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.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege, as always, to rise in the House and speak to legislation. As we near the end of this parliamentary session, one that precedes an election, we really should be wrapping up work rather than starting new work, as we all know.

Bill C-98 proposes to repurpose and rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to the “Public Complaints and Review Commission” and expand its mandate to review both the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency.

In 2017, I began working as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In studies on the border agency and when the agency came up in discussions on another bill, Bill C-21, the issue of oversight and complaints was discussed. Professor Wesley Wark, from the University of Ottawa, who was previously a special adviser to the president of the Canadian border security agency said:

[T] he committee should encourage the government to finalize its plans for an independent complaints mechanism for CBSA. There have been discussions under way about this for some considerable time now.

We were told that the minister already had a plan back then, was already dealing with it and that we did not need to. During his appearance at the Senate committee regarding the border security's oversight, the minister said:

The CBSA, however, does not have independent review of officer conduct, and that is a gap that definitely needs to be addressed....

Mr. Chair, while I agree absolutely with the spirit behind Bill S-205, I cannot support its detail at this time for—

National Security Act, 2017

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today.

I ask for the indulgence of the House and I hope no one will get up on a point of order on this, but because I am making a speech on a specific day, I did want to shout out to two of my biggest supporters.

The first is to my wife Chantale, whose birthday is today. I want to wish her a happy birthday. Even bigger news is that we are expecting a baby at the end of July. I want to shout out the fact that she has been working very hard at her own job, which is obviously a very exhausting thing, and so the patience she has for my uncomparable fatigue certainly is something that I really do thank her for and love her very much for.

I do not want to create any jealousy in the household, so I certainly want to give a shout-out to her daughter and our daughter Lydia, who is also a big supporter of mine. We are a threesome, and as I said at my wedding last year, I had the luck of falling in love twice. I wanted to take this opportunity, not knowing whether I will have another one before the election, to shout out to them and tell them how much I love them.

I thank my colleagues for their warm thoughts that they have shared with me.

On a more serious note, I would like to talk about the Senate amendments to Bill C-59. More specifically, I would like to talk about the process per se and then come back to certain aspects of Bill C-59, particularly those about which I raised questions with the minister—questions that have yet to be answered properly, if at all.

I want to begin by touching on a more timely issue related to a bill that is currently before the House, Bill C-98. This bill will give more authority to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP so that it also covers the Canada Border Services Agency. That is important because we have been talking for a long time about how the CBSA, the only agency that has a role to play in our national security, still does not have a body whose sole function is to review its operations.

Of course, there is the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which was created by Bill C-22, and there will soon be a committee created by Bill C-59 that will affect the CBSA, but only with regard to its national security related activities.

I am talking about a committee whose sole responsibility would be to review the activities of the Canada Border Services Agency and to handle internal complaints, such as the allegations of harassment that have been reported in the media in recent years, or complaints that Muslim citizens may make about profiling.

It is very important that there be some oversight or further review. I will say that, as soon as an article is published, either about a problem at the border, about the union complaining about the mistreatment of workers or about problems connected to the agency, the minister comes out with great fanfare to remind everyone that he made a deep and sincere promise to create a system that would properly handle these complaints and that there would be some oversight or review of the agency.

What has happened in four whole years? Nothing at all.

For years now, every time there is a report in the news or an article comes out detailing various allegations of problems, I have just been copying and pasting the last tweet I posted. The situation keeps repeating, but the government is not doing anything.

This situation is problematic because the minister introduced a bill at the last minute, as the clock is winding down on this Parliament, and the bill has not even been referred yet to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I have a hard time believing that we will pass this bill in the House and an even harder time seeing how it is going to get through the Senate.

That is important because, in his speech, the minister himself alluded to the fact that in fall 2016, when the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, of which I am a member, travelled across the country to study the issue and make recommendations ahead of introducing Bill C-59, the recommendation to create a committee tasked with studying the specific activities of the CBSA was one of the most important recommendations. As we see in Bill C-98, the government did not take this opportunity to do any such thing.

It is certainly troubling, because Bill C-59 is an omnibus piece of legislation. I pleaded with the House, the minister and indeed even the Senate, when it reached the Senate, through different procedural mechanisms, to consider parts of the bill separately, because, as the minister correctly pointed out, this is a huge overhaul of our national security apparatus. The concern with that is not only the consideration that is required, but also the fact that some of these elements, which I will come back to in a moment, were not even part of the national security consultations that both his department and the committee, through the study it did, actually took the time to examine.

More specifically, coming back to and concluding the point on Bill C-98, the minister does not seem to have acted in a prompt way, considering his commitments when it comes to oversight and/or a review of the CBSA. He said in his answer to my earlier question on his speech that it was not within the scope of this bill. That is interesting, not only because this is omnibus legislation, but also because the government specifically referred the legislation to committee prior to second reading with the goal of allowing amendments that were beyond the scope of the bill on the understanding that it did want this to be a large overhaul.

I have a hard time understanding why, with all the indicators being there that it wanted this to be a large, broad-reaching thing and wanted to have things beyond the scope, it would not have allowed for this type of mechanism. Instead, we find we have a bill, Bill C-98, arriving at the 11th hour, without a proper opportunity to make its way through Parliament before the next election.

I talked about how this is an omnibus bill, which makes it problematic in several ways. I wrote a letter to some senators about children whose names are on the no-fly list and the No Fly List Kids group, which the minister talked about. I know the group very well. I would like to congratulate the parents for their tireless efforts on their children's behalf.

Some of the children are on the list simply because the list is racist. Basically, the fact that the names appear multiple times is actually a kind of profiling. We could certainly have a debate about how effective the list is. This list is totally outdated and flawed because so many people share similar names. It is absurd that there was nothing around this list that made it possible for airlines and the agents who managed the list and enforced the rules before the bill was passed to distinguish between a terrorist threat and a very young child.

Again, I thank the parents for their tireless efforts and for the work they did in a non-partisan spirit. They may not be partisan, but I certainly am. I will therefore take this opportunity to say that I am appalled at the way the government has taken these families and children hostage for the sake of passing an omnibus bill.

The minister said that the changes to the no-fly list would have repercussions on a recourse mechanism that would stop these children from being harassed every time they go to the airport. This part of the bill alone accounted for several hundred pages.

I asked the government why it did not split this part from the rest of the bill so it would pass sooner, if it really believed it would deliver justice to these families and their kids. We object to certain components or aspects of the list. We are even prepared to challenge the usefulness of the list and the flaws it may have. If there are any worthy objectives, we are willing to consider them. However, again, our hands were tied by the use of omnibus legislation. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to make omnibus bills a thing of the past.

I know parents will not say that, and I do not expect them to do so. I commend them again for their non-partisan approach. However, it is appalling and unacceptable that they have been taken hostage.

Moreover, there is also Bill C-21.

I will digress here for a moment. Bill C-21, which we opposed, was a very troubling piece of legislation that dealt with the sharing of border information with the Americans, among others. This involved information on citizens travelling between Canada and the United States. Bill C-59 stalled in the Senate, much like Bill C-21.

As the Minister of Public Safety's press secretary was responding to the concerns of parents who have children on the no-fly list, he suddenly started talking about Bill C-21 as a solution for implementing the redress system for people who want to file a complaint or do not want to be delayed at the airport for a name on the list, when it is not the individual identified. I think it is absolutely awful that these families are being used as bargaining chips to push through a bill that contains many points that have nothing to do with them and warrant further study. In my view, those aspects have not been examined thoroughly enough to move the bill forward.

I thank the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for recognizing the work I did in committee, even though it took two attempts when he responded to my questions earlier today. In committee, I presented almost 200 amendments. Very few of them were accepted, which was not a surprise.

I would like to focus specifically on one of the Senate's amendments that the government agreed to. This amendment is important and quite simple, I would say even unremarkable. It proposes to add a provision enabling us to review the bill after three years, rather than five, and make amendments if required. That is important because we are proposing significant and far-reaching changes to our national security system. What I find intriguing is that I proposed the same amendment in committee, which I substantiated with the help of expert testimony, and the Liberals rejected my amendment. Now, all of a sudden, the Senate is proposing the same amendment and the government is agreeing to it in the motion we are debating today.

I asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness why the Liberals were not willing to put partisanship aside in a parliamentary committee and accept an opposition amendment that proposed a very simple measure but are agreeing to it today. He answered that they had taken the time to reflect and changed their minds when the bill was in the Senate. I am not going to spend too much of my precious time on that, but I find it somewhat difficult to accept because nothing has changed. Experts appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and it was very clear, simple and reasonable. Having said that, I thank the minister for finally recognizing this morning that I contributed to this process.

I also want to talk about some of what concerns us about the bill. There are two pieces specifically with regard to what was Bill C-51 under the previous government, and a few aspects new to this bill that have been brought forward that cause us some concern and consternation.

There are two pieces in Bill C-51 that raised the biggest concerns at the time of debate in the previous Parliament and raised the biggest concerns on the part of Canadians as well, leading to protests outside our committee hearings when we travelled the country to five major cities in five days in October 2016. The first has to do with threat disruption, and the second is the information-sharing regime that was brought in by Bill C-51. Both of those things are concerning, for different reasons.

The threat disruption powers offered to CSIS are of concern because at the end of the day, the reason CSIS was created in the first place was that there was an understanding and consensus in Canada that there had to be a separation between the RCMP's role in law enforcement, which is making arrests and the work that revolves around that, and intelligence gathering, which is the work our intelligence service has to do, so they were separated.

However, bringing us back closer to the point where we start to lose that distinction with regard to the threat disruption powers means that a concern about constitutionality will remain. In fact, the experts at committee did say that Bill C-59, while less unconstitutional than what the Conservatives brought forward in the previous Parliament, had yet to be tested, and there was still some uncertainty about it.

We still believe it is not necessary for CSIS to have these powers. That distinction remains important if we want to be in keeping with the events that led to the separation in the first place, namely the barn burnings, the Macdonald Commission and all those things that folks who have followed this debate know full well, but which we do not have time to get into today.

The other point is the sharing of information, which we are all familiar with. We opened the door to more liberal sharing of information, no pun intended, between the various government departments. That is worrisome. In Canada, one of the most highly publicized cases of human rights violations was the situation of Maher Arar while he was abroad, which led to the Arar commission. In such cases, we know that the sharing of information with other administrations is one of the factors that can lead to the violation of human rights or torture. There are places in the world where human rights are almost or completely non-existent. We find that the sharing of information between Canadian departments can exacerbate such situations, particularly when information is shared between the police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Department of Foreign Affairs.

There is an individual who was tortured abroad who is currently suing the government. His name escapes me at the moment. I hope he will forgive me. Global Affairs Canada tried to get him a passport to bring him back to Canada, regardless of whether the accusations against him were true, because he was still a Canadian citizen. However, overwhelming evidence suggests that CSIS and the RCMP worked together with foreign authorities to keep him abroad.

More information sharing can exacerbate that type of problem because, in the government, the left hand does not always know what the right hand is doing. Some information can fall into the wrong hands. If the Department of Foreign Affairs is trying to get a passport for someone and is obligated by law to share that information with CSIS, whose interests are completely different than those of our diplomats, this could put us on a slippery slope.

The much-criticized information sharing system will remain in place with Bill C-59. I do not have the time to list all the experts and civil society groups that criticized this system, but I will mention Amnesty International, which is a well-known organization that does excellent work. This organization is among those critical of allowing the information sharing to continue, in light of the human rights impact it can have, especially in other countries.

Since the bill was sent back to committee before second reading, we had the advantage of being able to propose amendments that went beyond the scope of the bill. We realized that this was a missed opportunity. It was a two-step process, and I urge those watching and those interested in the debates to go take a look at how it went down. There were several votes and we called for a recorded division. Votes can sometimes be faster in committee, but this time we took the time to do a recorded division.

There were two proposals. The Liberals were proposing an amendment to the legislation. We were pleased to support the amendment, since it was high time we had an act stating that we do not support torture in another country as a result of the actions of our national security agencies or police forces. Nevertheless, since this amendment still relies on a ministerial directive, the bill is far from being perfect.

I also proposed amendments to make it illegal to share any information that would lead to the torture of an individual in another country. The amendments were rejected.

I urge my colleagues to read about them, because I am running out of time. As you can see, 20 minutes is not enough, but I would be happy to take questions and comments.

Bill C-21. Second reading and concurrence in Senate amendment

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House to talk again to Bill C-21. I thought yesterday would be the last time I would have a chance to speak, but it turns out I will have another chance today.

One of the things we understand when we look at a bill like Bill C-21 is the close relationship we have with our neighbours south of the border and the fact that geography has us joined. This is one of these things that helps goods flow back and forth in a way that people understand what the expectations are and how they work.

First, we do support the bill. It is important that our border services have the tools they need to keep Canadians safe. The legislation addresses the long-standing Conservative priorities regarding border security and ensuring entitlement programs are not abused.

On this side of the House, we will continue to hold the Liberals to account and ensure that this program is implemented in a way that does not infringe on the rights of Canadians.

Bill C-21 would allow the Canada Border Services Agency to collect and receive biographic information on travellers exiting Canada. It would authorize officers to acquire goods exported from Canada to be reported, despite exemptions, and would give them the power to examine goods being exported.

The Prime Minister first announced the agreement with the United States to fully implement a system to exchange basic biographic information in March 2016, following his first official visit to the United States. Currently, as part of the beyond the borders action plan, the two countries collect and exchange biographic entry information at land ports on third country nationals and lawful permanent residents. Entry information into one country is considered exit information from the other.

As we look at initiatives like beyond the borders, these are the things I hear at round tables. We need to continue to work on ways to ease the flow of goods, services and people. Some of the challenges our companies have are getting goods to market.

We can look at the automotive facilities in Windsor, where I visited this past summer. One of the things Chrysler told me was that based on just-in-time inventory, and automotive manufacturers experience and require the same thing, that any delays such as traffic, caused delays in its production, which was problematic as it worked very hard to get goods to market in a timely fashion.

On November 21, the Senate committee heard from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada who spoke on the general intent of the bill and its amendment, which was passed by the House of Commons. This is related to the data retention period. The Privacy Commissioner said, “I am generally satisfied that this border management initiative is based on important public policy objectives and the personal information in question is not particularly sensitive.”

For the amendment, Mr. Therrien indicated that in order to achieve greater legal certainty, subsection 93.1 should be amended to clarify that the data collected under sections 92 and 93 should be retained by the agency for a period of no more than 15 years.

The legislation will not have any incremental costs for new systems as it will leverage those already in use. It will, however, save an estimated $20 million per year from those who are unduly receiving entitlement programs while out of the country for extended periods. This includes those who are receiving employment insurance from outside of Canada.

Speaking of financial implications at borders, it is important to bring up the issue our country is grappling with right now, and that is the issue of steel and aluminum tariffs that still remain in place. The Prime Minister was supposed to have steel and aluminum tariffs lifted before the G20 summit about two weeks ago. Unfortunately, he failed to do so when he signed the USMCA without assurances that tariffs would be lifted. This is causing major problems with our manufacturers.

I have talked with small and medium-size enterprises. I have talked with steel and aluminum producers. I have talked with automotive, tool and dye and moulding companies. I have talked with a whole host of people who use steel and aluminum in their production and they are dealing with these issues. They tell me that every day these tariffs remain in place, workers will continue to face more uncertainty.

Businesses, especially small businesses, are struggling to pay the surtaxes on the materials they need. Jobs are at risk of being moved south of the border. Some companies are saying they are not sure they can continue to operate the way they are. For smaller companies, moving is not an option and larger companies are certainly reassessing some of the options they have.

I spent some time this summer criss-crossing the country and talking to small manufacturers who depend on stable markets for aluminum and steel. I talked to over 150 stakeholders in three different provinces. I had 26 meetings in 18 cities and talked to a variety of stakeholders. There were business owners, chambers of commerce and trade associations. I heard that U.S. tariffs are killing businesses. We have a 25% tariff on steel, a 10% tariff on aluminum and businesses are having a hard time planning. Not only are they not able to plan for the future, say two or three years down the road, they are also having a hard time planning for the next three to six months. That kind of uncertainty is a challenge.

I have talked to small boat wholesalers and retailers of boats who are trying to buy inventory now. They say the next season is coming up and they are not sure what they are going to do in terms of how many boats to order or what they need to do, because people refuse to pay some of the taxes. Small and medium-sized enterprises form an essential part of our local economies and their loss would be keenly felt if the tariff situation is not resolved in an expeditious way.

Last week, in the international trade committee, Conservatives introduced a motion asking the Prime Minister to attend and present his plan for the immediate removal of tariffs on steel and aluminum products. The Liberals voted against that motion. Canadians have the right to know exactly how the Liberals and the Prime Minister are going to address this growing negative impact of tariffs on steel and aluminum for our workers and the economy. When the Prime Minister signed the new NAFTA, he failed to ensure that the tariffs would be removed from Canadian steel and aluminum products. Canadians are still facing even more uncertainty given the recent announcement that the United States will terminate the existing trade agreement if the new NAFTA is not ratified in six months.

Conservatives spent months travelling across Canada speaking with over 200 businesses, owners, labour groups and stakeholders and heard that same message over and over again. Local businesses are being hindered by red tape and proposed higher taxes by the Prime Minister and the Liberal government and they are unable to access relief. They need to stay afloat during difficult periods, with no end in sight. Businesses have had to cut orders, reduce shifts and, in some cases, have been forced to lay off workers.

Conservatives will continue to fight to protect Canadian workers and our economy and will call on the Prime Minister to also do the same. The Prime Minister must take immediate action and tell Canadians exactly what his plan is to remove the tariffs from our steel and aluminum products and ensure that our workers and our economy will remain competitive.

Speaking of competitiveness, the global competitiveness index has Canada in 14th place. The U.S. has risen to first place out of 140 countries. We are in 53rd place when it comes to regulatory burden. Our corporate tax rate is now close to 27%, which is one of the higher ones of other developed countries in the OECD. We are close to having the highest corporate tax rate. The real tax rate for corporate income is also creeping toward 30%. Canada also has a high personal income tax rate. We spoke with companies trying to attract talent from all over the world and they said it is tough because of the high personal taxes that individuals pay in this country. For entrepreneurs, this is a challenge.

The personal tax rate in most provinces and in Ontario exceeds 50%, and that is certainly a challenge for businesses. Other provinces are getting dangerously close. The U.S. tax rate has been reduced from 35% to 21%, with additional incentives to invest and relocate there. This is our biggest trading partner where over 76% of our exports go. The government must recognize the importance of tax rates, our competitiveness and the importance of a strong business environment for our economic stability. Right now, there is no reason to be confident in our economic prospects. There are issues with capital flight and onerous regulations.

In Alberta right now, there are obviously many challenges. We see that Alberta just mandated an 8.7% cut in oil production to combat low prices. Thousands of jobs and several companies are in jeopardy. Canadian oil is selling at an $80-million discount every single day. Texas oil is going for around $50 a barrel, while Western Canadian Select, I believe, has gone to $14 and below. Why has that happened? One of the reasons is that Alberta cannot get its oil to global markets.

This is a direct result of the Prime Minister's failure to approve three different pipeline projects of over $100 billion. Northern gateway was vetoed. Energy east was killed by shifting regulatory goalposts. The Trans Mountain pipeline was subject to delays and obstruction. We, as a country, now own that pipeline for just a little over $4.5 billion. Bill C-69 would make the problem even worse. This bill would bury any chance at future pipelines, under the mountain of new ever-changing regulations. This is all part of the Liberal plan to phase out the oil sands without a thought for the workers and families who depend on them for their livelihoods.

Unfortunately, with such a high degree of uncertainty surrounding resource development in Canada, investors have taken notice. Canada is no longer seen as a safe bet for economic growth.

Problems are not just in our resource sector. Most people are aware that recently over 2,500 workers at GM in Oshawa were told that their plant would be closing. This is very unfortunate. Other manufacturers are worried as well. A carbon tax increases the price of everything, including energy, industrial inputs and shipping products to global markets. If Canadian companies are tied to a carbon tax that other countries, especially the United States, are not, we are going to be in serious trouble.

Recently, Canada has taken steps to diversify its trading relationship, and I will give the government kudos for that. It is good to see that we have just passed a modernized Canada-Israel agreement. It is good to see that we passed the TPP, or the new CPTPP, and of course the CETA. These are all agreements that our Conservative government previously had done the negotiating on and worked through, and it is great to see that the current government was able to move some of these through.

We cannot lose sight of how international trade really works, though. We still need a strong business environment to compete. That is a serious problem with tax hikes and onerous regulations, especially the carbon tax, which will impact Canadian firms' ability to compete on the basis of price. The government focuses a lot on the Canada brand in promoting global trade, but if our businesses cannot compete, they are not going to be able to engage successfully.

I want to talk about some other jurisdictions as it relates to Bill C-21 and how that has worked, just to show that there are other countries working on similar things as the legislation is here.

We know that the Australian government uses movement records to track arrivals and departures at its borders. Movement records may include name, date of birth, gender, relationship status, country of birth, departure and arrival dates, travel document information and travel itinerary. Collecting this information seems reasonable.

In 1998, the U.K. government ended its collection of paper-based exit controls and in 2004 introduced a more sophisticated approach of collecting advance passenger information for inbound and outbound air passengers. It also added checks in 2015 for those who are leaving.

The Government of New Zealand has implemented a passenger departure card system for outgoing travellers. Since updating legislation in 2009, travellers have been required to fill out a departure card with some basic biographical information before entering passport control.

In the United States, while an entry-exit control system to collect data on arrivals and departures has been legislated several times since 1996, no such system has yet been developed. The U.S. has tested several data collection and sharing programs, two of which are currently running.

The Americans largely rely on information sharing agreements with air and sea carriers for their exit records. One of the two programs still in place is the U.S.-Canada information sharing agreement in which the land entry record in one country establishes an exit record for the other.

Since 2008, under the advance passenger information system program, air and sea carriers are required to provide border police with electronic copies of passenger and crew manifests before departure of all international flights or voyages. This data must be provided before departure so that the manifest can be vetted against terrorist watch lists and so data can be added to the database.

In the spring of 2018, Bill C-21 passed and the Conservatives' supported it. The bill has now been returned to the House with an amendment suggested by the Privacy Commissioner to limit data retention to no more than 15 years. Conservatives will continue to support the initiative started by the previous Conservative government in the beyond the border agreement. It uses existing infrastructure to share basic biographical information between CBSA and U.S. law enforcement.

Once enacted, Bill C-21 would create an entry-exit program and allow the Canadian government to keep track of when individual Canadians enter and leave the country. Most countries in the world have already implemented entry and exit programs. Right now, the Canada Border Services Agency only knows when someone enters the country. The bill would allow the government to keep tabs on high-risk travellers for national security purposes. Knowing who enters and leaves the country is part of the government's responsibility to keep Canadians safe.

As I wrap up, I cannot overestimate the challenges that small and medium-size businesses are struggling with in this country in terms of tariffs. We look at what they are dealing with on an ongoing basis. The U.S. is our closest trading partner and we do things like beyond the border and Bill C-21 to increase co-operation, because the U.S. is a strong neighbour and a friend. As this issue continues to be unresolved, I fear that it puts our future in manufacturing, that it puts the future for our small and medium-size industries that are dealing with tariffs in steel and aluminum in jeopardy.

One of the challenges businesses have as they are trying to plan for the future is how they are going to pay for the steel and aluminum tariffs over the coming weeks and months. We talked to them this summer. Mr. Speaker, I understand you had round tables and were able to talk to some of these very people. We heard that this uncertainty means they may have to lay people off as we move forward. Small and medium-size enterprises are the backbone of Canadian society. They continue to make sure we have jobs in small towns and they employ vast numbers of people. We need to continue to work on trying to remove these tariffs.

Just as Bill C-21 would make it more efficient and we would be able to keep track of people moving back and forth, measures like beyond the border are things we heard about as we talked to people this summer. They said that we need to continue to work on ways to make sure there is less regulation and less red tape at the borders, so they are able to move forward in a strategic way.

I cannot implore the government enough to consider the issues around the steel and aluminum tariffs. We missed great opportunities. The first opportunity was when we originally signed on that one rushed weekend when there was a lot of activity, and we agreed to terms around a new NAFTA deal. The second opportunity was at the signing just a week or two ago in Argentina.

Quite frankly, we continue to hear from small and medium-size enterprises and they are very concerned about what the future holds for them. Who is going to pay the tariffs? A lot of these companies are eating the tariffs themselves right now. They say that if they are going to pass it on, there are suppliers saying they cannot afford to do that.

As we move forward to vote on Bill C-21, which our opposition team supports, there are many other things that need to be done to make sure our borders become more efficient and easier to move through.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, nothing quite like listening to a speech in the House of Commons about efficiency that takes 20 minutes to agree with the government. One would think efficiency would just be to say that she agrees with the bill and sit down. Instead, what we were treated to was a very long lecture, one which moved into some pretty disturbing space.

The UN pact on migration is not binding on this country. We know that. Anyone who has ever dealt with the UN or with migration issues around the UN knows that. However, I was here on the weekend, and I saw the demonstration by the white supremacists on the front lawn of Parliament Hill as they walked down past the Justice Building shouting their horrific slogans.

When I hear white supremacists chanting the very same slogans members opposite speak with soft voices in this House, what is the difference between the position the white supremacists took on the UN migration pact and the position the party opposite is taking? It has raised this issue. It has nothing to do with Bill C-21, but members opposite keep coming back to it speech after speech. This notion that there is some globalist conspiracy to overrule Canada's sovereignty on immigration is exactly what the white supremacists were saying on the lawns of Parliament this week. What is the difference between that and what the Conservatives are saying here today? Quite frankly, it is a little scary.

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

Mr. Speaker, this will probably be one of the last times I rise to speak in this building, as we are moving to West Block in the new year. Like many fellow members, I have been reflecting on this place, its beauty and history. I do not know the route the Usher of the Black Rod will take from the new chamber to the Senate, but it will be interesting to see how the logistics and details are worked out.

That said, I am here today to talk about Bill C-21. I will start by explaining, for those who are not aware, what this bill would do. Essentially, it would allow for the exchange of biographical information between the U.S. and Canada. This will be important for a number of reasons.

When the bill was tabled in June 2016, we were co-operating with the United States in trying to make it easier for goods, services and people to flow across the border. One of the problems is that we often only have information about when Canadians leave the country, not on when they return. It is important to know how many days Canadians spend outside the country, because a lot of the benefits people qualify for are dependent on that time and a lot of the immigration requirements for residency depend on being in Canada for a required amount of time and not outside the country for too long.

With that in mind, Bill C-21 would allow the kind of data exchange that would be useful to keep track of these kinds of things. Some people will embrace that, but of course there are always those who may not be as enthusiastic. A lot of Canadians like to spend their winters in the south, in Florida, etc. They go for six months. People in my town, which is a border town, also go to the U.S. for the day to shop or have a meal or whatever, so all of those days would count as days away from Canada.

We are concerned that some of those people may find themselves losing the benefits they have, or having difficulty receiving them. There are also people who accidentally spend too much time out of the country for their residency requirements for their immigration and permanent resident cards. That may be of some concern as well.

Most stakeholders are very supportive of sharing the information and having a closer relationship with the United States of America, but an amendment to the bill was proposed by the Privacy Commissioner. Canadians are always concerned about the privacy of their information, and in this case the amendment stipulates that the data not be retained for more than 15 years. I am supportive of the bill and of that amendment.

I will look to some of the issues the government has not addressed. When it comes to the border, there are a number of really critical issues, and this bill addresses just a small portion of them. This is a bit disappointing, because there are a couple of larger issues the government has dropped the ball on, to be frank.

The first one has to do with the border and the legalization of marijuana. Liberals ran on a platform of legalizing it. They know it is still illegal at the federal level in the United States, so it should not have been a surprise to them that there were confrontations about that. Although many of the states along the border between the U.S. and Canada are either in the process of legalizing it or have already legalized it, the borders are controlled federally, so there should have been some negotiation between the United States and Canada for some kind of understanding.

That was not done, and there have been incidents across the country where travelling Canadians are being turned back at the border and not being allowed to go into the U.S. In one case, a gentleman was given a lifetime ban. He was a worker in the cannabis industry on his way to a cannabis convention in Las Vegas. He was given a lifetime ban, and the people travelling with him were turned back and delayed.

Therefore, there is something still to be done there, and that is a critical issue for everyone who lives in a border town and for people who would be crossing back and forth.

The other subject that comes to mind has been touched on quite often during the debate today. That is the illegal immigration that we are seeing in Manitoba and Quebec, mainly at Roxham Road. We have had 38,000 individuals come over from upper-state New York and cross into our country. The problem with this is not just the huge cost that is related to feeding and housing them and providing medical services and their legal services. In most cases they are crossing into those provinces because they will provide those services. This is a huge cost. We are hearing it is a $1.1-billion cost to taxpayers for people whom Canadians did not choose to have come to the country.

Even more alarming than that are the statistics associated with the people who are coming, where 60% of them already have legal status in the U.S. so they are actually not eligible to claim asylum. For those who have had their claims processed, 70% to 80% of them are having their claims rejected but only a handful have been deported from the country. Therefore, people who do not have a valid claim and have already been processed are still here in Canada and we are continuing to have to pay to support them. I do not think that is right.

Even more alarming is that the queue is now supposedly so long that it will take three to four years to finish processing the people who have already come across, so that will escalate those costs again and again. It is not just the federal costs we are talking about. There are costs to the provinces: $200 million in Ontario; $300 million in Quebec. There are costs for the municipalities. From Toronto to London in my province, all of the social services and shelters for the homeless are being taken up by illegal asylum seekers.

This is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and it is a lack of leadership on the part of the Prime Minister that he has not dealt with it. It would not take much more than for him to say that if people do not use our fair legal immigration process and cross at a point of entry that is designated, we are not going to process their claims and pay for their food, shelter, legal aid and all those different things. If that were said, not many people would come. There is an opportunity for the current government to address that but I do not think there is political will because the sentiment in the government is toward open migration.

My colleague who spoke before me talked about the global compact for migration. When it was first discussed that the Prime Minister was going to sign on to this UN agreement, immediately I had a flurry of emails and phone calls to my office from people who were opposed. The things they objected to in this global compact were, first, that they felt Canada would be giving up its sovereignty, our ability to determine who is able to immigrate here.

We want to choose immigrants who are going to fill economic skills gaps that we have. We want people who are going to be reunited with their families. Canadians are a compassionate bunch. We are going to see places in the world where people are experiencing war and torture and genocide and rape, and we want to rescue those kinds of people. We have people coming from upper-state New York where there is no war and no hardship. Those people are not under persecution and they are not being tortured. That is definitely a different situation.

The other concerning thing in the global compact for migration is the freedom of the press. There is language in there that talks about training the media to correctly speak about immigration. That does not sound like freedom of the press and I am a bit concerned. With the current government and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, when people criticized spending by the government on illegal asylum seekers, they were called un-Canadian. There was a whole sentiment that we should not be able to criticize and talk about these things. That is not the country I grew up in. We have a democracy where we have the right to our opinion, the right to express our beliefs and our views; we have freedom of the press and we do not want anything to come against that.

It has been said that this agreement is non-binding, but I have conferred with our former justice minister who was a former attorney general. He told me that the Supreme Court uses these agreements that Canada has signed with the UN to interpret the law, to hold up the standard that Canada should be behaving to. These things do become binding and that is very concerning as well.

In terms of the border and the exchange of information, I said there were a number of issues and I have talked about a couple of them. There is one issue that is probably specific to my riding that I am really disappointed the government did not address and that has to do with the border crossing at Sombra. For those who do not remember the circumstances surrounding this, the situation is this. In January of this year, the Coast Guard did not shut down the channel when the ice became thick. That is normally what happens, but they allowed several icebreakers to go through at quite a speed and as a result, the ice was pushed and crushed the crossing to the Sombra Ferry. That border crossing is relied on by my constituents, by people on the U.S. side and we called out to the government for help.

The Minister of Public Safety's department CBSA collects $3 million a year of duties off this crossing, but it refused to provide the dollars that were needed to repair, even though the amount needed was less than what they would make in a year off the crossing. The minister of Fisheries and Oceans at the time, whom the Coast Guard reports to, would do nothing as well, even though it was its icebreakers that pushed the ice and caused the situation.

I was told by the former minister of transport that there was a contingency fund just for this sort of thing and if I approached the Minister of Transport, he would be able to apply that contingency fund to restore the border crossing. This was at a time when we were in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement negotiations and we heard outcries from the mayor, senators, congressmen in the U.S., up through the ambassador from the U.S. to Canada, calling for restoration of this border crossing, which is the contingency border crossing for the Bluewater Bridge, another border crossing within my riding. This is the only other crossing where trucks of an industrial nature can be diverted to. I was disappointed in the extreme that the Minister of Transport claimed there was not such a contingency fund, which the former transport minister said there was.

Combat engineers in my riding told me that the Minister of National Defence, if he decided it was in the public interest, could tell them to repair the border crossing, as they fix bridges all over the place. They had just finished one in Laval and another one in Guelph, certainly they would be happy to see this restored because time was marching on and there is only a certain season where construction can take place. In the St. Clair River there is fish spawning season, so there are regulations about when construction can be done. The Minister of National Defence decided to do nothing as well.

We then escalated to the Prime Minister's Office, which received calls from the ambassador from the U.S. to Canada, calls from the Marine City mayor, calls from me, and nothing was done. Again, we talk about border crossing and we talk about the relationship with our neighbours in the U.S. and here is an example where the Prime Minister and five of his cabinet ministers totally let down the United States as well as my riding. The Minister of Infrastructure was equally unwilling to help, so all the way around it is a border issue that I would have liked to have seen addressed under the government that was an absolute failure.

When we talk about Bill C-21, I notice that the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Conservatives are all standing up to say that we support the legislation and we support the amendments. I am all about efficiency. There is something I find very frustrating as an engineer. There is nothing more concerning than having a limited amount of time to talk about things in this House. There are all kinds of issues that need to be addressed, and we start at the beginning of a debate with Liberals, Conservatives and NDP agreeing but things will continue to press on. Things go to committee even if we agree, and they then come back from committee, and so that is a concern to me in terms of efficiency. I would prefer to see us change the Standing Orders, and perhaps when we move to the new place we will have an opportunity to do that.

The other issue I have here on my list to talk about is the amount of time this bill has taken to get here. It was introduced in June of 2016 and is just coming now. That also highlights one of the difficulties the Liberal government has had with managing the legislation in the House. There have not been that many bills passed compared to previous governments, and again, we see bills that are less meaningful.

I was speaking yesterday about a justice bill. Again it was one of these situations where, if we look at all the things that need to happen in Canada from a justice point of view, we are not too sure why the bills coming forward are the ones that have been selected. There was a bill on solitary confinement and not allowing people to be kept in solitary confinement. It only impacts about 340 Canadians, but quite a number of days were spent on that.

I am coming to the summary about this bill. It is important we continue to have good relations with the U.S. I am a bit concerned about the state of our relations with the U.S. There are a number of things exacerbating the situation. With the free trade agreement that just came through, although I am happy to have a deal, it was a terrible one and could have been negotiated much better if it had been done quickly. As well, I am extremely concerned about the remaining tariffs we have on steel, aluminum and softwood lumber. This is not good. We are claiming that these are illegal tariffs and pursuing action on that, which makes the relationship more fractious.

Now we have this Huawei situation, where the Liberal government has been warned that many countries are not willing to do business with Huawei because of the nature of the way it spies for the Chinese government. The government has been warned not to let it into our 5G network and knows this is a significant issue with the U.S. It has a very confrontational relationship with China, and the U.S. is not going to see our forays with China as improving our national security in any way.

I am concerned all of the actions the Prime Minister is taking, the things he calls out when goes abroad at the G20, as well as the virtue signals, are all things he knows will inflame the President of the United States and cause those kinds of fractious relationships.

It is important we build on the goodwill in this bill. We are starting to exchange data. We should work with the U.S. to find a resolution to border crossing and the marijuana issue. We should protect our borders and be vigilant to make sure we are controlling who comes into the country, and ensure the security of Canadians. If we do that, then we will be moving in the right direction. We know we need to have those borders processing goods and services in an expedient way. Many of our jobs and much of our economy depend on the U.S., so it behooves us to keep moving in the direction of good.

Being that it is the holiday season, I want to wish all the residents of Sarnia—Lambton a very merry Christmas, a happy holiday and a happy new year. To everyone in this House as well, I thank them. It has been an honour to serve with them in this building, and I look forward to serving with them in the new one.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have probably broken my own record, as I have stood up four times to ask questions about this important legislation, Bill C-21.

It was important for me to stand and ask questions, because Vancouver International Airport is in my riding and is actually considered a border city.

It was also important for me to stand up because I received something important from one of my constituents. He asked whether, after the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has signed the United Nations agreement, we should start flying the flag of the United Nations instead of Canada's national flag with the maple leaf on it. That is the question he asked me today.

In my own riding, there are legal immigrants who have been waiting for a long time. There are also legal refugees who did not get the right kind of support.

What would my colleague suggest the government do to solve all the problems in my riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act. Once enacted, this legislation would create an entry/exit program to keep track of when Canadians enter and leave the country. It is a measure I support. In fact, it was our previous Conservative government that negotiated the beyond the border agreement, which included a provision to share entry and exit information with our close friend and ally, the United States.

It is important that our border services have the tools they need to keep Canadians safe, and this legislation would provide one of those tools. It is extremely unfortunate that while Bill C-21 would provide for added security at our borders, that security is being negatively impacted by the influx of illegal immigrants at our borders.

Canadians expect our refugee system to be safe, orderly and compassionate. Unfortunately, what we have seen under the Liberal government is insecurity, chaos and a lack of sincere empathy. Thousands of illegal, or irregular, as Liberals call them, border crossings have occurred since the Prime Minister irresponsibly tweeted “#WelcomeToCanada” in January 2017. As a direct result of that, twice as many refugees are being admitted into Canada as the system was designed to handle.

While I do not want to cast blanket aspersions, some of those coming into our country may very well have criminal records. Without proper background checks, which cannot be done before one crosses illegally, persons who pose a safety risk to our citizens may be slipping into Canada.

The newly appointed Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction certainly has his hands full taking on the huge task of trying to stem the tide. Only time will tell if this new minister can, in fact, effectively take control of this illegal and dangerous situation. He has not so far.

This queue jumping we are seeing has also created an unfair situation, whereby those waiting in refugee camps or facing persecution in dangerous places around the world must wait longer as more and more scarce resources are being spent processing people who are just jumping across the border with the United States. This two-tiered system is compromising the integrity of our entire immigration system while putting those patiently waiting to be legally approved to come to Canada at even further risk.

It is not compassionate, nor fair, when individuals who have been brought here on humanitarian grounds are forced to live in homeless shelters, university dormitories and tent cities, because this country is ill-prepared to handle such volumes of asylum seekers.

The Syrian refugees, who a majority of Canadians overwhelming supported being brought here, have faced housing shortages, particularly in Toronto and Montreal. The mayors of these two large cities recognize that, as well as the newly elected Ontario Conservative government, and they have been requesting federal financial assistance to redress this situation. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have also asked for some additional funding.

To date, the Liberal government's only solution, as it is with so many other issues, has been to use more taxpayers' dollars to manage the crisis instead of resolving the issue with a fully costed plan. Just last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that if left unaddressed, this crisis will cost Canadian taxpayers $1.1 billion by 2020, not including the hundreds of millions of dollars incurred by the provinces.

My Conservative colleagues and I will continue to call for policy solutions that go beyond simply spending more money and adding new ministers to the fold. We want to see our immigration system run on a safe, orderly and compassionate basis that prioritizes the world's most vulnerable and ensures that when refugees are brought to this country, we indeed have the ability to help support them.

We do not, and will not, support the newly signed United Nations global compact on migration. While the immigration minister has tried to defend this compact, calling it an effective way to address migration challenges worldwide, Canadians really would not know, as the Liberal government did not bother to consult or brief them at all in regard to the United Nations global compact. In fact, if it had not been for this side of the House, this compact would have been quietly signed by the Liberals, and Canadians would have been left completely in the dark.

As a direct result, many questions and concerns remain, such as whether Canada is surrendering our sovereignty. That is a good question. What are the costs associated with this compact? What exactly does some of the language found in the compact mean, such as “sensitizing and educating” Canadian journalists on how they should report on migration issues?

Conservatives believe that Canadian journalists should be free to scrutinize the government on immigration policy without influence from an international body and without being bought out, to the tune of $600 million, which is the Liberal government's other plan.

Canadians, rightfully, deserve answers to these questions. I know that the constituents in my riding of Battle River—Crowfoot expect and deserve those answers. I have been receiving letters, emails and telephone calls ever since this issue was brought to the front.

I would like to read a portion of an email that I know all members received:

“I am a 58-year-old female born and raised in Canada. I spent over two decades travelling across this great country, from Newfoundland to B.C. and north to Yellowknife. For my work, I spent weeks in towns, cities and rural areas meeting people of different faiths, races and creeds. Nowhere did I see the kind of racism and hate the Prime Minister thinks he needs to 'quell'....

“My only concern is the U.N.'s global migration pact. This agreement is the most destructive piece of literature I have ever read. It will be the end of our great country and the last nail in the coffin of free speech in Canada. This has been hidden on purpose, and after I read this rambling strait jacket of so-called agreement, I understood why. Something so divisive, damaging and horrendous to the future of Canada and it citizens should have been on the front page of every newspaper and magazine in the country.... If it wasn't so sad, I would give a round of applause to our Prime Minister for hiding it so well....

The letter goes on:

“...stunned that there was no vote for us to voice our objections, and they were against signing Canada to it!.... The PM of course, was voted to represent the people of this country, but more and more he decides what this country should look like.”

While time has not allowed me to read this email in its entirety, I would like to finish by quoting a few last words:

“Canada has had decades of peaceful and orderly immigration. Allowing our borders to be open and under the control of the U.N., and not our own government, is the death of our country. What is a country without a border to stop people that may do us harm? We should be the ones to say who, what and why people and things may cross into our country. And this document says that the government will quell or silence any disagreement or negative comments....”

If members on all sides of this House have not yet read the email from Ms. Lori Gagne and Mr. Gunter Retzer sent to them on December 6, I urge them to do so and to please really listen to what they have said, because their sentiments are being expressed by many Canadians.

In closing, I would like to once again state my support for Bill C-21, because I agree with Lori and Gunter that our borders should be under the control of our government.

I would also like to take just a moment to express, as the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman did earlier, the overwhelming sense of loss I am experiencing right now as I stand in this place for the last time until the renovations are done, which is expected to take 10 to 12 years. I have had renovations done in our home that I thought would last six months, and they lasted way longer. I know that when governments do renovations, it typically takes even longer than they expect.

I have spent 18 wonderful years in this amazing chamber, both as part of the government and as part of the opposition. Whichever side of the House I have been on, it has been a real honour and privilege to have been granted the opportunity to rise in this place, time and time again, to debate, to question and to provide answers to questions. I have tried to do so with the utmost respect for this institution and with the sole purpose of trying, to the best of my ability, to represent the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot.

While I look forward to coming back after Christmas and going into our new chamber in West Block, it is not going to be the same without the amazing architecture, the history and the debates that have taken place in this chamber. I will forever carry with me the memories and the nostalgia of rising in this place to utter the words, “Mr. Speaker”, although I will do it in the other chamber.

I thank the House for the privilege of being able to stand here and speak to Bill C-21, and for the opportunity to just be nostalgic about this beautiful chamber.

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

Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-21 was first tabled in June of 2016, the relationship we had with the United States was a very close one, so sharing data made sense at that time.

I am increasingly concerned about the tariffs the U.S. has put on us, claiming national security issues. I wonder if the member could comment on how he thinks that is going.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be rising today on Bill C-21 and the amendment proposed by the Senate. I will be splitting my time with my friend, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

This could likely be the last time I get to speak in this chamber, and I do so with great emotion. I am very fond of this place. There is so much history here. This building is so beautiful. There have been so many great speeches delivered in this chamber over the past century. Unfortunately, we need to renovate this building. We need to upgrade it, and we will be moving into the new chamber over in the West Block.

As much as I would like to consider this as the House of Commons, the House of Commons is a body of people. It is us, as commoners, gathered together, and wherever we are is where the House of Commons shall be. A lot of people may not realize it, but the green rug and the green decor we have in here represent the fields and the grass where the early House of Commons in Britain used to meet. They would gather in the common lands and pass bills to hold the government to account. Therefore, it is important that as members of Parliament, regardless of partisanship, we remember that principle. First and foremost, we are commoners elected to serve the people and wherever we gather, whether in this beautiful chamber or the temporary chamber being created in the West Block, we will get the business of the country done, with those of us in opposition holding the government to account and, of course, the government bringing forward legislation. As private members we have that opportunity as well.

It is my pleasure to be speaking to Bill C-21. The bill is very similar to legislation that was brought forward by our previous Conservative government. The Liberals, at that time the third party, actually opposed that legislation. They did not believe we needed to improve our relationship on security matters across the border with our friends in the United States.

This is part of the beyond the border action plan, and I appreciate that Daniel Therrien, the Privacy Commissioner, brought forward the amendment that was accepted in the Senate and that we are accepting here. It would ensure that any data that is collected on individuals is only retained for 15 years as part of the public record. It is important that we address that need.

We have to make sure that people understand that Bill C-21 is not only tracking people who arrive here in Canada, but that it would also enable us to track them as they leave. This is of major concern to our security partners, particularly in the United States. It is an obvious national security matter, and it helps us track those dangerous persons who may be entering our country and then leaving. It actually helps us deal with things like the Magnitsky law that we passed last year. The Magnitsky law provides us with the opportunity to enforce sanctions against those who are committing human rights abuses or are corrupt foreign officials. If they are coming to Canada and then leaving, we need to know. They could be trying to launder money or to hide persons because they may be in trouble back in their home country, for example, in the Russian Federation, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia for that matter.

If we are going to have this information, we have to be able to access it and use it for investigations. Some of those investigations involve criminal activity, like fraud, including identity theft. It could even include the fraudulent use of one's identity to come to the country. We also know that this would help us make sure that permanent residents here are actually in compliance with the rules for permanent residency. We know that some permanent residents come here, get their applications done, get accepted into Canada and then leave. No one seems to know they have left and have returned to their homeland, and yet they are in the process and on track to becoming citizens.

This system needs this tool to ensure that the Canada Border Services Agency has the tools to do its job, and make sure that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has the tools to do its job.

We have a system that is backlogged with criminal cases and often victimized by fraudsters. This will enable us to get that documentation and information into the refugee and immigration court processes so we can hold those individuals to account.

The theme for 2018 when looking at the government is that it has failed. The Liberal government has failed on so many different fronts. When talking about border security and national security, it has failed. We know that with border protection, we have an issue with ISIS terrorists who have returned to Canada. We just heard that in question period. Terrorists left this country to wage war on Canada and are allies and to commit mass atrocities and genocide against individuals and communities, and yet instead of stopping them from coming to Canada or arresting them at the scene, they have come back into our country.

All I have to do is to say the name Abu Huzaifa. He has been bragging about coming back to Canada and saying he is untouchable by unbelievers. He openly discussed with the media, whether CBC or the New York Times, all of the atrocities he has committed. He has done podcasts and interviews on television documenting and confessing to the crimes he has committed against the people ISIS has been waging war against and committing human rights abuses against.

When we talk about national security and the reason we want to have Bill C-21 pass, it is because we want to build a strong relationship with the United States. We want to build a stronger relationship with our security partners under the Five Eyes partnership, they being the five nations of the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, with whom we share security information to keep our countries safe and secure.

How can we be a trusted security partner when we have a government that is prepared to allow Huawei, a Chinese corporation, to infiltrate our 5G network? It is a corporation that is beholden to the communist government of China. How can we allow them to take data they come into contact with through their information and technology networks like 5G through smart phones and computer systems, and share that with the Communist Party of China?

Why would anyone in the Five Eyes trust the Liberal government when it has not shut down Huawei from accessing our new 5G spectrum? The United States has stopped them from selling smart phones and accessing their networks. Australia and New Zealand have stopped them. Orders have been given by the U.K. now to stop Huawei from selling their phones to government organizations, including their military, never mind participating in their 5G networks. We need to make sure that we can see the government taking national security and border control seriously, although it turns a blind eye when it comes to Huawei.

Talking about border controls, the government likes to brag about all of the Syrian refugees it has brought in. It deeply concerns me when I talk to refugees from the Yazidi community on the streets of Canada, whether in London, Ontario or Winnipeg, Manitoba, who ran away from being sex slaves and from the mass killings of the genocidal network of ISIS. After arriving in Canada, Yazidi refugees have seen their ISIS captors here, the people who sold them into the sex trade. Luckily they have reported them to the RCMP and to the Ontario Provincial Police and now those individuals are being apprehended.

It is disturbing that we are supposed to trust the Liberal government on border security and our American allies are supposed to trust them, and yet we have all of these ISIS terrorists who have returned to Canada. We have had Syrian refugees infiltrated by ISIS, which has snuck into our country that way. How are we supposed to know what the information is when the government cannot get it right? We are supposed to be collecting this information on non-citizens and non-permanent residents who are coming and going from Canada, yet we are allowing in people who have belonged to a terrorist organization like ISIS.

Of course, then all we have to do is look at the illegal border crossers. In Manitoba, we see them coming across at Emerson from Minnesota and North Dakota. In Quebec, of course, they are crossing from New York. That has cost the government $1.1 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has provided that information, and we know that it has caused a great backlog.

We need to have a good relationship with the United States. However, we do not trust the current Liberal government, because it continues to fail on national security matters, to fail on immigration and to fail on managing our border with the United States and with our other allies.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act.

Consideration of Senate Amendment

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to my colleague across the way. Entertaining is probably a more appropriate word.

We are talking about Bill C-21. The Conservatives supported it at first reading, at second reading, at committee and at third reading. They supported it in the Senate. They support the amendment. That is all clear.

The other thing that is clear is this. If the Conservatives could, they would spend the rest of the year, this year and next year, talking about Bill C-21.

The member across the way wants to talk about trade. Let us talk about trade. This is a government that got a trade agreement, when a year ago the Conservatives were capitulating because they were concerned we would not be able to get a trade agreement. Not only do we now have a trade agreement with the U.S., we also have trade agreements with the European Union and Ukraine.

This is a government that understands the importance of trade, because we understand the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. This is a government that has delivered hundreds of thousands of jobs in the last three years by working with industry and Canadians in every region of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to speak after my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. Her work on the Canada-U.S. file and the border, in particular, has been very important.

I am also very happy to stand in this place. As many MPs have said this week, this is likely my last speech here. Many of my friends, including my friend from Winnipeg North, are probably happy about that. However, I can guarantee him that I will resume my speaking pace in the new chamber, as I know he will.

We all respect this institution, this chamber and the history it represents. Whether I agree with my friends on the other side or not, I respect their ability and freedom to make their case to Canadians, often a bad one, because this is their chamber. My constituents and Canadians who may be watching at home or online should know that we may disagree, but we try to do it without being disagreeable. Even though the member for Winnipeg North will ask me a question full of bombast after my remarks, I respect him, nonetheless.

This is a unique occasion, given the frequency of the Senate to send back amendments. This is probably the first time I have spoken to a bill for the third time. That is probably quite normal for the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, but this is the third time I am speaking on Bill C-21, which was introduced in June of 2016, with its companion bill, Bill C-23, the pre-clearance act. I have spoken to both.

I worked on cross-border trade as a lawyer in the private sector and I was the public safety critic when this Parliament began. I have a raised a number of concerns with respect to the legislation, but have indicated that there is general support by the Conservatives of the entry and exit sharing of information with the U.S. that is represented in the Customs Act.

The amendment from the Senate, which brings us to debate this before the end of session, relates to something I raised in my September 2017 speech on Bill C-21. I was concerned about the information sharing and the storage of the information that would be collected about Canadians leaving and returning to the country and the implications of that vast amount of personal data. Therefore, I am quite happy the Senate has proposed more with respect to the retention of that data, limiting it to 15 years. This is why I support the Senate amendment and I am happy to speak to it today. It is an example of both Houses of Parliament working the way they can, making the bill better.

This is a rare occasion where I am supportive of both the original legislation and the amendment from the Senate.

I have been a representative in this chamber for six years. In fact, tomorrow marks six years to the day since I was escorted into this chamber as a by-election winner. I am getting the golf clap from a few of my Liberal friends, and I will take that over heckles any day. It is a very special day for me. I spoke about that on the radio last week.

On the 12th day of the 12th month of 2012, Prime Minister Harper and Jim Flaherty, a close friend of our family, led me into the House as a new by-election winner. I took my seat in the rump, and I have tried to make a difference ever since. To be true to form in my last speech, especially a 20-minute speech, in the chamber, and I am sorry to inform my Liberal friends of that fact, I would be remiss if I were not somewhat partisan and point to wider issues that should concern Canadians with respect to the Customs Act changes.

As I said, Bill C-21 and Bill C-23, its companion bill, have been with us since June 2016. The Liberals are rushing it through with time allocation on debate and pushing it through in the final days. We are almost in 2019. For almost two and a half years, this legislation has sort of languished in Ottawa. That shows there are efficiency problems with the government.

I will devote my remarks to what Canadians should ask when it comes to our border. Bill C-21 and Bill C-23 would make profound changes to the way Canada and the U.S. operate the borders.

Bill C-23 is the pre-clearance bill, which would allow American ICE officials, immigration and customs enforcement officers to search Canadians on Canadian soil. It probably would shock a lot of Canadians if they had to do a pre-clearance. That will work in a lot of cases to speed up time at the border, which is why we supported it.

Bill C-21 has entry and exit sharing of information, which is also something that is quite unparalleled. That is why data protection measures are bringing this debate back to the floor of the House of Commons. They are the most substantial additions to the relationship between the United States in a generation and a slight erosion of sovereignty. That can be a good thing if Canada is getting more in return in response to this, but it can also be something about which we pause.

Those elements were part of the beyond the border initiative, which I worked on in the former Harper government as the parliamentary secretary for international trade, so I support these measures. However, let us see how the Liberals have allowed the Canada-U.S. relationship to atrophy terribly in the three years of the Liberal government.

The Minister of Public Safety, then the MP for Regina—Wascana, in February 2011, with his appropriate degree of outrage, asked Prime Minister Harper, “Could the Prime Minister at least guarantee minimum gains for Canada? For example, will he get rid of U.S. country of origin labelling?” He went on to to ask if we would get softwood protections and have the Americans eliminate buy American. What was the minister of public safety demanding at that time? He wanted some clear wins for Canada if we were to give up the entry and exit information.

During debate on the exact elements of Bill C-21, when this was being contemplated by the Harper government, the Liberals said that before we acceded to the American request, they wanted to know what Canada would get in return. That is what their most senior member of the cabinet said.

Diplomatic relations even with our closest friend, trading partner and ally are a give and take. It is not just to take or give, give and nothing in return. At the time, the member for Regina—Wascana wanted to see Canada gain, whether it was with the unfair country of origin labelling or other elements of our complex trade relationship.

Bill C-21 and Bill C-23 would allow the Americans to inspect and search Canadians on our own soil. What have we gained? Absolutely nothing. In fact, under the Prime Minister's watch, our relationship with the U.S. has atrophied beyond all recognition. It is not just because of the current occupant of the White House.

Therefore, I will spend a few minutes exploring that and what the former public safety minister demanded. Where are the wins for Canada as we allow more and more American intrusion on decisions related to customs and the border?

In November 2015, President Obama, with a new Liberal Prime Minister in office, cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline was one of the reasons that former prime minister Harper was reticent to pass entry and exit information sharing. We wanted that quid pro quo. We wanted the Americans to approve a pipeline to once again try to get better market prices, more market access for our resources, which is something we are struggling with as a country right now.

We withheld that element of what was a priority for the U.S. in terms of foreign policy to try and secure a win. The prime minister caved within months. He said that he was disappointed. Later he introduced President Obama in this chamber as his “bromance” and he said it was a relationship of “dudeplomacy”. It was a one-way relationship. He did get a state dinner on March 11, 2016. At that dinner, the prime minister said they were closer than friends.

What else did our Prime Minister announce the same day in Washington? With zero consultation with indigenous and territorial leaders, he agreed to ban future development on 17% of Arctic lands and 10% of Arctic waters. It was pure surrender to what President Obama wanted to do in his final months in office. Once again, it was a one-way relationship.

Let us see what the longest-serving Inuk Liberal senator said about that. When I asked retired senator Charlie Watt about the Prime Minister's unilateral action, he said, “There have never been clear consultations.” He went on to say that the federal government said, “This is what's going to happen.”

Is that consultation when a respected Inuk leader and a former Senate colleague of some of the Liberal MPs is basically told by the government what is going to happen? Territorial premiers said they were given an hour or so heads-up on the announcement by Canada's Prime Minister in Washington.

Under President Obama, the Prime Minister was giving up the entry and exit priority which for years the Americans had been asking for and bringing in Bill C-23 on pre-clearance. We lost Keystone and we eroded our own sovereignty and that of our Inuit and Inuk people in our north, which are two huge losses under the first president's relationship with the Prime Minister.

The same day I questioned retired Senator Watt, there was an aboriginal law expert at committee. I asked her if the Prime Minister had violated the country's duty to consult indigenous Canadians as dictated by the Supreme Court of Canada. Robin Campbell's answer was, “The simple answer is yes.” He also breached this duty to consult when he cancelled the northern gateway pipeline.

There are many instances when the Prime Minister's posturing and kind words on reconciliation are not matched by his actions. I would like to see more accountability for that. In fact, I invite Canadians to look at at Chief Fox's column in yesterday's Globe and Mail which says on Bill C-69, the anti-pipeline bill, that there have been no consultations.

There is really nice language but bad actions. Those are the first two elements of the declining Canada–U.S. relationship under President Obama.

What has it been since? We now have the legalization of cannabis, which really is the only promise the Liberals have kept from their 2015 election platform. The Prime Minister, despite the state dinner and despite acceding to many Canadian demands, could not even get the Americans to remove one question, the marijuana question, from the pre-clearance screening on that side of the border. A lot of Canadians should be concerned. If they are asked that question, they could lose the ability to travel to the United States. This could impact people's economic ability to pursue a job or go to the United States because of work. It could impair their freedom of movement. All we needed to do was to get assurance from the U.S. federal government that immigration and custom enforcement, ICE, would not ask that question. We could not even get the U.S. to remove one question from a list.

With Bill C-23, the companion bill, we are allowing Americans to search Canadians on Canadian soil. It is a one-way relationship that Canadians should be concerned about. That issue was under both President Obama and now under President Trump because it took some time for the Liberals to complete their legalization of cannabis. That was one of the concerns the Conservatives held out from day one: Make sure the border issue is resolved with the Americans. We could not get that assurance.

Let us look at NORAD. The Conservatives urged the Liberals to complete our full NORAD security partnership making sure that we are a partner on ballistic missile defence. Had we started talking about security at the time there was missile testing by North Korea, that would have, in the early days of President Trump's time in the White House, shown Canada as the only trade and security partner with the United States, period. Through NORAD, we have a North American defence and have had since the 1950s. Since the 1965 Auto Pact, only Canada has had a trade and integrated security relationship with the United States, which is why we could have been able to avoid section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, which I will get into later. However, we missed an opportunity to actually show partnership to the United States at a time that was critical.

What did we do instead? The Liberals postured in front of the new U.S. president, putting up non-binding criteria for the negotiation of NAFTA, the progressive agenda, to play politics rather than to get down to business with the Americans. With the border, the cannabis question and NORAD are issues three and four where the relationship has declined.

I would also mention the safe third country agreement. My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill talked about the 40,000 people who have illegally crossed the border in Manitoba and Quebec claiming asylum when the government knows that the vast majority of them have no substantive asylum claim. They actually have status in the United States. The minister did not even, for the first year or more, talk to the U.S. about amendments to close the loophole in the safe third country agreement, which is an agreement that was negotiated by the previous Liberal government of Jean Chrétien. Once again, the Liberals did not want to interfere with the Prime Minister's tweet rather than fix the system.

It is interesting, because the current Minister of Public Safety in February 2011 called the entry and exit system with the Americans a surrender of sovereignty. He said, “If we have a common entry and exit system, does it not follow that Canada no longer has sovereign Canadian control over immigration and refugees?” This is a Liberal, now a minister, who was saying that when the Conservative government was considering entry and exit visas.

The Liberal government's inaction and incompetence at the border has surrendered our sovereign control at a time when the Liberals are also going around the world saying that their model should be a best practice used by the world. Canadian confidence in their handling of our system has eroded terribly. That is probably the worst of their failures in our time, and it is allowing Canadian confidence to go down through the Liberals' own inaction.

Finally, with respect to tariffs and NAFTA in general, we were given a one-way, take-it-or-leave-it deal. For two months, the United States and Mexico were at the negotiation table and Canada was not. Mexico played the relationship and the negotiation much more strategically than we did. There was too much politics by the Prime Minister and his minister, and we were given a take-it-or-leave-it deal where we lost on all fronts. There is no win in NAFTA.

When it comes to tariffs, when I spoke to the bill for the second time in May 2018, I warned the Prime Minister that tariffs were on the way. In fact, when Canada was granted a temporary reprieve from steel and aluminum tariffs, on March 11, the Prime Minister said when he was touring steel communities, “as long as there is a free trade deal in North America there won't be tariffs”. Well, I guess he broke that one. He went on to say, “We had your backs last week and we always will.” That was in March.

In May, in debate on Bill C-21, I warned the Prime Minister that tariffs were coming, because the Americans did not take our security considerations over supply of steel from China seriously. Sadly, in June, the U.S. unfairly applied tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, sending our economy into a tailspin in manufacturing in southern Ontario, leading eventually to what we saw with GM and a crisis of confidence in manufacturing. In part, it is because the retaliatory tariffs we brought in were not hurting the Americans but they are hurting many of our suppliers. As I said, Bill C-21 and Bill C-23 were a wholesale surrender to U.S. demands with respect to customs and pre-clearance.

The current Minister of Public Safety demanded in 2011 that Canada, for giving up these elements, should gain something. We have not gained. I will review this for Canadians: Keystone, the Arctic ban, the cannabis question for the border, NORAD partnerships, the safe third country loophole, steel and aluminum tariffs and a take-it-or-leave-it NAFTA.

As I said at the outset, while I support Bill C-21 and the amendment, Canadians need to know that the Canada-U.S. relationship which is critical is not a one-way street where the Americans get what they want and we get nothing. It is about time we see the Prime Minister and his minister stand up for Canadian interests in return for Bill C-21.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect Bill C-21 is being fast-tracked by the government right now. I would surmise that this came up as part of the NAFTA renegotiation agreement. I would like to see what the government actually received for making some of these concessions, but I digress. The reality is that Canadians picked the government based on the assumption that it would put forward legislation that is in the best interests of Canadians. I would encourage Canadians to evaluate the success of the government's choices in doing so in the upcoming election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her reflections on the many important things that have happened over the last 15 years. It is important for government, when there is a plethora of important things to address, to actually pick the things that are important and take action on them.

With respect to Bill C-21, how important a piece of legislation does the member think this is, in the plethora of important issues facing Canada today?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us today would change Bill C-21 by amending proposed subsection 93(1) to clarify that the data collected under proposed sections 92 and 93 would be retained by the agency for a period of no more of 15 years maximum.

I would like to spend the remainder of my time discussing the implications of a 15-year period, given that this is the amendment that we are discussing today and the fact that in a few short days this chamber that we are currently in will likely be closed for a period of 15 years or so. For many of us, this will be the last time we get a chance to speak in this place. In assessing the impact of a 15-year period, let us review how much has changed since parliamentarians rose in this place in 2003.

The member for Calgary Forest Lawn was only in his second term. Many of our colleagues did not carry smart phones; they actually had go back to their offices to check their messages and email and to make some phone calls perhaps. Google still competed with AltaVista as a search engine and, Mr. Speaker, I believe if you looked at the faces of the pages right now in front of you, they would be slightly confused as to what we were talking about. YouTube did not exist, Facebook did not exist, and Twitter did not exist. For our colleagues 15 years ago, responding to news cycles involved reading headlines and watching the morning news, consulting with experts and thought leaders during the day for a few hours, and sending a written statement before a deadline. Fifteen years ago this month, I wrote my last exam for my undergraduate degree.

Therefore, what words of wisdom do I have for parliamentarians who will occupy this place 15 years hence, and what do we need to do to keep this place relevant over the next 15 years? When we look at the things I have just talked about, our world has fundamentally changed in a 15-year period, and across different flavours of government we in this place have a propensity to move way too slowly. In preparation for this speech, I was looking at the Hansard from November 2003, and what was really startling to see was that a lot of the issues we are debating today are very similar in form and concept to those that were being debated in 2003. Now the news cycle does not move in nine-hour increments, but in one-second increments. The economy has fundamentally changed and I want to talk about that in a second too.

When I look at where we need to be in 15 years, we are almost 15 years behind. We need to start looking in Parliament, and do this across party lines, at things like data and privacy in a much more robust way, which I am not even sure we have political lines to discuss yet. I look at things like China's social credit system and the fact that a government like it is using a ubiquitous form of technology to give scores to its citizens that will determine if they can be employed or travel. Then I look at my own smart phone and I wonder how much of my privacy I give up daily. We are advertized to because we give consent to release our data in ways that we often do not realize. It is not just about advertising. It is about knowing where we are and knowing what we might do in our spare time and using that for advertizing or for other nefarious purposes.

We have not, as a Parliament, really started to think about the implications of that for our pluralistic society. Indeed, we might not be able to regulate these issues because things change so quickly. How can Parliament address this over the next 15 years? I am concerned about that. As parliamentarians, we probably need to start talking about the value of data rather than just looking at a regulatory approach. That does tie into this bill as well, but what concerns me is that as a Parliament we are just not there.

I watched the U.S. congressional hearing of Mark Zuckerberg some time ago, where, in one of the questions, he was asked about email. There was just no connection between the reality of the data breach that was alleged to have occurred and legislators' knowledge of the context in which we are operating. Therefore, I hope that in a 15-year period we would start getting this right, because data and the transfer of data and how it is used is affecting every aspect of Canada.

That brings me to the next point. I hope we can get our act together on the economy in Canada. The way the economy is operating is fundamentally changing. Someone who is entering the workforce is not going to have the same paradigm that you and I, Mr. Speaker, did when we entered the economy. For a lot of people 18 and under, the reality is that full-time work in one job might not be available to them. Many people today work in the gig economy, driving Ubers, doing a little stint with Instacart during the day, or small contract work as opposed to sustained long-term work over time.

What does this mean for home ownership? What will home ownership even look like in 15 years? Does it exist in Canada? How do we ensure that people have opportunities to participate in the economy and that we are do not see income disparity growing over time? How do we sustain a middle class as the economy changes? These are things that deficit spending and small tweaks to the tax code are not going to address, because the economy has fundamentally changed and is fundamentally shifting. That reality is something I never hear us talk about here.

In 15 years, I hope we will have started to take this issue seriously and will not be looking at it with a regulatory approach, with government becoming even more onerous and ubiquitous and more entrenched in society. Rather, we need to focus on how we can allow people to prosper and innovate as the economy changes, which we should not necessarily see as either a good or bad thing, but just something that is happening that we need to adapt to in order to make sure that people can still prosper as we go forward. This is something we have not spent a lot of time discussing in this place, and I hope that we do in the future.

I also hope that we start looking pretty seriously at Canada's role in the world. Times have changed. Our relationship with the United States is not what it once was. We are seeing the heads of major global powers rearing, which could lead to some pretty serious instability over time. We have to ask a very difficult question: How do we maintain our country's sovereignty? We have to start taking that question very seriously. I do not think we are equipped to defend ourselves as a country. We need to do a better job in this place at really taking that seriously, understanding that procurement of military assets is not something that can be led by bureaucrats over a 20-year period who fail to deliver results when there are very real threats to our sovereignty, including in the north, with regard to trading relationships, and getting caught in the middle of disputes between large powers.

If in 15 years time we have not figured that out, we are going to have a major problem on our hands. I do see the world changing in that dynamic, and it is not for the better. We have to be prepared to stand strong and true if we are going to stand strong and free. That means that we really have to think about that. It also means that if we do believe in multilateralism, we do not allow these multilateral organizations around the world to dictate our policy without their being tasked for reform.

Many of our multilateral organizations 15 years ago were starting to their efficacy fall away from their original purposes when they were put into place after the great wars. I am concerned about where our country will be in 15 years time if we do not start pushing the status quo and some of the sacred cows associated with the United Nations, the European Union, NATO and other groups that have served the world in the past but now have questionable roles, given perhaps nebulous mandates or efficacy, and which do not, as Parliament does, stand up and realize that questioning dogma is something we are supposed to do in here from time to time.

I worry about where our country will be in 15 years. I have spoken to some issues here in the House. Why can we not talk about how the United Nations selects refugees, when we do not see them referring genocide victims to host countries, or about why the United Nations will not condemn Hamas?

Why can we not talk about how we interact with our allies in terms of military objectives, or about the role of multilateral organizations? Are they supposed to be giant bureaucracies that sometimes just provide contracts for management consultants and cocktail parties, or are they supposed to do something? What is that something, and what is Canada's role in that change over time? Is Canada's role sometimes to maybe say that everything is not working and that we need to tweak stuff? Is it our role to just stand idly by and say, “Nothing to see here”?

I would hope that in 15 years' time this chamber would become a place where we can question dogma, where although we might not agree on the policy instrument or outcome, we could at least agree that in order to move forward and to make progress, we cannot simply say there is nothing to see and nothing to change, when there is.

The other thing that I think we have to think about over a 15-year time period is the people we represent. That goes without saying in any instance, but we have seen movements around the world bringing governments to power for different reasons, but each reflective of the fact that there are a large number of people around the world who do not feel they are listened to or that they have a place in here, or who feel they are not represented by the people who might occupy this place in 15 years' time.

There are a lot of people around the world who have fought, and especially in our country, who have gone overseas to fight in missions, and who now question how they are treated at home. There are a lot of people whose skills are becoming out of date, as manufacturing processes and industries change, and they are asking, “What about me?” The response they often get from us is that, “You're wrong. You're not experiencing anything wrong. What you're feeling, what you're saying is wrong.” When we ignore the cries of people, we are failing in our job as parliamentarians.

That is something to keep in mind. Over a 15-year period, we cannot just listen to a certain group of privileged people when we are making our policy decisions. I would hope that over a 15-year time period we would start reinserting people's voices back into some of our policies that we bring forward, and that people's concerns would not be dismissed by labelling them, as certain people in this place are wont to do from time to time. Instead, we should actually reflect in our policies both the best data and the best outcomes, while also reflecting the challenges of the people we represent.

The reality is that we are paid to be here on behalf of those people. We are paid to serve them, not ourselves. If we fail to put their voices in our policies and to think about that over time, I think we will fail them. I am concerned about some of the choices we have made over the last 15 years. The state is ubiquitous. Very rarely in this place do we question the role of the state. We often talk about how we have added bureaucracy or regulation, or have increased the state, but we often do not talk about what we managing.

What concerns me is that time after time I see colleagues of all stripes walk in to read speeches prepared by government bureaucrats, without even reading them beforehand, or without even talking to their constituents about how they feel about a certain bill. When we allow our public service to dictate policy and direction, we fail in our role as parliamentarians. Even parliamentarians with a role in the government have a role to question what the government is doing, and the role of the state, be it around the cabinet table, in our caucuses and certainly here in this place.

I would hope that in 15 years we realize that it is not a sin to question dogma. I have seen that to be perhaps one of the most challenging things with respect to what has changed in this place over the last 15 years. We each have a responsibility to go back to the voices of people and reflect them in our policies and in the context of a changing economy.

I could spend lot of time talking about artificial intelligence. Maybe in 15 years we will not have jobs in here. We do not know. We have the tools to have a direct democracy. Maybe that is something the people of Canada will start talking about in a short period of time.

What do we need to do? Parliamentarians and all Canadians need to value critical thinking. When we talk about the changes in news, how news is consumed, what is news and what is true, I do not understand why we would support failed media business models or why we would talk about the fact that the government has to prop up or determine what is right and what is wrong. In a democracy and in a pluralism, it is up to us to critically evaluate with our own skill sets what is true, what is right, what everybody's agenda is. Those are our responsibilities in a democracy, condensed and coagulated and focused. As parliamentarians, they are even more so.

In 15 years' time, I would hope that we are not having conversations in here about the Speaker's role, Question Period or whose job it is to regulate the content of ministers. We are taking that responsibility on ourselves and we are coming up with what is right and true.

I hope that we also protect our pluralism. I hope that we protect our sovereignty. I hope that we do not cede the rights that we have as parliamentarians and as Canadians to other agencies or organizations around the world, that we do not cede our philosophies and our democracies to ideals that are not that, around the world. I hope that we reverse this path that we have been on of increasing the role of the state and go back to a role that is more free.

I would hope that people who follow us here above all come into this place and challenge dogma, that they challenge the status quo within their own parties, even when it is difficult, across the aisle when it is not so much so, and that they are receptive to different schools of thought.

The rights that we have in Canada are not static. We are the exception; we are not the rule around the world. We have to constantly protect our rights and assume that they are under threat, because they are, and our actions and our words in this place should reflect that.

In 15 years, I hope there is one thing that does not change and that is that the people in this place respect and love the people who love them, who stand behind them and make them better people, even in the day-to-day grind, the sausage making of this place, in the light of public scrutiny those who love us, who protect us, and who are there for us even on dark days.

In the dying minutes of my speech I would like to thank a few people who make my life easier. They are the engine behind the hood ornament. I would like to thank Sean Schnell, Julia Parsons, Bari Miller, Kim Tyres and Jillian Montalbetti for working like slaves over the last many years for the people of Calgary Nose Hill, and Paul Frank as well. I would also like to thank Jeff, Tori, Kori and Kepi for teaching me that there is more to life than this place from time to time.

In 15 years, I hope that we still remember how special it is and what a privilege it is to stand and serve people in this beautiful, wonderful free country. I hope that we continue to understand that what we have here is something that we have to fight for, even when it is amongst ourselves, and that it is indeed worth fighting for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-21. I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for sharing his time with me. He just gave a very enlightening speech about the context of this bill. Questions remain and, unfortunately, we will not be able to provide the detailed answers that taxpayers expect because the government has decided to invoke a form of closure to limit the time we have to debate this bill.

This bill is about what to do when people decide to cross the U.S. border. In a way, it seeks to tighten up our system and also to provide much greater security and authority to the people who verify that those crossing the border are doing so in a legal and regular manner in order to protect citizens.

This seems extremely important when we know that, now more than ever, people are travelling from one country to another multiple times a year thanks to globalization. This is not a problem for us. It is fine and normal. We even encourage it. However, it means we need much more security than 50 years ago, when far fewer people were crossing borders around the world.

It is therefore entirely appropriate for our border officers to be better equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century, especially those we are facing today.

All this is consistent with the reasoning that led to the first agreement on this specific file between the former U.S. administration and the former Canadian government. This agreement, which was known as beyond the border, was jointly signed by President Barack Obama and the Right Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper. It laid the groundwork for a new approach to the cross-border travel process that was mutually more responsible.

It was followed by an agreement signed by the then minister of public safety, my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, that sought to increase the number of border crossings and preclearance centres, particularly in Canadian airports and train stations. Not to get too partisan about this, but the momentum started under the previous government and continued under this government during the current Prime Minister's widely reported state visit to the White House, where he met President Barack Obama.

This bill, which was actually tabled quite a long time ago, on June 15, 2016, formalized the arrangements that had been agreed upon during the Canadian Prime Minister's state visit to the Obama White House. The reasoning was the same, to ensure that everything goes smoothly.

This bill introduces measures that will enable our border services officers, wherever they are located, to do background checks on people who want to come here and Canadian citizens who want to cross the border, which we think makes perfect sense.

However, as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles so eloquently said, the devil is in the details. That is why we need to be thorough in our analysis of any given bill. That is why we are so bitterly disappointed that the government is once again using closure to limit debate on this bill. This is not the first time; sadly, it is unlikely to be the last.

Three years ago, the Liberals got themselves elected on a promise to do politics differently. They said they would not introduce 800-page omnibus bills, yet we recently voted on an 800-page bill. They promised they would not do anything to cut into members' speaking time. Naturally, as they were saying those things, they were also being sharply critical of the previous government. As it turns out, they did exactly the same thing.

Let me be very clear. If, by chance, Canadians place their trust in us on October 21, 2019, and I know they will, we might occasionally need to resort to these particular measures. We, however, would not be so dishonest and hypocritical as to tell Canadians that we would never do that, as the Liberals did three years ago. There may be times when we need to use these measures to give effect to certain laws.

Speaking of details, let's get right into the details on the subject of marijuana. As we know, as of October 17, Canada is unfortunately the only G7 country that has legalized marijuana. The debate was rushed. Everyone knows our position on that topic. We respect democracy, but just because the House voted in favour of legalization does not mean that we just happen to suddenly support it. It was wrong, but it is a done deal. The only thing I have to admit is that at least it is something the government had promised to do. It also promised to do a good many other things that it failed to do. For instance, it promised not to use too many time allocation motions or to introduce omnibus bills, and it promised to run small deficits and balance the budget in 2019. It did not keep those promises. What it did do, however, was legalize marijuana.

What effect will the legalization of marijuana have on Bill C-21? We do not know. We do not know because when we ask very specific, very pointed questions, they tell us that they will make adjustments. What we want is a clear answer.

What happens to people who cross the border after consuming marijuana?

What should people who have marijuana on them do when asking to cross the border?

What about people who consumed marijuana two weeks ago but who still have traces of it in their blood?

That is the reality. Among the host of incongruous situations brought about by this legalization, there is the fact that police are unable to properly determine whether an individual is under the influence because traces can remain in the blood for a long time even if the effect does not manifest itself.

I am getting off topic a little with marijuana, but the reality is that Bill C-21 does not fully address the issues and does not provide enough details, which could have been provided in a fulsome debate in the House. Unfortunately, our time is limited.

A second point has to do with those much-talked-about illegal refugees who are crossing the border. I use the word “illegal” because it is written, in black and white, on a sign at the entrance to Roxham Road, that it is illegal to enter the country. Members opposite keep telling us that the crossings are not illegal, but irregular. No. They are illegal. It is right there in black and white.

We are not the only ones who think this. The Canadian government employees who created that sign think so too. The Government of Quebec has also confirmed that this is illegal immigration. A news release from a few weeks ago, after the meeting between Premier Legault and Premier Ford, stated in black and white that they had concerns about illegal immigration.

Is the use of this word surprising? Absolutely not. Since when can someone cross into a country on a small, well-trodden wooded path when there is a giant sign stating it is illegal to cross? The only people in Canada who disagree are current Liberal members, and this does not honour our country, our tradition and our exceptionally good history of welcoming others, including immigrants. I have never made it a secret that my parents came to Canada 60 years ago.

This is a terrible message to send to the world. We are telling people who want to come to Canada, enrich our country and enjoy the full Canadian experience to come in illegally by that small country road, because if they join the queue like everybody else and follow the rules, they will be stuck waiting for years and years. If they go through Roxham Road, they will have no problems.

That is not the right signal to send. Let us not forget that this whole fiasco started with an ill-advised tweet that the Prime Minister posted two years ago in January. This tweet alarmed our diplomats, including those at Canada's embassy in Mexico. They were traumatized and did not know how to respond to the flood of requests prompted by the Prime Minister's tweets. The government had to get the current Minister of Canadian Heritage and the member for Bourassa to rush down there and say to people, wait a second, just because we are opening the border, that does not mean everyone is welcome, and to warn them that they could be sent back, which is in fact what happened. Of the 40,000 people who entered the country illegally, nearly two-thirds were sent back.

In closing, we agree with the principle of Bill C-21, but sadly, the devil is in the details. Without details, we cannot get into the nitty-gritty of these issues, because the government has issued a gag order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

There are many facets to his question on the management of migration around the world. Australia takes a strong stance on this matter, as do many European countries. We must take a stance with respect to our sovereignty. Do we exercise our sovereignty and decide for ourselves how we will welcome people, so that our immigration is orderly? A decision must be made on this.

With respect to Bill C-21, we do not currently have an answer for how to fix the problem of illegal migrants. Are the 38,000 people who illegally crossed the Canadian border from the United States entered into the system in the same way as a law-abiding citizen who drives to Old Orchard for the weekend? Law-abiding citizens do exist. This is similar to the debate on firearms, in that it is always the law-abiding citizens who have to follow the rules. When something out of the ordinary happens, it is an exception, and this exception is often not managed or mismanaged. Bill C-21 does not currently address this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. Our debate has not been very fruitful since this morning. I want to remind the House of certain facts about Bill C-21. Bill C-21 authorizes the Canada Border Services Agency to collect and receive biographical information on travellers leaving Canada. The act will authorize officers to require goods being exported from Canada to be reported, despite any exemptions, and will give them the power to examine those goods.

The Prime Minister first announced an agreement with the United States to implement a system for sharing basic biographical information in March 2016, after his first official visit to the U.S.

Currently, under the beyond the border action plan, the two countries collect and share biographical information on third-country nationals and lawful permanent residents at land ports of entry. Data on entry to one country serve as a record of exit from the other.

On November 21, on the matter that concerns us today, the Senate committee heard from Daniel Therrien, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, about the bill's general intention and the amendment adopted by the House of Commons. Mr. Therrien had this to say about the bill: “I am generally satisfied that this border management issue is based on important public policy objectives and the personal information in question is not particularly sensitive.”

As for the amendment, Mr. Therrien pointed out that, for greater legal certainty, section 93.1 should be amended to state that the data collected under sections 92 and 93 should be retained by the agency for a maximum of 15 years.

However, we should not forget that the former Conservative government negotiated the beyond the border action plan, which includes a provision on sharing entry and exit data with the United States. At the time, given the political concerns about privacy, we decided not to give effect to this legislative measure just before the election. However, this provision deals with longstanding Conservative priorities for border security and compliance with benefit programs.

Our border services need to have the tools to keep Canadians safe. Frankly, our law enforcement services all need the tools to do their jobs, but the current Prime Minister's government is needlessly compromising Canadians' safety. As long as this Prime Minister continues carrying out his reckless ideas, Canadians will have good reason to be concerned. Allow me to give some examples.

Under the current Prime Minister, we are seeing a problem at the border. This is something we raise often, but the government claims the opposite. However, I can confirm that right now, the time to conduct a security screening on the illegal migrants crossing into Canada has gone from the standard eight hours to just two hours. In addition, there is no government directive for border officers regarding the new ways to manage the influx of visitors coming to Canada with marijuana. Once again, the government says that we need to stop debating, that we should help the government move forward instead of standing in the way. The thing is, there is a reason we are standing in the way. We have valid questions.

Problems often arise after the debate and implementation of bills that the government rams down our throats, like Bil C-45 on marijuana. We then point out that we told the government so. The government refused to accept some of the amendments proposed by the Senate and now there are problems. Right now, border services officers are having to deal with those problems, as are police officers, who are having trouble detecting whether drivers have used drugs.

Let us come back to the matter of illegal migrants. Every time we ask a question about this issue, the Liberals say that we are racist or xenophobic. This has absolutely nothing to do with the race of the people who are coming to Canada. I believe that anyone who illegally crosses our border is an illegal migrant, regardless of his or her origin or colour. This has nothing to do with racism or xenophobia. That needs to stop. It is a dangerous game. The government is accusing us of playing a dangerous game when it is the one doing so by saying things that make no sense.

The problem is that the Prime Minister created a situation with his infamous tweet, even though the members opposite say that is not true. It is fairly easy to see that people are coming to Canada in response to what the Prime Minister said.

The government set up a camp to welcome migrants in Lacolle. Yes, it is important to welcome people, even if they are in Canada illegally. We are responsible people after all. We can agree on that.

However, the Liberals grossly mismanaged the situation. They set up a camp and expanded it. They set up infrastructure to receive 500 people a day. It is a nice facility with all the equipment and everything needed to do things properly.

However, this year, the camp expanded tremendously. There was room to take in 3,000 people. The Saint-Bernard hotel was even part of the security perimeter. The Government of Canada sent a cheque to the hotel owner, who must have left on vacation for a year since the rooms that were rented are empty and no one is staying there.

There is a steady flow of migrants every day and we are spending tens of millions of dollars in Lacolle. The Parliamentary Budget Officer pegged the cost at $1.1 billion. In the meantime, the government is not fixing the problem, it is not taking a position and telling these people to stop coming here illegally.

We are not asking questions just for the fun of being obstructionist. On the contrary, we want to resolve this issue. I have been here for three years. Whether in committee or in the House, our questions always serve to advance matters, not obstruct them.

The member for Kingston and the Islands accused us of throwing a wrench into the works, but they are the ones who are doing a bad job and messing everything up. They have botched everything including Bill C-45.

I would like to see a bit more maturity in the House, and I would like people to make sense when they are talking to MPs on this side of the House.

We also need to talk about the UN global compact for migration. Once again, members over here have been clear, we have taken the time to do things properly, we have assessed the situation and reviewed this much-touted compact. My party's immigration critic was on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Nothing made sense. The fact that the Prime Minister told the world Canada is good and is going to help them solve their problems is just a lot of hype, just for show.

Once again, we were practically accused of being bad, racist, right-wing or even extreme right-wing people for being against this. In the end, 34 countries—countries that matter—refused to sign the compact.

This morning, a former UN lawyer and current Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada lawyer published a very clear letter in Le Devoir setting out very specific facts that show that this is far-fetched. That is the word that the author uses at the end of the piece. We must not sign the global compact because it does not hold water. It is nonsense.

This is just like the government. From the start, for three years, all this government has cared about is improving its image and doing whatever it wants, like tweeting that it is sending $50 million to South Africa and that it is all good because the suckers in Canada will foot the bill.

Do we ask this kind of question just to block the system or for the fun of it? No. We are responsible people. We are seeing what is happening and we are asking questions appropriate to the circumstances.

Many of the 38,000 people who crossed the border illegally will experience hardship. That is obvious. There are families, particularly Haitian families, who were in the United States and got a scare. They were told to come to Canada, but now they are being told that they do not have the right to claim asylum here. The tweet sent in 2017 was just a joke, just for show. However, people are bringing their children with them and they will have to go back, not to the United States but to Haiti. Do the Liberals see how complicated this situation is and how much hardship this will inflict on people over the years?

All that to say that we supported Bill C-21. However, it is not a futile exercise to continue to debate it, to ask questions and to make improvements when circumstances change. The government needs to stop laughing at the opposition. As I already mentioned, the opposition has not raised many issues over the past three years that did not turn out to be true and important.

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

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for speaking to Bill C-21, the Custom Act, for the second time. As his riding is on the lake, its history is based on Canada's relationship with the U.S. Fort Henry, which is located there, recognizes that at times we did not trust our southern neighbours.

There is a proud military heritage in Kingston. I know this well from my time at RMC. I am sure the hon. member does as well, because this week the military community was shocked when he tried to use the Vimy Officers' Mess for a political event with the Prime Minister. He is likely, in response to my question, going to acknowledge regret for that decision and I am glad he withdrew that event.

With respect to Bill C-21, the Conservatives support this measure largely and the clarity from the Senate amendment. Perhaps the member could respond to the comments made in 2011 by the current Minister of Public Safety. In talking about entry and exit sharing with the United States, he asked, “Could the Prime Minister at least guarantee minimum gains for Canada?”

If we accede to this long-standing American demand for entry and exit, let us at least see something positive back. We have seen nothing positive from the Canada-U.S. relationship under the Liberal government, starting with President Obama and the cancellation of Keystone to the imposition of tariffs, to a bad NAFTA deal. What did we get in return for the common entry and exit system expressed in Bill C-21?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to this important bill.

Before I do that, given this is probably the last time I will get to rise in this chamber before we recess and move to West Block, I would like to take the opportunity to say what an honour and a privilege it has been for me to come here and represent the people of Kingston and the Islands and to be their voice in this place.

For the next 10 years or so, we will be in a different chamber. This one in particular holds a great degree of history. I and the other 337 MPs are extremely humbled, including the member for Durham who is heckling me right now, to have the opportunity to come here and debate in this chamber. What a privilege and absolute honour it has been.

I will talk a little about the bill today, where I see the importance of the bill and why it is important to support the amendment. Then perhaps I will touch a bit on where the questions left off, and that was with respect to the time allocation specifically.

I am happy to support the legislative amendment proposed in Bill C-21, which aims to provide higher and greater clarity on the amendments made in the House to limit the data retention period under the bill to 15 years.

We all understand the importance of collecting basic biographic information on people entering Canada: who they are, where they are from and how long they will be staying. However, it is also good security practice to keep track of travellers who leave the country. In this regard, Canada has fallen behind best practices of our world counterparts when it comes to security.

In fact, Canada collects information only on a small subset of people who leave the country. This means that at any given moment, with no means of identifying precisely who is exiting our country, we cannot know if dangerous persons may be leaving Canada to escape justice. Nor, for example, do we know whether we are expending valuable time and money trying to track down someone who has been ordered to leave Canada when that individual might have already left the country on his or her own. It is clear that having this obvious security gap, Canada needs to catch up with the rest of the world.

Let us be clear about what we would be collecting in terms of data. Canadians would only have to provide basic data, such as the traveller's full name, nationality, date of birth, gender and time and place of his or her border crossing. Travellers are already showing this information to airline personnel to verify their identity before boarding a flight. However, the information is currently not given to immigration officials. If Bill C-21 is passed, airlines will collect that information from those departing Canada and immediately share it with U.S. customs and border patrol agents who will then use it as entry data.

The experience for travellers flying to and from the United States will not change. It is extremely important to highlight the fact that this is not about making the process for coming in and out of a country more cumbersome. Rather, it is to ensure it remains seamless and in a fashion to which we are accustomed to, while at the same time gathering the necessary information that could be useful to law enforcement and border security in the present day and future.

Currently Canadians provide this information to other countries when they travel internationally. This information is not extensive and does not include other characteristics about the individual, such as those related to religion or ethnicity, so there is no chance they will be used for activities such as profiling. The only other information that will be collected will be the location and time of departure and flight number, in the case of people who are leaving by air. This is the same information that is collected from people when they enter Canada. It is nothing new and no new information will be collected.

To drive this point a little further, I will refer to the testimony of Canada's Privacy Commissioner before the parliamentary committees in both chambers. In the House committee, the commissioner said that the information requested was not particularly sensitive, especially in light of public policy objectives it aimed to address. In the Senate committee, the commissioner indicated that he was satisfied with the degree of consultation that had taken place between his office and the government.

The Government of Canada is aware that Canadians place respect for their privacy among their top priorities. The collaboration between CBSA and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in the design and implementation of the entry/exit initiative has been extensive with respect to protecting privacy rights.

I will mention another way that the Government of Canada has listened to Canadians through consultations.

Canadians told us that they wanted more transparency and accountability when it came to safety and security activities. We are listening and we are moving ahead with a set of initiatives that will bring a brand new level of transparency and accountability to information gathering and sharing, including as it pertains to cross-border activities. What this means is that when Canadians trust us to share their personal information, they will not have to worry that their rights, freedoms or privacy will be infringed upon.

I will go back to the mechanics of Bill C-21 and how the entry/exit will work.

For example, people crossing the shared border by land when entering one country, the passport information that is swiped on entry will automatically be sent to the country they have just left. In this way, one country's entry is the other country's exit and vice-versa. The exchange will take place through the existing secure electronic channel between Canada and the U.S., the same system that is used to transfer information between Canada and the U.S. under NEXUS, FAST and the enhanced driver's licence programs.

For air travellers, entry/exit would require no new exchange of information between nations as this information would come directly from airline passenger manifests. To obtain an exit record in the air mode for example, the CBSA would receive electronic passenger manifests directly from air carriers, with information on all passengers scheduled to depart Canada aboard outbound international flights. This information would be received up to 72 hours prior to departure to facilitate the identification of known high-risk travellers attempting to leave Canada by air.

This is just one of the many ways that Bill C-21 would help the CBSA deal with threats, threats that in many cases it currently lacks the tools to address.

For threats originating outside Canada, the CBSA uses a system called “Lookouts” to identify persons or shipments that may pose a threat to Canada. Lookouts are based on information in the CBSA's possession or what may come from security organizations or networks.

While lookouts are effective for identifying inbound threats, the absence of exit information means they are not effective in identifying outbound threats. In a global threat environment, with dangerous individuals travelling abroad to join extremist organizations or engaging in human trafficking, collecting reliable exit information has never been more vital.

It is essential that we equip the CBSA with the statutory authority to collect the same information on outbound travellers as it does on inbound ones. In today's world, clear and complete exit information is not a "nice to have" but a must, to ensure the security of democracies like Canada.

Furthermore, the changes would allow the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, to share the information it collects with Employment and Social Development Canada, the ESDC, for the purpose of enforcing the Employment Insurance Act and the Old Age Security Act. By tracking people's movements in and out of the country, ESDC officials have said that it would save $50 million a year on fraudulent payments.

In addition, the changes will also increase security at the border, not change the border-crossing experience for Canadians.

With that, I would encourage all my colleagues in the House to support the legislation.

Speaking perhaps a bit to the second part of this was the requirement for time allocation. It is ironic that I concluded by saying I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the legislation in the House, when I know that a vast majority of people in the House will support it.

The reason why we had to put time allocation in place this morning, despite the fact that there would be wide-spread support for the legislation, was this. Despite the fact that this is a bill that is right up the Conservatives' alley, a bill that by default just about any Conservative out there would support, the Conservatives nonetheless are forcing the government to put time allocation in place just for the simple point that they do not want any legislation to pass through the House. The Conservatives have actively been doing this time after time, dragging members into the House to stand up and vote on time allocation motions when they know they are going to vote for this.

I asked a question before of another member about the fact that this was getting a bit ludicrous. He insisted that he needed to speak on behalf of his constituents. Absolutely, that is a fundamental right that he has in coming to this place and he should exercise that right at every opportunity. However, the reality of the situation is that this bill started in this chamber and went through the reading process and the committee process. Then it came back from committee and we had a vote on it. It went over to the Senate and went through the exact same democratic process there. The Senate made a minor amendment to the bill and the bill came back here.

I have not heard any members from the opposition speak to what that amendment is. Presumably they already had the opportunity to speak to the bill in its original form before it went to the Senate. What I would like to see is some Conservative members stand up and talk for 20 minutes about the administrative and legislative amendment that came from the Senate. That would be nice to see, but of course, they are not interested in doing that. What they are interested in is just burning as much time as possible so that they can force the government into having to put time allocation on a piece of legislation that is so widely supported in this chamber.

Regarding the comments that were made by my colleague from Winnipeg when he was in opposition as a member of the third party and some of the stuff that he said back then, the circumstances could not have been more different. The Conservatives brought in legislation and specifically targeted the ability of members to speak, and prevented members from speaking by putting time allocation almost immediately on pieces of legislation.

What we are seeing here is something that is completely different. This is a piece of legislation that has already gone through the democratic process in this chamber, and has gone through the same in the Senate, and then has come back here and is being held up by the Conservatives. All the Conservatives care about is just making sure that absolutely no objective of this government can move forward.

When Canadians have the opportunity to actually have a look at what is going on in this place, I am sure that many of them will be ashamed of the fact that members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition use every opportunity that they can to stop any progress on any legislation, including legislation that they overwhelmingly support, as we have been hearing through the various different phases of this piece of legislation moving back and forth between both chambers.

It has been an honour to talk to this piece of legislation again. I did have an opportunity the first time it came through. I look forward to any questions that my colleagues have for me.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to ask my colleague a question. He has been doing a great deal of work on this, particularly on Bill C-21.

Earlier he referenced the costs of immigration, of the illegal border-crossers who have come across into Canada, as being $1.1 billion today. That was the answer I received from the Parliamentary Budget Officer when I wrote to him about those costs.

Could the member indicate how Bill C-21 would help those companies that have a labour shortage in the province of Quebec? What has come across as illegal border-crossers has not found its way into the workforce. The paperwork is not being done fast enough and the government cannot identify as to whether they are legal to be in the country.

Could the member explain a little about how the shortage of labour could be addressed, particularly in the agricultural field of he is very aware?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, dragging your heels is never a good idea and the Liberals have been dragging their heels on this file since 2016. We wanted to talk about it much sooner, but the government did not put the bill on the Order Paper.

The government took its time and, as a result, here we are today at the very end of the process, and we will not be able to discuss the important things mentioned by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, even though the situation has changed considerably since that time.

All it took was one ridiculous tweet from the Prime Minister, who thought he was doing a good deed and bolstering our public image by saying that everyone was welcome in Canada. He then quickly moved on to something else.

Unfortunately, some people read that tweet and thought that Canada was welcoming them with open arms. As a result, these people thought that it was no big deal if they could not enter at a border crossing and had to find another way to enter Canada illegally.

The “Welcome to Canada” tweet cost $1 billion. That is indeed a completely new situation, and I fully agree with my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. These are elements that we absolutely should have discussed in our deliberations on Bill C-21.

Unfortunately, once again, the government refuses to allow us to discuss things that matter.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about the exchange of information.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to listen to me so that he realizes that I am speaking about the bill and that there are still things we want to look into and talk about.

We support Bill C-21. We voted on this bill at second and third reading in the House.

The Senate returned the bill with one amendment. However, we have other things to say because the situation has changed since the bill was first introduced in 2016.

In 2017, a situation arose at the border following the Prime Minister's famous tweet. Therefore, today, we have questions about the exchange of information about illegal migrants. Will these people be subject to the law that is in effect? Does the bill have provisions to ensure that people who enter Canada through official ports of entry are subject to the same rules? Will the Americans be informed that these people are arriving in Canada? Do some of these people have criminal records in the U.S.? If so, the Americans may want to come looking for them and take them back.

We could have debated these questions in the House if a time allocation motion had not been moved.

In my opinion, these are very technical elements specific to Bill C-21.

Does my colleague know if the government thought about that before proceeding with a final vote?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and his rhetorical flights, since, as an opposition member, he was always so outraged about time allocation motions. He had things to say about the big bad government that was using these motions.

This time, we agree with the government. We will support Bill C-21 and we were very proud to say so. We were pleased to be able to say that the government had done something good during its mandate. It would be implementing a proposal made by Mr. Harper's former government, which had made an agreement with Mr. Obama on the beyond the border agreement.

Unfortunately, when we try to give positive feedback to the Liberals, they cannot take it. They are so unused to it that they shut us down. That is what Canadians should remember.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few minutes left to talk about Bill C-21. The days go by, but not every day is the same. On Friday, when I started this speech, the debate was proceeding democratically and properly. Every member of the House who wanted to speak to this bill had an opportunity to do so. A few minutes ago, a time allocation motion was adopted. The government has once again decided to limit MPs' speaking time. My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is lead on Bill C-21 and we had a lot to say about it.

I cannot understand why it took so long for the Liberals to bring it back to the House for debate. This bill was first introduced in 2016. Today, at the last minute, with just four days to go before we break for the holidays, the government decides that getting Bill C-21 passed is suddenly a national emergency and introduces a time allocation motion. Once again, it is muzzling opposition members who had some important comments to make about Bill C-21.

Since I have the floor, I want to take this opportunity to say how much I have loved this magnificent House of Commons. This may be my last chance to speak in this chamber for the next 10 years, although I do plan to come back here when the House reopens. It is important to set goals and be optimistic. Just because this is the last time I will be giving a speech this year, it does not mean I am not planning to be here 10 years from now.

The people of Mégantic—L'Érable have put their trust in me, and I definitely intend to keep earning their trust. I do not think a single day has passed without me thanking someone for the immense privilege of being entrusted by the people of Mégantic—L'Érable with the responsibility of representing them here on Parliament Hill.

There is history here in the House of Commons and Parliament. Many bills have been debated here. Parliamentarians who have participated in House of Commons debates have witnessed changes in society. When members rise in the House of Commons, they must always do so with dignity. That is why we always rise respectfully, keeping in mind the men, women and young people from various communities who elected us and gave us a very clear mandate to speak on their behalf so that people across the country can share their point of view and have their say on various bills. I take this role very seriously. I tend to do this in private, but today I would like to thank the people watching and my colleagues. I would like to thank the people of Mégantic—L'Érable for granting me this amazing privilege, for giving me the extraordinary opportunity to come here bearing their messages.

Speaking of messages, my constituents have a few to share about the Liberal government's failures in 2018. Reminding the government from time to time that it has missed the mark is one of the jobs our constituents have given us. I think the government was well wide of the mark in 2018.

I began my speech by talking about Bill C-21 and how the government is incapable of managing its time and that of the House and parliamentarians. At the last minute, the government is imposing a time allocation motion to force us to stop speaking. It has failed on this bill, and it would not be the first time.

I remember this government's promises and commitments to be open and transparent, to not use time allocation motions and to do politics differently. This is not different, it is worse than ever. It is just another one of the government's failures.

The pipelines are a failure across the board. Thanks to this government, Canadians can no longer benefit from this resource and the country cannot make money even though it has the means to do so. The current crisis is a Liberal failure.

We are here today talking about missed opportunities to support Canada's energy sector because this government and the Prime Minister said himself that it was time to slowly start moving beyond oil and gas. Everyone knows full well that this will take time. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has kept this promise and has started withdrawing Canada from the energy sector, especially the oil and gas sector.

Border security is another failure, especially in Quebec where a large number of migrants entered Canada illegally. This government did absolutely nothing to stem the flow of illegal refugees. It is another failure.

One of the things people talk to me about the most in Mégantic—L'Érable is the massive deficits. We remember the commitment the Prime Minister and all the Liberal MPs repeated countless times in 2015. The MPs from Quebec solemnly swore that this was the right time to borrow money to invest in infrastructure. They said there was no need to worry since they would run small deficits and we would return to a balanced budget in 2019.

When Canadians made a choice in 2015, the Liberal candidates promised to take care of all that and quickly return to a balanced budget in 2019. The Liberals said they would only borrow a small amount, like when you use your credit card at the store and pay the bill at the end of the month. The problem is that the Liberals have been using their credit card non-stop for three years and now they are realizing they cannot afford to pay the bill at the end of the month.

In my view, the Liberals' biggest failure has been their inability to manage our public finances and to fulfill their commitment to balance the budget in 2019. Our children and grandchildren are going to be the ones stuck paying the Liberals' credit card bill.

Lastly, I am extremely disappointed by this time allocation motion on Bill C-21. Unfortunately, it is consistent with the Liberals' poor record when it comes to time management in the House. Once again, they have failed across the board.

The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act.

Bill C-21—Time Allocation Motion

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is all a matter of reasonability in the circumstances.

The fact of the matter is, in dealing with Bill C-21, the government has been eminently reasonable. I would say that the representatives of the opposition have spoken from the very beginning about their support for the principles of this legislation. Participation in the committee was ample and extensive. Amendments were made. Improvements were made to the legislation. The same is true in the Senate. There was a very good discussion in the Senate. There was a very key conversation about the protection of privacy and putting a limit on the time over which certain information could be retained by government agencies.

The discussion of the substance of the bill has been thorough and constructive. Now that the House has identified a very clear consensus, the time to leap over the procedural hurdles has arrived, and the House can take a very well-informed vote on whether or not we support Bill C-21. I suspect we do, because it is in the public interest and it is a piece of legislation that has enjoyed broad support from the very beginning.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, the point the hon. gentleman is making is an interesting one.

He says that the Conservatives agree with the technical amendment. They agree with the thrust of Bill C-21. There has been debate here, in the standing committee and in the Senate. That debate has gone on for a considerable length of time, and it does appear, at the end of that discussion, that a consensus has been arrived at and everyone is supportive of the legislation, except the member would like the debate to continue with no specified end point in sight.

That is the problem one constantly faces with this dilemma of time allocation. Do we have debates that go on interminably with no conclusion, or when it appears that a reasonable consensus has been arrived at, do we take the necessary procedures to actually call the vote and take a decision?

The Parliament of Canada is the most important debating society in our country, but it is more than that. It is the most important decision-making body in this country. We have had the debate. It has been reasonable. It has been extensive. Consensus has been arrived at. It is time to vote.

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

Madam Speaker, we could have continued to debate that. I have a question for the minister.

I am well aware that Canada and the United States exchange information about the people who cross the border in both directions. However, under Bill C-21, would information about illegal migrants be exchanged in the same way given that these people do not arrive at official ports of entry?

Will the Americans be advised of the arrival in Canada of people from the United States? Is there a procedure in place for those people who have a warrant for their arrest in the United States?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to question the Minister of Public Safety. A few moments ago, he said that most of this issue had been discussed, that Bill C-21 had been debated previously and there is only one amendment coming from the Senate. Why does he not simply let the debate continue as it should in this House so that all members who wish to speak would have the opportunity? If it has been thoroughly discussed, surely no further members would stand to speak to it. Obviously, there are more members who have concerns and want to speak.

The government does not want to hear the concerns from the opposition, so it has imposed time allocation. Why not let the debate unfold and collapse when members have had their chance to speak?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-21 is an important part of our national security architecture. It will provide for records to be kept when people leave the country. Right now those records are kept if one is a foreign national or if one is a permanent resident, but they are not kept if one is a Canadian citizen. The view of security experts is that is an important gap in our national security structures.

However, there are protections in this legislation to make sure that human values and rights are properly respected. For example, all of the advice from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is very thoroughly taken into account to make sure that privacy issues are not violated. In fact, the specific amendment that we are considering right now, which is the subject of the time allocation motion, is an amendment that was put into the bill in the Senate because of the advice of the Privacy Commissioner. What we are doing at this moment, in fact, is we are taking steps to follow good advice from the Privacy Commissioner about how to respect dimensions of human rights.

I would also point out that in terms of the information that is collected and shared under this legislation, it is information that is nothing more or less than what can be found on page 2 of one's passport, which means that there is no intrusion into personal privacy as a result of this matter.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, last night we celebrated the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. During that ceremony there was discussion about the migration of people and how it has been increasing over the recent past, climate change being part of that and wars being part of that. It highlights how important it is for us to have a good regime in terms of our border controls and movement of people in the turbulent times we are living in.

How does Bill C-21 fit in terms of our commitments to the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights of people to a country? Could the minister comment on that briefly?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would note with respect to the points that were raised by the member for Yorkton—Melville, Bill C-21 is not an omnibus bill. Bill C-21 has been subject to extensive consultations, both inside and outside Parliament. Bill C-21 enjoys a large consensus of support, including the support of her party. It is a very technical amendment that is before the House now to be voted upon, one that was originally raised in the committee proceedings, incidentally, by the NDP and subsequently raised again in the Senate.

After all of that work, there is a consensus that this is the right measure to introduce, and since there is no substantive disagreement, it is time to call the vote and settle that question.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think if we asked most Canadians who travel back and forth across the international border between Canada and the United States, they would say that there is a system in place for checking on security issues about people who come into the country, and equally, there is a system in place for checking the facts and figures when a person leaves the country.

In fact, the former is true but not the latter. We do not have and we have never had a system whereby we record departures from the country. That has been observed by many members in the House as a significant gap in our security architecture, and many members, on all sides of the House, have said that this gap should be filled. That is exactly what Bill C-21 would do.

Recognizing that there are 400,000 people every day who go back and forth across the Canada-U.S. border, and recognizing that there is $2.5 billion in trade that goes back and forth across that border every single day, it is obviously important to expedite that legitimate trade and travel while at the same time making sure that the border is sound and secure.

Bill C-21 would fill an important security gap upon which it would appear every member of the House is in agreement. Therefore, it is time to vote and put a system in place that will serve the best interests of Canadians.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, three or four days ago, in House sitting time, the official spokesperson on this legislation for the official opposition, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, gave a very extensive speech in which he reviewed Bill C-21, including the technical amendment made by the Senate, with which the official opposition is in full agreement. That is what he told the House, and I welcome the position, on the part of the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, that there is no further dispute, argument or debate with respect to this particular matter. It is a technical matter having to do with the time frame specified in the legislation, and it is a subject upon which the official opposition says it is in complete agreement.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, one of the great functions of the Parliament of Canada, particularly the House of Commons of Canada, is to provide members with an opportunity to debate the great questions of public policy that come before the House. In addition to debating, we also have the obligation, on behalf of our constituents, to decide; that is, to listen to all sides of the argument and to then vote to come to a conclusion on a matter.

Bill C-21 has been before this House for a considerable length of time. It was considered at length in the Senate. The Senate made one very technical amendment having to do with the limitation of a time frame. It referred the matter, as amended, back to this House. What we are considering at this stage is that one very narrow question: Do we or do we not accept the time-limit issue raised by the Senate?

I have had the opportunity, as Minister of Public Safety, to present to this House several pieces of legislation dealing with important national security concerns. I would say that Bill C-21 is probably the one measure that has achieved the largest degree of cross-party consensus and the largest degree of support and consensus in both Houses of Parliament.

I listened enthusiastically to the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, who spoke at great length the other day about his fervent support for Bill C-21. Obviously, it is time to vote on the matter upon which, it seems, most members of Parliament agree.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again the government wants to cut our speaking time short, but we will be questioning the minister this morning to find out why.

Today we are talking about Bill C-21, which was introduced by the Liberals in 2016 but is part of what the Conservatives had started at the time.

We have an important relationship with the United States when it comes to exchanging information. We can all agree on that. This ensures everyone's safety and helps in obtaining important information.

However, there is currently a bit of a trust issue with our partners. Regarding what is currently happening with Huawei, three of the Five Eyes countries have decided that Huawei must be banned from their systems. Here at home we are creating a climate of mistrust, and I know that there are countries, including the United States, that are starting to question Canada.

Can the minister tell us whether Canada is still a trustworthy partner for our Five Eyes partners? Decisions are currently being made that cast doubt on this relationship and may also have an impact on Bill C-21.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation Motion

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-51, Bill C-57, Bill C-87, Bill C-88, and Bill C-21, all of these bills have had notice given of time allocation in the last week we are sitting before the Christmas break. Is this not just another indictment of the failure of the Liberal government when it comes to managing the business of the House?

The Liberal government said it was going to do things differently. All of a sudden, like the kid who spent the entire semester at school partying, when that final assignment comes due, it is a rush to try to get it in, in the nick of time, before the deadline. Is this not just another example of the Liberals' failure to manage the business of this place?

Bill C-21—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of the amendments to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Customs Act

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say something to my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly, who said a few moments ago that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is perhaps one of the most collegial of all the House committees.

I am pleased to say that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is also a very good committee, where people of all political stripes work well together.

Unfortunately, as is wont to happen, we sometimes do not agree with our colleagues and things can escalate and become a bit more tense. However, our role, the role of parliamentary committees and the role of the House is to express our views in committee.

I can say that I am very proud of the work my Conservative colleagues do on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. They do excellent work on all the files. I think that is worth mentioning.

A large part of our work as members of Parliament happens not just behind the curtains, but in rooms other than the beautiful House of Commons. All kinds of things are done in committee rooms for the good of all Canadians, and I think it is worth taking a few moments to mention this work every once in a while.

Bill C-21, as members know, has to do with customs and borders. I cannot start talking about Bill C-21 without first taking a few minutes to talk about the extremely important border issue of illegal migration, which is a problem we are currently facing.

Members will soon see why I think it is appropriate to talk about this issue now, during the debate on Bill C-21.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has released a report on the cost of illegal border crossings. In his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer provided clarifications on the crisis at the Canada-U.S. border. Since 2017, a total of 38,000 people have crossed into Canada illegally. I say “illegally” because on this side of the House, we like to use the right words.

The signs posted at the border and on Roxham Road clearly indicate that it is illegal to cross the border at that location, yet many people cross anyway. In fact, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 38,000 people have done so. That is why we, the Conservatives, refer to those individuals as illegal migrants. Since 2017, 38,000 people have illegally crossed our borders. They entered our country illegally, not only at Roxham Road, but that road has seen the largest number.

The Prime Minister has failed to address this crisis, and quite frankly, he is the one who created it. Who can forget the Prime Minister's infamous tweet in January 2017, his welcome to Canada tweet. That tweet had quite an impact around the world, so much so that it resulted in 38,000 illegal border crossings.

There have been other repercussions besides the number of people who illegally entered Canada. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's data show that the cost of welcoming someone who crosses the border illegally is more than the gross annual salary of Canadian workers who earn minimum wage.

By 2020, if the Prime Minister continues to do nothing to address this crisis, it is going to cost Canadians $1.1 billion, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs for the provinces.

I am talking about this today for two reasons. First, the premiers and the Prime Minister are meeting today in Montreal. Second, we learned today that the Quebec government estimates that it will have to ask Ottawa for $300 million in compensation for accommodating the illegal immigrants who arrived in response to the Prime Minister's tweet from January 2017. It is asking for $300 million.

What answer did we get today when we asked about this request? We were told that $36 million had been given to the Quebec government to pay for the illegal immigrants' immediate housing needs.

I think the government is trying to play games here. It says it is going to pay the cost of housing illegal migrants, but it knows full well that almost all the social costs of accommodating these illegal migrants fall on the Quebec government.

Since it was the Prime Minister himself who created this crisis, it is inappropriate for the government to try to shirk its responsibilities by saying it has spent $36 million to address urgent housing needs. The Quebec government has asked for $300 million. I hope the federal government will provide a prompt and appropriate response to that request. That $1.1 billion was not included in the budget and will not be used to meet Canadians' needs. This is yet another failure.

This situation shows what a failure the Prime Minister is at taking action on the international stage. The trade deals and the tariffs imposed on our softwood lumber, steel and aluminum prove it. He is also unable to fix the durum wheat crisis. The topic of customs and borders encompasses many different elements and issues. We on this side of the House are working hard to show Canadians that the government is getting everything wrong on the issue of illegal immigration.

Another border-related issue is going to come up next week when the Prime Minister signs the United Nations global compact for migration. This UN initiative establishes standards and international responsibilities with respect to migration. It is worth taking the time to consider the consequences of signing the compact.

The Prime Minister's actions since January 2017 suggest that he does not really like borders. He does not like it when people are prevented from entering Canada illegally. Unfortunately, the UN global compact for migration seems to align with the Prime Minister's approach since January 2017.

Conservatives believe that Canada should control its own borders and dictate who gets to enter the country. That is why we oppose Canada joining the global compact for migration. That is no secret. Canadians, and only Canadians, should decide who enters the country and under what circumstances, not foreign entities such as the UN. I wanted to take two seconds to talk about that before diving into the bill before us today, Bill C-21.

As we debate Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act, I would like to remind members that the Minister of Public Safety introduced the bill in the House on June 15, 2016. This bill will authorize the Canada Border Services Agency to collect biographic information on all travellers, including Canadian citizens, when they leave Canada. The agency would have new discretionary authority and could collect information if it wanted to, but it would not be required to do so.

The law would authorize officers to require goods exported from Canada to be declared, despite exemptions, and give them the authority to examine them. Bill C-21 will also add two exemptions for exported goods. First, goods on a conveyance that enters and leaves Canadian waters do not need to be declared. Goods on a conveyance that proceeds from one place in Canada to another place in Canada do not need to be declared.

The bill will also make it an offence to smuggle or attempt to smuggle, whether clandestinely or not, any goods that are subject to duties or any goods the exportation of which is prohibited, controlled or regulated.

There is a reason the Conservative Party will support the bill. We already supported it and we have no objection to supporting the Senate amendment. The reason is that the bill is part of the beyond the border action plan that was announced jointly in 2011 by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama. That initiative established a long-term perimeter security partnership. I would like to spend a moment on the joint statement. It listed the following key areas of co-operation between the United States and Canada.

The main goal was to identify threats early on so as not to be caught unaware by things that could have been avoided when it is too late. The key areas of co-operation are: trade facilitation, economic growth, jobs, cross-border law enforcement and, of course, essential infrastructure and cybersecurity.

According to the action plan's original schedule, the information-sharing initiative was supposed to be implemented on June 30, 2014. In March 2016, after his first official visit to the United States, the Prime Minister announced the agreement with the United States to fully implement a system for sharing basic biographic information.

It is now December 2018. Why has the government taken so long to pass this bill, which just makes good sense to us?

This bill has the authorization, the approval, of both countries' administrations, so it should have been passed more quickly. It is important for keeping Canadians safe and preventing people from here or elsewhere from taking undue advantage of the system and spending their time in warmer climes, under the Florida sun, while abusing our social security system. For all of these reasons, this is obviously a bill that needs to be passed as soon as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague; I want to ensure I am understanding correctly. I believe my colleague is talking about pre-clearance, which is another issue. Bill C-23 and Bill C-21 are sister legislation in the sense of the agreements that have been signed between the Government of Canada and the United States government with regard to the border.

On my colleague's point, the issue is one where we do not want one bad apple to poison the whole basket. On pre-clearance specifically and Bill C-23, we certainly had issues with that. We were proud to oppose it, given the unprecedented powers we were giving to American agents on Canadian soil and even when it comes to Bill C-21 and this type of information sharing. My colleague raises that issue. I do not run into any issues when I am at the border and I am certain many of my colleagues here do not.

However, we are fighting for that. We are talking about individuals who get profiled and once their names are in the Department of Homeland Security database, God only knows what will happen after that. Let us face it, when we look at kids and the no-fly list, a disproportionate number of them are Muslim. Why is that? It is because of the names are on the no-fly list, an American no-fly list in many cases. That is our biggest concern . As Canadians, with the charter and our values, our priorities, despite the U.S. being a friend, ally and neighbour, and I do not want to discount that, we can sometimes be a little different, particularly in this day and age when we see the comportment of the U.S. administration.

When we oppose legislation like this, it is because we do not believe, with this widening national security net, even for innocuous information sharing, the robust safeguards required to protect Canadians' charter rights and their privacy are not in place. It is particularly true when it comes to our dealings with the Americans who have different legal safeguards in place, many if not all of which do not apply to Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion dealing with the Senate's amendments to Bill C-21.

The story of Bill C-21 is long and highly problematic, not to say sordid. I will read some excerpts, but first I would like to say that I am naturally in favour of the Senate's amendment. I will explain why.

The story of Bill C-21 is an interesting one, because it was a bill tabled almost three years ago.

It is unfortunate. I am thinking in particular of the No Fly List Kids, a group well known to members of this house. It is a group of parents who have children on the no-fly list who are false positives, because they share a name with an individual on this list who has been flagged.

The reason I raise this issue is that when these parents originally came to Parliament Hill and asked the government to respect commitments that had been made to fix this issue, they were told by the government, and the Minister of Public Safety more specifically, that they would have to lobby the Minister of Finance, because it needed money to the redress system. They did that. They talked to the Minister of Finance. It was fantastic. The money was announced in the last budget. It was a non-partisan effort I was proud to be part of.

Then what happened? We heard that Bill C-59 needed to be adopted, an omnibus piece of legislation dealing with a whole slew of national security elements, one chapter of which, in a bill hundreds of pages long, dealt with the no-fly list. Conveniently, we were saying that the bill needed to be facilitated at the time the bill arrived in the Senate, and it was being held up there.

How does this connect to Bill C-21? Allow me to explain. The Minister of Public Safety's press secretary made one thing clear to the media: the money is there, and Bill C-59 must be passed.

As the months passed, Bill C-21, which was introduced in the House nearly three years ago, also got held up in the Senate. A month or two ago, at the same time the parents of the no-fly list kids were lobbying the Senate to quickly pass Bill C-59 and fix this horrible problem, the same spokesperson for the Minister of Public Safety said that Bill C-21 also needed to be passed more quickly. After three years, and one year in the Senate, the bill finally passed.

I do not want to cast doubt on anyone's good faith, but there is a problem, because I see nothing in Bill C-21 to address this scourge, which has been around for too long and makes life hard for these parents whenever they take their kids to the airport. This debate gives me the opportunity to say this to the House, because even though these parents are a non-partisan group, I am a partisan politician, and so I have no qualms about criticizing the government for trying to exploit this problem to rush its legislative agenda through. If it had done its work properly, the bill would not have gotten held up in the Senate the way it has.

With that point made, I want to address more specifically the amendments from the Senate. I am pleased to see that the Senate has improved on an amendment I presented at the public safety committee that was supported by all colleagues. My amendment was to actually prescribe a retention period for the data Bill C-21 would deal with at the border.

Just to give the background on this, the New Democrats opposed Bill C-21, despite some things in the media I read in June saying that the bill quietly passed in the House. No, we opposed this bill, and we raised some serious concerns about it at committee.

One of the concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner was the fact that we would be collecting entry and exit data at the border and sharing with the Americans “tombstone“ data, as the Minister of Public Safety morbidly calls it. That data is concerning, because what we are seeing in the national security field, and CBSA is no exception, is a larger net being cast over the type of data we collect. The minister listed a bunch of laudable goals for collecting data dealing with kidnapped children in, for example, horrible custody cases, dealing with human trafficking and cracking down on people who are abusing EI and the OAS system. We will get back to that in a moment.

These goals, certainly on paper, sound laudable. However, that should not diminish the privacy concerns being raised, particularly with respect to the current administration we see in the U.S. collecting this type of information. What civil society tells us about these issues is that there is a web of inference. In this large net being cast in the national security field, data that might seem innocuous, collected for legitimate purposes, can be easily shared with other agencies through this information-sharing regime for a variety of objectives that might not necessarily be the intent of the legislation.

In that context, we heard the concerns that the Privacy Commissioner raised about the data retention period, which was essentially unlimited. The amendment I presented set a time limit of 15 years and was based on a recommendation from the commissioner himself. I read in the media that civil society felt that period was too long. I understand their concerns, but ultimately, we relied on the Privacy Commissioner's expertise.

After my amendment was adopted and the bill was passed by the House, in spite of the NDP's opposition, the Senate heard testimony from the Privacy Commissioner. He pointed out that the wording of the amendment as adopted could be interpreted to mean a minimum of 15 years rather than what we actually intended, which was a maximum of 15 years. He himself said that this might not have been the committee's intent.

The Senate therefore made a correction and improved an amendment that I was pleased to present. I was also pleased to have the support of the other parties on the committee. Obviously, we support the Senate amendment.

The amendment put forward by the government today also supports that amendment. Accordingly, although we oppose the bill, we do support today's motion to adopt the Senate's amendment.

I want to take a moment to address this. I raised some of the concerns at the time on Bill C-21. Earlier I enumerated some of the things the minister said. However, there is another piece, and that is the issue of OAS and EI.

We had the appropriate ministry representatives at committee. They talked about all the great savings they were going to see and about the abuse of the EI and OAS systems. I find it fundamentally offensive to talk about savings in systems and programs that are there to help the most vulnerable in our society. The officials at committee even acknowledged that they believe in the good faith of the people who are claiming EI and receiving OAS.

Here is the problem. I will refer to some news articles that appeared in June of this year. For example, the Canadian Snowbird Association talked about its concern about the kind of information, or lack thereof, being shared, the personal information being shared, in an effort to potentially crack down on supposed abuses. For example, a situation as innocuous as people overstaying a day in a condo they own in the U.S. could mean that they would have their OAS payments or other government programs docked when they came back to Canada, in some cases. On the flip side, with the IRS in the U.S., people are being turned away at the border when they try to return to the U.S. to visit friends or family or to stay in a secondary residence they might have there. Certainly, there are concerns being raised.

I want to open some parentheses here and say that the NDP certainly understands and agrees that we do not want to see these systems abused, because essentially that would mean money is being stolen from those who actually need it. However, we also have to understand that when we are talking about information-sharing in an effort to crack down, I think there need to be more robust parameters in place with respect to how we are communicating with those individuals who could be affected.

Another concern I have obviously has to do with the employment insurance system. I am sure my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and my colleague from Churchill—I apologize, but I forget her riding's full name, which is long—can attest to how badly the EI system needs to be improved.

We are talking about the spring gap, the notorious 15 weeks, the problems that still have not been solved despite the government's rhetoric. What does the government do? It sends officials from the department in question to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security so they can boast about all the money being saved by sharing additional information on travellers with the Americans.

I do not mean any disrespect to our interpreters, but I am going to repeat what I said earlier in English. I completely understand that the government wants to stop the abuse of the system and make sure that the money is going to the right recipients. At the same time, I also understand that priorities seem to be a problem for this government.

It is funny that I talked about the no-fly list at the beginning of my speech. The minister was bragging about the fact that very few identifiers are shared in the system that Bill C-21 is proposing. He talked about basic information and said that that information appears on page 2 of the passport. This creates another problem, because when there are not enough identifiers, it can be very difficult to identify an individual in the context of a government program, the Canada Revenue Agency, and so on.

I need to look no further than in my own family. My younger brother's spouse has a twin sister with the same first initial, but a different social insurance number. They have the same surname, the same birth date and the same first initial, but a different SIN. What happens? They have to fight on a regular basis to have their identity recognized when undergoing a credit or background check. They have all kinds of problems with the CRA, government programs and banks. In short, they have had problems in the past. Unfortunately for them, they will continue to have these problems throughout their lives. Still, I hope they will not.

I am pointing this out because having only a few identifiers, as the minister reassures us, can create problems. For example, someone receiving EI who has not travelled to the United States, but who shares the same name and date of birth with another person who has, could be incorrectly identified by the department, which is not even the same one that receives the information. The Canada Border Services Agency receives the information, which it then passes on to the Department of Employment. As members, we work often enough with government agencies to know that mistakes can be made along the way. I say this with all due respect for our great public service.

Those mistakes are even more troubling for a variety of reasons. First, I specifically asked those representatives in committee about EI, OAS and other payments. I asked them what they would do if there was a mistake, or what if people had their EI cut off because they were told they had gone to the U.S., but they had not. The response I got, if people can believe it, was that they would need to take it up with CBSA.

What happens with CBSA? It is the only national security agency in the country that does not have a dedicated oversight body. Is that not convenient? That is extremely problematic and a far from satisfying response when the most vulnerable, who desperately need EI benefits, are cut off all because of a mistake was made in an effort to share even more information with the U.S., at its request. This whole system stems from that.

Moreover, I pointed out that there was a complaint system built into the law, but CBSA needed the proper oversight. The minister has promised that time and again over the last three years, since he has responsibility for this portfolio, and it has not happened.

Bill C-59, for example, would result in the biggest overhaul to our national security in the last 30 years. Despite all the reassurances about the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the new oversight body, colloquially called the super-SIRC, would only deal with CBSA in the specific context of national security. CBSA is always deals with national security at our borders. However, the question could be posed whether it is an issue of national security when people have their EI cut off because of information collected by CBSA. That question remains unanswered. The fact that it is unanswered is exactly why we have a problem, among other things, with Bill C-51.

I want to raise one last point. Representatives of the Akwesasne First Nation came to both to the House committee and the Senate committee. The community lies across border. Representatives explained to us that they had children who were born in upstate New York and then lived in Canada. They had folks who sometimes worked in the U.S. Sometimes they needed to start in Canada, go through the U.S. and come back to Canada just for the commute home because of the geography of their location. I am pleased to hear they can cross those borders, because those borders should not be imposed on them as the first peoples of this land.

They already deal with certain difficulties, based on the information CBSA shares with appropriate ministries for different government benefits, with receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Therefore, we can imagine that under a regime like that proposed in Bill C-21, those problems could be exacerbated. Unfortunately, there is no special dispensation for folks like that in the legislation, and that is also a concern.

In conclusion, I am glad I was able to reiterate the reasons for which the NDP opposes Bill C-21. We understand the desire to improve the flow at the border, work with our allies, and ensure that nobody abuses our social programs. However, we believe that Bill C-21 allows for yet more information sharing, despite inadequate protection for citizens' rights and privacy.

We should all be particularly concerned about the fact that Bill C-21 is the first stage of what could become a more extensive information sharing regime in the coming years. The Prime Minister and the U.S. President committed to enhancing border co-operation, but this is not going to make things better. This is about fingerprinting people, searching cell phones, and possibly even having our officers and theirs work in the same space. That came up during talks between the U.S. President and the Prime Minister.

All of these plans are still in their very early stages, and I do not want anyone telling me I am getting worked up and scared, but we have every reason to be concerned, especially considering how the current U.S. President behaves and how we protect our citizens at the border and on our own soil when they need social programs they are entitled to.

The bill's intentions are honourable, but the execution is poor. We support the Senate's amendment, but we still oppose Bill C-21.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, the differences between Bill C-83 and Bill C-21 are vast. They are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum. It is obvious that Bill C-21 is legislation that is a piece off what was started under the beyond the borders action plan our previous government initiated. The current legislation, Bill C-83, is a dog's breakfast of we are not sure what. It is a mess, and no one supports it.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know the member is fully aware of Bill C-83. I am comparing it with Bill C-21. At committee, we listened to many witnesses talk about Bill C-83, and everyone said it was a bad bill. In fact, no witnesses who came forward said that Bill C-83 was a good bill, except for the minister and his entourage. Bill C-83 is a very important bill in that it is supposed to protect our jail system, the guards and the prisoners, but it is a bad bill. No one agreed that it was a bill that should go ahead, yet we were going to deal with it earlier this morning.

Here we have Bill C-21, which is necessary. It would assist Canadians and Americans travelling back and forth. It would help the security of our country. I wonder if the member would comment further on Bill C-21.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act.

Our caucus is supportive of the bill, and I am pleased to rise to renew that continued support. However, I cannot help but look at Bill C-21 and compare it with another bill before the House, Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There are significant differences between the two. The question of differences especially comes to mind with the recent passing of former United States President Bush and the eloquent eulogy offered by former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney. The friendship and skill of these former leaders stands in contrast to our leader today.

Bill C-21 was the product of two former national leaders, former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Obama. The legislation was based on an effort to improve security and trade. The two leaders were noted for making history. One re-crafted Canadian Conservative politics while the other re-crafted a new vision for American presidents. Neither could be found making the kind of erroneous tweets or statements of their successors. Despite ideological and cultural differences, they improved trade and worked together to deal with challenges, like the global economic crisis. The difference between our former leaders and the new one today could not be more stark. For me, these two bills tell a similar story. Bill C-21 is based on the work of a predecessor.

At committee, we heard numerous people speak to the relevance, importance and balance of Bill C-21. Concerns were raised, but they were manageable and moderate. In contrast, Bill C-83 fails in every way that Bill C-21 seems to succeed. Not one witness provided support for Bill C-83 at committee. The committee could not determine exactly what or how the bill would work, or even if it would meet any of promises the Minister of Public Safety made. Bill C-21, on the other hand, is a bill to implement improved border co-operation and security that would benefit both the United States and Canada. It would boost jobs and opportunity. It would reduce the regulatory burden on honest and hard-working Canadians. It would provide safe and effective borders, and it would support Canadians who follow the rules and respect the law.

In the incredible riding of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner in southern Alberta, which I have the privilege and honour of serving, we have five ports of entry between Canada and the United States. These border crossing are critical for local, regional and national economies. Products, services and people cross the border daily. Unfortunately, despite funding being set aside in 2015 by the previous government, the Liberals have yet to deliver a dime to improve and expand border crossings in my riding. That is yet another example of the way the Liberals have continued to ignore the needs of Alberta's economy.

One of the features of Bill C-21 is the collection of personal entry and exit information at the border. This information will provide better intelligence and understanding of security and trade, and ultimately better security and a stronger economy. Naturally, collection of information in the age of big data does raise concerns. This is the only issue that surfaced during Senate review.

The Senate has offered an amendment to clause 93.1, which reads:

Subject to section 6 of the Privacy Act, information collected under sections 92 and 93 shall be retained for 15 years beginning on the day on which the information is collected.

The Privacy Commissioner was concerned that the original amendment by the public safety committee would not provide enough certainty. I understand that it is the Privacy Commissioner's role to be concerned and to identify what could go wrong and how things could be abused. He stated:

The words “shall be retained for 15 years” clearly indicate that information cannot be destroyed before the end of the 15 year period. Then, there are no words to prescribe what happens after the end of the period.

I would suggest this is a friendly amendment, a minor edit over a concern about the language used to achieve the same objective. I will quote from the Hansard of the Senate. Senator Mary Coyle stated the following about the testimony of the Privacy Commissioner:

...in order to achieve greater legal certainty, section 93.1 should be amended in order to clarify that the data collected under sections 92 and 93 shall be retained by the agency for a period of not more than 15 years, so to a maximum of 15 years. He said:

'It would be desirable...to achieve greater legal certainty to amend section 93.1 to clarify that it applies only to CBSA and that it is a maximum period.'

That is, the 15-year maximum period. I have personally verified with Mr. Therrien regarding the wording of the amendment agreed to by the committee and he agrees it captures his concern regarding the retention period for the CBSA.

She further noted the following:

Bill C-21 gained broad consensus from all parties in the House of Commons and we have heard a similar level of agreement in this chamber.

I would note that it is not surprising that the Senate would find few issues with this legislation. The bill achieves many important objectives for Canada and Canadians.

The better use of information concerning people and goods that enter and leave the country will ensure that the government is better informed. It will also make life easier for immigrants and permanent residents who currently have to prove their time in the country, instead of a clear record being available to government. Informed government is better government.

The bill will support faster and more effective trade between our countries, as trusted businesses will be able to move their goods more efficiently across the border without barriers. In contrast, border agents will be able to better identify and target problems, focusing enforcement on the issues rather than honest Canadians trying to go about their business.

Like all legislation involving the collection of information, we must be conscious of the collection and use of data. As the Privacy Commissioner noted, the majority of the issues raised are addressed in the bill and the bill strikes the right balance.

Unfortunately, Bill C-21 is still not an answer to many of the issues caused by the Liberal government and faced by Canadians and our country at the border. There continue to be tens of thousands of illegal border crossers, costing taxpayers an estimated $1.1 billion, including numerous impacts on provinces. For example, the capacity of local and regional social systems are maxed out; there is a four-year backlog in asylum claims that continues to get longer; and resources from communities across the country, including CBSA border officers, RCMP and immigration officials, have been redeployed to Lacolle and other problem areas, leaving communities short-handed.

Provinces have run up massive costs, for which the federal government has offered pennies on the dollar by way of reimbursement. More than two years later, and now with two ministers, there is still no clear plan to secure the border and re-establish an orderly refugee and immigration system.

Trade between Canada and the U.S. continues to be problematic, as steel and aluminum tariffs have put manufacturing and construction jobs at risk. The energy sector continues to be subject to the whims of foreign influencers who are aligned with the anti-energy ideologies of the Liberal government.

I hope the House can move quickly to move Bill C-21 forward. The Liberal government has created a long list of problems, crises, and regional divides that need the attention of members to undo the damage to families, businesses and workers.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of the legislative amendment to Bill C-21 that has been proposed by our hon. colleagues. The legislative amendment we are debating today is reflective of similar concerns expressed by the House in its consideration of the bill, namely that the personal information collected under Bill C-21 be retained for a period of 15 years. The Senate, in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, has provided additional wording to ensure that the Canada Border Services Agency would only be authorized to retain the data it collects for a period of not more than 15 years.

Privacy protection is part of the very design of the entry-exit initiative. For one, agreements would have to be established with the CBSA and other government departments for the sharing of information. Included here are requirements for the completion of privacy impact assessments to identify exactly how collected information would be used, as well as the measures taken to protect privacy before the new system becomes operational.

Importantly, when Canada's Privacy Commissioner appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the parliamentary committee that examined this bill, he noted that, “...there are important public policy objectives that this initiative is trying to address and that the personal information in question is not particularly sensitive. ” In the Senate, the Privacy Commissioner further expressed his general satisfaction with the bill and the extent to which his office had been consulted throughout the process.

Our government understands the need to provide Canadians reassurance that information-sharing initiatives have proper safeguards and review. Through Bill C-59 Canadians have seen that the government is serious about ensuring effective review of Canada's security agencies. We would be more than meeting the expectations of Canadians with this new degree of legislative review, and importantly, this scrutiny would align us with our Five Eyes counterparts that already have such measures in place. The entry-exit initiative has broad public policy benefits, as the Privacy Commissioner acknowledged. Bill C-21 would benefit Canada in many ways, the most important being that it would enhance the security and effectiveness of the Canada-U.S. border and in so doing, increase the safety of our citizens.

Let me first remind the House how information is exchanged today. Canada currently collects basic biographic information on people coming into Canada, such as who they are, where they are from and how long they are staying. This information helps our officials identify and respond to potential threats. However, when it comes to those leaving the country, we collect information on only a small subset of these people, meaning that at any given moment we have an important information gap. While we know who enters Canada, we do not have a full picture of who is leaving.

The main problem with this information gap is that we might miss the exit from our country of individuals escaping justice or seeking to join radical groups abroad, or of known high-risk travellers and their goods, such as human or drug smugglers or exporters of illicit goods.

With this in mind, I will review briefly what Bill C-21 would do. When someone enters the U.S. from Canada at a land border crossing, basic entry information such as name, date of birth, citizenship, passport number and time and place of entry, the kind of information that is already collected from everyone entering the U.S., would be transmitted from the U.S. to the CBSA. In this way, the record of a person's entry into the U.S. would become a record of the person's exit from Canada and vice versa.

This would be new. Currently, at land ports of entry the U.S. and Canada exchange exit information on only a subset of people, including third-country nationals, non-U.S. or Canadian citizens; permanent residents of Canada who are not U.S. citizens; and lawful permanent residents of the U.S. who are not Canadian citizens.

With this bill, the data collected would be expanded to include all people exiting Canada by land.

The bill would allow a similar situation for a person leaving Canada by air. When someone enters the U.S. by air, his or her basic information would need to be provided to the CBSA. This information would be transmitted from the airlines to the CBSA so that the agency has information on everyone exiting Canada by air.

The benefits of this expansion of data pertaining to individuals exiting the country are many. For example, it would help our officials to respond quickly, and sometimes pre-emptively, to the outbound movement of known high-risk travellers and goods. It would identify individuals who do not leave Canada at the end of their authorized period of stay. It would verify whether applicants for permanent residency or citizenship have complied with residency requirements and would deliver faster client services for permanent residency and citizenship applications. It would allow us to respond more effectively in time-sensitive situations, such as amber alerts. It would allow us to stop using valuable immigration enforcement resources to find people who have already left Canada. It would allow us to provide reliable information in support of those making admissibility decisions and those carrying active investigations related to national security; law enforcement; or immigration, citizenship or travel document fraud. It would allow us to better interdict the illegal export of controlled, regulated or prohibited goods from Canada.

All told, the entry-exit initiative is another example of how Canada is keeping pace with the rest of the world and living up to its emerging position as a leader in border management.

In closing, I would like to say a few words about the CBSA and how Bill C-21 would help its officers better carry out their important work.

As all members know, the CBSA plays a key role in protecting Canada's physical and economic security by detecting threats at the border. Operating 24-7 in a risk-management environment, the agency relies heavily on information, including data on who is coming, who is going and when.

Currently, border officers know who is coming into Canada but do not know who has left. This is a blind spot that could prevent officers from tracking potentially dangerous Canadians as they head overseas, such as human traffickers.

Without a doubt, for all Canadians, the men and women of the CBSA need to have the proper basic tools, and that includes information, to deliver on their mandate of maximizing our safety and security.

For this, and a host of other reasons, I encourage all hon. members to join me in supporting this amendment and this important bill.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will begin debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-57, the sustainable development bill.

Tomorrow morning, we will start debate at report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation. Following question period, we will debate the Senate amendments to Bill C-21, the Customs Act.

Next week, we will be debating various government bills.

I would like to remind the House that, in accordance with the order adopted this morning, there will be an exploratory debate Monday evening at the usual time of adjournment. The debate will be on the subject of the opioid crisis in Canada.

Public Safety

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, we understand the frustration of families with no-fly kids. By definition, no children are on Canada's secure air travel list. However, worrisome adults with similar names are, and that creates the false positives.

When the system was first implemented, the previous government should have recognized this problem and provided unique identification numbers for automatic redress. However, it did not. The Conservative design failed. We now have $81 million to fix it. First and foremost, we need the legal authority to do so. That is in Bill C-59 and Bill C-21. Both bills need to be passed as quickly as possible.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, following routine proceedings on Wednesday, June 20, 2018:

(a) Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act, be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(b) Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Acts, be deemed concurred in at the report stage on division and deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(c) Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations, be deemed read a third time and passed;

(d) Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(e) Ways and Means No. 24 be deemed adopted on division, and that the Bill standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Finance entitled, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting, be deemed read a first time;

(f) the motion respecting Senate Amendments to Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Justice, be deemed adopted on division;

(g) the motion respecting Senate Amendments to Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, be deemed adopted on division;

(h) the 64th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled, Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment between Members, presented to the House on Monday June 4, 2018, be concurred in;

(i) the following motion be deemed adopted on division: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2) and in accordance with subsection 79.1(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-1, the House approve the appointment of Yves Giroux as Parliamentary Budget Officer for a term of seven years”; and

(j) the House shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 17, 2018, provided that, for the purposes of any Standing Order, it shall be deemed to have been adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and be deemed to have sat on Thursday, June 21 and Friday, June 22, 2018.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-69, the environmental assessment act.

Following this, we will turn to Bill C-75, the justice modernization act, and Bill C-59, the national security act.

If time permits, we shall start debate at report stage of Bill C-68, the fisheries act, and Bill C-64 on derelict vessels.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty. Next Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday are allotted days. Also, pursuant to the Standing Orders, we will be voting on the main estimates Thursday evening.

Next week, priority will be given to the following bills: Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act; Bill C-59, an act respecting national security matters; Bill C-64, the wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act; Bill C-68 on fisheries; and Bill C-69 on environmental assessments.

We also know, however, that the other place should soon be voting on Bill C-45, the cannabis act. If a message is received notifying us of amendments, that will be given priority.

Bill C-21—Notice of time allocation

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I really hoped that I would not have to utilize this, but an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-48 on the oil tanker moratorium. The debate shall continue tomorrow.

On Monday, we will start report stage and third reading of Bill C-65 on harassment. Tuesday will be an allotted day.

Next Wednesday, in accordance with the order adopted on April 26, the House will resolve itself into a committee of the whole following question period to welcome the athletes of the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympic and Paralympic Games. Afterward, the House will proceed with debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act.

Next Thursday, we will only begin the debate of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. As members have heard in this House numerous times, we are committed to seeing more people participate in democracy. I have always committed to ensuring that there is a reasonable amount of time to debate and also to ensure that the committee can do its work. Therefore, I look forward to hearing from all parties how much time is needed so that we can continue to ensure that legislation is advanced in a timely fashion.

Just quickly, Mr. Speaker, I want the opposition House leader and all colleagues to know that this is our parliamentary family, and we are always going to be here to work together. We know that in the days and weeks and years to come, there might be times that we need to lean on each other, and we will always be here to do that, and I know the opposition does the same. We sincerely appreciate those kind words today. Our thoughts and prayers are with the members.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with debate on the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will take up report stage and third reading debate of Bill S-5, the tobacco and vaping products act.

On Monday, we will commence report stage debate of Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act.

Next Tuesday will be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act.

Last, discussions have taken place between the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, following Question Period on Wednesday, May 9, 2018, the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole in order to welcome the athletes of the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic and Paralympic Games; provided that: a) the Speaker be permitted to preside over the Committee of the Whole from the Speaker's chair and make welcoming remarks on behalf of the House; b) the names of the athletes present be deemed read and printed in the House of Commons Debates for that day; c) only authorized photographers be permitted to take photos during the proceedings of the Committee; and, d) when the proceedings of the Committee have concluded, the Committee shall rise.

Justice

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable to hear that kind of hyperbole and rhetoric from my hon. colleague. It would be more appropriate to hear that from his usual seat in the House. I notice he has come to this side of the aisle. On this side of the aisle, we are actually quite proud of our record when it comes to human trafficking. I will get to that in just a moment, but I would point out that, perhaps it was not my hon. colleague, but certainly the last Conservative government cut close to $1 billion from the public safety portfolio, including from the CBSA and the RCMP. All of that undermines many of the gross assertions he just made.

Returning to the question at hand, human trafficking is a heinous crime and a human rights offence. In collaboration with provinces and territories, indigenous communities, law enforcement, and community organizations as well as international partners, we are using a wide variety of measures to combat human trafficking, to support victims and potential victims, and to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice.

The national action plan to combat human trafficking was a four-year initiative that ran until last year. Since then, Public Safety Canada has been leading a formal evaluation of the action plan to help inform how we move forward on this important issue. While that evaluation has been going on, federal departments and agencies have continued to combat human trafficking through a full range of initiatives. We have, for example, and my hon. colleague referred to it, introduced Bill C-38.

Contrary to what he said, the House has debated, and thoughtfully had a discourse about, reversing or easing some of the presumptions when it comes to the burden of proof so that prosecutors can ensure that offenders who participate in human trafficking are held to account. Unlike the last Conservative government, we believe we have an appropriate sentencing regime where we place faith in our judiciary. That means not supporting unconstitutional mandatory minimums, like the last Conservative government introduced, which was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. That means ensuring that we have an appropriate mandatory minimum sentencing regime, one that is evidence-based.

In addition to Bill C-38, we also introduced Bill C-21, which will be an important new tool to combat cross-border crimes. The RCMP has several initiatives that target human trafficking. Its human trafficking national coordination centre conducts public awareness campaigns, training, and awareness sessions for law enforcement and stakeholders, as well as national threat assessments on human trafficking.

This past October, the RCMP partnered with police agencies and community organizations across Canada in a coordinated anti-trafficking effort called Operation Northern Spotlight. There was also Project Protect, a joint initiative between the Government of Canada and the private sector. It allows Canadian financial institutions to report transactions that are suspected of money laundering related to trafficking in persons for sexual exploitation. The impact of Project Protect on identifying suspicious transactions linking money laundering to human trafficking has been phenomenal. In 2015, prior to Project Protect, there were 19 such disclosures.

In 2016-17, the government made over $21 million available to provinces, territories, and non-governmental organizations through the federal victims fund. In budget 2017, the government allocated $100.9 million over five years to establish a national strategy on gender-based violence, which obviously overlaps with human trafficking.

The point is, on this side of the House, contrary to where my hon. colleague is currently sitting, we believe in evidence-based policy-making. We believe in supporting our law enforcement branches to ensure women and girls are protected as part of our overall national plan when it comes to human trafficking.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, human trafficking is abhorrent, and we must do everything within our power to stop it. That is why we work with our domestic and international partners to protect victims and to ensure we do everything we can to stop this practice. Recently, we introduced Bill C-38 to give police and prosecutors new tools to investigate and prosecute human trafficking offences. We have also introduced Bill C-21, which gives important tools to combat cross-border crimes.

I look forward to working with the member on this important issue.

Public Safety and National Security

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.

Bill C-48--Time Allocation Motion

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in this, and we as a party are offended.

There was an agreement made two and a half weeks ago when this session started that we would work together with the government and not be obstructionist, but work to help pass bills that we were able to support.

The result so far is that the government has passed Bill S-2, C-21, C-47, and Bill C-58 all without time allocation, and progress was being made on three more bills, Bill C-55, C-57, and C-60.

There was one bill that we said we had a lot of interest in and would like to have enough time for all of our members to be able to speak, and that was Bill C-48. Now the House leader has broken her word. There is no other way to interpret this. If this is the way she is going to start this session after we have worked in such good faith for the last two and half weeks, all the members know that it will be a case of here we go again: a repeat of the failure we saw in the spring session.

Where in the world is the House leader's integrity and ability to keep her word?

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.

Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development—Main Estimates, 2016-17

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Canada-U.S. Relations)]

Madam Chair, I will be using 10 minutes for my speech, followed by five minutes for questions.

As we have said on numerous occasions, the Canada-U.S. economic relationship is balanced and mutually beneficial. Our economic ties to the U.S. are key to middle-class jobs and growth on both sides of the border.

Our partnership is also critical to Americans. Canada is the number one customer for U.S. exports and we are America's biggest market. Thirty-two states count Canada as their largest international export destination, with nine million U.S. jobs directly linked to trade with Canada. We do over $2.4 billion in trade a day, every single day.

We strongly believe that a whole-of-government and non-partisan approach is the best way to have an impact on American decision-makers and opinion leaders. That is what has happened in this Parliament, and we are all delighted. I will now speak about our key priorities.

At their first meeting in Washington, the Prime Minister and President Trump issued a joint statement that gave a clear indication of Canada's priorities in our relationship with the United States. The statement is a road map to upcoming co-operative projects between our two nations and it focuses on five key areas.

First, the growth of our economy, which includes such initiatives as co-operation on regulation. The Treasury Board Secretariat is leading an ongoing dialogue with American officials to move ahead with co-operation on getting rid of regulations that impede the flow of business. Another initiative is the Gordie Howe International Bridge. The Windsor-Detroit border crossing project is halfway through the bidding stage, and a private sector partner is expected to be selected next spring.

The second is promoting energy security and the environment. This focused area includes and identifies pipelines, and air and water quality. For pipelines, Keystone XL is now approved. The economy and the environment have to go hand in hand. There are several other projects like pipelines or electricity transmission lines that are at different stages for review.

When it comes to air and water quality, Environment and Climate Change Canada is working very closely with the U.S. and broad co-operation continues in some specific problem areas.

The third is keeping our border secure, of course. Entry-exit or, more specifically, Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act will allow for full implementation of the entry-exit initiative whereby Canada and the U.S. will exchange information on all travellers crossing the land border. We expect implementation by 2018. There will be a thinning of the border with a thickening of the outer perimeter of security.

There was also discussion of pre-clearance, namely Bill C-23, An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States. Once the bill is passed, both countries will be in a position to ratify the agreement, which will provide a framework for expansion of pre- clearance to cargo. In other words, it will get stuff moving faster.

The fourth area of focus was working together as allies in the world's hot spots, which includes co-operation on NORAD, which of course is essential to our Arctic sovereignty, as well as dominance over our own air space, our military alliance with the U.S., not only through NORAD but also NATO. The steps for modernization are in the government's defence policy review. More news will be announced on that by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence shortly.

There is also the coalition to counter Daesh, wherein Canada is a key member of this 68-member coalition. The minister attended the ministerial meeting in Washington, DC, hosted by Secretary Tillerson on March 22, where the future strategy to defeat Daesh was clearly laid out.

We have also made some specific proposals and taken action to counter the activities, the heinous crimes of Daesh, not the least of which is supporting, through military efforts, but also $804 million in humanitarian aid, to assist the most vulnerable.

The fifth and last area of focus in this thematic scheme is empowering women entrepreneurs and business leaders. We oversaw the creation of the Canada-United States Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders. The council is committed to removing barriers to women's participation in the business community, and supporting women by promoting the growth of women-owned enterprises.

We are committed to gender equality, the empowerment of women and girls, and the promotion and protection of their human rights. We see women as powerful agents of change, an experience I, myself, have seen in the war-torn lands of Afghanistan. These individuals have the right to be full participants, and influencers in peace and security operations. Achieving gender equality requires changing unequal power relations, and challenging social norms and gender stereotypes. We can lead by example in that regard.

The next issue is with regard to the terms of the engagement strategy.

Since January 20, the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories have been undertaking an ambitious pan-Canadian strategy to get the United States involved. This includes not only the Prime Minister's official visit to Washington in February—I had the pleasure of going with him—but also visits, meetings, and other discussions between the ministers, parliamentarians, and provincial and territorial leaders and their American counterparts, as well as political leaders at the national and state level.

The ministers have undertaken an action-centred program that targets 11 key states whose main export destination is Canada and that maintain vital economic links with Canada or have a significant impact on American policy and Canadian interests.

We have already made over 100 visits as part of this effort. Twelve parliamentary committees are planning or preparing to go on visits to the United States in the near future, and I thank them for that. Through these visits, calls, and meetings initiated by Canada's network in the United States, we have obtained the support of over 215 political leaders in the United States.

Top of mind, of course, is NAFTA, something we have already talked about tonight. I know it has been said before, and we are going to say it again. We are ready to come to the negotiating table with our American friends at any time. It has been modified 11 times since its inception. It is natural that trade agreements evolve as the economy evolves. Canada is open to discussing improvements that would benefit all three NAFTA parties.

Should negotiations take place, and we all expect they will, Canada will be, and is, prepared to discuss at the appropriate time specific strategies, but we are not going to expose our cards right now. Quite frankly, we want a good deal, not just any deal.

When it comes to softwood lumber, on April 24, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced it would impose preliminary countervailing duties on certain softwood lumber products from Canada. We disagree strongly with the U.S. Department of Commerce's decision to impose an unfair and punitive duty. The accusations are baseless and unfounded. We continue to believe that it is in both our countries' best interests to have a negotiated agreement as soon as possible with a deal that is fair for both countries.

We have been in constant conversation with our American counterparts. The Prime Minister raises this every time he interacts with President Trump, as does the minister with her counterparts. As a matter of fact, the last time she raised it with her counterparts was yesterday. That is literally hot off the press.

While Canada is committed to negotiating an agreement, once again, we are not going to accept just any deal. We need an agreement that is in the best interests of our industry. We want a win-win.

In conclusion, while we only touched on a couple of the highlights of our engagement on this very broad, complex, and deep relationship, it is clear that the partnership between Canada and the United States has been essential to our shared prosperity. Our trade with the United States is balanced and mutually beneficial. We are its largest customer. We invest more in the U.S. than the U.S. invests in us. We are the Americans' biggest client.

We will also continue to work with all parliamentarians to ensure that we maintain a united front in our engagement with the United States in a non-partisan fashion. The growth of our economy and working well with the United States is not a partisan issue. All members of Parliament are thanked, essentially, for their “all hands on deck” approach.

Canada's relationship with the United States is extensive, highly integrated, and prosperous. Thirty-two states count Canada as their largest international export destination. Nine million U.S. jobs are linked to trade with Canada, and we do over $2.4 billion in trade a day. That is why from the very beginning, our government looked for ways to reach out to the new American administration to advance issues of mutual interest.

It is also important to realize that it has been really a non-partisan approach. I would like to single out, as the minister has done, the interim Leader of the Opposition, the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland, for her fantastic work in Washington. I literally saw her in action now on two different occasions, once at the inauguration and once at another event involving the governors. She was on television. She was able to leverage her Rolodex of very impressive leaders in Washington itself. She was organizing her teams to actually get out there and interact with us. She dispatched a whole bunch of her members of Parliament down to pair off with their Liberal and NDP colleagues. Quite frankly, it was sterling leadership by example.

I would also like to single out the hon. member for Prince Albert, my opposite number, the critic. We have travelled to the United States many times. I find him knowledgeable, experienced, and once again a true Canadian at heart. It has been a pleasure to work alongside him.

I wonder if the minister would please outline her activities and elaborate on our engagement strategy with the United States at all levels and across all sectors.