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.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we can't have debate on a motion until it's on the floor. If you have a ruling to make that it's not admissible, it would seem to me that debate on it would be impossible.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Actually, that is correct. I'm sorry. We will carry on.
The chair is in error, Mr. Norlock.
It has been introduced and is deemed in order until it is deemed to be inadmissible by the chair, so “conversation” is allowed as long as the chair has not got around to ruling it inadmissible. So if Mr. Norlock wishes to comment, he can.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Well, he absolutely does. Quid pro quo, I guess.
Anyway, getting to the building of bureaucracies, this is a good example, but for folks who might be listening tonight or watching tonight—I think we are being televised, and I imagine this is a good way to keep awake—I note that the RCMP and other police forces did give evidence that they are indeed doing just that. They are working with the various religious agencies and imams, etc., with a view to deradicalization or, actually, the prevention of same.
If we recall, very early on, I think, at the beginning of the meetings, the RCMP commissioner said that this was a rather robust enterprise. He didn't say that they were doubling their efforts, but he did say that they were increasing the efforts in that way. I don't think building another bureaucracy is needed, whether or not the amendment is inadmissible.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Are there further comments before the chair rules?
Seeing none, I note that this amendment does propose to modify sections of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act.
As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states, “...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill”.
Since the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act is not being amended by Bill C-51, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
(Clauses 61 and 62 agreed to)
We will now go to proposed new clause 63 in amendment NDP-27.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
We're just having a discussion about who was going to do this one as the night wears on.
I believe this one will be within the scope of the bill, but we can always play the lottery game and find out. We're asking for a report to Canada on the provisions of this act to be undertaken by a committee designated or established for that purpose, so within one year we are asking the committee to look at what we will have done here in the passage of Bill C-51. I know the members on the other side will say that any committee can always do this, but if we require that it be done, then other things don't take precedence over it and we'll make sure that it does happen.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
It is in order, Mr. Garrison, as it does not ask to change the legislation. It is a suggestion for study and evaluation.
Yes, Ms. James.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Garrison is correct. Committees can decide what studies they want to undertake. To mandate that a specific committee, or any committee—it doesn't reference this one directly—has to do a comprehensive study within a certain period of time could interfere with government legislation, whether it be this government or another. So for those reasons, and the fact we have sufficient safeguards in this bill, I will be opposing your amendment whether it's deemed admissible or not.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
I believe Mr. Garrison made my case already, that future committees can review any part or all of the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, so I will oppose this.
Thank you.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
9:20 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't really agree with my colleagues on the government side with respect to asking a committee to study or review the legislation given that we do that all the time. Indeed, we always choose committees, whether it be to study bills or to review them.
Consequently, I do not quite see how that would change anything at all, since we have specifically selected—and with good reason—the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study Bill C-51. I don't see how any other committee could be chosen to study it. It just makes sense that this bill would be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, for instance, and for the committee to have to produce a report after 30 months.
Once again, I must point out that that is part of our job as parliamentarians. I know that some committee members have been here a lot longer than I have. They know how privileged we are to be here. Studying and reviewing the provisions of various bills is part of our job as parliamentarians. That is why I plan to support the amendment.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, Mr. Chair, the next amendment by the Liberals is similar to this. I think we have an obligation as parliamentarians, given the concern we've heard before this committee. There is a considerable amount of support for the national security measures, no question about that, but there is a considerable amount of concern about where this bill may lead. People are worried about civil liberties and a number of other things, so knowing that, as we all do because we have heard from witnesses, we have an obligation to satisfy that public concern that at some point in the future this bill will be reviewed.
Ms James said there are sufficient safeguards. There are not. There is no Inspector General. The government cut that position, and we can't amend it. The proposal from John Major was disallowed. There is no oversight as our Five Eyes partners have, so there are not sufficient safeguards.
At least we could assure the public that we're protecting their interests, and based on experience, after a three-year period the bill would be reviewed by a future Parliament. It is our responsibility, knowing what we know now of the concerns, to see that this happens, and I would hope the government members would support that.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chairman, I think it would be the height of presumption for us to try to tie the hands of another parliament. It's one thing even to say that they have to review it, but now to say that they have do it within a particular timeframe.... Parliaments are sovereign. Governments are sovereign. For us to try to tie their hands under some pretext of our concern, without giving them the liberty to express their own concerns, in their own way, I think would be very disrespectful to our future colleagues, and I wouldn't support that.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just love it when I have to be reminded, after three terms in this place and nine years on this committee, of what my obligation is. I know what my obligation is. I exercise that obligation each and every day, 365 days a year. When we talk about considerable concern out there, you're right, there's considerable concern.
You're doing your job as opposition of trying to cast aspersions on the bill. We're doing our job to try to alleviate the fears that are created, that somehow, some way, every single Canadian, every single organization, every single protester is going to come under some great big magnifying glass, and everything they say or do is going to be recorded somewhere, and they're under suspicion. If you listen to some of the witnesses, that's exactly what they said.
You said, “satisfy that public concern”. Again, this bill does satisfy the public's concern, and that's their safety. Day after day they see on the news what is happening with regard to terrorism and its evolving threat, and how this changes and affects other countries. I could go on and on, but because of the hour of the night, I will simply say that I respect this Parliament and the fact that two members of Parliament put forward the majority of amendments to this because we live in an institution that allows them to exercise that. Out of 308, two people have moved the majority of amendments here. I respect that. That's their right. That's how fair we are. That's how fair we are as a Parliament. I don't need to be reminded of my obligations. I don't need to be preached to. I don't need to be told what job I have to do. I think I understand that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, from the very beginning on this bill I have not been opposing the government in a number of areas, and taken considerable flak for it, as a matter of fact.
9:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
As you should.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
However, what I've been trying to do is find the balance. This amendment, I think, helps in that regard. I'm just making the point that we've been consistent in this bill in terms of trying to find the balance between national security and civil liberties, freedom of expression, from the very beginning.
I will just disagree a little bit with what Mr. Norlock says.