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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Madona Radi  Director, Program and Policy Management Division, Canada Border Services Agency
Jill Wherrett  Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Kristen Ali  Counsel, Department of Justice
Philippe Méla  Legislative Clerk
Scott Nesbitt  Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère  Director General, Traveller Program Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Do we vote?

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

We don't need to vote on the amendment, but we need to vote on the clause.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I see. Okay.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Are there any questions about clause 11, which is significantly modified with the amendment, LIB-5?

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 12)

On clause 12, we have an amendment from the Green Party.

Ms. May, welcome to public safety and national security.

4:45 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you may recall, I want to put on the record that I'm not here because I'm grateful for the opportunity to be here, but am acceding to the fact that due to the coercive motion passed by this and every committee, I must be here if I want to put forward amendments, which I have the right to do. Right now, under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons I would be entitled to put forward substantive amendments at report stage but for the motions that require me to be at committee.

With that out of the way, I certainly know that none of you personally intended to increase my workload and not allow me to make amendments to which I have the right at report stage, I'll dive right into Parti vert 1. They're prefaced with “PV” in the House's practice, so Parti vert 1, and I think by the way, Mr. Chair, it's because if we marked them as “G” for “Green Party”, everyone would think they're government amendments, for example, G-1, and so it's “Parti vert”.

This is a response to evidence that you have heard on, under clause 12 of the bill as currently drafted, regarding duties, taxes and fees that are collected. It's unclear whether a traveller has the right to seek a judicial remedy in Canada or in the United States for an administrative monetary penalty that's assessed by the inspecting party.

Under the review provision for Canadian customs matters, where penalties have been assessed by the Canada Border Services Agency, a formal review process gives an opportunity to a traveller to challenge the appropriateness of the penalty.

You will note from the evidence of the Canadian Bar Association and their recommendation that there should be greater clarity around those assessed penalties that are collected in the U.S. on admitting persons or goods into the U.S. that would not be subject to judicial review in Canada.

For greater certainty we've added suggesting after line 27 on page 5 another subsection:

(2.1) For greater certainty, any monetary penalties or other civil sanctions imposed in the course of preclearing travellers and goods are subject to any review provided for under the laws of the United States.

I hope this will be an acceptable amendment.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Monsieur Picard.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

I was a customs officer in a previous life.

Every act has its own scheme of sanctions and penalties. I think it is wrong for the Canadian act to tell the United States how to do its job.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Are there any other comments?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 12 agreed to)

(Clause 13 agreed to)

(On clause 14)

We have an amendment to clause 14 from the NDP. It's NDP-1.

Mr. Dubé.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Broadly speaking, amendment NDP-1 addresses a concern about the extent of situations in which an offence is committed. In other words, the amendment would ensure that offences in which American preclearance officers might intervene are related to the travel. Here we are talking about wanting to avoid a situation in which someone might be in violation of federal legislation of a more administrative nature. It might be a tax matter, for example. The offence must apply to people who present a clear and present threat.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Is there further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Picard.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

I understand Mr. Dubé's comment. The problem is that a customs officer of a country enforces all of his or her country's acts and all acts under which mutual agreements are reached between customs authorities and the various federal agencies, depending on the host country. Consequently, we cannot require American agents in Canada to limit or not limit their actions in accordance with another act that does not concern Canada's legal system.

I recommend that we oppose this amendment.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Is there further discussion?

Ms. Damoff.

June 14th, 2017 / 4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Yes, just very quickly, along with this and some others that have been put forward by the NDP, I think it's important to bear in mind that the legislation is working within the framework of an agreement that's already been negotiated. I understand that this particular amendment is inconsistent with articles of that agreement. There's a number of these that I won't be supporting, mainly because they are not consistent with the agreement, and I don't think we want to go back and negotiate a new agreement. We need to respect what was negotiated before, which is in this bill.

I'm not going to say that every time we get one of those clauses, but I think it's important to remember that we are dealing within the framework of a prior negotiated agreement between the previous government and the previous U.S. administration.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

What I'm hearing is a respect for the amendment, but a difficulty in accepting it because of the agreement.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

That's right.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Monsieur Dubé.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

We may be mistaken. Perhaps the officials here present can guide us. However, we think this does not violate the agreement.

Furthermore, in response to Mr. Picard's argument, if I understood it correctly, since American officers are on Canadian soil, we have every interest in setting limits on situations in which they may intervene. That is the gist of the amendment.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I'm going to turn to Ms. Wherrett for help with this question.

4:55 p.m.

Jill Wherrett Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Yes, certainly.

In fact, this amendment is inconsistent with the agreement. It's inconsistent with article VI, paragraphs 10(f) and 20(g). They specify that in the pre-clearance area and perimeter, pre-clearance officers respectively shall be authorized to detain not just travellers, but any person who is believed to have committed an offence under host party law.

That enables the pre-clearance officer to detain a person and transfer them to Canadian authorities. For example, requiring that offences be connected only to travel might mean that a pre-clearance officer would not be able to address a suspected offence, such as aggravated assault or murder, which may not be connected to the individual's travel through pre-clearance. If they didn't have this authority, they could not refer that person to Canadian authorities.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Monsieur Arseneault.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

We have already responded.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Are there any other comments? We'll vote, then, on NDP-1 amending clause 14.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 14 agreed to)

We now have seven clauses without amendments.

Ms. Watts.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

I just want to speak to clause 17.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Okay. I'm not going to do them all at once. I want to make sure that you feel very free to stop the voting to discuss a clause.

Monsieur Dubé.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

I'm uncertain, but I suspect Ms. Watts and I might want to raise the same point. I also have a point for clause 17 when we get to it.