Thank you.
I am going to speak about our opposition to the changes about the right to withdraw. We don't believe that the changes in the new bill would allow a traveller in Canada to meaningfully withdraw. Right now, the worst that can happen if somebody doesn't answer questions is that they can be ordered to leave the area. They can withdraw at any time, and there is also a presumption in the act against suspicion if they're not answering questions. If they do answer questions, there is a requirement to answer them truthfully.
With the changes to the bill, travellers wishing to withdraw are now going to face a new set of questions about why they want to leave. While it's true that there is a limit that they cannot be unreasonably delayed, we do not believe that this is a sufficient limit. It is imprecise. Furthermore, our position is that if somebody is not free to go because they're being asked questions, they are being arbitrarily detained, even if the bill itself doesn't say that.
Section 9 of the charter guarantees the right not to be arbitrarily detained, and under Canadian law, investigative detention is permitted only when there is a reasonable suspicion that a particular individual is implicated in a criminal activity under investigation, and then only if absolutely necessary, for the minimal time possible.
This bill already provides grounds to detain somebody if there is suspicion of an offence. We have some concerns about that, which we speak about in our written submission. However, we believe that this power, in and of itself, is enough to protect border security. We are unaware of any evidence that would necessitate these changes and make people possibly be arbitrarily detained and coerced to give a statement in Canada.
We do have a number of recommendations about how to uphold the right to withdraw in the bill. One is to add a provision that reflects the current presumption against suspicion. That's in subsection 16(3) of the existing act. We'd like to see that in the bill. We'd also like to see a removal of the travellers' obligations to answer questions and to follow directions if they chose to withdraw.
We'd like to have the language adjusted in proposed section 32 so that U.S. pre-clearance officers are able to interfere with a traveller's right to withdraw from a pre-clearance area only if they suspect, on reasonable grounds, that the traveller has provided false or deceptive information or has obstructed an officer—which are the current powers they have—or has committed an offence under an act of Parliament in relation to their presence in the pre-clearance area and in their travel.
Thank you very much.