Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You're fine.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

The opposition, both the NDP and the Green Party, have come out to automatically oppose this bill every step of the way. The fact that they've put forward an amendment to create a sunset provision so that all of a sudden things cease to exist on a certain day does not surprise me in the least.

I think that when you're responsible on the government side to ensure the safety and security of this country and of its citizens, we are not going to be so reckless as to have sections of the Criminal Code—provisions that are there to protect Canadians—all of a sudden cease to exist.

Again, I am lost for words. You gave a good word, “flabbergasted”. I couldn't believe it.

Anyway, there's no need to go on this point anymore. I will definitely not be supporting this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On that point, Mr. Chair, when you listen to witnesses and talk to those in civil society and activists, there is the question of balance. If an opposition party wants to oppose the bill, then that's their right. The NDP has taken that position. We've taken the other position. We would support it and try and get amendments, but that doesn't seem to be getting us very far, other than the fact we get the word “lawful” taken out.

I know I'm concerned about the improper balance in the bill. We need security measures, but we have to assure people that there's a proper balance in this bill and not an infringement of their civil liberties and their freedom of expression. The government has rejected proper oversight, in one way or another, using whatever excuse it can find. They can bring in oversight themselves if they want it in a parallel bill. They don't seem willing to do that.

What sunset clauses do, Mr. Chair, is at least give society the realization that within a certain period of time the bill will be reviewed by a new Parliament. Maybe it will be a Parliament that works and hears all sides of the story. That would be an exception to what's happening around here now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

I'm amazed that you would want to have a sunset clause on the Criminal Code. For Mr. Easter to suggest that Parliament doesn't work...he's been here a long time and you know that your government has pushed stuff forward as well.

I think you need to step back and be a little less critical.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Garrison.

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

I know the government continues to say they're strong in the polls and they would never put in a sunset clause as an aspect of the Criminal Code. Of course, we have already had those in the past. When the original anti-terrorism legislation was passed, we had two provisions, investigative hearings and preventative detention, that were both subject to sunset clauses. They're both part of the Criminal Code. For the government to pretend it is shocked and horrified by these amendments means that it's suffering from complete amnesia when it comes to the history of dealing with terrorist legislation in this country.

I think it's simply a rejection of the fact that anyone could disagree with this government. They're not willing to reconsider, even after a period of three years, whether they've done the things that are most effective to combat the terrorist threats to this country without, at the same time, damaging our civil liberties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Yes, Ms. Ablonczy.

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

I think the debate is getting a little more testy than it needs to because we've been here a long time. I think we should look at what we're talking about, which is the advocacy or promotion of terrorism. We're also talking about the ability to take material down from the Internet that is being used to recruit young people. To say that we will not be sunsetting these proposed measures after three years has elicited some rather heated exchanges. I think we want to look at whether we would now, after three years, want to allow that. I don't think anybody in the opposition or the government would think that's a reasonable stance, upon reflection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we will have the vote on clause 16 as amended.

Yes, Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As I said at the beginning of these discussions, we believe that clause 16, taken in its totality, is the most dangerous part of this bill. It's reckless and it's unnecessary. At the appropriate stage—we cannot do this in the committee stage—we will be moving to delete this entire section as recommended by the Canadian Bar Association.

The government, again, has failed to demonstrate any gap in the Criminal Code in the introduction of this new offence. We've been able to have successful prosecutions of the Toronto 18 and of the VIA Rail bombers. The RCMP Commissioner appeared before this committee and said that he would have been able to prosecute the shooter in Ottawa under the existing Criminal Code provisions. The government has not demonstrated any need for this new, vague offence—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

On a point of order, yes, Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

That's not exactly what Commissioner Paulson said, if that's what you're referring to. He actually—

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

These are not points of order.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

He's indicated—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

No, no. Ms. James, we're into debate.

Mr. Garrison, carry on.

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

He certainly did say it and it's on the record. Anyone who goes back to the committee evidence will see that he did say he would have been able to prosecute the Ottawa shooter, whose name I specifically do not use. I try to make it a practice never to use the names of those who commit violent acts because many of them seek to become famous. If we use any names, I would urge all my colleagues to use the names of victims and not the names of those shooters.

The second part of this section deals with the warrant procedure for terrorist propaganda on the Internet. Again, it's controversial. It's not a simple thing to say you're going to take things down from the Internet. I have to note that we had a provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act that allowed hate materials to be taken off the Internet by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. All the members on the government side in 2013 supported eliminating that power of the Human Rights Commission to take out hate-filled materials. Now, here we are inserting it back into this section.

I think the two biggest problems here, starting with the vague nature of the offence, is also the use of the word “reckless”, implying that people may be caught in this who had no intention of supporting or advocating terrorism. There are a good many experts who argue that we ought not to take down terrorist propaganda and that it's very useful to the police and enforcement if people are posting things, so that they can find them and go after them. If you take down all the propaganda and drive them underground, they're much more difficult to bring to justice. We have the example of the attack in Paris on Charlie Hebdo, where those who perpetrated that attack went dark on the Internet for two years before they committed that offence. They did that purposely to make it very difficult for law enforcement to find them.

Finally, we make it difficult for all those who are working in deradicalization if we remove all of the material in advance, again, to find context and counter those materials. When we get to report stage, we will be moving an amendment, as recommended by the Canadian Bar Association and many others, to delete this section in its totality. That does not mean that we in any way support those who counsel the commission of terrorist act. That's already illegal in the Criminal Code. For those reasons we did not support any of the amendments that tried to improve the section, because we believe it is truly unfixable and it will not make a contribution to making Canadians safer. It may hamper those efforts to make Canadians safer at the same time as it produces a chill on freedom of speech in this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

Is there further debate? Seeing none, by recorded vote, shall clause 16 carry?

(Clause 16 as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 17)

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We will now go to Bloc Québécois amendment 8.

Mr. Patry.

[Claude Patry, Bloc, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment has to do with eliminating the expanded scope of arrests without a warrant. Under Bill C-51, there are fewer conditions to initiate an investigation or to arrest an individual by replacing words like “will commit” with “could commit”, and “necessary to prevent” with “is likely to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity”.

Our amendment would prevent these conditions from being lowered and eliminate the authority of the Federal Court to issue preventive detention warrants without acceptable proof.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Yes, Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

This amendment would remove the lowering of existing legal thresholds for obtaining a terrorism recognizance with conditions under subsection 83.3(2), and the terrorism preventative arrest provisions of subsection 83.3(4), because it proposes to delete all of Bill C-51's amendments in this area. However, this amendment would leave in the provisions of the bill that would propose the extension of judicial remand and the recognizance with conditions scheme from three to seven days, with periodic judicial review.

The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the scope and principle, I believe, of this. I believe it is inconsistent with the scope and principle of Bill C-51, which seeks to make it easier to obtain a terrorism recognizance with conditions by removing the proposed lowering of the legal threshold. Therefore, we'll not be supporting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do not agree with what Mr. Norlock just said. I think that Mr. Patry presented a reasonable amendment to clause 17. I will vote in favour of this amendment.