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
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Yes, we may suspend for a couple of minutes and have a discussion about this.
While you're doing this, I may ask the officials to think about whether “in a prescribed manner” adds to the clarity of this clause. Do you see that as helpful, or unhelpful? While they're caucusing, you may want to be prepared to think about that.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We're going to resume.
I have Ms. Damoff and Monsieur Arseneault on the speakers list.
Mr. Spengemann, would you like to say something?
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, I would like to move a subamendment to the proposed Liberal amendment LIB-7, to read as follows:
26.1 A traveller may, in a prescribed manner, inform the Canadian senior officials of the Preclearance Consultative Group, established under the Agreement of any situation referred to in sections 22, 23, and 24, subsection 31(2) and section 32 of this Act.
The operative change is replacement of the word “Council” with “Preclearance Consultative Group”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Mr. Clement had to leave, but he'll be returning. I think that probably would satisfy what he was worrying about, but I can't speak for him.
Could you give the three words again?
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Absolutely. It's Preclearance with a capital P, Consultative with a capital C, and Group with a capital G.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Is there any discussion about the subamendment?
(Subamendment agreed to)
Now we go to the amendment.
Do we have a second subamendment?
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Yes.
It's to add at the beginning of proposed clause 26.1, the following words: “Regardless of any applicable recourse”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
So that would be, “Regardless of any applicable recourse a traveller may”.
Is there any discussion about that subamendment?
(Subamendment agreed to)
Now we go to the full amendment on clause 26.1.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
As amended twice.
Seeing no discussion, I will call the question.
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Because it carried, I don't need to vote on the full clause.
(Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to)
(On clause 29)
On clause 29, we have NDP-5.
Monsieur Dubé.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Chair, obviously the ability of a traveller to leave the pre-clearance zone in the way that they can under the current framework is something that's been part of this debate. We recognize what the agreement says, and whether or not the amendment will receive support from members of the government caucus strictly on that basis, nonetheless it's worth presenting.
Again, one of the most egregious elements is this inability for someone who might feel that there's an abusive line of questioning, or any such legitimate reason, to choose to leave, and the obligations that are placed on them.
This is the first of a few amendments that will seek to alleviate that burden on travellers who have legitimate reasons for leaving.
Liberal
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
It's a small one. It's contrary to article VI, paragraph 23 of the agreement which is there for a number of security reasons.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We are voting on amendment NDP-5.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 29 agreed to)
(On clause 30)
We have a Green Party amendment, PV-4.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, this amendment is to change clause 30, on page 13. As it reads currently, it says:
A traveller who withdraws from preclearance must
(a) answer truthfully any question asked by a preclearance officer under paragraph 31(2)(b) for the purpose of identifying the traveller or of determining their reason for withdrawing; and
The amendment I am putting forward would remove the language “or of determining their reason for withdrawing”. It would merely go to “and”, to take us to the next paragraph.
The reason for this was put forward most clearly of all witnesses by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association:
We are aware of no sufficiently compelling justification to eliminate the right to withdraw in situations where there is no reasonable suspicion of an unlawful purpose on the part of the traveller.
In other words, no traveller should be required to provide a pre-clearance officer with their reason for withdrawing. Any Canadian has the right to turn around and leave a pre-clearance area just because they feel like it. They do not need to provide a reason.
I agree with the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. I can see no reason in law why someone should be compelled to provide a U.S. official with a reason, when they simply just changed their mind and are going back home.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Once again, these are security issues. Based on the information provided, if the reasons why the person is withdrawing are not dubious, the process will be quick and the individual will not suffer negative consequences. Whatever the case may be, security remains a priority.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I just want to go back to the fact that our hands are tied on a number of these things because of an agreement that was negotiated.
This isn't a normal bill we've received from the government that isn't tied to something else, and so, while I have the utmost respect for the member opposite and truly wish we weren't tied to an agreement, we are. The legislation has been drafted as such, and we need to be mindful. That is certainly the reason I won't be supporting the amendment. We are dealing with an agreement that was already signed and we are unable to change it, because of what's in the agreement, without going back and trying to get a new one. That's it.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, we did receive testimony to the effect that—I don't remember exactly what the language was—travellers should, prior to arriving at a pre-clearance facility, have some mindset on whether or not they want to travel and what the conditions are, and it is incumbent upon our system to communicate what is required upon pre-clearance.
The other thing is that the act doesn't prescribe any qualitative definitions or conditions on those reasons. The reason could simply be, “I don't wish to subject myself to this process. I've changed my mind.” That would be enough of a reason to then be able to leave the pre-clearance area.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
We'll get into that in the other clauses. I don't want to take us away from the debate on Ms. May's amendment, but the whole issue with that is a “reasonable suspicion” that comes from the reasons for wanting to leave.
We could go back and forth on this, but obviously, given that the threshold is far different for an American agent, the ability—the need rather—of a Canadian not to have to give their reasons is important, because then you start getting into “reasonable suspicion” and “detention” and all those other issues that come as we go through this section of the bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Seeing no other hands, shall amendment PV-4 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 30 carry?
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Chair, could we have a recorded vote on clause 30?
(Clause 30 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1)
(On clause 31)