Evidence of meeting #65 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
However, six and a half weeks, nine meetings, were missed on this committee.
If the Liberals are saying or the NDP is suggesting that it's the Conservatives who've held this up, you weren't here. You didn't see what didn't happen and how we waited and waited and waited for this to happen.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Getting back to CPC-3, I think it would be important to recognize that all this amendment is trying to do is this: If the red flag laws are accepted—and, as I said before, I hope they are not—it will soften the approach to allow for immediate family members and cohabiting persons to apply for an ex parte request for....
Really what it does is that it lowers the chance for malicious claims. That's the whole idea.
6 p.m.
An hon. member
Oh, oh!
6 p.m.
Conservative
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Again, please direct your comments through the chair. It's best to avoid speaking directly to each other—on both sides.
Is your intervention done?
6 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's very clear that when you speak to a clause that's different from the clause before the committee, it's a filibuster. When you're asking questions that you've already had the answer to, it's a filibuster. When you're asking questions that are repetitive in nature, it's a filibuster.
Yes, the Conservatives have been filibustering this for a number of weeks. I have continually raised the possibility that we extend hours to get through this. Conservatives have refused each time.
Yes, it is absolutely a filibuster. You may not like the fact that I'm calling the Conservatives out on it. They may not like that, but it is true that they've been filibustering. They're filibustering legislation that is important, not just on ghost guns but things that need to be moved forward. Law enforcement has said that it is vital that we take action.
I would agree with Mr. Motz on the issue of the Liberals making a huge error back at the end of the year that delayed the committee for a number of months, but the Conservatives' actions now bring to mind the old adage “two wrongs don't make a right”. That's what we're seeing. The Conservatives are compounding the error that the Liberals made. I just find it inappropriate.
We are on CPC-3. Conservatives have not spoken to it at all. They seem to be speaking about everything but CPC-3.
I would say, through you, Mr. Chair, that there's an issue of relevance to add to the filibuster. We need to move forward. The House can make a decision to direct this committee, and I certainly hope it does.
Yes, the House of Commons is responsible for overseeing a committee that no longer functions. Constant filibustering by the Conservatives has made it impossible to move forward with our study of Bill C‑21—
6 p.m.
Bloc
6 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I don't know if Mr. Julian realizes that each time he takes the floor to say that the Conservatives are trying to slow things down, he himself is slowing things down.
Can we get back to debating amendment CPC‑3, Mr. Chair?
6 p.m.
Liberal
6 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
There are certain permissions granted with respect to amendment CPC‑3. As I mentioned, I will be voting against this one. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will join the other parties to ask that the committee's work be directed in the next few days so as not to slow down the study of Bill C‑21.
Thank you.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
I certainly take Madam Michaud's point that the more we talk about whether we're in a filibuster, the more we're in a filibuster.
Mr. Motz, it's over to you, please.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Can we call a recorded vote, please?
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Are there any further interventions? Seeing none, we will call the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
Thank you, all. That was an interesting debate.
We carry on to CPC-4.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
We're withdrawing CPC-4, and you said that CPC-5 is redundant based on what happens in CPC-3...?
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
CPC-4 could not be moved if CPC-3 had passed. CPC-3 did not pass, but you're withdrawing CPC-4. Is that correct?
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
CPC-5 is withdrawn. That brings us to CPC-6.
CPC-6 is also in the name of Ms. Dancho.
Mr. Motz, did you wish to...?
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes, on what this does, really, we're asking that, after line 8 on page 3 of Bill C-21, the following be inserted:
(2.1) If the provincial court judge determines that the hearing of an application shall be held in private in accordance with subsection (2), the judge shall consider any background information submitted by a peace officer following any investigation relating to the person against whom the order is sought before deciding if an order should be made.
The idea here is that we want to ensure that a judge has all the relevant information, as much relevant information as possible, to support the claim of an ex parte.... Of course, as we know, law enforcement has more investigative ability and access to resources than the courts do. That's the reasoning behind this particular amendment.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there discussion on CPC-6? I see none.
(Amendment negatived)
That takes us to CPC-7, also in the name of Madam Dancho.
Mr. Motz, if you will...?