Evidence of meeting #3 for Public Safety and National Security in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

John Ossowski  President, Canada Border Services Agency
Brenda Lucki  Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Jennifer Oades  Chairperson, Parole Board of Canada
Commissioner Brian Brennan  Deputy Commissioner, Contract and Indigenous Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Anne Kelly  Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Monik Beauregard  Associate Deputy Minister , Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Jonathan Moor  Vice-President and Chief Financiel Officer, Finance and Corporate Management Branch, Canada Border Services Agency
Michelle Tessier  Deputy Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

I was so hopeful.

Madam Damoff, you have five minutes.

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Thank you, Chair.

I want to talk a bit more about the passenger protect program that we've put in place.

I served on the public safety committee in the last Parliament when we studied Bill C-59. One of the first meetings I had when I was elected was with a young man who was on the no-fly list because his name was the same as someone's on there. Sadly, that young man died by suicide before he saw the changes we made in Bill C-59, which put in place the framework and then the funding to implement it.

Unlike the United States, which put in a redress system right away, the previous government put in place a no-fly list without the framework and resources to allow people like this young man and others—whom I think almost all of us here have probably met with—who share a name on the no-fly list.

There is funding that's going to be flowing to this. What impact will that have, in particular for those no-fly list kids to be able to get their names off the list? Some of those kids aren't kids anymore. I was speaking to a couple of them at an event last year who are now adults and are being viewed in a very different way than when they were six years old and their name was on a no-fly list.

I wonder if you could talk about the impact this funding is going to have on those individuals.

10:35 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister , Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Monik Beauregard

I have a couple of things as well to start. It's not about getting their names off. I think a lot of the individuals you're referring to are very likely not listed but just happen to have a name that is a very close match to somebody who is listed.

That being said, the Canadian travel number program, which is associated with the enhanced passenger protect program, will allow us to allocate a travel number to everybody who applies.

We have been doing a lot of outreach, for example, with the no-fly list kids and other stakeholder groups in Canadian society, and those who are interested are very aware of the progress of the program and that a Canadian travel number program will be established.

When we roll this out, it will allow anyone who feels they have had issues travelling in the past to apply for a number. If the issue is linked to the no-fly list, the SATA list, that number will allow us to deconflict ahead of travelling, 24 to 48 hours, to work with CBSA and the transport operation centre to deconflict that passenger from the number to the flight manifest and then be able to recognize that the person is not listed and allow that person to do what we all do, which is check in electronically and then just sail through the airport when we get there.

That is what the program will allow us to do. Of course, if the person who applies is listed, then another mechanism kicks in, which is already in place. For those individuals who happen to be listed, it is because they have met the threshold to be listed, and in those cases there is a recourse process for them to follow.

I'll also clarify that in Bill C-59 we have brought in a legislative amendment that allows the minister to also tell parents whether their children are listed. Before that, the minister would have been contravening the law by telling anyone.

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

I understand the families were quite pleased with that.

I have only a minute left.

Commissioner Kelly, I was going to ask you something else, but there have been a number of questions here about the conditions for people who are working in our prisons, and you've provided quite fulsome answers. Something you didn't touch on is that in the last Parliament we brought in Bill C-65, which means that employees in our institutions do not necessarily have to report if they are experiencing harassment and abuse. It allows them to go outside their direct superior, which was certainly the issue at Edmonton Max. I won't get into that because you won't have time to answer.

Will Bill C-65 help to solve some of the issues that were there before?

10:35 a.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Anne Kelly

My understanding is that Bill C-65 will require employers, certainly in workplaces, to respond to reports of harassment and violence, and to give employees the choice of an informal resolution process or a neutral third party investigation, which will result in a recommendation. If the employee opts for the investigation, then the employer is obligated to implement the recommendations from the investigator.

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Thank you.

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

We have to leave it there.

I want to thank all of you for your testimony.

I want to seek guidance from colleagues. As you know, at the beginning of the meeting I raised the reconciliation issue between the votes and the table of expenditures, which are actually reconciled in only one instance. I know there are answers to this reconciliation issue because, in the case of the Canada Border Services Agency, they told me on the break that they can quite easily reconcile those numbers, as I am sure all the other departments can.

The question is, colleagues, do you wish me to call the vote in the present state, or do you wish me to defer the vote pending a reconciliation of the numbers?

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

You made a reference to its being deemed to have been passed at a certain point, but that certain point is not at the end of today's meeting.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

No. Ultimately, whether this committee votes on it or whether it doesn't, there is a deemed vote at the end of the day, but there is a principle here. The principle is that members' votes should be informed votes, and the informed votes should be reconcilable to the tables.

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

The only point I would make is that we have 11 witnesses here today. Are all of them going to be providing us answers, or are some of them going to be in charge of rectifying this problem?

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

I'm assuming the department takes overall supervision. I'm absolutely certain that's easily done. Having said that, these are our numbers.

What's the sense from colleagues on both sides?

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

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

I support you.

I agree with you.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Pam.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

When are they deemed adopted?

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

I don't have that. It depends on the last supply day.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Do you know when that is?

This may all be a moot point. They may end up being deemed adopted regardless.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

They may be deemed adopted regardless. Even if they are deemed adopted, I think we need to establish a precedent at the beginning of this Parliament that members need to know what they're voting on, and we don't.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Ideally, we'd like to get those before they are deemed adopted, but it may end up being a moot point.

I don't know about my colleagues, but that's fine with me.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Mr. Harris.

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Chairman, if they're going to be deemed adopted, let them be deemed adopted, and perhaps we could pass a motion objecting to the fact that we were unable to properly understand what was before our committee, in the hopes that this might be rectified the next time we have to deal with this.

I don't think we should vote for it under the circumstances at all.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

At this point, we can defer the vote, and on the first meeting back, possibly we'll have sufficient information. If we do have sufficient information, and the information is reconciled between the table and the expenditures, then we can move the vote at that point.

Is that agreeable to colleagues?

10:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Okay.

I want to thank you on behalf of the committee. Your testimony is most informative and helpful, and I dare say that over the course of the life of this committee and the life of this Parliament, we'll be seeing all of you.

Thank you again.