Public Safety Committee on May 8th, 2017

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Maybe this question is better suited for Transport Canada. Is there any study being done of whether or not the federal government will be at all involved in helping alleviate those costs for some of the airports that maybe think it's disappointing that Montreal and Toronto didn't have to pay them, but they're getting tapped in that sense?

[Tom Oommen]

Just to break it down, there are two fundamental kinds of costs. There's the infrastructure costs, and that's for building equipment and counters and that kind of stuff. All facilities have in the past paid for those, and all facilities in the future will continue to have to pay for those. Those have always been facilities-based.

Where the new agreement makes a distinction is between the existing airports that have had pre-clearance operations, and the new operations. There, in that case, it's for the new facilities. They also have to recover the cost of the U.S. CBP officers' time, so that's the difference.

Certainly, what's open to any facility that has an interest is to apply through the normal means to either federal or provincial authorities for various programs to pay for the infrastructure costs in particular. Normally, the way these things proceed is that the operating costs are covered through either putting it directly on passenger tickets, to a certain extent, or maybe recuperating it from other fees like parking fees, for instance. Operating costs are normally covered by facilities.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay.

Mr. Arseneault talked about official languages. When you travel to the United States, you understand that the reality is that they speak a different language, of course. Where that may become important is when a person leaves the preclearance area and then becomes subject to interrogation. A certain level of French is necessary to put them at their ease in the delicate situation they are now in, given that they perhaps left the preclearance area because they thought they were being treated inappropriately. Being interrogated by an American or Canadian customs officer is quite different from having a beer on the beach in Florida.

Are steps being taken to make sure that Canadians who speaks only French, or who prefer to speak in French, are comfortable in a more thorough interrogation when they leave the preclearance area?

[Jill Wherrett]

As Martin mentioned earlier, signage would be in both official languages, so travellers would be able to understand what their rights and obligations are in both official languages.

That takes us back to one of those factors in terms of the unreasonable delay and the discussion around that. There are a number of factors taken into consideration in making sure that the traveller is not detained for an unreasonable length of time, and one of them would be language barriers. That would be something, again, that CBP would need to look at in the withdrawal context.

As Martin said, as they look at the officers they bring to Canada, they do look at language, so that's something they'll need to look at in terms of ensuring capacity.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Is it possible to include that element in the bill specifically as one of the reasons for which a delay would no longer be reasonable, without contravening the agreement?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

A very short answer, please....

[Jill Wherrett]

It's certainly something we could look at in terms of factors that could be included.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much for being here.

As was mentioned, we were in Washington last week, and it was expressed to us how anxious they are that we deal with this legislation. Our process is much different from the American process in terms of passing legislation, the whole committee process, and the way things work here aren't completely understood there.

I did have a question when we were talking about the cost of pre-clearance because it was mentioned to us when we were there that Pearson has already requested additional pre-clearance. Would that be on a cost-recovery basis, the new officers at Pearson, or would that be covered under the old agreement?

[Jill Wherrett]

It would depend on the nature of the services being requested. Again, it's case by case in terms of those kinds of requests. They'd have to look if it's outside of normal pre-clearance operating hours, or if it's to reflect the growth in travellers that we spoke about earlier. It really does depend on the type of increase that's being requested.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

The way they spoke it was to deal with the growth in travellers, and they wanted to expand the size of the pre-clearance they had.

[Jill Wherrett]

I can't give you a precise answer to that because it does depend on the details of what's being requested, and ultimately there will be a discussion with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is something we'll be monitoring closely. It's ultimately a discussion between CBP and Pearson.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Going back to the education part of it, you've indicated that the Americans will receive training on our charter and legislation. Is that a one time training, or is it ongoing training that happens with these officials? Do they arrive on Canadian soil, get trained, and then away they go for however many years they're working here, or is there a program to provide ongoing training to them?

[Martin Bolduc]

The initial training would be provided by CBSA, but they would also be receiving training from CBP. Any officers who get a posting abroad receive training from CBP as to the country they're going to, and so on and so forth. If there were to be any significant changes to the operating environment, yes for sure, we would provide those updates in a regular fashion to U.S. officers.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

We don't provide ongoing training. It's a lot to absorb when you're starting a new position and understanding the nuances of our charter versus their—

[Martin Bolduc]

Agreed. That's probably the most significant difference between U.S. CBP and CBSA, the legislative and legal framework. As for normal procedures, there are a lot of similarities, but it's something we will look into, if needed.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm not worried so much about the procedure part of it as I am making sure they have knowledge of Canadian law, and the charter specifically. I don't think that's something that's legislated anyway.

[Martin Bolduc]

I think you make a good point. It's something we can include.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

That leads me to my next question. This is being governed by an agreement that has already been signed, so how much leeway do we have in amending this bill before us right now?

[Jill Wherrett]

That's a somewhat difficult question to answer. It would really depend on the nature of the amendment. That's simply the answer. There are certain things that are clearly spelled out in the agreement, so it would depend on the nature of the amendment proposed whether it was consistent with the agreement or not.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

As we work through this, I guess that would be a question I would have for the clerk later, as to how the process will work to make sure it.... How will we know what falls within the agreement and what doesn't?

I want to go back to the issue of having bilingual officers. We can't make the assumption that everyone who arrives at the airport is bilingual. They could speak only French. I suspect that already happens, except that there are going to be different rules in force now. What happens to that person who arrives at a pre-clearance destination speaking only French and they encounter an English-only American border services person?

[Martin Bolduc]

I cannot speak to the specifics of how a U.S. officer deals with that. I could explain how a CBSA officer would deal with that.

In interaction with a traveller, you want to make sure that there is an understanding. In those cases where we have somebody who presents himself or herself in front of us, who cannot speak either of our official languages, then we have translators available and have the ability to reach out to those people to make sure there is a clear understanding.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm talking specifically about someone who does speak one of our official languages and has a U.S. officer who doesn't speak French, so they don't have the right to withdraw any longer. It seems like it would be challenging communicating but could easily lead to a misunderstanding when there's a lack of being able to communicate in the same language.

Is there any ability to bring in a Canadian officer who does speak French to assist with that?

[Martin Bolduc]

I'm sure the U.S. officer would make sure there is somebody that could translate and that the traveller has an understanding of what's happening in the line of questioning. I think it's something we can look into discussing with U.S. authorities.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I only have about 30 seconds left, so I'm just going to say that recently I flew from Billy Bishop to New York. Of course, they don't have pre-clearance there. It had been a long time since I had actually flown having to go through customs on U.S. soil.

Of course, I'm in the same line as people who were coming from the Philippines and many other countries. I think it was an extended delay we had in New York going through customs compared with what we go through at Pearson. I'll leave it at that. That's my seven minutes.