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.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
We did have testimony that is contrary to what was just said. I think it's fair to say that Canadian laws can apply, but then the issue is, what is the remedy? The fact is that Canadian remedies cannot apply to U.S. officers. I think we should just stop beating around the bush here and be honest with ourselves and with the Canadian public. You can prattle on all you want about Canadian laws applying, the charter of rights applying, and how it's in the legislation that the charter applies, but there are no remedies. It's kind of hard to have a right without a remedy. I want to make that point clear.
Am I still in favour of the bill? Yes, because I think Canadians want pre-clearance, but let's not kid ourselves that you are going to apply a remedy against a U.S. official. It's not going to happen. It didn't happen in Iraq. It's not going to happen in Canada. I just want to make that point.
What I'm trying to do, though, is to at least require the CBSA to do its job, which I don't think offends.... I disagree with the official. It doesn't offend the legislation. The legislation contemplates if the CBSA official declines to do—
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Sorry—the agreement. If a CBSA official declines to do her or his job or is unavailable to do her or his job, then it's a U.S. agent who does it, but all we should do is require that the Canadian border agent be there. Put it in the legislation. Make sure that we have funding to make sure the person is there or is spelled off by another agent. I think this is utterly consistent with the bill and should be approved by this committee.
End of rant.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Are there questions or comments?
Seeing none, let's vote on CPC-1.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That makes amendment LIB-6 eligible to be moved.
Monsieur Arseneault.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
I heard what my colleague Mr. Clement said. I have read the entire bill that we have before us, and I am well aware there is no possible recourse in the event Canadian law is violated. On the other hand, like you, I heard the witnesses tell us that there is no indication in the archives that strip searches were conducted last year. It is an exception; it does not happen often.
Furthermore, if a situation turned into a nightmare for any reason whatever, for travellers wishing to use the preclearance zone-we all agree that these are travellers wanting to go to the United States and we are still on Canadian soil-I wanted, with this amendment, to reiterate that the preclearance officer must know that, if no Canadian border services officer is available within a reasonable period of time, he or she will then be subject to clause 11. My amendment is therefore somewhat redundant, but it clearly states that the preclearance officer must comply with clause 11, which concerns compliance with Canadian law. The idea was to go a little further to ensure the preclearance officer knows that. Having said that, I think the risk is extremely minor in view of the testimony we have heard.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Chair, I'm opposing this amendment because we're still in a situation where the American is doing the strip search, potentially, and despite how rare it may be, I don't protect rights for the rarity of the breaches of them. Moreover, I would echo what Mr. Clement said earlier. Once again, going back to clause 11, we still find ourselves with the same problem with regard to the State Immunity Act and so forth, with an inability to have any proper recourse, or remedy, to perhaps use the more appropriate term, as Mr. Clement said.
I think this does nothing to resolve the issue, and I understand it doesn't jibe with the agreement, but quite frankly, I'm astonished that in Canada we would sign an agreement, even with one of our closest allies, that would allow a foreign agent to do strip searches, even in the most rare of instances, on a citizen of this country on this country's soil. It is something that completely baffles me.
I will be opposing this amendment because it certainly does nothing to remedy what is the critical issue in this clause.
Liberal
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
It is redundant, but I will nevertheless support it.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
That takes us to the last amendment on clause 22, which is NDP-3.
Monsieur Dubé.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We drafted this amendment following consultations with various groups that advocate protection for transgender persons, who might want to ensure that strip searches are conducted by an appropriate individual.
Despite our qualms over the very existence of certain aspects of this clause, we at least want the language used to be consistent with the fact that this is 2017 and to reflect the fact that we are at last honouring the rights of the transgender community, for example, in the spirit of bills such as C-16.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Are there other questions or comments?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
NDP
Conservative
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
If somebody calls for a recorded vote, you have to have a recorded vote.
