Evidence of meeting #68 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 waters.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Bob Runciman  Senator
Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère  Director General, Traveller Programs Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
Madona Radi  Director, Program and Policy Management Division, Canada Border Services Agency

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)) Liberal Rob Oliphant

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 68 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 18, 2017, we are considering Bill S-233, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (presentation and reporting requirements).

We welcome Senator Runciman, the author of the bill in the Senate, and Mr. Brown, the sponsor of the bill in the House of Commons. It's a privilege to have you with us.

We'll begin with the committee having a chance to discuss the bill with its mover and its sponsor. My hope is that we get to clause-by-clause today and do a full consideration of the bill in one meeting.

We will begin with Senator Runciman. Each of the presenters will have 10 minutes, if you so desire, to explain the bill to our committee members.

3:30 p.m.

Senator Bob Runciman Senator

Mr. Chair, it's an honour and a privilege for me to appear before this committee. I want to thank you for the invitation. I'm pleased to appear alongside my long-time friend, Gord Brown, on the bill, because this is a file we've worked together on for a number of years.

The bill, which amends the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, is the result of significant consultation and co-operation with Minister Goodale's office and the Canada Border Services Agency. I want to thank them for their help, and in particular, thank the minister for supporting this legislation.

Amendments suggested by CBSA and passed in the Senate have, in my view, made the bill simpler and more cohesive, and will strengthen border security.

Bill S-233 was introduced to deal with an overly bureaucratic requirement for boaters who cross from the United States into Canadian waters, but who do not land, anchor, or moor. Right now, occupants of a boat on a direct route from one place outside Canada to another place outside Canada do not have to report to Canada Border Services Agency when they cross into Canadian waters. Someone out fishing or pleasure cruising and who crosses into Canadian waters is required to report, even if they have no intention of stopping or coming to shore.

We have two sets of rules, depending on whether you are travelling directly from one place to another, or travelling in a loop by starting and finishing in the same place. The absurdity of the current reporting requirements became obvious approximately six years ago, when a fisherman from New York State was charged with failing to report to CBSA while drift fishing in the Thousand Islands area of the St. Lawrence River. He was threatened with the seizure of his boat unless he paid a $1,000 fine on the spot. Then he was driven to the border and had to phone relatives or friends to pick him up at the customs station on the Thousand Islands Bridge.

I have to tell you, as Gord and I both know, this caused an uproar on both sides of the border and has damaged cross-border relations. Although I don't agree with the approach that was taken in this case, I don't deny that the officers followed the letter of the law as it's currently written in the Customs Act.

That's why I introduced this bill, to bring Canadian law into line with the practice followed by United States officials, and to impose similar rules for those travelling directly from one place to another and those who might be just out sightseeing or fishing.

The current rules are confusing for both Canadians and Americans. Their enforcement in that infamous 2011 incident put a chill on relations between our two great countries and damaged the economy of the tourism-dependent region in which Gord and I live, the Thousand Islands.

Let me give you an example. According to Gary DeYoung, who is the director of tourism of the 1000 Islands International Tourism Council, the number of short-term and non-resident fishing licences sold by vendors in New York State's St. Lawrence and Jefferson counties—and these are the types of licences sold to tourists—was more than 18,000 in 2010, but dropped to less than 11,000 in 2015.

In the Thousand Islands area, the border isn't marked, and it zigzags around some 1,864 islands. It's not always possible to tell which country you're in, and a requirement to report to customs immediately after entering Canadian waters, if you have no intention of stopping or coming ashore, is impractical to say the least. Rather than risk arrests for unwittingly crossing the border, some tourists have decided to just stay away.

My area is not unique. The border intersects a number of other rivers and lakes across Canada.

My goal was to bring some common sense to the reporting requirements, but I knew that it was vitally important not to jeopardize border security while doing that. In my view, Bill S-233 finds the right balance between freedom of movement and security.

Clause 2 of the bill amends subsection 11(5) of the Customs Act to exempt boaters who cross into Canadian waters from reporting to customs as long as they do not land, anchor, moor, or make contact with another conveyance. In addition, they must remain continuously on board the conveyance while in Canada. This clause will offer a similar exemption from reporting to CBSA for Canadian boaters who leave and then re-enter Canadian waters, as long as they remain continuously on board while outside Canada, and the boat did not land, anchor, moor, or make contact with another conveyance while outside the country.

Clause 3 of the bill amends subsection 12(5) of the Customs Act to apply the same rules to goods on board a conveyance. However, and this is an important element for anyone concerned about security, Canada Border Services Agency officers have the authority to require reporting in individual cases, both under the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This discretionary or residual power to require reporting when necessary is important to allow border services to fulfill their mandates and to maintain border integrity. For example, it will allow officers to require exempted persons to answer immigration questions.

When I introduced this bill, I recognized that adding an exemption to reporting required safeguards. That's why I included the provision that the exemption applied only if the boat did not anchor, moor, or make contact with another conveyance. As a result of an amendment at committee, those safeguards now have been extended to direct “point A to point B” travel, as well as to what are known as the loop movements, which I described earlier, when a boater is just out for a ride and starting and finishing from the same spot.

This not only strengthens border security, because direct travel faced no such restrictions before, but it also simplifies reporting requirements. Whether you're taking the shortest route between two destinations or whether you are fishing or pleasure cruising, you don't need to report unless, again, you anchor, moor, or land, or unless an officer makes a demand. The exemption would apply equally to an American entering Canadian waters or a Canadian re-entering Canadian waters, and it applies both to persons and to goods. The exemption is extended to include international waters, another element that was not in my original draft, but was added at the request of CBSA. This will solve a problem on the east and west coasts by eliminating reporting requirements for whale watchers who leave from Canada, enter international waters, and then return to Canadian waters.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I realize this legislation has no impact on many Canadians, but for folks in Gord's region and my region of Ontario, who share the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario with our American friends—I should say all the Great Lakes—it has a profound impact on lives and livelihoods. On their behalf, I ask for your support for Bill S-233 and encourage its speedy passage.

Thank you very much.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Brown.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Mr. Chairman, I would like to first thank the committee for moving this meeting up. I think it came very quickly. As many of you know, the House passed this bill a week or so ago, on a voice vote at second reading. A number of members spoke, including me, the member for Essex, and the member for Tobique-Mactaquac. It passed in less than an hour.

Thank you for the opportunity and the invitation to be a witness here today and to speak to this bill. I, in fact, had a parallel bill which I introduced in the House of Commons as a private member's bill, and Senator Runciman introduced this bill in the Senate at about the same time. He was able to move it through the Senate more quickly than I was able to move mine through the House, because we all know how one gets a private member's bill on to the order of precedence.

We were very happy that this went through the Senate very quickly. In fact, I attended as a witness over there a number of months ago.

I would like to briefly focus on my reasons for supporting this bill.

This bill will allow pleasure boaters from the U.S. to transit Canadian waters without checking in with the Canada Border Services Agency, if they do not stop or plan to anchor. It also amends other regulations, but from my perspective, this is the most important. Currently, boaters who cross the border on the river, where there are no markings to show that they have crossed the border, must report to CBSA.

Regardless of your political leanings, we all share the goal of promoting the best interests of the Canadian people and ensuring we put forward a positive image on the world stage. The bill at hand promotes tourism, updates Canadian laws, and protects the human rights of our American neighbours.

Our country has a proud history of protecting not only the rights of our own citizens but those of anyone who crosses our borders. Certain charter provisions even go so far as to extend constitutionally enshrined protection to everyone, including boaters who harmlessly drift or cross into our territory. Most important, these include the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person; the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure; and the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, including the excessive use or abuse of force by law enforcement officials. You don't need to look far to find examples of where the current legislation has caused violations of these rules.

Senator Runciman referred to the case of Roy Anderson. Mr. Anderson, an American citizen, was searched, severely fined, and detained in a humiliating fashion for breaking laws he never knew existed, even though he had fished in Canadian waters all his life. In this particular case, he in fact had an Ontario fishing licence to fish in Canadian waters. What's worse, actually, is that all this occurred after CBSA officials determined that he did not have a criminal purpose, that he was just fishing.

While the Simmons decision at the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged our right to control who and what crosses our boundaries, it does not excuse the treatment some have received. Canada has long abided by the notion that a guilty verdict requires both a guilty action and a guilty mind. It is impossible to justify threatening, physically restraining, and fining individuals for laws that they were not even aware existed.

As a progressive nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that we change laws like these, which have become outdated, ineffective, and discriminatory. While current legislation might have had an important purpose in the days of prohibition, that is no longer the case. Those who are aware of the laws are required to report to the CBSA without delay. They are allowed to do so by phone or in person at one of the border security checkpoints. While this may not seem like a particularly onerous request, it is often much more difficult than it seems. Cellphone signals, especially on the water, are often unreliable. In the case of the Thousand Islands, where the Canada-U.S. border intersects, many Canadian cellphone users are caught up in accessing AT&T, or other U.S. providers. Sometimes this is difficult to do.

Beyond this, the only other option available to foreign citizens, is to physically check in with CBSA. This can be done at one of their checkpoints, which often exist at locations which are not accommodating to those who wish to visit our waters. Physical reporting often involves U.S. citizens boating a great distance out of their way to check in, then returning to their intended trip. The check-in can often cause a lengthy delay. It is costly in both time and money, and some have even reported having to spend multiple hours in order to meet this requirement.

Unfortunately, it has caused a number of our visitors to conclude that cruising through Canadian waters is simply not worth the hassle. This is a troubling conclusion given the importance of the tourism industry in Canada. While boaters who are simply transiting Canadian waters are not essentially tourists, they easily become tourists when they decide to stop to check out a restaurant or marina that they may have seen on shore.

The success of international tourism is largely based on the effect of marketing the destination services and experiences that a country has to offer, and first impressions matter. We must work hard to ensure that our laws do us justice on the world stage. Canada tries to maintain the reputation of being welcoming, fair, and trusting toward our friends in the United States and, in fact, across the world. That reputation, coupled with our many beautiful destinations, such as the Thousand Islands, has helped us grow a tourism industry we can be proud of and should aim to protect.

In fact, the UN World Tourism Organization estimates that the number of international tourists will reach 1.6 billion by the year 2020. This is a promising prediction, given that 1.7 million Canadians rely on the tourism sector for employment, according to 2012 statistics.

These statistics show that these positions are often held by demographics which have historically had difficulty in seeking and maintaining employment. In 2012, more than half were occupied by women, 22% were occupied by immigrants, and 589,000 jobs were occupied by youths, ages 15 to 24, accounting for more than one-third of youth employment in Canada. Tourism not only provides jobs to Canadian citizens, but also promotes the growth of communities through its support of small businesses.

In fact, approximately 98% of Canada's tourism industry is made up of small and medium-sized businesses that rely on the patronage of international travellers to keep their doors open. Beyond these direct benefits to Canadian citizens, the tourism industry also generated $21.4 billion in tax revenues in 2011.

In order for Canada to reap these benefits, we must be perceived as a valuable destination and must demonstrate that we can offer more than a cheap vacation. This means teaching our history, sharing our culture, and being seen as a friendly and welcoming destination.

Although it's our closest neighbour, these messages seem lost on the United States. The Canadian Tourism Commission's 2014 U.S. summary report found that relatively few visitors from the United States would recommend visiting Canada on vacation. These travellers cited poor perceptions of Canada based on what they had heard from friends, family, and the media. Stories of American boaters being detained, fined, and forced to lie on the decks of their vessels have caused bad press in the United States. News stories discourage travel near our water borders due to unclear regulations, severe punishments, and prohibitively difficult check-in requirements.

What's worse is that some articles even state that our outrageous regulations indicate that we do not want American visitors at all. This is not the message that Canada should be sending. We need to modernize our legislation to ensure that our image is positive, inviting, and reflective of Canadian values, not only for our own citizens, but for anyone who happens to pay us a visit.

Briefly, on another note, it has been pointed out that it is really a waste of CBSA's resources to be checking every boat that is merely transiting our waters. This bill also clears up regulations for air travel and will help the whale-watching industry where currently those leaving Canadian waters and returning without getting off the boat have to check in with the CBSA.

My primary focus, as I have explained before, is on the effects on my region along the St. Lawrence River. In debate at second reading in the House, we heard from members from along the St. Clair River and from along the main New Brunswick border. We have similar issues up in northern Ontario and on the west coast of Canada, so I encourage the committee to move this along to the House. There is a great hope and anticipation, I know, among the folks in my riding that we could see this through the House of Commons and through third reading before the boating season gets into full swing this summer.

Thank you very much.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

With a little co-operation from the other side, I'm sure we can. It's our job to move the agenda along.

Mr. Picard will start the first round of questions. You have seven minutes.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Senator, Mr. Brown, thank you very much for your visit and for introducing a bill that I think is quite interesting.

I would like to say something first. I don't think that when customs border officers apply the act and impose fines in the course of their work, they intend to humiliate people who report to customs. I understand the frustration that some travellers have.

You said that it's important not to send the wrong message and, in my opinion, the approach should also include sending a message of flexibility and rigour in the application of the legislation. In the past, this was recognized in customs officers, and it's still recognized today.

That said, given the frustration that seems obvious to me when people travel, I would like you to deepen your thinking and reassure us about certain aspects, to avoid grey areas and something falling between the cracks.

How will the back and forth of boaters and anglers be managed? During their trips, they don't anchor or land on the other side, at a fixed point; some bodies of water are still quite large. How are we going to prevent them from coming into contact with people and jeopardizing our borders? We think of illegal immigration, trafficking, smuggling, or any other activity covered under the act.

How can this bill reassure the committee on control measures, both commercially and with respect to security?

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Thank you very much for that question.

First of all, I think there was something that I don't think we brought forward in our presentation. It was that this will harmonize regulation with the United States. Currently, this bill brings in the same regime that is in place for a Canadian boater who goes into U.S. waters and does not land or anchor. This is just harmonization. Over the last number of years, the Government of Canada has worked closely with the United States on the Beyond the Border initiative and harmonization of regulations, attempting to work closely with our U.S. neighbours.

In terms of dealing with potential criminal activity, this in no way precludes our law enforcement from being able to take whatever action they deem necessary to ensure that things that potentially are criminal don't happen. This in no way takes away any enforcement rights of CBSA or the RCMP or any other law enforcement agency.

3:55 p.m.

Bob Runciman

I'm sorry, I missed your question while unravelling the earpiece. I gather you're talking about security issues.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Allow me to summarize, then. The concern is about how we control the uncontrolled back-and-forth trips for those cases in which they might have been in contact with someone who is smuggling something. Those types of activities would exist. You present yourself voluntarily at the border, and now, with this, you don't have to. How, therefore, do we explain to Canadians that there are certain controls applicable, regardless of the fact that they don't present themselves to the customs office?

3:55 p.m.

Bob Runciman

In the case of Canadians, the practice.... Both of us have grown up in the Thousand Islands, and there has never been an understanding of a requirement for Canadians...although the current law places the same requirement on Canadians who enter American waters and then come back into Canadian waters. We haven't bumped into a situation in which a Canadian boater has been confronted like the American fisherman whom we were both referring to earlier.

If you look at the amendment that was proposed by CBSA with respect to the residual power for CBSA officials to confront, they retain that power. If they stop you to ask you a particular question about immigration, for example, that's fine; they retain the power to do that. You, however, are not committing an offence, and currently you would be committing an offence by simply not reporting. We're removing that reporting obligation, but they retain the ability and authority to stop individuals.

Also, we had through CBSA and the Ministry of Public Safety an indication that the RCMP have no concerns with respect to the implications of this legislation in terms of any security issues that might arise.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Mr. Chair, that will be the only question I will ask. Thank you.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Mr. Arseneault, you have a minute and thirty seconds left.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

I'll be brief, then.

Mr. Senator, Mr. Brown, thank you for being with us.

The way I understand it, the purpose of this bill is to make the life of boaters a little easier.

So we're talking about people who make a return trip by boat, don't set foot on land, don't anchor and don't moor. Perhaps I'm nitpicking by raising this issue, but some boaters dock. To return, they can wait until the rising tide unhooks the boat. Basically, these situations don't seem to have been anticipated.

Does that concern you?

Every aspect has been covered except that one. Mooring has been covered, meaning, attaching the boat to a mooring buoy, dropping anchor, and cases where people cross the border—on the water—but not docking.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Thank you for the question.

Any one who lands on Canadian land must report. This does not change that.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

What I mean is that boaters can dock without landing.

You can beach your boat right there and wait for something from somebody else on the ground—on land—and just put the reverse....

3:55 p.m.

Bob Runciman

My interpretation was that even if your conveyance touches land, you're required to report. It's not a question of trying to find a loophole here. I don't think there is a loophole in that respect.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

I would like you to reassure me.

How can I be certain that your interpretation corresponds exactly to what is in the bill?

3:55 p.m.

Bob Runciman

Well, I personally have been comforted by the assurances of the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP.

I have to tell you, I was surprised when I introduced this legislation that we were approached by the minister's office and by CBSA. They liked the intent of this legislation, because they were on the receiving end of a lot of the furor a few years ago, and this gave a way out, if you will, an answer to that concern.

Also, they worked extensively with us. For a significant portion of this bill I'm being credited with authorship, but I have to say that really, the authorship to a significant degree was from the government and from CBSA and the Department of Public Safety. They feel comfortable with respect to the language here, and I accept the comfort level of the experts in this area, so I've been assured about it myself.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you, Senator.

I should have welcomed Mr. Oliver on his joining our committee.

Welcome to you and Ms. McLeod.

Mr. Clement.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I welcome the newcomers too. It's a very friendly committee.

I'm in favour of this piece of legislation, Chair. I want to state that for the record. I have a couple of questions, picayune ones perhaps, but I just want to make sure I understand exactly how this works in practice.

One of the requirements is that the boater remain on board. I have a lot of boaters in Parry Sound—Muskoka, with 8,000 lakes and a great river, so we share some things on this. People are always wake-boarding and waterskiing. How does that work? Does that still count as being on board because you're tethered to the boat, or the minute you wake-board for a few minutes, does that mean you have to check in?

4 p.m.

Bob Runciman

It's not my understanding, if you're not anchoring or mooring or doing what they call rafting—I think you're familiar with that from the lake areas as well. As long as you're not putting down an anchor or tying up to some mooring spot in the river, you can conduct those kinds of activities.

I know there are areas where you have very calm water, for example, outside Rockport, Ontario, between islands, where many people like to do what you're suggesting. As long as they're not, for whatever reason, putting down an anchor or tying up to another conveyance, they won't be in violation.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Okay.

The second question relates to anchoring, because as an angler myself, sometimes when you're fishing you do lay an anchor to keep the boat in the same secret fishing zone, which I cannot reveal to this committee.

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

4 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Does that constitute anchoring, if you're anchoring for the purpose of angling?

4 p.m.

Bob Runciman

Sure.