Public Safety Committee on June 14th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I wasn't going to take them all together. I just want to make sure you knew—

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

We're just stopping you in case you were—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'd love to get us out early, but I wanted to make sure you knew that there weren't amendments coming right now and that you always do have the chance, and I will look around to see if anybody has a point of discussion.

(Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to)

(On clause 17)

Ms. Watts.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you very much.

Looking at this, it's identifying individuals in the pre-clearance area and states:

Only the following persons may enter a preclearance area:

This is land, rail, marine, and air, and this just speaks to border officers and police officers. I think one of the things that we should embed in there is employees holding a marine transportation security clearance made under the marine transportation security regulations. They're already cleared by CSIS, the RCMP, CPIC, and all of those things, and inserting that would cover off the marine aspect for the cruise ships. That was my point in adding that piece.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay.

Monsieur Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I would go in the same direction as Ms. Watts to resolve the issue raised by Mr. Ashton during his testimony, which we all recall. I have the text for an amendment that would do what I believe Ms. Watts is proposing. I don't know if I can read it and then potentially move it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

If you have a paper copy for the legislative clerk, that would be very good.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Sure.

We would add paragraph (f) to clause 17, which would read as follows:

"(f) employees of a facility holding a Marine Transportation Security Clearance made under the Marine Transportation Security Regulations, SOR/2004-144."

I have a few copies of this, but not enough for all members. I can always—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

No, I think the clerk can get some extra copies made. I think people should see it. I would like the officials to have it as well, just in case we have any questions for them.

I want to make sure that we handle this very well and that people see it. I really think people need paper copies, so I think it's appropriate that we suspend for a few minutes while we get them made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I think we're good to go.

Mr. Dubé, everyone has the motion now. I think it would be appropriate for you to recap where we are with the motion and what you would like us to consider with it. I know that Ms. Watts is supporting it as well.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Sure.

As I said, I think we heard some very legitimate concerns from Mr. Ashton on behalf of the workers he represents. With regard to this notion of giving extensive powers to a foreign entity to essentially screen and decide who may or may not work, beyond the delays that may cause—we obviously understand that—there's certainly the risk of discrimination and profiling. We have faith in our own government, or we like to, anyway, but we don't want to start being accountable to another government, even if it's our closest neighbour.

I believe this amendment goes toward fixing that issue that's been brought to our attention as a committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Picard, go ahead.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I simply want to make sure that we are talking about the same person and that he is the gentleman who came and told us about storage.

When I raised the matter of customs programs with that person, I was not sure he understood the mechanism. I referred to the customs program C-TPAT, which requires authorization by both parties for an individual to cross the border. The principle of getting authorization from both sides of the border for a person to access a location goes to the very heart of this kind of bilateral agreement. A warehouse, for example, is a particular place that does not not necessarily have a customs area. However, one could manage goods and materials there that could eventually leave the country under an agreement such as the one we are establishing. That is precisely why we use the terms "the operator of a facility" in paragraph 17(e).

On a case-by-case basis and depending on needs, safety checks and necessary approvals under the agreement between the two parties would thus apply in specific cases, and police officers, customs officers, and travellers who have planned to cross the border would not be subject to this.

I think paragraph 17(e) includes precisely what Mr. Dubé is talking about. So it seems to me the amendment would be redundant and pointless.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Just before I recognize Ms. Watts and then Mr. Dubé, I want to note for committee members that Mr. Ashton, who was just referred to, is in the room today.

Thank you for your testimony, and thank you for being here.

Ms. Watts.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

That doesn't cover it at all. I'll use the Vancouver cruise terminal as an example. You're not crossing into the United States. These are people who are actually working on a dock, in a marine area, or on cruise ships. You are not going to another country.

This speaks to a specific marine transportation security clearance and also cites the regulations. They go through CSIS. They go through.... It's already done, but they're not identified here within this pre-clearance area.

The issues that were brought up are very relevant, because a lot of times, as I said, with the cruise ships, you're not going into the United States, so you would never give that information to the U.S. You're not going into the U.S. You're on Canadian soil. You remain on Canadian soil.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Dubé, I'm wondering whether you would like to speak first or whether you'd allow me to turn to the officials for their comments.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Perhaps the officials could comment on their understanding of whether the amendment adding new paragraph 17(f) is redundant, given paragraph 17(e), or is significantly different or whatever.

Ms. Wherrett.

[Jill Wherrett]

If you look at clause 17, we have paragraphs 17(d) and (e). The first states:

(d) persons who are authorized by the Minister under section 45 or by regulation

That would include the marine transportation security regulations, which will be amended to address this.

Paragraph 17(e) states:

(e) subject to any regulations, persons who are authorized by the operator of a facility.

Those are broadly worded because we are talking about pre-clearance in many different modes of transport, with employees in many different facilities, whether it's marine or rail or air. We didn't exclusively list all of the different types of employees, but rather have it provided so that it can be addressed by regulation. It would be addressed through that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you very much.

I think that just forces me to reiterate the concern I have about the fact that we're at the mercy of regulation on so many of these particular issues I raised. When we heard from officials the first time, I think we were talking about how our law applies to Canadians on Canadian soil. That we would have to defer to any changes the minister will make to regulation, which is not subject to parliamentary debate or vote or anything, is something that, with all due respect to the officials, I certainly find very troubling.

With regard to paragraph 17(e), I'm wondering if that still feeds into Mr. Ashton's concern that was raised on behalf of the people he represents insofar as it mentions the “operator” of a facility. One of the specific concerns raised was the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. sharing information with their employer without the appropriate transparency for them when going through the hiring process. Leaving them at the mercy of the operator still leaves us, I believe, with that problem in play. I believe it's extremely problematic when we have an inability to actually put in legal protection and when, once again, with all due respect, this is at mercy of regulation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Now we will move on to Mr. Arseneault. Then Mr. Picard and Ms. Damoff will speak.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

When I read the English and French versions of paragraphs 17(d) and (e) of the bill, I understand what Ms. Wherrett was explaining to us. I am less concerned about the possibility that people working at the port of Vancouver, for example, might be unable to do their work. We are talking about some 200 men here. I met that group.

In paragraph 17(e), it seems important to use the wording "sous réserve des règlements". In English, it reads "subject to any regulations". In fact, before focusing on the words "sous réserve des règlements", I would like to ask you a question about paragraph 17(e), which refers to "persons who are authorized by the operator of a facility". In the case of a Canadian seaport, the operator would thus be the port, not the person assigned to preclearance.

That is what is meant in that paragraph, is it not?

[Jill Wherrett]

Yes, it would be the operator of the facility, whatever operator that happened to be in the case in question.