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

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

You have finished it and brought it back to being relevant to the topic, and I appreciate that, but I would ask us all just to stay a little closer to relevance on the way through to the promised land.

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

I absolutely promise that I will be doing that in each case, but it sometimes will take me just a few moments to get there.

I'm going to refer to the bill again, on page 27, at the risk of the chair's wrath, just because the other side has said that we're raising outlandish things that aren't in the bill. I'm trying to demonstrate that we're raising concerns here that we need to hear testimony about, which are about things actually in the bill.

On page 27, proposed section 83.223—I won't read this section to you—is about removing terrorist propaganda from the Internet. It was somehow implied that we had opposed this. We have not. The concern we have been raising about this is the definition of “terrorist propaganda”.

When you say “terrorist propaganda”, if you mean what is already illegal in Canada—promoting specific terrorist acts—you have absolute agreement from people on this side that this material needs to be removed, and needs to be removed expeditiously, but I would like to hear testimony from legal experts to hear if there is any legal precedent for this term “terrorist propaganda”. The definition given here appears very broad and very far-reaching, so I would like to hear testimony on that.

It's difficult to have testimony on these very detailed legal points if you have more than three witnesses in one panel. Given the way we share questioning here, by the time things go around, if you've heard some of the answers, you really don't have a chance to go back to them again with follow-ups.

Also, a further question which I think we really do need to hear testimony on is regarding disruptive activity. Does this bill allow CSIS to go onto someone's Facebook account and make a false posting? Is that strictly illegal? Does that require a warrant? I don't know the answer to that question. I don't believe it is. Would this bill allow CSIS to hack into someone's Twitter account and post false tweets? It appears, in my reading as a non-specialist, that this may allow CSIS to do these kinds of things because they're not clearly illegal.

I would like to hear from people who can tell us whether this is in fact possible under the disruptive powers of CSIS. Can they alter my Facebook account? Can they alter your Facebook account? Can they post a false tweet on my account? Can they post one on your account? I don't know the answer to that, but at first reading of this bill, it looks very likely that they might be able to do that.

There's one last section, which, fortunately, Mr. Chair, I don't have the page number for, so I won't be able to quote from it extensively. These are the consequential or coordinating amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act at the end of the bill.

I'm going to say some things here that may be more controversial for members on the other side, but what I'd like to hear is testimony in order to see what this actually means. The bill appears to say that we will be able to detain, without charge, kids: kids who might be sitting in their basement doing very stupid things, kids who haven't learned the boundaries, kids who may inadvertently or recklessly post things they don't really mean. They don't really mean to do any harm.

Are we going to waste precious resources in the fight against terrorism on going after 13-year-olds in the basement? I hope we're not going to do that. I hope instead that we're going to do better work in education to prevent radicalization, better work in the schools, and better work with community organizations.

But the bill, as written, appears to head us in that direction. I know that when the Prime Minister was asked at his campaign-style rally where he introduced this bill whether he intended to go after those kids in the basement, he answered yes. I have a grave concern about that, so I want to know from witnesses who understand both youth criminal justice and this bill whether this is indeed possible, and I want to know from those who are doing the enforcement work whether they think this would be any kind of good use of our limited resources.

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, my colleague across the way knows full well that in order for someone to be detained, they actually have to.... There's judicial oversight. There's judicial review here. Someone can't just pick someone up and throw them in the slammer for weeks on end. The member knows that. It's a little bit misleading for those who might be listening right now.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I think you know that. A kid in the basement.... A judge is not going to allow someone to be detained without relevant evidence in order to prove a particular case on an issue. That's a given.

If the member opposite is now calling into question our judges, with the ability to make decisions in these matters, I think that's a whole different issue.

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

On a point of order, Chair, I've been sitting here trying to be really patient. I know there are many people who want to speak, but I really find it hard to understand how that could possibly be a point of order. I know the parliamentary secretary may have a lot to say, but then I think it behooves her to get on the list and to say it when it's her turn to speak—

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Okay, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Everybody, regardless of who they are, has a right to make a point of order, and after hearing the point of order, we see whether it was relevant to the conversation or not.

In this particular case, a point of order was made. It was made very, very briefly and pointedly, and regardless of whether it was deemed to be a solid point of order or not, that's up for debate in the long term, and if we were going to end up in a lengthy discussion on it, I can certainly assure you the chair would not have allowed that to go too far.

However, let's just get back now.

You have the floor, Mr. Garrison.

We'll try to keep ourselves to the point as much as possible. The chair, I think, has been fairly lenient through the whole process, on both sides. The only recommendation that I would make is the later and later we go, the longer and longer we go, the shorter the fuse the chair will have for areas in which there are going to be challenges to the proper procedure. We're being very flexible on both sides right now simply because that kind of respect and accommodation is necessary at this point, but let us be reminded that we do have an official process and at some point the chair will certainly tighten up the discussion on all sides.

In the meantime, you still have the floor, Mr. Garrison.

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have to say there are two points there: whether we're going to waste resources on looking for those misguided youth in the basement, and whether the result of that might end up in a detention.

What the parliamentary secretary has done inadvertently is made my point that we actually need to hear expert testimony on this to find out what actually is intended in the bill and what the real impacts of this bill will be.

Mr. Chair, I'm going back to some remarks by the honourable Diane Ablonczy, because she, in the same way, has illustrated the need for full debate on this bill. As I've said, there is nothing that we're talking about here that would delay consideration of the bill.

She talked about the ability to stop someone from travelling abroad to join in terrorist activity. It is my belief that this is already illegal and the RCMP has successfully used powers to prevent someone from travelling abroad.

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

[Inaudible—Editor]

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

What Ms. Ablonczy is talking about is the no-fly list. There is a separate provision in the Criminal Code that makes it illegal to go abroad for a terrorist act, which means the RCMP can detain that person and prevent him or her from getting on a plane if they have information that he or she is going to join a terrorist group.

There are two different things there, and I would like to hear evidence on the no-fly list because we certainly have a no-fly list that actually doesn't prevent people who may be threats from flying currently and actually ends up preventing some people who are no threat from flying.

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON

[Inaudible—Editor]...voted against it.

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Mr. Garrison has the floor.

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

The bill we're dealing with substitutes the U.S. regime for a no-fly list, and I would like to hear testimony from people on whether this will actually prevent people who are real threats from flying and whether it will solve the problem we have now. I have talked to someone who, very absurdly, was allowed to board a plane in Toronto, had a connecting flight, and when they reached the connecting point, they weren't allowed to board the next plane. Then they were told they couldn't board the plane to go back to where they started from. In the end it appears this person's name was simply being confused with another similar-sounding name. The person went through business losses, not just inconvenience, as a result of the non-functioning. So I'm happy to see the government acknowledging there are problems with our no-fly list, but I'd like to hear some testimony about whether the no-fly list we're going to have will be an improvement over the situation we actually have now.

I was going to say something, but I believe it's perhaps too inflammatory within the spirit of the debate today. I do believe the chair has been quite fair. I would just have to say I think we should all be careful about making reckless remarks and about possible attacks or actions against other members of Parliament. I'm going to phrase it that way.

What happened here in October affected all of us very directly, but not nearly as much as it affected the families of two members of our armed forces, who lost loved ones. I think we have to be careful in all of our discussions. I try to do so on my side and I know there's goodwill to do so on the other side.

Let me conclude my remarks, Mr. Chair, by reiterating what I've been saying, since the parliamentary secretary's chosen to do most of our negotiations in public. We have agreed to let this proceed in an expeditious manner, but under the condition that this committee take the time it needs to hold full hearings on this bill. I'm hopeful we will see some movement in that direction. Offering the official opposition 16 witnesses when we have more than 60 people wanting to appear is clearly not meeting the test of allowing Canadians who want to have their voices heard to have them heard before this committee.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

Before we go to Mr. Falk, I will just mention, as per the unanimous motion, that we will suspend for question period. For members here who may have a statement before question period, we will suspend at five minutes to two. I bring that to your attention right now. Unless you feel you need more time.

1:40 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

I suggest 10 minutes.

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

You say 10 minutes?

1:40 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

If any member has a statement, I'm happy to accommodate.

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Would that fine? Are we comfortable?

1:40 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Yes, I'm happy to accommodate members with a statement at 10 minutes to.

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

So it will be at 10 minutes to.

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

We seem to be comfortable with that. Thank you very much.

We will now resume.

Mr. Falk, you have the floor. I will interrupt you briefly at 10 minutes to, and after QP you will have the floor once again, sir.

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your comments about the relevancy of the debate we're having here today.

I have taken note that we've had just over eight hours of debate and discussion on the issue of how many meetings to have to discuss the bill. I detected from some of the earlier comments that perhaps there was a desire to put the subamendment to test with a vote. I would be completely prepared to forfeit my opportunity to speak if the opposition was willing to vote on the subamendment at this time.

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

There is not a willingness to vote on the subamendment at this time.

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Okay. I would have thought that eight hours would be sufficient time to decide how many meetings you need to discuss an issue. It perplexes me quite a bit that it isn't, but it obviously doesn't satisfy them, so I'll continue.

Initially, in the motion we were discussing, we offered up three meetings, which we thought made a lot of sense based on the fact that this is a common sense solution to a very common problem. It's a common sense solution that needs to be addressed quickly, and it needs to be addressed with a lot of sobriety and seriousness and relevancy. I think it's important that we hear from expert witnesses who will contribute to good decision-making at this committee.

In essence, the bill provides our law enforcement agencies with much-needed tools to address the issues they face today with regard to the aspects of public safety, national security and terrorism. I believe it was the Liberals about a dozen years ago who passed the original anti-terrorist legislation that we have. This bill is merely an amendment to that earlier provision, which addressed the issues of that day and the threats that were perceived at that time.

We know that terrorism activity has evolved over that time. The threats are new; the locations are new. We know from listening and watching some of the videos that have been posted online that there have been direct threats against Canada and our infrastructure here. In particular the West Edmonton Mall has been cited as a potential target. So it is important that we discuss this. It is important that we come up with legislation that will give our law agencies the tools they need to properly do their job in protecting us as Canadians.

I'm disappointed that early on, at the outset, before any study of the actual bill, the NDP came out very adamantly and said they would not support the bill, even though we heard today from their members that they believe this legislation is very important. I find it interesting that it's very important, but they don't support it. To me, that's troubling, and I don't quite understand it.

One of the other things I heard from the opposition member here this morning is just in reference to the Supreme Court decision striking down some of our long-standing prostitution laws that were on the books. The direction given to the Houses of Parliament to discuss the legality of prostitution is a big issue. We're not discussing the legality of terrorism. We're discussing amendments to an existing anti-terrorist act that will allow our law enforcement agencies to have the tools they need to address the threat that is perceived and real today.

The committee time allocated to the discussion of the legality of prostitution was 13 weeks. That was a completely new discussion. We're not discussing the legality of something. We're making amendments to provide better tools, current tools, modern tools, for our law enforcement agencies. If we could do the prostitution committee work in 13 weeks, I think what has been offered up as a subamendment by our government—eight meetings, plus an additional meeting with our ministers and officials—is more than adequate to get enough expert testimony around this committee table to provide us with the details we need to make proper and good decisions.

I would also like to highlight a few of the things the bill will talk about, even though I don't think this is the time to talk about the bill. It's the time to talk about how many meetings we need to have, so talking about the bill at any great length actually defeats what we're trying to do here: to establish the amount of time required to discuss the real issue.

Mr. Chairman, I think I will wrap up my comments with that. I think the time allocated in the subamendment, eight meetings, with an additional meeting with our ministers and officials, will provide this committee with over 50 expert witnesses and is far more than what this committee will need to make a good decision on any amendments that we may need to consider here in moving this bill along.

I think the threat we have is real. We read earlier today in information provided by CBC on their website that up to six individuals from Quebec have now joined the jihadist people with ISIS and ISIL. The threat is very real.

We also heard this morning and from earlier news articles that the mother in Alberta whose daughter had been radicalized and who joined ISIL forces wishes very much that our law enforcement agencies would have been able to communicate to her the actual threat that they experienced as a family and that radicalized their daughter.

This bill is important because it will give our law enforcement agencies.... It makes consequential amendments to other acts, but it does this so that it enables us to share information. When my constituents have talked to me about the bill, they have expressed concern. They can't believe that our government agencies are not allowed to talk to each other. Someone goes to the passport office and fills out an application for a passport, and the passport agent who feels uncomfortable with some of the answers that have been provided and who suspects that maybe they're being motivated by terrorist-type activities isn't allowed to communicate that to the proper authorities to alert anyone of the potential threat. Either the individual might be about to encounter a threat, or the individual might themselves be a threat to national security.

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much, Mr. Falk.

At this point, you'll have the floor when we return. We will now suspend for question period and for members' statements.

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Colleagues, after an exciting question period, we will now resume.

At the suspension we had Mr. Falk, who has been replaced by Mr. Wilks.

Sir, you have the floor.

Mr. Harris.