JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 2, 1997

• 1536

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Minister, welcome.

Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Thank you.

The Chair: I can't believe we're studying a new topic. Believe me, it's very nice to start a new topic.

We are here on the customs officers' powers bill, Bill C-18. We have with us today the Honourable Harb Dhaliwal, who is Minister of National Revenue, and with him are Allan Cocksedge, assistant deputy minister, customs and trade administration branch, and Maureen Tracy, interim director of the policy development division, contraband and intelligence services, customs and trade administration branch, both from Revenue Canada.

Thank you for coming. I know you have a presentation. Then if time allows we'll have questions.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

To the honourable members, I'm pleased to be here to talk to you about changes under way at Revenue Canada that will enhance the safety of Canadians. Specifically, I'm here to discuss Bill C-18, which will give Revenue Canada's customs officers additional powers to enforce the Criminal Code at the border.

Since becoming the minister responsible for Revenue Canada I've had an opportunity to meet many of the men and women who work in customs. In the process I have been enormously impressed with the scope of their duties and the professionalism with which they carry out their jobs.

Key among their duties is their responsibility to protect the safety of Canadians. It is a responsibility our officers take very seriously.

If you ask Canadians what distinguishes Canada from most countries, they will tell you Canada is much safer and less violent. This is something Canadians do not want to change. It is something they expect this government to maintain.

This government believes all Canadians have a right to live in peaceful and safe communities. We are prepared to do everything we can to ensure our streets remain safe. Bill C-18 is vital to our efforts, because it closes an enforcement gap that currently restricts our officers from acting to control criminal activities such as impaired driving, child abduction, and the possession of stolen goods at the border.

Bill C-18 will provide our customs officers with the authority to detain and arrest individuals who are suspected of committing Criminal Code or other federal offences until local authorities arrive. It also gives officers the authority to detain individuals who are the subject of outstanding arrest warrants.

Some people have expressed concern about whether arrests will be done in a manner that respects the rights of all members of society under the Canadian charter. Customs officers have been arresting people for offences such as drug smuggling for decades. They perform this duty with professionalism and with respect for the rights of those involved. This will continue. This bill is an expansion of the scope of the offences these powers can be applied to, including Criminal Code and other federal offences. In other words, it is not the power to arrest that is new. It is the scope of offences to which our officers may respond that is new.

The fact is that customs officers encounter criminal activity at the border, which falls outside the Customs Act, and they have even witnessed actions that have resulted in tragedy because they did not have the legal authority to step in. This is an intolerable situation, one that places all Canadians at risk. It is a situation that must be corrected.

• 1540

Using this legislation, we propose to provide customs officers with a first-response capability at the border, allowing them to detain and arrest individuals who are suspected of having committed offences or are in the process of committing offences under the Criminal Code. This first-response capability will bridge the gap between the time customs officers detect a Criminal Code offence and the time police can intervene.

Let me assure you that customs officers will not replace police officers. What this legislation will do is give customs officers the means to be of more assistance to police agencies. We're not asking for sweeping powers. Customs officers will not be called on to participate in Criminal Code investigations or to transport prisoners. What's more, customs officers will only be allowed to use these new powers while on duty at points of entry.

And not all customs officers will be given this expanded power of arrest. This broader role will only be carried out by designated customs officers who will be drawn from those who are in regular contact with the travelling public. In practice, this will involve about 2,000 to 2,500 members of the current customs officers workforce.

Canadians can also be assured that these designated customs officers will receive additional training to ensure that they act fairly, responsibly, and within the confines of the law in carrying out their new duties. I must point out that we already train our customs officers in arrest procedures, the charter, and other issues that relate to powers of arrest. With this initiative, this excellent training will be augmented to cover areas such as the identification of Criminal Code offences and related court jurisprudence.

In addition, training will be coupled with a clear accountability structure that will outline situations calling for a first-response action. I must emphasize that students will not have these powers. They will continue to work with permanent customs officers and designated officers who will be on hand to respond to Criminal Code situations.

In terms of the cost of this initiative, we have estimated that planning and start-up costs will be approximately $5.5 million. This would include the costs of training officers and renovating facilities so they may properly hold suspects until law enforcement agencies can intervene. After implementation, the ongoing costs will be minimal.

I cannot deal with this issue of customs officers' powers without addressing the very difficult issue of arming customs officers. Clearly there will be times when an armed and dangerous criminal approaches a border. This would indeed be a perilous situation, but it is simplistic to believe that the situation suddenly becomes less dangerous if the customs officer is armed. Our officers already encounter dangerous people, many of whom are drug and weapons smugglers, and they have never needed guns to effectively handle these types of situations.

We want to avoid violence. The best response to a dangerous situation is not more weapons, but common sense. Like police officers, our officers are trained to assess the safety implications of any situation. We have faith that on those occasions when customs officers have to confront a dangerous person, their common sense will dictate that they will avoid placing themselves or the public in danger, contact the police, and withdraw from the situation. In other words, common sense will dictate the smartest response for each case.

Madam Chair, we care very much about the safety of customs officers, so we would not be pushing for this legislation if we thought it would jeopardize their safety. Officers already undergo extensive training on search, seizure, and arrests as peace officers, and in the coming months we will provide training on the use of force for personal protection and to compel compliance with the law. Furthermore, we will make sure that by the time the bill is implemented, protective gear will be available to officers who request it. The bottom line is that no officer is being asked or will be asked to carry out their duties without proper training or support of their local police.

• 1545

Bill C-18 is not only about the changing role of the customs officer, it is also a symbol of the progress achieved and the foundation put in place over the last few years to strengthen the role of customs in a world where crime has no borders.

At Revenue Canada we have undertaken some major initiatives that are allowing Canadians to seize the opportunities created by liberalized trade and travel, while protecting us against threats to our social and economic well-being. In general these initiatives are allowing us to free up resources to concentrate on high-risk traffic with more effective enforcement to control gun and drug smuggling, as well as the illegal movement of people across our borders.

In this regard Bill C-18 will make a tremendous difference to the enforcement of our Criminal Code at the border and, as a result, make more safer communities in this country.

Customs has always been vital to Canada's safety and prosperity. That is why this bill makes sense. It will allow customs officers to do more value-added work that makes a real difference. This is a view shared by the provinces, others in the law enforcement community, citizens groups concerned with crime prevention and victims' rights, and tourism officials. We also have the support of customs officers and their union, who are full partners in this initiative and are indeed most anxious to proceed.

During our consultations with these groups one message was clear: customs officers must be able to stop criminals at the border before they have a chance to enter this country. Police officers, police chiefs, and attorneys general all know that these new powers will enhance our ability to catch criminals at the border. This is why giving customs officers these powers will help the police do their job more effectively.

The fact is that this bill will support the efforts of the police and those involved in the judicial system to intervene before offenders proceed to commit serious crimes.

I'd like to remind the committee that customs officers will provide a first-response service to police. This initiative in no way interferes with the responsibility of the provinces to enforce the Criminal Code. Upon identification by customs officers, suspects will be turned over immediately to police of jurisdiction for follow-up as they see fit.

Even with this kind of consensus, we chose this approach only after carefully and thoroughly deliberating on the matter to make sure that this approach would be right for customs and right for Canadians. I'm convinced that Bill C-18 is right. Not only is it a modern approach to fighting crime, but also it will improve crime prevention in this country. It is also an efficient and effective use of our law enforcement resources, a view that I'm sure is shared by Canadians. In a recent poll Canadians told pollsters that crime and justice issues are among their priorities for their communities. In fact, some believe that it deserves serious attention from governments.

This bill tells Canadians that their government is listening and that we're taking action.

Bill C-18 is necessary, and it complements the approach this government is taking to ensure that Canada remains a place where Canadians can feel secure in their homes and on the streets of their communities.

That concludes my presentation, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

We're going to start with five-minute rounds, because we don't know when the bells are going to ring.

Does the Reform Party have any questions?

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): I'm curious, Minister. Right now how many automated ports exist along the Canada-U.S. border, and how many more will become automated in the upcoming year or two?

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Are you talking about land border crossings that are automated?

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Allan J. Cocksedge (Assistant Deputy Minister, Customs and Trade Administration Branch, Department of National Revenue): Just a question of clarification. By “automated” do you mean with computers or—

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Yes, that's right. Automated.

• 1550

Mr. Allan Cocksedge: We have 22 designated ports for commercial importations which had the whole plethora of automated equipment. We have another 50, roughly—I'll give you the precise number as a follow-up, if you wish—which have information to allow travellers to pay their duties through the computer, as well as equipment that allows us to connect to police systems.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: The reason I'm curious is that I also wanted to know how many ports that maybe were outdated have been closed, and how many will be closed in the future, in order to accommodate the newer ports or the ones that are being automated in that sense. Is that the way you approach it when you're looking at, for instance, some of the technological advances you're making in these ports, and advances in automating them? Are there some you marginalize and close down? Maybe you can explain that process, if I'm misunderstanding it.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: I think you're referring to those land border crossings where we've expanded the hours by putting in cameras. We have some land border crossings that are not highly utilized and sometimes they are open only at certain times. We're expanding those hours by using technology. I believe there are two or three ports where we're expanding the hours by using cameras.

Mr. Allan Cocksedge: And another 20 or so with the Americans over the next few months.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Right now we have two or three we're looking at, but we're looking at 20 others, to expand service to Canadians by using technology and provide more hours of service than we currently provide. But you should keep in mind that those are areas where there are very few crossings and not a high utilization.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Minister, the bill provides in a limited way for giving the authority of a peace officer to designated individuals, and I assume permanent employees. Why have you chosen to be somewhat narrow in that designation, rather than just saying they shall have the powers of a peace officer, period—instead of defining it? What are you afraid of? Again, in the request for this designation you've gone just halfway.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: I don't believe we've gone halfway. What we have done is identified those areas that are our problems and those specific areas where we think we can contribute to the safety of Canadians, from our experience, where we've seen abduction of children, drunken driving—where we can make a contribution. So I don't think we've narrowed it.

But certainly we don't want our customs officers to be police officers. They are acting as customs officers under the Customs Act. They will have added, expanded powers under the Criminal Code.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I will just provide a signal to you that there's a fair amount of precedents. For example, in the administration bureaucracy of the Attorney General's ministry, which I worked in, it was found appropriate to provide the legal definition of a peace officer for liability purposes, even though under administrative protocol you're not a police officer. Even if we had a clerk who was working for the parole board, someone who did nothing but issue material off their desk, they were still designated as a peace officer for certain protection purposes because of the kinds of clients who came into the office.

I'm just signalling to you that you still may have an issue to deal with here administratively in the future. I would direct you to look at the historical experience of the B.C. Ministry of the Attorney General in designating a lot of their bureaucratic employees as full-time peace officers.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: I'm informed all customs officers are designated as peace officers at present.

Mr. Allan Cocksedge: No. Could I clarify? What is intended is that certain customs officers would be designated the powers, protections, and obligations afforded to peace officers for the purposes of the first-response role they are being asked to play here. I believe your question, which is an excellent question in terms of liability and so on...all of that would be covered in that designation.

The Chair: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, I have a couple of questions.

First of all, I have some concerns about this, and perhaps you can alleviate this for me. When I look at proposed subsection 163.5(3)...and let me say at the outset that I support the legislation. I think for a long time customs officers have needed more powers than they have.

• 1555

That being said, I look at this section, which authorizes that:

A designated officer...may detain the person until the person can be placed in the custody of a peace officer referred to

There's no time limitation on that. Is there any concern on your part that this could lead to some kind of charter challenge? I say that as a former defence lawyer who would say “My poor client's been in here far too long”. Is there a remedy for this that I'm not seeing? If there is, I'd appreciate it if you could point it out to me.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: One of the things we looked at was to make sure we were within the charter. This is taken right out of the Criminal Code. It's been tested over and over. So I'm sure it would withstand any charter challenge. We're confident of that.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I guess I would follow it this way, then. I see this working in a particular way, that the individual detained would be detained until a peace officer, either an RCMP officer or a local police officer, could be contacted to come and transport the individual. I just wanted to be clear on that.

The second question I have for you—I have only five minutes—is in terms of training. Who would do the training for the customs officers, or do we know that yet?

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: We have our own training facilities right here in Montreal, at Rigaud. The training would be done there. Obviously, as to what the best source is, in terms of whether we get the RCMP and all that, I would presume those people would do the normal training in terms of Criminal Code situations. We would ensure that they'd get appropriate training with the expanded powers they have.

Certainly this would be additional training to the training they already get. They already get training to detain and arrest individuals who come through the border. This training would be in terms of how we recognize that Criminal Code offence and how we would respond to it. So it would be additional training over and above what they get at the present time.

We anticipate that it will take six to nine months to make the necessary changes so that we can give the designation to the customs officers.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay. That's all, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Muise is next.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I'd like to start by thanking the minister for his presentation.

Mr. Minister, what assurances are there in place to not stretch too thinly the resources of customs agents? By expanding their responsibilities further into law enforcement, isn't there a risk that their traditional inspection roles will be diluted?

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: No. I think what we're doing is taking existing resources and better utilizing them. I think what will happen is that the added training will help to better utilize the resources they have. We can deploy resources we have, if we have more resources in certain areas because of an additional problem. We do that on a regular basis.

So if we find that we have to deploy resources due to the added responsibilities, we would be willing to do that, to see what would happen. But we don't anticipate that this will entail any new additional resources. It does entail better utilization of existing resources.

I think what we're saying is that overall Canadians will benefit, because we have a resource of customs officers being there that can detect when criminal offences are being occurred, and we can respond quickly. In the past sometimes officers used the Customs Act in serious situations, which they can under the Customs Act, and at the same time tried to respond to a situation like that. Now they have a clear focus and clear responsibilities to be able to take action when they see that there's a Criminal Code offence.

Overall I think we'll be able to manage within the existing resources, but certainly you've made a good point. We may have to deploy resources.

We have also in the customs office flexible response teams that move wherever we need people. This is something we've done in the last few years. Certainly we want to utilize resources to the best possible way. We'll work toward doing that. You've raised a very good point

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

This is not my permanent committee. I substitute from time to time. I have a question that maybe was addressed earlier.

Has there been anything put in place for protection for these agents if they get into a situation that puts their personal safety at risk? Has there been anything put in place to protect them, either by having weapons or the vests police wear—anything along those lines?

• 1600

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: First of all, in my presentation I addressed that issue of firearms. We don't believe that firearms are necessary, from our experience, nor do we believe that this would in fact add to the protection.

We do believe that with proper training and common sense, when there is a dangerous situation, our customs officers will be trained so that they take the appropriate response. They might remove themselves from a situation where they feel it might be violent. Then they can call the police. We certainly want them to use good judgment in those types of situations.

One of the other options we also have when this comes into effect is to provide protective vests for those officers who want them. So we'll give them that option as well. It's for those individuals who do want them. On request, we'll provide protective vests to protect them.

Mr. Mark Muise: Just on that line, Mr. Minister, I was reading an article the other day in which a customs officer said that he regularly saw this young man go to the United States late at night and then come back most evenings intoxicated, but he couldn't stop him.

One evening the man was riding a motorcycle. He left there speeding. Less than a minute later, he was dead in a pool of blood.

I thought that if there were no means in place other than just training, how could this officer have stopped this individual from going by? Training might not have helped the case there a whole lot.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: We detain people now for smuggling and drugs, so they're well trained to detain individuals.

Mr. Mark Muise: Okay.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: I certainly don't think that in a situation even like the one to which you were referring we could have stopped this individual. You're not going to take your gun out and shoot him.

Mr. Mark Muise: No, absolutely not.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: But the idea is to make sure that for all those we can detain in a safe manner, we'll do that.

The example you gave shows how, at the beginning, when we could have detained the individual and called the police, we might have saved that individual's life. That's our whole intention.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. Did you want to ask a question, Mr. Lee?

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Yes, I have two questions.

As I read the main section of this bill, it has four subsections. This is proposed subsection 163.5(4). As I read this—I'm being a little technical—it looks like a catch-22. It says that designated customs officer may not use any of the powers conferred under the act—this includes all of the powers in proposed section 163.5—for the purpose of looking for evidence of a criminal offence under any other act, including the Criminal Code. If that's true, then proposed subsection 163.5(2) seems to run contrary to that provision.

My first question is this. The way it's written, it's clearly a catch-22, with proposed subsection 163.5(4) negating the whole intent and purpose of proposed subsection 163.5(2). Perhaps you could answer that.

Second, as I read the definition of “peace officer” and with the empowering section, which is proposed subsections 163.5(1) and 163.5(2), it seems to me that a Canadian customs officer could detain and turn over to a U.S. agent or agency at the border, given that a U.S. agent employed as a peace officer over there would seem to fit within the definition of paragraph (c) under “peace officer” in section 2 of the Criminal Code.

So my question is: can a peace officer in Canada detain normally under these provisions and turn over to a U.S. agent at the borderline? Then there was my first question: how do we get rid of the catch-22 apparent in proposed subsection 163.5(4)?

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: First of all, it is a very technical question, but let me try to explain it to you as I know it. One of the things that we need to always be aware of is charter concerns.

In a lot of ways, customs officers, I've been informed, have more powers than police. Under the Customs Act, they can search and seize, whereas the police would require search warrants in certain cases. We have to make sure that we abide by the charter.

That's why part of that proposed subsection 163.5(4) is in there. This is so we're not doing work that would go beyond what a police officer could do under the Customs Act, because it would be against the charter. So we need to make sure that we don't use the Customs Act to perform an act under the Criminal Code. That's why customs officers would not be able to use the Customs Act to carry out something that's under the Criminal Code.

• 1605

For technical purposes, do I have it right here, Maureen?

Ms. Maureen Tracy (Interim Director, Policy Development Division, Contraband and Intelligence Services, Customs and Trade Administration Branch, Revenue Canada):

[Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: We're running short of time now.

Mr. Allan Cocksedge: All right. So that's part of it.

The other question you had was about the police.

Maybe, Maureen, you can address that, as to whether we can turn them over to the American police if it's on the border.

Ms. Maureen Tracy: The intent was certainly not to turn them over to a U.S. official; it was to turn them over to a peace officer, a Canadian police officer. As for the reference to paragraph 2(c) of the Criminal Code, the intent was that it would be to turn it over to a police officer in Canada.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, that's the intent, but we're dealing with the written word here. Could you clarify that at some point, with some kind of opinion?

Ms. Maureen Tracy: Certainly.

Mr. Derek Lee: The way I read it, it's the possibility of being able to turn over to an American or other peace officer at a borderline or on Canadian—

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: If it were under Canadian jurisdiction, it would have to be Canadian police law enforcement.

Mr. Derek Lee: U.S. customs officials are implanted at some Canadian airports and they apply U.S. law under treaty. They may or may not be peace officers under Canadian law, but they might well be under American law.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Okay. We'll get a response to that.

The Chair: Okay.

We have to go and vote. I don't know whether we have to stay there or whether we can come back. We have a series of votes. We go to committee of the whole at 6.30 p.m.

Minister, can you come back after the vote? Are you able to?

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Yes, I think we'll have to. Yes, I'll come back. At 6.30 p.m.?

The Chair: No, no, right after this vote.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Right after the vote, yes.

The Chair: Okay, so we'll just suspend.

• 1607

• 1652

The Chair: All right, we're back.

Mr. Lee, do you want to finish your questions?

Mr. Derek Lee: No, Madam Chair. I think the minister understood the question and he or his officials will get back to us.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Madam Chair, may I ask a question in terms of the section Derek talked about? Maybe for the record I can get the officials to comment more than I have on this proposed subsection 163.5(4) that the honourable member has a concern about.

Allan, maybe you could expand on that.

Mr. Allan Cocksedge: Certainly. Thank you, Minister.

The intent of that particular proposed subsection is to deal with the issue that in the normal exercise of Customs Act search and seizure powers, the Simmons decision allows customs officials to go beyond the normal charter constraints in terms of seizure and examination. It was deemed in that decision that those officers required those beyond-the-charter authorities in order to decide on admissibility into the country.

The purpose of this subsection is to make it clear that when the designated officers in question are exercising their authority as it relates to the Criminal Code, the wider, more intrusive set of powers does not apply. This is a way of prescribing the role of the customs officer as a first response capability as opposed to the purely investigative and more intrusive role that a police officer would normally play.

The intent here, as the minister indicated earlier, is not to replicate police powers in customs officers at the border, but rather to provide a conduit to the police officials after the fact so that they can then exercise those fuller powers. It's to not replicate for the purposes of the Criminal Code the same wider intrusive powers that Simmons allows us under the other provisions of the Customs Act. That's the intent in this case.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney and then Mr. McKay.

• 1655

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Why aren't all customs officers being designated under this clause? Why just a few? How many in fact?

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Yes, 2,000 to 2,500 officers will be designated—not all, because some will be students and will not go through the rigorous training to deal with the Criminal Code and others may not be on the front line but actually are dealing with people coming across the border. So those are the two areas where they won't have the training. So not every one will be able to deal with the expanded powers, but the vast majority will.

Mr. John Maloney: So those who will go for the primary inspections—

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Part-time students who only work during the summer months—

Mr. John Maloney: I'm not worried about the students. I have some difficulty in accepting why the entire workforce would not be given that.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Maybe some of them will be working at postal centres that really never come across border sites, people who will only be working at processing—

Mr. John Maloney: At border sites will all employees be so designated?

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Not all, but a large majority will be. The exceptions will be students who work there part-time and other officers who don't have contact with the people crossing the border. They may be involved just in doing commercial paperwork of cargo that may come through. We don't need to train them, because they're not dealing with people coming across the border. However, there will be, at all times, at all borders, people who have the designation that can respond to these extra powers.

Mr. John Maloney: And only those so designated would have the option of the protective vest that you referred to?

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: No, this will be for any individual who feels it's necessary and requests it. It will be based on being their option.

Mr. John Maloney: When will this protective gear be available?

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: I think before we actually do the designation they'll do it. They have them now.

Mr. John Maloney: Under the anti-smuggling initiative?

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: They have that option right now under the anti-smuggling initiative that we have.

Mr. John Maloney: A question that was put to me in the House by a Reform member who has a border riding was that in his area, during the midnight shift, there would be only one individual on the border. Is that a usual practice, and how would that work under this legislation? I thought it was rather unusual that you would have only one person at a border crossing during those hours.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Under normal circumstances we would have two officers, at a minimum.

Mr. John Maloney: So that was an exaggeration.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Yes.

Mr. John Maloney: Have all your provincial attorneys general agreed and concurred in this legislation, or do they have to agree?

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: The attorneys general are very supportive of this initiative, as are the law enforcement officers across the country. They have been very supportive of the changes.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): My question was somewhat mined by Mr. Lee. The gist of the issue is, Minister, the sole purpose of looking for evidence. Are we creating something of a difficulty for ourselves here in that any defence counsel is going to first of all start questioning the officer as to whether that was the sole purpose of looking for the evidence? In some respects, in trying to be charter sensitive, shall we say, are we simultaneously creating difficulties for ourselves?

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: I've been informed by the legal people that one of the reasons it's in there is to ensure that our officers, first, don't go on fishing expeditions and don't use the Customs Act to go on fishing expeditions. Second, it is to ensure that we won't have defence lawyers taking up the charter and that it will protect us from charter challenges. That's what the whole purpose of this is, and I think Allan gave a fairly clear explanation as to why—

Mr. John McKay: Is the first question of the defence attorney going to be, though, “Were you there for the sole purpose of...?”

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: No, what it says is that we don't use the Customs Act for the sole purpose of the new, expanded powers under the Criminal Code.

Mr. John McKay: I'm not going to pursue that, because I'm not sure that it's worth pursuing.

• 1700

The second question has to do with performance of normal duties under proposed subsection (1). Are there any normal duties that customs officers perform outside of a border location?

Mr. Allan Cocksedge: If I've understood your question correctly, Mr. McKay, I think the customs inspectors in question here would, for all intents and purposes, do their work at one, or possibly more, ports of entry.

For example, Maureen Tracy made reference earlier to the flexible response teams, which are not limited in location to one particular port of entry. The arrangement we have between ourselves and the RCMP is that the customs officers limit their work to the ports of entry and the RCMP act between the ports of entry, and this is simply to reflect that normal arrangement. That is enshrined in a memorandum of understanding between ourselves and the RCMP.

Mr. John McKay: So the performance of duties would always be at a border location.

Mr. Allan Cocksedge: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: So they don't pursue into other off-border locations, then.

Mr. Allan Cocksedge: No.

Mr. John McKay: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Allan Cocksedge: That's the role of the police.

The Chair: Thanks.

Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): I would like to go back to the issue of training. Mr. Minister, the duties of customs officers are very similar to those of police officers.

Those who go through the training program must meet certain criteria and perform accordingly. I am somewhat concerned about the extra training you will give customs officers for them to fulfill their new duties.

Could you be a little more specific?

[English]

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: First of all, I have a general comment, and then Maureen may be able to expand on that.

As you know, our customs officers already have training, because they do deal with people who may be smuggling goods, who may be smuggling weapons, in terms of detaining those individuals. We also have the facilities in our locations to be able to have a lock-up facility or to be able to detain them in an enclosed facility, in most instances. So they already have the basic training.

What additional training they'll be provided is in terms of these expanded powers under the Criminal Code offence: what they would do when the recognize that there's a Criminal Code offence, and once they've recognized, what action they would take in terms of detaining the individual and calling the law enforcement officers. Obviously, we want to train those individuals so that they don't get themselves into a dangerous situation, so that we utilize common sense and make sure that if there's a violent situation they know how to respond.

But otherwise, maybe Maureen can give further detail than that as to what kind of training we're providing to our officers to deal with the new powers.

Ms. Maureen Tracy: Certainly.

Right now, as the minister mentioned, we are providing extensive training to customs officers on many activities, including the power of arrest and the reasonable grounds that are involved in exercising that power. We go quite extensively into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so this is not new ground for our training.

But having said that, there would be a need to enhance the training, as the minister has mentioned, to include the identification of Criminal Code offences and the reasonable grounds and the jurisprudence surrounding those offences. There's most definitely a need for that, and that would be the type of thing we would supplement our current training with.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: You know that Quebec has its own provincial police force. You talked about an agreement between customs officers and the RCMP. What will be the relationship between the customs officers who work at the border points and the officers of the Sûreté du Québec when it comes to making arrests at border crossings?

[English]

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: First of all, let me say that the law enforcement of Quebec has been very supportive of this initiative, and we would respond in the same way in ensuring that, when we have an individual in regard to whom a customs officer feels they've detected a Criminal Code offence, they would do the same as in any other region. They would contact the local police enforcement and have them come over and then do their duty in terms of the normal duties of a law enforcement officer.

• 1705

So certainly it wouldn't be any different from any other area of the country. The same procedure would be followed, and all the attorneys general of the provinces have agreed and have supported this. So we don't see any problems that may cause in Quebec. Certainly we would operate in the same way.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other questions?

I want to ask a couple of Windsor-based questions. I understand that the customs officers in Windsor had a great deal to do with the impetus within the department for this bill to take place. At least, that's what they told me.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Let me say that I'm sure the customs officers in Windsor, who are very active and always very vocal in terms of putting their opinions forward, had a role, but the customs union has been very supportive. In fact, they've told me they have written to every member of Parliament to ask for their support. I've met with the union leader, Mr. Ronny Moran, and he's talked to me personally and indicated that they're very supportive and all members are extremely supportive. This is something they've actually brought forward for some time. They felt that a lot of times they weren't fully utilized in their jobs and in their talents and that they could be a real asset overall to law enforcement and having our communities safer and preventing accidents.

There have been lots of examples where they could have saved a life where someone was under the influence of alcohol, and if they had the powers to stop those people, to detain them, they could have saved that individual's life, or another innocent individual as well.

So I think the customs people, a victims group like CAVEAT, and MADD—Mothers Against Drunk Driving—have all played a very important role in bringing this legislation forward. I think they deserve a tremendous amount of applause for the good work they've done to make sure we have safer streets and communities by utilizing our existing resources, all the eyes and ears we have here, to reduce crime in our society.

Certainly the officers in Windsor and other areas have played an important role, but many other groups have played a very active role in bringing this legislation forward. We have tremendous co-operation from the police, from the RCMP, local law enforcement and attorneys general. So it's generally very, very well accepted in the community and certainly something that I think deserves to have a speedy passage.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

All right, then, we're finished. We'll rise until tomorrow at 3.30 p.m., when we have the union.

Mr. Harbance Dhaliwal: Thank you, Madam Chair.