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.
8:10 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
I'll rephrase my question, and maybe that will get me the answer I'm looking for.
What is the legal power of a publication in the Canada Gazette? Is it just confirming what has been done in the past, as information in an official way?
8:10 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I'm not an expert on the Canada Gazette, but normally it's used for engagement purposes, so policies going forward to consult on, looking for advice from the public, stakeholders, and so on, on the government's decision.
8:10 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It is for information on the intention of the government, yes.
8:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I am going to answer Mr. Picard's question. The use of the Canada Gazette is already specified in Bill C-59. It is simply that the deadline preceding the conclusion of the review was five years, whereas now, there is no longer a deadline after the conclusion of the review.
8:10 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
You are quite right. But the question is that, if we confirm that it is an information instrument, the deadline should cause no prejudice in cases when entities are removed from the list. The fact of it being immediate would only add more administrative work. In fact, if there were a number of reviews, it would have to be reviewed each time and republished each time. That administrative exercise is useless, given that, in actuality, the delay causes no prejudice to the entity removed from the list. So I am going to oppose this.
8:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
It is more than an administrative matter, because this is how people who are likely to be doing business with an entity can find out that it has been removed from the list. It is no good putting that on paper in 10 years; we have to allow people involved with a group that is on the list in error to continue their involvement with that group. In that way, they can know that that they are not involved with a group whose name is on the list of terrorist entities.
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
The amendment makes sense, to be honest with you. Could officials weigh in on whether or not the delay in publication for five years is necessary, or was it just a drafting error?
8:15 p.m.
Director and General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The intent of the amendment sets out the general parameters for publication, but builds in flexibility for the publication schedule, having in mind the proposed staggered review of newly listed and already listed entities going forward. For example, the bill would allow for bulk notices to be provided in one notice, as a notice with respect to each review could be resource-intensive.
Right now, the entire list is reviewed every two years, and notice is given as to the results of the review upon the review. Going forward, there would be a staggered review. There could be newly added entities at different times. We can't predict future operational pressures, the increased size of the list, or when the entities are listed, so there are various unknowns.
The intent here is to provide a degree of flexibility with five years as the outer range, but it allows for a grouping together of the notices without necessarily having multiple individual notices. That's the idea behind it.
8:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 141 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 142)
8:15 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair.
This would simply add special advocate provisions to the appeal process for the terrorist entities listing.
8:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, we've had a discussion around the table on special advocates. There is sufficient legal authority and sufficient practice within the Federal Court to appoint amicus curiae in such processes where required and appropriate.
8:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Any further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 142 agreed to on division)
(On clause 143)
NDP-91 to NDP-93 have been dealt with.
We are on NDP-94.
Mr. Dubé.
8:15 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair.
There's a bit of a challenge here, again recognizing the nuance that is not often part of our profession but is required for dealing with this particular issue. Professor Roach was mentioning the situation of the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy seeking to challenge its listing but not being able to do so because its assets were frozen. Following that, he mentioned the uncertainty that surrounds any pro bono work that could be offered to a listed entity, given that it would be seen as collaborating with a group that would be identified as a terrorist group under paragraph (b) of the section of the Criminal Code we've been dealing with.
This amendment seeks to allow the use of those assets in challenging a terrorist listing. Ultimately, as I've said several times and will continue to say, this type of due process is what sets us apart from the very ills we are trying to combat. Notwithstanding the conclusion that appeal process may reach, having proper representation in a legally sound manner is appropriate, and this is what this amendment seeks to do.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Mr. Dubé has his wish. Section 83.09 of the Criminal Code already talks about exemptions to freezes and says that it does not prevent people from hiring a lawyer.
So, in my opinion, the amendment is not necessary.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any other debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are on NDP-95.
Mr. Dubé.
8:20 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair.
You can correct me if I'm out of line. I believe there are several amendments that—
April 25th, 2018 / 8:20 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Okay, great. I don't mean to attempt to do your job for you.
As we've heard from a number of witnesses who came before the committee on this bill, and as we heard throughout the debate on Bill C-51 in the previous Parliament, the counselling terrorism offences are superfluous because, as we know, the counselling offence is already in the Criminal Code. Since we've been very keen to avoid perceived redundancies throughout this process, I'm hoping to see support for this particular amendment and to simply eliminate those redundant parts of the counselling terrorism offences that were introduced and are still here in Bill C-59.