Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I won't repeat what I said with regard to NDP-13, except to say that I hope that the threat of terrorism goes away tomorrow, but I believe that when this act is no longer needed and becomes redundant, I am sure that our elected officials in Parliament, no matter who they are, would review any of the legislation if it isn't needed or acted upon. Until that occurs, I think we need legislation such as Bill C-51 to make sure that Canadians are afforded the best safety possible in a world that's very insecure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Norlock.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, Green Party-28 will not be moved as it is identical.

Now, colleagues, we are at the end of clause 11. We have to do one of two things here: either we go back and deal with Liberal amendment 3.1 and/or we have to table all of clause 11 until we deal with LIB-3.1 later. The Chair is looking for a sense of direction as to where we want to go on that.

Yes, Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I am hoping that we do not save this until the end. I had a bit of clarification from some of our people. I also wanted to ask the officials for clarification on whether this amendment is actually needed.

With regard to what we heard from the testimony....

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We are not going to debate it now.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay, my apologies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We just need to know whether we are going to deal with it now or later. That is the only direction the chair needs.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

On this side, I'm okay to deal with it now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Are we comfortable with that? Fine.

We will then deal with Liberal amendment 3.1. It is one of the suggested amendments that came from the airlines.

Ms. James, you have the floor.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, it is my understanding that they don't have the power of arrest. Notifying them that somebody is being screened would not in fact have any real effect on this legislation.

I wanted to get some clarification. You mentioned that one of the officials had said earlier that on initial thought he didn't think it was necessary. I believe that is what he said. If someone were to notify CATSA, you had indicated that's something that likely already takes place. Would we need to legislate this now and incorporate it into the legislation?

[John Davies]

We've been able to discuss this with our Transport colleagues. They do not believe legislation is necessary. If required, something like that could be done in regulation.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you for the discussion.

Mr. Easter, go ahead.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We are dealing with a real problem here, Mr. Chair, when you have an omnibus bill of this nature and the airlines, at least the two that were before us, were not consulted. I do see that as a major problem. The officials may not see it as necessary, but when witnesses who are in the industry come before this committee—they are not in the Ottawa bubble—and claim they would like to be alerted, then I really think we ought to listen to that.

I will ask officials the question. You claim you can put it in regulation, but if this paragraph were in the bill, would it do any damage to the intent of the bill? I think it would be a good thing for us to satisfy the airlines that they are going to be alerted. Would it damage the bill to insert this paragraph in it? Is it going to jeopardize anything? I am suggesting that we put it in, for greater certainty, if you want to call it that, and to recognise that they raised a concern and we as parliamentarians are recognizing it.

[John Davies]

A lot of work and a very long time went into developing the bill with Transport Canada and with all the national security communities. It was not recommended that this go into the bill. One issue that you would have is that on international inbound flights, CATSA has no authority. You would have to be very careful how you drafted that. I think much more work would be needed before we put something like this in legislation.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I am going to make a suggestion, Mr. Chair, and I hope the Justice officials take it seriously. Next time they draft a bill, talk to the airlines. That would be sensible, in my view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. We will now go to the vote on Liberal amendment 3.1.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Okay, colleagues, so now we have the vote on clause 11. As amended, shall clause 11 carry?

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to speak. Now that we look at the clauses and the very small changes made, we will be voting against this clause. I think what we're left with here is a colloquial no-fly list. It doesn't have a real appeal process for those who are inadvertently caught in it.

I know that the government likes to emphasize the dangers of those who are legitimately on the list, but for those like others I've talked to who end up inadvertently on the list because they have the name “Smith” or the ethnic equivalent of “Smith”, it can be very costly. It can be costly for their family, for missing family events. I know of at least one case where someone, through an error, missed an important family event. Or, it can cost in in terms of business.

One person I talked to—and I have every reason to believe their story—flew from Toronto to Vancouver but was not allowed to board a connecting flight, because at that point, someone noticed a similarity between their name and someone else on the list. The person was denied boarding, and when they turned around to fly back to Toronto, of course the people said they couldn't board a plane because they were a security risk.

So you end up with these very odd situations.

I think it's incumbent upon us to make sure we have a workable, quick, and fair appeal process that protects ordinary citizens who, through no fault of their own, are caught in the web, one that does not cost them in family or business terms.

For that reason, we'll be voting against the clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Doré Lefebvre, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to revisit what my colleague just said. I completely agree with Mr. Garrison with respect to the no-fly list and all of the problems it is currently causing. I think the government could have made some concessions and listened to some of the witnesses' suggestions and concerns on this topic.

I wanted to quickly touch on the sunset clauses with review proposed by our party. We discussed this twice, for clause 2 and clause 11. I know that it was commonly used by previous governments—Liberal or otherwise. I also noted that in a number of their bills, the Conservatives added sunset clauses with review.

I am not exactly sure what changed with the introduction of this bill. Why did the Conservative majority decide not to provide for a mandatory review of the provisions that will be passed? In my humble opinion, it shows a lack of judgment on the part of a responsible government to not review the provisions of a law and their concrete impact on the lives of Canadians and ordinary citizens.

I therefore hope that the Conservatives will reconsider their position in the near future. If other amendments are presented, I hope that they will remember that they have already presented this type of provision in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Yes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, we're trying to be supportive of a bill that I believe we need to put in place greater security measures. There are some aspects of this bill...and I've outlined a number of amendments here by people in the industry. Having an appeal process that is a real appeal process would be nice.

The government continues to resist for reasons that, I say, are not that good.

It's difficult to be supportive of legislation when I think the government fails to recognize some pretty decent amendments that would not in any way jeopardize the thrust of the bill, but would give airlines and citizens more confidence in the bill and how it might apply to them.

I hope the government members consider that as we move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Yes, Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, there is an appeals process. It's clearly in this bill. Regarding the amendments that we have discussed in part 2 of Bill C-51, we've had the officials on hand and they have clarified the questions and the concerns. I understand that the opposition parties want to get some more of their viewpoints on the record, but clearly the legislation is there. It's clear that there are safeguards in place. We heard that from witnesses, and the officials have been here to answer any of those concerns directly. So I just wanted to put that out there as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to the vote.