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

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Colleagues, we're good to go. I will refresh our memories.

On Tuesday, February 24, a motion to adjourn the meeting superseded the debate on the motion by Ms. James and the amendment by Mr. Garrison on the plan of study for Bill C-51, and of course it ended the meeting at that point. It is important to be reminded that the committee had not taken a decision on the motion or the amendment, so they do remain before the committee.

We will now resume debate on Bill C-51.

Ms. James or Mr. Garrison?

Okay, Ms. James.

Is there a point of order?

8:45 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

I believe you had a speaking list when we adjourned, and I believe I was next on the speaking list.

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

The speaking list is gone on that. I have no recollection of that. I have no record of that. I've recognized the people as I've seen them here, and that is at the discretion of the chair.

8:45 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Thank you.

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Ms. James will be up, and you will be up right after her. There will be plenty of time for—

February 26th, 2015 / 8:45 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Plenty of time.

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

—much discussion today. You'll be followed by Mr. Norlock, who will be followed by Mr. Payne.

Ms. James, you have the floor.

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Chair, I was hoping that we could come to some sort of agreement on how we would proceed with Bill C-51 in committee. Obviously, the government believes that this is a bill that is critical to national security. I think Canadians would also agree with that statement.

We have seen a terrorist entity, ISIL, move across the region with the goal to either convert or kill anyone who disagrees with the way they think. We have seen beheadings of Coptic Christians. There was a report this morning, I believe, that 220 more have been kidnapped. We have seen hostages being burned alive. It is the reason why we're in the coalition: to conduct air strikes.

More importantly, Bill C-51 speaks to the real threat we have here in Canada with regard to terrorism. ISIL, as you know, Mr. Chair, has put Canada on a list of countries they wish to target. They have called on jihadist attacks to occur on Canadian soil against Canadians. We have seen a number of terrorist attacks around the world in recent weeks and months: in Copenhagen, in Paris of course, in Australia, and here in Canada on October 22, and I think everyone in the room today can remember that day very clearly.

Just yesterday, Mr. Chair, CBC broke the story of a young woman who was radicalized, has left the country and has gone to fight with ISIL. I did a panel last night, actually. It is important that Canadians recognize the fact that terrorism is not gender specific. Again, there's another story that has broken saying that three individuals—I believe it's two women and one man from Quebec—have also left this country to join ISIL.

This is a very serious problem we have, if you can imagine for a moment these individuals boarding planes, going over to join a terrorist organization, becoming fully trained, and then coming back to Canada.

The legislation before us has five different parts to it. Each part deals specifically with areas that would improve the ability of our national security forces to take on better protection of our citizens and to protect our national security. As you know, there has been much talk about these sections.

Part 1 of the new bill has to do with information sharing. When we talk about this, I think most Canadians would expect that when one branch of the government has information pertinent to national security—information that could stop an attack happening here in Canada, information that would prevent someone from travelling overseas and coming back as a terrorist fully trained to operate here in Canada—information sharing would happen. I think they would also think it already is happening. That's simply not the case.

This particular—

8:50 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I would request that you read out the motion that is before us, and the amendment, in order to remind us of the topic that is before us now.

8:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

The chair will definitely read out the original motion, and then I will follow that with reading the amendment.

The original motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security begin its study of Bill C-51 at 8:45 a.m. on Tuesday, March 10, 2015, and that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Justice, and appropriate departmental officials from each be invited to appear for a full two (2) hours; That the Committee have a further three (3) meetings with witnesses on the Bill, with up to two (2) panels and three (3) witnesses per panel; That the Committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill no later than March 31, 2015 at 8:45 a.m.; That proposed witness lists be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee by Thursday at 6 p.m.; and That all amendments to the Bill be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee before 9:00 a.m. on Friday, March 27, 2015, and be distributed to members in both official languages.

To the chair's recollection, and reinforced by the clerk, the amendment by Mr. Garrison amended the number of meetings to 25 meetings. It also amended the two panels to two witnesses per panel rather than three. That is the chair's reading and understanding of the issue.

Obviously, as we are dealing with a bill that purports to deal with terrorism, the discussions related to terrorism are in order. But of course the only thing the chair will be very, very strict with during the whole course of our event today will be either repetitive statements or comments on the same topic. If members are going to talk about the same individual six times, the chair certainly will be bringing them to point. So repetitive statements...and it must be relevant. Obviously, terrorism and the activities of the world both today and yesterday—hopefully not tomorrow—will be relative to this study.

Go ahead, Ms. James.

8:50 a.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Chair, I was talking about information sharing. A good example of this might be someone who has applied for a passport who may be travelling overseas to engage in terrorist activity, whether it be to join ISIL or to receive training specifically to come back to this country. In the course of a regular process, someone interviewing or speaking to references on the application may come across information to the effect that one of the references alludes to the suspicion that this individual may be becoming radicalized and may wish to use the passport to travel overseas to join the terrorist group.

Right now, the best that Passport Canada can do is possibly refuse a passport. They cannot—and I find this incredible—pick up the phone, call our national security agencies, and inform them that there may be a possibility of a threat with this particular individual here on Canadian soil. I think anyone who is tuning in, who might be listening to this at home, or who reads the text later would be shocked to find out that's the case, and would expect that this government would correct this very blatant issue in order to protect our national security and Canadians here on our soil.

Mr. Chair, the second part to this bill has to do with the passenger protect program. I'm sure most members on the committee recognize the fact that with passenger protect we have the ability to issue a no-board order, but only in the specific case when an individual is an imminent threat to the aircraft itself. For example, if we learn information that someone may try to bomb the airport, bomb the airplane, we can issue a no-board order; we can take action. But we cannot—cannot—issue a no-board order for someone who we believe will be travelling overseas to join a terrorist entity, to receive training, and to then come back to Canada and bring that expertise with them. We're expanding the passenger protect program on this particular issue.

8:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Casey?

8:50 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

No, I just wanted to put my name on the list.

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Oh, excuse me. Thank you.

Please carry on, Ms. James. Pardon the interruption.

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

When I talk about this specific part of the bill, I can't help but think of the story yesterday that broke on the CBC about the young woman whose family is now left with the reality that she has left this country, having gone overseas to join ISIL. I cannot help but think of this particular story. Had this person been stopped at the airport, had she been issued a no-board order, it may have been a very different story that we were reading about in yesterday's news.

The third part of this important legislation that is absolutely critical to our national security is with respect to Criminal Code changes. There are a number of measures. For the first time in Canada we are making the promotion of terrorism—calling for attacks against Canada and against our citizens, calling out for random attacks to occur—a crime.

We've heard from the opposition that somehow this might be an infringement on rights. We disagree, Mr. Chair. I disagree. Calling for attacks to kill fellow Canadians is not a basic human right. It is not a freedom. It is not something that should be protected. It is a criminal act and it is an act of war. That is why this particular piece of legislation is very critical.

We've heard that there are sections of the Criminal Code that already deal with these types of incidents. That is not correct. The Criminal Code is very specific, in that you have to prove that a specific attack will take place, for example, the time, place, and the person you're asking to carry out the attack. None of that is necessarily available when you have people posting videos calling for general attacks against Canadians that can happen any time, any place. That is why this provision is so important.

We're also making amendments in the Criminal Code to lower the threshold. We've heard time and time again from the opposition that there are current sections of the Criminal Code that simply have not been used. The problem is that the threshold is too high. It's almost to the point where someone has to be at the point of committing the terrorist offence before you can actually take action, which is why lowering the threshold is so critical, to give the tools to our national security agencies in order to keep the general public safe here in Canada. This is a common sense measure. In this committee we've heard from witnesses to that effect on other bills, as well.

Part 4 of this legislation has to do with our Canadian Security Intelligence Service and threat disruption. Again, the current mandate of CSIS, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, is to gather information. That is their only mandate. That is the description they work within. They cannot, for example, during the course of their investigation while they're gathering information disrupt a potential threat. They cannot help to prevent someone from travelling overseas. They simply don't have that capacity.

This agency is very close to the information at hand. Just yesterday, and again, I'll refer back to the story, the family was very distressed that a sister or a daughter had left this country to join ISIL. Even in the story—of course it's in print—there was concern that CSIS did not try to prevent it from happening.

The problem we have here is that CSIS' mandate cannot prevent it from happening. They are only there to gather information. Had CSIS been able to speak more openly with the family, speak in very much detail, ask the family to intervene, ask the family to speak to the individual, had CSIS been able to do that, maybe it would have been a different story yesterday.

This is a very simple example of what this legislation will do. It will give the person who is right there at that moment the ability to disrupt a potential threat to Canada, to disrupt someone's activities or planned activities to travel overseas—absolutely critical to national security, absolutely critical to stopping people from travelling overseas and bringing jihadist terrorist training back to this country, absolutely critical.

The last part of this bill, Mr. Chair, and why it's so important to get this through—and we haven't heard much on this; there hasn't been a lot of discussion, but it's also a very important piece—has to do with changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, division 9, security certificates. We've been trying to negotiate with the opposition, trying to come to some agreement to get this bill before the House.

A lot has not been talked about on this particular part of the bill, but you know, we have witnesses coming in to talk about it. They're slated. We want them to come in. We want to hear expert testimony on how important these changes are. I'm hoping that we have some progress in today's committee.

Mr. Chair, as I said, we only need to look to recent events around the world. We hear stories every day about ISIL. It is so important that we bring this legislation to committee, that we have a full debate, and that we hear from many witnesses, so we can move on with this bill. That is our plan. That's what we want to do. Canadians would expect that when it comes to national security and the protection of citizens, all political parties would want this bill to come to committee, to hear testimony, review any possible amendments, and get this legislation back to the House and then to the Senate to have it passed.

Mr. Chair, we have fewer than 25 meetings left in the public safety committee before the House rises. What our government will not allow is for this committee to keep this bill until the end of the session, when the House rises, so that it does not pass and dies on the order paper. Our government will not do that. Canadians expect the government to bring this legislation forward, to pass this legislation and improve national security, and that's what we are going to do. I hope we have some agreement from the opposite side.

I did have an opportunity to speak with the opposition critic and I mentioned a bit of the negotiation yesterday. I'm not sure at this point whether we are going to have that sort of agreement, but you've clarified what the amendment was, and I guess at this point I've stated the purpose of this bill. I've related it back to actual events that are occurring around the world and right here in Canada. I think Canadians expect this government to keep national security, to keep our citizens safe. This bill is going to give our security agencies the tools they need to better protect Canadians, to better protect our security, and it's absolutely critical that we get on with this bill in committee.

As such, Mr. Chair, I would like to move a subamendment to the NDP amendment that you just clarified. The subamendment to the NDP amendment would be:

That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “a further twenty-five (25) meetings” with the words “a further eight (8) meetings” and the words “two (2) witnesses per panel” with the words “three (3) witnesses per panel”.

The remainder of the original motion stands. It just changes that portion of the amendment that the NDP had brought forward.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much.

The subamendment is as read.

9 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I would say that a subamendment which contradicts the amendment on the floor is not a subamendment and therefore would not be in order.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

The purpose of the subamendment was to amend the amendment, not the motion, and so it is in order.

9 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

I'm sorry, my point of order was that the subamendment contradicts the amendment which is on the floor. If the government wishes to defeat the amendment, it should defeat the amendment. I would submit that you can't do that under the rules by simply substituting exactly the things that I attempted to amend.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

The chair's personal thoughts on this—and I can be held accountable, of course, to committee structure—but the chair certainly does not feel it contradicts. It amends. It does not eliminate. It does not change. It modifies, which is an amendment. In this case, if you have an amendment, you have a subamendment. The chair's ruling is that this is a subamendment and so it is admissible as it is.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We will be debating the subamendment.

We'll go back to what was initially presented here from the government. The concern on the government side seems to be that it couldn't get its legislation through. Since the parliamentary secretary has raised the question of some discussions we've had and she has opened the topic, I will say that I have submitted a motion to this committee, and I made it very clear in our negotiations that we were prepared to sit in the evenings, and we were prepared to sit on constituency break weeks, so that we could accommodate a full debate on this bill. I believe that's a fundamental responsibility of members of Parliament. There is an enormous amount of—

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Order.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Oh, no, I'm just adding my name to the list.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Once again, thank you.

My apologies, Mr. Garrison.

That's the second time. We've been kind of both ways now.

Madam Doré Lefebvre, is that also about the list or is it a point of order?

It's the list, yes.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

There's an enormous amount of public interest in this.

What the government was initially proposing—I have to do some quick math here on the changes—certainly doesn't accommodate the number of people who have approached us and the number of people we would like to have as witnesses before the committee. It certainly doesn't approach the amount of attention that was given to the original anti-terrorism bill before Parliament in 2011.

Again, as I've said, we could accommodate the 25 meetings we're talking about by holding two meetings per day, as was done during the hearings in 2001, or by holding three or four meetings on three or four days of the constituency week. The number of meetings suggested in my original amendment in no way prevents the government from moving forward with this legislation.

The second question I have about the amendment is that, if I'm not mistaken, I believe the government subamendment moves it back to three witnesses per panel. Can I ask for clarification?