Skip to main content Start of content

SECU Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

Minutes of Proceedings

42nd Parliament, 1st Session
Meeting No. 80
Thursday, October 26, 2017, 8:48 a.m. to 9:16 a.m.
Presiding
Hon. John McKay, Chair (Liberal)

House of Commons
• Olivier Champagne, Legislative Clerk
 
Library of Parliament
• Tanya Dupuis, Analyst
• Dominique Valiquet, Analyst
Canada Border Services Agency
• Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère, Director General, Traveller Program Directorate
• Andrew Lawrence, Acting Executive Director, Traveller Program Directorate
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, September 27, 2017, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

The Chair called Clause 1.

Clause 1 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 2,

Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-21, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 1 to line 11 on page 2 with the following:

“92 In relation to any person who is leaving Canada, the Agency may collect the type of travel document that identifies the person, the name of the country or organization that issued the travel document and the travel document number, and information contained in that person's travel document respecting their identity.”

The question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-21, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 2 with the following:

“(2) The Governor in Council, following consultation with affected First Nations and the Privacy Commissioner, may make regulations for”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-21, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 2 with the following:

“at that place, and the date and time of that departure; and”

The question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-21, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 3 with the following:

“(5) The Governor in Council, following consultation with affected First Nations and the Privacy Commissioner, may make regulations for”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Pierre Paul-Hus moved, — That Bill C-21, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 3 the following:

“93.1 Information collected under sections 92 and 93 shall not be retained for more than 99 years after the day on which the information was collected.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.

Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-21, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 3 the following:

“93.1 (1) The Agency may verify the information collected under sections 92 and 93 and is responsible for the correctness of the information it retains.

(2) A person in relation to whom information has been collected under sections 92 and 93 may, at any time, ask the Agency to correct any information relating to them that is retained by the Agency that the person believes contains an error or omission.

(3) In relation to a request made under subsection (2), the Agency shall, without delay, correct the information if the Agency is satisfied that it contains an error or omission.

(4) If the Agency provided information subsequently corrected under subsection (3) to any person or official, the Agency shall, without delay, provide the corrected information to that person or official.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.

Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-21, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 3 the following:

“93.1 Subject to section 6 of the Privacy Act, information collected under sections 92 and 93 shall be retained for 15 years beginning on the day on which the information is collected.”

Debate arose thereon.

Glen Motz moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “15” with the word “40”.

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the subamendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.

The question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Pierre Paul-Hus moved, — That Bill C-21, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 3 the following:

“94.1 Every five years beginning on the day on which this section comes into force, the Privacy Commissioner shall review the measures taken by the Agency to protect information it collects under sections 92 to 94 and shall, within three months after the review, submit a report on those measures to the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons, who shall each table the report in the House over which he or she presides without delay after receiving it or, if that House is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after he or she receives it.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-21, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 3 the following:

“94.1 (1) The Minister shall annually prepare a report on the administration of sections 92 to 94 during the period beginning on April 1 of the previous year and ending on March 31 of the current year.

(2) The report shall include data on the information collected under sections 92 and 93, on the preservation of this information and on the measures and procedures to protect the personal information collected under these sections and it shall take note of any breach of the computer security safeguards relating to this personal information and any problems with the management of the computer system on which this information is stored.

(3) The Minister shall cause the report to be tabled before each House of Parliament within the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after September 1 of the year in which the report is completed.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-21, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 3 the following:

“94.1 Nothing in this Part shall be construed as affecting solicitor-client privilege or, in Quebec, the professional secrecy of advocates and notaries.”

The question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Clause 2, as amended, carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 3 to 8 inclusive carried on division severally.

On new Clause 8.1,

Pierre Paul-Hus moved, — That Bill C-21 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 6 the following new clause:

“8.1 (1) Before the end of the 270th day after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the provisions enacted by this Act are to be referred to the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the provisions.

(2) The committee to which the provisions are referred is to review them and evaluate their financial impact and submit a report to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee, including a statement setting out any changes to the provisions that the committee recommends. ”

The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 9 carried on division.

On new Clause 0.1,

Pierre Paul-Hus moved, — That Bill C-21 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 1 the following new clause:

“0.1 This Act may be cited as the Canada-United States Beyond the Border Action Plan Implementation Act. ”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

On Preamble,

Pam Damoff moved, — That Bill C-21 be amended by replacing line 1 on page 1 with the following:

“Whereas a fundamental responsibility of the Government of Canada is to ensure Canada’s border integrity;

And whereas that responsibility must be carried out in accordance with the rule of law and in a manner that safeguards the rights and freedoms of Canadians and that respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of ”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed to add a preamble to the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

The Title carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

The Bill, as amended, carried on division.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

ORDERED, — That Bill C-21, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 9:16 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.



Jean-Marie David
Clerk of the Committee