Public Safety Committee on June 14th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Is there any further discussion?

Monsieur Arseneault.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Perhaps I could put the question to the persons responsible. Like my colleague, I wonder about the purpose of adding the words "or as otherwise authorized by law" or "s'il existe une autorité légitime."

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Wherrett.

[Jill Wherrett]

The wording in the legislation is consistent with what was negotiated and agreed to in the Land, Rail, Marine and Air Transport Preclearance Agreement, so it is consistent with the language in line with article VI, paragraph 23 of the agreement.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Is it paragraph 23?

Can you guide me? I'm there. Where exactly does it refer to “otherwise authorized by law”? Should I see it in paragraph 23?

[Jill Wherrett]

It's in paragraph 23(c).

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Okay. I see it. Would it be possible to give me a practical example? For security purposes between the United States and Canada, I can understand, but in which context is “otherwise authorized by law”?

[Jill Wherrett]

As outlined in the agreement and the legislation, the focus of this provision is border integrity and border security purposes, but there is that provision that allows it to be used for limited other purposes that are currently defined by law. Those may include some information sharing in relation to national security purposes. That would be the main example.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

You mean national security for Canada?

[Jill Wherrett]

Yes, it's information shared in terms of information that is collected by the U.S., so it would be national security broadly.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Okay.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 33 agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Clement, you'll be pleased that they redefined “Council” in your absence.

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

Well, glory be, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You were highly effective, even in your absence.

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

Usually I'm more effective in my absence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

No comment.

(On clause 34)

On clause 34, there are two amendments from the Green Party.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Starting with what you find at the very end of the seizure and forfeiture section, we would be amending lines 26 and 27. Right now it reads, under the concept of return or disposal of goods, “Subject to any regulations, a preclearance officer may...return any goods that they have seized or dispose of any goods that they have seized or accepted.”

My amendment also suggests that once goods have been seized, accepted, or disposed of, at that point in pre-clearance the officer “allow the traveller to enter the United States if there is no reason to further detain him or her."

Somebody might wonder, if you've seized goods, why you would let someone in. There are all sorts of reasons in a pre-clearance area that goods might be seized and destroyed that suggest no criminality or other offence. No law has been contravened by the person trying to cross into the United States, but we haven't made that clear.

I offer, as an example, somebody who's brought along some fruit from home and doesn't realize that the United States agricultural rules will not allow you to bring in that particular product. It's taken out of your luggage and it's destroyed, but it's not clear in this section as drafted that you can, with no further reason for detaining someone, take their goods and dispose of them, and then say, “Welcome to the United States. Continue on your way now that we have taken away the goods that we don't want entering the United States.”

That's the purpose of my amendment. I don't think I need to read it into the record. It's before you as Parti vert-7.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think it's the last line of that proposed amendment that's the important one. Depending on how you look at it, it either describes the U.S. pre-clearance process or it tries to supplant it. If it's the latter, we're not legislatively mandated to make a pre-clearance decision for the U.S. If it's simply descriptive of the U.S. process, “if there is no further reason to detain him or her”, that captures the entire process. I would think it's duplicative and should be left in U.S. hands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Damoff.

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

That mostly covered my point except that it should be left in U.S. hands. It has to be left in U.S. hands. They're making the decision on who can enter and who cannot. Is that not correct?

[Jill Wherrett]

That is correct.

Clause 34 speaks specifically to the seizure and forfeiture of goods, not the admissibility or detention of a traveller, so that's correct. These are two separate issues. The admissibility decisions remain a final decision by the U.S. in terms of who is admissible to their country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other comments or questions on PV-7?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'd like to add that these recommendations came from the Canadian Bar Association, which can be presumed a collectivity of practising lawyers with the ability to do statutory interpretation and have regard for the existing state of laws between the two nations. It's a clarifying amendment that does no harm.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We are on PV-8, also on clause 34. Is it of a similar vein?