Evidence of meeting #70 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Amendment NDP-6 is the first amendment on clause 31. I will just remind the committee that if NDP-6 is adopted, then Green Party amendment PV-5 cannot be moved as they amend the same lines.
We move to NDP-6.
Monsieur Dubé.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Chair, once again we are talking about the powers that will be granted to the Americans with respect to a person leaving the preclearance area. We are aware that security issues are involved. Consequently, we would like the amendment to enable the officer to intervene where the person presents an immediate, clear, specific, and explicit threat.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Shall amendment NDP-6 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We have amendment PV-5.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I would ask for the indulgence of colleagues, and I won't do this on every one, but I would also like a recorded vote on clause 31.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
6:35 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, of course, the intent here was to remove the various requirements that travellers justify their decision for changing their mind and turning around and leaving.
Green Party amendment PV-5 would delete those sections that would not make sense once we're withdrawing from pre-clearance. Again, we want to withdraw from pre-clearance and remove that requirement that's found on page 14 by ending that paragraph after “identifying them”.
I think I know which way this is going to go but again, I do think we can negotiate agreements and ask for changes once something goes to Parliament. I really hate to see us stuck with an agreement like this that I think violates Canadians' rights when they're going into a pre-clearance area.
I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
For the record, and with all due respect, the whole bill is unctuous on the charter rights for all Canadians.
Thank you.
June 14th, 2017 / 6:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Sorry.
(Amendment PV-5 negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 31 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1 )
(On clause 32)
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
There are a number of amendments for clause 32. We'll begin first with NDP-7.
Monsieur Dubé.
6:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Similar to a previous amendment that I moved, once again we're looking at recognizing some of the security concerns that might exist with someone leaving, but rather than leaving these to what we feel are vague notions of suspicion...really leave it explicitly related to travel when it comes to any powers that the American pre-clearance officers can use on a Canadian who chooses to leave the pre-clearance zone.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We now move to amendment NDP-8. I'll just note that if NDP-8 is adopted, amendment PV-6 would not be able to be moved.
Monsieur Dubé, on NDP-8.
6:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Our amendment contains the same terms and conditions respecting strip searches as those that would apply to persons leaving the preclearance area. The purpose of our amendment is to rectify a situation that we find unacceptable, in which an American officer would conduct a strip search of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm sorry, amendment NDP-8.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment PV-6, which is a smaller part of that, is now able to be moved.
Ms. May.
6:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, again, this is consistent with amendments that I put forward that have been defeated, but it's to ensure, in lines 14 and 16 on page 15, the deletion of the sections relating to strip searches, had we been able to previously delete that in subclause 22(4). We have not, so I should withdraw this amendment because it no longer makes sense in the context of the bill.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Okay, it is withdrawn.
We're now on amendment NDP-9, which proposes a new subclause following subclause 32(3).
6:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Chair, this is to bring it in line with the way pre-clearance currently works, that someone's refusal to answer a question is not reasonable grounds for the different powers being used for a search, and so forth. We've seen numerous occasions, whether it's with regard to people's religious beliefs or their sexual orientation and other situations, where there might be very legitimate reasons for refusing to answer a question, and that, in and of itself, we believe is not sufficient reason for an American agent to be able to exercise certain powers on a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Could I get a recorded vote on this too, please. Thank you.
(Clause 32 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 33)
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you.
I mentioned this to the minister, and I felt there was some openness. We'll see. Here we seek to remove the vague concept of autorité légitime, to use the French word, or “otherwise authorized by law”. The particular example that comes to mind with regard to this part of the legislation is—and given this person's unpredictability, who knows—President Trump's floating out notions of mandatory cellphone searches for all travellers going to the U.S., regardless of their citizenship or where they're coming from. That could obviously affect Canadians as well, in a worst-case scenario. We question whether a presidential executive order could be considered as “otherwise authorized by law”, or autorité légitime, if we're looking at the French.
By removing that, we feel it makes it explicit that we're talking about specifically Canada and the U.S., and not these vaguer notions of executive orders and other things of that nature, particularly given the unpredictable political climate, and dare I say, legal climate, that exists south of the border.