Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

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

They're gone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

On the short title, shall clause 1 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Shall the bill carry as amended?

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I know we've been here a long time, but I do have a few things I wish to say at this point. It's sometimes hard to follow when we have the two parties that are supporting the bill arguing the most during the evening. I know that sometimes confuses the people who are watching.

Mr. Norlock made the remark that it's the opposition's duty, or our goal, to cast aspersions on the legislation. I don't need to be reminded of my responsibility, because mine is not to cast aspersions on the legislation; it's to get better legislation in the committee through amendment.

I have to say that I am disappointed that the government's record here is quite clear in rejecting every single suggestion that anyone else has made about their bill, with only their three very modest changes made. In fact “modest” would be a large word to describe the changes that have been made. They're welcome changes but they're very, very modest changes that don't affect this bill.

We'll still be seeking, when we get to report stage, to delete the provisions that we think are most threatening to Canadians' rights and freedoms. That's the vague new criminal offence that tends to lump dissent together with violent extremism. We'll also be trying to get rid of the lower thresholds for preventative detention and for recognizance with conditions. Of course, we heard again and again from witnesses about the dangers of CSIS' new powers of disruption, which, in view of the McDonald commission, which created CSIS, I can't imagine why we're even considering at this time.

We did try to add some effective provisions to those things missing from Bill C-51 this evening. Of course, three of the four things we were trying to do there were ruled out of order. That was to strengthen existing oversight of our security and intelligence agencies and come up with a parliamentary system of oversight that would actually work. Probably the most important, to me, was the attempt to establish a community outreach and de-radicalization coordinator to work with those communities, in particular Muslim and Jewish communities, who have both been working very hard to try to prevent youth being swayed to extremist and sometimes violent ideologies. The fourth of those was trying to have three-year review and sunset clauses. Those, of course, were in order but were all defeated. We also tried to limit the scope of information sharing, to protect Canadians' privacy rights, and to narrow the information sharing envisioned by this bill. Those were, of course, also defeated. Finally, we tried to improve the no-fly list so that those who inadvertently, through no fault of their own and through no misbehaviour of their own, end up caught somehow on the no-fly list have an effective appeal mechanism. We didn't get that either.

From the beginning, we didn't hear all the witnesses who wanted to appear. Of those witnesses we did hear, something like 45 out of 48 said we needed major changes to the bill...or abandoning the bill. We did not get major changes, and we've certainly seen that the government intends to press ahead with this bill.

At the end of this committee process, I wish to thank all those witnesses who appeared and to express my disappointment that the many very good suggestions they made to us, whether in written briefs or when they were here in person, were not listened to by the government and taken up in an attempt to produce a bill that really would meet the threats we face in an effective way while at the same time protecting our Canadian rights and freedoms.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I talk any more about the bill, I would like to say something. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has just been through two extremely tough weeks. We have heard from 48 witnesses, including the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, all at sometimes impossibly tough hours of the day.

The days have been very long—even today's meeting began early this morning—not only for us, but also for our staff. All of the members here are always accompanied by staff, interpreters, people who take care of feeding us and people who make sure the committee runs smoothly. I would like to take a moment to thank all of them, because, frankly, their work over the past couple of weeks has been extraordinary.

I also want to thank the people who are following the debate, either here—since there are still some people in the room—or at home. I'm sure that some people are very interested in the whole debate surrounding Bill C-51. I want to thank them for paying attention. Without those people who care about what's happening, our work as parliamentarians would not serve much purpose. Regardless of our political views on a legislative measure like Bill C-51, it is good to raise questions and concerns, to share our point of view and to pay attention to what public opinion has to say about a piece of legislation as delicate as Bill C-51. I wanted to thank everyone for that.

Of course, I cannot hide that am disappointed this evening. We have worked really, really hard to try to improve the parts of the bill that we thought needed some improvement. As everyone knows, after carefully studying the bill and after taking the time to look at every part of the bill, the NDP has decided to vote against it at second reading. There were many parts of this bill that we didn't want to touch because we thought they should be removed altogether. We will continue working on that. We believe that many of the bill's provisions are a direct attack on Canadians' civil liberties and basic rights. I am not prepared to make any concessions on that.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has already said this in the House of Commons and here before the committee. I completely agree with him that civil liberties and public safety should always go hand in hand. He is quite right.

In this bill, however, I could not find what he was talking about. I learned last Friday that the Conservatives were going to amend the bill. The minister also said that he was going to let the committee do its work and that he would be open to amendments. I must say, I was looking forward to some real openness this time, in order to be able to strike a balance between civil liberties, basic rights and public safety. Personally, I was not satisfied with the results, unfortunately.

I will continue to oppose this bill. I have principles. I know that many other people around this table also have principles. We do not all have the same principles. I stick to my principles. We all want the same thing: to combat terrorism and radicalization by passing the best possible legislation; however, we all have different ways of achieving that objective.

Personally, my principles have not changed: I would like to see greater civilian oversight, adequate budgets for our police services and good eradication strategies on the ground. I will continue to fight for these rights and for my basic rights.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Rousseau.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

First of all, I want to thank all the witnesses, clerks, analysts, technical staff, interpreters and the support staff for the members of all parties. This has indeed been a very tough couple of weeks, and we have all gotten to know each other a little better. I have a great deal of respect for the government members. We must respect one another, even though we don't have the same ideologies.

I spent 25 years of my life working in the arts, where freedom of expression is what matters most. Whether on stage at a rock concert, in the theatre or at an art exhibit, freedom of expression was a fundamental part of my professional life before I was elected, and I still believe in that freedom of expression.

Everyone I have met over the past month has told me they are very concerned about the rights associated with freedom of association, expression and religion. I have also been an activist on behalf of student associations, unions and environmental groups. I have stood alongside first nations members as they asserted their rights. All of those people feel as though those rights are becoming more and more fragile. The NDP will continue to be very vigilant when it comes to those rights.

For the past four years, in other words, since I was elected, I have been meeting people who are concerned about safety. There are seven border crossings in my riding. For the past few months, especially since the attacks, border services officers and the RCMP, as well as soldiers and staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, have all been telling me that they need financial, human and technological resources. They can't even fight street gangs and organized crime groups, and now they are also expected to fight international terrorist organizations, so they need resources. That is what matters most to them. However, with the cuts that have been made in recent years, it is impossible for them to keep up.

Yes, my primary concern has to do with our freedoms, but those people are working incredibly hard to protect us every day, and the more we need them, the more resources they need. My party and I will continue to fight to ensure that Canadians have police forces that have the resources they need to do their jobs, no matter what party is in power. Those people accept the duty they must carry out, but they need resources to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Rousseau.

Now, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Garrison took a little shot my way by saying that there are two parties supporting the bill, and I would say this about our position as the Liberal Party. We're the only party in the House of Commons that isn't taking a rigid position on this bill and we are trying to find the balance.

I'd certainly thank the two Justice officials for being here tonight. I think they did give us a number of clarifications, not that we agree with them all. We certainly appreciate the information that they provided to the committee. Certainly, on behalf of my party, I want to thank all the witnesses who have appeared before us.

I had hoped the government might accept more amendments than the ones that they did, and was hopeful that we would get somewhere on oversight; I know it's been ruled out of order, Mr. Chair.

Similar to that of our Five Eyes partners, we had an all-party committee at the House of Commons in 2004 to make such a recommendation. Mr. Norlock sat on a committee in 2009 that agreed with that recommendation and others, and I would have liked to see some progress on sunsets and overall statutory review.

Having said that, let me close with this, in terms of our position. Although we're not comfortable with some of the issues—some of the amendments not being carried on the civil liberties and freedom of expression side—the way I look at this, we can always fix a bad bill in the future. We cannot fix an incident that would damage infrastructure and maybe take Canadian lives.

There are security measures in this bill—given what both police authorities and national security agencies have indicated, and based on my previous experience in government—that I think we have to recognize and take seriously.

There is no question in my mind that there is an increased threat. In order to prevent as best we can—and we can only prevent as best we can—that threat from doing damage to Canadians, it's for that reason that we are supporting this bill, recognizing that there are some amendments that should have been made on the civil liberty side but were not accepted by the government's side.

There we sit, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Now to Ms. Ablonczy, please.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you.

I just want to echo the gracious words of thanks that my colleagues and the NDP and Mr. Easter gave to all the people, both in this room and those who appeared before us, who were the wind beneath our wings in this study. We learned a great deal from other people, and I think from each other, from our debates together.

All members have a deep concern and an anxious desire to protect our hard-won freedoms, freedom of speech, privacy, and our human rights, and in addition we want to protect our country's safety and security from a growing global threat.

I hope we have reached a very good balance in this bill. The amendments that were passed were echoed I think by all parties and demanded by many witnesses, and as others have said, we will continue to watch carefully, to be vigilant, to ensure that we have the tools to continue to protect our country and all Canadians in the best way possible.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your good humour and patience in a difficult position.

I think we've done a good piece of work and can be very proud of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Ms. Ablonczy.

Now, Mr. Norlock, please.

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

I too want to echo the gratitude that was expressed by the other side and by Ms. Ablonczy, especially to the good folks sitting at the end of the table who I know work for the government. Tomorrow they work may for another government that may be of a different stripe, but I know they do their best to craft and assist in the crafting of legislation. I don't believe they would have done so in the knowledge that they would be impinging on civil rights and freedoms, but in doing the job they were asked to do by the government to meet the growing threat of terrorism.

Our staff all work very hard. We don't say thank you enough to the good people around here who make our lives much better. We're the mouthpieces, but often they are the brains behind the mouthpieces.

I think Madame Doré Lefebvre said it appropriately when she said how she felt about it. I felt the same way when we had no one to agree that this bill is as faulty as it is made out to be. The wonder of our democracy is that we view things differently; we sit down in committees like this, and in the end, as Ms. Ablonczy says, I think we came up with a good piece of legislation; we made it just a little bit better.

No one on this side of the table, no one in this Parliament I believe would want to do anything to injure and contravene the civil rights and liberties of the good folks who call themselves Canadians or who are here visiting.

Sometimes in the to and fro of battle—and I'm probably the biggest sinner of all sometimes when we cast aspersions—especially in that theatre called question period, which is all about the questions and not about the answers.

I think we need to meet this evolving threat of terrorism with some new tools, and I won't belabour the point except to say to all Canadians that what you hear today and what you see is a good example of how a democracy works. There's a difference of opinion and in a few short months you, the people who are watching this and your friends and neighbours, will determine who you want to be seated at this table and who will make the right decisions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Norlock.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I echo my colleagues' remarks on both sides in thanking everyone here, the staff, and of course the chair for bringing in—it's still questionable—either pork or turkey tonight. We'll find out tomorrow who's sick and who's not. Those who ate vegetarian might be doing very well tomorrow and the rest of us sick.

On a more serious note, the reason that we find ourselves here on Bill C-51 is the recent events that have happened around the world, including here in Canada. We have had incidents of terror back on October 22. All of us in this room were impacted by that. We witnessed the video that was released by the RCMP, or a portion of that video. For those who didn't fully believe what we're facing I think that video spoke for itself. I know I had great difficulties watching that video and reading the printed text that was provided.

With regard to the legislation there were five distinct parts to this bill, each one unique and separate from the others. There were legislative gaps that were clearly identified by our national security agencies, and we heard testimony to that effect. This bill clearly addressed those legislative gaps. We brought in on this side witnesses dealing with law enforcement, intelligence gathering, experts in terrorism-related issues, and every single one of those witnesses talked about how the threat is real, it has evolved, and it's growing.

Of those credible witnesses who we brought in some of them had more than 30 years experience in these areas. All of those individuals indicated how much this bill is needed. The measures contained within it related to information sharing are absolutely crucial. There were amendments to the Criminal Code to reduce the threat level so that they can actually be able to use some of these amendments, or these Criminal Code sections, and of course the added powers to CSIS. We had one witness say that they couldn't believe this was not already the case.

Having said that, we also heard from witnesses—actually on some of the same committee meetings—who sat here as witnesses and indicated that this bill had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, that it was simply there to instill fear and target groups. It's absolutely not the case.

As the government we brought forward amendments to really explicitly say that this bill does not target protestors, which was already implied in the legislation and which we have been reinforcing and reminding opposition members on every single day. I have personally gone on panels to say that this bill does not target protest. So I'm hoping that the amendments that came forward today, the testimony that we had from the experts that clearly indicated what the information sharing was about, can put those fears to rest.

It's really unfortunate, Mr. Chair, that throughout this process there's been misinformation about this bill. Hopefully, it's not been intentional. I think today some of those misconceptions were clarified by the witnesses, and I really thank you for that testimony and for being here. I'm hoping that it will put to rest some of the concerns that may be out there that are not necessarily legitimate concerns. In fact, we actually had a witness say it was very unhelpful for this process when at the fact of this bill is the national security of this country, the safety and security of Canadians, and providing the tools necessary to our national security agencies to better protect both of those things.

So on closing I would just like to thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members on all sides of the House, and especially all of the staff and the witnesses who were here with us throughout this entire process.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Payne, how ever could I have missed that?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

It must be the grace of you.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

It must be. I just wanted to say thank you to all of the staff members here, all of the House of Commons staff members, our witnesses tonight, and certainly all of our colleagues. As has been said, there are obviously two sides to this issue. I would never, in good conscious, ever believe that I would vote for a bill that would infringe upon the rights of any Canadians, and I think we heard that tonight from the officials

So on behalf of everybody here I just want to thank everyone for all of their work, our staff members, and your staff members. I know that with our colleagues across the way we had some good opportunities to certainly exchange ideas, and that's part of the process.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too want to express my appreciation for all the work that's gone into the preparation of this bill by our staff members, by the witnesses who have been willing to come testify before committee, by the House personnel who have provided translation services, and also by the staff in our offices who have provided all the detailed research and homework to make this possible.

As we all know and have recognized, iand every single one of our witnesses has recognized, the terror threat is real. Parliament tasked us with the responsibility of reviewing this piece of legislation and listening to witnesses. At times we heard that we weren't here to listen, and that we were just going through a formality, but indeed, we did care about what witnesses said, about the testimony that was brought here. We did bring forth amendments that we thought were appropriate after careful examination of the testimony provided by witnesses, and those were good amendments.

We also listened to the opposition, and I especially want to thank members across the way for all the work they put into research and amendments, for the thought-provoking comments that they made, and for the cordial atmosphere that we've enjoyed working here together, even though we're often on completely opposite sides of the page.I recognize that.

At the end of the day, I think we've got a piece of legislation that we can all be proud of. We can all sleep comfortably at night knowing that we've given our law enforcement agencies the tools that they need to protect our country and to keep us safe.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.