Bill C-21 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Customs Act

This enactment amends the Customs Act to authorize the Canada Border Services Agency to collect, from prescribed persons and prescribed sources, personal information on all persons who are leaving or have left Canada. It also amends the Act to authorize an officer, as defined in that Act, to require that goods that are to be exported from Canada are to be reported despite any exemption under that Act. In addition, it amends the Act to provide officers with the power to examine any goods that are to be exported. Finally, it amends the Act to authorize the disclosure of information collected under the Customs Act to an official of the Department of Employment and Social Development for the purposes of administering or enforcing the Old Age Security Act.

The House resumed from September 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

We are speculating on hypotheses. If Bill C-21 does not come to us for study on Monday, we would then have another meeting available, given that we will probably not be able to work on it on Thursday either. That leads me to recommend that we work on the First Nations study, because it is already scheduled into the agenda. The study can be interrupted when Bill C-21 arrives. We could set aside one, two or three meetings for that study, until everything is taken care of.

I understand completely that immigration is a hot and delicate topic. The fact remains that, in my opinion, it is an issue that involves immigration first and public safety operations second. The reduction in the number of arrivals makes immigration a prime concern for the committee that deals with immigration. At that point, the idea of having a single meeting on the issue, as scheduled, is enough for me. We could then start our study on First Nations as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

My assistant just whispered to me that Bill C-21 is on the Order Paper today. As of last night at five o'clock it was nowhere to be seen. So we appreciate the flexibility.

My attitude will be that if Bill C-21 cannot be before the committee on Tuesday, then we will postpone it until after Thanksgiving, because I would rather have us do a continuous approach to Bill C-21, rather than piecemeal.

Michel.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I have no problem with that either. I'm just wondering how we know that Bill C-21 will not be here on Tuesday, because I have a different understanding of that situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ladies and gentlemen, let's commence our meeting.

Before I formally welcome our witnesses, I wanted to suggest to the committee that, because of the uniqueness of this meeting, we be a little less formal than we would otherwise be, and conduct it as more of a caucus-like meeting rather than a meeting where we go formally from side to side, etc. I just want to make sure that this is all right. Okay.

Also, the subcommittee did meet, and the subcommittee's report is now obsolete. It appears that we will not be receiving Bill C-21 in a timely fashion, so we will not be commencing our review of that bill. The consequence of that is that next Tuesday, we have two choices: to continue with the migrant information that we may receive on Thursday, with a joint meeting with the immigration department, or we may start the indigenous studies meeting. I am not going to ask for commentary just now. I'm going to let you ruminate about that, and possibly toward the end of the meeting, call the meeting a little early and see what the will of the committee is.

With that, I'd like to welcome our witnesses. There has been some discussion as to how this presentation will take place. I don't know the order, but to Michel Rodrigue, Nicole Boisvert, and Liane Vail, welcome all. We look forward to what you have to say, and what order you have to say it in. I'll let you proceed from here. Thank you very much.

Export and Import Permits Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rose several times before, and was not able to be recognized. I probably was not quick enough to get up to be recognized. Before I begin with my remarks, I notice that the theme of the Liberal Party platform is hypocrisy. I would never accuse my New Democratic colleagues of that. I, at least, know that they believe in something.

We often disagree, but on the Liberals' side it is all about power and how to use it. We can see it right here in the legislation and the treaty itself. They say one thing but the law says something completely different. Through talking points, press releases, and carefully scripted exempt-staffer-written speeches on that side, they are saying the truth is that they are not creating a registry when they actually are.

We heard the parliamentary secretary mention that the G7 and NATO have signed on and are abiding by it. One of the biggest arms manufacturers and biggest military equipment manufacturers, the United States, signed it but did not ratify it. That is a factual error that the parliamentary secretary committed in this House.

There is a Yiddish proverb that says that half an answer also says something. We are hearing half answers a lot on that side. They are not saying the full thing. I wanted to repeatedly rise in the House and ask them to show me in this legislation and the treaty where sharpshooters, hunters, and sports shooters will not be affected by a gun registry. That is exactly what is going to happen. My remarks will be principally demonstrating how, in fact, this creates such a system, not one run necessarily directly by the federal government, but one through the collection and amalgamation of information that will do exactly that.

This morning, we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs present this bill and make a big deal about how no lawful gun owner would be affected by this. He is carrying the water today for his minister. I know that. What is the clause? Why did he not mention in this House what clause it was that protects gun owners, law-abiding, family-oriented people who just enjoy hunting or sport shooting on weekends with their friends? Where is the section in the legislation that specifically speaks to them and exempts them from sections of this bill? Why did they not choose to add perhaps something in the preamble to the amended legislation that would say that they believe Canadians have a right to lawfully own firearms for lawful purpose? Why did they not provide a greater clarity clause, as it is called here?

Why did the Liberals not express their reservations through that mechanism? If it is not in the arms treaty that the United Nations has, why did they not go ahead and just write it in? They could have done that. It would have been a drafting mechanism to demonstrate to lawful gun owners in Canada that the government has their backs and is actually listening.

The best I could find was a press release on the Government of Canada's website that states:

The proposed legislation is consistent with Canada’s existing export controls and system of assessing export permit applications. The proposed changes will not impact the legitimate and lawful use of sporting firearms.

They could have put that into a preamble. Instead, they chose to put it into a press release, which really has no force of law or effect to it. Why did they not do that?

When the member for Durham spoke, he basically explained exactly what Canada has been doing up to this point. He covered it all, from the 1940s to today: the export control system that Canada has for military manufactured equipment and its export and import controls.

When we speak about the treaty, article 10 talks about the brokering, how it is going to be controlled now, how people will need to get permits, and that there will be certification of documents that will need to be created. It even says that it may include requiring brokers to register or obtain written authorization before engaging in brokering. This is for military equipment.

The parliamentary secretary went through the list in article 2, the scope of the treaty. I will go through it too. Before I do, I want to mention the record-keeping aspect of it, which is what many gun owners are concerned about in Canada. This is article 12 of the treaty, which goes through details such as:

Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports....

It then goes into further details, such as “transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction”. It also talks about conventional arms actually transferred. It then goes into certification details such as what type of registry this will be and how it shall be kept.

In the law, we see that they are amending the section on keeping of records, which is 10.3(1). Then they are amending sections 10.3(4), (5), and (6), but in there, the minister can already direct individuals and organizations to keep records in a specified manner and for a specified purpose. The minister can tell them what to do with it.

I know that the parliamentary secretary talked about scope, and started reading off all of them. I am going to do it, too, just to refresh the memory of this House.

Article 2 is about scope: battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems—we can all agree the average Canadian should not own any of these things—combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.

I have an electronic version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The definition of “small arms” is “weapons (such as handguns and rifles) that are fired while being held in one hand or both hands”. That could mean civilian or military use. There are many firearms that have a dual use, that are used by military forces across the world, even our allies, for training purposes, for cadet programs and that also have a secondary use.

Lots of times the same manufacturer will make two versions of the same firearm, one for civilian use and one for military use. It is military equipment that the member says the treaty is concerned with and the law is concerned with. However, it actually covers everybody, because it covers all the manufacturers. That is where there is a problem.

Even though he said that the previous Conservative government of the time had participated in negotiations of a treaty, governments participate in negotiations of treaties all the time. Sometimes when a government has a losing hand or it does not get what it wants in a treaty, then the government does not accede to that treaty, regardless of whether it is about firearms, military equipment export controls, or financial regulations. Governments choose at the time of signing whether they agree with the principles within the treaty and whether they can actually get it ratified by their parliaments, hopefully. One would hope that they would then turn to their parliament for that second step.

I want to give an example. If, for our anniversary—and we have tried to do this before and ran out of time—I go out and buy a Beretta shotgun, a very specific one, an A400 Xtreme 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun at Cabela's in Calgary, for $2,200, and we decide we would like to go for a weekend of duck hunting, I would become the end user, as covered by the treaty and by this legislation.

The government would then keep a record of me, having purchased this firearm, and would then notify the Italian government about my purchase. Now, that is a gun registry. Where is the concern for privacy laws? Why does the Italian government need to know whether I own that particular Beretta shotgun? I would like to know. Where is the concern about the privacy of Canadian gun owners, when their information will be transferred in that fashion to another government? I know that NATO countries are participating in this. I will mention that afterwards.

What we are seeing through this Arms Trade Treaty, and specifically this legislation, is a two-tier system. There is one for the despots and tyrants of the world, and one for law-abiding democracies of the world.

Let us remember the earlier debate just a few days on Bill C-21, when we talked about privacy rights and customs control with the United States. One party was particularly worried on this side of the House, the New Democratic Party. It was extremely worried about privacy rights of Canadians.

What about the privacy rights of lawful gun owners in Canada? What about them? What about when we transfer this information on specifically what they own, how they purchased it, their MasterCard or Visa information, to another government? Why does it need to know?

The shop owner needs to know, of course, for warranty purposes. If something happens and it is defective, I need to take it back to the shop owner so the manufacturer can fix it.

That is an example. That is also a dual-use weapon. There could be a military version that is used for training purposes. It could be used for target shooting. Beretta is a manufacturer of a lot of military equipment, and some of it does have a dual use. One purpose is military; one purpose is civilian. I do not see a difference being made here.

I talked about these two worlds that we are basically creating. Russia and China are not parties to the ATT. Russia is one of the largest exporters in the world, and it did not sign. It exports 39% of its military equipment to India, 11% to China, and 11% to Vietnam, its top three markets. None of those three are signatories to this treaty.

In the total take of what China exports in military equipment, 35% goes to Pakistan, 20% to Bangladesh, and 16% to Myanmar. Pakistan is not a signatory to this treaty. Bangladesh is a signatory but has not ratified it, so the rules do not apply to it. However, it intends to sign it. Myanmar has not done so either.

This creates two worlds. One is that in the western world the democracies agree that the arms control should exist and we should know who the end-user is. On principle, I do not disagree with that. It is an important goal to track sales and understand where weapons go, with military equipment being whatever it is on the list, which is why the Canadian government has been doing it, as the member for Durham said, through the Export and Import Permits Act. We have known about this and have been doing it since the 1940s. Therefore, we already know that we track all exports of military equipment using categories negotiated by the World Customs Organization. We have been tracking it with that organization. We have been doing our part and doing what we expect other countries to do now.

The blanket ban option, as the member for Durham mentioned, is available through the area controls. He mentioned North Korea and Iran, and we can add others to that list. We could add regions to it if that is the desire of the government. It already has that option and mechanism to do so.

There are also drafting issues with the legislation itself. This is from the Rideau Institute. I know it may seem odd that a Conservative reads something from the Rideau Institute, but I do like to see both sides and the problems that people on the left and the right have with particular legislation. It mentions a drafting issue in proposed section 7 of this legislation, asking why the government is relegating a central provision of the enabling legislation, namely, the legal obligation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs when assessing export permits, to the regulations. All of those criteria are in the law right now, but they are being moved into the regulations.

I mentioned this before at committee in regard to other pieces of legislation. I was on the foreign affairs committee, but I have moved to the Standing Committee on Finance. At many of the committees I have been substituted in, I have mentioned that more should be in statute than in regulation and that more should be decided by the House and that other place than by government ministers sitting around a small table. More voices, not less, should have a say on what the categories and the criteria should be, especially for something like the export and import of military equipment. That is a drafting issue that I have, and I have mentioned the others that I have.

If the government wants to say it is on the side of lawful gun owners, it could have introduced a greater clarity clause, amended the preamble, and written it into law. However, it chose not to. That was a choice it made. The government could issue as many news releases, make as many speeches, and make as many Facebook posts as it wants, but it does not change the fact that there is no difference made between the manufacturer of equipment for military and civilian purposes in the law. The manufacturer is the same. The equipment is made in the same place.

It is not the principle of arms control we disagree with. Of course, people agree with controlling the movement of military equipment to other countries. That is why we have been doing it since the 1940s. What the Conservatives fervently disagree with is that there is no protection for lawful gun owners in the legislation or in the treaty itself. Those are serious issues.

The summary provided for this legislation talks about fines being increased, about the term “broker” and how brokers will now have to get permission to be the in-between in the sales of military equipment. It talks about a report having to be tabled in the House that will define the military exports in the previous year. However, as the New Democrats have suggested, the United States will not be included in it because it is a trusted ally. I agree that it is a trusted ally; it is the second greatest democracy in the world after our own here in Canada. The government replaced some of the requirements that only countries that Canada has an intergovernmental arrangement with may be added to the automatic firearms country control list. By a requirement, a country may be added to this list only on the recommendation of the minister after consultation with the Minister of National Defence. Again we have more ministers deciding things and Parliament finding out afterward what is going on. I would much rather that we found out first and decide in the House first what the rules will be and how things should be.

After having returned from the summer recess, it was interesting for me to realize when the parliamentary secretary was speaking that I missed this part of my day and debating him in the House, where he usually brings his A game.

I enjoyed campaigning in Winnipeg over the summer and hearing from the constituents in the different ridings. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that he is open to debate and continuing this. However, just before we returned, the government House leader threatened during a CTV or CBC interview to move more time allocation in this session to achieve its mandate, but the parliamentary secretary is saying something else. I would assume that the member talks to the government House leader on a regular basis. Therefore, I wonder if the government will move time allocation on this a piece of legislation if more members rise in the House to have a say and represent lawful gun owners, hunters, and those who enjoy sports shooting. I met many of them in my riding during the last election. I always tell my campaign volunteers that if a garage door is open and they see someone fixing or cleaning his or her lawfully owned firearm to leave them alone, as it is not the best time to approach someone. It is is better to come back to those houses later on.

Treaties alone do nothing. They are just pieces of paper. One of the problems with the ratification of the ATT by the government is that the Liberals will push it through because they have the votes. At the end of the day, they will have their way and the lawful gun owners across Canada, who have legitimate concerns, will be the losers.

I want to ask these questions of the parliamentary secretary who presented this bill in the House on behalf of his minister. How many gun owners did he or the department speak with? How many associations did they speak to and consult with? How many people said it was a great idea, and how many said it was a bad idea, and why? I did not have an opportunity to do ask these questions earlier, because so many members were standing to speak that I was not noticed.

As the member for Durham so eloquently stated, we already have an effective system for the control of exports and imports of military equipment. Therefore, the main concern on this side of the House is the rights and privileges of lawful gun owners. It is not just the rural members; it is also the urban members. I represent an urban riding. There are a lot of sports shooters in my riding. The Shooting Edge is located across the river just over the edge of my riding in the riding of the member for Calgary Midnapore. It is always packed. There are a lot of people who enjoy the sport and the challenge. However, this treaty will create a registry system. In the example I gave previously, the manufacturer and the government where that manufacturer is based will know that I had purchased a Beretta shotgun from Cabela's at a certain price, what it is, and what it does. However, it also applies to ammunition. Therefore, when the member opposite said that the treaty talks about scopes and small arms, he should look at the definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which includes handguns, rifles, or a firearm being held in one or both hands. That is extremely broad.

Gun owners, who are not dumb and can read legislation, figured out long ago that the Liberal Party of Canada is not on the side of lawful gun owners. The gun registry has cemented that idea. Therefore, I do not understand how the Liberals can defend this piece of legislation and the implementation of a national treaty and say that lawful gun-owning Canadians, who go home every day to their family, will not be impacted by this at all. There is no way they can say that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ultimately, that's true.

Before I ask for adjournment, could those parties who want to put witnesses forward on Bill C-21 start getting their witness lists ready so that the clerks can start to merge them? I don't see Mr. Holland here, but I expect that the government might have a witness or two on Bill C-21.

Pierre.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

For your information, in case you were not aware, there is a list of hot, important topics that we have to deal with. Let’s make sure we are talking about the same thing here.

There is an unofficial calendar that contains a number of topics that have been established for the fall. That could even keep us occupied until winter. As you said, there’s Bill C-21, for one thing.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, having a briefing about it next Tuesday is no problem for me, because it will let the members of the committee re-immerse themselves in the issue. However, I feel that it is important to establish our priorities for the coming weeks. Moreover, I believe that Bill C-21 will be studied soon. In terms of the way things roll out, we will see, depending on the motions I have introduced. Mr. Chair, you have talked about migrants as well. In my opinion these are hot, important topics that we have to deal with.

As for Tuesday’s meeting, we can start with that; I see no problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Congratulations.

I'm hoping to accomplish some business here today and to look at the fall agenda. Essentially, the next two days are Tuesday and Thursday of next week, and then we're anticipating receiving Bill C-21. Bill C-21 will occupy the committee time and take precedence over other committee work.

My thought had been that we would have a discussion on a larger basis as to where you want to see the committee go and what it wants to do for the fall session, and then after that we would adjourn and the steering subcommittee would meet. We would create a schedule, and then at the first available opportunity come back to the main committee and present that schedule to the main committee. I hope that suits members.

The first item of business is to resolve what we're going to do next Tuesday and next Thursday. One suggestion has been that we get a briefing on the migrant issue. A sub-suggestion of that is that we do it jointly with the immigration committee. That's an option, shall we say. It is a meeting that we can pull together. The clerks have assured me that they can pull it together, and quickly, because it mostly would be officials.

Monsieur Paul-Hus.

Customs Act

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to welcome you back to the House along with the rest of my colleagues. I would also like to welcome this session's new pages, who will be with us for the next few months.

I am pleased to speak to a bill that will definitely have an impact on my Sherbrooke constituents. My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh mentioned that her region is on the border. Sherbrooke, which is in the Eastern Townships, is too. We have three neighbouring states: Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire. The fact that our neighbours to the south are so close to us is part of our everyday reality. Some of our communities even straddle the border. We hear some good stories sometimes about communities where there are houses or libraries right on the border between both countries. A lot of people have dual citizenship because of this.

My constituents are quite concerned about this issue. For one thing, lots of people cross the border, and for another, there is a lot of trade between Sherbrooke and the United States. Many of our businesses depend on the U.S. market. They are very concerned because they are so close and their business depends heavily on what is going on in the United States. That is why trade issues in general are really important to my community, especially now that we are talking about renegotiating the trade agreement between our two countries and Mexico. While I was in Sherbrooke this summer, I heard a lot of people talk about the negotiations under way and the upcoming third round of negotiations with our partners, which will be happening here in Canada. They want to protect their trade with the United States. If possible, they would like to grow that partnership. This issue got a lot of people talking this summer.

The main focus of Bill C-21 is people who are crossing the border. The matter of goods has already been addressed rather thoroughly in Bill C-23. Bill C-21 completes the circle in a way, even though there are a lot of problems with the bill. We are talking here about people, individuals, who are crossing our borders. I am therefore pleased to talk about this issue not only because I live in a border area but also because I care a lot about personal information and privacy, and I am sure that many of my constituents care about this topic too.

From 2012 to 2014, I had the honour of serving as chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I was therefore quite aware of privacy issues. I often had discussions with the Privacy Commissioner. These are the subjects I am most interested in.

What worries me the most about Bill C-21 is the issue of privacy. In Canada, year after year, agreement after agreement, we agree to share more and more information, not only with Canadian governments but also with foreign governments. Information sharing is becoming increasingly common. Of course, it is governed by written agreements. Information sharing is not done randomly, but it is becoming increasingly common. Bill C-21, which we are discussing today, is about sharing even more information with foreign countries, in this case the United States.

There is good reason for Canadians in particular to question the protection of privacy in the United States. I mention this mainly because of the infamous presidential order that was recently signed in the United States and that we have heard so much about over the past few months.

The title of the January 2017 executive order was:

Executive Order 13768, entitled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.

The order excluded people who are not citizens or permanent residents of the United States from the protections provided by the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Daniel Therrien, invited all federal ministers involved, including the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, probably the minister most involved, who also happens to be this bill's sponsor. He invited federal ministers to ask their American counterparts to tighten the rules around protecting the privacy of Canadians.

In the letter, the commissioner pointed out that Canada should be included in a list of countries targeted by the American Judicial Redress Act. It has to do with rules that exclude non-Americans from the protections provided under the law regarding how federal agencies use personal information. The commissioner indicated that Canadians enjoy certain protections regarding their personal information in the United States, but those protections are relative, since they are based on purly administrative agreements and are not given force of law.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada certainly sounded the alarm in January 2017. Now here we are a few months later, debating Bill C-21. We need to be really cautious about this new order, which allows Americans to shirk their obligation to protect the privacy of Canadians to the same degree that they protect the privacy of Americans, their own citizens.

It is therefore deeply troubling to see that American federal agencies can treat Canadians' information differently from that of their own citizens. This discrepancy is extremely concerning, as it seems to put our fellow Canadians' data at risk. The worst part is that if this information ends up in the hands of a foreign country, such as the United States, there are very few options for recourse.

If we give information to the Canada Border Services Agency and this bill is passed, the Agency will have to hand over that information to the Americans. The Americans will then have the information in their possession, but it could fall into the wrong hands. These things happen. We have seen many cases of hackers successfully accessing data that is valuable to organized crime groups. Such data is considered extremely valuable because it can sometimes be used to scam ordinary people who think they are doing the right thing by answering phone calls or emails that seem to come from a government agency. This data is highly valuable to scammers. As a result, many Canadians may be alarmed to learn that foreign governments that use different protection systems may be getting access to more and more of their personal data.

I am very concerned about that; it is the main reason for which I must oppose Bill C-21, as several of my NDP colleagues did earlier today. What worries me even more is the fact that this information is now in the hands not only of American federal agencies, whose protective measures are less effective than the ones we have in place in Canada, but also in the hands of a president who made an executive order that is even better known—the one that bans persons who have travelled to certain target countries, mainly in the Middle East.

This raises more concerns about the way this information may be used by the American government, and by its president, who issues directives to his government and to its security agencies.

It is truly worrisome when we see stories like that of my friend Yassine Aber, an athlete at the University of Sherbrooke, who simply wanted to go compete in the United States. I believe this happened last May. Unlike his six or eight colleagues, he was arrested. He was arrested because of his name and he was questioned for a number of hours before being told to go back home.

Some of the questions, referenced already in the House, were on his religion, his parents' religion, places he had travelled to, and on his friends in Sherbrooke. They even searched his phone to access information, photos, and his social networks. It is very worrisome that the government wants to give even more information to the Americans through Bill C-21. We can all agree that the Americans do not seem to make good use of the information they have. They seem to use it only to discriminate based on race, religion, or gender.

My time is up, but I would be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions if they want to know more about why the NDP is against Bill C-21.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am from a cross-border community, so I am well aware of the inadequacies that came from government cuts and reorganizations in the past. We have been subject to that in our area.

The problems we have with the border are fixable problems. I do not want to make that part of this issue with Bill C-21. We are putting the cart before the horse. Before we talk about the smooth implementation of it, there has to be consultation and some tangible changes made to it. That means that the public accountability piece has to be included, and we have to follow and listen to consultations with the law experts in Canada. At this point, this is something I would oppose.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sherbrooke.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the concerns that have come to the fore with Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act. My riding of Windsor—Tecumseh is strategically located for astute observation on this bill, and is located a stone's throw from the United States border. As a cross-border community, many of us regularly cross the border to Detroit, for a multitude of reasons. We have family ties, and business and employment ties, as befits our trading-nation relationship, and we enjoy taking in games from professional league sports, with the Tigers, Red Wings, Lions, and Pistons about a half-hour away, more or less, depending on the venue.

I am greatly concerned about the potential consequences of this legislation. With Bill C-21, Canadians would have more of their personal information collected, not by U.S. border agents but by Canadian authorities, and shared with U.S. border agents. This bill would allow Canadian and U.S. authorities to electronically exchange biographic information on people departing and arriving in each other's country. Indeed, it seems that Bill C-21's primary purpose is to introduce the legislative requirement to collect biometric data for all persons exiting Canada. Yes, that is right. Canada would be doing to each and every one of its citizens what the United States presently does to its non-citizens.

Information collected would be the same as the information that the Canada Border Services Agency already collects for Canadians returning to Canada. It would be gathered by the CBSA at every border crossing, including land, sea, and air. However, the thing is that the Canada Border Services Agency was never required to collect information on those exiting Canada, as that is the responsibility of border authorities of the country being entered into. There is the very real concern that Canadian authorities are being asked by a foreign government to hand over personal information of Canadians. Frankly, that is not something that should be the responsibility of the Canada Border Services Agency. Our border agency's sole purpose is to protect Canada, not to hand over Canadian information to foreign authorities.

The United States is a large and powerful and, I should add, well-resourced nation. Americans can take care of their own responsibilities on their side of the border, and we should let them. New Democrats take the personal information and privacy concerns of Canadians very seriously. We only wish that the governing party of this country did so. The Liberals must not ignore recommendations of a wide variety of experts and the very real concerns of Canadians. Acting on security concerns and ensuring a strong and effective Canada–U.S. border must not infringe on the preservation of Canadians' rights and freedoms. Information gathered by the CBSA should not be shared with agencies outside of Canada unless under extenuating circumstances. In such circumstances where information must be shared, existing mechanisms are already in place between Canadian law enforcement agencies and their counterparts in other countries.

As I have mentioned, as a local cross-border community, we see issues in the local news every night regarding such sharing of information. In light of the Trump administration's recent troubling actions, such as issuing discriminatory immigration executive orders and suspending the privacy rights of non-Americans, this initiative more than ever threatens the basic rights of Canadian travellers.

New Democrats understand the importance of maintaining a fluid land border crossing with the United States, our number one trading partner. Without providing additional security for Canadians, this bill could mean longer delays at the borders.

Another point of concern in this bill is its potential to penalize business people who travel regularly across borders. Those who may spend a reasonable period of time outside of Canada could potentially be snagged in various legal issues, limiting benefits to them.

As this bill would amend the Customs Act, I would like to make due note on some of the matters that affect goods crossing the border. In subsection 95(1), Bill C-21 would change practices on the reporting of goods travelling across the border so that all exported goods would be reported at any time without a specific need to prescribe such reporting. Goods already on conveyance leave and then re-enter Canadian jurisdiction while proceeding directly from one location within Canada to another location within Canada. That means an officer could order the goods covered by exemptions to be subjected to reporting.

This bill also sets out the reasons for the detention of imported and exported goods that have been reported under section 95, as well as the ability for the minister to direct any detained goods imported or exported under section 95 to be sold upon 30 days' written notice. It is important for us to take heed here.

The new section 94 has already been mentioned. That section 94 of the Customs Act would create an obligation on persons leaving Canada to potentially answer questions by the CBSA officer:

Every person who is leaving Canada shall, if requested to do so by an officer, present themselves to an officer and answer truthfully any questions asked by an officer in the performance of their duties under this or any other Act of Parliament.

This new requirement is likely to be fraught with legal peril. It would seemingly provide the CBSA with the ability to make a determination as to whether an individual is telling the truth. This may mean continuing questioning that could be construed as relevant or irrelevant, also known as a fishing expedition.

A determination of something other than the truth could ensnare the traveller with potential offences under the Customs Act. For example, CBSA officers may assume that individuals have provided false answers, even when responses are the result of simple mistakes. While we can all expect persons to provide truthful answers to our agents, the fact of the matter is that the CBSA would be able to take the position that a person has provided false answers and pursue the individual for committing an offence under the Customs Act. The potential for a Canadian citizen to get caught up in legal proceedings on the basis of an honest mistake increases dramatically.

In the case of extenuating circumstances where such information needs to be shared, for example in a criminal case, as I have already mentioned, the relevant police agencies such as the RCMP and CSIS, as well as law enforcement agencies locally, are already in contact with their international counterparts. In these cases, existing legislation and practices are already applicable.

Canadians are wary of their personal information being shared among government agencies and Canada's foreign partners because of previous acts passed, such as the Harper government's bill, Bill C-51. The current government's plans to collect and share even more personal information without proper independent oversight of our national security agency is of great concern to New Democrats. The authorities given to the CBSA under subsection 92(1) are not mandatory. The CBSA would be given discretionary authority in that it may collect this information if it wishes to do so. This would create the very serious risk of racial and/or religious profiling, when the CBSA decides whether information on a traveller leaving Canada would be collected and shared. With racial profiling already on the increase in the United States, with everyone from rock bands and celebrities being turned away at its border, this is one fire that we in Canada have no business stoking.

It is the responsibility of the government to protect public safety and defend civil liberties—

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be back in this place this fall. As the first day back, I feel like we should have the Welcome Back, Kotter song playing in the background.

Like many others, I would like to express my sincere sympathies to Arnold Chan's family and to the members of the Liberal caucus for their loss of a colleague. I think all members of Parliament feel the loss, but they will certainly feel it much more over there. Our best wishes to all those who are feeling that today.

I am also pleased to participate in this debate today on the second reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act. I have enjoyed the debate today. We will be supporting the bill. However, as stated by the questioner from Toronto, there are unintended consequences of which we need to be aware. The devil is in the details. How would some of these regulations be met?

The bill would amend the Customs Act to authorize the Canada Border Services Agency to collect biographical information on all travellers, including snowbirds, and Canadian citizens as they leave for Florida or Arizona. In that regard, the CBSA has a discretionary authority. The agency may collect this information if it wishes, but it is not required to do so. The act authorizes officers to require goods exported from Canada to be reported. The duty to report exports will also empower Canada's border security agency to examine the goods that are exported.

Bill C-21 would also give two exemptions concerning the exportation of goods. Goods on board a conveyance, such as a ship, a truck, or some transportation vehicle, that enter and then leave Canadian waters do not have to be reported. Goods on board a conveyance that proceeds from one place to another inside Canada do not need to be declared.

The bill would amend section 159 of the Customs Act to make it an offence to smuggle or attempt to smuggle goods out of Canada. It includes whether the attempt to remove goods from Canada has been done clandestinely or not. It includes any goods that are subject to duties. It also includes goods that are prohibited from being exported or goods that are controlled or regulated.

The Conservative Party wants to support Bill C-21. The legislation addresses a long-standing priority for our party in maintaining stronger border security for Canada. It also acknowledges that abuse occurs in the export industry and it works toward ensuring that entitlement programs designed for exporters are not abused. The former Conservative government treated Canada's border security very seriously. With Bill C-21, Canadians can see that the current government is building on and following through on work that was done in the former parliament. I commend the government for that.

Bill C-21 will have benefits for many diverse communities across Canada's economy and our labour force. This initiative is good news for hard-working taxpayers as it will cut down on employment insurance and benefit cheats. The provisions of Bill C-21 that spell out the exchange of traveller information will support Canada's law enforcement and national security operations. The benefits of this program may include the strengthening of Canada's immigration and border management, national security, law enforcement, and program integrity in Canada.

The ability to inspect goods exiting Canada will also deter criminals from smuggling illegal and controlled goods out of our country. This legislation has the potential to save an estimated $20 million a year from those who are unduly receiving entitlement programs while they are not even in Canada.

Bill C-21 is part of the beyond the border action plan, which was jointly declared in 2011 by then prime minister Stephen Harper and then president Barack Obama.

The beyond the borders action plan establishes a long-term partnership respecting perimeter security for both our countries. The joint declaration set out the following key areas of co-operation between the United States and Canada: addressing threats early; trade facilitation, economic growth, and jobs; integrated cross-border law enforcement; and critical infrastructure and cyber security.

According to the action plan, the information-sharing initiative, also known as the entry-exit initiative, was to be implemented by June 30, 2014, under the original timeline. The current Prime Minister announced the agreement with the United States to fully implement the system to exchange basic biographical information in March 2016, following his first official visit to the United States.

According to the Liberal government, the entry-exit initiative will respond to the outbound movement of known high-risk travellers and their goods prior to their actual departure from Canada by air. This will be an effective measure in Bill C-21. It will help our nation deal with fugitives from justice, registered sex offenders, human smuggling and drug smugglers, exporters of illicit goods, and more.

It has already been talked about today, but parents and other family members will be pleased that we will now be better equipped to respond more effectively in times of very sensitive situations. This includes what we have talked about here in the House today, Amber Alerts and helping find abducted children and runaways. My colleague from Prince Albert told us the story of his friend to which that had happened.

The changes proposed in Bill C-21 will prevent the illegal export of controlled, regulated, or prohibited goods from Canada and would bolster Canada's trade reputation. We are taking measures to help our customers overseas and in the United States and we are saying that we are working hard to control goods leaving our country.

I chair the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. In the fall of 2016, our Auditor General report included a chapter auditing the beyond the borders action plan. The Auditor General reported on the performance of this initiative by the Canadian and the American governments. We know that this has been a very successful initiative.

We also learned at committee from witnesses appearing on behalf of the various federal government departments that are tasked with implementing the beyond the borders action plan that it was a very massive undertaking. We need to be aware that in an undertaking that is already massive, we are adding more information and certain expectations around that information.

The cross-border action plan has many moving parts. It has been a very difficult action plan to develop and deploy, yet we heard about successes. We heard public servants' strong commitment to ensuring that the goals are met. We heard that everyone is confident in success, and as I have said, we already know of this success.

The recommendations by the Auditor General were, as always, accepted by all departments. Every one of the Auditor General's recommendations was agreed to. Our committee found that the public servants who work every day to protect our borders are serious about their work and willing to improve their reporting, cost forecasting, performance indicators, and communication among responsible departments and agencies. It was encouraging to hear the testimony of these public servants.

There are problems, however, and some of them are larger and more difficult than others. Throughout the questioning by members of Parliament from all sides, we heard acknowledgements of the difficulties and real plans to overcome them. All parties agreed to our request to have progress reports. There were pledges by specific witnesses to complete certain tasks in specific time frames and report the progress to our committee, but again, with every little bit of data that was collected, there were difficulties around passing that data on to the proper channels.

Bill C-21 will help Canada identify individuals who do not leave Canada at the end of their authorized period of stay, i.e., visa overstays. The bill includes measures that will provide decision-makers with an accurate picture of an individual's travel history. Decision-makers include border security agents, stakeholders in any industry, and more. This will bring integrity back to our standards, but again, the devil is in the details when we are dealing with our own privacy information.

In conclusion, I think that Bill C-21 is a step in the right direction, but there are many questions that remain unanswered, the question of unintended consequences, and the question of cybersecurity and what other countries do with the information that we have. I look forward to the remainder of this debate. I want to learn more about this bill and the government's answers to some of those questions. For now, our party supports Bill C-21 generally and in theory.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome you and all my colleagues back to the House of Commons. I realize that there are lots of priorities my constituents would like to see us discussing today. One, of course, would be the proposed changes to taxes for farmers and small business people. However, I will limit my comments and presentation to Bill C-21, because there is an example I wanted to talk about that would have been dealt with, possibly successfully, had this legislation been passed earlier.

We are going to support Bill C-21. It is a good piece of legislation. It is necessary, as we look beyond our borders and our agreements to try to make the border thinner, that we have the proper mechanisms and tools in place to do that. We have to make sure that our border security officers, on both sides, have the proper data and are reading consistent data in a format to make proper decisions.

One of the concerns I have is not about the legislation itself but about the implementation of the legislation. I want to make sure that the government actually gives it the funding it deserves and that the border security guards actually have the computers they need to do the work they have to do. For example, border guards are using antiquated equipment. They do not have proper computers. They do not have proper personnel. Their staffing levels are low. We are seeing long lineups, and in that situation, they are dealing with angry and frustrated people. They are making decisions without having that data and information at their fingertips. I want to make sure that the proper funding and resources are in place for our border security officers to actually do their jobs properly.

The other thing is cybersecurity. I want to make sure that the data they are gathering on Canadians as they go across the border or leave the country is properly protected. I also want to make sure that any of the departments using that data safeguard it, whether it is to prevent employment insurance fraud or welfare fraud or any other type of fraud. We have Canadians, claiming to be in Canada, who are collecting benefits and are not actually in Canada. I want to make sure that our government puts in place the proper safeguards to prevent that information from being hacked. That is private information and should not be generally available to anyone. Those are some of the concerns I have about the bill.

I want to move on to what I wanted to talk about. A friend of mine met a lady and got married. She was not a Canadian. They had a child. A couple of years later, they went through a nasty divorce, and I mean nasty in the worst sense. A court order from the judge basically said that this lady was not allowed to take the child out of the country. They took away their Canadian passports. She proceeded to get a passport in her native country for herself and for the child. She ignored the court order and took the child out of the country. She kidnapped the child, and my friend has not seen his child in seven years. If we had had legislation like this in place, I would like to think it would have caught her. It would have allowed this father to actually spend some time with his child. Now he has not spent any time with his child. He knows where she is but has no contact with her and has no ability to reach out to her to do the things fathers like to do with their kids. If we had had proper legislation in place seven years ago, this could have been prevented.

We see many examples where sharing information has been a benefit to both Canadians and Americans. There was a terrorist attack just a few years ago that was thwarted after the FBI shared information with the RCMP and Canadian security forces. It prevented people from being killed. We have many examples of when we all benefit when we have information in front of us and use it wisely, both in Canada and the U.S. Therefore, we should not be scared to see this type of legislation move forward, because it is in our best interest and for our personal security to make sure that these things happen.

I remember trying to help my friend Bill get his daughter back and all the roadblocks he faced. It tells us that once that happens, it is too late. We cannot turn the clock back. We cannot change it. There is no mechanism to go back and make it right.

Therefore, let us make sure, as we move forward with a piece of legislation like this, that we actually put together a proper implementation program to make sure that not only do we have a good piece of legislation but that it is implemented properly and used and resourced properly so it can be effective and the results are what was intended.

My speech today will be relatively short. However, having listened to all my colleagues in the House today on both the Liberal and Conservative sides, I would say they have done a good job presenting the different aspects of this bill. I compliment them for doing that. However, I want to give examples of what could happen when we get legislation right and what could happen when we do not have proper legislation in place.

I will be supporting this bill. I look forward to seeing it move through the House and committee. I also look forward to the Liberal government's properly implementing this bill. If it does, Canadians will be the beneficiaries of this piece of legislation.