Evidence of meeting #62 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go to the NDP amendment 25.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This deals with the same issues that we were just dealing with under Ms. May's amendment.
Who makes the decision about what is relevant? This amendment would say that all the evidence about the case in the minister's possession should be turned over to the special advocates. I understand quite clearly what the officials have told us about court decisions, but I think what the special advocates are arguing is that the parallel, even though it's not the same kind of law, would be the prosecutor deciding what the defence should see in a criminal case. In fact we have full disclosure in criminal cases where a prosecutor turns over all the information in their possession and they do not make a decision of what is relevant and what is not relevant.
I think that's the parallel that special advocates are asking for here in that the information in the possession of the minister about this case should be disclosed to the special advocates who can then make a separate decision about what is relevant and present that information to the judge even if it has not been presented by the minister. It seems, I would argue, to raise issues of fundamental justice if information is being withheld from the special advocates.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you.
My opinion is that the amendment would broaden what is provided to special advocates under proposed paragraph 85.4(1)(b) to information that relates to the minister's case rather than information that is in the minister's possession and is relevant to the minister's case, even if it has not been filed with the Federal Court. The amendment would maintain a situation similar to what is taking place currently in certificate cases, whereby a vast amount of information, including that which is irrelevant, is provided to the special advocates. This is inconsistent with the policy intent of the new provision, and therefore I do not support amendment NDP-25.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Yes, and to further Randall's analogy of the prosecutor's deciding what evidence will be presented, what this amendment would do is it would be for the defence to decide what evidence the prosecutor has to advance. The minister's making the case. He's going to provide every bit of evidence that bolsters his case. If evidence isn't presented, it's because it's not going to be relevant to his case.
Then you have a lot of irrelevant information having to be provided, and it never ends. I don't think this is a very helpful amendment to the whole process because it mitigates against its being expeditious and fair.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Fine. Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 59 agreed to)
(On clause 60)
We will now go to Green Party amendment 56.
9:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is also one that was recommended to us through the special advocates. What it does is omit the section within brackets that actually applies, not just under security certificates but to all Immigration and Refugee Protection Act appeals, without even appointing a special advocate to review the secret information. It just omits the language “other than the obligations to appoint a special advocate and to provide a summary”.
It's a fairly technical, small amendment.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
This amendment would effectively remove the judicial discretion to appoint special advocates. Judges of our Federal Court are well placed to determine whether special advocates are needed in specific cases, based on procedural fairness requirements, so it's not necessary.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived)
Now to amendment PV-57.
9:10 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is relating to proposed subsection 87.01(1) of part five of the act, where once again the legislation puts in place the ability of the minister to appeal a decision without any other parties, such as a special advocate, having the right of appeal. My amendment removes the lopsided access to appeals only in the interests of the government and the minister.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I would just say very briefly that I oppose this. This amendment is removing the ability of the minister to actually do that appeal in the middle, thus having to wait till the end. Obviously there may be reasons that an appeal is required for the safety of a person, or when a situation could be injurious to national security. Therefore it's absolutely essential that the minister have the ability to appeal at any point during that process. I oppose this amendment.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go to PV-58.
9:10 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment is an attempt to create a sunset provision to the changes that are brought into effect in Bill C-51 relating to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to take effect on the third anniversary from the coming into force of this section.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very kindly.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 60 agreed to)
We are now on amendment NDP-26.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm pleased to move this amendment, which would create a community outreach and counter-radicalization coordinator in the Department of Public Safety.
We heard some very eloquent testimony from witnesses about things that are going on at the community level to try to counter deradicalization, in particular the testimony of Zarqa Nawaz, from Regina, and the demand from people in the community that the government step up to the plate and work with them on what we know is most effective in limiting future threats, that is, the counter-radicalization or disengagement kinds of programming that goes on.
I am expecting to hear from the chair because of course despite the fact that we heard this from many witnesses, the run of declarations we've had here about the scope of the bill probably leans against this being admissible. But I still think it points out a major omission in this bill.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much.
This is an example of how we can build a really big bureaucracy in the country when there is an agency—