Evidence of meeting #51 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Leif-Erik Aune

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I don't recall seeing that in the subamendment. The parliamentary secretary said that we're being unreasonable. We have already said that we would sit during break weeks, that we would sit in the evenings, but I didn't see that in her subamendment.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

It was not in the subamendment. However, if there is information that the parliamentary secretary wants to bring to the floor, and hopefully it can be digested and form part of our resolution to try to solve this issue, it would be welcome.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

The subamendment basically stated that the committee would have a further eight meetings on the bill, with witnesses, with up to two panels and three witnesses per panel. Considering that the original motion called for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to start no later than March 31, 2015 at 8:45 a.m., it would conclude that we have to schedule additional meetings in order to meet that. In conversations, we have said we are willing to sit in the evenings. That's why we've allotted for an additional eight meetings of hearings outside that of the two ministers, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice. This is completely reasonable. We have been more than cooperative. It is absolutely essential that we get this legislation to committee.

There have been a couple of comments. I'll just go back to one thing before I wrap up. The reality is that we need to get to see this legislation. It should not be about parliamentarians debating the legislation here in this committee, but that's what we're seeing today. We're actually debating the legislation when in fact we've all said that we want to hear from witnesses. We want to have witnesses come in so that we can ask them the questions and so we can hear their expert testimony. Sitting here debating whether you or I agree or disagree with the bill isn't doing justice to what's at hand and what's at stake with this legislation. The purpose of this committee is to set the timetable for C-51.

I just want to go back to something else that was said. It was with regard to warrants. I sat here and I listened to the opposition, to the critic across the way, talk about warrants and the fact that with warrants today, the requests have to be reasonable, proportional...and measures and so on. I just want to point out that clearly this bill on page 49 specifically states:

The measures shall be reasonable and proportional in the circumstances, having regard to the nature of the threat, the nature of the measures and the reasonable availability of other means to reduce the threat.

It's right there in the legislation. Again, I say it's there; I'm reading it. The opposition says that it's not clearly outlined. That's why we need to get on with this study. We need to bring in the witnesses, have them sit at the end of the table while we ask these questions. Is this in the bill? Are the warrants going to be authorized and is there going to be judicial oversight of this type of request? That's precisely what we should be debating right now. We should get back to the fact that we need to talk about the number of meetings.

Again, I've tried to negotiate on this. Twenty-five meetings are not going to happen. It's unrealistic. Eight meetings with 48 witnesses including the two ministers.... Officials will also be here. Again, it's way above 50 witness testimonies that we will hear from over the course of the next coming weeks. I think this is reasonable. I think that Canadians would expect us to move on with this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I would ask you to put this to a vote as soon as possible. It's very important that we get a decision made on this today. I just ask you to get back to the issue at hand, which is the particular subamendment, so we can bring the ministers in on the next available meeting and get on with this study.

I ask you to call this to a vote.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

We can't call this to a vote, no.

There are two things.

10:45 a.m.

An hon. member

Point of order.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

I'll even pre-empt the point of order.

We cannot call for a vote at this point. The chair cannot interrupt the proceedings.

The chair will also make one other point right now.

Of course, with regard to extra meetings, the committee should know that the meetings are to be called at the call of the chair. The chair, of course, will naturally listen to both instruction and availability of the respective parties, but in order to facilitate meetings, the chair will make the decision as to when, how, why, and where the meetings will take place.

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Point of order.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Yes.

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Chair, I did have a different point of order.

In terms of the ability to meet at the call of the chair, I am presuming that the chair would be able to call meetings during the break week. When the parliamentary secretary says it's unreasonable to get through 25 meetings, if we met four meetings a day through five days, that's 20 meetings. We could do that easily during a break week.

My point of order is actually a request to the chair as to whether the chair is authorized to call meetings during the break week.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

The chair is authorized to call meetings, but the question is should the chair call meetings unilaterally on the request of one party when we have three parties represented here and we try to work in a cooperative fashion. So the chair will certainly reserve any decision on that right now.

We will go back to a point of order, Ms. James.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Sorry, I thought I still had the floor.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Yes, you have.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

There are a couple of things that I want to talk about with regard to the reason this bill is so essential.

We've heard a number of times, and to me it's misleading.... Again, we need to hear from expert witnesses and that's why it's so important that we move on and get those witnesses in. Very specifically, the bill talks about—and this is in regard to information sharing, for example—any activity that undermines the security of Canada. It goes on to describe it as any activity that “undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or the lives or the security of the people of Canada”. It's very important and sometimes that's overlooked when we hear comments from the opposite side. The bill then lists a whole bunch of things with respect to national security. This is why this information sharing is so important.

At the very bottom, and it's right on page 3 if we are all able to read to page 3, it is very clearly stated, and I'm going to quote this right from the legislation, “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.”

It's very clear in this legislation. I've read it. I understand it. Some of my colleagues across the way may want to hear from expert witnesses to clarify that. Certainly, that is what our hope is too, to get those expert witnesses in. I'm sure that with 48 witnesses there will be a number of experts who will come in on this particular measure, this one section, which has to do with information sharing.

I think it's so important, again, that as a committee we vote as soon as possible on the subamendment. It's reasonable. It brings in an adequate number of witnesses.

I heard in debate, Mr. Chair, when we were in the House someone from the opposition, an NDP member, talk about how we should be debating this in the House for up to a year. That's absolutely unreasonable. Twenty-five meetings—

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

On a point of order.

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

The official opposition never made such remarks. I don't see where the parliamentary secretary got the idea that we wanted to debate Bill C-51 in the House for a year. I would like her to withdraw her remarks.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

No problem.

Ms. James, you have the floor.

Obviously, the statement was made but you could perhaps go back to your remark.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Thank you.

I was actually in the House. It was during debate.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Excuse me, the bells are ringing, so we will suspend and leave for a little while.

However, I just bring to the attention of committee that there has been a request by a television network to come in and set up. The process and procedure we follow is this has to be done at the start of a meeting. However, it can occur at a break. Obviously it cannot interrupt the flow of the meeting. So it will be questionable as to whether or not it would, but it would take unanimous consent from this committee to allow that to take place. So I put that before the committee.

Is that agreed?

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

That is agreed and so ordered.

We will resume 10 to 15 minutes after the vote has finished. Hopefully, in that period of time we can have some discussions behind the scenes.

We will now suspend.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Colleagues, we will resume and before I go to a point or order, I will mention to the committee that the four broadcasting networks had requested to be here right now. There were some challenges with regard to some of the technical abilities. It was agreed to let the House broadcasting share that with them. That is now live, so House broadcasting is now covering us. Instead of setting up different cameras, their cameras are simply substituting for them.

Before I go back to the floor, we have a point of order from Mr. Garrison.

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As it seems obvious we may be going on for some time, could we seek unanimous consent to suspend for question period today?

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

A request has been made to suspend for question period. That would require unanimous consent.

I am looking for the counsel of the committee.

Agreed?

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

We will suspend for question period as per the request.