Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue No. 35 - Evidence - Meeting of December 3, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, December 3, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act, met this day at 3:01 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Gwen Boniface (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, as we begin, I would ask senators to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Quebec.
Senator Richards: David Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, New Brunswick.
The Chair: I am Gwen Boniface from Ontario.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for us to slow down or for clarification.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, I wish to remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of the clause.
One small point: If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that in committee the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause standing as part of the bill.
I would also remind senators that some amendments that are moved may have a consequential effect on other parts of the bill. It would be useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in the bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise it as a point of order. As chair, I will listen to your arguments and decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
As chair, I will do my utmost to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend upon your cooperation and ask all of you to consider other senators and to keep remarks to the point and as brief as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a vote, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote which, obviously, provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
We have officials available today to answer any questions you may have as we make our way through the clause-by-clause. They are, from Canada Border Services Agency, Andrew Lawrence, Acting Director, Traveller Programs; Employment and Social Development Canada’s representative is Jeremy Sales, Director General, Integrity Strategic Directions; and from Canada Revenue Agency, Adnan Khan, Director, Assessment Verification Division, Collections and Verification Branch. Welcome, gentlemen.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Plett: Agreed.
Senator Griffin: Senator McPhedran had amendments. It’s fairly simple. I’m just having trouble finding it, but I can read it. It’s regulations.
The Chair: Can you refer to it by page number?
Senator Griffin: Page 3, top left. The first part is “Provision of Information.” The second headline is “Regulations.” The proposal is that “the Governor-in-Council, following consultation with the Privacy Commissioner” — so the new part is “following consultation with the Privacy Commissioner” — “may make regulations for the purposes . . .” et cetera.
The Chair: For clarity, senator, we’re referring to page 3, line 4?
Senator Griffin: Yes, we are.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Griffin: Senator McPhedran’s intention with this amendment is to address the issue that many of the rules around the use, disclosure and retention of information are going to be created by regulation rather than it being enshrined in the bill itself. Requiring consultation with the Privacy Commissioner on the creation of these regulations will ensure that they are drafted with appropriate consideration to the privacy of travellers.
She further points out that there is precedent for this type of amendment, including the Northwest Territories Devolution Act of 2014, which includes a section specifying that, “The Governor in Council may, following consultation by the federal Minister with the Gwich’in and Sahtu First Nations and the Tlicho Government, make regulations respecting the use of waters . . . .” She says that is a precedent for that style of amendment.
The Chair: You’re moving that amendment?
Senator Griffin: Yes, on her behalf. She’s not here, so I am moving it.
The Chair: Any discussion on that?
Senator Coyle: Could we just ask Senator Griffin, then, to read out what the new phrase would be with the amendment included?
Senator Griffin: Yes. The full sentence would be — and this is in (5), in brackets, on page 3, line 4:
The Governor in Council, following consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, may make regulations for the purposes of this section, including regulations . . .
Then it continues on with (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
Senator Gold: Just a point of order: I wonder if the clerk might, for the record, read out specifically the actual motion and only the language that’s actually going to be changing the text of the bill before us.
Mark Palmer, Clerk of the Committee: The motion would be:
That Bill C-21 be amended in clause 2, on page 3, by replacing line 4, with the following:
“(5) The Governor in Council, following consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, may make regulations for”
Senator Gold: Thank you.
Senator Plett: I guess I would have a question for the officials. I’m not sure, first of all, that this amendment is needed or useful, but I’d like to hear the officials tell us: Is the Privacy Commissioner not given an opportunity to input on all regulations? What is the precedent of giving the Privacy Commissioner a special role in this regard, in this legislation, over and above other stakeholders?
Andrew Lawrence, Acting Director, Traveller Programs, Canada Border Services Agency: The current draft of the bill already stipulates that the use of personal information and the retention period for that information are set out in the law. The regulations related to these sections — 92, I think is what we’re referring to — are largely technical in nature, as they will define the source, timing, manner and circumstance, not the scope of the personal information collected or to whom it can be disclosed. Those are found in different sections of the act.
The Privacy Commissioner is consulted. His office has been consulted on a number of occasions in the lead-up to the tabling of this legislation and the implementation of the various phases of entry/exit. I believe the commissioner had the opportunity to present to both committees during the study of Bill C-21 as part of the consultation.
Senator Plett: So the Privacy Commissioner did not ask for this?
Mr. Lawrence: No.
Senator Plett: Thank you. I’m sure we’ll have a vote, but I would be opposed to this amendment.
The Chair: Any other comments before we speak to the motion?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Okay. Defeated.
Next, within clause 2, Senator Coyle.
Senator Coyle: I would like to move:
That Bill C-21 be amended in clause 2, on page 3, by replacing line 18 with the following:
“collected under sections 92 and 93 shall be retained by the Agency for a period of not more than 15”
Can I explain it?
The Chair: Please go ahead.
Senator Coyle: We did have the Privacy Commissioner present to us last week, and this is actually an amendment on the amendment that was passed in the house. He did not feel and told us that he didn’t think the amendment was actually clear enough in representing the intent of that amendment, and he has provided me with this language for this amendment that he felt would then cover the actual intent, which is that the data collected by CBSA would be retained for a period of not more than 15 years. That’s why this is here in front of us. It’s a reflection of the presentation that we had last week, and it’s an attempt to satisfy what the Privacy Commissioner has recommended to us. That’s why it’s here.
Senator Plett: My question again would be to the officials on two things. One, is what Senator Coyle is now proposing have been the intent, considering she just said that this was clarifying something? Would that have been the intent?The other question woud be, does this in any way change the agreement with the United States? Is there any impact on it?
Mr. Lawrence: It was the department’s interpretation that the retention period would be 15 years, as set out in the bill, and that retention period would be for the CBSA, for the agency’s retention period. This would in no way, shape or form affect the exchange or the relationship with the U.S.
Senator Plett: The department wouldn’t have any issues?
Mr. Lawrence: No.
The Chair: Any other discussion?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion as amended by Senator Coyle?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Continuing in clause 2, Senator Griffin.
Senator Griffin: Senator McPhedran had a much longer proposed amendment for this section.
I move:
That Bill C-21 be amended in clause 2, on page 3, by adding the following after line 25:
94.1(1) The Minister shall annually prepare a report on the administration of sections 92 to 94 during the period beginning on April 1 of the previous year and ending on March 31 of the current year.
(2) The report shall include data on the information collected under sections 92 and 93, on the preservation of this information and on the measures and procedures to protect the personal information collected under these sections and it shall take note of any breach of the computer security safeguards relating to this information and any problems with the management of the computer system on which this information is stored.
(3) The Minister shall cause the report to be tabled before each House of Parliament within the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after September 1 of the year in which the report is completed.
The rationale: Senator McPhedran found that Mr. Wark’s suggestion that an annual report to Parliament would be a commitment to transparency within the bill, which would allow Parliament and the public to consider its application, efficiency and problems and just how generally the legislation is being used. This amendment is focused on the privacy and security of information.
Senator McPhedran prepared this amendment for the “persons leaving Canada” part of the bill, as she is particularly concerned with the use of information in that context as opposed to the context of the “exportation of goods” part. However, if the committee was interested, she would be happy with an amendment that extended to include both.
Senator Plett: Again, I’m going to ask for the officials and their input, but to me, this amendment — and I’m trying to get my mind around it — looks like a make-work project, and I’m not sure there’s a whole lot of value to the amendment to require annual reporting. Information collected at the border under this legislation is basic biographical information, and the provision to require annual reporting may be more in the category, as I said, of make-work. Again, I would like to hear from the officials to see whether they would be supportive of this. I don’t know, colleagues, that we want to spin our wheels and approve amendments that really have a way of just coming back to us.
Mr. Lawrence: The agency reports annually to Parliament on its compliance with the Privacy Act. That includes any unauthorized disclosures and the management and use of all the personal information that’s collected by the agency, which would include what’s being laid out here but would also include the information that’s collected under other programs, including entry and including through investigations. That reporting obligation is already on an annual basis, it is already directed to Parliament and it’s already undertaken by the agency today.
Senator Plett: That means this would be pretty much unnecessary.
Mr. Lawrence: Our interpretation is that it would.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: Any other comments?
Senator Coyle: It looks redundant to me as well.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Shall clause 2, then, as amended, carry?
Senator Plett: Without amendments. Sorry, I apologize. Yes. Agreed.
The Chair: Moving, then, to clause 3. Shall clause 3 carry?
Senator Griffin: I have something. This is one where you’ve been sent a draft for an amendment, but I’m again uncertain whether it’s needed or not.
I have some questions for the officials first. I don’t know if you’ve seen the proposed amendment.
Mr. Lawrence: I received one on arrival today.
Senator Griffin: Great. These are my two questions: Do you keep such records for the importation of goods right now that would satisfy what I’m looking for here?
Mr. Lawrence: We operate different regimes on import versus export. All goods that are imported to Canada are required for report, and we do have records on all the records of importations made by importers.
The Chair: Can I just ask, Senator Griffin, if you actually read what you’re proposing so everybody is familiar?
Senator Griffin: Okay. Let me give you a bit of background first. When the minister was here, I asked him about flights, for instance, that are coming out of the Maritimes, fly over Maine and then on to Ontario, so they’re crossing into U.S. airspace. That sometimes happens with shipping over water too. That’s where my concern started. In the bill, it says that there can be exemptions, but then the staff had the ability to, on discretion, override the aforementioned exemption. I’m not sure whether this is needed or not. Let’s read it and see.
That Bill C-21 be amended in clause 3, on page 4, by adding the following after line 16:
95.01(1) The Minister shall prepare, for each calendar month and no later than 10 days after the end of that month, a report on the number of goods that were caused to be reported under subsection 95(1.3) during that calendar month.
(2) A report prepared under subsection (1) shall be posted on the Internet site of the Agency no later than 15 days after the end of the month to which it relates.
I’m cognizant of what Senator Plett just said about creating busy work.
Senator Plett: A report on what was reported.
Senator Griffin: I don’t want to create busy work, but I’m wondering if there’s a paper trail — if we find out there are issues with trying to ship lobster from Prince Edward Island to Toronto, because it’s flown through the Maine airspace, if we have issues. That’s where I’m coming from.
Mr. Lawrence: Having looked at this, we’re going to reiterate that this is a residual authority. It’s an exemption to an exemption. It’s really there to address instances where, for example, you have a boat that enters Canadian territorial waters and then leaves Canadian territorial waters, but somebody throws something onto that vessel that we think could be contraband or there is some sort of investigation. That gives the agency the authority to require the report of those goods. Otherwise, there’s a general exemption that those moving goods through these territorial waters don’t need to report them.
We think this is a bit unprecedented in terms of the burden that it would cause, based on how feasible it would be to record each and every instance. Canada is a big country.
Also, the publication of this type of information could undermine ongoing investigations. It would be timely, it would be public, and it would be a potential threat to the efficacy of what we do in order to maintain the security at the border. I think it could be an indication of very current investigative techniques.
The Chair: Senator Griffin, do you still wish to move your motion?
Senator Griffin: No. I’m not entirely happy, but I’m not unhappy enough to make the amendment.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Griffin: If I can put it that way.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Senator Griffin: I have a question.
The Chair: Which clause are you on?
Senator Griffin: You’re speeding right along here. Clause 6. Regarding information sharing with the ESDC, will this be done automatically or on a case-by-case basis?
Mr. Lawrence: It will be done automatically based on program requirements linked to Old Age Security and Employment Insurance. It won’t be a wholesale push of everybody’s entry and exit information. It will only be a targeted push of information related to those that may no longer be eligible to receive a benefit. A good example of that is someone who is absent for more than 183 days may no longer be eligible to receive a benefit. That information will be shared. Information for people that are gone the day, if that doesn’t impact your ability for eligibility for benefit, those records will not be shared automatically.
Senator Griffin: Thank you.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you. Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Griffin: Yes.
The Chair: Rule 12-16(1)(d) allows us to go in camera to discuss a draft report. Does the committee wish to discuss observations in public or in camera?
Senator Plett: I think they should be discussed in public, chair. I think the public has the right to know why we’re appending observations.
The Chair: I think we have agreement around the table.
Observations. We have two that we’ve been made aware of, Senator Richards and Senator Griffin, and Senator Coyle. We will start with Senator Richards.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My observation is about Campobello Island.
In light of the increased complexity of moving people and goods to Campobello Island, New Brunswick, from mainland Canada via the Lubec, Maine, land border crossing, the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada work with the Government of New Brunswick to establish year-round ferry service with mainland New Brunswick.
That’s because, for most of the winter, we don’t have ferry service and everyone coming from Campobello has to go through Maine to St. Stephen and back to Campobello. I think there will be problems at the border sooner or later. I’m hoping to get ferry service from Campobello to New Brunswick every day so that won’t happen. That’s the observation.
The Chair: Comments on the observation?
Senator Coyle: Are we allowed to ask questions on the observation?
The Chair: Sure.
Senator Coyle: Was there ever ferry service on a daily basis?
Senator Richards: I thought until recently that ferry service was continuous, but it’s not. It’s in the summer months and not in the winter, and it was only part-time last year. It does create problems at the border, especially if you’re transporting goods from New Brunswick to another part of New Brunswick.
The reserve in Montreal has the same kind of problem.
Senator Coyle: We’re going to hear about that, I think. Just as a supplemental, what is the permanent, year-round population of Campobello Island?
Senator Richards: I’d have to get back to you on that. I’m not sure. It’s not great, but, of course, there are New Brunswickers who live there all year round. I’d have to get back to you and let you know. I’m not sure.
Senator Coyle: I was just curious.
Senator Plett: This not the same question as Senator Coyle’s, but it is certainly related. I was going to ask how much traffic is there, but if you don’t know the answer to Senator Coyle’s question, you might not know the answer to mine.
Senator Richards: Senator, I’m not sure, but I do know, having gone through Maine to Campobello on a number of occasions, that there is a bridge there and continuous traffic through New Brunswick every day. I’m not sure how much traffic there is, but there is traffic every day from Campobello to New Brunswick.
The Chair: On the same issue, Senator McIntyre?
Senator McIntyre: Yes, it is. As a New Brunswick senator, I support Senator Richards’ observation, obviously.
Senator Richards, the idea here is for the Government of Canada and the Province of New Brunswick to work together in order to establish year-round ferry service. That’s the main point.
Senator Richards: Yes, to be able to facilitate the movement, senator. The problem is that Campobello residents, if they’re transporting goods back and forth, are going to be cut off from that and they’re going to be subject to United States law. That’s not quite fair, I don’t think.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: According to Google, the population in 2011 was 925 people, and you have 1,200 as a more up-to-date number.
Senator Richards: That’s a lot of people.
Senator Coyle: In the Maritimes, it is.
Senator Richards: Right.
Senator Coyle: I have a question, not on the intent of the observation, but I’m wondering: If it’s about getting daily ferry service, does it fit with this particular bill as an observation?
Senator Richards: Well, there are smarter senators around than me. Maybe they’ll be able to let you know. I thought it was a pretty good question to bring forth to this committee on Bill C-21.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I reinforce what Senator Coyle is saying. It seems to me it’s not in the right bill, this particular observation.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
Senator Coyle: I want to be clear. I didn’t say it wasn’t. I was just asking the question because I also don’t know.
Senator Griffin: Maybe we could be a little more obtuse than saying “ferry service.” Maybe we could say “direct communication” or “direct link.” It could be by air or other means. Right now, when it is by land, it is crossing into another country. Let me read it again. What if we say, “work with the Government of New Brunswick to establish a year-round connection with mainland New Brunswick?”
Senator Richards: That would be fine by me, senator.
Senator Griffin: Instead of “ferry service.”
Senator Richards: That would be fine by me. However, other than “ferry service,” I’m not sure. We could all go scuba diving, I suppose. I don’t mean to be glib here. As you know, the road and bridge access in the winter is into Lubec, Maine. Unless there is a ferry service or a flight service, which there is not, I can’t see any other kind of service.
Senator Plett: I don’t want to belabour this, chair. I believe, if we’re agreeing to an observation, there could be a fair bit of flexibility because, in fact, that’s what they are. I struggle a bit with the recommendation to establish as opposed to a recommendation to have the governments investigate, because we are telling them what to do, and I struggle with that. If we could change the wording to the “Government of Canada work with the Government of New Brunswick to investigate the feasibility of year-round,” maybe that would be the proper way, and that I could support.
Senator Richards: Yes. You’re right, senator.
The Chair: I’m seeing a lot of nodding around the table, Senator Plett. Does everyone agree with the observation worded in that manner?
Senator Gold: I could support that.
The Chair: That’s great.
The second observation, Senator Coyle.
Senator Coyle: The observation that I would like the committee to consider reads as follows:
The committee suggests that the Government of Canada explore and adopt further measures to prevent child abductions by including information on child custody restrictions in the current Canada Border Services Agency database, as well as all issued AMBER alerts.
Turning to the rationale for this observation, I think if people heard Senator Dalphond’s speech on this bill, as a former judge, he mentioned there could be a powerful new instrument here when we’re actually collecting that exit information on people leaving Canada. That will now come to Canadian officials.
CBSA officials have stated that rulings that impose restrictions on removing children from Canada can be added to their system. The same process that applies when an AMBER Alert is issued could include this additional group. The RCMP could inform CBSA and ask that a lookout be issued for the missing child suspected of being with a parent in this instance. In these circumstances, CBSA could make sure that the necessary measures are in place to prevent children that should not be leaving the country from leaving Canada. This would be a considerable improvement on the current system and is something the Government of Canada should endeavour to address.
It’s a tool that adds on to what we have here with the bill. It is not needed to be amended at all. It is creating that extra information-sharing so that we can actually achieve a more robust impact with this bill.
The Chair: Are there any comments on that observation?
Senator Gold: I think it’s a very good idea. The speeches did indicate a gap and a lack in our current framework. This will have the possible effect and consequence of protecting children who are abducted. I would support this.
The Chair: I see agreement on the observation.
Senator Griffin: My observation is supported by the Mohawks of Akwesasne.
The Mohawks of Akwesasne expressed border mobility concerns related to information sharing as a result of their unique geographical circumstances, where individuals can enter and exit Canada without having been processed by a Customs Port of Entry.
I am suggesting that we recommend the following two recommendations:
(a) That CBSA work with Employment and Social Development Canada and Indigenous Services Canada and the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne to ensure appropriate redress mechanisms related to eligibility for benefits, with a particular focus for residents of Tsi Snaihne and Kanatakon (St. Regis), Quebec.
(b) That the Government of Canada consider implementing a CBSA pre-clearance facility in Massena, New York, to enable residents of Cornwall Island to report to a Canada Border Services Agency Officer without entering the city of Cornwall.
This observation was written in coordination with the Mohawks of Akwesasne, and they acknowledge that it is unlikely that any amendment to Bill C-21 will resolve the policy implementation of CBSA issues that their community is experiencing. However, they say this observation points to a few solutions that could go a long way to help.
If you remember when we were doing Bill C-23 last year or earlier this year, it was an act respecting the pre-clearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States, which enabled the Government of Canada to establish pre-clearance facilities in the U.S. When the committee held a meeting with the appearance of Minister Goodale, I had specifically asked him about a pre-clearance facility in a place like this, and he said it was an idea he would examine. Last week, my staff was in contact with Grand Chief Benedict and his council, and they were supportive of the idea that would enable residents of Cornwall Island to report without having to travel to Cornwall.
The second part is more straightforward. It asks CBSA and ESDC to ensure there are proper redress mechanisms if there are questions for social service benefits for areas in the Mohawk territory that are not physically connected to the rest of Canada and by extension no port of entry, so ESDC must undertake proper due diligence prior to denying an individual CPP or EI.
I will re-emphasize that this observation comes with the support of Akwesasne.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Given the observation and since I’m very familiar with the Akwesasne territory and its complexity, since the territory covers Quebec, Ontario and the United States, we must keep in mind that the people who enter or exit the Akwesasne reserve should be processed by a customs port. As I told the Akwesasne reserve representatives, I worked for a year and a half on the reserve, and a number of illicit goods passed through the location. If this can improve the situation for Akwesasne residents, individuals who enter or exit Canada should be processed by a customs port of entry, since the geographical circumstances are fairly complex. That was the comment I wanted to make.
[English]
Senator Plett: Chair, I’m not opposed to this, but again I’m wondering whether the language could be softened a bit, in the first one. In the second one, at least we’re saying “consider,” which I like better than a directive. The first one is somewhat of a directive to ensure appropriate redress. I’m wondering whether Senator Griffin would be opposed to softening that language a little bit, keeping the intent of what you want there. More of a recommendation that they look at what can be done about the problem is what I’m getting at. I’m not sure I have the word on the tip of my tongue.
The Chair: Maybe I could assist. Instead of “ensure,” could it be “consider”?
Senator Plett: Yes, absolutely. If we could put “consider,” I would be much happier.
Senator Griffin: I can live with that.
Senator Coyle: I have a question for Senator Dagenais. Given the experience that you spoke to, senator, I’m not clear whether you support this.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: As I noted, at the start of the observation, it says that individuals can enter and exit Canada without having been processed by a customs port of entry. Further on, it says that an agreement must be made with CBSA in Massena so that individuals can be pre-cleared. However, we must be careful, because there’s a customs port in the middle of the reserve. People can pass through, but again, there must be checks.
I’m familiar with this situation. The issue is that, at some point, a number of illicit items may flow through the reserve, since it becomes difficult to monitor the reserve located in the middle of the border between Canada and the United States. A customs port of entry and an agreement with the Canada Border Services Agency are essential. The entry and exit of individuals must be subject to checks. I know that this observation isn’t easy to understand and is a little complex.
A little further on, the issue of eligibility for benefits is addressed. However, for the Canada Border Services Agency, the geographical circumstances of the reserve are quite complicated. In addition, the Mohawk Council representatives agree that a police service exists, but that some form of checks must be carried out. Otherwise, they’ll be victims of the flow of illicit items on the reserve between Canada and the United States.
[English]
Senator Coyle: I wanted to ask our CBSA rep if he would weigh in on these two elements of the observation.
Mr. Lawrence: The department wouldn’t have a concern with consideration of Massena for pre-clearance operations, nor working with our federal colleagues on appropriate redress.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator Gold: With the language softened as Senator Plett suggests, I’m comfortable.
To go back to Senator Dagenais’ point, latitude notwithstanding, it’s beyond the scope of this to start talking about where we put some other borders and customs stations.
It might be helpful to remove the latter clause in the introductory paragraph, to simply have the observation say:
The Mohawks of Akwesasne expressed border mobility concerns related to information sharing as a result of their unique geographical circumstances.
Therefore the Committee recommends the following:
And then we get into the substance. Because it’s that phrase which highlights the fact that you can go in and out without a border may give rise to some questions. That was just a literary attempt to address the issue.
Senator Coyle: The whole thing is an observation.
Senator Gold: I understand. I don’t feel strongly about this. If it would help Senator Dagenais’ concerns to remove references to the customs port of entry, that would be fine.
The Chair: Senator Gold, can you clarify how you would change it? That’s where the confusion is.
Senator Gold: I beg your pardon. In the second line of the observation, after the word “circumstances,” where there is a comma, I would put a period and delete the remainder. I’m not sure we lose anything by doing that, nor do I think we necessarily gain anything by taking it out.
The Chair: Senator Griffin, back to you in terms of the comments you heard, what I heard with respect to your (1) is that you were content with “consider” instead of “ensure.”
Senator Griffin: Yes.
The Chair: With respect to Senator Gold’s comments, would you be agreeable to taking the latter part of that first part out?
Senator Griffin: I would have to agree with his last comment where he’s not sure if it adds to it or takes from it to take it away. I think it takes away from it. The issue is the entering and exiting.
Senator Gold: Got it.
Senator Griffin: I would like to keep it.
The Chair: I want to make sure everyone knows what they are agreeing to. We would leave it in the way it’s currently drafted. The only change we would make is the one suggested by Senator Plett, which is to take out the word “ensure” and substitute the word “consider.” Am I correct?
Senator Griffin: Yes.
The Chair: Is everyone in agreement with that observation?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed, then, that I report this bill, as amended, with observations to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: If there are no other matters, we will consider the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)