THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, May 16, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met with videoconference this day at 2:01 p.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 19 and 20 of Part 5 of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures; and examine and report on issues relating to security and defence in the Arctic.
Senator Tony Dean (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. I’m Tony Dean, senator from Ontario and chair of the committee. I’m joined today by my fellow committee members Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais, Quebec, the deputy chair; Senator Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories; Senator Peter Boehm representing Ontario; Senator Boisvenu representing Quebec; Senator Dalphond representing Quebec; Senator Donna Dasko, Ontario; Senator Marty Deacon, Ontario; Senator Mobina Jaffer representing British Columbia; Senator David Richards representing New Brunswick; Senator Larry Smith, Quebec; and Senator Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Today we begin our examination of the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 19 and 20 of Part 5 of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.
In the first panel we welcome, to address Division 19, which includes amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, from Public Safety Canada, Mr. Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Crime Prevention Branch and from Correctional Service of Canada, Mr. Luc Bisson, Director General, Strategic Policy and Planning. To address Division 20, which includes amendments to the Customs Act, from Canada Border Services Agency we have Mr. Doug Band, Director General, Trade and Anti-Dumping Program Directorate and Alex Lawton, Executive Director, from the same directorate.
Thank you all for joining us today by video conference. We will now begin by inviting you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. We’ll open with comments on Division 19 from Public Safety Canada. Mr. Westmacott, you may begin when you are ready.
Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Crime Prevention Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am joined today by my colleague Luc Bisson, Director General of Strategic Policy and Planning at Correctional Service of Canada. I’m joining you from the unceded lands of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation. I’m grateful to have the opportunity to be streaming from their territory.
I am pleased to provide opening remarks to introduce the initiative under Division 19 of Part 5 of Bill C-19, which seeks to ensure that the use of dry cells complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Dry cells are one of many tools used by the Correctional Service of Canada to prevent the introduction of contraband, such as drugs and weapons, into federal penitentiaries. For reference, dry cells are cells without plumbing or running water. Inmates in dry cells are kept under constant observation so that any contraband that is expelled cannot be hidden, destroyed or manipulated.
We know that the introduction of contraband into institutions can have serious impacts on the health and safety of the individual. The presence of contraband is also a significant and pervasive security threat to the institution, placing the safety of all inmates and staff at risk.
As outlined in section 51 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as it appears today, if the institutional head is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an inmate has ingested contraband or is carrying contraband in a body cavity, they may authorize the detention of an inmate in a dry cell.
While current legislation and policies do not provide a maximum amount of time an inmate can spend in a dry cell, in practice, placements rarely exceed five days and are typically shorter. Procedural safeguards are in place regarding dry cells, including the requirement that the institutional head review the placement on a daily basis. The Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Correctional Operations at Regional Headquarters is notified of any placement exceeding 72 hours.
For your information, in their decision of November 12, 2021, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court found that section 51(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act violated section 15 of the Charter, as it discriminated against inmates who are believed to be carrying contraband in their vagina. As contraband in the vagina is not expelled in the same manner or at the same pace as contraband in the digestive tract, this leads to the potential for inmates with vaginas to be subject to a longer dry cell placement, well beyond durations faced by inmates who may have ingested contraband or concealed it in their rectum. Accordingly, the court found this use of dry cells to be unconstitutional, declaring section 51(b) to be of no force and effect in Nova Scotia. They provided Parliament with six months to amend the legislation to address the issue.
In order to preserve the use of dry cells as an important tool to support institutional security, Public Safety Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada are seeking to amend the CCRA provisions related to dry cells to ensure that their use complies with the Charter.
The proposed amendments specify the use of dry cells for the seizure of contraband only where there are reasonable grounds to believe it has been ingested or is being carried in the rectum. As noted earlier, prior to these amendments, the use of dry cells could also be used if there are reasonable grounds to believe that contraband was concealed in the vagina. This would no longer be the case going forward. This ensures that, when dry cells are used, there is a reasonable expectation that the contraband will be expelled. In addition, the amendments dictate that any inmate held in a dry cell will receive a visit from a registered health care professional once a day.
Allowing for the Charter-compliant and appropriate use of dry cells in all regions across Canada will help the Correctional Service of Canada continue to prevent the entry of contraband into its institutions, promoting a safe and secure environment for inmates and staff.
CSC continues to research and explore new technologies and practices, such as the use of body scanners, to better facilitate the detection and seizure of contraband while exercising the reasonable, safe, secure and humane control that is central to its mandate. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Westmacott.
We will proceed now to Mr. Band of the Canada Border Services Agency. Mr. Band, please proceed when you are ready.
[Translation]
Doug Band, Director General, Trade and Anti-Dumping Program Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency: It is a pleasure to be here today to present for your consideration proposed legislative amendments to the Customs Act. With me is my colleague, Alex Lawton, as has been mentioned. He is the executive director responsible for compliance enforcement in our trade and anti-dumping programs.
There are two distinct groups of amendments that I’d like to speak to today, both of which modernize the CBSA’s administration of Canada’s customs duties regime.
[English]
It may surprise some senators to know that, unlike the CRA, today, the CBSA’s revenue assessment and management functions are largely paper-based and manually processed. The first group of amendments addresses this reality by changing the Customs Act to allow the CBSA to electronically administer and enforce Canada’s revenue-related customs processes. In so doing, industry would also gain the ability to send the CBSA many custom-related documents — for example, accounting documents — electronically.
[Translation]
These changes address the many requests that the CBSA has received from stakeholders to transition away from paper-based processing in order to improve the efficiency of border management.
[English]
The second group of amendments are to clarify liability for the payment of duties and taxes, particularly for e-commerce shipments to individual consumers, where intermediaries — often customs brokers — are taking on responsibility for declaring the duties and taxes owing and for submitting the required accounting documentation.
Some ambiguity surrounding payment liability in these situations arose due to fast-changing e-commerce business models and also as a result of a 2020 decision by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
The proposed amendments provide legal clarity and predictability for both the CBSA and business, adding a new type of importer to the “owner and importer” identified in the Customs Act that is called “the importer of record,” and the importer of record is one that is jointly and severally liable for duties and taxes owing. The importer of record will simply be the entity that specifies itself as the importer on accounting documents that are submitted to the CBSA.
I want to underscore for senators that the amendments address only duty and tax liability and do not alter any existing liability for health, safety, security or any other existing liability under the Criminal Code.
Honourable senators, these amendments are critical to the modernization of Canada’s customs duties regime.
[Translation]
Thank you very much for your time today and I look forward to answering your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your opening statement, Mr. Band.
We’ll now proceed to questions. I note that this panel must finish at 2:55 p.m. In order to allow for as many questions as possible, we will be allotting four minutes for each question including the answer. I ask that you keep your questions succinct and that you identify the witness to whom your question is directed. I would like to offer the first question to our deputy chair, Senator Dagenais. Over to you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My first question is for Mr. Band. Mr. Band, I would like to talk to you about the impact of e-commerce on the screening of commercial goods. As you know, Amazon, Wayfair and the postal service have never been so busy. Has the Border Services Agency’s technical capacity and cargo screening capacity been adjusted or corrected to be effective, or are there a lot of goods that can slip through the cracks because of the daily volume?
Mr. Band: Thank you very much for the question, Senator. That is absolutely the case.
[English]
Without question, we have seen an explosion in volumes and thereby revenues associated with major e-commerce entities of the type that you have mentioned.
Like any customs agency around the world, Canada is struggling to keep pace with that. There is no shame in admitting that. We do have a program called the Courier Low Value Shipment Program, or CLVS Program, which has rules that allow for the rapid movement of those goods that are presented by couriers. In this proposal here, we are making sure that as those business models and as those players continue to grow and expand their e-commerce capabilities and interests, that they do so fully aware that there are liability and risk from a revenue standpoint to some of those activities. In particular, with this amendment, we’re saying that we believe that the entity that declares itself at the time of accounting to be the importer is, in fact, the importer and that they, along with the owner — in many cases, the consumer — and the importer-proper can all be held severally liable for the duties and taxes.
That gives us the ability to address some ambiguity in the law that arose out of a 2020 Canadian International Trade Tribunal decision which held that CBSA could not hold an entity, a broker or a freight-forward jointly liable for duties/taxes when they had been using their business number to clear customs and to account for the monies owing. That in itself wasn’t sufficient.
So, by virtue of this change, we will then be able to, when an entity — in many cases, a broker — uses their business number and offers the clearance services as well as the accounting services that many do, there will be the ability to ensure that the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian government secure the revenues that are owed as a result of that importation.
The Chair: Thank you for that very clear and helpful answer, Mr. Band.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My question is for Mr. Westmacott. In his 2019-20 report, the Correctional Investigator of Canada raises the issue that an inmate may be segregated in a dry cell until the removal of suspected contraband, thereby dispelling any reasonable expectations. The correctional investigator recommends that dry cell placements that exceed 72 hours be explicitly prohibited in federal corrections. I know from my own visits to federal institutions that this is done in a relatively respectful manner. Do you agree with the investigator’s recommendation that segregation in a dry cell should be limited to 72 hours, whereas currently it can exceed 72 hours?
[English]
Mr. Westmacott: Thank you for the question. Rarely does the placement in the dry cell exceed 72 hours. However, the rationale for maintaining the potential for exceeding 72 hours is in special circumstances where it may exceed that time.
I will also turn to my colleague Luc Bisson to see if he has a view to share.
[Translation]
Luc Bisson, Director General, Strategic Policy and Planning, Correctional Service of Canada Service: Thank you for the question, Senator Boisvenu. Essentially, imposing a maximum number of days, especially a 72-hour limit, is problematic, since there is no consensus among experts in the health field regarding the maximum number of days for substances or goods that should be expelled from the digestive system. In many cases, this occurs within two days, but it is very common for substances to take longer than 72 hours, even beyond a week, to be expelled from the digestive tract. This is why there is no limit and why, in essence, we make sure that we prepare for all the scenarios. It is important to note the measure that is being put forward with the addition of daily checks, that is, visits by health professionals who ensure that the inmate who is kept in segregation can receive the necessary medical care and follow-up. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, thank you. My next question is for the representatives of the Canada Border Services Agency. Mr. Band, Canada has been very innovative in terms of computerization. I’m thinking, for instance, of passport control, which was a shortcoming of the service. We could wait for long minutes in Dorval before going through the control because everything was done by hand. Now it’s quick. How will this computerization process outlined in the law improve the services offered to citizens? I understand that the large import companies have a different procedure, but how will this change the lives of citizens when they return to Canada?
[English]
The Chair: Could we have a very brief answer to this one, please, because we’ve concluded? Very quickly, whoever wants to respond.
Mr. Band: Very quickly, the short answer is that these changes largely target the commercial activities of the border and, in particular, revenue-related activities. The beneficiaries will be companies.
It is part of a broader transformation and an automation of our revenue-management functions. There is a major IT project under way to automate much of what is currently in paper, and so the benefits will be reduced paperwork for business and better cycle times by virtue of having those things automated rather than having to send them in by mail and respond to them manually.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Anderson: Thank you, witnesses. My question is regarding the CCRA.
Mr. Westmacott, you stated that the dry cells rarely exceed five days, and then you just said something about rarely exceeding three days.
In the case that brought this forward, the female was in cells for 16 days. You stated that dry cells are an important tool to amend the CCRA. Can you tell me what case-management practices are you using, or are you amending any case-management practice in conjunction with changes to the use of the dry cell? If so, what are they?
Thank you.
Mr. Westmacott: Thank you for the question. I will turn to my colleague Luc Bisson, who has more operational information on this.
Mr. Bisson: Hello. Thank you for the question.
The Correctional Service of Canada did put forward changes to policy, which essentially ensures that there is a revision to the decision every single day an inmate is in a dry cell to ensure that it is necessary for the inmate to remain there.
The amendments to the CCRA do bring amendments to ensure that there are daily visits, and that will be in law in terms of having health-care-professional visits to the inmate in dry cell every single day. Through policy we’ve also instituted greater oversight both at the regional and national headquarters level. Therefore, after 48 hours, we’re asking for daily updates to our regional headquarters from the warden in order to determine if the placement is still warranted and to ensure that all the safeguards are in place. Beyond 72 hours, that will be done as well at the national headquarters level.
Those are additional safeguards that we’re putting in place in addition to the important changes to legislation to ensure that health care professionals visit every single day.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bisson.
Senator Anderson: You said the length of time rarely exceeds five days. Can you tell me if there is a difference in days in dry cells for males and for females, please? Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Bisson?
Mr. Bisson: Thank you for the question.
The amendments will essentially only allow the use of dry cells when it is suspected that contraband is held in the digestive tract. Therefore, you know, the use of dry cells, as was the case in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court case, will no longer be allowed in law.
In terms of the oversight, as I mentioned, it will be the same in both cases for men and women. The safeguards will apply in every single case. We have instituted measures to ensure that the wardens are providing these updates on a daily basis.
In terms of conditions of confinement, we are ensuring that the inmates in dry cells are provided with adequate bedding, food, clothing, toiletries and, essentially, support, both from a health care perspective and a spiritual perspective.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
I have two questions: Given the court ruling and the department amendment to the legislation, are you absolutely certain that this now meets the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That is the first question.
Mr. Westmacott: Thank you very much for the question.
Yes, our legal review is that this meets the requirements of the Charter, because it doesn’t allow for discrimination between women and men and provides equal treatment in terms of the use of dry cells.
Senator Yussuff: Does the department keep data in regard to people who are held in dry cells where it turned out that they are not carrying contraband? Does the department keep regular data in that regard, so we have some knowledge? Does the data reveal gender and race distinction?
Mr. Westmacott: I will turn to Mr. Bisson for an answer on that.
Mr. Bisson: Thank you for the question.
In fact, dry cells are an important method to keep institutions safe. We do keep data in terms of seizures that result from dry cell placements. In the last fiscal year alone, 2021-22, there were four separate drug seizures resulting from the use of dry cells and three separate weapons seizures resulting from the use of dry cells.
As you are aware, drugs and contraband introduced in our institutions poses a significant safety risk for inmates themselves, for staff and for visitors, and dry cells are an important tool to ensure that we seize the contraband coming into our institutions.
Senator Yussuff: A question also on the issue of the new electronic procedure that will be used for dealing with duties at the border. How would this digital customs prevent cross-border crime, including that relating to fraud, organized crime and international terrorism?
Mr. Band: Thank you for the question, senator.
I think that speaks to the security provisions and initiatives that will be in place around, in particular, the major capital IT project I described, the Canadian Assessment Revenue Management system. As a major Crown project, that will be subject to a very rigorous security review at every major release point. We have already been through our first — or zero — release and made it through the security gates, if you will.
The other thing I would just add is that the agency has been stepping up its efforts, generally speaking, with respect to trade-based money laundering. I know that is not entirely the terrorism focus that you mentioned, but there is a recognition that these nefarious interests can have intersection points with legitimate commercial activity, and through both of those means, the agency is strengthening its capability to underscore and address the importance of those.
The Chair: Thank you both for your answers.
Senator Boehm: I have two questions. The first is for Mr. Band of CBSA.
There is a trend, of course, to simplify by electronic means what we conveniently call “red tape” and other measures. I am wondering, as you were deliberating how best to do this and operationalize it, whether you were looking at other jurisdictions as well to see what they have done, in particular, the United States and Mexico, because they are our NAFTA partners, after all. As we embark on more trade agreements — whether it’s the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, or the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA — there must be a way to share best practices and also ensure there is some conformity.
Mr. Band: I think it is a point very well taken. The short answer is “yes.” In a previous job, I had the pleasure of focusing on red tape reduction across the entire federal regulatory system as the director general responsible for regulatory policy for Canada and through my work with the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council. This was an absolute imperative.
In terms of the agency, the short answer is that in the context of the legislative amendments before the committee today, all this does is create the legal ability. It’s the foundation, legally, to be able to request and receive information electronically. What the senator is speaking to — quite eloquently, I think — is how you come at that and implement the promise and potential that this ability can give.
There I would turn to this question of the other changes that are liability-related. There we have drawn heavily on the U.S. example. With this change, we’re essentially aligning with the U.S. model of importer of record liability. There are differences, of course, and you may hear about some of that from the industry members who will be testifying later. Those differences arise almost entirely out of the fact that our de minimis levels, as the senator knows, are very different in these jurisdictions, even within countries subject to the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. The U.S. de minimis level of $800 versus the Canadian levels of $40 for taxes and $150 for duty and taxes, both payable — that’s a very different threshold when it comes to being worried about revenue. Ours is very low. Theirs is very high. I think that plays out in how the different regimes can and will be operationalized, but we have been in very close contact with our American counterparts, including as of last week where we spoke to people responsible for broker regulations.
We make sure that we try wherever we can to line up. While respecting Canadian sovereignty and our ability as a country to make our own decisions, we recognize there is a North American marketplace, and there are efficiencies that can and ought to be had, including managing the risks and the business costs of liability.
Senator Boehm: Thank you Mr. Band. I have a quick question for Mr. Bisson or Mr. Westmacott, whoever would like to address this one. You mentioned there would be a medical health professional coming in once a day in the case of the dry cells. Would these individuals also have training on mental health?
Mr. Bisson: Thank you for the question. In terms of services being provided to the inmates, they continue to have access to health care services whether they be psychological or medical in nature, and that will remain. Obviously, the visit by the health care professional on a daily basis is to ensure that, systematically, there is a means for the inmate to voice their concerns beyond solely going through correctional staff. That will introduce additional oversight from a health care perspective.
As you know, dry cells are a key tool, considering that we have very limited means to seize contraband. Adding these safeguards will ensure that it is done safely.
The Chair: Thank you for the response.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to our witnesses for being here this afternoon. I have three reasonably quick questions, and I will direct them to Corrections at this moment. One is about some of the language that exists in this already. It talks about reasonable grounds that already exist in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA. I’m wondering if we have a general application or description of what reasonable grounds are. When dry cells are used, is the justification used recorded and made accessible for any investigation that may outline potential issues later on?
Mr. Bisson: Thank you for the question, Senator Deacon. Essentially, what the warden believes to be the grounds for the placement in dry cells do need to be documented. Those become the basis for the decision for the placement, and that remains available for future verification and is actually part of the record that gets looked at by our regional and national headquarters as the review occurs on a daily basis. It is documented. I think you had more questions, so I’ll stop there.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that. Now, of course, we know the impact of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia decision. My question is related to that. If there is an institute that suspects an inmate of carrying contraband in their vagina, and that inmate does not consent to an X-ray, what happens in that case?
Mr. Bisson: In those cases, we will be looking at every potential opportunity to encourage the inmate to essentially understand the risks and to work with health care professionals to ensure that we are able to safely seize the contraband and limit the risk to themselves. We’ll look at every potential option to work with the inmate and ensure that we are limiting the risk to them and limiting the risk of the contraband circulating within the institution. In certain instances, as a last resort, we may use structured intervention units to ensure that we have a controlled environment where we are able to monitor the inmates more closely and ensure that we are keeping contraband out of the institution and keeping the inmates safe.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. In finishing with that, and to complement what my colleague Senator Boehm was talking about — it’s great to see that the health professionals are more integrated and an important part of this process — if a health professional deems that dry cell is actually harming an inmate, do they have the sole power to remove the inmate — I heard you touch on this — or do they ultimately pass the information on and it’s up to the institutional head to make that decision?
The Chair: Quick response if we could, Mr. Bisson.
Mr. Bisson: In terms of health care professionals, changes to the CCRA in 2019 brought forward clear independence for health care professionals to make the recommendations and essentially force action to ensure the safety of the inmate. Therefore, should circumstances come up that require further health services or transfer to a hospital, they have the ability to make those recommendations from a health care perspective.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thanks to the witnesses. I’m going to ask three questions to Mr. Westmacott and Mr. Bisson. First of all, the federal government often — or sometimes, depending on the situation, obviously — will appeal decisions of the provincial courts to the Supreme Court. I’m interested in the thinking behind the federal government not doing that in this situation. Secondly, are body cavities the main way that contraband — especially drugs — gets into correctional institutions? My third question is this: I’m not entirely clear about the status of the use of X-rays. I wonder if you could clarify that for me. I’m not sure whether it is not supposed to be allowed or whether it is permitted frequently. I’m just looking for some clarification of that. That’s it for me, thank you.
The Chair: One minute per response. Over to you.
Mr. Westmacott: Thank you for the question, senator. We decided not to appeal the decision because we felt there was a way we could address the Charter concerns, which are the measures we are putting forward today.
In terms of whether body cavities is the main way of getting contraband into the institutions, I’ll turn to my colleague Mr. Bisson.
Mr. Bisson: Thank you. It’s a great question.
In terms of importance, we have a number of tools to allow us to detect the presence of contraband. We have talked about scanners. We have X-rays, detector dogs and metal detectors, among other things. Options to safely seize contraband are quite limited. Once it is in the digestive tract, the use of dry cells is essentially one of the only tools we have to safely retrieve the contraband and prevent it from being circulated or used within the institution.
In terms of the use of X-rays specifically, to answer your third question, those would warrant the transfer to an outside hospital. It would obviously require a little more logistics and coordination with external health care professionals. It requires security escorts, et cetera. It’s much more complicated.
It’s important to note that over the last five years, we have noted 281 drug seizures with the use of dry cells only and 10 weapon seizures with the use of dry cells. So it is a very important tool to allow us to seize contraband and prevent circulation within institutions, especially in this era of dangerous drugs like fentanyl that lead to overdoses. It’s crucially important that we have this tool to allow us to safely seize contraband.
The Chair: Thank you very much for those answers.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: My question is for Correctional Service of Canada and Public Safety Canada.
The people who are subject to this are prisoners, which means that the drugs have made their way into the secure area and then attempts are made to intercept them.
How many choose to submit to an X-ray or another electronic process rather than go into the dry cell? Is the equipment readily available? Is it available to people for whom there is reasonable suspicion that they have drugs on them?
Mr. Bisson: Thank you for your question, senator. We do not have a lot of means to recover drugs. The tools you mentioned, such as the use of ion scanners, the use of detector dogs or the use of metal detectors, are all means by which we can determine if there is contraband.
However, the dry cell is the only way that we can retrieve the contraband inside our walls, apart from the possibility of going further by means of a medical intervention where we would get the contraband in the digestive system, which would obviously present much higher risks. So the dry cell is the safest way to retrieve the contraband that would be in the digestive tract.
Senator Dalphond: But my question is more specific. Do you routinely offer anyone you suspect of contraband to use the electronic system rather than go to a dry cell?
Mr. Bisson: That is a very good question. I’m sorry, perhaps I misunderstood your question.
Of course, we work with the inmate to try to encourage him to hand over the contraband of his own accord and to work with the health personnel to allow monitoring to avoid health problems. We explore all other means before resorting to the use of the dry cell, but if the inmate is unwilling to cooperate and to hand over the contraband of his own accord or even to admit that there would be any contraband in his digestive system, the dry cell is the only way to do it.
[English]
Senator Smith: My question is for Mr. Band. When you gave your presentation, you said that Canada is behind other countries in terms of its infrastructure and managing its border and international issues.
Regarding the changes made through Division 20, what expectations do you have? Is this the first step along with other modifications and changes that you will be making to enhance our system and put it in a stronger position internationally? Could you give us a little background on the thoughts you had behind this?
Mr. Band: Thank you for the question. Just to be more precise, my remarks about being behind were in relation to our ability to work with industry electronically; it was in that narrow context. In many ways, we are doing a bang-up job.
But I appreciate the question because this is a part of a longer-term task before us, which we are well under way of implementing. That task is to strike a better balance between the facilitation and compliance imperatives that we, as an agency, have when it comes to the commercial processing of goods and, in particular, in my world, ensuring there is compliance with duties and taxes being paid.
If you look at our trade agreements like CUSMA and others mentioned, that dynamic tension or equilibrium is right in the agreement itself. You have to facilitate trade and ensure compliance. It’s fair to say that these changes are strengthening, and we have been strengthening since 2017 when the Auditor General released a report that was critical of how loose the regime had been around the money we collect and assess. The report found that despite industry’s best efforts, we were lagging. This liability change provides legal clarity.
We are undertaking other reforms, which my industry colleagues are well aware of and have been contributing partners in, to strengthen our ability to ensure voluntary compliance by industry on a go-forward basis. I mentioned an IT system transformation, the Assessment and Revenue Management system. That’s a game-changer for us, because it gives us the ability, for the first time, to have all of this accounting information in a system against which we can use data analytics and conduct really in-depth risk analysis. That was not possible before in a paper-based world where paper would be filed five days afterward. We just don’t have a sophisticated ability without that transformation.
We have done other things, such as increasing the monetary penalties already in response to some of the criticisms levied against this regime. I think we’re well on the path, with a great deal of industry support. They overwhelmingly understand and work hard to achieve compliance outcomes, because their reputation, as good customs partners, is very much on the line.
So thank you for the opportunity to mention those, Senator Smith.
Senator Smith: Thank you, Mr. Band.
Senator Richards: Senators Yussuff and Deacon asked my questions, but I’m going to ask a question to Mr. Westmacott.
I assume by “persons with vaginas,” you mean “women.” I think most of them would be in women’s institutions.
If dry cells don’t work — and I don’t think dry cells are the best thing for anybody — do they do any physical searches of the inmate if they are certain that they have something hidden in their cavity that could injure or harm themselves or the population of the institution?
I remember back in my earlier days the serial killer Allan Legere closeted a weapon in a body cavity and ended up escaping and killing four people. I would like to know if there is any search, other than dry cells or X-rays, that might be appropriate under certain circumstances.
Mr. Bisson: Thank you, Senator Richards. As you noted, obviously preventing contraband from entering institutions, whether it be weapons or drugs, is important to ensure the safety of staff and inmates.
In terms of other means, we can use searches in the context of trying to find out whether they have hidden contraband in their clothing or anything they are carrying. That would be done either through frisk searches or strip searches.
Once it is suspected that contraband is in their digestive system, other than using an X-ray or another scanner to ensure certainty that the contraband is there, the dry cell remains the only means within our institutions to seize the contraband. That is why they are designed the way they are, to ensure the contraband cannot be dissimulated or flushed away or be used. It is the only means we have to ensure that we observe the inmates and are able to seize contraband in a timely fashion.
Senator Richards: As we know, at times this doesn’t work for female prisoners with contraband in their vaginas. Is there another means by which you would address that, or do you address that? That is my only question.
Mr. Bisson: Thank you, senator. In terms of your second question, if we suspect the contraband to be in their vaginal cavity, we would encourage the inmate to work with health care staff and their case management team to willingly offer up the contraband and prevent any health issues to themselves. Our utmost worry in those cases is for them hurting themselves by keeping contraband in their vaginal or any other body cavity.
The first reaction is always to try to work with the inmate and resolve the situation without use of dry cells. In cases of contraband in the vaginal cavity, we work with the inmate through our health care and case management staff. If that isn’t successful, we would, as a last resort, use means like structured intervention units to ensure that we have more oversight around the inmate and can appropriately monitor the movement —
Senator Richards: Thank you, sir. That’s what I wanted to know.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you to the witnesses. I found this very interesting. I have been to prisons a number of times for visits. Lately, all the laws involve positive change and strengthening the rights of prisoners. That’s something we can all be proud of.
However, when you go into prisons, it is not like that. What we have already passed is not in place. I have so little time and others are going to tell you all these things. However, what I want to know from you, Mr. Bisson, is are you training the wardens? Are you providing — I don’t mean this in a literal sense — a police person who will follow this? My experience, when I go to prisons, is that even what we have passed in the last year or so is not being implemented. I was shocked when the warden at one prison said, “Oh, they are here. We had better do this and that. They just passed that.”
What are you putting in place to ensure wardens follow these rules?
Mr. Bisson: Thank you for the question. As any key change is put forward, we ensure that we provide training to our staff. More importantly, we ensure continued encouragement and awareness around their responsibilities, and we monitor compliance. We are committed to doing that further to the implementation of Bill C-83, which I think you are referring to in this case. We’ll continue to do that. We are committed to ensuring that we are providing the care and services, as you know, and we have the greatest responsibility to ensure the safety and custody of these inmates, as well as public safety. We are committed to doing that, and we are monitoring the situation closely.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Let me first thank my colleagues for questions that I think have brought a significant amount of very helpful information. That only occurs when witnesses provide the answers, and we are grateful for that today. I’m also happy to see that we had quite a nice balance between the two divisions. Thank you very much.
Senators, we will now move to our second panel. For Divison 19, we welcome Emilie Coyle, Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, and Catherine Latimer, Executive Director of the John Howard Society of Canada. For Division 20, we welcome Kim Campbell, Chair of the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, and Candace Sider, Vice President, Government and Regulatory Affairs of Livingston International. Thank you all for joining us today.
I invite you to provide your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from our members. I remind you that you each have four minutes for your remarks. We will begin with Division 19, Ms. Emilie Coyle. Welcome. Please proceed when you are ready.
Emilie Coyle, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies: Thank you for inviting me here today, senators. It is a pleasure to be with you. We are grateful that we were invited.
You are all aware of Bill C-83 and the administrative segregation regime in Canada, which was replaced by structured intervention units in 2019. This government has repeatedly told us that solitary confinement in Canada is no longer happening. However, we know this is incorrect, because as an organization we go into the prisons designated for women across the country and monitor the conditions of confinement therein. We can tell you there are ongoing forms of solitary confinement, which include observation cells, lockdowns and security units.
Today, we’ll be speaking to you about an egregious practice called “dry celling.” It is a form of solitary confinement where someone who is suspected of carrying contraband is held under direct observation with the lights on all the time — that is, 24 hours a day, seven days a week — with no running water. This can continue for an indefinite period of time.
I wanted to shed light on this practice by telling you about the experience of Ms. Lisa Adams, with her permission. I provide a content warning for all of you, as I will be recounting some details that are difficult to hear.
Ms. Adams was held in a dry cell for 16 days while incarcerated at the Nova Institution because they suspected that she had contraband in her vaginal cavity, which was ultimately disproven, and Ms. Adams had repeatedly denied that there was something there.
Ms. Adams has a history of suicide attempts. CSC was aware through her case notes that Lisa had attempted to kill herself at least five times before she was placed in the dry cell. We know from multiple other studies that putting people with serious mental illness in this type of environment is known to exacerbate this condition.
Just imagine being watched by someone every time you have to go to the bathroom, through a glass wall, with your hands above your head. Ms. Adams took this case to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. In November 2021, Justice John Keith found that section 51(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act breaches section 15 of the Charter and was neither reasonable nor justified under section 1. I will read you a direct quote from that decision:
Notes taken by prison staff indicate that Ms. Adams also faced “great mental distress” due to the lack of privacy afforded to her when urinating or attempting to have a bowel movement. Later this day, Ms. Adams’ mental health declined further. Staff notes indicate that Ms. Adams “had difficulty articulating clear responses and appeared to be overwhelmed by interaction staring into the distance rocking grabbing her hair and not responding when asked if she would like to see someone from mental health.”
As part of this budget bill, you will see that there is a proposed amendment, which will now prohibit CSC from dry celling people who are suspected of concealing contraband in the vaginal cavity, now replacing the word with “rectum” specifically in this legislation — a measure that they say will now bring them into compliance with the Charter.
You can understand why we are skeptical, as the data around dry-cell practice is shrouded in mystery; we don’t have it or it may not exist or they are unwilling to share it. Additionally, the conditions of dry cells are torturous. This amendment aims to minimize the harm of dry celling people and not stop it.
If the option remains for CSC to dry cell in some circumstances, we strongly believe that CSC will find ways to use it in almost all circumstances. However, here we are today. We have the opportunity to incrementally improve conditions for people who are incarcerated by amending the proposed wording. Although we recommend ending the practice of dry celling for everyone, at this time, we have some amendments that we hope you will consider putting forward to propose further amendments to the CCRA.
One would be to prohibit the use of dry cells if there are less intrusive methods available. Second would be to require, upon the free and informed consent of the prisoner, that CSC provide a body scan to assess the presence of contraband as a precondition to placement in dry cell. We also recommend that there are daily medical visits and assessments that are done by someone who is external to CSC, not under contract to CSC and thereby independent. We would also like to ask you to prohibit the discontinuation of treatments or prescribed medicines during dry celling; impose strict limits on the duration; and, finally, allow for some monitoring and mental health assessments that are currently provided to those in the SIUs as set out already in sections 37.1 through 37.11 of the CCRA. That is my time for now, I believe.
The Chair: Thank you so much, Ms. Coyle, for sharing that information with us. It is important that we hear it.
We will next hear from Ms. Catherine Latimer.
Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada: Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be here with the senators and to share the John Howard Society’s views on the proposed amendments dealing with dry celling that are included in the budget implementation bill.
As you know, the John Howard Society is a charity committed to effective, just and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. We would say that placing someone in a dry cell is far from humane. Many of the men that I have spoken with describe it as a degrading, unhygienic and soul-destroying experience. It is generally thought to be the worst form of solitary confinement. While we agree that contraband should not be in the prisons, the dry-celling technique for stopping the flow of drugs and other forbidden substances into prisons is cruel for anyone subjected to it. Prisoners are confined for days in cells which can be contaminated by the feces, urine, vomit and blood of others.
Prisoners are subjected to strip searches. Prisoners in dry cells are denied yard time, showers, personal belongings and access to lawyers and family. The statutorily required medical reviews are inadequate to recognize and protect prisoners from the impact of this form of solitary confinement on mental and physical health. In fact, often, prescribed medicines and treatments are withheld during dry celling, making underlying conditions worse.
People in dry cells are constantly observed by CSC staff and given inadequate clothing, often required to be naked when using the toilet. They are forced to urinate and defecate while being observed. The supply of toilet paper is often inadequate. They are unable to wash after using the toilet and before eating. This has a disproportionate cultural impact on Muslims who are required to be clean and properly dressed in order to pray. Prisoners are fed a diet of cheese sandwiches, which is not conducive to speeding the elimination process.
My colleague Emilie Coyle has already spoken about the courageous Lisa Adams who brought forward the concerns about her confinement, but, equally so, Michael Farrell is in the process of suing CSC based upon his horrific experience in the dry cells of Joyceville Institution, which resulted in physical illness from being denied his medications, and suicide attempts and trauma.
I would encourage the Senate committee to read Mr. Farrell’s statement of claim and view the videotape of his confinement to get a better understanding of the cruelty inherent in this practice. Prisoners tell me that dry cells can be used as a form of punishment when they have no contraband in their systems or when they’ve already produced contraband and are forced to remain in the dry cell.
The John Howard Society is disappointed that the government has chosen to deal with this important human rights issue in a budget implementation bill where fiscal imperatives might impede adoption of amendments that would prevent significant abuses and Charter violations.
Nevertheless, we would encourage the committee to consider the following amendments: Prohibit the use of dry cells if there are less intrusive ways of preventing contraband from entering the prison. Should a prisoner consent, require that CSC provide a body scan to assess the presence of contraband as a precondition to placement in a dry cell. Require that daily medical visits and assessments are conducted by an independent medical professional who is not under contract to CSC and who is thereby independent of CSC’s security and fiscal preoccupations. Prohibit the discontinuation of treatments or prescribed medicines during dry celling. Impose strict limits on the duration of dry celling to a maximum of 72 hours, or sooner if the contraband is produced, if a body scan or X-ray does not confirm the presence of contraband or if a medical professional indicates that continued detention in a dry cell would be injurious to the person’s physical or mental health.
I was taken with the comment of Senator Jaffer that the rule of law does not necessarily apply or transpire in the actual delivery of policies and programs in the institutions. However, if there are legislative requirements, it is much easier to hold people accountable and to try to compel compliance with those legislative requirements.
We urge you to consider legislating to avoid Charter violations and further abuses of people who are placed in this most demeaning form of confinement. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Latimer. We now move to statements on Division 20, beginning with Ms. Campbell.
Kim Campbell, Chair, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters: Thank you, chair and members of the committee, for including the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters on your agenda to allow us to provide input on this important topic.
We are a national trade organization that has been speaking on behalf of the Canadian trade community for almost 90 years. Our members include importers, exporters, Canadian manufacturers who both import and export, wholesale distributors, retail importers and supply-chain service providers. We represent some of the largest importers and exporters in Canada, as well as small- and medium-sized businesses.
Our members import and export across most commodities and product lines. The Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters endeavours to be a trusted facilitator between business and government, to inform and influence outcomes of policy and real-world application for movement of goods across Canada’s international borders.
The private sector needs transparency, predictability and ease of use in all of their interactions with government, but this is particularly so at the border. The last few years have been very challenging for our members as two of our pillars — transparency and predictability — have been shaken now that we live in the era of trade wars.
We have concerns that the number of changes proposed in Bill C-19 to the Customs Act will directly impact these abuses. We applaud the great work of the CBSA not only during the pandemic but in facing a number of large-scale disruptions this year, too — the B.C. floods, border protests and rail strike, to name a few. We have proven that when we have a common cause, the CBSA and industry can effectively work together for the best outcomes, while still maintaining the health, safety and security of our fellow citizens. These events also demonstrated just how important our border is to our economy and to ensuring that food gets to our tables.
For the most part, the changes proposed in Bill C-19 would appear to make sense, but there are some that set the stage for undesired outcomes that are of great concern to our members. There are many key changes here that need to be fully understood. CBSA needs to be challenged on some of their assumptions and intentions, and we need to ensure that these proposed changes to the Customs Act will not allow CBSA to mandate a system and processes that are not feasible and that will disrupt our border.
I would like to highlight a few areas of concern specific to Division 20. Industry needs to have choices. We are the experts in the cross-border movement of goods and need to be valued partners in these endeavours. CBSA has been very frank with trade over the last five years that they will mandate this system and that we will need to adjust.
There is an actual system that is being referenced in Bill C-19, and it is CARM. This was supposed to modernize and replace duties and tax reporting and payments. The next phase of the project requires the legislative changes before us to implement the system according to CBSA.
Industry believes that there are a number of key decisions that will completely disrupt our supply chain, add additional costs to industry and negatively impact our competitive position. We were alarmed enough that an industry coalition was formed in order to raise our collective concerns.
The proposed changes in Bill C-19 to subsection 8.6(1) of the Customs Act will give the CBSA wide-ranging authority to implement as they deem fit. It will also give them the ability to lay a financial burden on businesses. These amendments will allow CBSA to mandate importers to directly secure importations that are not paid for at the physical border. Today, service providers, specifically customs brokers, can provide this vehicle, but this will eventually be removed. In addition, importers will have to post financial security on GST. This is not mandated today, and there is no requirement for GST to be secured today, domestically.
The Government of Canada has not undertaken a cloud-based project on this scale. There are many inherent risks that need to be fully understood, as the system will contain Canada’s Protected B commercial trade data. In addition, this system will be the vehicle for CBSA to assess duties and taxes. Today, we self-assess, so it is another fundamentally big change.
Industry has a healthy level of concern. This particular pathfinder initiative is too risky to include Canadian businesses’ most sensitive trade data. Is our national security at risk when we put all of our Protected B import data in the cloud and have it managed by third parties? The system does not provide importers sufficient access-control levels, which further adds to the risk profile of being forced to use it.
In these amendments, the CBSA is seeking the ability to prescribe the system that importers will have to use in order for their goods to cross the border. The only other choice they will have is not feasible or desirable.
For many years, we have asked the CBSA to share and discuss legislation and regulatory changes in Bill C-19. CBSA does not share this information nor consult on what is proposed to support this new system change.
We very much appreciate the committee’s review here today, and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Campbell. Finally, from Livingston International, Ms. Candace Sider. Ms. Sider, the floor is yours whenever you are ready.
Candace Sider, Vice President, Government and Regulatory Affairs, Livingston International: Good afternoon. I would like to start by thanking the chair and all members of the committee for providing us with the opportunity to be here today.
As Canada’s largest customs broker, we represent approximately 25% of all goods imported into Canada, across thousands of importers that span a broad range of industry sectors. We have always viewed our relationships with government on both sides of our borders as an active and engaged partnership. We truly value the spirit of collaboration and stakeholder engagement.
You have all heard of the law of unintended consequences, I am sure. Such consequences might not be foreseeable or even immediately observable, and they might be beneficial, harmful or neutral in their impact.
The proposed changes associated with tying liability for duties and taxes to the custom broker, who is the party accounting for the goods for the life of the transaction, will have an adverse impact on the e-commerce stream for casual customers. If the broker elects not to use their business number, there is currently no mechanism for casual customers to obtain their own.
These issues will be particularly problematic, given how our business model has had to rapidly evolve over the last two years. The e-commerce component of our business has grown exponentially due to the COVID pandemic and the way in which customers utilize the internet to order goods. They have not returned to pre-COVID shopping patterns.
These changes bring an element of greater risk for us as we partner with e-commerce platforms and e-retailers to facilitate the movement of trade for casual customers. In practice, the proposed changes will also mean significantly higher costs for trade and, in many cases, slowing or stalling trade.
We can speculate on what recent events and tribunal decisions might have led to such changes.
Looking forward, and being as constructive as possible, let me just finally add that the central issue of liability for importers of record represents a significant change that has the potential for a negative impact on trade. The casual customers will be harder to track down if there is deemed to be an issue of non-compliance and enforcement action. Liability will not be shared but, rather, assessed 100% to the customs broker. There is no actual definition of the “importer of record” in the Customs Act. However, this amendment cites that the party accounting for the transaction will, in fact, be deemed to be the importer of record, even though they did not own the goods nor were they a party to the transaction; rather, they acted in the capacity of an agent to facilitate trade.
The ultimate result of these changes imposes greater risk for industry at a time when the minimization of risk is vital in addressing cross-border trade and supply-chain challenges.
Our U.S. counterparts have a very different policy as it pertains to the importer of record in the casual stream, as there is no liability imposed to the broker.
As a company who works closely with government and has always taken an active role in the public policy process, we respect and understand the need for cabinet confidence and that these decisions require a deliberative process that cannot be disclosed prior to the tabling. We respect the opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue with CBSA for the advancement of trade and to ensure compliant practices. However, we have come to understand, simply through actions rather than deeds, that there appears to be a change of posture from CBSA regarding stakeholder engagement. Less collaboration and, indeed, less transparency now characterize our recent working conversations.
At this juncture, why introduce undue risk upon this industry when we should be working collaboratively together to facilitate improved legitimate trade?
I would be happy to take your questions about our concerns around perceived shared liabilities and speak in more detail about how we view the impact on Livingston and our industry. Thank you once again for your time this afternoon.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Sider and to all of you, for your helpful presentations. We’re now going to questions. Time is tight, and we have a long list of those wanting to draw more from you. Therefore, I am going to restrict the questions and answers to three minutes at this time. Again, colleagues, I ask that you identify to which witness your question is directed and keep your questions succinct in an effort to allow as many interventions as possible. The shorter the question, the longer the answer.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Latimer. We know that combating contraband by means other than dry cells is not easy. Would you have any positive suggestions that could be accepted by the inmates and that would lead to the same result, namely the discovery of prohibited items? We cannot close our eyes to these situations that are potentially dangerous for the other inmates and also for the prison staff.
[English]
Ms. Latimer: Thank you, Senator Dagenais.
It would be beneficial if prisoners were given the option for a body scan. That would be the same type of mechanism that many of us pass through when we go through airports. It shows almost immediately if there is something hidden on or in the person. That should be a precondition to their being placed; there would have to be something showing on that scan for them to be placed in a dry cell. Then, once it is known there is something there, they should be given options to produce that.
I think that would make a world of difference.
The Chair: Do you want to add anything, Ms. Coyle? You may make a brief addition, if you wish.
Ms. Coyle: Yes, thank you so much. I just wanted to say that I agree very much with what Catherine Latimer has said. We have proposed language that we could send to you if you are interested in seeing the amendments that we would recommend.
In speaking with people who are in prison, as dry cells is an egregious form of punishment, they would prefer the option to consent to a body scan or an X-ray if that were possible.
Senator Richards: Once again, Senator Dagenais beat me to it, but I would say very quickly that I agree that dry cells are pretty horrendous. As Sophocles said, sometimes justice is no longer just.
As Senator Dagenais said, there is still a problem, and we cannot blind ourselves to it. Ms. Latimer, do you think those methods you mentioned would have the performance that the guards and the authorities in prison would want or would other methods be available?
Ms. Latimer: I think it would be an excellent place to start. I also think there should be a legislated cap on the amount of time people spend in the dry cells, and there should be options for them to be released earlier than the 72 hours on the conditions that I identified. I think that would make a world of difference.
If you could make them a little more hygienic, that would be a real plus as well.
Senator Richards: Thanks. That’s it. I will yield the rest of my time.
Senator Boehm: This question is for Ms. Campbell. Ms. Sider may wish to comment on it as well. You probably heard my exchange with Mr. Band in the last panel.
My impression from listening to both of you is that the consultative process with CBSA is wanting on customs measures and how to simplify them. Based on my experience in government, there is always a tendency to reinvent the wheel, whether through a change in government or a change in senior management. That is why I asked about what is being learned in other jurisdictions.
Ms. Campbell, you talked about assumptions and intentions not necessarily lining up with the stakeholder community, and you talked about the use of the icloud and third parties.
What do you think could be done concretely to improve the consultative environment?
Ms. Campbell: Thank you very much for that great question.
I think that there are a few things. One is — as maybe we’ve heard today and perhaps we were approaching it from the position initially — the idea that the border was broken and it was all this paper. But I have to be honest with you, we’ve been pretty automated for a long time. We were hoping that this next level of transformation would just pick up those pieces that are paper, because there are some still. They need to be automated. There is no question about that.
We ended up finding a couple of reasons. One is that, at the time, there was a lot of change of leadership at CBSA and also a mass exodus of professionals who had been managing systems implementation for many decades.
At that point in time, a decision was made — right or wrong — to outsource this initiative. So in actual fact, we have private-sector members, specifically Deloitte and Accenture, plus the decision was made to put all of this information into the Amazon cloud, AWS. So right off of the bat, we’re dealing with all-new systems infrastructure that the government writ large has not dealt with on this scale, and private sector is also trying to figure it out.
Because these folks also came to the table not really understanding the border, there was, in my opinion, a lapse in terms of how we facilitated our understanding of the border. There was also a layering on of mandates of what they thought was the most efficient way to address it. So I think it was the perfect storm that has led us to this moment.
In addition to that, the world has changed even since that decision was made five years ago. At the time, we were very interested in starting to move towards the cloud. However, we have learned a lot even in the last three years, and we now know that nefarious actors in rogue states are targeting this kind of information.
Senator Boehm: Would you agree that we’re looking at more than just the border? The government has indicated that it wants to get into trade differentiation much more seriously. We’re looking at several borders here, and we’re looking at several different means and things that we could learn from other countries, I’m assuming.
Ms. Campbell: Yes, I would agree. I have to be honest with you, I have personally worked directly with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and I sat as a foreign national, actually, on some of their committees. Their approach is much different. They definitely see trade as partners and work towards creating solutions together, and we have a lot to learn that way. We do not have that same approach here in this country right now.
Also, they expect businesses and leverage business systems. Our government has made the decision recently — in the last five years — that we’re not capable of doing that; therefore, they are taking over the responsibilities of calculating duties and taxes. We are actually the only country in the world that has taken that position. So, again, lots to learn here and lots of changes that definitely will impact us in the short and long term if we are continuing down this path.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you to all of the witnesses. My question is to Ms. Coyle and Ms. Latimer. Before I say anything, I want to say to both of you that I truly respect what you do. Ms. Latimer, I do not know which one of us is going to retire first. We’ve almost become friends with the many times we have met with each other in different roles.
I said this earlier and I say this again, I had a lot of hope after Bill C-83. What I have observed — and I want both of your opinions, as we only have a short time — is that I heard them say that they are here and so we have to follow it. But that is not what it is about.
To follow this up, I always find that when I am wanting to speak to Black prisoners, the way they are brought in in handcuffs and the way they are treated — I have often asked why they are treated differently, and they say, “You don’t understand. They are dangerous.” I meet with both, Black and White, and they are brought in differently, and they are treated differently. Is that just my lens, or can you both give me your observations on both of those things? Thank you. I will start with Ms. Latimer.
Ms. Latimer: Sure. I think the data is pretty clear. If you look at the recidivism rates of Black prisoners, they are quite low, but they retain high levels of security, and it is very slow for them to actually get parole and release. I think there are some significant cultural misunderstandings. What one Black prisoner said to me was, “They are trying to rehabilitate me to fit into a White, middle-class urban or suburban environment. That is not where I’m from, and that’s not where I am going. They do not understand, you know, what our culture is about and what is or isn’t a risky behaviour in our culture.”
I think lots of cultural work still needs to be done. The results wouldn’t bear it out, but I think there is greater sensitivity, maybe, to the Indigenous people and their cultural issues. I think that when you are looking at the various other sub-populations, there is an absence of understanding at the correctional level as to what is really a risk and what isn’t.
Senator Jaffer: And what about after Bill C-83?
Ms. Latimer: Terrible. We were told that this would be the end of solitary confinement. If anything, there is more solitary confinement as it is defined by the United Nations in the Canadian federal prison system than there was before Bill C-83. So winning the administrative segregation battle was a Pyrrhic victory for sure, and we need to keep on pursuing that.
Ms. Coyle: Do I have time to answer, chair?
The Chair: Very briefly. Yes, please do.
Ms. Coyle: Okay, certainly. I look forward to also getting to know you, Senator Jaffer. I have to say that I came onboard in this organization in early 2020 after Bill C-83 had been passed — just after the structured intervention units had been implemented. The SIUs are the old administrative segregation units. They are exactly the same. They may have painted them, they may have put up a new name, but it looks exactly the same. The practices continue and were especially egregious during COVID-19.
I have a question about dry cells — which is an egregious form of solitary confinement — in particular. This question relates to the assumption we’re making around security being enhanced by the presence of dry cells. Has the Correctional Service of Canada been required to provide data that dry cells actually increase the safety of people in the prisons? Because if they haven’t, why are we making assumptions that it continues to benefit the prison in terms of safety and security? I would argue that it doesn’t, and it makes it worse.
The Chair: My guess is we will be hearing more from you before we close.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here this afternoon. My question is for both Ms. Coyle and Ms. Latimer. You both suggest that prisoners receive body scans before being sent to a dry cell. There’s a piece I’m still missing. I’m going to read a briefing note quickly, then ask a question.
Section 51(3) of the CCRA would also be amended to maintain the ability of the institutional head to authorize the use of an X-ray machine . . . if the consent of the inmate and of a qualified medical practitioner is obtained.
I hope you can clear this up for me. Is there a strength to an airport-style body scan that an X-ray wouldn’t present? Would prisoners be more willing to consent to the body scan over an X-ray?
Ms. Latimer: The body scanners are less expensive. They don’t require a specialized technician and don’t require prisoners to be transported to a local hospital to have it. You have much greater efficiencies if you have body scanners in the prisons. I understand a lot of provincial prisons have them. There is no reason they can’t be in the federal prisons. It would save a lot of grief for a lot of prisoners.
Ms. Coyle: That’s exactly right. Senator Deacon, if it is helpful at all, we do have some language that we have added that we can propose as an amendment that would include the use of the words “body scanner” and “X-ray” that we can forward along to you if you have an interest.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that.
Obviously, you’re not fans of the dry cells. I’m just wondering if there are any international jurisdictions you could highlight that you feel might have a balance that’s a little more agreeable to yourselves.
Ms. Coyle: There have been some studies done of the use of body scanners in the U.K., for example, and other jurisdictions. I don’t know if I would point to them as best practices, but this is an opportunity for us as a country to lead the way. We pride ourselves on being a country that has humane corrections, which, obviously, Ms. Latimer and I take exception to. This could be one way we could live up to that reputation we hope to uphold.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Dalphond: My question is for Ms. Latimer and Ms. Coyle. Do you consider the new section 51(3) — the use of X-ray — as an improvement? Because it’s part of the budget implementation bill, it’s difficult to amend, but I understand it doesn’t go far enough.
I was appalled to read in the judgment of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court that on May 12, 10 days before final liberation, Ms. Adams asked for an X-ray and was denied access to it by the doctor, because he felt she was not providing informed consent.
I understand that section 51(3) is not enough. What you would like is the absolute right of the inmate to ask for it and from there, the obligation to provide the body scan or X-ray. Do you still consider that section 51(3) is an improvement?
Ms. Coyle: The issue with Ms. Adams was that she was in, as you would have read in the decision, this horrific Catch-22 where she had consented to the X-ray, but because she was still caught between having an X-ray or continuing to be in a dry cell, the doctor at the local hospital felt that it was unethical to provide that X-ray. If an X-ray is not available in the prison, we were hoping to amend it to include the body scanners, because there is availability within the provincial system already, and the legislation provides for it. As Ms. Latimer mentioned, it doesn’t require a special technician to read it. That would hopefully prevent this happening in the future.
Senator Smith: For Ms. Campbell and Ms. Sider, it appears that much change has taken place with the border administration since 2017. I’m just wondering, because you had some comments about whether the change had been good, if there were two things you could suggest that would improve relationships with third party businesses, what would they be?
Ms. Campbell: I would suggest a shared agenda. Right now, because of a worldwide World Trade Organization agreement, we are required to have a national facilitation body, which we have had for 30 years. However, what really has changed in my mind in probably the last 10 years, as we have gone from the world’s tenth best ranking in the world — now down to the 51 slot, is that we lost the shared agenda. I’ve been around the table for 30 years, and we had two solid strategic plans, but we haven’t seen one for over a decade. I feel one of the best things to say would be, “Let’s have a shared agenda, a strategic vision.” We see that on the U.S. side but not in Canada. We haven’t seen it in a long time.
We are also behind the eight ball just in keeping up with trends. Ms. Sider already talked about that. Regarding the e-commerce trend, business has been desperately trying to have conversations with CBSA, about how we can adapt to that. Forced labour is another one we are trying desperately to have conversations about. Those would be my two recommendations.
Ms. Sider: I would agree with what Ms. Campbell has suggested in terms of posturing and this shared agenda. It is critical for us in industry to be able to have a documented vision and footprint in terms of where CBSA is going, as well as to know how we can focus and share that agenda. We talked a little about transparency. It is critical at this juncture to have that openness and transparency and to work together.
Senator Smith: Wow. Thank you. It seems a bit shocking. Is there a way that leadership can be motivated to step up?
Ms. Campbell: With anything, whether it is the private or public sector, tone at the top is important. If the tone at the top is that we have a collaborative and respectful relationship and we see the benefit of each other in creating the best outcomes, that would certainly be a recommendation. Another big recommendation, which I know U.S. Customs and Border Protection would wholeheartedly support and help us with, is to take a look at what they do, how they communicate and work with their business community, because you would be shocked to see the difference. There are a lot of great lessons to learn there that we can leverage and perhaps have their leadership to help us.
Senator Smith: Thank you, witnesses.
Senator Yussuff: To the two witnesses from the John Howard Society of Canada, and the witnesses from the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, thank you very much for your presentations.
Body scanners are used at airports to keep us safe and to make sure folks are not taking harmful materials with them when they go through airport security. I’m interested if both of you could submit to the committee your recommendations to aid the argument you have made. I do find it quite challenging to understand why that’s not part of our remedial way of dealing with prisoners. Thank you so much for being here.
Ms. Latimer: I’m sure both of us would be keen to support whatever arguments might be helpful to you. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Sider. Ms. Sider, we know that procurement is difficult for many Canadian companies that depend on products from abroad. It seems to have become a necessity, and many complain, in particular, about the delays in Canadian ports to obtain these goods.
I see that Livingston is established in several countries. Could the Government of Canada invest more in improving and speeding up the trade verification of customs services? If so, could you give us an example of a country?
[English]
Ms. Sider: That’s a great question. Thank you for that. In the last couple of years, especially once we hit COVID, the dynamics of trade have been very different than the pre-COVID stage. There’s been a lot of impact. Kim made mention of that. The B.C. floods and a number of disruptors that have happened to industry have impacted supply chains — cargo not being able to move efficiently from offshore. Take a look at the Port of Long Beach. At one point there were 153 containers sitting out in the water. Now it’s down to 53.
We’re still talking significant time lags in terms of being able to clear that cargo, get it off-loaded and into the supply chain and into stores. We’re all seeing that. We are all experiencing empty store shelves and lack of supplies.
I want to focus on the e-commerce piece because I think that is the piece of the industry sector where volumes have increased exponentially, and they are going to continue on that path. CBSA is implementing a proof of concept. They are testing a new data analytics tool that will help them to better risk assess and ensure health, safety and security, so understanding what is coming into the country prior to its arrival, but that is a way off. It looks like that won’t be available until 2023 or 2024. We have a significant gap between now and then in terms of how we manage cargo.
We try to work collaboratively. That relationship is critical from an industry perspective but also the private-public sector in terms of what we need to do to move our agendas along.
In terms of what other countries are doing, there are various models. We analyzed about 20 different country models in preparation for CARM. They are all, I could say, similar but different. The onus is on facilitating trade and moving into an environment that is much more electronic so there is ease and speed in being able to understand what is coming into the country, to be able to risk assess more efficiently and for the collection of revenue, which is always a concern for the industry.
From a broker perspective, we have been collecting revenue on behalf of CBSA for decades. We are the conduit that facilitates trade, collects on behalf of importers and remits payment every month to the receiver general.
I’m not quite sure about the erosion of revenue. We have been clear on what needs to transpire to facilitate trade.
The Chair: Thank you very much. This brings us to the end of our panels of witnesses for today. I want to thank you sincerely for sharing with us your wisdom, expertise and experience on these two divisions. It has been very helpful and we have learned a lot about all the issues associated with these divisions. Again, we have had a good balance between the two. I want to thank you all.
Senators, in anticipation of the preparation of the draft report, I ask that you send any observations that you may have to the committee clerk for consideration at the next meeting of the committee. Of course, that extends to our witnesses as well. I think you know that already. Thanks very much.
Ms. Coyle: Thank you so much for having us here today.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senators, you should all have received a copy of the proposed budget for travel in relation to our study on security and defence in the Arctic, including military infrastructure. The budget proposes two fact-finding missions.
Before I provide an overview, I’m going to read the motion that is being suggested so that it is on the table.
Is it agreed that the budget applications for travel to Northern Canada — Nunavut, Iqaluit and Cambridge Bay; Northwest Territories, that is, Yellowknife, Inuvik; and Alaska, Anchorage — for a fact-finding mission and for travel to Colorado Springs, Colorado, for a fact-finding mission, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration?
Colleagues, you have the proposed budget in front of you for this travel. As you know, as part of our study of security and defence in the Arctic and in view of the budget process, timing is really important. We are on a tight time frame, so we do need a decision today.
We thought when we launched this study that it was important, and then there was the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, which upped the ante. We have heard the urgency from witnesses and, in particular, those who are familiar with Northern Canada. We know that northern travel is very costly due to logistics, but we also know that budgets of the scale that we are suggesting have been approved in the past.
You will not be surprised to hear that the majority of the costs come from airfare and charter flights, and we have borne additional costs for the travel portion due to Inuktitut translation services. We’ve worked hard to reduce the costs as much as we can.
The final thing I’ll say is that the northern part of this, which, of course, is the lion’s share of it, was very much advised by Senator Anderson, having consulted with Brigadier-General J.P.P. Godbout, Commander of Joint Task Force North, to determine the best possible locations for us. All of those suggestions are included. I’m not going to walk you through them. They are all in the briefing note.
We then added, at the recommendation of Senator Boisvenu, Anchorage, Alaska, to take a look at what is happening on the U.S. side at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.
Activity B, as you know, proposes travel to NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs.
I will say that, for contrast, we do know there are comparators for northern travel in the past that also reflect the cost of travel. In June 2019 there was a budget of $349,000 for a trip to northern regions that included some of those we are suggesting. The Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples had a trip in June 2018 for research in the Western Arctic and British Columbia that was costed at $433,000. We have seen one that involves legislation on Bill C-69 that goes even higher.
This is not an easy place for travel and it is a costly place to travel. The majority of us thought it was important, given the urgency, to look as broadly as we can to inform our study as deeply as we can. The motion is before you. Are there any questions or is there any discussion?
Senator Boehm: I have a comment on the trip and then another one regarding communications strategy. I don’t know if we are going to be discussing both.
On the trip, first of all, I think it is valuable that we do this. I think it will show that the Senate is keeping pace with very important geopolitical issues, which is what this committee is supposed to be doing. I welcome the suggestion by our colleague Senator Boisvenu to include Anchorage, but I would like to raise a question, and, of course, this would also raise additional costs.
In the past few years, we have seen greater decentralization on the part of the Kingdom of Denmark to Greenland, and, indeed, the second-last Secretary General of NATO was Danish, so Denmark has taken a great interest, obviously, in northern security as well.
I’m wondering — and Senator Anderson may have a comment on this as well — whether looking at the possibility of making a quick trip to Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, makes sense, or whether that is logistically out of the park in terms of costs. It is not really a suggestion. It is an observation that could be a suggestion.
The Chair: Senator Anderson is not with us right now, unfortunately, but let’s ask the question. I think those are important observations, Senator Boehm. We thank you for them.
Senator M. Deacon: I would absolutely agree. My question was, based on some of the latest information we have learned in the last few months, was the inclusion of Greenland a possible point, moving in the opposite direction of Alaska but trying to include some of those parts? I fully support what Senator Boehm is suggesting as a consideration today.
To me it kind of came down to what are we going after; what is it we want to see? The geopolitics of it also is a relationship establishment and relationship-building piece, and I was trying to consider that also at the same time.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll come back to this. We’ll close out on it.
Senator Yussuff: First of all, I thank my colleagues for the important work that has been done so far on the budget. Of course, there is no cheaper way to get there. Hitchhiking is not an option. The only way we are going to get to the North is, of course, with the cost.
I think it is critical, given the work we have done so far. The war in Ukraine has changed a lot. Canada, whether it likes it or not, will be, obviously, looking at renewing with NORAD and our sophistication as to how we can better provide our security and North American security, which is top of mind right now.
Secondly, of course, looking at our own sovereignty issue in light of Ukraine, there will be a lot of attention in terms of what the government might produce in their white paper and their review of defence policy. I think we can contribute in a very significant way, obviously, to what the government is thinking, but we will have to get our study concluded in a way to help influence their direction.
The only thought I would make, and this is purely from my perspective, is that as much as I would like to be on the entire journey of the trip, I don’t have to be on the entire journey of the trip. I will simply offer that as a way to help mitigate the cost. That’s only my perspective.
The Chair: We are together in that space and those inclinations, so thank you.
I’m advised that we likely don’t have time to work through the logistics of Greenland. In terms of timing pressures, we have to adopt a budget at this meeting, I understand. This is something we could come back to later. We’ll be, obviously, at this well into the fall and likely beyond, given the additional work that we have taken on.
I’m afraid that for today, the budget is what it is, and we have to adopt it as written. With that, and bearing in mind that we can keep Greenland on the table going forward, is it agreed that this budget — Senator Boehm, do you want to come back? Please do.
Senator Boehm: Just very quickly, I think it is entirely reasonable, of course, to proceed, but if we can work out a way, whether it is through cost-cutting measures, as Senator Yussuff and yourself have suggested, by all means. There may be a way to wedge in a quick trip to Nuuk. I just don’t know what the logistics are. It seems to me it would make some sense to consider that in the overall picture. I’m with you and the sentiments in terms of moving ahead.
The Chair: Thank you for that, and thank you for your advice. It is a great idea, and I wish we had thought about it earlier. We will make best efforts.
That being said, do I see agreement? I am looking for a show of support. It looks like we are there. Thank you very much. It is supported.
Thank you, senators. This budget is now going to be submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. It will be reviewed by SEBS, the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets at their next meeting.
This concludes today’s meeting. Our next meeting takes place Monday, May 30, 2022, at our usual time of 2 p.m. ET. With that, I wish everyone a good evening.
(The committee adjourned.)