Evidence of meeting #62 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Director, Operational Policy and Review, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Well, if there is reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual is engaging in activity to threaten transportation security, that could still be encompassed in proposed paragraph 8(1)(a).
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I do find it reassuring that we're dealing with a much narrower definition in this case. But it is true that we're changing the threshold. Is the current threshold in the no-fly list “reasonable grounds to believe”?
12:30 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
No, the threshold for the passenger protect program has been the same since its inception. I think it was in 2007-2008 that it was originally created with the Department of Transport. It's always been reasonable grounds to suspect.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Then the difference is that the threshold will now be expanded beyond air transport—
12:30 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
To terrorist travel.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
—to terrorist travel as a result of that.
Given that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to withdraw my amendment.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
It is the Chair's understanding, then, because it's already moved, that we would have to have unanimous consent. I'm assuming the Chair has consent for Mr. Garrison to withdraw his amendment.
(Amendment withdrawn)
We will now go to Green Party amendment 15.
At this point, the Chair would also advise that if Green Party 15 is adopted, then government amendment 2 could not be moved, as there is a line conflict.
On a point of order, Madame Doré Lefebvre.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
I just want to clarify.
If we had voted on NDP-8, we would not have studied amendment GP-14. Since we withdrew our amendment, will we address amendment 14 from the Green Party? It was the same amendment.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Actually, Madam Doré Lefebvre, you are correct. Thank you very kindly for bringing that forward.
Yes, because the original ruling was that if NDP-8 is moved, PV-14 cannot be moved as it is identical. But of course, Mr. Garrison has withdrawn it after explanation from our officials.
We will go back to PV-14.
Mr. Hyer, you certainly have the option to carry on with PV-14.
12:35 p.m.
Green
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Notwithstanding the withdrawal of the same amendment by the NDP, we would like to introduce this amendment and we would like to replace the word “suspect” with “believe” because we feel it's a stronger statement. To us, “reasonable grounds to believe” seems to us to be more decisive and “suspect” to us seems too weak a word to go on witch hunts, so we would like our amendment to go forward.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, Mr. Hyer.
Is there further discussion?
Yes, Mr. Garrison.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
It may help Mr. Hyer to understand that in the answers I received I realized that this was not changing the grounds that were used for the existing no-fly list, and that the existing no-fly list has many other problems.
The threshold does not seem to have been a problem, and I do think that raising that threshold would present security problems, so we will be voting against this amendment.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Basically it's on the same point, Mr. Chair.
I think if you have the passenger protect program with different wording from the no-fly list under this bill, then you do run into complications, so I'll be opposing as well.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Fine, thank you very kindly.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
At this time the chair would like to thank Madam Doré Lefebvre for your observation.
We will now go to Green Party 15.
12:35 p.m.
Green
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are introducing this amendment at the request of some of our airlines. This amendment would replace the authority of the minister to direct an airline “to do anything that, in the Minister’s opinion, is reasonable and necessary to prevent a listed person from engaging in any act” listed in Bill C-51.
We feel that this is too broad a mandate. This amendment lists the actions that the minister can ask the airlines to engage in, from denying transportation to identification through things like biometrics.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, Mr. Hyer.
Is there further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go to government amendment 2.
Yes, Ms. James.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
Would you just bear with me. I'm just trying to find the section in the bill so I can relate to it directly.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Take your time. We'll just put things on hold for a second.
Carry on.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
I move this particular amendment. We heard from one of our credible witnesses on this that there were concerns with respect to the language that we used in this section. The section as it is currently has wording in there with regard to the minister's opinion. We propose to change that clause to read:
to take a specific, reasonable and necessary action to prevent a listed
and then the rest of the clause would follow as is.
This amendment speaks to the concerns of the executive director of the National Airlines Council of Canada, who was here. We listened to his concern directly and I think we have actually taken it one step further and modified it slightly more. Those are the reasons we have brought forward this particular amendment and we hope that all parties present will agree to it.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very kindly.
Yes, Mr. Easter, followed by Mr. Garrison.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I'm trying to find lines 2 and 3. I'm doing two things at once here, Mr. Chair.
I'm trying to find where the specific amendment fits on page 14. Would the parliamentary secretary read what is there now. I'm dealing with section 9, but it says “clause 11” on the amendment here—lines 2 and 3 on page 14. What is in those lines now?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Sorry. Currently on page 14, lines 1 and 2 have to deal with proposed subsection 9(1):
The Minister may direct an air carrier to do anything that, in the Minister’s opinion, is reasonable and necessary to prevent a listed person from engaging in any act set out in subsection 8(1) and may make directions respecting, in particular....
Then it goes on to list a couple of points.
There were concerns directly from this one individual with respect to the terminology around “do anything...in the Minister's opinion”, so that's what we've cleaned up in this particular amendment.