Evidence of meeting #108 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.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Along with Mr. Spengemann's comment, to give an example, right now what we've seen across the world is propaganda, videos that encourage lone-wolf attacks. In your legal opinions, would the changing of this language weaken our ability to deal with those who propagate those sorts of lone-wolf attacks? We know we can go after the person who commits the attacks, but can we go after those who propagate it?
9:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'm somewhat reluctant to give a legal opinion on that type of issue.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I appreciate that. All I'm getting at is this. Does the language that's being proposed, and what we're talking about here, strengthen our ability or does it weaken our ability to go after those who have propagated or put out those sorts of videos?
April 25th, 2018 / 9:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I would answer that simply by saying I think what has been proposed would help strengthen the ability and not weaken it. It would strengthen counselling, let's put it that way. It would strengthen the ability to use counselling.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any more debate? We will vote on LIB-A.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 143 as amended agreed to on division)
9:10 p.m.
Green
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
9:15 p.m.
Green
9:15 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
You did...? I'm sorry. It's late. I did not hear it get voted on. Thank you.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We are now onto NDP-96, which has survived the Punic Wars, and is therefore—
9:15 p.m.
A voice
Withdrawn...?
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Don't withdraw it now. It is therefore moved.
Is there any debate on NDP-96?
Ms. Damoff.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Just to clarify, this is exactly the same as the amendment I was going to propose.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Let's not stretch this point too far.
Is there any further debate on NDP-96?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That bumps PV-42.
(Clause 144 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 145 agreed to)
(On clause 146)
We are now on to clause 146, and we have CPC-26.
Mr. Motz.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes.
What this amendment is proposing is that we delete lines 31 to 36 on page 130, which deals with the recognizance specifically. It deletes the changes to the Criminal Code for these recognizance orders under this legislation and reverts back to the threshold for seeking a recog order that “is likely”. That's what I'm proposing, that this goes back to the old language that it's “likely to prevent”, as opposed to the new language which is “necessary to prevent”.
In my opinion, this change raises the bar on getting a recog order to make them harder to obtain. That's why we want to be able to do that. I'll draw back on my experience, not specific to terrorist issues, but on having recog orders, and they can be a valuable tool.
Quite frankly, as we heard from our experts who testified before the committee, recog orders are the most usual tool now that our national security enforcement agencies use to try to keep tabs on an individual who poses a national security risk. We already know that the threshold to obtain those might be somewhat challenging. The threshold right now is “likely”. If we're changing it in Bill C-59 to “is necessary to”, that is upping the threshold, which makes it even more difficult for these orders to be obtained. If we're really trying to put some sort of monitoring mechanism in place for those who are a national security risk, then I don't understand for a moment why we would suggest that we want to raise the bar to that level.
In my opinion, recog orders are about as useful as the piece of paper they're written on. Unless you do constant monitoring, it's a piece of paper. You're asking someone to follow the rules. If they don't want to follow the rules—they may or they may not—at least you then have a recourse if they breach those conditions. If you're making it harder for law enforcement and national security agencies to even obtain that recog order in the first place, then it's even more useless than we have right now.
That's the reason we are concerned about the replacement of “is necessary” from “is likely”. After debate, I'd certainly appreciate any comments that our officials may have on the implications of that sort of language on the ability to even obtain a recog order in the first place, and whether that threshold is increased to the extent that it is going to continue to maybe put a risk to public safety and national security because we just don't have that threshold met on an individual. If they did do something, we don't have a mechanism in place where we can even hold them accountable before the courts.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative