Evidence of meeting #15 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was section.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Okay.
It's very clear what we have to do. We're going to continue the discussion on amendment BQ‑1. In the meantime, qualified and responsible people are distributing the motion, which has just been translated into French and printed in both languages. We can look at it after we finish discussing BQ‑1.
Would any members like to speak to BQ‑1?
Go ahead, Mr. Lawton.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I am happy to cede the floor to my colleague Mr. Au. I believe he has some concerns about clause 4.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Before Mr. Au, I had Madame DeBellefeuille on the list.
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, do you wish to speak to your amendment?
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Yes. I would like to remind committee members that the Privacy Commissioner clearly indicated in his testimony that such an amendment would improve Bill C‑12 by adding some clarifications that were missing. I'd like this amendment to have the support of committee members, because I have a great deal of respect for the commissioner's thoughts and work. I think it's reasonable to quickly adopt this amendment, which I think improves and clarifies the bill.
Mr. Chair, I suggest that we go to a vote.
Liberal
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I would like to be added to the speaking list.
Conservative
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
I'm happy to ask a few questions for clarification, because I think we are dealing with very serious business here when we do clause-by-clause consideration. Forgive me for speaking slowly because English is not my first language. I think Madame DeBellefeuille will be very happy, and the translators will be happy, too.
I also want to ask the presenters, when you answer my questions, to please give me examples and descriptive answers, because, in terms of learning style, I'm a concrete, sequential visual learner. I have to think in pictures, okay?
To begin with, I want to ask you to give me an example of how new proposed section 97.01 will be used. Give me a situation where the officer will request entry into a place. What kind of situation could that be?
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
I'll give you an illustrative example of what that could look like. Going back to the stolen vehicles issue specifically related to rail yards in southern Ontario, cars were being loaded into railcars and they were being put onto rail lines to be shipped directly to the port of Montreal in order to be exported.
This clause would allow us to have access to the goods that are being held by one of the rail operators, the transporters, in order to then exercise our existing examination authorities to check those railcars to see if they contain stolen vehicles. That would be an example of where we would use this in the context of a rail yard.
Conservative
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Then, on the contrary, can you give an example where the current provisions in the legislation could not apply to a situation that you have just mentioned?
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
Yes, right now, CBSA would not, under the current construct of the Customs Act, be able to necessarily access those goods or require the transporter to provide those goods for examination. That authority exists only for goods that are being imported, not for goods that are being exported. This is meant to close that gap so that we have both import and export access authorities for goods.
Conservative
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Thank you for the clarification.
Are you saying that the purpose of this provision is to give the officer the power to inspect?
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
The particular provisions in section 97 are about access to the goods. Section 99 in the Customs Act is around the authority to do that examination or inspection of the goods. So this is to be able to access the goods, and then they invoke section 99 in order to perform an examination. There are a number of different examination authorities that they can use. It's examination 99(1)(c) that specifically relates to examining goods for export.
Conservative
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
In that case you're saying that it's basically to examine and to inspect?
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
It supports the examination process, yes.
Conservative
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Okay.
In that case, why is this not being specific in these provisions? This is just to talk about the officer's request. Can you add that the request is to inspect and examine? What I want to do is I want you to specify the objective of this request.
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
It has to be read in conjunction with the examination authorities that are in section 99 of the Customs Act, which I unfortunately don't have in front of me now. We would need to have access to the goods first, and then once we have access to the goods, we'd be able to examine the goods. So the two provisions work together to make sure that we can appropriately perform the function of examining goods before they leave the country.
Conservative
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Are you saying that under this provision the only purpose of the request is limited to examination and inspection and not for other purposes?
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
These are drafted specifically to ensure that we have clear authorities to access goods that are being transported for export or that are being warehoused prior to their exportation.
Conservative
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Great.
In what form could the request be delivered? Could it be written or verbal?
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
Operationally speaking, there's a lot of engagement between warehouse operators and CBSA officers. Those would be either communicated in writing or they would be communicated orally as part of that regular ongoing engagement that the border services officers have with these officials. I'm not a frontline officer myself, but in discussions with operational colleagues, I know that that happens in both ways. There's often quite a tactical level of coordination that takes place between these types of operators and the border services officers who are delivering these services.
Conservative
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
In this case, when the request is made, is there any provision in the legislation to make sure that the respondent, the other party, understands the request?
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
There is not, to my knowledge, anything specifically in the legislation that's drafted that answers whether or not they understand the access request or that provision. It may be contained somewhere else in the legislation, I'm just not sure off the top of my head.
Conservative
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Would this not be a loophole if you make a request without making sure that the other party understands it?