Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'm fine, thank you, Mr. Chair. That's great.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Garrison, please.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I was obviously present at the same committee hearing and heard the same objection. I think, with respect, that the government's amendment actually doesn't change the sense of this. It takes out the explicit statement, which is really redundant, to say “to do anything that, in the Minister’s opinion”, and says the Minister may direct an air carrier to do anything that's “specific, reasonable and necessary”. That's obviously in the minister's opinion, so that's actually the same thing. It's just less offensively worded, maybe, I would say.

In this case we're proposing a subamendment, because I actually don't think there's anything wrong with the wording that was originally in the bill if we're talking about an imminent security threat. If the minister perceives there to be an imminent threat to security, I do think it's reasonable for him to order anything that he thinks should happen if it's an imminent threat. I think the sense of what the air transport issue was is that it's not reasonable for the minister to be able to direct the industry in how they run a no-fly list on a daily basis.

We're actually proposing a subamendment here that preserves the very broad authority of the minister in the case of an imminent security threat, but leaves the policy, which would govern the no-fly list, to operate on a daily basis, much as it would in cooperation between Public Safety and the air carriers. We simply would add at the beginning of proposed subsection 9(1) the words, “in the case of an imminent security threat”. It says “in the case of an imminent security threat”. In the translation things got moved, so if I'll just make that correction “in the case of an imminent security threat”. The order of the words there is incorrect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That amendment is in order without a problem at all. We will consider the subamendment amended for clarification purposes. It will fall in front of “security”. That's totally reasonable.

Ms. James, then Mr. Easter.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I just want to go back to the purpose of part 2 of the proposed anti-terrorism act, 2015. Part 2 actually expands the current passenger protect system. Currently, it's only the no-fly list. No-board are only applicable to an imminent threat to the aircraft itself. The purpose of the changes that we're making here with the secure air travel act is to expand that to include those who may be travelling overseas to engage in terrorist-related activities, whether it be to join ISIL, for training, whatever the case may be.

When we're talking about security being an imminent threat, the ability to travel is not necessarily an imminent threat, as in it's going to occur, that as a result of that travel there might be an terrorist attack here on Canadian soil within the next hour. It's actually something that we want to prevent from happening. It's part of our prevention. From the start we've said that the aim of this bill is about preventing planned attacks, preventing someone from travelling overseas. We've especially heard from witnesses that the biggest threat is if those individuals actually come back to Canada fully trained as jihadist terrorists. So that's what this amendment is doing.

Personally, I agree with that wholeheartedly and so does the government, as Canada does not want to become an exporter of terrorism. That is certainly not what we should be doing, that is, having Canadians travel overseas to participate in or join a terrorist organization, or to commit barbaric acts, as we've seen in the news. Certainly we don't want those individuals coming back to Canada fully trained.

I understand the intent of what you're trying to say, but I will be opposing this subamendment to our amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, we've now reached the time when we've said we would suspend. However, if the committee wishes to stay longer to finish, potentially, this one here, that's fine. I would have to have the unanimous support of the committee.

Do we have unanimous support to continue for a while? Then, of course, the chair will take the direction as to when to suspend after this.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine. Carry on, please.

Okay, now we go to Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I have a commitment at one o'clock.

In any event my question really is for the officials on this. How does this proposed addition compare with the travel protect program that is already in place? I think there needs to be conformity in the law between the two programs. I understand what Randall is proposing here. I think it's to put a safeguard in place on when the minister may direct an air carrier. Does this amendment in your estimation complicate that in any way, or is there a difference between the no-fly list here and the travel protect system that's already in place?

[John Davies]

My initial reaction would be, yes, it would complicate things. By bringing in the concept of imminent, it would create issues on how you meet that definition and how that would be prescribed. It's much easier to keep things open-ended in case the minister needs to take other kinds of actions for other kinds of threats if necessary.

I'll just say as well that the Minister of Transportation also retains a broad discretion in this area as well, in terms of ability to direct air carriers to do things that are reasonable to do regarding security.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to respond to the last comment from the parliamentary secretary. The proposal changes absolutely nothing. Pursuant to the clause, the minister is the one who will make the final decision.

Moreover, I would also like to respond to what was just mentioned, with all due respect for the government officials here with us today.

You all just said that it could be complicated for the minister to react. I agree with you more or less, primarily because the minister retains the power. These days, technology is pretty quick. The minister can therefore react very quickly.

We are not really trying to change the amendment, but we want to give a little more flexibility to the air carriers that must deal with legislative measures that can make things very complicated for them. That is what they told us in committee. It appears as though they were not consulted and they do not have the necessary resources.

They also mentioned that such measures are costly in terms of time and money. We need to support them and fix this problem, with the amendment. I don't think that is too much to ask.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Is there further discussion?

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Your subamendment actually does change the original amendment because you're basically referring only to an imminent security threat. Again, I will not be supporting your subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I spoke of these earlier, and I think this is where I have to bring them in. I apologize for not having them before, but you have them there on your sheet. Their reference number are 7905359 and 7905367, for Liberal amendments 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. They are the amendments that we asked the airline industries to bring forward. So I will be moving Liberal amendment 3.1 first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Do my colleagues all have a copy of this?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Does everyone have a copy? The clerk has them. They were sent to the clerk, were they not?

You have them in—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, we don't have copies for everybody yet. The clerk will get them right now, Mr. Easter.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

We just had unanimous agreement to finish this one amendment. I have not seen what you're saying we should see, but I would suggest that we carry this on afterwards.

Also many of the members of this committee have other commitments after one o'clock.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, the original agreement was to carry on to finish that one. This is pertinent, Mr. Easter, but we do need the time to get the distribution under way, and if you're content as well, then we're all content. We're all a happy family and we'll come back here after question period at four o'clock.

We will suspend until four o'clock.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, colleagues, we will resume. When we left, Mr. Easter had the floor.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's page 14.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have the floor again, sir.