Evidence of meeting #45 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was division.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I'm going to have to repeat myself.
Our colleague on the other side of the aisle keeps repeating the same thing.
It's not like we haven't had any debate. I'll say it one more time: We are definitely against this amendment because we consider that the judge, and only the judge, knowing the particular set of arguments in the case in front of him, is the person most able to decide.
It's not you, and it's not me, Mr. Caputo, who can decide what should be this order. It's for the judge to decide. We respect the judiciary process, and we're going to vote against so that the judge can decide what is the right time for this order to be produced.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
That is what democracy is all about, Mr. Ramsey. You just articulated a point. You just articulated why you're voting for something. I may have voted for that amendment, and you may have voted against that amendment, but you know what? We actually had robust discussion on that amendment.
You know what we're not going to have for the next 80 pages of amendments that I have on my spreadsheet? Robust discussion.
Thank you, sir. You have just made my point.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, I've been in the House now for 10 years, and the standard when you're going through clause-by-clause at a committee is that you usually cover an amendment in approximately 10 minutes, so you go through six an hour. Some of them take longer, some of them are shorter, and some of them are done in a minute.
Last night, we spent eight and a half hours, and we got through two amendments. That, to me, is the tragedy. We easily could have gone through this whole package having substantive discussions about everything, but it was clear that there was no desire to do that, and that is disconcerting.
As to Mr. Caputo's point, because I want to stay on the amendment and the subamendment, I think Mr. Mantle is a perfectly delightful person, and I would never vote against something because Mr. Mantle proposed or didn't propose it. On substance, I don't agree with having the 30 days, so I didn't agree to the subamendment, because I don't think it's necessary to set a time frame.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
Shall NDP‑6 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We still have some remaining time when we can talk, so I would like to ask consent from the committee to allow Ms. May, if she wants, to have a moment to say a few words before we wrap up our chance to speak.
Liberal
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I want to thank the honourable member so much.
It has been 13 years since the bizarre motion was created by Mr. Harper's PMO that members of parties that are smaller than 12 would be allowed amendments to be deemed moved, but they could only speak when the amendment came up. Had I not been allowed to say a word, this would have been the first time that I've done the work, come to a committee and not been able to say a word, so I'm grateful for that.
I was just reflecting on the fact that today is June 17. I remember what I was doing last year on June 18 in the dying hours of the evening, because during the morning of June 18, I had attended the funeral for the late honourable Marc Garneau in Montreal, then spent until midnight when the bâillon came down trying to present amendments to the committee on Bill C-5 before there was no longer any time to debate them.
I will say that I didn't put in nearly as many amendments as Jenny Kwan and the NDP did and certainly not as many as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois did, but all of our amendments were intended to reflect concerns we heard from experts and from our constituents. My amendments—if there's any chance without debate as you look through them tonight, as you come up to them one after another—some of them have conflicts or are very similar to efforts put forward by other members of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.
One of our amendments is PV‑2.
In fact, there is a reason why we use the letters “PV” to refer to the Green Party.
If we put it down in English, it would look like a government amendment, G-something.
I'm going to jump right in to talk about PV‑2.
It is directly supported by the intelligence commissioner. Oversight cannot be meaningful if the reviewer does not have access to the full evidentiary record.
As for my first amendment, I ask you to please consider it, although it is somewhat similar to some of the other amendments, but it's really important that orders made under this act be time limited and subject to meaningful, ongoing review. We can't have extraordinary powers that continue by default.
I won't have time. I know you gave me a few moments, and we're going to have the end of debate in I don't know how many minutes, but I'm grateful for this chance to say a few words.
This process of programming motions is offensive at any time. I've always objected to them, but I hope this committee—and maybe the chair will help me—will take it back to the powers that be. It really isn't right to say that our rights, which I would have but for the motion that was passed by this committee and every other committee without thinking about it after every election.... I would otherwise have the right under our rules to bring forward substantive amendments at report stage, so I would beg of members here who have seen what it's like to be a member of Parliament sitting at the table hoping for a chance to say a word.... I appreciate the Conservative member's thoughtfulness in asking if I'd like to say something before saying I will vote against this bill. I'm terribly, terribly sad that the concerns of so many people were dismissed so casually.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Ms. Kirkland, for being so gracious.
Thank you, everyone, for allowing Ms. May to speak eloquently.
Ms. Kirkland, would you like to continue?
Conservative
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
I noticed that Ms. Kwan is with us on Zoom. If we could have consent, we might want to give her a moment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
There are two conditions for that. First, we need to see her. Second, we need to have unanimous consent for that to happen. I don't see her visually, so we will have to....
She doesn't have a headset that would make it possible for her to participate.
Thank you for that invitation.
Mr. Caputo.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I would invite the chair to assist the committee members. We're going through a lot of amendments. Can you perhaps announce exactly what amendment we're on and what clause we're on? I think that would be of great help.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I will try to do that to the best of my ability. Thank you for that.
We're now on the clause itself.
Shall clause 9 carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
The amendments have been defeated, so the question is, shall clause 9 carry?
Conservative