Public Safety Committee on June 14th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Monsieur Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Just to avoid going against immigration processes, we have to follow what's in the system from the immigration standpoint.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other questions or comments?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 48 agreed to)

Do I have unanimous consent to consider clauses 49 through 52 together?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

(Clauses 49 to 52 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 53)

Moving to clause 53, I would just note that amendment LIB-9 was consequential to amendment LIB-4, so no vote is required, but it has been amended.

Is there any discussion on the amended clause 53?

(Clause 53 as amended agreed to)

I am going to attempt again, with clauses 54 through 60, do I have unanimous consent to consider them together?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

(Clauses 54 to 60 inclusive agreed to)

We have a new clause 60.1, amendment PV-11.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you can tell, my amendments have been drawn primarily from the evidence that was before the committee from the Canadian Bar Association, as well as from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. This is from the Canadian Bar Association, and I think it's a very sensible proposal. Honestly, I don't think it offends anything that we've negotiated with the U.S., because this is all about how we develop our approaches to travellers entering and leaving Canada.

It's a transitional provision, “The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must establish an advisory board that includes representatives of the legal community”, and I list the various sorts of officers who could help us with this, the kind of expertise. In particular, and this was just referenced in relation to a different clause, and my colleague Matthew Dubé already mentioned this, what happens if Trump wants to search everybody's cellphones? This proposed clause anticipates that, “to develop a policy on searches of the electronic devices and documents of travellers entering or leaving Canada that preserves solicitor-client privilege and allows claims in relation to that privilege with recourse to Canadian courts.”

Again, to ensure it's not a royal recommendation, subclause (2) is there just because I can't put forward things that would require payment of honoraria or stipends. It's not that I don't think these good and worthy people on this advisory board wouldn't merit them, but to keep this amendment appropriate for someone of my status before this committee, subclause (2) is just to say they're not entitled to receive remuneration as members of this advisory board. Obviously, I think it's a sensible suggestion or I wouldn't be here moving this amendment, but again, it comes directly from the recommendations from the Canadian Bar Association.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Dubé, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the amendment. I would even say this matter should be debated in the house separately from Bill C-23. As both my colleague and I have mentioned this evening, despite the fact that there are ministerial directions for the agency, the reality of cell phones is rapidly evolving.

Unless I am mistaken, apart from a recent decision concerning the young man who landed in Halifax, the case law is silent on the subject. Consequently, the matter seems to merit a great deal more study, and I would even say a legislative update, which goes even further.

I support this amendment. I think it would be valid beyond Bill C-23.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Dubé, I'm not supporting the amendment, because I think it does go beyond the scope of this bill. I don't necessarily disagree that we should be looking at this, but this is specific to pre-clearance locations and not all border locations. In the context of this bill, I don't think this amendment would be applicable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

For the committee's information, I just checked with the clerk. I am not able to report this issue to the House. However, I think the committee would be well advised to take this, as advice from our colleague, as a very important future study item, not only for pre-clearance but all border crossings, pre-clearance and not pre-clearance. I think we should undertake to do a study on this issue in the fall, and we will make that undertaking to you.

Thank you for bringing forward this amendment. It may pass, but this is just in case it doesn't.

Mr. Dubé.

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

I don't want to be out of order, but it would perhaps interest members to know that the ethics committee has started a similar study of privacy at the border.

That's for those who are interested in the topic. I know I certainly am.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

This is not to anticipate the way this vote will go, but if I may, Mr. Chair, that was certainly the nicest rejection I've had in a very long time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We try to do that.

I think you have been heard. I will call the question on amendment PV-11.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you. We will duly note the requirement for us to dig into this issue.

Now we move to PV-12, a new Green Party amendment. Members don't have it yet. It's being distributed now. I don't have it in front of me yet, so....

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, it was submitted with all the others, but it somehow fell out. I'm not allowed to submit things at the last minute, so this was within the timelines of the coercive order passed by this committee. You all thought it was a nice thing to do, I'm sure, but it was not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

This is a duly received amendment that is appropriate for the committee to consider.

I will just make sure it's distributed. We'll suspend for three minutes to give the committee members time to read the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Members, you will note that PV-12 is similar to NDP-11 and LIB-10. This means that if PV-12 passes, we would not consider NDP-11 or LIB-10. If it is defeated, we would consider NDP-11, but if NDP-11 passes, it automatically includes LIB-10.

Let's first deal with PV-12.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

Having prepared this amendment without knowing there would be LIB-10, I have to say that I am very heartened to see that there is such a similar amendment coming from the government benches. Mine is a bit more detailed, but essentially we are talking about a statutory review of Bill C-23.

The clauses that I have are slightly more prescriptive in that every five years, after coming into force, the minister will have an independent review. That part is very similar. The parts with regard to the provisions and administration of the act as well as causing the report to be laid before the House are also very similar to the Liberal amendment. The data in the report would include the exercise of statutory powers under this act in the pre-clearance areas, and there would also be an annual report to Parliament about this act.

So the amendments are similar, and I'm certain.... I shouldn't be so certain, but perhaps everyone will decide

that amendment PV-12 is preferable to amendment LIB-10, but I am really pleased to read amendment LIB-10.

I would now prepare for any questions or comments on amendment PV-12. This is the last of my amendments.

Again, I'm here under protest, but that doesn't mean I'm not grateful to you each personally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any comments or questions on amendment PV-12?

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I think this speaks so well to how the parties are thinking on this. I'm actually surprised the Conservatives didn't put this one in, too.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I think you must have.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

What? I missed that comment.