Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Recorded vote.

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Now colleagues, we have clauses 12 to 14 in front of us with no amendments. The chair can take them one at a time or we can take all three together.

The chair will take all three unless he hears objection.

(Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we will go to Liberal amendment number 5.

Mr. Easter, it is deemed inadmissible because it requires a royal recommendation.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I don't want to speak on the amendment, but I want to emphasize again that we bring witnesses in to committee to outline their thoughts on a fairly massive piece of government legislation. With this particular amendment, which is calling for a national security committee of parliamentarians, similar to our Five Eyes—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Point of order.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

On a point of order, since this was ruled inadmissible, out of order, out of scope, however you want to phrase it, there should be no debate or discussion on it thereafter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

There is none. I was hoping Mr. Easter would just make a quick point and move on, but if we're going to be into a discussion, there is no debate.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'm not going to get into a discussion, Mr. Chair, but—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You've got about four to five seconds then, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

All right. That sounds good. There's evidence after evidence. Members came before this committee and their words were for naught. They called for oversight, and the government fails to address it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's fine, Mr. Easter, and I appreciate that, but as you know, there is no debate, and it was ruled inadmissible simply because it would involve a money bill with a requirement from the treasury. Therefore it is not eligible.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Spend some of the advertising money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We will now go to clause 15. There are no amendments.

(Clause 15 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 16)

Now we will go to Liberal amendment number 6. If adopted, colleagues, Green Party-29 could not be moved. I bring that to your attention. So now we will go to Liberal 6.

Mr. Garrison.

Excuse me, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I didn't mean to insult you.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We're trying to get Mr. Garrison to be a Liberal, but he resists, he resists.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Not ever.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, basically the word “knowingly” is currently in the legislation, and we believe that “wilfully” would narrow the parameters somewhat but still deal with the concerns on security issues. So we're basically somewhat lowering the threshold of what that clause relates to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Yes, Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I would oppose that amendment. Even though the change in wording narrows the scope, it broadens the activity around terrorism that would no longer constitute a violation. The effect would be to create an offence of advocacy or promotion of terrorism in general, which would have a greater intent requirement than that needed to convict a person for counselling the commission of a crime committed under section 464 of the Criminal Code, so I would not support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Yes, Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We're in a somewhat awkward position on clause 16, since we think it's absolutely unfixable. I'll have some more to say about that when we come to the end of the clause, but we will not be supporting attempts to improve this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we will go to Green Party 29.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was going to say earlier that if Liberal 6 is adopted, we could then say that there would have to be a pause while everyone who has fallen into a dead faint gets resuscitated.

However, I soldier on, and PV-29 is dealing with a section.... I have sympathies for the point Mr. Garrison just made that clause 16, proposed section 83.221, of this bill is unfixable, but I have attempted to fix it. I know that the Canadian Bar Association recommended that we just delete the whole concept of promoting terrorism in general, but I have tried to make it at least more reasonable by changing the word “knowingly” to “wilfully”, and by removing the absurd concept, which is undefined and undefinable, of “terrorism in general” and replace it with “constitutes a terrorist activity, for the purpose of inciting the commission of a terrorist activity”. So it would be something that comes within the known jurisprudence in the use of the language.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Ablonczy.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I don't understand all this tender care to try to protect people who are exhorting others to attack our country and our citizens. To try to tiptoe around this and excuse them in some way through clever wording makes no sense to me. We have people who are threatening our country, threatening our citizens. We want to be able to identify them and put them out of commission, and the Green Party is trying to make sure that somehow these people are protected through nice language.

Honestly, I'm just shaking my head. I would never support this.