Public Safety Committee on May 8th, 2017

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We're going to continue.

I was so excited to see our new MP here that I forgot to welcome our substitute analysts to the committee. Both Dominique and Tanya are away today, and they arranged to have substitutes. Lyne Casavant has been an analyst on this committee before, which is quite good for me because I remember her and she remembers me. Maxime, we don't know.

Welcome to Maxime Charron-Tousignant. Thank you for being here. It's a pretty easy gig today.

Thank you also to the officials for joining us. I don't believe there are any more presentations. You're here now for our questions.

Just to remind the committee who is here, we have from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the acting ADM, Jill Wherrett. From CBSA, we have the vice-president of the programs branch, Martin Bolduc; as well as deputy executive director and general counsel, Julie Watkinson. From the Department of Transport, we have Tom Oommen. From the Department of Justice, we have Erin McKey.

We are going to continue.

Monsieur Arseneault, you will get another round now.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon again, ladies and gentlemen.

Good afternoon, Mr. Oomen and Ms. McKey.

My questions will be somewhat technical.

I assume there is a practical way for an American officer, a preclearance officer on Canadian soil, to deal with a traveller who is opposed to a strip search. In airports, is there a way for travellers to find out what rights they have? Is a procedure in place? Is there an agreement between Canada and the United States in that regard?

[Jill Wherrett]

There are a couple of points to highlight. As Minister Goodale mentioned, U.S. officers will be trained in the procedures used by Canadian officers, in terms of the standards for detaining people for the purposes of a search, so there is training.

In terms of individuals who are being requested to undergo a search, they will be informed of their rights in terms of the right to seek legal counsel and the right to be taken before a senior officer. So yes, there is training and also information provided to the traveller.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

My question was mostly about the rights of travellers to be reminded that they are protected by the Charter and that they have the right to speak to a supervisor. If I understand correctly, training will ensure that officers will inform passengers of their rights. That is what I understand.

This fascinates and interests me. It is positive to learn that, according to the department's statistics, no traveller has complained about a strip search in the last 12 months. No one has complained about a strip search and there have been no problems at the checkpoints. Is that really the case?

[Jill Wherrett]

As for the specific figure that Minister Goodale mentioned, we had asked our colleagues at U.S. Customs and Border Protection and CBSA to look at their statistics for the last year, and there were no cases in the past year where U.S. Customs and Border Protection had asked CBSA to undertake a strip search. Of course, the only possible venue right now is for CBSA to undertake the search.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

That is really interesting.

The statistics are really for 12 months?

[Jill Wherrett]

Yes. That's correct.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

People often travel overseas, to other countries. The United States are not overseas, but they do not speak the same language as in French-speaking Canada. Are the officers required to make sure that all passengers can be served in Canada's two official languages, since they are still on Canadian soil? Have we arranged for a requirement like that?

[Jill Wherrett]

There are no specific provisions around that in terms of U.S. officers. The same provisions that apply currently in pre-clearance apply to the U.S. officers, so there is no requirement for them to provide services in a variety of languages.

Martin, could you speak to that, in terms of further detail on some of the practices?

[Martin Bolduc]

That practice is already in place. American officers are already active in a number of airports in Canada and they deal with passengers with limited bilingualism or who are unilingual francophones. That is one of the practices already in place. We have no knowledge of any incidents in terms of language.

When selecting officers, U.S. Customs and Border Protection gives priority to those who are able to converse in French. I have come across American officers stationed in Canada who were able to speak French.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have two and a half minutes.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I will use 30 seconds and then I will share the rest of my time with my colleague, Mr. Picard.

In practice, can a Canadian who enters the preclearance area immediately read a description of his rights, or something of the sort, in both official languages?

[Martin Bolduc]

All the signage in the American preclearance area is in both official languages, but American officers do not have to be bilingual.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I understand that.

I will yield the floor to my colleague.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

I will be brief. People who enter the preclearance area have the right to change their minds, to turn around and go home.

We have some concerns about the fact that American customs officers are still able to question those people. I recognize that they are still in Canada, but we wonder what rights they have and how they are protected in terms of the information they provide.

What happens with information that affects intelligence or privacy?

What information can the officers keep?

[Martin Bolduc]

Mr. Chair, I am going to let my colleague, Ms. Wherrett, answer that question, but first, I would like to give you a bit of background.

Today, people coming to a Canadian airport to get on an American flight first go to the airline ticket counter and provide their travel documents. The documents are

“swiped”—I don't have a better term for that.

The biographical data are captured by the airline, transferred to American customs and blended with the prior information on the travellers.

Second, travellers go to a screening point to get through security. Third, they go to an American officer. This decision is not taken lightly. People go through a number of steps before they get to an American officer.

I will let my colleague tell you about the ability to withdraw

[Jill Wherrett]

I'll just elaborate on that. As Minister Goodale stated, there are limited authorities in terms of questioning a traveller upon withdrawal. Again, it's to ascertain their identity and their reasons for withdrawing. The expectation is that there would be a limited set of questions. Those questions would be responded to, and in most cases the traveller would move on.

To add to what Martin said, most of us can picture the airline context, where it's quite controlled and people have already provided a great deal of information before they decide to withdraw. But the agreement and the bill were designed to deal with the other modes of travel as well, where you are dealing with a different kind of context—pre-clearance at a land border, for example. Again, it's to recognize these different situations and to ensure that a fairly minimal set of information can be obtained in order to alleviate concerns around probing the border for weaknesses.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Mr. Clement, you have seven minutes.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you.

I want to talk about cargo for a second. Obviously, this is an important aspect of cross-border trade. The bill, as I understand it, is not focused on that.

The prior, Conservative government established a pilot project for truck cargo pre-clearance at the Pacific Highway port of entry. I'm wondering if there are any plans to move forward with a broader rollout of that kind of initiative.

[Jill Wherrett]

As you mentioned, there was a cargo pre-clearance pilot under the beyond the border agreement. The initial testing phase was done in B.C., and there was a second phase in Ontario.

At this point, there are no specific sites identified for cargo pre-clearance. We are beginning to explore, within Canada and in discussions with U.S. colleagues, our objectives for cargo pre-clearance, some of the legal or procedural requirements, and specific sites where cargo pre-clearance may make sense. Ultimately, as with pre-clearance generally, it is driven by the economics of where it makes sense economically and where it's feasible in terms of border operations.

The short answer is that no specific sites have been identified yet.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

What's the next step on that? Is it identifying another site?

[Jill Wherrett]

The present Prime Minister committed last year to explore the terms and conditions for cargo pre-clearance and to explore possible pilots. That's what we are looking at right now with the U.S.