Evidence of meeting #66 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.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Are there any further interventions?
Very well, we'll go to a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 13 as amended carry?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chair, I have a question of clarification.
Do we not have to go through the rest of it, like G-27 and the other things under clause 13?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Oh, I see. Pardon me. That was my mistake.
I would like to ask some questions about clause 13 overall.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you very much.
Can the officials just outline, then, what clause 13 achieves, please?
5:20 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'll start, and my colleague might weigh in.
Clause 13 adds two serious firearms offences, section 92 and section 95, to section 183 of the Criminal Code, which underlies the basis for which a wiretap can be sought for those offences. That's what this does.
The motion would add the computer data offences to section 183 as well, so a wiretap could be sought for serious offences that are sometimes linked with organized crime. It doesn't change anything in the existing section with respect to authorizations. It just adds these to the definition of “offence” in section 183.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you very much. I appreciate that very clear explanation.
Mr. Chair, were we explained that in some other context? I know there would have been a technical briefing on the original Bill C-21, but this wasn't included in that. Arguably, if it was included in the original bill, perhaps I could have had enough forethought to ask about this, but it was not. Was there an opportunity to have heard what we just heard from the official at some other time that I just don't recall?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I believe so, and I would urge you to ask the officials that question.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
We keep getting told that our questions are redundant, yet that is the first time I've clearly heard what clause 13 tries to achieve. I don't quite understand why the questions we're asking are irrelevant. That has not been explained to me, as the lead on this, at any time. It's not been in any briefing document. It was not explained by the member who moved it. I don't feel that asking those questions is redundant at all. In fact, I feel they ensure that the public is fully informed of what we're voting on and, beyond that, that we are fully informed of what we are voting on.
Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if there was a briefing we were offered that I wasn't aware of. My point is that I think this is the first opportunity we have had to fully understand—or understand even a bit—what the full implication of that is. I greatly appreciate the expertise and the very clear explanation, certainly.
I know I have about two and a half minutes left.
This saga has been going on since those infamous amendments were brought forward in November. We were asking a number of questions of the officials at that time, but I'll remind Mr. Noormohamed that he filibustered for two meetings, during which he broke down exactly what a firearm is. At no time did I laugh at him or make fun of him for being redundant. I can't speak for others, but that was not something I did.
I'll give him this: He was impressively speaking for two full meetings on his own. That's longer than I spoke in the House. I spoke for 90 minutes. He would have spoken for four hours of committee time.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
He did bring it up, so I feel I have the right to respond to his criticism of my questions thus far. He's welcome to think I'm idiot; my questions aren't very good, but I have learned—
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
This is the second time Ms. Dancho has misrepresented what I have said. That's well within her prerogative. She can tweet about it. She can use whatever clip she wants.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I have at no point insulted Ms. Dancho. I think that's very important, and I want that on the record.
It is the prerogative of any member to ask questions at this committee, but it's also the responsibility of people to show up to committee having, at the very least, read the material.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.
I think we're getting way off into debate.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Perhaps Mr. Noormohamed can explain where we would have read that definition from the official.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chair, to be fair, the Liberal member took his time to make that criticism of Conservative questions. I am responding to it. If I'm not allowed to respond, he shouldn't be allow to say it, which I don't agree with. He should be allowed to say it. He's very welcome to criticize me at length. That's fine, but again, he did speak for two full committee meetings, dragging this out further. There's this big urgency. He's responsible for delaying this by an entire week. I'd just like to point that out.