Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment clarifies that the exact criteria for appearing on, or removal from, the no-fly list are posted and thus not vague, arbitrary, or secret but instead enforceable and accountable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Proposed section 8 of the secure air travel act explicitly lays out conditions and requirements for placing or deleting a person's name from the list. The requirements are sufficient in legislation to cover how the Minister of Public Safety will add or delete an individual's name. So I can't support this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now NDP amendment number 13, and here I would note Green Party-27 could not be deemed to be moved if NDP-13 is adopted.

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In this portion of the bill we're making a very major change to the no-fly list by adding to the no-fly list those who intend to travel for broader terrorist purposes. As the government has noted many times, terror threats have been shifting very rapidly over time. So the amendment would do the same thing we suggested previously, that it would be a good idea if we sunsetted these clauses after the third year, with a requirement that the House of Commons undertake a study and make a recommendation to the House on whether or not these provisions should be extended beyond that third year. This gives us a chance to review how effective the legislation has been and, if it's not effective, to look at the reasons why it's not effective and make any further changes that might need to be made. So, again, as we go through the sections, we're suggesting the same for each of these portions where we are making large changes. I would hope that the government would be willing to look at a review in two years and a sunset in three years.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

We have Mr. Norlock.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The passenger protect program has been in existence since 2007. The government committed to enhancing the passenger protect program as a part of its response to the final report of the Air India inquiry. The proposed secure air travel act would provide a more solid legislative foundation for the passenger protect program and would reflect the new mandate under the purview of the Minister of Public Safety. The legislation provides strong safeguards, such as privacy protections, and more streamlined judicial review mechanisms. The bill also includes privacy safeguards, such as clear prohibitions on the disclosure of information except for specific purposes.

Mr. Chair, I believe that's sufficient to support the current legislation and not the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Yes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I really don't know how Mr. Norlock derives from that his support for the current legislation. We're willing to support many aspects of the current legislation, but the sunset clause proposed here and elsewhere is that there be a dedicated time period for when these laws end, thereby giving some confidence to society that any overburdensome aspect of this law will not be in place and Parliament has the right to look at it and reintroduce it if it so decides.

I note that Mr. Norlock picks and chooses. I agree with the Air India recommendation here in both the sharing of information and this aspect of the bill, but there's also a part of the Air India recommendations that talks about oversight and review, which the government is constantly resisting. So if we're going to bring up the bill in one area based on the Air India recommendations, we should be bringing it up in others.

I'll stop before you rule me out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I was just about to do that, Mr. Easter. Your timing is impeccable. We will now go to Mr. Norlock, please.

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

Thank you very much.

We all pick and choose, to answer my friend across the way. Throwing a little potshot, as he is wont to do very often and being holier than thou, I don't think is incumbent on any of us. We do pick and choose here. We choose the amendments or not because we feel they are either enhancing the legislation or they're not. I don't want to cast aspersions. If it's so bad, then I'm sure the honourable member will be voting against it because he doesn't speak very positively about it. We can do these things or we can...but casting aspersions about other people isn't becoming, I don't think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Let's go back to the vote on this bill.

Yes. Ms. Ablonczy.

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

I was on the list, wasn't I?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Yes, I thought so but I thought I had you before, that's why....

Please go ahead.

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

I think it's important to say this. We have to keep our eye on the big picture. The big picture is that we have a terrorist force spreading across the globe, starting in the Middle East, but certainly their tentacles have reached into developed countries such as Canada, but also Denmark and Australia and France, and we have to have a regime that can push back and protect Canadians against this kind of incursion.

If anyone on the other side seriously believes that this threat is going to somehow magically dissipate in three years, they are badly mistaken and did not listen to the intelligence experts we heard in front of this committee. If we put a regime in place and then say it's a short-term thing, that in three years it will be gone, how are our security forces supposed to operate if they are not sure exactly what's going to happen?

If the regime needs to be changed in some way, then Parliament is entrusted with doing that and will do so. But to say that all of a sudden we fall off the edge of the cliff in three years with respect to our security regime would send a very bad signal, and it is not the right way to go about the business of protecting Canadians. Tweaks are necessary. They will happen, but to just say there's going to be a chop-off date in three years is a very bad strategy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to remind my colleague, Ms. Ablonczy, that we proposed something similar for clause 2. We proposed a sunset clause with a review. It will not be chaos. After three years, parliamentarians do a review. I think that everyone around this table acknowledges that there is a terrorist threat. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that the official opposition does not take this seriously.

People on the other side of the table may change their mind when they learn that there would be a review after three years. This is extremely important. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to ensure that the bill achieves its objectives.

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

Sunset, sunset, not review.

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

It is a sunset clause that would provide for a review. I suggest that my colleague reread the amendment and she might change her mind. I think it's important for parliamentarians to do a good job. This review would enable us, after three years, to see whether Bill C-51 worked well or if changes are needed. At the end of the day, it is up to us to ensure that what we did worked well.

I think it would be honourable if the government were to change its position on this amendment, which I think is perfectly reasonable, in light of the scope of the bill, and more specifically clause 11.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much for the debate.

Yes, Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Just as a reminder once again, Parliament, government, and committees can review legislation at any point in time, as my colleague Ms. Ablonczy just said. I think she has it exactly right. As we have seen since the first Anti-terrorism Act, our government has brought forward a number of measures to further secure Canada and to protect Canadians. That's probably what will happen in the future as well, if we see there's a need to make amendments to this legislation to better protect Canadians. If we find that we need to enact a new act with new tools for law enforcement, that's certainly what the government of the day will do. It's what I know I would do if I were a part of the government, and I think my colleague Ms. Ablonczy has said it completely correctly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

We will now call for the vote on NDP-13.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to Green Party-27.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, anti-terrorism legislation has a tendency to ramp up and not back down once the perceived threat is reduced. As we know, there was a reasonable sunset clause on many parts of the Liberal anti-terrorism legislation inspired by the 9/11 twin towers attacks.

The war on terrorism is a very unusual war that can appear to have no peace in sight in the future, so I urge this committee to please consider some sort of sunset clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Hyer, for his proposal.

It is similar to the one Ms. May presented for clause 2, I believe. I must say that I unfortunately cannot support this amendment. As with the other sunset clause proposal that was presented, there is nothing to go along with it. As an elected official, I think it's extremely important for us to do a review. That's what we proposed when we suggested the sunset clause we just discussed. That was amendment NDP-13.

Since it doesn't necessarily have a concrete objective, I will vote against this amendment.