Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

One a point of order, certainly we have the right to move motions before they're declared out of order. It can't be declared out of order before it's been moved.

The motion cannot be declared out of order before it's been moved before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

It is deemed moved. The motion is deemed moved. Once it is here on the order paper it is deemed moved.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

That would be in the case of a third party because it would be a different situation than for members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

It is deemed moved for independent members as a routine motion; in a routine motion that was adopted by this committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm not an independent, but I understand the point you're making. We're in a party of less than 12. They're Green Party motions and we're here on the basis of the motion that was passed by this committee that requires us to submit our amendments 48 hours ahead of time. Then they are deemed moved because I don't have the power to move a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your clarification from your perspective on that.

(On clause 11—Enactment)

Now, colleagues, if you can shift your attention to clause 11, we have a number of amendments here. We will start off with the Green Party amendment 13.

Ms. May, you have the floor.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Hyer is moving these amendments in relation to part 2, the proposed secure air travel act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Briefly, Mr. Hyer.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

All of my amendments this afternoon are related to the secure air travel act. As a pilot myself, I focused on these and we have heard from airlines that are interested in our introducing some of these amendments.

The first one is amendment PV-13. Do you want me to read it or is it not necessary to read it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

It's not necessary to read it. If you could summarize in a few words, the chair would allow that.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, this clarifies part of the act. Canadians are sensitive about their personal computers and cell phones, and the pass words to those. This amendment specifies and clarifies that no part of this bill allows for the examination of personal computers or cell phones unless specifically authorized within the secure air travel act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very kindly.

Is there discussion?

Yes, Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Also responding as a pilot, I wanted to point out that this proposed subsection does not relate to examination of cell phones or personal computers and, as such, I don't think the motion is applicable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Yes, Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It appears that the Green Party amendment here is, in essence, another “for greater certainty” clause, which would simply clarify that what Mr. Falk said is indeed the case. On that basis I think it'd be a useful addition to the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

All in favour? Opposed?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now, colleagues, we'll go to NDP amendment 8. I make note at this time that once 8 is moved, and it will be moved by Mr. Garrison, the Green Party amendment 14 cannot be then moved as it is identical.

Mr. Garrison, on NDP amendment 8.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm moving this amendment, which deals with what threshold is to be used for listing someone on a no-fly list. What I believe we've had in the past is what we're proposing as the amendment, to return to the standard of “reasonable grounds to believe will” be involved with terrorist acts.

This substitutes a lower threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in the bill. The no-fly list does already expand from those who threaten air transportation directly to those who might be involved in terrorist activities.

I do have a question to the officials just for clarification.

The definition that's going to be used for the activities of someone who is involved in it, if I'm not mistaken, is not listed in Bill C-51 but is in the existing CSIS Act and is much narrower.

Am I correct in that?

[John Davies]

No, sir. Could you repeat that?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

When it comes to listing someone and the activities they're involved in, my reading of the bill would say that it is not the larger definition of national security that Bill C-51 has for information-sharing, but it is the subsections of the existing act of CSIS which define that. Am I correct?

[John Davies]

No.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

So where do we find the definition that was going to be used to list...?

[Ritu Banerjee, Director, Operational Policy and Review, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

It's in proposed section 8 of the proposed act.

It's individuals where we have a “reasonable grounds to suspect”, “engage or attempt to engage”, or “threaten transportation security”, or they're travelling by air for the purpose of committing certain terrorism offences.

That's the threshold for listing an individual, so it's all contained within the secure air travel act.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

With respect, from my reading of the bill...it's proposed subparagraph 8(1)(a)(i). When it says that it's an offence under the Criminal Code or the terrorism offence from section 2 of that act.

Does that mean the Criminal Code only?

[Ritu Banerjee]

Yes, it's under the definitions of the Criminal Code dealing with those specific terrorism offences.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

So it would not include sabotage of other than air transportation?