Public Safety Committee on Oct. 26th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ladies and gentlemen, I see a quorum. We are under some time pressures, so I'm going to call the meeting to order.

Before we get started, I want to note that votes are scheduled at 10:40. Under the Standing Orders, I'm obligated to suspend proceedings when the bells start ringing, which will be at 10:10. I'm sure colleagues would like to finish with clause-by-clause consideration today. I, possibly, will ask for unanimous consent to extend. If we don't have unanimous consent to extend, then we'll have to come back to this on Tuesday. When colleagues are debating amendments, and points have been made, they don't need to be made again.

With that, let's proceed.

There are no amendments to clause 1.

(Clause 1 carried)

(On clause 2)

The first amendment is NDP-1.

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With this amendment, we want to limit the regulatory changes the minister can make and further clarify the types of information that may be collected.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate on NDP-1?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The next amendment is NDP-2.

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We've raised concerns about the number of regulatory changes that can be made subject to this legislation. In an effort to seek a compromise, we are seeking to amend the legislation so that the Governor in Council must consult first nations, after the testimony we heard, and the Privacy Commissioner before proceeding with regulatory changes. That way, having the involvement of the Privacy Commissioner in particular, we can make sure that even in these vast regulatory powers, there is some kind of safeguard for Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I will not support this amendment because the reference to a single group of persons limits consultation. The Commissioner already consults not only the first nations, but the entire business community. It would therefore be pointless to limit his obligation to consult.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé.

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

We would like the Privacy Commissioner to have the legal duty to consult before making any regulatory changes. This seems entirely appropriate to me, especially in view of the range of regulatory powers set forth in the act. The government apparently does not share that opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is NDP-3.

Mr. Dubé.

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

This is another amendment seeking to narrow down the scope of both the type of information and the regulatory powers.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate on NDP-3?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is NDP-4.

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is based on the same principle as our second amendment. It seeks to establish a duty to consult in another part of the bill, which pertains to regulatory powers.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

Monsieur Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I maintain my objection to limiting consultation, since that is already part of the Commissioner's role. As an independent body, the office of the Commissioner consults a wider range of stakeholders than a single group.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is CPC-1.

Mr. Paul-Hus, you have the floor.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

This amendment is designed to limit the retention of information to 99 years. In the United States, the limit is 76 years. In Canada, there is no limit at this time. The idea is to retain the data so that, if an offence is committed in 15 or 20 years, information is available to determine whether a specific person crossed the border at a specific time on a specific date. We suggest a limit of 99 years because that is roughly a person's life span.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I saw Mr. Dubé first.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

After 90 years, we might as well not do anything. That is such a long time to retain data that it serves absolutely no purpose. So I will oppose this amendment. I will present our own amendment later on, which suggests a data retention period that protects privacy.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, the Liberal members will not support the amendment. There isn't any justifiable, reasonable connection to the policy objectives of the legislation to set this limit at 99 years.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Monsieur Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

For criminal investigations, the data is usually destroyed after 10 years. I might have been tempted to agree to retention for 10 or 15 years, but 99 years makes no sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is NDP-5.

Mr. Dubé.

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

Chair, this is our attempt to create some kind of accountability for CBSA when it comes to redress. We heard from witnesses from the different departments that would be using this information, whether it's with regard to EI claims or OAS, that Canadians caught up in this net would have to address their concerns or their justification through that department and not through CBSA to determine the accuracy of the information.

We also heard from Professor Wark about the lack of review and accountability for CBSA generally speaking, so we feel this amendment seeks to correct that issue with the bill somewhat.