Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[John Davies]

Absolutely, and I think it would depend on the situation and on how that jurisdiction was managed in terms of law enforcement.

I would like to clarify, though, that obviously if someone is dangerous and is showing up in an airport, law enforcement and intelligence agencies often would be aware of that and would plan accordingly.

Also, what happens at the gate is that there's a call into Transport Canada's operations centre and they're wired immediately into law enforcement across the country. It's not like the person at the gate is talking, or necessarily making that person who could be on the list uneasy, or creating any kind of conflict or drama there. There may be discussion with the Transport Canada operations centre about what to do and how to respond.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

So that's the process that's currently in place right now? Okay. Thank you. Got it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

We will now go to the vote on Liberal amendment 3.2.

(Amendment negatived)

Colleagues, we will now go to the Green Party's amendment 16.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment adds the words “respecting transportation security”, which would allow the minister to share only the information related directly to transport security, not any or all information of suspected persons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Yes, Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

That slightly goes against the purpose of creating the secure air travel act. Obviously, we want to be able to deal not only with those who are an imminent threat but also those who are possibly travelling to engage in terrorism, training, and those sorts of things. I will be opposing this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you.

You're up again, Mr. Hyer, on Green Party-17.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

This amendment would instruct minister to give the Privacy Commissioner a copy of any arrangements that he or she enters into with any foreign country with regard to the exchange of information for transportation security. By making it so that you can't just enter into agreements with anyone over anything, this will help accountability by providing that information to the Privacy Commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair. We've talked about this before in terms of the Privacy Commissioner. They have a right, obviously, to investigate any complaints and conduct audits, etc., so the Privacy Act already protects individuals. I see this as redundant. I can't support this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we have Green Party-18.

Mr. Hyer.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

This amendment deletes the words “within 60 days after the day on which they are denied transportation”. It deletes the 60-day deadline for applying for appeals.

People may not even know at first that they're on the list. There should be no deadline for appeals. People may not find out until day 59 or day 70 or day 80 that they're even on the list, and then they have no opportunity for appeal.

Why would we want to have a deadline on appeals?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What Mr. Hyer says is not accurate.

The act specifically says that the day they were denied is when the 60-day period starts. They would have had full understanding that they were denied transportation. Sixty days is a reasonable amount of time, and in unusual circumstances the minister has the ability to grant an exception.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we have Green Party number 19.

Yes, Mr. Hyer.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

The no-fly list is scheduled to be reviewed every 90 days within this act, with no provisions for expedited processes in extreme circumstances. This amendment will allow people to apply for a quicker review process to take place within a 15-day period. For example, let's say you have a death in the family and you don't know you're on the no-fly list; you'd be held up now for up to 90 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

Yes, Ms. Ablonczy.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

It seems to me that 15 days would result in a very rushed process for the minister. The minister would not able to gather all the information and make a well-considered decision. The 90 days is a reasonable timeframe, and it also allows the applicant to apply for judicial review.

I think that trying to rush this process through without proper time to consider all the factors would not be in the best interests of any individual.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I do think there are exceptional circumstances, Mr. Chair, and I'll be supporting this.

However, there is a problem with the appeal process in totality, and that is that it isn't really an appeal process at all. The obligation is on the wrong individual. If the minister doesn't respond within 90 days, you're still on the list. There should be an obligation on the part of the minister to have to respond. If there isn't, it's really not an appeal process where the minister has to do anything. That's part of the problem.

There is an amendment to that effect later, but I do believe you'll run into situations—it's natural that these would happen—where there are exceptional circumstances, where family dies or whatever. There should be a way for individuals to try to deal with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Chair]

Now we'll go to NDP-9.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We have a few amendments that will be coming forward that deal with the so-called appeal process and the no-fly list.

I think the problem we have is that for someone who ends up on it for incorrect reasons, because of incorrect information or because of a similarity of name or birthdate, it's very difficult to find out how you got on that list and the reasons why. There may be good security reasons for that, but at the appeal level—at least once you've challenged it—you need to know what you're appealing. This amendment would require that in the case of an appeal, the appellant receive reasons for that decision.

Now, that does not mean those reasons have to be the whole file. It doesn't say that at all; it's just the the reason for that. In the absence of that, it's very difficult for people to make sense out of what's happening with them if they end up on the no-fly list.

It seems a basic part of fundamental justice that you have to provide reasons for decisions at some point. I am granting that we're doing this at the appeal level. We're not doing this when someone is listed; you send him a notice and say he's listed for the following reasons.

When someone says “I don't understand this and how this can be working”, and they get no reason for it, except “Well, we're right; you're wrong”, I think this will facilitate making this a real appeal process, along with some of the other things that are coming up here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Yes, Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

To my understanding, the current practice is that the individual is informed.

I'll maybe look to the officials to clarify it in better English than I can put it.