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.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
We will now call a vote on this amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we will go to Liberal amendment number 13.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There's no sense remaking the arguments that were made the last time around, other than that the same arguments hold true to do a review in three years. I would say, though, while I'm on my feet—
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
While I have the mike, Mr. Chair, put it that way—and I know you can always cut it off, which is what worries me. Ms. Ablonczy said earlier that current governments shouldn't tie the hands of future governments.
I would submit—and I know you'd rule me out of order if I went through the list of where this current government is tying the hands of future governments, so I'll not do that but come back to my point—we have an obligation, knowing what we know, to ensure a proper review is held in three years.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Easter knows that I was referring to tying their hands in terms of their own priorities and procedures.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
I am. I'm very sensitive about this.
No, I'm not. I'm just trying to give the chair a bad time.
However, I think I've said all I want to say on the previous amendment, along with my colleagues. I don't think I need to make any further comments.
9:25 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Although the Liberal amendment is somewhat similar to ours, there are nevertheless two differences.
On the one hand, the Liberals are talking about three years while we are talking about 30 months. I have no problem with that.
On the other hand, the part that I do have a problem with is the fact that we are talking about a committee that would involve members of the Senate. For that reason, I must vote against the amendment.
Thank you.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just for your information, Ms. Lefebvre, there are Alberta senators who have been elected by the people of Alberta to go to the Senate.
Thank you.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now have an amendment put by an independent. It's our first one. Independent amendment 1 is deemed received. Is there any discussion?
Yes, Madame Doré Lefebvre.
9:30 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
I simply wanted to point out that this relates somewhat to the two previous proposals. However, it is even a little more similar to the NDP's proposal. The only thing that is different is that this talks about two years, instead of 30 months, as indicated in our proposal.
I think it would be a good idea for the Conservatives to vote in favour of this, because it is a little different than the others. Personally, I will be voting in favour of this amendment.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now it is NDP-28.
9:30 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
One of the things we've discussed in many amendments, or tried to discuss in many amendments, is the idea of having some parliamentary oversight. Many members around the table, or some who aren't any longer around the table, submitted models for that parliamentary oversight.
Instead, what we're proposing in this amendment is that the House of Commons sit down and work together to find an appropriate model for parliamentary oversight, which may range from a super SIRC plus a parliamentary committee to all kinds of other possibilities.
Given the record on the previous attempts to put in parliamentary oversight, which is something we heard from literally almost all the witnesses, I'm not optimistic that this will be found within the scope of the bill. It's a big, gaping hole in bill.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you, Mr. Garrison.
Yes, as you've intimated, the chair is going to rule on this. It is deemed as inadmissible, and the chair will give the reasons as follows.
The amendment seeks to create a parliamentary committee on security and intelligence oversight, which would have as its mandate oversight of regulations and activities in the area of intelligence. The mandate would include activities and regulations from all departments, agencies, and civilian and military bodies involved in the collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence related to Canada's national security. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, and of course on the advice of our legislative clerk, the mandate of this proposed committee is much broader than what was envisioned and contained in Bill C-51, and it is therefore beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible
We will now go to PV-59, please.
9:30 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My amendment, PV-59, is found on page 59 of the bill—just by pure coincidence. For those who are tracking by page numbers, we are on the last page of an omnibus bill. This again, as in the previous amendment, deals with the importance of having a reporting process. It reads:
63.(1) Within two years after this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions enacted by this Act and their operation shall be undertaken by—
—and this is after line 28, so it is entirely new language not tying into any other part—
—any committee of the House of Commons that may be designated or established for that purpose. (2) The committee shall, within one year after the review is undertaken under subsection (1) or within such further time as the House of Commons may allow, submit a report to the House, including a statement of any changes that the committee recommends.
So this would be a full and comprehensive review to Parliament as a whole.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, Ms. May.
(Amendment negatived)
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
Both proposed new schedules 1 and 2 are not involved, because they were consequential to Bloc Québécois amendment 6 and Green Party amendment 12, which were defeated. Therefore, they're not in here.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
