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.

Customs Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend from Durham will allow me to briefly correct a misinterpretation, which is often repeated, of the impact of the U.S. State Department environmental impact statement on Keystone, to which he referred. It was very specific and price related as to whether having Keystone pipeline approved would expand greenhouse gases from the oil sands or not. It depended on whether those expansions would have happened anyway because they were profitable, which only happens when the price of a barrel of oil is over $80 a barrel. When it is below that, as it had been bouncing around when Barack Obama disapproved it, the U.S. State Department advice would have been that this would expand greenhouse gases because the pipeline itself is not infrastructure and the expansion of the oil sands would not have gone ahead regardless. Therefore, it was a price-dependent issue.

I want to ask the member a specific question on Bill C-21. I do not think he mentioned this part, but I am concerned about an amendment that would add a new section 94. It says:

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.

It sounds to me that it is suspiciously like an opportunity for a fishing expedition and keeping someone there unreasonably. I wonder if he would agree with me that this section might be better amended with words like “reasonable questions relevant to travellers”, or something that keeps it from being abused.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government introduced this bill in June of last year and then let it sit. There has been no substantive discussion of these changes to the Customs Act. It is certainly clear that the government now wants to maybe prorogue the House or rush a few bills through to try to somewhat enhance its legislative record. It is particularly shocking given that we are going into the third round of the NAFTA renegotiations that this important bill that the government said was critical to enhancing trade between Canada and the U.S. and that was introduced well over a year ago is only being substantively debated now.

In my remarks, I am going to touch on elements of Bill C-21. Also, in my role as an MP from southern Ontario concerned about the auto industry and our exports, and as the shadow critic for Foreign Affairs, I am going to talk about my concern with how the Liberal government handles the U.S. relationship. It is an important one. As I often say, the U.S. is our closest friend, our neighbour, biggest trading partner, and our strongest ally. I fear how the relationship with the United States has been steadily eroded under the government, regardless of what political stripe is in power in Washington. I will attempt to demonstrate that today, not just through rhetoric but through examples.

Bill C-21 is probably the most comprehensive change to the Customs Act in Canada for individuals. That is because the broadest interventions by Canadian officials at our border would be permitted by the changes to section 94 of the act, under which a border official could ask Canadians to answer “any questions” related to the Customs Act or any other act of Parliament. If Canadians were paying attention to this debate, they would be startled by that. Any questioning on any benefit, tax issue, or anything else could be part of the enhanced questioning at the border as a result of this bill. There has virtually been no debate or discussion of that for well over a year. That is what Parliament is for: it is to have the discussion.

What this bill would then do is allow Canadian authorities to share all of that information with our friends in the U.S. Having been part of the last government and a big supporter of the beyond the border initiative, as we can see from speakers today, the Conservatives are inclined to support this. However, so far we have had little debate. The Liberals are not being open with Canadians or the provinces on how that information will be safeguarded, how personal and private information will be safeguarded when needed. We already have serious problems removing children from no-fly lists, where double names and issues not related to public safety and security make it impossible for young children or, in some cases, veterans to remove themselves from lists. People should be concerned about how information is collected, shared, and stored. That is what Parliament is for: to debate these things so that Canadians will very much know what their government is doing.

The result of Bill C-21 would be an entry-exit data tracking system with sharing with the United States, basically amounting to a common entry-exit system between Canada and the U.S. This has been talked about within the confines of the beyond the border initiative. It has been talked about both in the previous government and the Liberal government.

Let me tell everyone what the current Minister of Public Safety, who is responsible for our border, said about this in the House of Commons in February 2011. He said the following when asking the Conservative minister of the time a question:

If we have a common entry and common exit system, does it not follow that Canada no longer has sovereign Canadian control over immigration and refugees? Canadians need to know what is at risk.

Certainly, the most experienced member of the Liberal government had concerns in 2011 on this exact system, that there was basically no debate on it, but now is being rushed through the House of Commons. I would like him to come to the House and describe how the provisions in the government's arrangements with the U.S. has satisfied the concerns he had at that time. That is his duty as a parliamentarian, particularly now that he is charged with this file. So far, I have not heard the concerns he expressed in 2011 addressed in this place.

It is interesting that this is happening in the context of a government that has actually relinquished its sovereign control over our border, to use the his language, “sovereign control”. The Liberals had relinquished it when the Prime Minister said that anyone can come into our country without respecting our sovereign control over our border, and without respecting our well-established, world-recognized fair systems for refugees, asylum claims, and immigration. Perhaps the largest failure of the government has been on the sovereign control of our border. Therefore, I hope the Minister of Public Safety will come to the House and let us know how the concerns he had years ago about a common exit system has been addressed within the confines of thousands of people coming from the United States into Canada illegally.

As I have said constantly, it is okay for a country to enforce its laws. This is a basic element of sovereignty. It is okay for a country to say that it will have a rules-based system with respect to claiming asylum, refugees, and immigration issues. It is fair. In fact, it was a previous Liberal government that put into place the safe third country agreement with the United States to ensure we had a rules-based system on both sides of the border. However, so far in this debate, I have not heard from any government member how that is addressed in Bill C-21, at a time when it is fair to say our border is in crisis. Therefore, since the Minister of Public Safety, as an MP in 2011, expressed concern then about sovereign control over our border, perhaps he should be in the House and perhaps the bill should have been debated a few months after it was introduced and not well over a year later.

However, I am not done with the hon. member, my friend, the Minister of Public Safety. In his supplemental on that same day in February 2011, here is what he said the government of the day should be achieving in return for a common exit system. He said:

Could the Prime Minister at least guarantee minimum gains for Canada? For example, will he get rid of U.S. country of origin labelling? Will there be no more buy American policies? Will we get hassle free access for durum, beef, pork and softwood? Will passport requirements be removed? Will Canada be exempt from the patriot act? What are the guarantees?

I am probably not delivering it with the gusto he did that day. He is experienced in gusto. However, what he was saying was that the beyond the border initiative should be a partnership with our friends in the United States. It should be two countries working together on areas of mutual interest and for Canada to make these changes, we should see that our national interests were being addressed in the United States concurrently.

If we look at the member for Regina—Wascana, as he was at that time, with his list of demands, those were the issues, minor irritants between Canada and the U.S. Fortunately, my friend who has retired from Battlefords—Lloydminster worked very hard on the rules of origin and issues related to beef, which are some of these issues we have with our closest friend.

However, it was clear the Minister of Public Safety wanted something in return for a common exit system. He wanted to see Canada's interest being advanced with our friends in the United States.

Is that happening now? I would say it is not. I sadly have to remind my friends in the House that when our Prime Minister introduced President Obama right in that spot, he introduced his bromance, his dudeplomacy friend. I have said countless times how embarrassed I was that day for our leader to introduce the leader of the free world, as the U.S. president is often called, in such terms. Quite frankly, it was immature.

How did that bromance benefit Canada beyond the state dinner, the media coverage, and magazine spreads from that state dinner? President Obama cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline within months of the new Liberal government.

We have Bill C-21 and Bill C-23 on border and pre-clearance changes. We are changing and legalizing marijuana, which will affect thousands of Canadians going to the U.S. The pre-clearance bill impacts that. The Liberals could not even get the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to remove one question from its pre-clearance. We could not even get a question removed from the ICE screening in the United States, yet the U.S. is getting Bill C-21 and common entry exit. The Minister of Public Safety demanded that Canada's interest be advanced concurrently with such a radical move.

While the Conservatives support the beyond the border initiative, we support getting wins for Canada. Regardless of who is in the White House, our friends in the United States will respect us if we come there for a win, not just for a state dinner. In fact, the day he was in Washington, and I have mentioned this before because my friend from Yukon was part of the debate as the last session wrapped up, our Prime Minister committed to freezing between 10% and 20% of the land mass and the ocean mass in the Arctic from any development or any work on that land without even consulting first nation leaders or territorial leaders.

He basically, with one stroke of a pen, or a tweet, blocked off northerners from developing their own economy. In the age of reconciliation, he gave a courtesy phone call to territorial leaders one hour before the event with President Obama.

I think people can understand why I am concerned. In the last two years we have been on the losing end of our most important relationship. As we are days away from the third round of NAFTA renegotiation, people can understand why I am concerned. The very fact that we are debating this in September 2017, when the bill was introduced in June 2016, just before the House rose, and there is virtually no debate, shows that the government is not putting the priorities of Canadians, with respect to trade and our friends in the U.S. as a priority.

I would remind the House that it was only 2011 when the Minister of Public Safety basically had an itemized list of wins he was expecting the Conservatives to have before ever supporting a common entry and exit system in beyond the border. We should hold him to the same list.

Let us switch to this Parliament, because that is too much from 2011. Really, the only substantive contribution I have seen before the debate this week to debate over Bill C-21 has been from the MP for Orléans who is charged with the American relationship. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and is tasked in that role. He is a friend of mine. He is a retired general. I think the logic was to have him leverage some of those relationships to build on the American relationship.

What did that member list as the five priorities he saw as the lead with the United States? He mentioned Bill C-21 and border security as one of his issues. He predicted a thinning of the border, as he described it.

With the events in Quebec and Manitoba in the last eight months, a disappearance of the border might be a better description. What the member described as a thinning of the border he put as a priority and Bill C-21 was brought forward.

What were his other issues? Regulatory co-operation was one. We support a regulatory co-operation council. I spoke in Washington on that as parliamentary secretary. We will support the government on streamlining regulations to allow the same approach to pesticides and a whole range of issues, from our farmers right through to producers and distributors.

The member's second priority was energy security and environment. That is interesting, because under the member's government, the U.S. cancelled Keystone XL. The new administration appears to be bringing it back, following the science and the fact that there are going to be jobs on both sides of the border and access for our goods.

The government has been weak in that area, as I mentioned, border security in Bill C-21 and NORAD. In the last few days we have heard testimony at defence committee about North Korea's capabilities in the last few months. My friend from Scarborough—Guildwood shares some of my concerns with respect to that regime, yet the Prime Minister has closed the door to modernizing NORAD with respect to ballistic missile defence. This at a time when we know that the capability of the North Koreans could cause intense and incredible harm to North America. We heard our own generals say in that construct that the way things stood now there was nothing that said the U.S. would need to respond if Canada was threatened because we had opted out of that option, and the Prime Minister has already closed the door. The member for Orléans, who has listed this as a priority, should remind the Prime Minister of that.

The government's fifth priority was empowering women entrepreneurs as the member listed it.

All five issues are important but I have not seen them advanced by the government in any meaningful way since its election. That causes me great concern.

On September 23, we will be hosting our friends from Mexico and the United States for the third round of NAFTA renegotiations. I had a good talk with the Minister of Foreign Affairs today. She knows how much respect I have for her. I am glad she is in that role in the Liberal cabinet.

However, I am concerned that the government's list of priorities going into these negotiations does not mention rules of origin for the automotive industry. U.S. free trade in many ways grew out of Brian Mulroney's work on NAFTA and U.S. free trade before that, but I would remind my friends that it grew out of the Auto Pact from the 1960s.

My dad worked in the auto industry, including at Ste-Thérèse, which is why I was born in Montreal. The auto industry has been integrated on a North American basis, a Canada-U.S. basis in particular since the 1960s. That is how free trade started on this continent, yet the auto industry was not listed as a priority.

Softwood lumber, our perpetual irritant with the U.S., was not mentioned as a priority in that speech. Our Conservative government was able to secure a deal on softwood lumber but so far the Liberals have had trouble with this issue.

Our resource industry writ large, the largest employer of indigenous Canadians, was not listed as a priority. Mexico has put its resource industry as a priority. We have listed a range of other important issues, but we have placed them as priorities when in the past they have been side agreements negotiated after rules of access, export, and everything else was negotiated.

With a government that has seen the erosion of Keystone XL, has seen the NAFTA agreement put forward for full renegotiation, has seen a U.S. government increasingly getting what it sees as a priority with Canada, including intellectual property changes, a whole range of things, we do not see Canadian interests being advanced with our friends and most important ally. That is concerning and it should concern the millions of Canadians, who rely on trade with the United States, about their future. It should concern Canadians that when the threat is evolving and NORAD is being modernized we are not part of those discussions.

In 2011, it concerned the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that a common exit system would be negotiated without clear wins for Canada. I do not see those wins. I do not see the debate. I would like to see the government put Canadian priorities forward for a change.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I will share it with someone else then.

I want to welcome everyone back from a busy summer break. I look forward to sitting in the House this fall, as we will debate some very important issues in this session. First, my condolences to the family and my colleagues across for the loss of our brother from Scarborough—Agincourt.

As my friend said earlier, on February 4, 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama agreed on a beyond the border declaration, establishing a new long-term partnership built upon a perimeter approach to security and economic competitiveness in both countries. The associated action plan outlined a range of initiatives. It also called for Canada and the United States to generate a joint beyond the border implementation, annually, for a three year period. This declaration has deepened co-operation at the border between Canada and the United States.

Under the declaration, we have seen a number of accomplishments and benefits from it. We exchange best practices. We have successfully launched an automated biometric-based system to counter identity fraud. We signed a historic agreement on land, rail, marine, and air transport pre-clearances. Also, as of 2015, we know we have had millions of people apply for NEXUS memberships to ease their transitions.

On March 10, 2016, our current Prime Minister and former President Barack Obama reaffirmed the commitment. I am pleased to see the Liberals embracing the work done by our former Conservative government. I thank them. Before the agreement, Canadian and American border agencies only collected information on people entering the respective country. This meant that they did not have a clear record of when people exited. After the agreement was made in 2011, and as part of a pilot program, both countries began to share entry information on third country nationals so that the record of a land entry into one country could be used to establish an exit record from the other. As a former law enforcement officer, I know this is very beneficial to the safety of Canadians. The bill would expand the initiative from third country nationals to all travellers at air and land ports of entry.

The relationship between Canada and the United States goes way back. Since the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement came into force in 1989, Canada's two-way trade in goods and services with the United States has more than tripled. We share the world's longest undefended border, and we have the largest bilateral trade and investment relationship in the world. Every day, there is approximately 400,000 people and close to $2 billion in trade travel between our two countries, by land, air, and sea. This is why it is important to keep the flow of legitimate trade and travel while ensuring the security and integrity of our borders.

While the bill amends the Customs Act, its implications have nothing to do with the collection of duties on imports. Rather, it strengthens the security of our borders and develops further co-operation between Canadian and American border agencies. Bill C-21 creates new legislation for exports in order to target smuggling. It adds a new export smuggling offence in section 159 of the Customs Act. It also expands the detention powers of border officers to detain goods that are being exported. Proposed section 97.25 would be amended to permit Canada Border Service Agency officials to detain any goods being exported that have been reported under section 95. These provisions would help combat smuggling, keep illegal exports from leaving the country, and enable the prosecution of smugglers.

As previously discussed, Bill C-21 would also enable the collection and sharing of biometric data on all persons as they enter and exit Canada. The new section 92 is added to the Customs Act to replace the old section 92, which was repealed in 1995. This new section would allow the collection of travellers' personal information, such as names, birth dates, and travel document numbers, and allow that information to be shared with American counterparts in accordance with an information sharing agreement between the two border agencies.

In regard to any concerns about protecting the privacy of personal information, it should be restated that this is already being done for third country nationals travelling across the border. According to the Canada Border Services Agency website, both countries securely share entry records of approximately 16,000 to 19,000 travellers daily with no impact on the traveller experience.

Strict safeguards and agreements will also be in place to protect Canadians' personal information once it is gathered and shared under this legislation. The information collected and the entry-exit initiative will be incredibly useful not just for security purposes, but also to protect Canada's social programs to ensure that foreign travellers with extended stays in Canada pay the appropriate income tax if they are here long enough. For example, individuals who are in Canada for more than the legislated period of time are required to pay income tax. Since the CBSA will have both entry and exit data, the government will be able to calculate the number of days the individual was in Canada and whether they have to pay taxes.

Bill C-21 will not change any tax rules. Rather, it will ensure that all individuals who owe income tax pay it. Additionally, Canadians travelling abroad should be aware of the number of days they spend away from home. Under this legislation, biometric data can be shared with Employment and Social Development Canada for the purposes of administering or enforcing the Employment Insurance Act or the Old Age Security Act. The information collected will allow Employment and Social Development Canada to track Canadians' time spent outside the country to ensure their compliance with Canadian laws. For example, my home province of Alberta requires at least five months of residency in the province for someone to continue their health insurance coverage. Failure to comply means that an individual risks losing their access to health insurance. Again, Bill C-21 is not changing social program rules; rather, it helps to ensure compliance with laws that are already established.

Bill C-21 will also help to further combat identity fraud. As I previously mentioned, the new section will allow the collection of travellers' personal information, including the type of travel document that identifies the person, the name of the country or organization that issued the travel document, and the travel document number. By collecting, sharing, and verifying this information, border agents will be able to identify fraudulent documents and people trying to enter the country under a false name. This is not only important to protect against identity fraud, but also to protect our security and ensure that we know exactly who is entering our country.

In summary, I believe that Bill C-21 is a positive step in the right direction. It builds on Canada's long and historic partnership with the United States. It promotes the beyond the border declaration established with the United States by our previous Conservative government. Bill C-21 furthers the security of our borders and also safeguards our social programs. I want to thank the minister for tabling this piece of legislation and furthering the work of the previous Conservative government. I look forward to supporting Bill C-21.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be here. I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act. I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I may not be as boisterous in some ways.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to ask questions of my colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, on any subject.

I find this one very interesting. We spoke not too long ago with many of his colleagues about the issue of Bill C-21 and why it is essential that it be put in place in case situations arise like the Amber Alert that was issued in the Lachute area, for instance. There has been a lot of talk about privacy concerns, but no more data is being given. The bill simply allows us to obtain information already available abroad precisely so that we can better protect our own in cases like the one that happened last week.

Does my colleague agree this bill needs to pass with some urgency so that we can, in emergency cases, prevent someone from crossing the border without anyone knowing?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Yellowhead.

It has been three months since we enjoyed being in the House. Over the past three months, we have had the opportunity to meet with the people in our ridings to participate in various activities and to hear from Canadians.

Moreover, during question period, it was clear that we Conservatives pay close attention to what citizens and business owners tell us. The current government can count on our utmost vigilance when it comes time to increase taxpayers' taxes.

I would be remiss if I failed to mention that today is a very emotional day for all parliamentarians. Earlier, we all paid a well-deserved tribute to the late hon. member of the House Arnold Chan.

I think the tributes we heard from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the NDP, the leader of the Green Party and the member for Joliette all show that when parliamentarians like Mr. Chan represent their constituents well and seek to move Canada forward with their own vision and the vision they share with their fellow citizens, their aim is true. The late Mr. Chan was a real inspiration to all of us.

I would also like to thank my leader, the leader of the official opposition and member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who did me the honour of placing his trust in me and appointing me to his shadow cabinet as our Treasury Board critic. I had the pleasure of speaking with the current President of the Treasury Board—and it is not that I do not like him, just that he will no longer be in that position in two years' time—and we reminisced about the good old days when he was a member of the Conservative Party. Some people do make mistakes in life, but back in the day, he did not make any.

We are gathered here today to talk about Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act. I want to say right away, since we are all in good spirits as we come back to the House, that we support this bill.

The reason is quite simple. In fact, it was under the leadership of the government of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper that the first steps were taken in creating this bill. This all comes back to the historic border agreement reached in February 2011 between former prime minister Stephen Harper and former American President Barack Obama. That agreement had four stages. The first two have been completed. We would like to see the final two stages completed by this government. We are pleased that the current government is following the footsteps and the path set out by the previous Conservative government. This means that we can have greater flexibility in our relationships, both trade and personal, with the United States.

It is worth pointing out how extraordinary this is. Canada and the United States have proven that, while they may disagree from time to time, two great nations can agree on the essentials. That means a lot. As we all learned in elementary school, Canada and the United States share the longest undefended border in the world. That is really important. Our two nations may have disagreed back in 1812, but as many people know even better than I, our relationship has generally been a fruitful and productive one since then, as former prime minister Mulroney, the man who made free trade between our two countries possible, would say.

I want to emphasize how amazing this is. The border between Canada and the United States is nearly 9,000 kilometres long, 8,891 kilometres to be exact. We have a 6,414-kilometre north-south border, as well as a 2,477-kilometre east-west border between Alaska and British Columbia and Yukon.

These statistics may interest those who play Jeopardy! and other board games. My point is that when you have a border that is close to 9,000 kilometres long, you need to work hard to maintain a good relationship. The people of our two great countries—more than 330 million there and 35 million here—have countless daily interactions with each other. Tens of thousands of Canadians and Americans travel back and forth across that 9,000-kilometre border.

Trade between our two great nations has also been extremely fruitful. We are talking about some $400 billion in trade between Canada and the United States. This all must be done in a context where we can rely on the quality of our borders, which often gets many people up in arms, and rightly so, since as we saw this summer, our borders may not be as impermeable as some folks would like. We were all surprised to see thousands of people crossing, not at the usual border crossings, but rather through the woods near the official border crossings recognized by both countries. I am sure that we will have the opportunity to come back to this issue caused by this government's lackadaisical attitude when it comes to the question of migrants. However, that is not the focus of Bill C-21.

As I was saying, this bill stems from the agreement of February 24, 2011. Allow me to read a sentence that clearly sums up the purpose of this agreement:

To preserve and extend the benefits our close relationship has helped bring to Canadians and Americans alike, we intend to pursue a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people, goods, and services between our two countries.

As I was saying earlier, seeing as our trade relationship is worth more than $400 billion, a good border is obviously a must. Since thousands of Canadians go to the United States and thousands of Americans come to Canada each day, we want to have good borders, but we also need to face up to the challenges of today.

Members are unlikely to forget the tragic events of September 11, 2011, when the world was plunged into terrorism and unspeakable darkness, when spineless cowards and hypocrites attacked completely innocent civilians. More than 3,000 people lost their lives in the attacks of September 11. In light of this new event, we needed a strong, serious approach to protect the safety of Canadians, Americans, and all the people of the free world.

What came out of that was an agreement containing four specific areas of co-operation. The first was to address terrorist threats early, since there were specific targets. Did the people crossing the border have a terrorist past? Did they have harmful intentions? Were they there to commit crimes or were they good citizens wanting to contribute to interactions between our two countries? These are the questions that needed answers.

The second area was trade facilitation, economic growth, and job creation. The third was integrated cross-border law enforcement, or in other words, the government wanted to ensure that American laws did not infringe on Canadian laws. There had to be some consistency between the laws of the two countries, otherwise this would not work.

Finally, the fourth area was critical infrastructure and cybersecurity. As we know, this required some very unpleasant changes at border crossings. I think anyone who has driven across the border or has crossed by train or by air, knows that this vigilance is reassuring, particularly in our airports, even if it is sometimes onerous for well-intentioned tourists.

It is because of these four areas that today we have Bill C-21, which amends the Customs Act and seeks to better integrate our trade relations with the Americans and allow Canadians and Americans to move easily between the two countries while ensuring the vital security of the two countries.

With the new technologies that are available, it is easer for police and consulates to identify those with harmful intentions. They are able to identify anyone who has committed a crime or has demonstrated that they have harmful intentions, whether on social media or elsewhere. That is the price we pay to live in a free society where we can walk down the street without being worried that a bomb will go off next to us and to ensure that Canada and the United States continue to have an excellent relationship for centuries to come.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his work and for coming to Windsor to tour the facilities.

The fact is that tolls are taxes, and we will have to pay among the highest tolls. The Ambassador Bridge is owned by a private American billionaire, Matty Moroun, who was incarcerated for not following through with government contracts on the U.S. side. He just received a contract for a brand new bridge from the current government, with a 35% increase. Technically, under the terms and conditions, he has to tear down the existing bridge. However, what the government failed to expand upon is that the bridge is also designated in the United States as a heritage structure. They have told, unilaterally, the Congress and the Senate in the United States, that they have to tear down a heritage bridge. I am not sure, since the owner was actually incarcerated for the misappropriation of money related to the plaza, which he received from the federal government, that they will actually get them to do something about the Ambassador Bridge, which the billionaire does not want to do. There is a lot of exposure for the public and Canadian infrastructure and the economy related to this practice.

What I did not get a chance to talk about was the fact that a person has been appointed to lead the new public bridge project, which would be seen as a potential competitor, who has now derailed the process of the Gordie Howe International Bridge. He has quite a cozy relationship with this American billionaire, to the point that they had private meetings with the bridge company as he was leading the border authority. There seems to be some uncertainty related to whether he was technically representing the Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport or acting for himself. There have been a number of different comments back and forth. I want to thank him, though, as that will continue to go forward.

With regard to Bill C-21, the biggest issue is the increased amount of personal information. That is where the real problem is and the real vulnerability, because it is very detailed on passports.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I would not want the member opposite to unknowingly leave wrong information on the record. The member talked about the Ambassador Bridge in his remarks. This weekend he and I drove across that bridge four times while we were at Canada–U.S. meetings. However, he said that the Government of Canada gave the owners of Ambassador Bridge a bridge. That is not quite accurate. What the Government of Canada approved was the owners of Ambassador Bridge to build a bridge under certain conditions with their own money. There is not a dime of federal money in that proposal. I would not want that wrong information on the record, so we should be clear on that. They need to meet certain conditions, and so they should.

However, my question really is related to the bill, and I agree with the member on his privacy concerns. In fact, I have been in people's houses who have been called by supposedly CRA, and CRA did come up on the phone. I picked up the phone and talked to the individual. I asked the person to tell me the name of the deputy minister and of course the person did not know. We have to be very careful about that.

With respect to Bill C-21, is the additional information being required not any different than what is happening now under the Customs Act with respect to the protection of information? The bill looks at other ways and other powers to examine any goods that are imported or exported illegally. Could the member answer that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's work on the border as well as her interest in this debate. One of the things we need to keep in mind is not only the personal time frame and the difficulties about crossing borders, but the cost to the Canadian economy.

I know the member will appreciate this. I have a truck driver who works for an automotive company. At the age of 17, he was caught smoking marijuana, so he has a federal criminal offence for it. He started working for an auto company at age 21 and is now in his 50s, To this day, despite not having any other criminal record or any other problem, we got called because the just-in-time delivery was delayed because of this old offence. That costs the Canadian economy tens of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars at times, depending on the amount, the content, and whether it shuts down a line. We have this problem and ironically that will not change later on when marijuana is legalized in Canada; the criminal record will still be there. That delay will then cause a delay in the booth, it will cause a delay in secondary, it will delay parts from getting back and forth, and it will also tell business owners not to invest on borders because they are concerned about it.

We have to ensure, if Bill C-21 goes ahead, that we ameliorate any problems by having the proper technology, equipment, and everything in there. That does two things. First, it ensures we do not slow it down anymore. Second, we protect privacy and there is accountability for that privacy to ensure nothing is expended on that front.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, although I support Bill C-21, I have concerns about the ability of the Liberal government to implement any kind of data exchange, based on the Phoenix debacle alone. Because I have a border community similar to my colleague, we have seen what happens as new thing get implemented, and there have been a number of new things. Six bridges have been consolidated under the current government. Wait times have increased for trucks. We have had trouble with even passenger line-ups. As we start exchanging more data and we see some of the racial profiling going on, I am very concerned about the amount of time and delays that will happen for individuals. Could my colleague comment on the situation he is seeing in Windsor?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak again on Bill C-21.

One of the interesting aspects about the debate on this bill is around the consequences for trade with our American partner. The reality with our relationship with the United States is that we have hundreds of thousands of Canadians who traverse into the United States and then back into Canada per day. Anything we do with Canada-U.S. travel and trade will have a significant impact with regard to not only the individual crossing, but also the metrics of the infrastructure that is actually under that duress.

What I mean specifically, and through that I will reference my riding, but there are many others across the country, is the way that people are processed in and outside the border, whether it be in the customs line, the lineup for the infrastructure, or the return. In that context of exchange, there are several variables that can take place for individuals.

A passport is one of the documents that can be used for entry and exit. It is required by the western hemisphere travel initiative of the United States. By the way, when the U.S. implemented that, many members of Congress did not even know that was added as a rider, attached legislation, which is similar to what we do with our budget bills, now that we throw the kitchen sink in with everything. It did not get the proper review.

I was part of a group of Canadians, and many parties were involved, pushing for the delay of implementation, which we received because this affects our travel and trade.

What Canadians are being asked to do is to give up more of their privacy. This is important. On borders like mine, travelling to and from the United States is a regular practice. The information that is used therein has become more important for issues related to protection of people's banking accounts; online social and professional discussions or contributions through Facebook, Twitter and so forth; and then, lastly, the aspect related to video and other types of things that could be done and are related to fraud.

During the summer, as part of general discussion, I have been working a lot on the issue of inclusion of fraud and so forth. One of the notable things in the information that is going to be dispelled is the surname, the first name, the middle name, date of birth, citizenship or nationality, and sex of the individual. That is what is collected right now for people entering Canada.

The new information, collected when people exit, is the date, time, place of departure, travel document used at the time of departure, with the travel document number. I mentioned earlier that could be passports or other types of identification, the enhanced driver's licence and other things that are used, the NEXUS card and so forth. There is any unique passenger reference assigned to them by a carrier, including border or non-border designations, or in the case of a carrier crew member, it would be their designation as such.

The information would be gathered by CBSA at every border crossing, including land, sea, and air. The bill would also have some additional reporting of goods that cross the border, and specific needs of reporting related to that.

What I think is important is that it changes a number of things. I know right now in my crossing area, there is a high degree of concern about the digital world we have moved to, and the use of that information, but also the reliance on that information.

Right now, we have problems, often associated with the U.S. system or the Canadian system not following through on the collection of the data, and then the system breaking down. What has happened in the past is that the booths would be closed and there would be lineups which affect our trade and tourism. Seconds do matter when we are talking about tens of thousands of trucks. Every second does matter. It will back up into our economy. It will affect our competitiveness.

Now when the systems go down, the lineups then start to lengthen. When we look at what tools the CBSA has been provided, I get worried. There is a very well-schooled and trained workforce in our CBSA members. Our men and women who serve are very capable.

The problem, quite frankly, goes back to their lack of respect and support for the materials and equipment on the border. That is one of the things that raises my question. We can have a lot of great ideas, but if we do not provide the right tools and appropriate measures, then that does not make a difference. It can complicate and make things worse. I know, through a number of different reports, that the computer systems, equipment, and processing are issues for the men and women who serve the border. I would also argue that there is a malaise in the government to do the necessary things to make sure the working conditions and employment are done properly through contracts and ensuring we have stability.

There are several things that act as disrupters in this entire process. We could have all the good intentions we want, but the reality is whether we have the capabilities to do that. Right now, our men and women are again serving without a contract. It is three years plus about five months since their last contract. If this Liberal government cannot even get a contract with its workers in place—it cannot even pay its workers for sure—what type of competency do we have that it is going to protect people's private information and the accumulation of more data, just because the U.S. says so? That is one thing that stuck out to me right away in terms of the vulnerabilities of this.

I mentioned the impact on my riding, with delayed times and backups related to the proper processing breakdowns. Now, past the breakdown, as we get data breaches and loss of information, as well as the incapabilities on top of all that, there is no guarantee that what we are doing is actually going to prove anything. The government has not done the necessary work that it should be doing right now.

I spoke in the House of Commons this afternoon at question period about a new border crossing that has been approved by the Prime Minister and cabinet without any consultation whatsoever with the community on what the specifics were going to be. It was nothing. They let a private American billionaire, whom Canadians will have to pay their taxes and tolls to, break the news about what their future is going to be under the Liberals' regime of making a crossing into the United States for jobs, improvement of connections to their families, or whatever it might be. They let a private American billionaire, who was incarcerated for not following through with construction properly on the American government side, do this. They are giving a billionaire in the United States a brand new bridge, plus an expansion of 35%. There was nothing in communication. What confidence do we have in the necessary communication and protection of private information that is going to be dispelled through this bill?

I will come back to this point, in time. However, the timing of this is the real curiosity. This bill and this discussion go back to the previous regime, as well the Obama regime, with regard to Canada-U.S. information being shared back and forth. There were a lot of agreements over the years between our two countries that were ratcheted up. I mentioned the western hemisphere travel initiative as the original one, which has the requirement of a passport. It is no mystery that it was, as I mentioned earlier, an addition to a congressional and federal bill that many members did not even know about. If we look at the history, it was delayed subsequently for Canada. Other countries had to go first because there was no planning. It was actually a response to something and not the creation of something, hence it did not have the proper infrastructure or capacities.

It is interesting that as we are in these negotiations with the United States over NAFTA, one of the things that is going to be required is a re-evaluation of jobs and other types of things that we share on both sides of the border in terms of qualifications. Before, when NAFTA was signed, we did not have the Internet, and we did not have a lot of the jobs that are out there. Whether it be for the computer science industry or accounting, there were a series of different things that were not included.

All of these things will have to be worked out even if we get an agreement, but we will sign another privacy agreement, or implement one in legislation, with the United States before we even know what we will do in terms of a trading relationship with that country and the future of another relationship.

It would seem that the eagerness to do this and the timing of it is off. It would make sense that Canadians who travel, who number thousands per day going back and forth, would want to know what information was being shared. The United States is going to collect that data.

As noted in the discussion earlier, the Liberals just gave a billionaire, an American citizen, a brand new border crossing, with a 35% increase in capacity, for nothing. The Liberals gave it up. They have to move a fire station. That is what Canada received. This is billions of dollars. The operation totals about $200,000 per day, and Canada gets a fire station moved.

However, the operations work with the American body and CBSA and so forth on a regular basis. When we have to give up more private information, we have to ensure it is rock solid. Not only do the operations in my area involve the CBSA and the Department of Homeland Security, but they can involve private American business. This is critical.

The U.S. Patriot Act allows that information to be accessed and used. It is interesting to note the way it works. The company that has the information taken from it is not allowed to tell the people affected by it.

I have fought for years in this place, and we were successful, to keep Canada's census data in Canada. This will be debated at the table during the discussions on NAFTA. A previous government outsourced data collection and the census to Lockheed Martin.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the chair again, guiding our democratic exchanges in the House.

I began my speech before question period. Having used up six minutes, I now have four left. In the first part of my speech, I explored the notion of borders from various perspectives: security, trafficking, trade, and the need for some to commute between various countries, in our case Canada and the United States.

As a certain philosopher whose name escapes me once said, borders guarantee a country's sovereignty. It can then be said that they guarantee our Canadian democracy, because in order to be enforced, rights must rest upon institutional foundations, foundations that can only be guaranteed within the borders of a sovereign state that has institutions such as the House of Commons, for instance.

The purpose of Bill C-21, which the Minister of Public Safetyintroduced on June 15, 2016, in this House, is to amend the Customs Act. Let me remind my colleagues that the whole content of this bill comes from the beyond the border action plan, introduced by prime minister Stephen Harper in 2011. The general aim of that plan was to address any emerging threats to the Canada-U.S. border, to promote trade, which makes for continuous economic growth and job creation, to have an integrated cross-border law enforcement, and to establish critical infrastructure for cybersecurity, a need that keeps growing over the years as new technologies become more important in our daily lives and our institutions.

In my view, this bill was put forward in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Americans wanted to address the concerns of their fellow citizens about security in North America, which is quite natural. In fact, the goal is still the same. As good partners, we not only wanted to address the concerns of Canadians regarding their security, but we also wanted to be good economic, military, and social partners with the United States. We still want that today. Therefore, we began discussions about border security in good faith and with an open mind.

That being said, it was imperative for us, Canadians, to ensure the continuity of trade flow. That is what is difficult to maintain with this type of bill. As my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, our critic on this file, mentioned, this bill is intended to finally respond to the threat of terrorism. However, how can we achieve this while ensuring the continued free flow of goods?

We believe the government has accepted the main points we presented in 2011, which is quite interesting. However, this government still has many questions to answer about this bill. Will there be new infrastructure costs related to carrying out the inspection of outgoing people or goods? What measures have been put in place by this government to protect privacy and ensure that the collection of any new entry and exit data is carried out in a secure manner? How will this bill affect those people who enter Canada at unofficial entry points, as we saw this summer in Manitoba and Quebec? Finally, how is this issue reflected in our trade negotiations with the United States at this time, and will all Canadians benefit from these changes?

The House resumed 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.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for granting me this speaking time.

On this morning of September 18 I am very happy to be back in the great democratic institution that is the House of Commons. I had an excellent summer. I struck a balance between work, activities, the office, and my family. My little six-month old son is becoming more and more aware of life around him. I am very happy to be back to discuss the many issues that concerned our offices this summer, as we saw in the media. Canada's official opposition and myself believe that, as usual, this government acted or reacted poorly to these many issues.

I also want to begin by extending my deepest condolences to the family of the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt. This is certainly a tremendous loss for the family. I have been a father for four years and I cannot imagine how painful this must be for his wife and children. We have also lost a great parliamentarian and hon. member here. It is a huge loss to Canadian democracy, but especially to his family. I wanted to say that and extend my condolences.

Today, we are discussing Bill C-21,an act to amend the Customs Act. I would like to get things started by explaining what constitutes a border for any country or administration. A border is not just something that goods, services, and people cross over. A border is also the ultimate symbol of our national sovereignty and the tangible presence of its protection. In our case, it is the sovereignty of the Canadian federation we are talking about.

This sovereignty is guaranteed by our institutions, of course, as well as by law enforcement, our democratic representatives, and Canadians who go to work every day. Before all of that, however, one can say that it is guaranteed by our borders. How does sovereignty benefit us? It ensures the security of Canadians, as well as their prosperity. Indeed, it is thanks to our sovereignty that we can make our own choices on political, social, and economic issues.

I respect the subject of the debate. In case there could be any doubt, that was my introduction.

Sovereignty guarantees the democratic space we need in Canada. I recently heard a philosopher talking about the importance of the sovereignty of today's borders. We live in an age where certain small groups would have us believe, through a narrow ideological vision, that national sovereignty should not exist, that it is a challenge that must be overcome, that it is in decline and that we live in an increasingly borderless world.

According to that philosopher, whose name escapes me, borders that ensure sovereignty definitely ensure our democracy because no rights of any kind can survive if they are not attached to the democratic institutions that enforce those rights. That is one of the reasons why, when it comes to international relations, it would be anarchy, pure and simple. No institution exists at the international level that has that authority and could enforce those rights. In Canada, however, our rights are guaranteed first and foremost by the House of Commons, the Supreme Court of Canada and by cabinet or the executive. If not for borders, none of that would be possible.

In his speech, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness criticized certain things that are in fact quite important. Some 400,000 people cross the Canada-U.S. border every day, which is a huge number, not to mention all the other nationalities. Two billion dollars worth of trade flows between Canada and the United States every day. Given that reality, we began putting this bill together. I hope to have the opportunity to tell the House more about it after question period.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is one I have been asking since the beginning. I hope they back this up with funding.

Bill C-21 is a good bill, but there are still some missing pieces when it comes to security and the illegal migrants streaming across our borders. We want to see more funding to handle those issues. I hope the members across the aisle will take that into consideration.