hopeful that we will be able to proceed and get an agreement to have the 25 meetings we have requested. Then we will be able to get on with the job and end up examining the legislation.

At the end of hearings, we may not be happy with the end result, because the government has a majority. We may not be happy with the end result, but do you know something? You would have gained something big. We would have gained something too. At least we would have the feeling that our perspective was heard and that we heard from the expert witnesses.

That's not a bad thing to do in politics. Sometimes things are rushed through just so you can get things your own way, but when you can get things your own way even by going a bit slower, it makes no sense to make people including me and others out in Canadian society feel that their voices are being shut out just because the government has decided that not only are they going to have their own way but they're going to make sure that others don't get to shine a light on the problems in the bill and perhaps also the strengths in the bill.

Believe it or not, I have sat in the House sometimes, and even at committee, and changed my mind based on expert testimony. I would think it's in the government's favour to have that debate, hoping they can persuade some of us that the amendments we produce—and that they're going to accept—are going to lead to improved legislation and could actually end with a better product.

As I said in a previous lifetime, one of the pleasures I had in teaching was to teach the government unit on how a piece of legislation goes through Parliament to become law. What I taught as to how things are supposed to work in Parliament has turned out to be a little delusional on my part because that has not been my experience.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order on relevance and getting back to the subamendment to the amendment, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

The chair would suggest that as we move forward a little later, the chair will start to tighten up about the relevancy and the repetitive nature, as I mentioned earlier.

At this time, please carry on, Ms. Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will relate it back to the topic at hand at the moment.

What we have written into our textbooks and what is told to our kids, and what goes on in the the relationship here, is very, very significant, and it's very much tied to the subamendment to the amendment. One of the things we teach our students, or that I did, is the rigorous stages that any piece of legislation goes through, first through debate in the House and then at committee. I was actually under the delusion before I came here that most committees worked on a consensus basis. Apparently it used to happen like that, but it doesn't anymore.

Even if it doesn't, there is still this feeling that it's at committee stage where the in-depth, detailed study occurs. I want to remind my colleagues that it was only yesterday or the day before that one of the parliamentary secretaries said in the House that this is the stage where the in-depth, detailed study needs to take place. In order to do that in-depth, detailed study, we need to have that extra time. That's how it relates to the subamendment.

Mr. Chair, I'm also seeking a bit of guidance from you.

It was my understanding that in the morning the chair did open up the scope of the discussion to matters related to existing and future terrorist threats. I certainly heard many government members speaking to the issue of terrorism. I just want to make sure that my understanding is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Your understanding is correct.

However, it must pertain as well to legislation that is obviously calling for dates and names for action. Talking generally about it would really not be acceptable; however, trying to bring forward the topic with an understanding that there would be a need to deal with the legislation in one way or the other...the chair would appreciate your focusing in that direction.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To that point, I think there is no doubt that in communities right across Canada, people do want the government to focus on addressing issues of terrorism. I think where we have disagreement is on how that should be done.

I will say one thing. I am finding it very difficult to imagine why a few extra meetings would interfere with the government's desire to pass this bill. We have already—

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I've listened carefully to my colleague, and I appreciate her eloquence, but she has made this point at least three times before. I think repetition is starting to creep in. We have been here a long time talking about this issue, so I would ask her to bring something new to the table.