Evidence of meeting #64 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pre-clearance.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)) Liberal Rob Oliphant
Colleagues, I call to order the 64th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In our first hour we will consider Bill C-23, an act respecting the pre-clearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States.
Thank you, Ms. van Vugt. You've been sitting here all weekend, I'm sure, waiting for us to come back.
3:40 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We apologize again about last week.
Thank you as well to our witnesses from BCCLA, also here last week.
Just for the committee's awareness, we did also invite the Rocky Mountaineer, but they were not able to come for questions.
Once we get that part of the meeting under way, we'll hear from Ms. van Vugt and then we'll move into question period.
First, Mr. Clement, I understand you have a point of order.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to deal with this quickly before we hear from the witnesses.
Ordinarily our practice here has been that for the study of estimates, the review takes a full meeting. Generally speaking, we review the mains and the supplementary estimates on two separate occasions.
The main estimates were tabled in February. Mr. Goodale, our minister, is only able to appear here in mid-May. Subsequent to February, of course, the supplementary estimates (A) were tabled. I would note that the mains and the supplementaries have been bundled together, which is not usually the case. I do have some concerns about accountability in those circumstances, although I do understand that there are only so many sitting days and so many committee meetings.
My main objection is that we're allowing only one hour of study with the minister and the officials. Ordinarily the minister appears with the officials for the first hour and answers questions that are more, shall we say, “political” in nature. The senior officials stay on for the second hour and answer questions that might be more in depth or technical in nature.
I understand that we have a desire to accommodate our friends here who are part of the pre-clearance legislation, and I understand that their testimony was interrupted by votes last week, but we also have an accountability to taxpayers. Given that we are tasked with approving approximately $8.75 billion in public safety spending in the main estimates, and a further $225 million in the supplementary estimates (A), I would hope that senior officials would be willing to return to the committee at a future date, as soon as possible, for another hour of questioning and accountability.
Thank you.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I think it's a very good point.
I want to test the committee's will on this. We have a couple of options. We could refer this to the subcommittee on agenda to find another hour to do the supplementary estimates (A), which I'm happy to do, or we could try to deal with them now. My recommendation to the committee is that the point is very well taken and we should try to find another hour.
What happened is that the supplementary estimates (A) were referred to our committee on Friday and put on our agenda. They do not need to be on our agenda. I'm quite happy to find another hour, or even two hours if the committee wanted it, to deal with the supplementaries.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I understand why we bundled those together. My greater concern is having an extra hour with the officials, separate and apart from the minister. It doesn't have to take any more of the minister's time, but I do think that if we're going to drill down, we need the officials.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
That's very gracious of you. I thought you would have gone for the time with the minister.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
No. I used to be a minister, so I understand these things.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I have a question and a comment.
My comment is that it was procedural votes that put us here in the first place.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
To the chair and the clerk, what's the timing in terms of getting this back to the House?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I was just checking that. The mains will be deemed reported if we don't report by May 31. The supplementary estimates (A) we don't need to worry about until June sometime. Perhaps we could look at the calendar to see some options.
Mr. Dubé.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I move that we have the discussion in the subcommittee. Inevitably, being the last speaker with the time already cut down, potentially this will all impact any questioning time I'll have at the end of this.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Okay.
I think that is a motion. Would you like to debate that motion that this be referred to, if debatable, the subcommittee?
Mr. Miller.
May 15th, 2017 / 3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
My only concern is there's that June deadline. As long as we can get that time in at committee here prior to the government proroguing Parliament....
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We'll have to call the subcommittee together fairly quickly and go over the agenda to make sure we get Bill C-23 done and to make sure we can start our next study as well.
All in favour of this going to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure?
(Motion agreed to)
Welcome. I'm going to suggest that we work for about 45 minutes on this topic. We will then have about 35 minutes for questioning.
Take it away.
3:45 p.m.
Andrea van Vugt Vice-President, North America, Business Council of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members.
I appreciate the opportunity to take part in your consultations on Bill C-23. I will be brief so that we have lots of time for questions.
The Business Council of Canada represents chief executives and entrepreneurs from approximately 150 leading Canadian companies in all sectors and regions of the country. Our member companies employ 1.7 million men and women, account for more than half the value of the Toronto Stock Exchange, contribute the largest share of federal corporate taxes, and are responsible for most of Canada's exports, corporate philanthropy, and private sector investments in research and development.
Our country's economic health depends heavily on the ease with which goods, people, and investment move back and forth across the Canada-U.S. border. In the words of Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of President Donald Trump's strategic and policy forum, the Canada-U.S. trade relationship “is really very much in balance and is a model for the way that trade relations should be.”
As the committee knows, Bill C-23 delivers on a key element of the beyond the border action plan, the intent of which was not only efficiency but also security. Passage of this legislation presents an opportunity to solidify the progress made today under beyond the border, an initiative our council strongly supports.
Can the United States have mutual interest in ensuring that legitimate travellers and goods can cross the border as efficiently as possible? Our safe and secure border is a competitive advantage for Canada over every country in the world. While air pre-clearance isn't restricted to Canada, the opportunity for expansion to the land, rail, and marine modes is. It's an opportunity unique to our country, and we should take advantage of it.
My friends at Rocky Mountaineer have already spoken to the benefits of this at our last meeting, but as we all know, travellers search for the path of greatest convenience and least resistance in air travel. The ability to pre-clear in our home country, step off the plane and hop into a cab or make a connection, is a tremendous advantage for Canada and Canadians doing business or visiting the United States. Expanding this resource to other airports and modes of travel just makes sense to us. Additionally, giving Canadian border personnel the ability to conduct pre-clearance in the United States offers Canada a competitive advantage.
Given our country's desire for increased trade investment and tourism, especially in the year of our birthday, it's clearly in our economic interest to make it easier to cross our border safely. Going further, Canada can and should use this legislation as a springboard to develop additional cargo pre-clearance capabilities that will enhance our economic competitiveness while relieving pressure on existing border facilities.
We know that this is a particularly complicated endeavour, given the multitude of U.S. agencies that have a role to play in cargo pre-clearance, but it is in Canada's economic interest to make it work.
In closing, we believe that this legislation sets the stage for an innovative risk-managed border that should be the model for the rest of the world.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks, and I'm happy to take any questions.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
The first question I have regarding pre-clearance is about the options that we're afforded; that is, either we do it in our country or in the United States.
What I'd like to know from you at the outset is this. What do you see as being the disadvantage of doing it in our country?
3:45 p.m.
Vice-President, North America, Business Council of Canada
Truthfully, I struggle to see a disadvantage, given that the way that the legislation is drafted, from what I understand, and the agreement upon which the two countries agreed to expand pre-clearance, is that Canadian laws and rights will govern the act of pre-clearance. In addition, we have the opportunity of a Canadian official being present in areas where there are situations where a strip search or further questioning may be required. From my perspective that is advantageous, given the alternative is for that to occur in the United States, where you're not operating under Canadian rights and laws, and you don't have the opportunity of a Canadian official being present.
In addition, I think one of the positions of the Canadian government has been that you try to ensure that a threat to your country doesn't cross the border or enter into the United States. You ensure that a threat to your country is stopped at the earliest point, which is part of entering, and I think that's also an advantage. From our perspective we support the legislation and the agreement for those reasons.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
You said that they're subject to Canadian laws and the Canadian charter, but what's implied in your answer is that obviously the content of the rules that will govern all the individuals is very important.