Bill C-23 (Historical)

Preclearance Act, 2016

An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States

This enactment implements the Agreement on Land, Rail, Marine, and Air Transport Preclearance between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America (the Agreement), done at Washington on March 16, 2015, to provide for the preclearance in each country of travellers and goods bound for the other country.
Part 1 of the enactment authorizes United States preclearance officers to conduct preclearance in Canada of travellers and goods bound for the United States and, among other things, it
(a) authorizes a federal Minister to designate preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters in Canada, in which preclearance may take place;
(b) provides United States preclearance officers with powers to facilitate preclearance;
(c) establishes that the exercise of any power and performance of any duty or function by a United States preclearance officer is subject to Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act;
(d) authorizes Canadian police officers and the officers of the Canada Border Services Agency to assist United States preclearance officers in the exercise of their powers and performance of their duties and functions;
(e) allows a traveller bound for the United States to withdraw from the preclearance process, unless the traveller is detained under Part 1; and
(f) limits the ability to request the extradition or provisional arrest of a current or former United States preclearance officer.
Part 2 of the enactment provides for the preclearance in the United States, by Canadian officers, of travellers and goods bound for Canada. Among other things, Part 2
(a) specifies how the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act will apply to travellers bound for Canada who are in preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters in the United States, and extends the application of other Canadian legislation that relates to the entry of persons and importation of goods into Canada to those preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters;
(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations adapting, restricting or excluding the application of provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and that other Canadian legislation in preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters;
(c) prevents, as required under the Agreement, the exercise of powers of Canadian officers under Canadian law with respect to questioning or interrogation, examination, search, seizure, forfeiture, detention and arrest in preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters, as similar powers will be conferred under the laws of the United States on Canadian officers; 
(d) allows a traveller bound for Canada to withdraw from the preclearance process, unless the traveller is detained under the laws of the United States;
(e) deems an act or omission committed in a preclearance area or preclearance perimeter to be committed in Canada, if the act or omission would constitute, in Canada, an offence relating to the entry of persons or importation of goods into Canada; and
(f) grants the Attorney General of Canada the exclusive authority to commence and conduct a prosecution of a Canadian officer with respect to an act or omission committed in the United States.
Part 3 of the enactment makes related amendments to the Criminal Code to provide United States preclearance officers with an exemption from criminal liability under the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act with respect to the carriage of firearms and other regulated items. It also amends the Criminal Code to provide for a stay of proceedings against a United States preclearance officer when the Government of the United States provides notice under paragraph 14 of Article X of the Agreement.
Part 3.‍1 of the enactment provides for an independent review relating to the administration and operation of the Preclearance Act, 2016.
Part 4 of the enactment makes a consequential amendment to the Customs Act, repeals the Preclearance Act and contains the coming-into-force provision.

The House resumed from June 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States, be read the third time and passed.

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, I am seeking unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House:

(a) if Bill C-23, An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States, is concurred in at report stage later this day, when debate on the said Bill collapses at third reading, all questions necessary for the disposal of the Bill at that stage be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, the bells to call in the members shall ring for not more than 30 minutes;

(b) Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration), be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(c) Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act, be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(d) a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that the House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017, and other measures, because these amendments infringe upon the rights and privileges of the House;

(e) when the House adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 18, 2017, 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 22, and Friday, June 23, 2017; and

(f) when, at any time the House stands adjourned until and including Friday, June 23, 2017, a standing committee has ready a report, that report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House upon being deposited with the Clerk.

Public Safety and National Security

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-23, an act respecting the pre-clearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House, with amendments.

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

Let's talk about a specific example related to Bill C-23 and to the fact that this is not stated in the law.

Based on the protection afforded by the Canadian legislation, it is possible to conclude that if there were an American presidential decree, and if the Canadian law remains silent on this point, travellers would not be protected from searches of their cell phones, for instance. Is that correct?

[Meghan McDermott, Policy Officer, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association]

I'll begin by discussing preclearance and the thresholds for searches.

Currently, electronic devices are considered goods in the context of the Canadian border and in preclearance areas at Canadian airports, and there are no statutory safeguards to protect them from arbitrary search by border agents. Preclearance areas are those designated zones in some Canadian airports where U.S. agents have been empowered to process U.S.-bound travellers.

Bill C-23, an act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States, was introduced last June and is intended to repeal and replace the existing act from 1999. Bill C-23 contemplates that preclearance areas will be expanded beyond airports and could be established at rail, marine, and land border crossings. It expands the powers that U.S. agents have and, in our view, unjustifiably limits the rights of travellers in the preclearance areas. We've expressed our concerns with this bill in testimony to the committee on public safety and national security, and we'll make our written submission available to this committee as well. Under both the existing and the contemplated preclearance law, a traveller cannot be arbitrarily strip-searched. An agent must have reasonable grounds to suspect in order to have the legal authority to detain the traveller for a strip search.

The OPC has recommended that an identical threshold for the searching of digital devices be written into Bill C-23. In a letter to the committee on public safety, the OPC asks that “Bill C-23 be amended to place border searches of electronic devices on the same footing as searches of persons and therefore their performance should require reasonable grounds to suspect.” The BCCLA endorses this position, as well as the OPC's further recommendation to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act to similarly protect the privacy of Canadians who are returning home through Canadian borders. We agree with the OPC that “the idea that electronic devices should be considered as mere goods and therefore subject to border searches without legal grounds is clearly outdated and does not reflect the realities of modern technology.” Interestingly, the interim policy documents of the CBSA do appear to acknowledge that it is not appropriate to classify digital devices as “mere goods”. A CBSA operational bulletin from 2015 does not provide for suspicionless searches, but rather states that searches may be conducted if there are “a multiplicity of indicators” that ”evidence of contraventions” may be found on the digital device. We support the OPC's call to codify this policy through legislative amendments. The law should require a border agent, whether CBSA or American, in a preclearance area to have reasonable grounds to suspect that a contravention of law has occurred before they may lawfully search an electronic device. Such legislation would provide legal clarity and transparency to Canadians while also giving existing policy the force of law. It would also support the recognition by the Supreme Court of Canada that the search of electronic devices is an extremely privacy-intrusive procedure.

Finally, I have just two short points. The first is about solicitor-client privilege. This is a matter that the Canadian Bar Association flagged for the committee on public safety, and it applies to ordinary border crossings as well as preclearance areas. Neither we nor the CBA can tell whether Canada has a defined policy about claims of privilege over documents or electronic records on our digital devices. As this privilege is fundamental to our legal system, we want the government to shape a policy that recognizes solicitor-client privilege and entitles travellers to make this claim of privilege over physical or electronic information when they are crossing the border.

Secondly, we'd like to draw your attention to our recommendation to curtail the powers of U.S. officers to strip-search travellers in Canada under Bill C-23. Last month at the committee on public safety, we strenuously objected to conferring any power on U.S. preclearance officers to perform strip searches in preclearance zones in Canada. Under current law, a U.S. agent has no legal authority to strip-search anybody in Canada. If he or she has reasonable grounds to suspect that a strip search is necessary, a Canadian agent must agree that such grounds exist, and only then can they perform that search. We maintain that only Canadian officers should have the power to perform strip searches in Canada, and only in limited circumstances, according to law.

That concludes our prepared remarks. We look forward to your questions.

[Brenda McPhail, Director, Privacy, Technology and Surveillance Project, Canadian Civil Liberties Association]

Thank you very much to the committee for inviting the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to speak on this important topic.

The CCLA, as you know, is an independent national and non-governmental organization that has fought for civil liberties in Canada since 1964.

I'm going to focus on three topics today, the first at some length and the others very briefly. First is the need to update laws and policies regarding device searches at the border in a way that reflects the heightened privacy expectations that adhere to these devices. Second is the great need for public transparency and accountability regarding the way current laws are being interpreted at the border, and the policies and procedures in place regarding particularly privacy-invasive searches, and, very briefly, the need to ensure that the new preclearance act, Bill C-23, maintains or enhances privacy protections for Canadians and travellers on Canadian soil and does not diminish them.

I'm not going to speak at any length to President Trump's executive order excluding non-U.S. citizens from privacy protections under the U.S. Privacy Act, but I do want to just note that CCLA agrees with the concerns reflected in the Privacy Commissioner's letter of March 8, and we share his call to our government to ask the United States for improved privacy protection for Canadians under that act.

This study is both timely and extremely badly needed in light of the stories we've all heard about individuals facing intrusive and humiliating questions about religious faith, ethnic origins, sexuality, and political beliefs at both sides of the border, Canadian and American, and conversely the rhetoric we're hearing about extreme vetting that plays on pervasive fear of terror and “the other”.

I'm going to speak about law in principle for the most part, but I want to stress at the outset that the reason we need to think long and hard about how to improve privacy at the border has to do with the cost to individuals and to public trust from failing to do so.

The CCLA runs a public inquiry line, and on that line border questions have increased dramatically in the last six months. We've had calls from Muslims and Christians, and men and women of different skin colours and different sexual orientations, and they're all afraid of the same thing. They're afraid they are going to be subjected to privacy-invasive searches or questions when they cross the border. Some of them are afraid to travel at all.

We can't do much about how Canadians are treated at the United States border, but we can and we must address the problems that exist at our own. I would go further and suggest that the time is right for Canada to take a global leadership position regarding rights respecting border security laws, policies, and practices.

It is widely believed that borders are special zones in which privacy rights are reduced because of the compelling duty to protect state sovereignty and the populace. We don't disagree with that duty or with the need for effective border security that follows from it, but it is important to note that “reduced” expectations of privacy cannot and should not ever mean “non-existent”, and we argue that to be genuinely effective in the best sense, security must be both rigorous and rights-respecting in equal measure.

This is particularly true in relation to searches of electronic devices, including cellphones, laptops and wearables. We're living in a world where the tools that we increasingly use to navigate our daily lives, sometimes by design and often by default, contain, create, and connect information about us that is profoundly personal and sensitive. We have to quit trying to fit these technologies into a legal and regulatory structure created at a time when both these devices and the quantity and quality of information they can contain was inconceivable.

I know this committee has heard very similar variations on this theme in relation to its studies of the Privacy Act and PIPEDA, and it is similarly and urgently relevant here for this study.

I would argue that it is entirely possible for us to do better. When it comes to law enforcement outside the border context, we are actually in a small way starting to figure out how to address dealing with these devices, the information they store, and the potential for even seemingly insubstantial bits of information to have privacy implications. It's a work that's still very much in progress, but there has arguably been some advancement. In particular, we've recognized that the privacy-invasiveness of an electronic device search requires a clear framework under domestic law to ensure that the search itself is reasonable, that it's conducted in a reasonable manner, and that it's otherwise charter-compliant, usually by requiring prior judicial authorization—a warrant—and adequate grounds on which to base the search.

There is no compelling reason why we can't develop clear laws that allow us to do the same at the border, even taking into account its unique context. The current practice of CBSA is not sufficient. CBSA agents conduct warrantless searches of electronic devices with no defined threshold for grounds, based on largely unexplained interpretations of legislation that originally meant to apply to carriages and cars and boxes and bags. Nor has the manner of such searches yet faced a meaningful public or judicial scrutiny.

Information that is collected from devices searched or detained by CBSA is taken without public knowledge about what it will be used for; whether, how, or for how long it will be retained; and whether, how, or with whom it could be shared. Many individuals, from members of the business community to journalists, researchers, doctors, and lawyers, also have professional obligations to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of their data. The present law is entirely unequipped to deal with that reality.

There are also current constitutional challenges coming forward in the lower courts relating to device searches. While the trend up until now seems to have been to settle and make them go away, at some point these questions will have to be dealt with in the court. They should be dealt with, I would argue, by our lawmakers. It's long past time we updated the Customs Act and other legislation that applies in the border context to recognize the distinction between a bagful of underwear and a device that contains or provides access to our most intimate, personal conversations, our political musings and affiliations, our religious faith, our financial records, our commercial secrets, our health information, and many more types of information.

We also have to note in this context that certain groups—for instance, Muslim individuals, or individuals perceived to be Muslim, which are not always the same thing—have demonstrably been subject to greater scrutiny at the border, perhaps even more so since the U.S. executive order popularly known as the “Muslim travel ban”. Any measure that gives border officials powers to conduct invasive searches or that allows for continued ambiguity, uncertainty, and unchecked discretion in these matters runs the risk of disproportionately affecting these groups.

It's also impossible to talk about device searches without at least touching on related topics of compelled password disclosure and forced access to social media credentials. These practices truly highlight the illogic of treating electronic devices as equivalent to any other good that crosses the border. While it should remain within the purview of CBSA, of course, to detain devices, get a warrant, and conduct a forensic search on reasonable grounds, individuals shouldn't have an obligation to participate in that process.

We know from a 2015 interim document that was released via an access request that the CBSA believes it has the power to impose penalties on travellers who decline to provide a password for a given device. CCLA would argue that, at least in some cases, compelling that disclosure of a password that exists only in an individual's mind could interfere with the individual's charter rights to silence and against self-incrimination. This is in addition to the other privacy rights clearly at play.

Currently Canada doesn't ask for social media passwords or credentials that would allow them to access data stored remotely, and there's no legislative authority that would justify such a request. We simply want to warn against ever moving in that direction, because it would be both ineffective and likely to raise serious constitutional issues.

Social media is a place where people can and do play with identity, which would render the information profoundly unreliable. Of course we know—social science tells us—that people who think they're being watched change the way they behave and the materials they feel free to look at and explore and learn from and study. This means that such scrutiny could also have a profoundly chilling effect on other fundamental freedoms that we value, including freedom of association and freedom of expression.

The second topic I'd like to mention very briefly is the need for greater public transparency and accountability in the way in which our current laws, including the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, are being interpreted at the border, especially as they pertain to privacy-invasive searches and questions. I mentioned that we have access to a small number of policy documents. They actually reside on the website of our friend the BCCLA. However, a couple of documents received from an access request in 2015 hardly fulfills the requirement for public accountability or transparency. We don't even know if they're complete, accurate, or up to date. In contrast, if we look at our neighbours to the south, they actually have proactively published their policy documents about this kind of search, a privacy impact study that they conducted, and statistics regarding the electronic searches they conduct. There's no reason we can't do the same.

For an ordinary person at a Canadian border, it's difficult, even impossible, to evaluate whether the way a search has taken place meets constitutional standards. In other words, those scared people I was talking about at the beginning have no way to figure out if the way they're being treated at the border is lawful and fair if they have no access to the policies and procedures that are supposed to have been followed. Of course, with no independent oversight of CBSA, although there is hope that this will change, it's extremely hard to seek recourse.

In my last six seconds, I'll ask you to please take a look at Bill C-23 for its privacy implications, particularly in regard to the ability of American officers to perform strip searches if a Canadian officer declines to do so. It opens up a very dangerous territory. Borders require special consideration not just because they're zones where we need security, but also because they're the first place where people coming into Canada interact with what we hope is a free and democratic country. We need to show them who we are by making sure that our policies and laws at the border reflect our values.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I believe that comes to the end of our agenda today. We have now disposed of Bill C-23, and I thank the committee.

I thank especially the officials. It has been a long meeting, and I thank you for your assistance in helping us tonight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We'll have a recorded vote. Shall the bill as amended carry?

(Bill C-23 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

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

Thank you.

Having prepared this amendment without knowing there would be LIB-10, I have to say that I am very heartened to see that there is such a similar amendment coming from the government benches. Mine is a bit more detailed, but essentially we are talking about a statutory review of Bill C-23.

The clauses that I have are slightly more prescriptive in that every five years, after coming into force, the minister will have an independent review. That part is very similar. The parts with regard to the provisions and administration of the act as well as causing the report to be laid before the House are also very similar to the Liberal amendment. The data in the report would include the exercise of statutory powers under this act in the pre-clearance areas, and there would also be an annual report to Parliament about this act.

So the amendments are similar, and I'm certain.... I shouldn't be so certain, but perhaps everyone will decide

that amendment PV-12 is preferable to amendment LIB-10, but I am really pleased to read amendment LIB-10.

I would now prepare for any questions or comments on amendment PV-12. This is the last of my amendments.

Again, I'm here under protest, but that doesn't mean I'm not grateful to you each personally.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the amendment. I would even say this matter should be debated in the house separately from Bill C-23. As both my colleague and I have mentioned this evening, despite the fact that there are ministerial directions for the agency, the reality of cell phones is rapidly evolving.

Unless I am mistaken, apart from a recent decision concerning the young man who landed in Halifax, the case law is silent on the subject. Consequently, the matter seems to merit a great deal more study, and I would even say a legislative update, which goes even further.

I support this amendment. I think it would be valid beyond Bill C-23.

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

It's a bit different, Mr. Chair. As a matter of fact, it's entirely different.

We're still in the clause on seizure and forfeiture, but we're dropping out of the issue of goods that are seized and forfeited.

Again, the Canadian Bar Association recommended—and we certainly had this issue already arise—that, if there is a decision by pre-clearance officers to confiscate or cancel a NEXUS card in a pre-clearance area, it should be reviewable.

The purpose of the amendment is that “The Canadian Border Services Agency may review any decision by a preclearance officer to seize or cancel a traveller's membership card in a program for pre-approved, low-risk travellers...”. I don't name it in here because other programs may develop that are along similar lines.

We have seen challenges by the Trump administration to NEXUS cards carried by travellers. Given that this piece of legislation, Bill C-23, is going to largely govern what happens when travellers from Canada try to enter the U.S., we want to make sure that there is a reviewable decision for any decision made by a U.S. pre-clearance officer.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)), Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I will call us back to order and first give my apologies to the officials and our many guests out there who have been waiting for us during the other piece of business that we had to accomplish today.

Thank you to the officials for attending. Obviously you don't have statements, but you're here to address any questions the committee members might have as we consider the over 30 amendments to Bill C-23.

We've been through clause-by-clause a few times now, members, and I'm getting better at it. You're already good at it.

We'll begin. As usual, I'm going to be suggesting that we start with clause 2 of the bill and end our consideration by going back to clause 1, which is the short title of the bill.

(On clause 2)

With respect to clause 2, there are two amendments being suggested: LIB-1 and LIB-2. However, I want to draw to the attention of the committee that LIB-3, which is on page 3, and LIB-5, which is an amendment to page 5, are consequential to LIB-1 being adopted. Therefore, the vote on LIB-1 will apply to amendments LIB-3 and LIB-5 as being necessary consequentially from the adoption of LIB-1.

Would someone like to move the first amendment?

Ms. Damoff.

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

Thank you.

To date, we haven't heard a concrete answer to my next question. In the context of Bill C-23, the issue of training for American officers was raised. The department said that, for example, your agency could handle part of the training for American officers to make sure they comply with Canadian laws. There was even talk of certain social and cultural issues that could be raised with regard to their work.

Will this require additional resources? Given the fairly significant expansion of the customs preclearance program, are you able to accomplish this task?

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, for once, I am without words in this place. We should probably rise after that eloquent advice and address from the member for Scarborough—Agincourt, but I know he would want our parliamentary democracy and the wheels to continue. I would remind him, in a friendly way, that I was very much correct when I was in Vulcan.

I should add that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

With the current plan of the Liberal government, high taxes, high deficit, high debt, a war on resource-based jobs that are considered second-class, it would look like we are not en route to live long and prosper, as I joked with my friend from Scarborough—Agincourt that day in Vulcan.

That underpins why we are debating this today. It is a very cogent motion from my good friend, the MP for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, with a list of issues that show how in a year and a half our economy has been set back. In many ways the phrase “Canada is back” now means back into deficit, back into debt, back into higher Liberal taxes, back into cutting the military although suggesting at some magical point in the future the Liberals will put more money into it.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has put in a number of items that we should be mindful of as we debate the economy.

The first is the deficit. We know when a government runs a deficit, that means one of two things. Either it will have to cut spending at some point in the future, cut programs, or it will have to raise taxes. Many economists look at deficits as deferred taxes.

When the Prime Minister was the leader of the third party, he said Canada was in a recession and they needed infrastructure jobs. Therefore, he promised he would run a modest deficit, never to exceed $10 billion. He broke that promise within three months of becoming prime minister. In fact, the Liberal government could only dream of deficits in the $10 billion range. The Liberals' last budget tabled a $28.5 billion deficit, while at the same time raising taxes.

Not only is the deficit a sign that there are more tax increases to come, the Liberal government set on an unparalleled course of raising taxes on families, on seniors by reducing the TFSA eligibility, on employers through the CPP payroll tax, through rolling back the planned reduction to small business. Now with the nationalized carbon tax, it has literally taxed every group and mode of economic activity.

As we joked recently about the Liberals' Saturday night budget tax, they are taxing beer, wine, and an Uber ride home. Therefore, on the so-called sharing economy, they are even taxing sharing. That I guess is sunny ways: broken promises on the deficit and taxes as far as the eye can see of all flavours and stripes.

I would remind the Minister of Public Safety, who has been here for many years, what he said when he criticized the last government. He said:

Does the minister take satisfaction in that debt number? Why, in arriving at that sorry position, did his government put our country into deficit again, before the recession occurred? It was not because of the recession. It was before the recession. That is when they blew the fiscal framework.

Despite the third party leader's claims during the 2015 election, there was no recession. There was no need to run an even modest $10 billion deficit. However, with their reckless spending, the Liberals are running $28.5 billion in deficit, with no discernible impact on jobs from infrastructure and with capital in the resource economy and in manufacturing. Just a few weeks ago, we saw Procter & Gamble Brockville fleeing our country because of the high tax, high regulatory regime.

It is an astounding record. That is why my friend from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman brought this to the floor of the House of Commons. The most important issue facing a family is whether there is a job for mom and dad if they want to work. Do they have that opportunity? They do not with the Liberal government, which has set out to have classes of jobs. IT and technology jobs seem to be acceptable to the government, yet resource-based jobs, softwood lumber jobs, or jobs in the fishing economy in Atlantic Canada somehow appear secondary to these cluster-based concepts it is going after.

Nothing shows this more than the most recent addition to our cabinet, the member for Burlington. Before getting into politics, she suggested we should close the oil sands, a comment that even the Prime Minister has let slip out from time to time. The government feels that the single largest contributor to our GDP, to the economy, to health care, to the programs we have, should be closed, like a turnkey solution, and maybe those people can get jobs in the so-called infrastructure bank, or the office towers of bureaucrats that the government is hiring. Maybe they can look at the 147 government programs on innovation to find a job that is acceptable to the government. Clearly getting one's hands dirty bringing product out of the ground and getting royalties for Canadians seems somehow secondary to the government.

I sat in the House when President Obama addressed us. The Prime Minister embarrassed us that day when he said that we were here to see a bromance in action. Frankly, I was embarrassed that our Prime Minister said that in the chamber while introducing the then President of the United States.

What did that bromance get us? President Obama cancelled Keystone XL. He would not finalize the softwood lumber agreement with his bromance dudeplomacy pal. He would not give us a good border deal. Bill C-23 gives the Americans a lot of benefit on Canadian soil and gives us nothing. It will not even remove the marijuana question from the preclearance screening to enter the United States at a time when the government is legalizing marijuana. It was a one-way deal. The Americans got everything and the Liberal government got a state dinner with seats for family and friends. That is not a win. That is not negotiating in our interests.

As my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman reminded the House, it was the Conservative government that negotiated a deal on softwood, that gave certainty to 1,100 workers, who are now likely going to lose their job in the next few months, and gave $300-plus million in economic activity, which is now lost. The Liberals have gone nowhere, even when they had this bromance with President Obama. When the Prime Minister had dinner with Mr. Obama in Montreal last week, I hope Mr. Obama picked up the cheque.

We literally have seen nothing from the government when it comes to the American relationship, which is an important one. Now the government, with its motions on the fly, and making up foreign and defence policies on the fly, seems to think its job is to be the global opposition leader to President Trump. Its job is to help Canada. Its job is to create jobs for families in western Canada, in southern Ontario, in Atlantic Canada, and in our north.

The Prime Minister has been all around the world, yet he has not been to Yukon. That is an embarrassment. It seems the government views resource jobs in our north and western Canada as second class. I was so proud that my first real job as a young person was working for TransCanada, inspecting the pipeline that runs through the Belleville to Ottawa area, which is the safest way to transit our resources to market. However, the government will poll an issue before it will determine what is in our country's best interest. It will ask foreign leaders what it should do. It will give our money to other countries' green programs, while our resource economy is hurting.

When I was in Calgary months ago, I was in line at McDonald's for a coffee and a mother behind us said to her sons, “You'll have to change your order because mommy lost her job and we're going to have to make some changes.” There have been thousands of stories like that in Alberta, and people have heard nothing from the Liberal government.

In fact, with its antithetical approach to our U.S. ally, we are going to increasingly be talking about multilateralism but are going to be closed off from economic, trade, security, and defence opportunities. This motion is reminding Canadians that the failures of the Liberal government on the economy are profound, and we need to turn it around.

[Yves Côté]

As you said earlier, since Bill C-23 was passed, we have been an entity within the office of the director of public prosecutions. Officially and legally, we have been removed from the CEO's organization.

In my opinion, things are going quite well on the whole. They are going very well in fact. For the CEO and for us, however, it is difficult for technical reasons to share information more quickly, since we are now officially part of two different government institutions. Certain rules apply, which makes things a little more difficult.

That said, you probably know that the government has introduced Bill C-33 and that, if it is passed in its current form, it would return us to the CEO's office.

I would also note, importantly, that since we arrived at the office of the director of public prosecutions, this office has provide exemplary service and support in all respects, as was the case when we were part of Elections Canada.