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.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Obviously, when it says “by regulation” it's because it's something that is specifically to this.... In the last one, they want to make sure that wherever it's covered in Canadian law, it's going to be accepted, and I agree. It has to be federal law, because Canada has a federal system of jurisdiction. Therefore, we don't want to include provincial legislation or provincial regulations.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Okay. We've gone a little off track, because we really need to deal with the amendment, which is the addition of paragraph (f). I gave a little leeway because it does relate to whether (f) was redundant, given paragraphs 17(e) and (d), but I'd like to go back now to the amendment on the addition of 17(f). Then we'll come back to the whole thing, and if there are amendments, we'll deal with them then.
Is there any other discussion on NDP-1.1 regarding the addition of paragraph 17(f)?
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Mr. Chair, my point is that under this section, in the pre-clearance area, when they have already gone through the security clearance, through CSIS and everything else, there is no point in giving that list, that derogatory information, to the United States, to Homeland Security, which can give it to the employer. That's the crux of the issue in the pre-clearance area, so this specific section—and it speaks to the regulations—really addresses this issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Are there any other comments on the proposed addition of paragraph 17(f)?
I do need to keep going to a vote.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clauses 17 to 21 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 22)
On clause 22, we have an amendment.
I will remind the committee about how the order of precedence works. The first amendment received was amendment NDP-2. If amendment NDP-2 is adopted, then amendments PV-2, CPC-1, and LIB-6 cannot be moved as they amend the same lines. Also, if amendment NDP-2 is defeated, so is amendment PV-2 as they are identical.
On amendment NDP-2, Mr Dubé.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the most odious aspects of this bill, which we have been discussing for several weeks, is this capability or this expanded power to conduct strip searches. By deleting the lines in question, we want to remove any risk that travellers may have to undergo such searches, particularly by American officers, something we quite obviously consider unacceptable.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
You will see that amendment NDP-2 essentially deletes lines 27 through 37 on page 9.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The amendment does not carry, and amendment PV-2 is considered defeated as well.
However, we can continue to amendment CPC-1. I will remind the committee that if amendment CPC-1 is adopted, amendment LIB-6 cannot be moved.
We will go to amendment CPC-1.
Mr. Clement.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thank you, Chair.
The idea around CPC-1 is to again amend the strip search provisions to provide or require that it be a Canadian border services officer who does that rather than, if none is available, it be available for the U.S. officer. I do not believe this offends the treaty, because what we're doing is requiring CBSA to be present rather than amending what a U.S. border officer is doing or not doing. I think it is consistent within the treaty. I think it would mean that we could be assured that Canadian laws are not only available but also are applied. That's the critical issue, I think, in these cases, and therefore something that I think is more amenable to the rights of Canadian individuals.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Security comes first, but there is also the fact that, if a traveller is required to undergo this kind of search and it clears up confusion and enables the traveller to take his or her trip, we will have done our duty and our job of ensuring security without denying access to individuals travelling abroad.
I think this is entirely appropriate. We Canadians and Americans share the same concerns regarding the security of our borders. The objective is for our two countries to cooperate and work together in the same frame of mind.
I therefore oppose the amendment.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
My comments from earlier would apply here.
I wonder if the officials could comment on whether this is consistent with the agreement or not.
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
This amendment is inconsistent with the agreement. It's not consistent with paragraphs 12 and 13 of article VI of the agreement, which do allow for pre-clearance officers to conduct partial body searches, or strip searches, if the host party declines to search or advises that it is unable to conduct the search without undue delay.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
In other words, we would need a new agreement if we were to adopt this.
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
That's correct. It's not consistent with the agreement.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Welcome, by the way. I forgot to welcome you at the start of the meeting.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you. I'm filling in for a colleague who was called to a family emergency, unfortunately. He regrets not being able to be here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I will mention to the committee that Mr. Miller's mother is gravely ill today. That's why he had to unexpectedly leave.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
I'm sorry I haven't been in on the entire discussions on this bill. My question is regarding the security and peace of mind for Canadians, or people travelling from Canada to the U.S. They have a trust in Canadian security systems, Canadian police forces, and so on. Would there be the same protection, personal rights protection, should there be allegations by individuals travelling from Canada of any improprieties by foreign agencies, U.S. agencies, if this weren't in place?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Ms. Wherrett, I think you're probably the best one to answer that, although you may want to refer to one of your colleagues as well.
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
We've discussed with the committee that as stated in the bill, Canadian laws do apply. The U.S. officers in their conduct are expected to follow Canadian law, including the charter. Individuals who are subject to a search have the right to be taken before a senior officer and have the charter rights that are available to them. So all of those provisions do apply.
As well, in terms of officer conduct, the normal provisions apply in terms of U.S. processes for complaints about officer conduct.