Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[Ritu Banerjee]

In the current situation, if an individual has been denied boarding they're notified. Then they're given an opportunity to provide additional information. The minister does provide an unclassified summary of the reasons why that individual has been denied boarding. After that period of going back and forth, if the individual is not satisfied with the situation they can seek a judicial review before the Federal Court.

We're basically emulating and codifying what the current practice is. Yes, currently an individual is provided the reasons why they're denied boarding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Garrison.

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

Just to make sure I'm understanding clearly, because that's what I thought we thought we were doing here, currently there is no requirement for the minister to do that. This simply puts into the law what is the current practice.

[Ritu Banerjee]

Do you want the view from a Justice perspective...?

We obviously believe there is a necessity to do it, and that's why we're doing it.

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

But it is not written in the statute anywhere.

[Ritu Banerjee]

That's correct.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Yes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I mean, if that's the case, and that is the practice, then there's really no negative implication on this amendment whatsoever. It just makes sense to put it in.

I expect that the government members will be onside with current practice, certainly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to Green Party amendment 20.

I'll bring it to your attention that if PV-20 is adopted, then NDP-10 and LIB-4 cannot be moved.

On amendment PV-20, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given that this concept seems to have been rejected it may be a moot point, but this amendment is also dealing with deleting the 60-day deadline for applying for appeals.

I've also acquired this tendency toward hope, so we'll see what happens here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Is there discussion?

Yes, Ms. Ablonczy.

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

I think there's an unintended consequence here of this amendment. As I read the amendment, it would remove the obligation of the minister to respond to an individual within 90 days. This means that if the minister doesn't respond to the individual, then the individual can't go to court and try to get himself removed from the list. Surely we wouldn't want to put an individual in limbo like that. I don't think this is a well-thought-out amendment.

Maybe we should ask the officials if that's a correct interpretation.

[John Davies]

Yes, I believe that's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move now to NDP-10.

The chair notes that if this amendment is moved, then LIB-4 cannot be moved, as it is identical.

We will now go to NDP amendment 10.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is one of those aspects of the current no-fly list that some have described as Kafkaesque, because if you don't hear anything, then you're deemed to have decided that you're still on the list. It's very difficult for anybody to deal with a deemed to have decided that you're still there. It would seem, if it's to be a real appeal process, that the lack of action from the minister on something, which ordinarily would be considered very important, then should be deemed to have decided to remove the person from the list.

In other words, if they're actually a threat, then that requires action from the minister. We're really reversing the onus here in the appeal process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Mr. Easter, then Mr. Payne.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I think you'll note that both these amendments are identical.

It just goes to show that great minds think alike. We'll see if the minds on the other side think alike as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

There's no debate there, Mr. Easter. Carry on.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

There's no debate; they do.

If you read the section, Mr. Chair, this is an absolutely convoluted appeal process. It reads an appeal process in law that is upside down and backwards, if I could say so. If the minister does not make a decision with respect to the application within 90 days, the minister—and it goes through the wording “the application is received”—is deemed to have decided not to remove the applicant's name from the list. It's backwards.

The minister should have an obligation to respond to appeal, not to be lackadaisical and not respond and carry on forever and a day. This is not due justice and not fair, and I appeal to the government on this one. For Heaven's sake, let's have a proper appeal process and not a farce.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I take offence to that, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I don't care.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I knew you wouldn't; sometimes your earlier comment also has another ending, but I won't suggest that at this point.

I believe this amendment would significantly undermine the integrity of the passenger protect program. Robust measures are already in place. I see this as a very risky move, and by default that certainly would have potential major impacts, in my view.

I'd like to ask the officials for their comments on this.

[Ari Slatkoff]

There may be many reasons why the government's not able to make a decision within 90 days, and the purpose of the 90-day provision is to make sure individuals have prompt access to the courts if the government is not making a decision within that timeframe. A lot of it can have to do with availability of information that is covered by national security privilege. It may come from third parties outside Canada. There could be ongoing investigations, for example. So there may be situations in which the minister simply cannot make a decision and issue reasons. At that point the person can petition the courts for a remedy.