Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I can't accept that argument. You have people's lives, and there is no question in my mind we've seen innocence already caught on no-fly lists. There has to be some obligation on the government somewhere to get into a court process. It's great to get into that process if you have lots of money, but it's a lengthy process, delays in court. There has to be the obligation somewhere in this appeal process to respect individuals' rights and their need to at least have a response from the minister as to why they continue to be on this list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you very much. There's nothing further?

I'm so sorry; I have a couple more here.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I think that Mr. Easter is jumping the gun slightly. The section we're dealing with deals with the application to the minister. It's not the appeals process as yet. Based on the 90-day period, that's the trigger where someone may do the appeal process. The officials have clarified that there are a number of reasons—I think we can all think of some—why there may not be a response within that timeframe. So this is giving the benefit of the doubt to the person so they can move forward with the appeal. Otherwise, as you or someone stated, they could be in limbo for an unspecified period of time. So I'm not going to be supporting this amendment either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you.

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our colleague talks about the inconvenience to individuals. I would ask him to think about the case where one of these deemed individuals got off the list and happened to create a major catastrophe. To me there's a protection in this particular piece of legislation. So I won't be supporting the amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to Green Party number 21.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under section 15 if the crown is unreasonable, the judge says “may”. This amendment proposes changing the word “may” to “must”. If the judge finds that the reasons a person is listed are unreasonable, the judge must remove them from the no-fly list—not “may”. Why would he or she have a choice after deciding the original decision was unreasonable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Mr. Norlock.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The intent of this provision is to give judges flexibility in granting a remedy on appeal. In some cases the court may consider it more appropriate to send the matter back to the minister for remedial action. This could happen, for example, where significant new information was presented since the original decision, or there has been a procedural irregularity. In these cases there's a strong public interest in maintaining the person on the list until the minister reconsiders the decision. The government therefore cannot support this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In this case I agree 100% with Mr. Norlock. There are two aspects here. One is preserving the discretion of the judge who will have the full information in front of him, and the other is the features that Mr. Norlock named, that while an appeal goes through the process and the original reason for listing someone may have been unreasonable, additional information may be available to the judge. So I think it's important that we preserve that discretion for the judge who will have the most recent and full information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to Green Party number 22.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This would delete the following: “The judge may receive into evidence anything that, in the judge’s opinion, is reliable and appropriate, even if it is inadmissible in a court of law, and may base a decision on that evidence”.

This amendment would delete the lines that allow evidence that would not be allowed in a court of law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Mr. Norlock.

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

I believe the provision in Bill C-51 would allow the presiding judge to see all information relevant to the government's actions while still protecting sensitive information from public disclosure. The provision ensures fairness to the applicant while giving judges flexibility to consider information from a variety of sources. There is no reason to limit the judge's discretion in the manner proposed by this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to NDP-11. The chair notes that if number 11 is adopted, Green Party 23 cannot be moved.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We find our party in a somewhat unusual circumstance here in that generally we feel that the special advocate process is deficient, but it's better than no process. So in this case when someone is in court and information needs to be kept from the public for security reasons—we accept that does happen—it's important that someone be there. If we're having a court process, there have to be two sides to that process, and without someone there on the other side it violates the basic way we do things in our court system. So the judge is the neutral arbiter of the two sides of the case. We're suggesting that in those cases when it affects national security and you can't share it with that person, a special advocate should be appointed to protect the interests of the appellant and to make it a two-sided case before the judge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That process is commonly available to immigration and refugee applicants, but the interests affected by immigration proceedings are different from those affecting the passenger protect program, because in immigration proceedings people are subject to detention and deportation. The ability to use commercial aviation at a certain point does not rise to the same level of need for an advocate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Is there further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to Green Party-23.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is similar. This amendment adds a requirement for special advocates to be appointed when reviewing evidence that cannot be shown to the accused because of national security reasons, real or alleged. Basically, it says that at the end of the day we don't end up with secret evidence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

For the same reasons that I spoke to the previous amendment, I would again not be inclined to support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to LIB-4.1.