Evidence of meeting #62 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreement.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
With respect to the marijuana legislation that the Government of Canada is pursuing, there have also been some concerns that because in the U.S. jurisdiction there's still a moral turpitude aspect to marijuana usage or marijuana conviction, this will still be an issue for Canadian travellers. Do you have any perspective on this issue?
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
The American situation is complicated because, of course, the federal government in the U.S. holds the view that marijuana is and should be illegal, whereas a number of states have legalized it, and several more had referenda at the time of the election last fall where they indicated that is the direction in which they intend to go. The American situation is complex, but border arrangements are under federal jurisdiction, and it is the federal view in the U.S. that would prevail at the border.
What people should appreciate, though, is that importing and exporting cannabis today is illegal, and it will remain illegal under the new regime. In that sense, crossing the border with marijuana is an offence now and it would remain an offence in the future.
Mr. Clement, just to finish the point you were raising earlier, I would invite members to look specifically in the proposed law at subclause 10(2) and clause 11, which articulate very clearly the legal frame that applies to officer conduct.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Minister, thank you for being here today.
I would like to reply to the comments about our amendment. I would venture to say that the statistics on the numbers of people turned back at the border is cold comfort for those who feel dehumanized because of the colour of their skin or because of their religion. That is what we mean by a climate of uncertainty. Whether you like it or not, there is a perception, and it is extremely problematic.
I would also like to come back to the substantial issue in the bill. There is a lot of talk about the increased powers of the officers if someone leaves the preclearance area. I would draw your attention to subclause 33(1), which mentions information obtained from a traveller after their withdrawal from the preclearance area. It also reads: “otherwise authorized by law”. That is a concern. I would like to describe a hypothetical situation. We don't like doing that in politics, but I think it is important in order to illustrate our concerns and then to hear what you have to say about the matter.
Imagine that the President of the United States issues an order—as he has suggested in some media—that would allow the electronic devices of all travellers to be searched. Canadian case law is relatively silent on the matter of the rights Canadians have when they are asked for their passwords.
Recently, a decision was made and it rather favours security services. It does not favour the privacy of Canadians. You tell us that we are protected by Canadian law. But courts of law have already determined that our rights under the Charter are taken away in part when we cross the border.
Is that “otherwise authorized by law”? Do we consider that the President is “otherwise authorized in law” when he issues a directive to his officers to obtain information, that is to say, directives that exceed the limits of what someone who decides to leave the preclearance area can be asked?
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
Mr. Dubé, first of all, I would make this point. If there are refinements, in the terms of the law, that the committee feels are appropriate, I hope members will bring those recommendations to my attention. As I said in the debate in the House, I am anxious to consider constructive ideas for improving the law. The constraint we have, of course, is the international agreement that already exists, and the legislation needs to be consistent with that agreement.
However, if there are ideas about where greater clarity is required, certainly bring those issues to my attention and we'll take a very serious look at whether they could be acceptable.
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
Can I just also make a point with respect to the departure from a withdrawal area? The behaviour of the officer needs to be reasonable. Again, that's why that word is there. If there is a pattern of behaviour that develops—and I've had this conversation with Secretary Kelly—that we find untoward.... We have no reason to believe that would happen, but if it does happen, then we obviously have the recourse of raising these sorts of concerns with—
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Minister, my time is limited. If we go back to subclause 33(1), if we're looking at it, it says, “except for the purpose of maintaining the security of or control over the border between Canada and the United States or as otherwise authorized by law.”
In that situation, who's deciding whether to share that information? If someone decides to leave the pre-clearance zone because they don't like the way they're being treated, I read that section and I see a situation where, if any information is available on that person and the U.S. agent deems that it's suspicious, then that information gets sent back to the U.S. government, because it says, “except for the purpose of maintaining the security of or control over the border”. They might deem that this is exactly the case, even if we would not.
Jill Wherrett Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
As laid out in the legislation and the agreement, officers are limited. They can ask the person for their identity and their reasons for withdrawing.
Regarding the circumstances for the purposes of maintaining security of the border, an example might be if during the course of questioning a traveller were to provide false identity documents and upon the traveller's withdrawal the officer were to determine that the traveller was “border probing” in an attempt to find weaknesses that could be leveraged to carry out terrorist incidents. The biometrics captured prior to their request for withdrawal could be used in order to identify the traveller.
That's the reason for that type of wording—to maintain the security of the border.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you.
I want to go on to the question of firearms. We've talked a lot about MOUs, the memorandums of understanding, but those actually, as far as I understand, have no legal power. When we look at the text of the bill itself, what is preventing, in a designated zone, a designated U.S. agent from bearing a firearm? You've mentioned reciprocity and the MOUs, but there's no legal power there that can be enforced, is there?
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
There is nothing either in the agreement or the legislation. There is no power or authority or right or privilege conferred on an officer of one country that is not equally conferred on the officer of the other country.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
If we take Pearson airport, you've said that the principles of reciprocity being what they are, CBSA doesn't bear arms at Pearson because the police—
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
Or at any other airport when they're dealing with passengers....
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
What in the bill prevents an American agent in the appropriate designated zone from bearing arms?
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
But the exemption to the Criminal Code is in this bill. They're allowed in the designated zone to—
Martin Bolduc Vice-President, Programs Branch, Canada Border Services Agency
May I?
