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

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

It wasn't bad, Tony. It wasn't bad.

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Okay.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

I said everybody seems to be thinking along the same lines, I'm surprised you didn't put in the same amendment.

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I went for brevity.

7:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

He knows he can count on me. That's all.

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

That's right.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Are there any other comments on amendment PV-12?

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

I have a question. How many million persons cross the border between Canada and the U.S. yearly? Would it be 12 million? How many million, ballpark?

7:20 p.m.

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

Jill Wherrett

There are about 12 million a year.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Okay. So let's say we have 12 million people crossing yearly between Canada and the U.S. Your proposed subsection 60.2(1) therefore means that we have to report on all those 12 million people. I think it was not your intention.

7:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

No, Mr. Picard, it doesn't say that. It contains data saying that 12 million people crossed, five million of them did them in pre-clearance areas, and of those five million, approximately 200,000 went to senior officers because they had trouble with it. It's a data collection exercise. It's not an individual report on 12 million travellers.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

You should understand that it was just one example of all the activities going under customs, so I'm going to beg you to wait for—

7:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

We could debate the point, but I think—

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

—the next one that goes in the same sense.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Mr. Arseneault, do you want to add a comment?

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Not to repeat what my colleague just said, but the intention of Ms. May, we all want this but, again, when you read 60.2(1)—and maybe it was not even your intention—when we say “containing data on the exercise of statutory powers under this Act”, any exercise of any power in each and every article of the act for one passenger is data, so there could be many data per passenger. I know that was not your intention. Amendments NDP-11 and LIB-10 are there, so I'm comfortable that we could pass on to the others. But we like you.

7:20 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I would hope that we'd note in the committee's diary to do this review in five years and ensure the minister does review it. I turn to the Justice officials to ask them for at some point the list—I'm teasing—of all the independent reviews that have been required under statutes that have never been done. When I did request a list of them, it was very thick. It was literally thousands of items that were meant to be reviewed. This committee should maintain that as a requirement.

I'm going to call the question on amendment PV-12.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

It is defeated; however, we quickly move, and we must consider amendment NDP-11 first.

7:20 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

We have that.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Amendment NDP-11 is a new clause 62.1, so we will deal with clause 61 first..

(On clause 61)

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

I have a comment on 61, if I may.

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Yes.

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

We couldn't bring any amendments because any amendment required to fix what we disagree with or dislike in this clause would have been out order. I just want to make the comment that we continue to believe that the memoranda of understanding are not sufficient protection with regard to the changes made to the Criminal Code allowing American officers to bear arms on Canadian soil.

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Your point is taken.

(Clause 61 agreed to)

(Clause 62 agreed to)

Now we move to amendment NDP-11. I would just note that it will be the motion under consideration, and if it is defeated or adopted, amendment LIB-10 would not be able to be moved.

Mr. Dubé, go ahead.

Monsieur Dubé should be happy at this moment.

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

I imagine this is a bit like getting a participation medal. However, I think this is a very important point. I want to echo the comments Ms. May made by saying that, despite disagreeing quite significantly on certain aspects, we nevertheless have a mechanism that I hope will be very useful.

If conditions ever become conducive to perhaps renegotiating a better agreement, the fact that we have the power to review it and to move ahead can only have a salutary impact on Canadians' rights and the evolution of this program.