Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue No. 13 - Evidence - Meeting of April 3, 2017
OTTAWA, Monday, April 3, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 1:02 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill S-233, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (presentation and reporting requirements).
Senator Daniel Lang (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence for Monday, April 3, 2017. My name is Dan Lang, senator for Yukon. On my immediate left is the clerk of the committee, Adam Thompson. I would now like to go around the table and ask each member to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Jaffer: My name is Mobina Jaffer, and I'm a senator from British Columbia. Welcome.
Senator Kenny: Colin Kenny, Ontario.
Senator Runciman: Senator Bob Runciman, Ontario.
Senator Mitchell: Grant Mitchell, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais, from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion, from Ontario.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator White: Vern White, Ontario.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
Senator Beyak: Lynn Beyak, Ontario.
The Chair: I would like to begin by outlining the business for today.
Today we are meeting to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill S-233, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (presentation and reporting requirements). This is a private member's bill, which the committee considered on Wednesday, February 8, 2017.
Colleagues, the sponsor of this bill is Senator Runciman of Ontario, who is here with us today to present the bill. I'm very pleased to say that we have witnesses from the Canada Border Services Agency, Ms. Radi, and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ms. Solesme. Welcome, and I understand you're here for the technical aspects of the bill.
Before we get into clause by clause, I would ask the sponsor to make some brief remarks and maybe answer any further questions. Following consideration of clause by clause, and if everything goes well and the bill moves out of committee, we will go in camera to consider our Defence Policy Review report.
Colleagues, let's start with Senator Runciman.
Senator Runciman: Thank you, chair and committee members. For those of you who were present when we presented the bill, following that presentation we were contacted by government officials who felt that there were a number of other amendments required to be approved by cabinet, which has since occurred.
They simplify the bill. Upon review, they provide consistency and reporting requirements for goods and persons, for both direct travel and loop movements. They ensure that the residual authority for the Canada Border Services Agency officers is similar under both the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
For clarification of direct travel, the current rule is if you're going from one place to another but you cross routes say at the Canadian border there was really no requirement. However, with loop travel, you could be in difficulty going in and out of the States.
As I mentioned at the original presentation to the committee, it has become quite a significant concern in the Thousand Islands area where it's difficult to distinguish where the border lies. A few years ago an American fisherman who was drift-fishing off of Rockport in the Thousand Islands was arrested, had his boat seized and was fined $1,000. He hadn't anchored, moored or tied up to another vessel.
The intent of my bringing forward this legislation was to have our rules, regulations and policies line up with those currently in existence in the United States. Americans coming into Canadian waters are currently under different rules, if you will, than Canadians entering into American waters and returning.
That was the end result, a significant one from my perspective with respect to this legislation.
The Chair: Senator Kenny, did you want to say something because you had some questions.
Senator Kenny: I had some general questions of our witnesses at the end of the table. I didn't have any questions for Senator Runciman.
The Chair: With the indulgence of the committee, we have a number of amendments that have been brought forward. Senator Runciman, before we distribute the amendments, could you perhaps tell us the essence of what occurred since we last dealt with the bill to where we are now?
Senator Kenny: You should also read them into the record, chair.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Runciman: As I indicated, there has been extensive work with the government, with officials for the Canada Border Services Agency. They've gone through the cabinet process and upon receipt also worked with the Office of the Law Clerk of the Senate to refine the language modestly. That's what the committee has in front of it today.
The Chair: Senator Kenny, I'm going to move to you again. Do you have a specific question of the witnesses or do you want to deal with the amendments as we go clause by clause?
Senator Kenny: Whatever is most convenient, chair. Either way.
The Chair: Senator Moncion has a question before we proceed.
Senator Moncion: The first comment I'm going to make is the fact that the French version doesn't say the same thing as the English version. If you just start with in English, you read "a person'' and in French you read, "les personnes.'' Are we talking about one individual?
That's what we're talking about in English, and in French we're talking about many people.
The Chair: Senator, could we save that question for the witnesses once we have the amendment read into the record?
Could you move the first amendment, Senator Runciman?
Senator Runciman: I'm just wondering if you're going to go through this section by section starting with the short title, in the normal process. Then I'll move the amendment.
The Chair: Colleagues, we are having a bit of a problem with getting copies ready for the purposes of the clause by clause. We need a few minutes.
In order to make best use of our time, Senator Kenny, you could raise a couple of issues with the witnesses.
Senator Kenny: My first question is for CBSA. I'm curious to know in how many locations in the Thousand Islands area people can report to customs by telephone.
Madona Radi, Director, Program and Policy Management, Canada Border Services Agency: Unfortunately, I don't have the number of locations in the Thousand Islands. I have the travel volume but not the specific information.
Senator Kenny: Can you give me an approximate number?
Ms. Radi: I honestly don't have the number. I can look into it and get back to you.
Senator Kenny: I'd appreciate that.
Could you describe for the committee's benefit how it works when someone is crossing and taking advantage of a phone?
Ms. Radi: What kind of phone do you mean?
Senator Kenny: A telephone.
Ms. Radi: Do you mean a telephone at the reporting designation centre?
Senator Kenny: Yes.
Ms. Radi: It depends. For small boaters right now we have a policy in place that simplifies the reporting. They don't need to go to a designated reporting site to call the telephone reporting centre.
Actually from the water, from their cellphone, they can contact the telephone reporting centre. In this way we are processing them faster.
Senator Kenny: How does CBSA verify that they are where they say they are?
Ms. Radi: Right now we ask questions. Depending on the questions and how the person responds, if we believe the person isn't being truthful we ask that the person to report to the nearest physical reporting centre.
We send an officer to join that individual if we believe based on the responses that something is not right. We do have measures in place.
Senator Kenny: Is there a system of random checks?
Ms. Radi: Yes, there is. It's in the system. It's automatic. There is a percentage where the system will automatically tell the officer to refer this individual.
Senator Kenny: Superintendent, tell us about the area between Kingston and Cornwall or Kingston and Montreal. Is that an area that sees much illegal crossing?
Superintendent Jamie Solesme, Officer in Charge, Federal Coordination Centre, Canada-United States, Federal Policing Special Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: The area you're talking about has been very apparent in the media for contraband tobacco and organized crime activities within that area, more so around the Akwesasne region than in the eastern and western areas.
That said, a number of different enforcement initiatives take place there. I could speak to those now if you want to understand how we operate.
Senator Kenny: Please.
Ms. Solesme: We have a detachment in Cornwall with a number of officers. We also have the regional task force for contraband tobacco. That detachment has boats they use on the water in and around that area.
Senator Kenny: Are there roughly 50 constables?
Ms. Solesme: Yes, that is the number. While they say 'contraband tobacco,' I would clarify that those resources are focused on organized crime with a view to intercepting contraband tobacco and other illicit materials being brought into the country.
We have boats on the water in that area as well. Those officers work in conjunction with the OPP, the Ontario Provincial Police; the officers in Cornwall; and with the Akwesasne Mohawk Police. There's very strong collaboration in that area. Despite the fact that there are stated organized crime activities, the law enforcement collaboration and cooperation in that area are phenomenal.
We have also had a Shiprider team that operates in the area outside of Kingston up to Cornwall but not through that region at this point. For those unfamiliar with Shiprider it's RCMP and U.S. Coast Guard operating on the same vessels. They have the ability to cross the border and enforce the laws on both sides.
On the east side of Cornwall up to the Valleyfield area we also have Shiprider teams that work on surge operations. They're not full-time teams as is the one in Kingston. They're all surge. Based on intelligence, they'll figure out when they go on the water and conduct their enforcement activities.
We also have a larger vessel. Our Marine Security Enforcement Team has three vessels that operate in the Great Lakes. They normally rotate and come up through the Cornwall and Kingston areas as well. That would be RCMP and Canadian Coast Guard on the same vessel, with a view to interdicting cross-border criminality.
A lot of activities are happening in that area. I should also point out that in that region our partnerships with our U.S. colleagues would be the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Homeland Security Investigations, DEA and FBI. Those relationships in that area are very strong. We work together not only on the operational front but on the intelligence front. We have another strong portfolio based on our technology. We jointly deploy and utilize the technology we have available in that area.
Senator Kenny: This committee was instrumental in getting the Shiprider program initiated, but we've been concerned for some time that there really hasn't been much activity under that rubric.
How frequently is Shiprider in place? How often could you expect to see it in different communities up and down the waterway? Is it functioning year round or is it a seasonal approach?
Ms. Solesme: Currently there are five Shiprider teams. Originally in the Beyond the Border Action Plan there was a proposal put forward for four teams. The four locations were Surrey, Niagara, Windsor and Kingston.
Two of those teams were set up in 2013, one of them being the B.C. team. There are far more advanced than the ones we see in Ontario because it took longer to staff those.
Senator Kenny: Excuse me. I really wanted to know about Shiprider in the area we're concerned about in relation to this piece of legislation.
Ms. Solesme: Is it just the St. Lawrence?
Senator Kenny: Just Kingston to Montreal.
Ms. Solesme: I was hoping to get some stuff in there for the West Coast.
Senator Kenny: I noticed that.
Ms. Solesme: As far as Shiprider goes, when I talk about the Kingston team I believe they are fully staffed. If not, they're down one member.
It has taken a while to staff those teams. We have to identify people. They have to go through the training in South Carolina and they have to be designated to facilitate that.
There were also issues. When I say "issues,'' I'm talking about a delay issue as to why you would not be seeing the results that you might expect to see at this point. It does take a long time to get those teams up and running.
Apart from that, U.S. Coast Guard also had difficulty staffing the required positions. In order to have a functioning Shiprider team we require at least one, if not two, U.S. Coast Guard bodies. We've been able to mitigate that and have those resources committed by U.S. Coast Guard.
Those teams are on the water a lot. I wouldn't say they're on the water 100 per cent of their shifts, and I'll explain it this way. In the conversations I have with those teams things that happen on the water are connected to what happens on land. There's a necessity for the officers involved with those on water cross-border interdiction teams to have a strong sense of what's happening on land on both sides of the border to identify the patterns and the criminality. It doesn't just happen on the waterways. It happens inland. It gets to the waterways, and the waterways are used to facilitate the illegal transfer.
The work that is done takes place mainly in the off season but not 100 per cent of the time. That's when they're developing sources and partnerships with other agencies. That's where a lot of that work takes place so that when they hit the water whenever the waterway opens this year at the end of April or beginning of May, they're ready to go and they know what they're looking for.
Senator Kenny: Why does it matter when the waterway opens, when smugglers operate day and night, winter and summer? Why do you care when the official opening for freighters is in place?
Ms. Solesme: We're talking specifically about for Shiprider. I was talking about on-water hours. When it comes to off season patrolling we're not on boards. There will be other means to facilitate that type of activity.
I'm not saying we're not on the water at that time, but our activities are focused more on the land border when coming off those areas.
Senator Kenny: When this committee met with the commander of U.S. Coast Guard, he testified to us that he had 2,000 people on the Great Lakes doing enforcement.
When you say you had difficulty getting one or two on board a boat for Shiprider, it seems surprising that if they have 2,000 people it's difficult for them to get one or two to go on Shiprider.
Ms. Solesme: I understand. I'm not sure what his number is or how many resources there are there. What happens with U.S. Coast Guard, the way it was explained to me, is that they all have their individual roles within their organization.
Shiprider is considered an additional duty. Therefore, they have to take somebody from an existing duty. Unlike the RCMP, U.S. Coast Guard did not receive funding or an increase in resources to undertake this activity, so they have to use other resources.
What they've done to mitigate the risk of not being able to have these bodies is put in what they call their MSST. These are resources U.S. Coast Guard has throughout the United States. They will take these individuals and deploy them with the Shiprider team to fill up what they call the billet spots.
An additional issue we've had with Coast Guard is that every three years they transfer out. If it takes us a year to get somebody identified and trained, we have two years with that individual before they move on to the next one. That has been another ongoing issue, but like I say we've used MSST to mitigate the risk.
Senator Kenny: Thank you for the background. Could you tell the committee now whether with the resources you have you will effectively be able to police the area between Kingston and Montreal if this legislation is passed?
Ms. Solesme: I believe the RCMP effectively uses our resources. We use what's called a layered approach. I've spoken to some of those components: the collection of intelligence, our ability to use technology, and our ability to be able to put resources where the high activity or high-risk areas are to deal with those first.
Yes, you'll see resources on the water. It's important to understand that they are not out there for a boat ride. They are working in a very targeted fashion. That's their purpose.
When the team was started up and running, a lot of that first year was spent on outreach and awareness on both sides of the border to familiarize people that we were out there, and to get buy-in for the value of having such a binational program where people on both sides of the border really benefit from the results that they see. I would say we're very effective in the way we use our resources.
Senator Kenny: Are you confident you can manage a situation if the legislation is passed?
Ms. Solesme: As to the legislation, when I look at the amendments our authorities haven't changed. We still have our authorities under the Customs Act that we utilize on a day-to-day basis in the border environment. Because that hasn't changed, I don't feel that there's any implication for the resources.
The Chair: I take it your response is yes.
Senator Runciman: Just to clarify, this bill does not restrict the ability of the CBSA, the RCMP, Shiprider or whomever, to stop a boat and check it out, whatever. It's no longer a fine and a possible seizure of your boat if you're carrying out the traditional practices of going in and outside, travelling, going by Singer Castle or Boldt Castle and coming in and out of Canadian and U.S. waters. Their responsibilities are not impinged upon in any way, shape or form by the legislation.
Senator White: Just briefly, it offers a defence. The challenge previously was that there was no defence. It didn't matter why you were doing it. It was automatic, and now it offers a defence.
Although we are talking about one specific area in Ontario right now, this does also cover both coasts, in particular when we look at northern B.C. with Alaska and whale-watching. It's not strictly one location where there may not be as much enforcement anyway, but the focus on this is about offering a defence so that people can explain why they were there. Previously it didn't matter why you were there. You were being charged or potentially anyway.
The Chair: Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-233?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Runciman: I move:
THAT Bill S-233 be amended in clause 2,
(a) on page 1, by replacing lines 11 to 22 with the following:
"(a) a person who enters Canadian waters, including the inland waters, or the airspace over Canada on board a conveyance directly from outside Canada and then leaves Canada on board the conveyance, as long as the person was continuously on board that conveyance while in Canada and
(i) in the case of a conveyance other than an aircraft, the conveyance did not anchor, moor or make contact with another conveyance while in Canadian waters, including the inland waters, or
(ii) in the case of an aircraft, the conveyance did not land while in Canada; and
(b) a person who leaves Canadian waters, including the inland waters, or the airspace over Canada on board a conveyance and then re-enters Canada on board the conveyance, as long as the person was continuously on board that conveyance while outside Canada and
(i) in the case of a conveyance other than an aircraft, the conveyance did not anchor, moor or make contact with another conveyance while outside Canada, or
(ii) in the case of an aircraft, the conveyance did not land while outside Canada.''; and
(b) on page 2, by deleting lines 1 to 16.
Mr. Chair, the amendment accomplishes three goals. It harmonizes the exemption condition for reporting by persons in all types of marine and air movements, both direct in the previous exemption in the Customs Act and for loop movements. Those are the exemptions that are introduced in the bill.
The exemption only applies if the conveyance did not land in Canada or anchor, moor or make contact with another conveyance. For direct movements, this is actually a strengthening of border integrity. Right now, no conditions apply to point A to point B transits.
It also expands the scope of the exemptions to include, as Senator White referenced, international waters for vessels that leave Canadian waters and then re-enter Canadian waters without landing, anchoring, mooring or making contact with another conveyance.
The bill, as written, refers to leaving Canadian waters and then re-entering directly from another country. In subsections 11(5)(b), 11(5.1)(b), 12 (5)(b) and 12(5.1)(b) in the proposed amendment, it just refers to the person leaving Canadian waters and then re-entering Canada on board a conveyance.
It doesn't refer to another country. This opens it up to international waters. The impact of this is on activities, again as mentioned by Senator White, such as whale-watching.
Finally, it simplifies the conditions for aircraft by using the term 'landing' instead of mooring and tethering.
Senator Kenny: It's probably covered some place else, chair, but could Senator Runciman please define 'loop movements' for us?
Senator Runciman: It's best, I guess, if I use the Thousand Islands, if you can picture an American coming out of Alexandria Bay, New York, in their boat. I think we heard the senator from New York state talk about the traditions of her family leaving Ogdensburg, New York, and travelling along the Canadian side, entering Canadian waters to look at the new Canadian homes, the developments and so on, and then re-entering U.S. waters. That's what's called a loop movement. That happens in the summer season, the boating season, hundreds if not thousands of times in the Thousand Islands area.
The Chair: Colleagues, could I then move on to Senator Moncion's comments on the French amendment? Could I ask your indulgence here with respect to viewing any of the translation? Perhaps the clerk could speak to this.
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: Senator, I was wondering if you could clarify where that error was found. Was that in one of the draft amendments, or was that in the text of the bill?
Senator Moncion: It's in the text of the bill. All the clauses are like that. When on the English side you speak of "a person,'' in French you're talking about "les personnes,'' and the rest of the clause is changed.
Mr. Thompson: As an anglophone I'm a little unsure and as a non-lawyer it could be a drafting style or it could be an error. Certainly, if it is an error of that nature, I can certainly speak with the Office of the Law Clerk. They may be able to correct it through a process that they have of dealing with a parchment error.
Senator Moncion: It doesn't change what is said in the clause. It's just that it's not the same.
The Chair: Colleagues, could we have this understanding that it will be sent to the law clerk to review? If it can be rectified or if it has to be rectified because it's a parchment error it will be, or if it has to be amended on third reading that's the next step we could take. Is that acceptable?
Senator White: I'm okay with it but obviously it's an error. If it's singular in English and plural in French there's obviously an error. I think just saying we'll correct the error is probably enough.
The Chair: The error will be corrected one way or the other, depending on the procedure on the advice of the law clerk.
Senator Moncion: If it doesn't change, it will be a mistake.
Senator Runciman: I have no problem with referring it, although I would say this was drafted by a francophone lawyer in the Office of the Law Clerk. It could be simply a stylistic issue. I'm not sure, but certainly let's refer it.
The Chair: One way or the other, colleagues, it will be rectified if it's seen by the law clerk to be an error. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 2 as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Senator Runciman: Mr. Chair I move:
THAT Bill S-233 be amended in clause 3,
(a) on page 2, by replacing lines 22 to 43 with the following:
"(a) that enters Canadian waters, including the inland waters, or the airspace over Canada directly from outside Canada and then leaves Canada, as long as
(i) in the case of a conveyance other than an aircraft, the conveyance did not anchor, moor or make contact with another conveyance while in Canadian waters, including the inland waters, or
(ii) in the case of an aircraft, the conveyance did not land while in Canada; or
(b) that leaves Canadian waters, including the inland waters, or the airspace over Canada and then re-enters Canada, as long as
(i) in the case of a conveyance other than an aircraft, the conveyance did not anchor, moor or make contact with another conveyance while outside Canada, or
(ii) in the case of an aircraft, the conveyance did not land while outside Canada.''; and
(b) on page 3, by deleting lines 1 to 4.
The previous amendment to clause 2 which this is addressing related to reporting by persons, and this amendment relates to reporting of goods.
It is otherwise identical. It is imposing the same restrictions and safeguards.
The Chair: Colleagues, is it agreed to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 3 as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Runciman: I move:
THAT Bill S-233 be amended in clause 4, on page 3,
(a) by replacing line 14 with the following:
"tion 11(5) or 12(5); or''; and
(b) by replacing lines 17 and 18 with the following:
"and 12(5) and prescribing the circumstances under which a conveyance or a class thereof''.
Mr. Chair, the previous amendment removes subsection 5(1) and added its content within subsection 5, so this amendment is required to remove references to subsection 5(1), which no longer exists. That's the sole purpose of the amendment.
The Chair: Colleagues, can we move to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 4 as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Senator Runciman: Mr. Chair, I move:
THAT Bill S-233 be amended in clause 5, on page 3,
(a) by replacing line 20 with the following:
"5(1)Subsection 18(1) of the Immigration and;'' and
(b) by adding the following after line 27:
"(2) Section 18 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
"(3) Even though a person seeking to enter Canada is not, in accordance with regulations made under subsection 26(2), required to appear for an examination, an officer may require the person to do so.''.
This is what we were referencing earlier as the amendment to ensure that officers have similar powers under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as those provided under the Customs Act.
It adds a discretionary or residual power to give officers the ability to examine exempted persons for immigration purposes. Even though your travel might fall within the exemptions from reporting enabled under the bill, officers retain the power to require you to report. It could be to require people to answer questions about work permits, visas and other documentation.
Regarding the issue that Senator Kenny raised in terms of people smuggling, this amendment is being introduced to strengthen border security.
Senator Boniface: I guess I thought this would be a good one that our witnesses should comment on. Since you're here for technical advice, I just want to make sure this facilitates continued strong border enforcement.
The Chair: Superintendent, do you have any comments?
Ms. Solesme: Yes, it does.
The Chair: Is it agreed, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Senator Runciman: Mr. Chairman, I move:
THAT Bill S-233 be amended in clause 7, on page 4,
(a) by replacing line 6 with the following:
"95(1) to (2) of the Customs Act are replaced''; and
(b) by replacing lines 8 to 37 with the following:
"95(1) Subject to subsection (1.1) and regulations made under paragraph (2)(a), all goods that are exported shall be reported at any prescribed time and place and in any prescribed manner.
(1.1) Subject to regulations made under paragraphs (2)(c) and (d), subsection (1) does not apply in respect of goods on board a conveyance
(a) that enters Canadian waters, including inland waters, or the airspace over Canada directly from outside Canada and then leaves Canada, as long as
(i) in the case of a conveyance other than an aircraft, the conveyance did not anchor, moor or make contact with another conveyance while in Canadian waters, including the inland waters, or
(ii) in the case of an aircraft, the conveyance did not land while in Canada; or
(b) that leaves Canadian waters, including the inland waters or the airspace over Canada and then re-enters Canada, as long as
(i) in the case of a conveyance other than an aircraft, the conveyance did not anchor, moor or make contact with another conveyance while outside Canada, or
(ii) in the case of an aircraft, the conveyance did not land while outside Canada.
(1.2) However, an officer may require that goods that are exempted under subsection (1.1) or regulations made under paragraph (2)(a) be reported under subsection (1).
(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) prescribing the classes of goods that are exempted from the requirements of subsection (1) and the circumstances in which any of those classes of goods are not so exempted;
(b) prescribing the classes of persons who are required to report goods under subsection (1) and the circumstances in which they are so required;
(c) prescribing the circumstances in which goods, or classes of goods, on board a conveyance, or a class of conveyance, are required to be reported despite subsection (1.1); and
(d) defining the expression 'make contact with another conveyance' for the purposes of subsection (1.1) and prescribing the circumstances in which a conveyance or class of conveyances makes contact with another conveyance.''.
Mr. Chair, this is an amendment to the coordinating amendment in the bill, coordinating it with Bill C-21, which was introduced by the government last year.
It's required because of the changes to section 12 of the Customs Act to ensure that the language is the same for both import and export of goods. It ensures consistency in the exemption for reporting of goods under both direct and indirect cross-border movements. It also adds discretionary officer powers regarding exports and provides the authority to create related regulations.
The authority is already addressed by Bill C-21, but it needs to be included here as well.
The Chair: Colleagues, is it agreed to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 7 as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Colleagues, shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate, as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Colleagues, I'd like to excuse our witnesses. Thank you very much for taking the time. It has been beneficial for the purposes of deliberation of the bill.
Senator Runciman, thank you very much for bringing forward the bill.
(The committee continued in camera.)