Evidence of meeting #107 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Yes, you fixed it. Excellent.
Yes, it was from “fiscal” to “calendar”, not the other way around.
May I group these votes, the subamendments and the amendment, for the purposes of our voting, so that we're all voting on one thing?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
There was also an amendment to the amendment to the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 101 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 102 agreed to on division)
(On clause 103)
Amendment NDP-54 and amendment PV-16 were dealt with.
Amendment NDP-55 is in order. Mr. Dubé will speak to it.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair. This just seeks to have greater clarity in the list of measures that CSIS can engage in.
When we speak of interfering with the movement of any person, we want to exclude detention. There's obviously, in the legal realm, a lot of talk about the concept of detention in law versus movement. This is for greater clarity in an instance such as that.
I have had a collegial offline conversation with Ms. Dabrusin and she would propose a more workable way of bringing this forward—another amendment to an amendment.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm sure you don't want to withdraw it so that Mr. Picard can amend it.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We're all in favour of collegial offline amendments, so I'm going to ask Ms. Dabrusin to speak to the amendment to the amendment.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I fully agree with the intent behind this. It's just a matter of trying to make it easier to read.
The amendment, as it's currently worded, would add proposed paragraph 21.1(1.1)(f) in there. It didn't seem to read well, so my suggestion, and I can hand this to the legislative clerk to show where I popped in the wording, is that at proposed paragraph 21.1(1.1)(f) on page 110, which currently reads, “interfering with the movement of any person” we would add “, excluding the detention of an individual; and”. It's the same wording. It's just placed differently within the paragraph to make it clearer.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
That's pretty substantial. You are eliminating NDP-55's proposed new subsection 21.1(1.2):
Paragraph (1. l)(f) does not authorize the Service to detain an individual.
I'm not quite sure how it—
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Chair, I don't know whether this is in order. I could perhaps withdraw my amendment and then move from the floor what Ms. Dabrusin has just proposed, or she can move it regardless.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Would it be easier for her to just move this as its own amendment from the floor?
12:50 p.m.
NDP
12:50 p.m.
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
It would read that Bill C-59, in clause 103, be amended by replacing paragraph 1.1(f) with the following:
(f) interfering with the movement of any person, excluding the detention of an individual; and
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
April 24th, 2018 / 12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I understand it, the amendment withdraws certain powers from CSIS officers. I would like to know first whether CSIS officers detain people. I do not think that is part of their mandate or their approach. We often debate these issues, and I think the work of agents is misunderstood.
With regard to CSIS, do you think this amendment is relevant?
12:50 p.m.
Director General, Policy and Foreign Relations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Within Bill C-59 or within the threat reduction measurements, we already cannot detain. It's already clearly laid out. Therefore, this is just clarifying. It won't have a negative impact.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate?
The question is on the amendment as put forward by Ms. Dabrusin.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 103 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 104 to 106 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 107)
