C-17 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

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Legislative Committee on Bill C-17

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

1605

The Chair (Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.))

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ)

1610

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. John A. Read (Director General, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport)

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. John A. Read

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

Mr. John A. Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John A. Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John A. Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John A. Read

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

1615

The Chair

Mr. John A. Read

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk)

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1620

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

The Clerk

1625

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. John A. Read

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

1630

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. John A. Read

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. John A. Read

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

1635

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John A. Read

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mrs. Sherill Besser (Senior Counsel, Department of Transport)

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1640

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. John A. Read

Mr. Steve Mahoney

1645

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John A. Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John A. Read

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. John A. Read

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

1650

The Chair

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. John A. Read

Mr. James Moore

Mr. John A. Read

The Chair

Mrs. Sherill Besser

Mr. James Moore

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

1655

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. John A. Read

1700

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. John A. Read

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1705

The Chair

Mr. John A. Read

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mrs. Sherill Besser

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mrs. Sherill Besser

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mrs. Sherill Besser

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mrs. Sherill Besser

Mr. Steve Mahoney

1710

Mrs. Sherill Besser

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mrs. Sherill Besser

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. John A. Read

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mrs. Sherill Besser

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mrs. Sherill Besser

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1715

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mrs. Sherill Besser

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Ms. Susan Baldwin

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Susan Baldwin

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1720

The Chair

Ms. Susan Baldwin

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Susan Baldwin

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Mario Laframboise

1725

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

1730

The Chair

Mr. James Moore

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

Mr. John A. Read

Ms. Marian Harymann (Acting Director, Policing Policy Division, Department of the Solicitor General)

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. James Moore

The Chair

CANADA

Legislative Committee on Bill C-17

NUMBER 017

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º (1605)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.)): I'll call this meeting to order.

We'll begin the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-17, an act to amend certain Acts of Canada and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety.

Let me begin by welcoming everyone and introducing the officials at the table with us today. From the Department of Transport we have Mr. John Read, director general, safety and security group, and Sherill Besser, senior counsel.

[Translation]

From the Department of the Solicitor General, we welcome Ms. Marian Harymann, Acting Director, Policing Policy Division, and Mr. Christian Roy, Counsel.

[English]

Allow me also to introduce to our members a new face at the table, Mrs. Susan Baldwin, the legislative clerk. Also, without introducing everyone with us in the room, there are a number of officials from various departments this bill has an impact on. Of course, if required, they'll be called upon for their assistance. We thank all of you for joining us and assisting us in our work.

As a matter of housekeeping for committee members before we proceed with the clause-by-clause, I received a notice the other day from Mr. Moore regarding a conflict that I believe still exists for a good number of you who also sit on the transport committee. We had scheduled a meeting and so had the transport committee for Thursday morning. So what would the wish be of the committee, to defer our next meeting to when we return, to allow all of you to participate?

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty being here Thursday morning as well, so if that's the wish of all members, I would have no objection.

The Chair: Accordingly, the meeting for next Thursday is cancelled and will be rescheduled upon our return after the Easter recess.

[Translation]

We will now proceed with the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75, consideration of clause 1 is deferred until later.

[English]

I'll now call clause 2.

[Translation]

(Clause 2)

The Chair: The Chair recognizes Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wish to move an amendment to the definition of “emergency direction” in clause 2. I move that the bill be amended in clause 2 by replacing line 4 on page 2 with the following:

made under section 4.76;

The words “or 4.77” would be deleted. The principle is simple. Section 4.77 gives officers the authority to issue emergency directions. My party accepts that the minister can issue such directions, but does not accept that the bill grants such authority to officers. That situation would be rectified if the words “or 4.77” were deleted.

You will see that our position will not waver during this clause-by-clause study phase. Our objective is to see that this authority is granted to the minister and that officers not be allowed to decide on their own to issue emergency directions.

º (1610)

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could we hear from Mr. Read on this? Perhaps he could give the committee some advice.

Mr. John A. Read (Director General, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport): There are three instruments, as Mr. Laframboise has indicated, emergency directions, interim orders, and security measures. This one goes to emergency directions. Emergency directions are different from the other two, in that they have a lifespan of 72 hours and are intended to be issued by inspectors in the field for matters of local interest: if you come to a door that is supposed to be a secure door going into a restricted area and the lock is broken, the inspector could at that point direct that there be someone to stand by the door to secure it until the lock is fixed. So this particular provision is directed at inspectors. On the other two, there will be recognition that it should be restricted to minister and deputy, but for this particular event, emergency directions are designed to be used by inspectors in the field.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just to be clear, the net impact of this amendment would be to say that local inspectors cannot issue directions, it would have to be the minister.

Mr. John A. Read: Yes, and that, of course, would be very difficult.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That would be impossible, so obviously, we can't support the amendment.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Where in the bill would we have assurances that this is how the direction would be used? Where under proposed section 4.76 or 4.77 do we have assurances that this is the only time the emergency direction would be used?

Mr. John A. Read: We have a hierarchy of authorities--

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: But where in the bill does it state that? I know what you think might happen, but where in the bill do we have the assurances that it will happen?

Mr. John A. Read: The bill does allow the designation of inspectors. The emergency directions that are made have a lifespan of 72 hours and no longer. If it's going to be something of national application, we would be using other measures, such as an interim order.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You indicated that it would be used in instances where a door might be left open or something might be happening, and I'm saying, where in the bill do we have that assurance? When I read the sections, I don't get that assurance. So if I'm missing something, if there's something in the white part between the lines that I'm missing, please fill me in.

Mr. John A. Read: Okay. It would be in proposed section 4.76: “including directions respecting”, followed by examples of the kinds of things meant, and these are local activities. The evacuation of an aircraft or an aerodrome is a local event. The diversion of aircraft to alternate landing sites--

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That's hardly the opening of a door.

Mr. John A. Read: We believe the evacuation of aircraft would be a rare event. We do know the locking of a door will be a common event, so I gave you the most common event for the direction.

The Chair: Are there other questions or comments?

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not convinced. The proposed section 4.76 refers to:

(a) the evacuation of aircraft and of aerodromes or other aviation facilities or portions of them;

(b) the diversion of aircraft to alternate landing sites;

The minister can issue directions in respect of all of these matters. However, pursuant to section 4.77, the minister will be able to delegate decision-making authority to officers. You mentioned 72 hours. Well, that's too long a period of time because after 72 hours, the emergency will have passed. This means that for a period of 72 hours, officers will be able to make decisions that are really the minister's to make. I'm sorry, but the example you gave of a door isn't a good one. In an emergency, a door can always be secured, but when it comes to deciding whether or not to evacuate either all or part of an airport or aircraft, given existing means of communications, the minister could quickly be contacted and subsequently issue the appropriate directions. Officers shouldn't have the authority to issue directions on a whim in an emergency and thus create a situation where the minister could later say that he didn't make the decision, but rather the decision came from an officer who had the legal authority to act.

I have a problem with delegating decisions of this magnitude to officers. I repeat, 72 hours is too long a period of time. That's usually how long an emergency situation lasts.

º (1615)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John A. Read: What is critical in safety and security legislation is that the inspector on the site be able to rectify a contravention if it is something that threatens safety or security without going back to the minister. You will see the same kind of provision in the Food and Drug Act and transportation of dangerous goods matters, where an inspector stops a truck on the highway, and if the truck is not in compliance, the inspector can give directions. Those inspector directions have the same basis as this does: they are things done locally and done immediately to counter a threat to safety or security. This authority is for exactly the same purpose. The inspectors who are conducting inspections in airports and in other areas must have the ability, when they find something that is not correct, to make it right immediately, because we are dealing with security. We can't build a system where we do inspections, find something wrong, and can do nothing about it. This is a common principle in many other acts that have inspectors.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Yes, but under the proposed section 4.76, aircraft could be diverted to an alternate landing site, which means that officers would be the ones to decide to divert the aircraft. I have a considerable problem with that. The example of the door isn't a good one. Under the proposed section 4.77, officers could make the kinds of decisions listed in 4.76. These are important decisions. I'm sorry, but you haven't swayed me.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any further comments?

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I would convince either of the members who have spoken on this opposite, but suffice it to say, at least from my perspective, that it would be absurd to deal with something called an emergency and require that the only person who could make the decision on resolving the issue would be the minister. That's just not practical. So I'm sorry that my colleagues are not convinced.

I would like to add that there are two other amendments--and this happens throughout our clause-by-clause--that are fundamentally identical, Bloc 6 and 7. So if members would agree, it would make all of our work a little easier if we could vote on all three at the same time. Do you require unanimous consent, so we could have a motion that this be done?

The Chair: I don't believe so.

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk): Since these are indeed consequential amendments, it's a simple matter of a ruling from the chair.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If there is a grey area where they're not consequential, I would certainly agree that we deal with them separately, but when they deal with the same issue and would accomplish the same thing, I think, in the interest of doing our work, we should deal with them at the same time. So I would ask for you to rule on that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I would suggest that if we're going to be dealing with other issues as well, the opportunity to debate the other side and make sure we're getting the whole picture is there, Mr. Chair. If it's suggested that they're all the same, that means we have to go to those sections and make sure they're the same, and so there needs to be the opportunity to discuss that. So before the chair rules, I would hope we have the opportunity to make sure they are the same.

º (1620)

The Chair: When each member is asked to propose his or her amendment, the chair will make the committee members aware whether that particular amendment is consequential to any others. In this instance I'll put it on the back of where we're just starting.

[Translation]

I had already recognized Mr. Laframboise when I was informed that amendment BQ-1 was consequential to amendments BQ-6 on page 15 and BQ-7 on page 16.

Accordingly, the Chair is inclined to think that one vote will suffice in this case.

[English]

Let me ask our clerk to explain this.

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Laframboise, amendment BQ-1 concludes with the words “made under section 4.76”, thereby deleting the reference to section 4.77. Amendment BQ-6 on page 15 also calls for the same thing. Therefore, we cannot have a situation where the adoption of BQ-1 would compel us to adopt the other two amendments. Otherwise, you would maintain the reference to 4.77 in one case, and delete it in the other case. It's simply a matter of being consistent. The bill cannot say two different things at the same time.

The Chair: Do you agree, Mr. Laframboise?

[English]

Is there any further discussion on amendment BQ-1?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: The amendment does not carry, and thus neither do BQ-6 and BQ-7.

Amendment NDP-1 is consequential to amendment NDP-4, but also the chair must rule that amendment NDP-1 is inadmissible. I'll ask our clerk to explain.

The Clerk: Marleau-Montpetit states that standing committees are provided for in the Standing Orders. Further, mandates of standing committees are provided by the Standing Orders. So the reasoning behind this is that any creation of a standing committee must be done by Standing Order changes.

º (1625)

The Chair: So for added information, Ms. Desjarlais, that would have the effect of making NDP-4 also inadmissible.

I now turn to Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-17, clause 2, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 2 the following:

“interim order” means an interim order made under subsection 6.41(1) or (1.1).

I hope people are able to follow that. There's no change to the substance, and it would simply be a defined term that can be referred to in other clauses, so it's something of a technical amendment.

The Chair: And I might add that this amendment is consequential to G-3 on page 10, G-7 on page 44,

[Translation]

G-8 on page 45 and G-11 on page 56.

[English]

Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: The interim orders were not necessarily the ideal situation for the legislation. I know that this motion is just defining the interim orders, but without having further discussions on whether there is support for interim orders, it's a little bit disheartening to have all the issues related to interim orders pass through on the basis of accepting the definition of interim orders.

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John A. Read: To try to add some clarity to this, we currently have several provisions in the bill that use the term interim order. In our review of the bill, in fact, we found that it should have appeared in, I believe, nine sections, and we only put interim orders in seven of the sections. When we were now going forward to add interim orders to those two missing sections, we thought we might as well also have a definition of interim order, because we do define security measure and emergency direction. It already exists in the bill in many locations. The amendment we're making is to add it to those places where it was missing. So having this definition or not does not, in my mind, have any consequence with respect to whether or not interim orders would stand or fail, be fully adopted or not adopted. This definition, to me, is purely a convenience.

The Chair: Let it be clear that whatever other amendments are consequential, you are free to debate them.

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise, amendment BQ-2.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: On page 2, “security measure” is defined as “a measure made subsection 4.72(1) or 4.73(1).”

The proposed section 4.73(1) also grants authorized officers the right to make security measures. Our party refuses to go along with this provision. Obviously, we're asking that the reference to section 4.73(1) be deleted from the definition. As you will see, Mr. Chairman, we will be calling later for section 4.73(1) to be deleted from the bill. You can make the connection.

º (1630)

The Chair: I just want to mention that this amendment is consequential to BQ-5 on page 11. Correct?

Mr. Mahoney.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have the same comments, frankly. It's part of a package, I think, designed to restrict authority to make security measures to the minister only, and we're not supportive of that. So we would be opposed to both of these.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It's a sad statement that under emergency conditions and issues related to transportation security, somehow the minister wouldn't make himself available for this type of issuance. I'm actually coming to the point of wondering why we have a Minister of Transport, because time and time again through the scope of this bill it's a derogation of duty, in my view. I am in total agreement with my colleague from the Bloc that if the minister continually has to pass his powers on to someone else in the department, maybe the department should be running the show totally and there should be no minister.

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John A. Read: To add a comment, Mr. Mahoney will be speaking to a new amendment if it's permitted, G-3.1, but I think it's relevant to raise it at this time. The department recognizes that a delegation to anyone within the department is much too broad, and so that amendment, which Mr. Mahoney will be proposing, would be restricting the delegation to make a security measure to the deputy only.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I wasn't prepared to introduce it yet, and I think I would need agreement from everyone to do it, because it hasn't been distributed, the paper's still warm. It is something I think everyone here would support. So if the committee agrees, I'll ask the clerk to distribute it.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It's supposed to be given to us prior to the meeting and no amendments were to be issued after a certain period of time. That being the case, Mr. Chair, I think we're in breach of a position we took as a committee.

The Chair: Of course, the chair will only be able to propose those amendments with unanimous consent.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Can I bring in Mr. Read again on this?

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John A. Read: After review of the amendments that had been put forward in the package made available last Friday, the arguments were convincing enough to suggest an amendment to this amendment by the Bloc. However, the Bloc's amendment deletes the subsection in its entirety, so you cannot amend that particular amendment. In order to get this concept in, it needs a new amendment. That's why the government was looking for the tolerance of the committee to accept this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would ask for unanimous consent that Mr. Mahoney be permitted to distribute and present that.

The Chair: The chair's going to correct itself. Procedurally, someone would propose that we withdraw the previous motion that guided us, we would have a vote, the new motion could be tabled, and the vote would follow. That's a point of clarification, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Could we, if this matter failed, bring it in afterwards?

The Chair: I think we can deal with the amendment we have now, and we can come back to that matter that was raised by Mr. Mahoney afterwards.

[Translation]

Let's continue on with our discussion of BQ-2 which is consequential to BQ-5 on page 11.

(Amendment negatived)

º (1635)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Therefore, amendment BQ-5 is also negatived.

The Chair: That's correct, BQ-5 is also negatived.

[English]

We would now ask Mr. Mahoney to present the government's amendment 2.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I would move that clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 2, with the following:

(b) a restricted area pass that is issued by the Minister in

Again, it's not a matter of substance, it's just a clarity change, more of a technical change to the bill. It avoids describing a term by referring to regulations to be made under the act.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Are you saying it's removing that section in relation to the regulations?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: By replacing lines 17 to 19.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Then it's just going to refer restricted area passes issued by the minister. It's still going to have “in respect of an aerodrome that the Minister operates”?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Is there ever the possibility that there's an aerodrome the minister doesn't operate?

Mr. John A. Read: Yes, there is. By virtue of the minister's operating the airport, some documents take on a different importance, because it's the minister who issued them. The intent behind the changes with respect to this is to make the restricted area passes at all airports the same. Most airports, as you know, are not run by the minister, Pearson and Winnipeg and Vancouver. Almost no airports are run by the minister, but there still are a few left. We don't wish to have restricted area passes issued by the minister in those instances treated differently from restricted area passes at the commercial airports.

The Chair: Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm hearing somebody say, could I add something?

Mrs. Sherill Besser (Senior Counsel, Department of Transport): Canadian aviation documents are defined in the act as documents issued by the minister. So at airports that are not operated by the minister the restricted area passes are not Canadian aviation documents. The only ones we have to cover here are the ones that would be issued by the minister.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry as amended?

Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I had a Bloc amendment 3. Did it not follow through somewhere? Is it still in clause 2?

º (1640)

The Chair: No, that's in clause 3. It was a typo.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you for sharing. I had it as clause 2, so obviously, I wouldn't have known it was a typo.

The Chair: It would appear I have a little more information at my disposal.

Shall clause 2 carry as amended?

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 3)

The Chair: Now we have BQ-3, and there's a line conflict with the NDP-2. In other words, there's an amendment on the same line, and of course, these were taken in the order they were received.

Go ahead, Jean-Michel.

[Translation]

The Clerk: C'est très simple. If amendment BQ-3 carries, the question cannot be called on the motion on amendment NDP-2. If BQ-3 is negatived, we can move on to NDP-2.

[English]

The Chair: Agreed?

Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: If BQ-3 passes, it's not a problem.

The Chair: Let's hear it first.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I'm sure you've understood, we're calling for the proposed section 4.3(1.1) on page 2 to be deleted in its entirety, that is from lines 35 to 42. The proposed section 4.3(1) reads as follows:

4.3 (1) The Minister may authorize any person or class of persons to exercise or perform, subject to any restrictions or conditions that the Minister may specify, any of the powers, duties or functions of the Minister under this Part, other than the power to make a regulation, an order, a security measure or an emergency direction.

The proposed subsection (1.1) reads as follows:

...the Minister may authorize any person or class of persons to make an order, a security measure or an emergency direction...

Mr. Chairman, from the outset, there has been no question that the government wants to transfer ministerial accountability to officers. This is something a number of officers have been requesting for several years now.

Take a stand and withdraw this amendment so that the minister is the person responsible, not authorized officers, for making decisions with respect to orders, security measures and emergency directions.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'd be in agreement. As I stated earlier, I think we're seeing through the scope of the bill numerous areas where it is not just a delegation of authority, I believe it has reached the point of a derogation of authority, and I think in the times we're talking about of public security and safety the minister should be available.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I will just add that the wording has “may”. That doesn't mean he would always do that, and I would suggest there is a substantial difference between derogation of duty and delegation of authority. Without having the ability to delegate this authority, we would just come to a standstill.

The Chair: Is there further discussion?

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are there consequential amendments?

The Chair: There was a line conflict on this one. That having been defeated, we'll go to the NDP-2.

Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

Without my reading the whole thing, the intent is to limit the designation of authority so it can't be passed further down the line without knowing exactly who the minister is going to designate. This is to limit the designation.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: John, help us out on this, because this is new. I'm not clear whether or not we're able to introduce it yet.

Mr. John A. Read: If the amendment I inadvertently spoke of earlier is introduced, the result will be that orders will be issued by the minister or the deputy only, security measures will be issued by the minister or the deputy only, and emergency directions, as was already discussed, would be issued by inspectors in the field.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The inspectors in the field have already been dealt with in previous amendments. What this does is add the words “his or her deputy”, and the restriction is “the minister's deputy may only make a security...”. I would have thought it will be supported by the opposition members, and I would, Mr. Chairman, subject to your ruling, need that agreement to be able to introduce this and pass it around.

In fairness, if it helps, I was only just given this too. It's not something I've been holding back. I would have submitted it right off the bat.

º (1645)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Read is indicating that it also includes inspectors. Is that correct?

Mr. John A. Read: Your wording would restrict the making of orders, security measures, and emergency directions to those three people, the minister, the deputy minister, and the assistant deputy minister. As the amendment, if it's adopted, plays out, you're more generous in two of them--

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That goes to show you that we're willing to make things work.

Mr. John A. Read: You would be more generous in two of them and less generous in the third.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Where exactly would this new amendment be in the bill? Would it be in clause 5?

Mr. John A. Read: Yes, it would be in clause 5.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think the chair has a solution.

The Chair: I understand that we're not at clause 5, but obviously, on some of the previous amendments there has been some discussion that seems to relate to this new amendment the government would like to introduce. Is it the wish of the committee that I proceed this way, that we flush this amendment out?

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, do you require unanimous consent for this?

The Chair: No. The rules of procedure stipulate that a motion previously introduced calling for amendments to be tabled by a certain deadline must be withdrawn. Therefore, the motion is withdrawn and the vote will be called on the motion to withdraw this motion. A new motion will then be moved which will allow the government to introduce a new amendment.

Are you following me, Mr. Laframboise?

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I don't have a problem with that, provided you do not require my consent. The decision rests with you. However, if you require unanimous consent, you won't get it from me. I can't go along with a last-ditch effort by the government which seems incapable of managing its own affairs. If the rules of procedure allow you to adopt this motion with the help of the Liberal majority, then I have no problem with that.

[English]

The Chair: D'accord. Would the government propose the withdrawal of the previous motion?

Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I so propose.

The Chair: Those in favour of withdrawing that motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: I am told that procedurally I don't need a new motion, so now Mr. Mahoney wants to table this new amendment.

(Clause 3 allowed to stand)

(On clause 5)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chair, I'd like to have the clerk distribute G-3.1.

I'm proposing that the bill, in clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 28 on page 6 with the following, under the description “Deputy may make measures”:

4.73(1) The Minister may authorize his or her deputy to make, subject to any restrictions or conditions that the Minister may specify, measures respecting aviation security whenever the deputy is of the opinion that the measures are

We further amend by replacing line 33 on page 6 with the following under “Restriction”:

(2) The Minister's deputy may only make a security

And we would replace lines 10 and 11 on page 7 with the following:

it is made unless the Minister or his or her deputy repeals it before the expiry of the

º (1650)

The Chair: Mr. Moore.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): This may be a technical question, so one of the officials can perhaps help me out here. The minister may authorize his or her deputy. Does that necessarily mean the deputy minister, or does that mean an official who would be titled a deputy in a vague sense, which doesn't necessarily clean up the current language, “the Minister may authorize any officer”? How is “officer” differentiated from “deputy”, unless deputy specifically means deputy minister, and if it means deputy minister, why don't you put deputy minister in the amendment?

Mr. John A. Read: We did submit the phrase “deputy minister” to the Justice drafters, and they tell us the proper way to state this is “the Minister's deputy”.

Mr. James Moore: I am asking, though, whether deputy means deputy minister.

Mr. John A. Read: Yes, it means deputy minister.

The Chair: Ms. Besser.

Mrs. Sherill Besser: It is also consistent with wording in the act that refers to the deputy. For example, subsection 4.3(3) of the existing Aeronautics Act states, “The Minister may authorize his deputy”.

Mr. James Moore: The French copy says le sous-ministre, so it's more definite. Okay.

The Chair: Those in favour of the new government G.3.1?

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I just want to give notice here, and we'll explain why. As we get further on in this, there is another very similar situation that will require the indulgence of the committee--or not.

The Chair: Let me go back to NDP-2 on page 7. Is there any further discussion on that matter?

(On Clause 3)

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I withdraw the amendment.

The Chair: NDP-2 is withdrawn.

Ms. Desjarlais, would you present NDP-3 on page 8?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: This amendment is responding to the real concerns that came out at our committee hearings. People were concerned that their charter rights would be violated, and it's just to ensure that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be followed within the legislation, to put the assurance out there to individuals that their charter rights won't be violated.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I can't support this motion. It doesn't add anything to the bill. The charter already applies. In fact, section 32 of the charter indicates that it applies to government action, being actions of the legislative executive and administrative branches of the government. We can't ever be sure there won't be some kind of charter challenge, but we're satisfied that this will withstand that.

The Chair: Is there further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 3 agreed to on division)

[Translation]

We now move on to clause 4.

(Clause 4)

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: The proposed amendment calls for deleting the words “or on behalf of the Minister”. The provision would then read as follows:

(a.1) in respect of any security measure that is carried out by the Minister;”

We are confident of the Minister's ability to act in this matter. He does not need someone to act on his behalf.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We're supportive of this.

The Chair: Is there further discussion.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On Clause 5)

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais, NDP-4 was consequential, so I'm now asking you to propose NDP-5 on page 14.

º (1655)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'll give you the pleasure of hearing it once again.

Through the course of discussions and hearings there was great concern that charter rights would be violated, and I don't see it as a hindrance to put in place a clause within a piece of legislation to assure Canadians that their rights won't be violated. Obviously, the government has some unwillingness to do that. I just think, quite frankly, it would have people rest a whole lot easier if it were within legislation.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'll save you the pain of hearing my response again. We're opposed to this.

The Chair: Is there further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise, please present amendment BQ-8 on page 17.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but that amendment is on page 9.

The Chair: You're right. It's on page 9 of the bill, but on page 17 of the amendment package.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: So, we've come to BQ-8. Correct?

I move that Bill C-17 in clause 5 be amended by replacing line 3 on page 9 with the following:

the security measure and give the Minister and every other party to the proceedings a

The words

and every other party to the proceedings a

Obviously, the purpose of this amendment is to give other parties an opportunity to be heard and to have their views respected.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, it's almost contrary, in my view, because it refers to an in camera session where the minister would have a reasonable opportunity to examine and make representations, and the effect of this amendment would be to invite all those wishing to see the contents of the security measure into the in camera session. So it's obviously not something we could support.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It would have been contrary if nobody else were involved in the process, but if other persons are involved in the action, they have a right of representation and to hear what's being said if it may affect them. If only the minister would be there, other individuals involved would not have any say or any knowledge necessarily of exactly what's being said.

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John A. Read: If there is a disagreement between one party and the minister with respect to the security measures, the point here is to have the security measures examined in camera. The whole point of being in camera is that if it is found that they should not be released to the contesting party, they would stay that way. But as the amendment is written, you would bring the contesting party into the room and have them look over the security measures with everyone else, and there's no longer any reason to continue in camera, because they've now seen the measures. If the purpose of the in camera is to discuss with the court the content of the security measures, we must trust that the court will represent the interest of those people who should not be a party to the in camera hearing.

» (1700)

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: With all due respect, the proposed subsection does not just say a court, it says “before a court or other body having jurisdiction”. So could some body be put forth as the body that's going to hear these issues? I don't understand why you have “other body having jurisdiction”. If it's specified, you wouldn't get an objection, but not having it specified is where my concern is.

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John A. Read: This proposed subsection begins with, “If, in any proceedings before a court or other body having jurisdiction to compel the production or discovery of information, a request is made for the production or discovery of any security measure”. It does not deal with whether the security measure is valid or not, it says, for these proceedings, we would like to see the security measure. At that point this element steps in. Those in charge of the proceedings then consult with the minister to hear his arguments as to why it should remain of restricted distribution, and there is no judgment as to whether or not it's a good measure or a bad measure, it is simply, will that be produced or not?

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: We simply want to give every party an opportunity to be heard by the court or other body. That's all. It doesn't mean they will all be invited to the same hearing. The body may hear from the parties in camera in order to understand the purpose of the procedure in question. I fail to see how that would be a problem.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chairman, a number of other laws and legislative provisions allow a court or other body having jurisdiction to compel the production or discovery of evidence to examine in camera evidence for or against discovery without one of the parties being present. That wouldn't be the first time such a thing had happened. The party against whom the order has been made must have the right to see the security measure or order.

In the absence of security, the court or body... Some bodies have quasi judicial powers. The proceedings do not necessarily have to unfold in court. They can take place before a body having quasi-judicial powers, a body that can order the production of papers or of evidence. This is where a person affected by a particular security measure would request that papers or evidence be produced. This court or body would hear testimony from the minister or from his representative in camera. At such time, the minister would give the reason as why the measure should not be disclosed. The body would be authorized to defend the absent party. However, as Mr. Read said, that doesn't make any sense.

[English]

If the order is against me on the basis of a security reason, it has to be decided in the proper venue whether or not the order should be released to me.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm actually even more concerned, because we're not only now hearing just of courts, we're hearing of quasi-judicial organizations. We just went through a process of hearing about other transport committee members travelling to Washington and hearing about security measures we're told here in Canada we can't hear about. So I think it's a serious concern that every single detail related to security procedures put in place just can't be told to anyone, when our own members can go down to Washington and hear about security measures. It puts people on guard as to what exactly is involved here. If you're talking about quasi-judicial organizations, let's hear what some of them are, so that we can have some justification of why this has to be in here.

» (1705)

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John A. Read: The security measures are, as you now know, equivalent to a regulation that we feel must be of restricted distribution. If, for example, we required by regulation CATSA to screen every third person--it would be a silly thing to write that way, but if that was what we said, you must screen every third person or search every third bag--that would not be something you want people to know, because when they know it's every third bag, they will make sure they're at the even numbers in the line. It would be the same if we required that we screen at certain times of the day or look very carefully on Tuesdays, as a random sample, at certain kinds of instruments, cell phones and such like. The measures we take to ensure security cannot be revealed to those who wish to go against them. It's like giving someone the combination to your lock. You don't want to reveal everything you do, and this is why we have security measures. There also is, in the section on security measures, very descriptive text as to when the minister must make these public knowledge. These can only remain of restricted distribution for as long as they need to be. The moment they should be known to the public, they must be put in the Canada Gazette. There's a whole provision on that already in the bill.

The fact that we need security measures can't really be contested. The fact that these security measures should not be published for everyone to look at also I don't think can be contested. What we are searching for in here, to the best of our ability, is to add as many protections as we can, the first one being that the moment we are of the opinion that the security measure should be public, there is no valid reason for keeping it of restrictive distribution, it must be made public. This one here goes to the point that if a member of a terrorist organization were to say, I would like to see all the security measures, we would like to refuse him. He can say, but it's going to do something to my personal rights, or whatever, he can go to whatever judicial body there is and say, I think this should be produced. That is the point at which there is an independent view of the decisions made by the Minister of Transport. That independent view is made by the court or other appropriate body, which then gets to say, the minister erred in keeping this of restrictive distribution, it must be produced, or to uphold the minister's view. That is an independent assessment of what the minister has done.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney, then Monsieur Laframboise.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you for that, but you answered a lot of questions that weren't asked. The one that was asked that I think we have a right to hear an answer to is, what do we mean by “other body having jurisdiction”, continued in proposed subsection 3, where it says “If the court or other body”? So without going into the how the bill works, who are we talking about?

Mrs. Sherill Besser: The Transportation Safety Board of Canada would be another body having jurisdiction and being able to compel production of documents.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are there other examples you can think of?

Mrs. Sherill Besser: The Canadian Aviation Tribunal, which is going to be replaced by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So how would a security measure wind up in front of a body like that?

Mrs. Sherill Besser: To use the example of the tribunal, if someone has contravened a security measure, that may mean they lose their Canadian aviation document. That may be an administrative proceeding we could take.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Would that be something like an air rage incident?

Mrs. Sherill Besser: No, I'm talking about people in the industry.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If someone in the industry violates security at the airport, they could wind up before that kind of body. It wouldn't necessarily be criminal, it would be a violation of the industry regulations.

» (1710)

Mrs. Sherill Besser: These are regulatory.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's where it would not necessarily go to a court, but it might. Out of that might come criminal charges, which could then see it go before a court.

Mrs. Sherill Besser: The tribunal deals with contraventions of the regulations through monetary penalties. It's a non-penal process.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: There are two issues here. Who are the other bodies? I think you've given us some examples of that. The other one is who we let into the in camera session when the security measure is being examined by the minister and that kind of thing. You're not going to let the people in who are subject to the security measure. There has to be some protection of the privacy of the in camera situation. That is why we object to this one.

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, I have a considerable problem with this approach, even with officers' comments.

The proposed section 4.79(2) refers to information. It states that the courts and other bodies have jurisdiction “to compel the production or discovery of information”. Subsequently, the provision gives the Minister, who holds this information, the opportunity to make representations with respect to that information. Thus, parties to the proceedings, not individuals per se, have the opportunity to make representations. I'm not at all comfortable with that.

Mention is made of the production of information. Individuals who have been singled out will not have an opportunity to appear in camera before the court or body to make representations. There is no mention here of security measures, only of information held on certain individuals. These individuals do not have an opportunity to be heard. I find that incredible. You can try and make me go along with many things, but...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John A. Read: I believe the text in English is more specific than the text in French. The conclusion of the phrase is “examine the security measure and give the Minister a reasonable opportunity to make representations with respect to it.” The minister can make representation with respect to the security measure when the decision is being made. In French it does say “observations à ce sujet”, qui est plus vaste. I believe the meaning in English is quite clear and says exactly what we are intending, that the minister can only make a representation with respect to the security measure. The point is that the minister does not give the security measure to the tribunal, and he may also explain why it should be a restricted distribution. That's what the remainder of that paragraph is intended to say.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Could you tell me who appoints the Transportation Safety Board and the Aviation Tribunal?

Mrs. Sherill Besser: I would have to check, but I believe the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada members are appointed by Governor in Council. We will get back to you on that.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You don't think it's possibly the Minister of Transport and Governor in Council who appoint those members?

Mrs. Sherill Besser: I will get back to you on that.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: We now have the Minister of Transport, who has probably appointed the board members, going to that board to have them decide whether or not a certain measure is accurate. Does anybody honestly believe they would ever not support the Minister of Transport?

» (1715)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It happens all the time. That's very vicious.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It's not intended to be vicious. We started off hearing that there was an issue related to individuals having to know about security. Through the course of the conversation we're hearing that these are people who could be within the aviation industry. So we could have a situation where some pilot or some particular airline is told they can't do something because there's an issue related to security. They could lose their licence, and they don't have a right of ensuring that something specific is happening. I have no problem with the court's proceeding, it's hearing of all the other bodies involved that brings into question this item. I have faith in Canada's court system, but then you have “other body having jurisdiction”. Now we hear it's the Aviation Tribunal, the Transportation Safety Board, it applies to people within industry, and not having a right of recourse just doesn't seem acceptable.

Mrs. Sherill Besser: I want to go back to the principle. What you have here is someone who has requested that a document be produced in a particular situation. That person probably does it by motion, depending on the rules they're operating under, and will justify why they need it. What this subsection does is allow the minister to say, no, we cannot release it, if the minister can't release it for security reasons, in a confidential environment. Then the tribunal or the court has heard from both sides, from the person who has requested the production and from the minister, and it can determine whether or not the document should be released.

To answer another question of yours, I believe the Transportation Safety Board of Canada reports to the Privy Council.

The Chair: Are there other questions?

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

The Chair: We now go to BQ-9, which is consequential to BQ-12 on page 25 of the amendment package.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: You will find BQ-9 on page 18 of the package, Mr. Chairman.

We are calling for the addition, at the beginning of the proposed section 4.81, of paragraph (0.1) which would consist of a definition of “transportation security”. This definition currently appears in the proposed section 4.82. The proposed section 4.81 refers to transportation security and, as a number of witnesses have recommended, we would like to include a definition of “transportation security” at this particular juncture.

[English]

The Chair: Is there further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chair: The next item of business is BQ-10, which is consequential to amendments BQ-11 and BQ-16.

[English]

Ms. Baldwin has a comment. Please go ahead.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: BQ-10 is consequential to BQ-11 and BQ-16. However, we have a line conflict. BQ-16 has a conflict with BQ-15. I think perhaps they were intending to present two different schemes. The easiest way to proceed at this point would be to look at BQ-15 first and for the committee to decide whether they want that or not, recognizing that they can either have BQ-10 with BQ-11 and BQ-16 or BQ-15, they can't have both. So I'm suggesting we go to BQ-15 first, and then come back to BQ-10.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But would that mean that it's consequential in the reverse, so that if we were to defeat or support BQ-15, it would then apply to the others?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: No, BQ-15 is entirely separate. The consequential ones are only BQ-10, BQ-11, and BQ-16. BQ-15 is separate from that group of consequential ones. The reason we're looking at it before we do BQ-10 is that there is a line conflict. When there's a line conflict in the bill, you can only agree to one amendment or the other, though in unusual circumstances you may also be able to move one as a subamendment of the other. In this case I think we've got two separate motions.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: All right. I'm glad you understand it.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Chair, now that we've removed the two-day ruling on amendments, is it not possible to just adjust that line if one amendment passes and the line has to be changed?

» (1720)

The Chair: Ms. Baldwin.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: You can only amend a line in a bill once. This is because if you start amending the same line two or three times, you are almost guaranteed to end up with a very incoherent bill.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: We won't make the change more than once, so I don't know what the problem is.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Then I'm sorry, I fail to understand your question.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: If the line can only be changed once, where is it suggested that it's going to be changed more than once? If the amendment is made, are you saying it can't be changed at all?

The Clerk: It's if you have two different amendments applying to the same line. We're saying you can amend it only once, because if you vote, let's say, for the first amendment, you cannot vote for the second one.

The Chair: Let's follow the guidance of our legislative clerk here.

[Translation]

Mr. Laframboise, you're supposed to be presenting BQ-15 which is on page 35 of the amendment package.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: The following is noted on page 15 of the bill:

(14) Information provided under subsection (4) or (5), and any such information obtained under subsection (6), must be destroyed within seven days after it is provided or obtained...

We propose the following amendment:

(4) or (5), and such information obtained under subsection (6), and any information disclosed under paragraph 4.81(3)(d), must be destroyed within twenty-four hours after the landing of the aircraft in respect of which the information is provided, obtained or disclosed, unless it is reasonably required for

The purpose of the amendment is therefore to substitute “within twenty-four hours after the landing of the aircraft” for “within seven days”.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I just wanted to ask if you considered BQ-16 to be consequential. They're very similar.

The Chair: No, there's a line conflict with the others.

Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: The government objects to amendment BQ-15 on the grounds that it is highly impractical. The seven-day period provided for in the bill is already the minimum amount of time required by the RCMP and CSIS to conduct the necessary investigations to determine whether the information should be retained any longer or not. Given the current capabilities of the RCMP and of CSIS, 24 hours would not allow enough time to make proper use of the information obtained.

In light of the objections raised by several witnesses who testified before the committee, the government has reconsidered on several occasions the length of time during which information should be retained. Seven days is really the minimum length of time. Therefore, we oppose shortening the period of time to 24 hours.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: The proposed amendment stems from our desire to safeguard the interests of travellers and of the public. Once the aircraft has landed, why would documents be kept any longer than necessary? We are concerned about the safety of the men and women who were passengers on the aircraft. We feel that this information should be retained no longer than 24 hours, that is no longer than one day after the landing of the aircraft. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the passengers. The bill mentions “within seven days after is it provided or obtained”. Theoretically, that means that an incident could occur right in the middle of a vacation because somewhere, someone has information about a person.

If the objective is to intercept a person, then quick action is warranted. Preferably, the individual should be apprehended before he boards the aircraft. Information about that individual could be retained for a maximum of 24 hours after the landing of the aircraft. All passengers would thus be assured that information would not be retained for any undue length of time, that they could continue their vacation without any worries and that no one will be investigating them during this time.

Our purpose in introducing this amendment is to ensure the transparency of the process and respect for individuals. If information can be retained for seven days after it is provided or obtained, a person could be under investigation for the entire length of time he is on vacation or could even have his vacation cut short.

We're proposing that information be destroyed within 24 hours after the landing of the aircraft, out of respect for individuals.

» (1725)

[English]

The Chair: Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I already explained that the government looked very closely at the recommendations made by a number of witnesses who suggested that the period of time for retaining information be reduced from seven days to 24 hours, or to a few days. According to all of the experts who are accustomed to handling large quantities of information, from a technical standpoint, seven days is the minimum amount of time required.

If there are no further comments, I will call the question on the amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm glad we're at least getting a chance to comment on it before the vote, so thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm of the impression that this bill was presented to us, through the Minister of Transport, as a transportation security bill, not as a way of taking information to track down everybody under the sun and see what they're doing. Numerous witnesses were concerned over the fact that this information was going to be kept for a lengthy period of time, therefore not addressing the issue of a transportation security bill. I would agree with my colleague that there's no reason for the retention of that information once that flight has ended. I think 24 hours is a reasonable amount of time to have that information kept, in case they want to get someone else who might have been on a plane or whatever. That seems fair enough, but I don't think we're dealing with transportation security if we're talking about retaining that information for a longer period of time.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I don't believe 24 hours is a reasonable amount of time for our officials. They get hits they may want to follow up, especially if you're looking at international flights or interjurisdictional issues. So I think seven days is a more reasonable amount of time.

The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

In addition to that, I think the innuendo that it's going to be a fishing session and has nothing to do with airport security is incorrect. It's clearly to do with air transportation security, and RCMP and CSIS have a role to play. Therefore, for RCMP and CSIS to have access to passenger information precisely in order to ensure national security and air transportation security I think is perfectly acceptable, and it's what Canadians want.

I believe my colleague, Mr. Mahoney, also has a couple of comments to make, if the chair so pleases.

The Chair: We'll give Monsieur Laframboise an opportunity first.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I'd like to clarify something, Mr. Chairman. A number of witnesses requested that the seven-day period be changed. When Ms. Jennings says that the committee heard from witnesses, these weren't the same people we heard from. Let's be clear. Many witnesses requested a change in this seven-day period.

I won't bother to list all of the people who requested an amendment, but I believe 24 hours is a reasonable amount of time. You have to remember that we're talking about 24 hours after the aircraft has landed, not 24 hours in total. Let's be clear about that. I know that people can find all kinds of reasons not to understand when they really don't want to understand. We're proposing that information be destroyed within 24 hours after the aircraft has landed to ensure that Canadians and Quebecers do not become the focus of unnecessary investigations. That's all.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just imagine the situation. First of all, this amendment refers to information that's collected under proposed subsections 4, 5, and 6. We're talking about the Commissioner of the RCMP, the Director of CSIS, and all the infrastructure both of those organizations imply. So imagine that one of them comes across some information they saw in a database hit three days ago, and they phone the RCMP to ask if they still have that information and hear, no, I had to destroy it 24 hours after I got it. Meanwhile something has gone awry or they don't have the data.

I understand the concerns. I don't mind telling you, giving the police more power makes me a little nervous too, because they tend to be militaristic in their outlook on things. So it's important that this be watched carefully. But it's totally unrealistic for us to expect that the relevant kind of information could be obtained within 24 hours of getting a hit. Whether or not seven days is too long I suppose is a subjective thing, but I personally think, as Mr. Lunn said, it's a reasonable timeframe, given the bureaucracies we're dealing with in all instances here.

» (1730)

The Chair: Mr. Moore.

Mr. James Moore: I agree that the seven days is more helpful than 24 hours. Further, as Mr. Lunn has mentioned there, not only is it a cross-jurisdictional thing, it could be a cross-technological problem, where you may need the elbow room. Seven days is entirely appropriate. Also, if you're looking at people who are coming into the country and perhaps then being engaged in some kind of untoward activity, if they land, they're on the ground, they do something unhealthy, and they go back to an airport, you have a second opportunity to get them, with the information ready to go. So I think the seven days is certainly more helpful.

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like clarification from Mr. Read, if it's possible, on the seven-day principle. When a passenger travels to Canada on April 8, say, seven days will take you to April 15. Then the person travels back on April 14. Do they have another seven days, so you have two opportunities within 14 days? Is that right?

Mr. John A. Read: Could I refer this to the Solicitor General?

Ms. Marian Harymann (Acting Director, Policing Policy Division, Department of the Solicitor General): What the RCMP and CSIS can do is make a specific request for passenger information from any particular flight in order to identify potential terrorists and other persons who pose risk to transportation security. Once they make that request, they then have a period of time to see whether the information on passengers matches any information contained in their data banks. That's when the seven-day retention period begins. If they don't get any matches, they can immediately purge that information. In order to deal with the great volume of passenger information, considering that there are about 70 million passenger movements per year, they need enough time to do the analysis. If, let's say, they request information 24 times in one week, that would mean they would have that time for each request to do the analysis.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: There is within the amendment as well “unless it is reasonably required for”, so it's not saying all information has to be destroyed. If there is a consideration that there might be some information, that can be kept, and that's within the amendment as well.

The Chair: Is there further discussion?

[Translation]

(Amendment negatived)

[English]

The Chair: On a point of order, Mr. Moore.

Mr. James Moore: I notice that this meeting was set to finish at 5:30. I know the vote went a little bit later. What's the status of this meeting now?

The Chair: The meeting will now adjourn for today, and we will reconvene three weeks from today, Tuesday, April 29.

We thank the officials.

Meeting adjourned.