Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

This would be the one with reference number 515.

Is that correct?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have the floor, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The amendment really relates to the previous question. Again, it comes from the airline industry. As we indicated, they were the last witness. They were concerned about due diligence, that it could be implied that they didn't do due diligence. I guess it is actually lessening that threshold, which would be a good way to put it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much for the comment.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I think most airlines would know what due diligence is.

The fact that this amendment specifically says the “established due diligence” would indicate there would have to be some sort of...I don't want to say “bureaucracy” behind it. The word “established” actually infers that it would be something that would be all encompassing and describe exactly what specific due diligence means. Obviously, different situations call for different ways to deter that from happening.

I won't be supporting this amendment for some of those reasons. I think when we talk about this particular section, we're talking about due diligence. I think the airlines know what that means. I don't think we need to create a huge bureaucracy behind us and make it established.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to Green Party number 24.

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

Amendment number 24 adds the requirement that documents removed or inspected by the minister be related to the inspection directly of a suspected person, not just any other document or thing like a laptop or a cellphone in the vicinity of a suspected person in an airplane.

We are concerned, and others have told us they are concerned, that this could lead to a kind of wholesale collection of cellphones and laptops on an airplane where there's one potential suspect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Is there any discussion?

Ms. Ablonczy.

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

As I read the section now, the inspection is not having anything to do with lists of personal information. The inspections have to do with ensuring that the carriers are complying with all of the provisions of the act.

It's not focused on people's personal information. It's focused on the due diligence—did I just use that word, Mr. Easter?—of the airlines.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Good for you.

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

I don't see the necessity for this amendment because the stated purpose of the amendment is not the purpose of the inspections.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Hyer, now we will go to number 25, sir.

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

Mr. Chair, amendment 25 is very similar. It adds the requirement that data processing systems removed or inspected by the minister be related to the inspection of a suspected person, not just any document or thing in the vicinity of that person in the airplane.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Yes, Ms. Ablonczy.

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

Again, the inspections are not directed toward people; they are directed toward the airlines.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to NDP-12.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is a similar amendment to one we considered at the beginning of our discussion of this clause, where we actually supported the minister having quite strong powers in the case of an imminent security threat.

I'm expecting the same outcome of the vote, since it's the same principle, so I won't belabour the discussion of this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. Seeing no further discussion, all in favour?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I have a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Yes, Mr. Easter. Go ahead.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

You can rule me out of order if it's not related to this section. The Canadian Bar Association, when they were before the committee, said a person may be denied travel based on a mere possibility of risk determined by an unknown person and using unknown and untested criteria. That relates to this whole section. Can officials comment on that observation. I neglected to ask it earlier. I had it in my notes. But that's a pretty broad claim by the Canadian Bar Association. They're not a small group. They're basically saying that you could be denied travel based on the mere possibility of risk. What are the parameters?

[John Davies]

I think we discussed this earlier. The threshold is reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual would be a threat to transportation security or the other provisions in the act linked to terrorist travel that are defined in the Criminal Code. So it's reasonable grounds to suspect.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much and we will now go to the vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Green Party number 26.