Public Safety Committee on June 14th, 2017

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

It's a bit different, Mr. Chair. As a matter of fact, it's entirely different.

We're still in the clause on seizure and forfeiture, but we're dropping out of the issue of goods that are seized and forfeited.

Again, the Canadian Bar Association recommended—and we certainly had this issue already arise—that, if there is a decision by pre-clearance officers to confiscate or cancel a NEXUS card in a pre-clearance area, it should be reviewable.

The purpose of the amendment is that “The Canadian Border Services Agency may review any decision by a preclearance officer to seize or cancel a traveller's membership card in a program for pre-approved, low-risk travellers...”. I don't name it in here because other programs may develop that are along similar lines.

We have seen challenges by the Trump administration to NEXUS cards carried by travellers. Given that this piece of legislation, Bill C-23, is going to largely govern what happens when travellers from Canada try to enter the U.S., we want to make sure that there is a reviewable decision for any decision made by a U.S. pre-clearance officer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

We understand that in the case of a NEXUS card an individual has to go through the two screening processes, of Canada and the U.S., and the U.S. has all the liberty and privilege to question the validity of the card or if they want to revise it.

The second comment is I doubt that the Canadian government will cross the line saying to our friends down south how they should do their work. I would not propose any review of our authority on their way of administering their own laws and regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other questions or comments?

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand why the Americans are entitled to make their own decisions under this program. Without questioning those decisions, if the preclearance is done on Canadian soil, I think the Canada Border Services Agency should at least have the power to review the situation. I find that entirely appropriate in light of certain stories that have come to light, particularly in the news. If we see that an irregularity has been committed at a particular place-for example, if cards are being seized more frequently there than elsewhere-that could be included in a review of the preclearance system.

We might ask that question if, for example, we saw that cards were constantly being cancelled at an airport in particular. That would call for some thinking to determine whether profiling was taking place there or if there were other problems.

Without questioning the Americans' right to make those decisions, I nevertheless think it is important to have at least a power of review.

Consequently, I will support Ms. May's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Is it not true that the two parties will meet periodically to review certain practices? If that were the case, I would be happy to have moved amendment LIB-7, which provides for a recourse.

Do the two parties to the agreement in fact meet to discuss current practices?

[Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère]

Are you talking about the agreement or about NEXUS program management?

[Jill Wherrett]

Yes, that's right, in terms of the agreement, the parties will meet regularly. The NEXUS program is something that goes, as you know, beyond the agreement, but there are regular conversations about that program as well.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 34 agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We have a number of clauses, clauses 35 through 45, for which there are no amendments and I was going to seek—

Mr. Dubé.

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

I want to pre-empt what you're going to ask. I would be okay with that. The only one I would ask for a recorded vote on would be clause 39, given that clause 39 is where we deal with the State Immunity Act, which, as the B.C. Civil Liberties Association pointed out, is part of the fundamental problem with how grievances with regard to charter violations and other violations of Canadian law would be dealt with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Then I'm going to seek unanimous consent first to deal with clauses 35, 36, 37, and 38 together with one vote.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

(Clauses 35 to 38 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 39)

Moving to clause 39, Mr. Dubé has requested a recorded vote. Is there anything else you would like to say about that?

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

No, just to say thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay.

(Clause 39 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Could I get unanimous consent to consider clauses 40 through 45 inclusive in one vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

(Clauses 40 to 45 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 46)

Moving to the definition section, clause 46, we have amendment LIB-8. No vote is required. It's consequential with us having already passed amendment LIB-4. Is there discussion on clause 46 as amended?

(Clause 46 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 47 agreed to)

(On clause 48)

Moving to clause 48 and its amendments, we have Ms. May, with PV-9. Then we'll consider PV-10.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This one goes directly to a very short section, subclause 48(2). We're now dealing with those sections where the pre-clearance area is Canadian screening of people coming to Canada. Subclause 48(2) says:

No claim for refugee protection under section 99 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act may be made in a preclearance area or preclearance perimeter.

I have to say that when I read this, in reading the bill for the first time when it came out at first reading, my marginal note was, “why not?”, and certainly I've seen many briefs to that extent. It doesn't make sense to me that we would do this. It certainly is an offence under our obligations and Canada's obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of refugees to say that you can't make a claim when you're there. There's no reason for it. The purpose of the act is to deal with screening of people coming into Canada to facilitate cross-border movement. There isn't any justification under this act for restricting the rights of refugees.

The simplest thing to do with an offensive section is to delete it, and my amendment proposes that deletion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is extremely important. We know that the consequences of the bill and of the agreement on permanent residents may be very significant. So I am very pleased to support Ms. May's amendment.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, shall amendment PV-9 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now have amendment PV-10 on the same clause.

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

This deals with a different aspect of the same clause, and that is the right to turn away permanent residents of Canada. Again, why would a border services officer reject a person with that status of permanent residence? The changes that I've made there are numerous, but they all go to the same point. They're all in PV-10 to ensure that permanent residents of Canada are not rejected in the pre-clearance area.

Is this one we're all going to agree to now? Does everyone agree?

[An hon. member]

I do.