Evidence of meeting #95 for International Trade in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Maninder Sidhu Liberal Brampton East, ON
I want to apologize to the witnesses here today.
Let's just go to a vote so we can hear from our witnesses.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I had my hand up.
I'd like to discuss this, if I could, and respond to my NDP colleague.
It is relevant to our committee, particularly for my riding, which depends on tourism. Tourism is an export industry.
In terms of the supply chain study that we're looking at, if we could examine, for instance, commercial traffic, about 76% of the commercial vehicles that cross our border cross at land border crossings. Four of the main bridges into the United States are located in Ontario, and two of the busiest are in my riding alone.
For example, when we look at supply chain issues, we were talking during the ArriveCAN implementation, and we were looking at bridge delays of over two hours for commercial vehicles. Business was interrupted. My hope is that we can look at this so that we can come forward with recommendations, examine the previous recommendations that we made and ensure that it doesn't happen again.
Tourism is an export industry. In 2019, for example, tourism was a $105-billion sector for the Canadian economy. Because of COVID, it shrank to $80 billion, Madam Chair.
In my community alone, $2.5 billion in tax receipts are generated because of the tourism sector. It employs 40,000 people alone. COVID and this government's reaction to it, through its fatally flawed ArriveCAN, put all of that at risk.
In fact, Madam Chair, if you look at the two years 2021 and 2022, we can say that tourism suffered because of COVID. The government's response in 2022 was horrific. They continued to stick to a fatally flawed ArriveCAN application when it wasn't required, and we lost a third tourism year.
The devastating results of that third tourism year were self-inflicted, and they were self-inflicted because of the actions of this government, which denied businesses—again, we're talking about an export industry—the right to operate, compete and generate the revenues they need to compete and succeed. We're starting to see tourism recovery happen only now, Madam Chair. That's beginning only now.
Again, in communities such as mine, American visitation is at 80%. Domestic visits, because my location is a rubber tire market, are quite strong, but the tourism recovery in this country is uneven.
We saw this past summer, in places like British Columbia and Quebec, that the tourism economy was hampered because of forest fires. It wasn't in communities such as mine, and we were lucky because of that, but it is an important aspect for us to consider and for us to study. I think including this as part of our supply chain study dovetails nicely.
As my colleague Mr. Seeback said, it not only dovetails nicely into our supply chain study, but it also speaks to and references issues with regard to CARM.
In the recent Auditor General's report, which was devastating, on the impact of this ArriveCAN app, the last recommendation was:
Prior to releasing an application or an update, the Canada Border Services Agency should carry out and document its testing, as well as document results obtained and any outstanding issues, on the basis of the defined roles and responsibilities. The agency should also obtain release approval.
Here's the response from the Canada Border Services Agency. We'll be following up when we do this CARM study, but I think it's important. Their response was that they agreed to this recommendation:
The Vice‑President, Information, Science and Technology Branch, recognizes that, given the constantly evolving pandemic environment and the requirement for 177 releases in 36 months, testing documentation was insufficient during ArriveCAN development. It was not feasible to complete all testing documentation as per existing procedures in this emergency environment.
A procedure for streamlined testing documentation will be developed and implemented that will increase agility in emergency situations while at the same time ensuring sufficient controls are in place to document testing results prior to release to production.
In addition, the Information, Science and Technology Branch will review and update existing testing procedures to ensure control steps are introduced and documentation is complete before any system or application is released to production.
These actions will be completed by June 2024.
Madam Chair, one aspect for serious consideration is that this CARM program is going to be implemented in May 2024, so it will be incumbent upon us in the next conversations that we have to ask government officials about their testing procedures. We're hearing significant stakeholder response saying that they're not ready to move forward with CARM.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Maninder Sidhu Liberal Brampton East, ON
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
Where's the relevance?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I'm getting to the supply chain.
Because of that, if they're not ready, what's going to happen at our border crossings? We're going to be seeing a supply chain issue that is unanticipated.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Maninder Sidhu Liberal Brampton East, ON
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
We want to be respectful to our witnesses. The member opposite said that we'd go to a vote. We want to go to a vote. Let's get to a vote, so that we can move on and hear from our witnesses here today.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I have the floor and can continue, and I will continue, Madam Chair, for as long as I can.
Again, this application had enormous impacts on my community. That's why I'm here.
Madam Chair, I first raised it on December 7, 2021, in a question I posed to the public safety minister in the House.
Let me read this into the record:
Mr. Speaker, as an MP with four border crossings in my riding, I can tell members that the ArriveCAN app has been a real mess. Take the example of Bernadette in my riding. She was forced into a 14-day quarantine when she is double vaccinated and had a booster. She is now receiving threatening phone calls harassing her to complete her testing requirements or face jail time and/or a $650,000 fine. She is 75 years old.
Madam Chair, 177 changes were required because of this application, and 10,000 people were forced into quarantine—and that was in June 2022. That doesn't even take into account what happened to poor Bernadette in my riding.
The issues were there, and this government was asleep at the switch. It didn't respond to the issues, going back to 2021, when we had issues. This, if I can remind everybody, was before all the issues were found with regard to contracting practices.
However, in the time available, I'm going to be getting to that.
When will the Liberal government fix the mess it created at the borders and rescind this unnecessary quarantine order against my constituent?
That was the last question I asked the government. That goes back to 2021. The sad reality is, Madam Chair, that the government took no steps to address the concerns that were being expressed on quarantine orders, border delays or the continuing escalating costs for an app that many were questioning the development of in the first place.
Sadly, this government could have taken action and taken action much sooner. On May 19, 2022, my colleague, the member for Thornhill, tabled an opposition motion in the House for debate.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Excuse me. Can I interrupt for just one second?
My sense is that if you're going to want to have a vote on all five motions, it would be beneficial if we asked the witnesses if they would come back to the next meeting, so that you can continue on with your five motions and we don't have to hold the witnesses up. We also have the ambassador at 5:00 p.m. We might as well let the witnesses come back on Thursday, so that you can have your time to continue on with your motions.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Well, if you're going to do the motions....
It's complete disrespect for the witnesses.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I am not saying anything. If we're going to spend this meeting doing these motions, as you chose—you tabled them—what I am suggesting is that we dismiss the witnesses and not have them sit and go through this. They can come back on Thursday, if their schedules allow. We would also have to advise the ambassador of the same thing.
Yes, Mr. Arya.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
I would like to apologize to the witnesses.
You came during your working hours, footing your time, money and energy to help Parliament go through the process of developing legislation and agreements that are important to individual Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian trade. At the end of the day, our prosperity is dependent on what you and your members do on the ground there and on what we do on your behalf.
You have taken your time. I sincerely apologize for this. This has been an unproductive day for you. I'm sorry about that.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Is there agreement in the committee that we ask the witnesses to come back on Thursday?
Clearly, we are going to be spending time here. Is everyone in agreement with that?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Madam Chair, if this is going to come back again on Thursday, I think we'll be doing very much harm to the witnesses to have them give up their work and come here, sit and make them go through the same thing again. It's very unproductive. I think it's also disrespectful to ask them to come back again to have to go through the same process.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I had a list before I interrupted Mr. Baldinelli, in fairness here.
I have Mr. Savard-Tremblay, Mr. Sidhu and Mr. Miao.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Actually, my comments are more along the same lines as Mr. Cannings'.
I totally understand Mr. Baldinelli's considerations and the consequences that may have occurred in terms of tourism. However, when we discussed this—it seems to me that the study took place last May or June—I pointed out that it was rather difficult to establish a link between our committee and the tourism industry. So we agreed to change the wording to make it clearer that we needed to talk more about trade. Finally, all the witnesses came to talk about tourism.
That said, the study has been done. The app has undeniably had an impact, a deleterious and problematic effect on the tourism industry. In addition, many Canadians find it extremely irritating. However, the issue now lies elsewhere.
We know the consequences the app has had. The study has been done. Then it became optional. The obligation to use it has been removed. I think this committee's work had a lot to do with that. Let's be proud of that.
Now, this is no longer a scandal for the industry. It's an ethical scandal, a financial scandal, a scandal about the awarding of contracts and their subsequent management.
I don't really think we should do a study again with the same witnesses, who are going to come and tell us exactly the same thing. The problem now lies elsewhere.
February 27th, 2024 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Maninder Sidhu Liberal Brampton East, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Look, I know we want to get to our next study. I believe it's CARM. We heard about how important CARM is to the member opposite. Delaying CARM by another couple of days is not going to be beneficial to industry experts. I believe we have those witnesses lined up as well.
This is not only impacting our witnesses here today; it's going to impact our witnesses for the next two or three days.
Therefore, I believe we need to go to a vote and get through this so we can hear from our witnesses today. I think we need to be mindful of their time today, as well.
4:05 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible—Editor]
