Publication Search

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is nothing but an obviously puerile, pathetic political move. What it's designed to do, quite frankly, is the following. As we approach an election, of course, somebody is trying to usurp the very important work this committee has to do, and that is to review legislation. This is parliamentary tradition in this country. This is the way this committee is set up.

My friend across the way says there are lots of other things we could study. There's no end to things we could study, but we are very much time limited in this Parliament, and I think what we need to do is get on with this.

Mr. Easter is great. He's been here 20-some years. He really knows how to pull political strings. He knows how to garner the limelight and how to get things in the limelight and to make accusations.

This committee is not a court. The Information Commissioner has done what she thinks is appropriate. He uses the right words when he says “alleges”. Every time somebody alleges something, if we're going to be sucked up into some kind of political move just to placate some people who want to score some points because they may not be doing well in the polls or something else, that's too bad. That's sad. But I won't be part of a political game.

We have legislation before this committee. Let's get on with it, and if we have time to study things appropriately before the end of the 41st Parliament, let's do it. But let's get on with the job at hand, and let Mr. Easter scurry over to the finance committee and do his tricks. Maybe the cameras will be on. He'll get a few minutes on the nightly news, to make an allegation that in the end will be moot, because the Supreme Court of Canada has said that Parliament is supreme. Parliament said destroy the records. The records are destroyed. End of story.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and to keep this appropriate and proper, through you to my fellow committee members, as was mentioned the people who really make this committee work, I call them the unsung heroes, are the Library of Parliament, our analysts, and the clerk.

I tell everyone I meet that the only non-political people, the people you can go to for a straight answer if you need one, the people who are always there to help you and not set little traps for you are those at Library of Parliament, the analysts and the clerks. These are the people who actually make this place work, the technicians, the folks who make sure we have enough to eat and drink, and see to our needs, like unplugging things and plugging things. And of course, there are the translators, who I think try to do their best to sometimes use the proper words when we can't find them.

After nine years on the committee and three parliaments, I must say that of the committees that I've sat on and been a part of during that time—of course, we sit in for our members—I always feel right at home at this committee. Despite my sparring with Mr. Easter, I respect every member of Parliament.

I was at a class of gifted students in three different grades and I always try to be somewhat apolitical. I tell them to talk to their parents, go on the Internet, find out who they are first, then see which political party best represents who they are and recognize, as I did, that you may change, that you may change your political views as time goes by.

Mr. Chair, when someone leaves this place—this is my second retirement—there's always some bitter sweetness and this is for sure is bittersweet. I have to say that in only one Parliament did this committee not work that well and it was a minority government, so things got pretty hairy. But, generally speaking, this is the best committee I've ever been on in both this and the last two Parliaments.

I must say, Randall, LaVar hit it right, when we went to another country, you represented yourself and us in the true style of what a member of Parliament in another country should do. You made sure there were differences, because there are, but you did it in a way that if we all used....I must admit if I used your tact and your way, I'd be prouder of myself at times. You are a true gentleman. Your whole team has reflected well on your party.

I don't think we've ever said anything truly hurtful to each other at this committee. When I had my little tirade with Wayne, it was political in nature, it was not personal in nature, and I think he understands that. I think we all do.

Everybody sees us during question period and I call it a blight on our democracy because we should respect our political leaders, but that respect has to start with us. I always say that question period starts off with the question: “Why are you the worst government that ever existed? You're a bunch of liars and cheats, etc.” Then we get up and respond: “We are the best government that ever was and you can blah, blah, blah”. If we want people to respect us, we need to respect each other and we need to show that. I don't think that's ever going to stop with question period.

Behind the scenes, we have our political handlers, we have the people who feed us the questions, we have the things we're trying to say. Hopefully, someday, Randall, we'll adopt a kinder, gentler way, and I hope I'll see that, but I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime, but it may happen.

This is the time, when you're leaving, as Shakespeare said—of course, I'm not dead, but I'm referring to my political career—“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”. Let's just say I'm burying all the old bones, and I'll try to have nothing but good memories of this place.

To all of you from me, a very heartfelt thanks, and an apology if you felt hurt by anything I said. It was strictly political, and we know we all hold different views, but we all have—as Diane mentioned in her hope—the best interests of our country at hand. If we always remember that, I think this country will continue to be the best place on God's good earth to live, to raise a family, and to work.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and through you to the witnesses, thank you for attending today.

First of all, let me just tell you quite frankly, Mr. Lapensée, that I cannot think of a more professional organization than your organization. When I started this job about nine years ago, I felt totally safe, and I continue to feel totally safe and totally proud of the fact that I have a group of men and women who are there to make sure that my day goes well and that we are protected to the extent possible for any human being. Please don't take any of my questions as a slight to that statement, because that statement is the first one.

You were asked the question of how you compare with other legislative assemblies. We have, of course, 10 legislative assemblies in Canada. Because of my background with the Ontario Provincial Police for 30 years, I am familiar with the Ontario Government Protective Service, which oversees the protection of provincial members of Parliament in Ontario. Its umbrella organization or overseer is the Ontario Provincial Police.

I know of no instance where the Speaker of the legislative assembly saw a problem with the Ontario Provincial Police in their functioning with the Ontario Government Protective Service. You may have some information, and if you do, please give it to this committee. Are you aware of any instances where there have been problems with that type of organizational structure?

I'm given to understand that the Ontario Provincial Police oversee, or are sort of the umbrella, but that the actual provision of the service is done by the OGPS, which is somewhat similar but not identical to what we're dealing with here today. I am not that familiar with it.

I also want to say, Mr. Lapensée, that in my experience policing is of course transitional. In the Ontario Provincial Police, we amalgamated with other police forces. Change is painful. I understand that. There are always questions in people's minds.

But what I have found with that type of change in professional organizations such as yours, where everyone knows his or her job function, is that given a healthy dialogue or exchange between your organization and management—which would be the Speaker of the House of Commons and then, of course, the Privy Council.... We've had witnesses from the Privy Council who have indicated that not all the nuts and bolts have been put together here, but the outline is here.

The Auditor General has made some statements, and I'm going to ask a couple of questions of him.

I guess the question for the Auditor General would be on the way I understand your job. As explained here, you don't look at the nuts and bolts. You say, “Okay, what is the job requirement?” What's the organizational structure? What are they supposed to be doing and are they actually doing it? Also, are they doing it with reasonable financial backing? Do they have sufficient money to do the job they're doing? Then you make recommendations.

If you find fault with what I've just said, would you correct me on that?

So you would look at an organizational chart from the view of whether it appears to be sufficiently efficient to do the job it's supposed to do.

Thank you.

Would you agree with me that having organizational structures consisting of several different silos but with communications between them would be less efficient than an organizational chart with clearly defined roles and an ability for people exercising their duties within that single organizational chart, as opposed to several organizational charts...? Do you agree that the flow of information, the efficiency and effectiveness of that single organizational chart would tend to be better than having several different organizational charts and several different organizations?

Thank you very much.

You say the act is only about disclosure, and disclosure means to the person whose passport is being.... I'm asking these questions as a citizen or one of my constituents may ask me.

I'm going to know that my passport is revoked, and if there's any question around public safety, specifically national security, that there's certain information that may not be disclosed to me. That would be reviewed by a judge who would determine, by meeting a threshold, that it's reasonable and proportional under the circumstances that the passport is being revoked or cancelled at that time.

That's correct, but it would be one omitting any information that might endanger the life or the source of information of such a nature as it would begin to cause Canada a problem with her allies and/or disclose a source that would imperil someone's safety.

Mr. John Davies: Yes.

Mr. Rick Norlock: Thank you very much.

You also mentioned some of the.... The question was about the definition of national security. We understand that certain acts have definitions in them, and you alluded to several different acts that mention what national security means. But in its simplest form, could you, for the benefit of my constituents, for someone at home, describe, through the chair, what you would tell them national security really means under these circumstances we're discussing today?

It's nice to use legal terms, but when my constituents ask, I need to be able to explain it to them. It's not that they're less intelligent than we are, but they don't deal with the specificities of the law every day.

Thank you very much.

It was important, I think, in the statement you just made, that if there is any kind of question as to whether or not it is national security, it would go before a justice to make a determination whether that is indeed correct.

For those very concerned about the rights of the person whose passport is being temporarily suspended or cancelled or revoked, there is an appeal process that goes before an independent party, a judge, who makes those determinations. It's not the heavy hand of the state.

Thank you very much.

If somebody were to ask me, and you were sitting at the table with me and we were talking about what reasonable and proportional is, I think we would all have a reasonable understanding of “reasonable”. But when we talk about proportional, we're talking about the seriousness of the situation, aren't we, and whether the state is being reasonable under the circumstances?

Could you give me an example that you may be aware of in which proportionality would have to be weighed by a justice?

Just as a quick last question, we hear in the news about someone, mainly from among younger persons but not necessarily, who may be going over to another country to take part in a jihadist action or something to that effect. Let's say that the passport is going to be temporarily revoked for an individual like that and the individual says, “Really, that's just a rumour; I'm just going over to see my aunt or my uncle, or my cousin is getting married.”

If the government oversteps its bounds of reasonableness, that person appeals to a judge and the judge decides. Am I correct there?

That's a protection to the public to make sure that the wrong people aren't being prohibited.

Ms. Ritu Banerjee: That is correct.

Mr. Rick Norlock: Thank you.

I so move.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])