Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 4 of 4
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am pleased to be here, dear colleagues. You work very hard in this committee. The bill you are studying is quite extensive and a number of amendments have been proposed, all in a spirit of goodwill. For someone who is beginning, I admit that it's quite difficult to dive into this all at once.
I'm a little surprised by the answer from my colleague on the importance of knowing how much the amendments and this new oversight mechanism will cost.
Ms. Dabrusin, if as you just said, it won't cost anything, we will have the opportunity to see that in the first report and to see the importance of the numbers. It's perfectly legitimate to add that to the act. We'll see how these new measures will affect the budget.
We want to improve national security, but it's important not to do the opposite by devoting the money that could be used to protect us from these threats to the surveillance of people who are working so that we don't face various threats. So I'm very much in favour of the amendment introduced by my colleague Mr. Motz.
I sincerely invite the Liberals to reconsider their thoughts on this amendment because it is legitimate and perfectly relevant when we are changing so much in a national security bill.
Collapse
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I think this amendment is very simple and very easy to understand. When new measures or provisions are put into effect, it's important to know what costs and what repercussions are involved. I don't really understand my colleague's position on this. In recent days, I have heard that border measures have been reduced and slashed everywhere. I must remember that we haven't created problems everywhere, at the borders. If the needs are so serious today, it means that you should perhaps look at your Prime Minister's statements on Twitter. The needs might not be so big.
I know it's not the same issue. I don't mind going back to the past, but you have created different situations that, of course, require different obligations. That's what we are facing now. The act is amended, new measures are adopted, and we want to know how much it will cost. I think it's perfectly legitimate, and Canadians expect this level of transparency. If I remember correctly, you talked about an open and transparent government in your election platform.
This is a transparency measure that is absolutely necessary. Again, I say that I will support my colleague's amendment.
Collapse
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have a quick comment.
Isn't this why we are here, in committee? We study bills precisely to make good decisions and not to let another institution make them in our place. I'm a little surprised that we are proposing to allow judges to rule on this issue. It's up to us, parliamentarians, to make the right decisions right away and to ensure that we maintain our legislative autonomy.
If I've understood correctly, hypothetically, we would refer this situation to a judge who would eventually ask Parliament to rule on a piece of legislation. Obviously, this argument doesn't hold water.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 4 of 4

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data