Public Safety Committee on June 12th, 2017

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

I think you understand why I'm asking the question too, though.

[Malcolm Brown]

I do.

As a general rule, the community assesses this. Each member of the community—we don't keep track of it—will obviously be interested in what their colleagues are doing in other countries.

It may or may not be determinative, though. Just as there are examples of cases where Canada has made a decision with regard to an investment, similar investments in other countries have not had a similar treatment.

It is very case specific, and time has an impact as well, because, in general, you are often dealing with technology. What was an issue a number of years ago might no longer be an issue.

Each case is examined very carefully on its merits, and, as a former minister of industry, I know you're very familiar with the process.

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

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

About half a minute.

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

In half a minute, just to take another general case, which was the takeover of ITF Technologies by O-Net, in 2015 the CSIS report said:

If the technology is transferred, China would be able to domestically-produce advanced-military laser technology to Western standards sooner than would otherwise be the case, which diminishes Canadian and allied military advantages....

Yet that report was overturned. Generally speaking, would the overturning of something like that be at the GIC level?

[Malcolm Brown]

I'll have to check my memory to be absolutely precise, Mr. Clement, but I believe that particular case was a subject of extensive litigation and was overturned. The investment was allowed to proceed, but with conditions, and the conditions are I think clear to the investor.

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

The conditions wouldn't come from you, though? Would that be another part of the process?

[Malcolm Brown]

Well, it's an elaborate back-and-forth, and the community will make recommendations to the Governor in Council.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

That's it.

Monsieur Dubé, you'll have eight minutes, by the way, just to balance the parties.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, thank you everyone for being here.

My first question is for the Canada Border Services Agency representatives. I want to address the issue raised by the Auditor General regarding imported goods. We're talking about supply managed products for which there's a $168 million shortfall. According to the recommendations, financial resources may be needed.

What stage are you at in this regard? If there are any needs, what are they?

[Tina Namiesniowski]

Mr. Chair, I'll try to answer this question.

If I understood correctly, the question is whether we need to increase our resources when it comes to our ability to provide support for the supply management system.

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

I'm talking about imported goods, tariffs, and so on.

[Tina Namiesniowski]

At this point, we don't think so. It's part of our mandate. Like the other government entities, the agency's mandate is to support the government's priorities. This includes the supply management system. Therefore, CBSA plays a role with regard to

goods that are imported into the country.

With respect to the specific reference that was included in the recent report of the Auditor General, I think there was also an appearance of our president before the public accounts committee in relation to customs duties. I think we have a commitment to look at it in working with our other partners who are involved in offering import certificates for the importation of goods that could fall within the supply management category. We are working to examine the content of the Auditor General's report to see what more we might be able to do in the context of collecting duties that may be owing, in relation to the findings of his report.

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

Thank you.

To date, we haven't heard a concrete answer to my next question. In the context of Bill C-23, the issue of training for American officers was raised. The department said that, for example, your agency could handle part of the training for American officers to make sure they comply with Canadian laws. There was even talk of certain social and cultural issues that could be raised with regard to their work.

Will this require additional resources? Given the fairly significant expansion of the customs preclearance program, are you able to accomplish this task?

[Tina Namiesniowski]

I don't know whether—

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

Maybe Mr. Brown could—

[Malcolm Brown]

I could elaborate on this.

Generally, the Canada Border Services Agency employees and their American counterparts work very well together.

There's no question that there is a very close relationship. That said, each organization is responsible under the Preclearance Act for the training of each of their employees. There's no question that in these pre-clearance environments—and on this I may ask Tina to comment—there's extensive back and forth and collaboration.

In order to provide the kind of response you'd be looking for, I think we'd need more precision on exactly what you mean in terms of the certain kinds of training.

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

If I could just back up a bit to part of what you said, I suppose part of what's been fairly unclear, at least in my mind, is what kind of training will be given to American agents, and by whom. What I'm understanding from your comments, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the Americans would be responsible for training their own agents. But is that even with regard to compliance with Canadian law?

[Malcolm Brown]

I think there are a couple of questions there.

We would expect, if we were to operate in a pre-clearance environment in the U.S., to be responsible for training our officers, by which I mean CBSA officers. I used to work there, so I say “our” sometimes, although I shouldn't anymore. CBSA will want to be responsible for training their officers and making sure that their officers are sufficiently up to speed and trained in terms of the interplay of American and Canadian law in a pre-clearance environment. I'm absolutely confident that it's exactly the same perspective that CBP is taking in terms of the pre-clearance facilities.

At the end of the day, however, while there are protections for Canadians travelling in a pre-clearance environment that are different than if you were to travel and cross the border into the U.S. and try to—

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

I don't mean to cut you off. I'm just running into the end of my last minute.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You have two minutes left.

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

Oh, okay. Thank you.

Perhaps I can add just a little more precision to my question. If CBSA is doing any kind of formal training, which I still am a bit unclear on, are the resources there, especially in the context of the estimates, and are you able to offer something robust to our American friends in the context of that kind of program?

[Malcolm Brown]

You're asking a question that crosses two conversations. CBSA will have to answer the question about whether they have adequate resources for training. In the context of pre-clearance, there is no special allocation associated with training U.S. officers by CBSA officers.

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

All right. Thank you.

[Malcolm Brown]

Is that the technical question you're asking?