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 Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Do I suspect we'll have the same ability to get through C-23 next week?

Cannabis Act

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friends on this side of the House, although I did not hear any applause on the other side of the House. I know I am standing in the way of the House leader introducing another closure motion, so I am going to use my time judiciously.

As I said last night, the record of incompetence of the government is truly astounding. Only 19 bills have reached royal assent, yet it has now used closure 25 times. The Liberals have limited debate more than they have passed legislation in this House. This is setting records in our parliamentary democracy.

What I said is that this is actually a good thing, because if we look at the government's economic performance in taking Canada from a $1-billion surplus to an almost $30-billion structural deficit, we see that even though it raised taxes on people, on job creators, on small businesses, on payroll, on carbon tax, on excise tax, on the sharing economy, on beer, and on wine, it still cannot balance the budget.

Perhaps I should take it as a blessing that the Liberals have only been able to get 19 pieces of legislation through this House. Our country could potentially be in ruins if they were a little more ambitious in Parliament.

I am going to speak tonight, late at night, on the tyranny of the progressives. That is what we see with the government. It has an attitude that it knows what is best for us. If we dare criticize what it is doing, we are not supporting Canada's future, or if it does disagree with our position, it simply says we do not understand. It is a put-down to debate in this House.

I have listened to the standard speeches talking about organized crime and providing ridiculous arguments. We have tobacco, and organized crime is still involved in contraband tobacco, so I am shocked that the member for Scarborough Southwest and other members in the Liberal caucus would suggest that once this bill has passed, suddenly organized crime will not have any role in the sale of cannabis. These arguments are actually detracting from a serious debate on this issue.

Last night I spoke a little about my friend the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, the member for Winnipeg North. He has given us a treasure trove of quotes, because he used to stand in this place with outrage any time there was an omnibus bill or closure was used. Now he is the quarterback for the government House leader. That gives me a treasure trove of hubris, as I called it last night.

This bill is the biggest example of how the government seems to have forgotten one of its old siren calls, “evidence-based decision-making”. Do members remember, in the last Parliament, how they rallied around that as the third party?

Let me remind my friend from Winnipeg North what he said in 2012:

Good government policy is made when you have evidence-based policy decisions.

What did the Treasury Board secretary, who was then in opposition, say? He even turned a witty phrase on it. On a public health issue, he said:

There was a time when governments were guided by evidence-based decision-making; this government seems to be guided by decision-based evidence-making.

That is what I just sat through in this rushed debate on marijuana. The government is failing with this legislation on a public health front, on a public safety front, and on the mobility of our citizens with Bill C-23, which I think is the example of the biggest act of incompetence of the government that I have seen in my time in office.

The Liberals have negotiated a bill on preclearance at customs. They are giving immigration and customs enforcement officials from the United States the ability to search Canadians on Canadian soil, yet our government, the Liberal government, could not even get one simple preclearance question taken out of the U.S. repertoire: “Have you ever used marijuana?” If a Canadian says yes, they can be banned from travelling to the United States.

When the government had its state dinner, when the Prime Minister was so busy bringing his family and the public safety minister was so gosh-darned excited to get a tour of the Oval Office, the Liberals negotiated the most one-sided preclearance customs deal in the history of this country.

The Liberals are legalizing marijuana, yet they can not even ask the U.S. to remove that one question from pre-clearing. They are allowing the U.S. to come on our soil and search and interrogate our citizens. If that is not the biggest example of failure of the interests of Canadians in an international treaty, I do not know what is.

I will also speak about the other two fronts, public health and public safety. Perhaps the best quote is the editorial by the Canadian Medical Association, which condemns the bill. Its editorial, which was released a few weeks ago, said:

The purported purpose of the act is to protect public health and safety, yet some of the act’s provisions appear starkly at odds with this objective, particularly for Canada’s youth.

Simply put, cannabis should not be used by young people. It is toxic to their cortical neuronal networks, with both functional and structural changes seen in the brains of youth who use cannabis regularly.

That is an evidence-based opinion of cannabis doctors.

In recent weeks, Quebec and Manitoba have asked the government to slow down. There is no ability to ensure youth are protected right now in provincial regimes. There is no court approved test for roadside impairment from THC. Law enforcement is not ready and is asking the Liberals to stop. Our physicians are asking them to stop. However, once again, it is the tyranny of the progressives; they know what is better.

How dare we disagree? In fact, the Liberals are limiting debate on this again. How dare we share some of the concerns that families have about exposure of marijuana to their children. We know it harms IQ development. It can harm brain size development. The government likes to quote Colorado's example. Colorado is using 21 and is already experiencing incredible problems, where young children are seeing edibles in households and are being rushed to emergency rooms.

The Canadian Medical Association also decries the use of home-based growing, where the THC, the medicinal benefit, is not secured and rates of use can skyrocket. Organized crime can infiltrate this home-based portion of this legislation.

We have a government that made a promise when its leader was the third party leader, with no sound evidence behind implementing the promise, in full knowledge of the fact it would violate international treaties and, I hope, with some knowledge of the fact that they would limit the mobility rights of Canadians who wanted to travel to the United States. If they say they have used marijuana, they can be banned from travel.

Since I was in high school, when Mothers Against Drunk Driving was set up some 30 years ago, we have been fighting alcohol impairment. Law enforcement has been on the front lines of that. We do not have reliable measures and law enforcement has said it is not ready for the increase in impairment in cannabis it will see. The government is not only rushing this through blindly, but it is disregarding the opinions of our physicians and the positions of law enforcement, including the chiefs of police of Canada, of which the parliamentary secretary used to be a member. It is also disregarding provincial partners.

As a lawyer, as a dad, I want to know that we are debating these serious issues completely in the House, relying on evidence-based decision-making. When our physicians and others are telling us to slow down, we should listen. The Liberals used closure on the assisted dying bill. In The Globe and Mail on the weekend, I saw how the Canadian Medical Association and doctors across the country were having trouble interpreting that law. The Liberals are rushing out of this sense that they know better for Canadians. It is a condescension toward our parliamentary democracy that is unparalleled. All we are asking for is a little more debate. All we are asking for is evidence-based decision-making, but we are still waiting.

Privacy

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23 does not provide U.S. preclearance officers with any electronic search authority that does not already exist. What Bill C-23 does provide is the umbrella of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is not available when customs procedures take place only after one arrives at a destination point in the United States. Obviously, Canadians are better off with Bill C-23.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is not much use for LinkedIn when one can just get on the Liberal donor list, because that clearly seems to be the way in.

A letter from the Privacy Commissioner outlines his concerns about the powers granted to the Americans under Bill C-23. Despite the minister’s assurances, Canadians who will be intimidated or subjected to invasive searches by American border guards will not be able to pursue civil action. This grants American officers immunity on Canadian soil.

With Trump flirting with the idea of searching cellphones at the border, when will the Liberals finally reconsider this legislation and once and for all stand up for Canadians' rights?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

On a different issue, there's Bill C-23, the agreement on land, rail, and marine transport. As we know, 12 million passengers are pre-cleared before going to the U.S. every year. Do you think the proposed bill would extend the system to other modes of Canadian transportation? Are you familiar with the bill?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I think it's fair to say as a general proposition, the logic is overwhelmingly in favour of pre-clearance, certainly from an economic perspective. I think the cases that are giving us cause for a closer look are statistically very few.

Did your membership raise any concerns with respect to what law should apply, what rights people should have when they're pre-cleared, any of the legal framework embedded in Bill C-23, either on the U.S. side or Canadian side?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thanks very much. That's very helpful.

How do you engage with your membership on a legislative proposal such as Bill C-23? Do you have a mechanism to reach out and to solicit views, or do they just come to you saying here's what we want you to do?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

My kids are very mad at you. Actually, they're running rampant right now, so probably they're happy that I'm here. Anyway, it's a pleasure to be with you.

After years of quietly existing in relative obscurity, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and particularly its renegotiation, are now big news. What will remain intact? What will be scrapped? How fast will we get a new deal? Could dairy and lumber sink NAFTA? What about protections for intellectual property?

Apart from NAFTA, there's another critical piece in how the United States and Canada do business, and that's border management. Obviously, I don't have to tell any of you everything I'm about to say, but it's for the benefit of the record so you know precisely where the Canadian American Business Council lands on these issues.

The border is where many Canadian and American business travellers, in particular, get up close and personal with NAFTA. Fees are collected. Shipments are inspected for compliance. Those trying to work or do business stateside can be held up depending on whether they qualify for appropriate NAFTA work visas.

Indeed, the work of government agencies on both sides of the border to manage our shared boundary is nearly as important to the health of our integrated economies, to the viability of our businesses, and even to the quality of life of those living near the border as is the implementation or renegotiation of any particular trade agreement.

Canada and the United States have had various forms of border pre-clearance, as this committee knows very well, since the 1950s. By way of definition, pre-clearance allows Canadians to be screened and given the green light by American officials for immigration, customs, and agricultural purposes before entering the United States and while still on Canadian soil. In recent years, there's been real progress in moving the screening away from the actual border and to pre-screening facilities in airports at Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Winnipeg. In practical terms—and again, I feel a little funny as I'm defining this for you, because I know this committee knows these things very well, but again for the purpose of the record so you know where we are—pre-clearance means air travellers can breeze through any American airport as if they're domestic passengers with no need to go through customs once they've landed in the United States. That opens up flight routes to any town that has a commercial airport, rather than limiting them to major cities with built-in U.S. customs facilities. Many communities in the United States don't have U.S. customs and border patrol at their airport, so they're not available for international flight routes. Any Canadian who's landed at JFK Airport or O'Hare and stood in long lines behind travellers from far-flung places appreciates the efficiency and the convenience of pre-clearance.

At its core, the practice of pre-clearance serves two significant policy goals. It helps Canadian and U.S. officials zero in on potentially bad actors and dangerous or illegal goods while at the same time making it easier for upstanding citizens and legitimate commerce to cross the border with relative ease and minimal hassle. I would add here that the former U.S. CBP official Alan Bersin—and I don't know whether he's testified before you or not—talked about operations at our border being like looking for a needle in a haystack. Pre-clearance is something that, in his terms, makes the haystack smaller, enhances security, and helps ease commerce.

Despite 50 years of pre-clearance measures at the border, however, everything changed after the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001. The U.S. and Canada understandably beefed up security at the border, and the boundaries subsequently became mired in congestion, delays, and hassles for those doing business or travelling frequently between our two countries.

On a personal note, it was in 2001 that I first became engaged with the Canadian American Business Council, which was, until then, kind of a lunch club in Washington for expats. After 9/11, when the border basically came to a close for commerce, the board of directors said, “You know, we really need to communicate to policy members how important for our economic security and health this border really is.” That's when I got involved with this particular organization in 2001, after having served four years here at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, which was the honour of my lifetime.

Canada began to complain. Inefficiencies at the border, after all, have a disproportionate impact on the Canadian economy, and for more than a decade a frustrated Canada pushed the U.S. to co-operate on initiatives aimed at fixing what had become a woefully inefficient boundary. The U.S., however, balked until, this committee will remember, in 2011, when a border vision was announced between then Prime Minister Harper and his counterpart, President Obama, followed by the 2015 signing of an updated and expanded pre-clearance agreement.

Your colleague and I were at the signing in Washington with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Canadian counterparts back in 2015.

But there's been an odd reversal of fortunes recently. The enabling legislation for the Harper-Obama pre-clearance agreement easily passed both chambers of Congress late last year, and now Americans are intently waiting for Canadians to enact their own pre-clearance companion law. This is interesting and ironic when you consider how utterly slow and dysfunctional the U.S. congressional system is. Usually Canada's parliamentary process is much more efficient, but not so on this particular issue at the moment.

Canada's Bill C-23 would implement the 2015 border pact. It was introduced, as you all know well, in June 2016 and is working its way through the process. The legislation, when passed, will expand the number of pre-clearance locations at airports and various other land, rail, and marine crossings, including Montreal's central train station.

For Canadian citizens, regardless of nationality, there are myriad advantages to pre-clearance. They'll be able to get all customs, immigration, and agriculture processes out of the way before they board planes or cross the border on Canadian soil, consistent with Canadian law and Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In order to comply with the new agreement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials needed clear legal authority to question and search those in pre-clearance areas seeking to enter the United States, and Canadian border officials operating in pre-clearance areas in the U.S. would get the equivalent powers. It is not a one-way street but a truly reciprocal initiative.

As an aside—and I think you heard about this earlier today and you probably know—Canada has not exercised its prerogative to open pre-clearance facilities in the U.S. in the air environment but may wish to do so in years to come. I know that Canadian snowbirds who spend their winters in Arizona or Florida would welcome the opportunity to pre-clear customs before returning home.

Canada agreed that it was a fair trade-off that would give Canadians and Canadian businesses easier access to the U.S., and at long last we had a deal to create an efficient border. Yet we're still waiting—I say with the utmost respect—for Canadian Parliament to make the pre-clearance deal come to life. In our opinion, it is time to speed up the process and get people moving for the benefit of both Canada and the United States and for the health of our deeply integrated economies.

Thank you so very much.

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

I had another question for you, but we seem to be having a bit of an audio issue, so I might turn back to the airport folks.

I wonder if you could speak about the economic benefits of having and expanding pre-clearance in Bill C-23.

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

That's okay.

You mentioned something about having greater control under the new legislation, Bill C-23. Could you expand a little more on what you mean by that?

[Janik Reigate, Director, Customer and Agency Development, Greater Toronto Airports Authority]

Thank you, Daniel.

I'm Janik Reigate, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority director of customer and agency development. My role is in-terminal based, with responsibility for our relationships with our airline partners and government agencies such as the Canada Border Services Agency and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. These agencies are integral to the pre-clearance legislation we're discussing here today.

In my 20 years plus of working at Toronto Pearson, I have seen the airport grow exponentially, mostly as a result of air travel becoming the preferred method of travel for so many people, whether it be for work or for leisure. Since the last update to pre-clearance legislation, Toronto Pearson now serves an additional 16 million passengers annually. When you're serving 47 million passengers, as we will in 2017, connectivity is essential to success in Canada's globally integrated economy.

Airports are strategic economic infrastructure assets, and every new international air link creates new opportunities for trade in the Canadian regions they serve and also hundreds of direct jobs. Pre-clearance from Toronto Pearson allows the airport to provide 223 daily U.S.-bound flights to 56 U.S. cities, facilitating trade and tourism on a scale otherwise impossible.

As Daniel noted earlier, Toronto Pearson was the first Canadian airport to have pre-clearance, and it has become an integral part of our operations. Over the 65-year history of pre-clearance at Toronto Pearson, we have become the fourth-largest air entry-point into the United States, after the JFK, Miami, and Los Angeles airports. Last year alone, six million people were pre-cleared at Toronto Pearson.

Perhaps this is a good segue to speak about why Toronto Pearson supports Bill C-23. Overall, the bill offers tremendous customer service benefits for business and leisure travellers. It supports economic benefits for tourism, trade, and overall business productivity. For example, it allows for the ability to pre-clear cargo, improving the flow of goods.

Bill C-23 modernizes and expands the current pre-clearance agreement with the United States. I was heartened by Minister Goodale's comments at this committee on May 8 regarding the use of automated passport control kiosks and mobile passport control applications. Allowing the use of technology outside of pre-clearance areas will be vitally important in how we meet the expectations of an increasing number of passengers in a secure and efficient way. We thank the minister for his clarity on this issue.

I want to pause here. As the number of passengers continues to increase, it is important that that we find a way to ensure that growth is paid for, so that we can continue to provide travellers with a better level of service, which is in line with this government's focus on a positive passenger experience. I know that this conversation is currently taking place binationally between Canada and U.S. government representatives, and this is something that we at Toronto Pearson are closely monitoring.

Both Daniel and I spoke earlier about the growth that the aviation sector has seen in the past few years and decades. This is no doubt good for Canada; however, the increase in passenger traffic has put a strain on resources.

In the last five years, we have seen a 30% growth in pre-cleared passenger volumes served by our facilities: Vancouver experienced 28% growth; Montreal–Trudeau 20%; and Calgary 16%. For these airports and others in Canada that already have pre-clearance, Bill C-23 provides greater control and flexibility in how services are provided and paid for. At Toronto Pearson, we hope it will enable us to partner with the U.S. CBP to invest in more CBP staff or extend operating hours to allow for greater flexibility in matching resources to demand.

Right now, some airports are finding that they're constrained in their ability to grow because airlines are moving flights to airports with longer hours of U.S. customs operations. Some airports have indicated that in-transit pre-clearance is not available to several international carriers, which is hurting connectivity.

As you know, Bill C-23 contains a provision that supports the expansion of pre-clearance to other airports. This means that growing and evolving airports such as the Quebec City and Billy Bishop airports may enter into agreements with the U.S. for pre-clearance services. We are supportive of pre-clearance expansion. I understand that the Billy Bishop airport has already started construction on its new facility space. We will want to ensure that any new pre-clearance locations do not draw precious staff and resources away from existing locations.

Bill C-23 in its current form has many distinct advantages, particularly in attracting air service and offering enhanced connectivity in a globally competitive marketplace. In addition, the bill expands pre-clearance to other modes of travel, such as marine or rail, which improves the movement of goods to airports.

We at Toronto Pearson are confident that Bill C-23 will support the pre-clearance process in place, reinforcing a strong foundation and guiding principles for pre-clearance in both Canada and the United States.

Thank you.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch, President, Canadian Airports Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to present on this important piece of legislation, Bill C-23, the preclearance act.

My name is Daniel-Robert Gooch. I'm the president of the Canadian Airports Council. I'll be sharing my time today with Janik Reigate, director of customer and agency development at the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which operates Toronto Pearson.

The Canadian Airports Council has 51 members representing over 100 airports across Canada. Its members include major international hubs, such as Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto and Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport in Montreal; medium-sized airports, such as Fredericton International Airport and Fort McMurray International Airport; and smaller airports, such as North Bay Airport or Trail Regional Airport, in British Columbia. Our members handle over 90% of commercial air traffic in Canada, and an even greater share of international air traffic.

Canada's airports are managed and operated by local authorities, and they operate on a not-for-profit basis. While they pay more than $439 million in property and land taxes each year to federal and municipal governments, they have invested more than $22 billion in infrastructure since 1992, without taxpayer support.

Serving as gateways to the world, Canada's airports are local and national economic engines. Canada's air transport sector generates more than 140,000 direct jobs and more than $35 billion in economic activity.

Canadian airports that connect communities, both at home and abroad, manage over 133 million passengers a year, including more than 9.8 million tourists who fly to Canada. We support both safe and economically sound airports, good value for money when it comes to user fees and public taxes, and more air connections between Canada and the rest of the world.

Canada and the U.S. have a long history of pre-clearance operations dating back 65 years. In 1952, Toronto's Malton Airport became the first in the world to provide facilities for United States border pre-clearance at the request of airlines in the United States. This was extended and formalized with the air transport Preclearance Act in 1974. That act was later updated in 2001.

Today, eight Canadian airports offer pre-clearance services, including Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal, and Halifax. In 2015, 12 million travellers from Canadian airports were pre-cleared to the United States.

Pre-clearance offers both Canada and the United States significant economic, national security, and efficiency benefits. It promotes and facilitates the cross-border flow of people, goods, and investments. As Canada's airports are vital links that enhance our economic relationship with the U.S., it is particularly important for the dozens of American cities whose airports do not have their own U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities.

Pre-clearance is a cost-efficient way for the United States to spend scarce resources and ensure direct services to more U.S. cities. According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's statistics, pre-clearance locations are 60% more efficient and cost 30% less than domestic ports of entry. Furthermore, each CBP officer stationed in Canada clears 30,000 passengers a year on average, a significantly higher rate of processing than in the United States.

Without pre-clearance, business and other travellers would be forced to connect through U.S. hubs that have a U.S. Customs and Border Protection presence, adding pressure to already overburdened airports in the U.S. and making travel to the U.S. more time-consuming and expensive for Canadian travellers.

Canada's airports look forward to working with the Government of Canada on the implementation of Bill C-23. We will continue to identify innovative processes that will improve the flow of goods and people across the border and increase the competitiveness of Canada's airports now and into the future.

Now I would like to turn over the rest of my time to my colleague, Ms. Reigate.

[Robert Ashton, President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada]

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada to participate in your important review of the pre-clearance act, 2016.

ILWU Canada represents about 6,000 women and men who work at marine transportation facilities on Canada's west coast. We are a vital component in the efficient movement of goods and people into and out of Canada via the ports and cruise ship terminals in British Columbia.

In the early 2000s, Transport Canada introduced the marine security clearance program. Since that time, to be employed as a longshore worker with access to restricted areas, including the high-security cruise ship facility, you must first obtain a security clearance from Transport Canada. This is a robust program that involves extensive background checks on applicants, including drawing on information supplied by U.S. authorities. The goal of the program is to prevent people with ties to criminal and/or terrorist organizations from having access to these important marine facilities.

This program has warts. A person can be refused a clearance on the simple basis of association. In other words, you can be refused a clearance if your brother-in-law or sister-in-law happens to have a criminal record. This is important context for your deliberations about Bill C-23.

For the record, I want to tell you that ILWU Canada supports the pre-clearance regime as it is today. Expanding it, as is, would reach the economic goals that the government has set for Bill C-23 without the significant problems that come with the new additions.

You have heard a great deal of testimony about the bill's potential impact on Canadian travellers. I want to make you familiar with an issue with Bill C-23 that I do not believe has been presented to your committee to date.

As you know, the bill is intended to establish the required authorities arising from the Land, Rail, Marine, and Air Transport Preclearance Agreement, otherwise known as LRMA, signed by Canada and the United States governments in March 2015. I would like to bring to your attention the negative effects that the bill will have on working Canadians, members of the middle class.

According to article VI, paragraph 1, of the LRMA, the people who work at the ports and cruise ship facilities in Vancouver, and possibly up and down the west coast, are covered by it.

We have been briefed by Transport Canada officials that once the LRMA is in force, Homeland Security in the United States will be given the opportunity to provide derogatory information, whatever that may be, on each employee requiring unescorted access to pre-clearance areas through normal employee security certification and recertification processes. As we understand, this information would be supplied directly to our employers, without any right to know it or to dispute it being afforded to the worker.

We are concerned that this process is separate from the existing security clearance process regulated by Transport Canada. The TC process includes provisions for reviewing decisions made regarding an individual's security status, and further provides judicial review by the Federal Court. Those safeguards do not appear in Bill C-23. In addition, the rules surrounding the provision of, again, derogatory information do not appear in the bill, and appear to be left to regulation, which would not be subject to scrutiny by this committee or Parliament.

The LRMA and Bill C-23 bestow upon U.S. border agents broad powers to search and detain workers in pre-clearance and perimeter areas, the same potential abuses that travellers could be subject to as well.

The BC Civil Liberties Association draws attention to the difficulties that this bill poses to a traveller seeking legal recourse, as pre-clearance officers are granted explicit immunities. The same difficulties will be experienced by port workers who are subject to this potential abuse.

We submit that no such power and immunity is appropriate and goes beyond what any Canadian worker could reasonably expect at his or her workplace. This concern is heightened by the fact that the pre-clearance perimeter could cover a significant area, thereby capturing a larger number of workers under the provisions of this bill.

A significant number of ILWU Canada members are of South Asian heritage. Many of them practice the Muslim faith. Our concerns, like those of the Canadian Bar Association, are magnified by the Trump administration and its extreme policies, such as banning people from certain countries that are predominantly Muslim from entering the United States.

In our view, Bill C-23 abrogates the government's responsibility to Canadian workers to ensure they are not subject to unfair or arbitrary actions on the part of pre-clearance officers. There is already a sophisticated security clearance process for vetting maritime workers, and that process will be undermined unless Bill C-23 is amended.

Bill C-23 should be amended to address these issues.

We also see inconsistencies in the bill. For example, clause 9 states:

For greater certainty, Canadian law applies, and may be administered and enforced, in preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters.

At the same time, clause 11 contains a much more definitive statement about the application of Canadian law, as follows:

A preclearance officer must exercise their powers and perform their duties and functions under this Act in accordance with Canadian law, including the

and it continues.

The bill should be amended to bring all of its provisions in line with clause 11.

In our view, with the abundance of municipal police and RCMP detachments in and around the Port of Vancouver and the cruise ship terminal, there is no need for border patrol officers to be armed, whether they be Canadian or, more especially, American.

We applaud the government for conducting its broad consultation with Canadians concerning national security.

I have another couple of concerns that I'll touch on, one being that American border guards will not be prosecuted in Canada if they violate any laws here. They'll be sent back home, and who knows what type of court system they'll be tried in?

A Canadian worker who wants to go to work on Canadian soil should never be subject to a foreign country's approval. These are Canadian workers who might not be able to work in Canada because of some derogatory comment that the United States government wishes to apply to us.

In closing, I believe this committee needs to implement the changes we've asked for so we can move forward with the expansion of our Canadian economy and the rights of Canadian workers as Canadians.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Just by way of announcement—and I was able to mention it to all three of the parties today—we had sent out a notice to say that the amendments were due today at five o'clock for the consideration of Bill C-23; however, I've had a request to have that extended because some are not quite ready yet. I've agreed to that, so we will extend this for another week, meaning that we will do clause-by-clause consideration some time in the near future. We have officials coming for supplementary estimates (A), and we have consideration of Bill C-23, which we may be able to juggle to do our consideration of clause-by-clause. I just wanted to let folks know that you now have a week to improve your amendments. You also then don't need to put your amendments in before we hear our witnesses, which I think is also better.

We continue now with the consideration of Bill C-23, and we have a number of guests with us today.

In the first hour we're going to hear from the Canadian Airports Council, Mr. Gooch, the president; the International Longshore & Warehouse Union of Canada, by video conference, with Mr. Ashton; and the GTAA, Ms. Reigate.

We'll have all the opening statements first, and then we'll have questions to any of the witnesses from committee members after the three statements.

If you're okay with this, I'd like to start with Mr. Ashton, because we have you connected. You have 10 minutes to give an opening statement.

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

I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is, shockingly, the 66th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We're called to order to consider Bill C-23, an act respecting the pre-clearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States.

However, I am always a little worried about the possibility of votes in the House, so before we do that I would like to get a piece of business done so we can get it out of the way.

You have in front of you the report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. I would entertain a motion to amend only one part of that seventh report. Instead of voting on the main estimates at the end of the meeting, I'd like to try to do that now in case there's a vote call or something, so we don't get into trouble on that.