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.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
That's fine, but we're not over the weekend. We are here at the meeting today but I....
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm referencing the minister from the point where he said something, but this is the third time I've heard it....
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Okay, the chair hears that and suggests the closer we get, the tighter the chair will be so please, Mr. Harris, continue.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Maybe Ms. James doesn't want people to even hear a full sentence about what the minister said.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, sir.
In terms of the issue of what the judicial powers are based on CSIS, the service shall not take measures to reduce a threat, i.e., disrupt, if those measures will contravene the right or freedom guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or will be contrary to another Canadian law unless the service is authorized to take them by a warrant issued under proposed section 21.1.
In other words, what the legislation actually says is you can go ahead and do this disruption. CSIS can go ahead and do all of that, but if they decide it will breach the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then they have to go see a judge. That's very different from what was put out there by the minister over the weekend, Minister Kenny, and if we're going to have proper oversight, if the public of Canada are going to understand this, if the parliamentarians are going to understand this, there has to be an opportunity for this to happen. I'll go back again to what people might think is my favourite newspaper, the establishment newspaper, The Globe and Mail, which talked about playing politics with the new anti-terrorism legislation when they said on the 23rd of February:
Two things are clear: First, the Conservatives think this bill will help them win an election, and second, they don't want people to understand it. That's a bad combination for a bill that will change things in secret, in ways we won't know for years.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Sir, we are not talking about newspapers. We are not talking about testimony here from any particular source. What we are talking about is trying to schedule a date for hearings so that we can hear testimony. At that time, statements like that and/or witnesses who would wish to comment on that would certainly be in order, absolutely, but the chair would like to get us back closer to the fact that we have to deal with a timeframe here. The timeframe is when are we going to have meetings? How many meetings are we going to have? How many witnesses are we going to have? How many sessions are we going to have?
That clearly is the subamendment that we are dealing with and so, as I mentioned, I will take us closer and closer to where we need to go on this, but you have the floor, sir.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, sir.
I take your admonition with good grace, but what I had wanted to say was that this is the context in which I want to talk about how many meetings we should be having. It's because of those kinds of statements, because of the seriousness of this legislation, because of the fundamental need for good understanding, not only by members of Parliament but also by the public, that we need to have a sufficient number of hearings.
For example, this committee itself, I'm told—I wasn't here, so I'm sure Mr. Norlock could disagree with me if I'm wrong—devoted 12 meetings to the economics of policing. Now, the economics of policing I'm sure was obviously of great interest to this committee. They devoted 12 meetings to it. But I don't think the economics of policing is as important as the fundamental rights and freedoms that people have in this country. When legislation such as this has been....
As has been said, each and every day it seems new aspects of this legislation are being challenged by people who are experts, by people who have or have had significant leadership roles in this country, by academics and lawyers, on both sides. I looked at a transcript today of an interview done in St. John's with a person who was a long-time prosecutor and now is a defence counsel talking about the fundamental problems with that. We do need to have a significant amount of study to devote to that. I have another note here suggesting that for the transport committee's study on safety, they had 31 meetings, and they're still ongoing.
Really, the question is how many witnesses will we be able to hear from, and will there be sufficient time? This legislation was contemplated last fall. The Minister of Public Safety, before October 22, before the events that took place here in this Parliament that we all know about, talked about legislation being brought forward to give new powers to the security services. Well, that was last October. We didn't see the legislation until two weeks ago. It was rushed through Parliament with a closure motion. And despite Mr. Norlock's suggestion of good faith on the other side, they come in here and suggest that we should deal with this in three meetings; get rid of it, because it has to be brought into place.
That's not good faith, in my view, Mr. Chairman. It's not surprising that it was objected to by the official opposition and by the Liberal Party as well.
It has been pointed out, of course, that when Parliament dealt with anti-terrorism legislation after the horrific events of September 11, 2001, there were 19 days of hearings. And September 11 was a shock to the world: over 3,000 people were killed in one day—many Canadians were part of that—by a planned, elaborate, and shocking terrorist attack on the World Trade towers in New York. There was a need for a response and reaction to that. When that came, it didn't get rushed through in 24 hours or 48 hours or three days. It was studied and looked at; it was made sure that it passed whatever muster that was able to be given to it. Amendments were made to it. Sunset clauses were put in on some of the powers that were given.
That sort of thing happened then. What we're dealing with today is something a fair bit different from that. It's a little more complex, and maybe a little bit more...situations are required. We're dealing with people leaving this country to go to foreign lands. We have people being inspired by activity in other countries to do so-called lone wolf acts here.
We have all sorts of issues with respect to whether these individuals are acting in concert with anybody else, whether they're “murderous misfits”, as the Minister of Justice called certain people who planned some criminal acts in Nova Scotia, or whether they're engaged in organized terrorist threats. And what is the proper response?
All of those things need to be debated and we have a whole series of people proposed by Mr. Randall Garrison and Madam Doré Lefebvre who have something important to bring to this debate and discussion, and they should be heard. That's not to delay or obstruct or prevent this bill from being passed. I don't think anyone on this side has suggested that this is being done to delay the passage of the bill. In fact, what I've heard is exactly the opposite: the commitment by people on this side is to have this legislation through committee by the end of March, which is the date that has been proposed.
There is a willingness to sit and take the time required to do that, and that time would be fitted into the calendar of the House. We could use the time that's available, for example next week, when the House is not sitting and this committee could have extended hours. We're having extended hours now. We've been debating this subamendment in order to try to get the time to do the work that's required.
One of the other issues—and this has been debated and I'm not going to repeat all the debating points—is the question of oversight. That's come up time and again. The government has taken the position that oversight exists and is adequate. Is that true or is it not true?
One of the organizations we're talking about, the so-called oversight body, says that it doesn't do oversight. Who do we have to hear from to hear about that?
Who are the people we want to hear from? Some of the witnesses include the former inspector general of CSIS, who as inspector general was engaged in a form of oversight before the position was cut. She understands how this all works, and we want to hear from her.
Dennis O'Connor, the justice who lead the Maher Arar inquiry, knows how the security intelligence services work together. We want to hear from him and hear what he has to say about what oversight is required and why.
Frank Iacobucci, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, was also engaged in an important inquiry into the actions Canadian officials took with people who were detained and tortured in Syria and Egypt.
Former Justice John Major of the Supreme Court of Canada, has spoken out recently. We want to hear from him. Why would we not want to hear from him? He presided over the Air India inquiry, as was mentioned earlier.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, we could be here for a long time mentioning every last possible witness who could be heard. I would ask you to bring speakers back to the point of the subamendment, which is on the number of meetings and the number of witnesses, not going through the entire planet listing every name and every organization that might possibly have something to say. That's just a drain on the time of the committee and it doesn't address the issue.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, Ms. Ablonczy.
That is actually a good point of order, Mr. Harris, that has been brought up a couple of times before in this committee, certainly not by you, sir. You were not aware of that. It happened before, and the chair ruled at that point that we could talk endlessly about the people who could participate in this and we could pull a directory out and this whole meeting would be on who is coming.
The question is not who. It will be up to respective parties to designate who they would like to come here, and you've certainly mentioned people who have relevance to the meeting, but we are looking at numbers and time and we are looking at the panel size.
The point was made and the chair had ruled earlier on that, but I was allowing a little latitude as you were not aware of that, sir, and I appreciate that.
I would just ask you to move to a topical situation rather than one of individuals one by one.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Well, sir, I appreciate the point, but I also heard Mr. Norlock say that a member of this party.... He accused him of saying that CSIS can't be trusted.
I think you said that, sir. You said that Mr. Garrison said that CSIS couldn't be trusted.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, no, I didn't say that. It may have been said, but I did not say it. Please, Mr. Harris, you can check the blues—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
—but anyway, Mr. Chair, I know your ruling was that each individual member could say the same thing that another member said, as long as that member didn't repeat again what he had said.
I'll go back to the waste of time this exercise is. It is nothing short of a filibuster. I have kept my comments as short as possible, hoping and praying that the other side would come up with something new. Instead, they play—again I say it—those rules we have that are designed to make us look smart in our own realm, but I don't think Canadians find them smart.
I want to respect the other side. Let's hear from witnesses. Therefore, Mr. Chair, my point of order is that, as we have repeatedly been forced to point out, the NDP is blocking this committee from actually hearing from witnesses who they claim they want to hear from by repeating the same points and the same issues over and over again. I am asking you to decide to put the question on the subamendment, the amendment, and the main motion now, so that this committee can get back to work on the bill. I'm asking for a decision from the chair.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't think that motion is in order.
I don't think he can call the question.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
On the point of repetition, certainly, all sides have abused that to a point where the chair could possibly rule in that favour; however, the chair cannot support this motion at this point, due to the fact as well that we have other speakers on the list yet, and our practice has been to continue the debate until the speakers are exhausted. At that time, the motion would be brought forward.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Chair, I think you know me well enough to know that I do the following point of order with great respect to you, but I respectfully wish to challenge your decision to not put the question on the subamendment, the amendment, and the main motion.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
The question, then, for the chair, is whether or not the decision by the chair shall be sustained. There is no debate, and there will be an immediate vote on the matter.
4:35 p.m.
An hon. member
A recorded vote, please.
4:40 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Leif-Erik Aune
Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
