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.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
In reviewing the legislation, have you found anything bothersome or worrisome in that regard?
3:50 p.m.
Vice-President, North America, Business Council of Canada
My answer to that would be similar to an answer that I think was given by officials when they were at committee a little while ago. The agreement in the legislation does not get into exactly the specifics or the educational programs that would need to be undertaken by officials or by the government.
I think that's one thing we would expect with any of piece of legislation that the government brought forward. The parameters with which officials or representatives must govern themselves should be set out clearly by the government, by Public Safety, by CBSA, and by the related agencies. That's an obligation that we would think the government should undertake regardless of what agreement it is.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I understand that your organization trusts the government entirely with that responsibility, and therefore, you have not reviewed the infringement, if any, on civil liberties contained in the act.
3:50 p.m.
Vice-President, North America, Business Council of Canada
I suspect that my friends from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association could probably represent that.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Vice-President, North America, Business Council of Canada
It's not that we rely on them. Our position is that we believe the government has a responsibility in this area and will take that responsibility seriously, so we trust that.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
That's what intrigues me.
On a daily basis, if you go to the courts of this country, you will see the government erring on excessive force, the violation of the basic rights of individuals. It is carried on by individuals, and these individuals exercise their individual judgment. They err, and citizens pay for those mistakes.
The reason I attract your attention to that is that you represent business councils. The individuals you represent are the ones who make these crossings the most often—
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
—and they have tight schedules. They don't want to be delayed.
If one of them is a suspect for some reason, but it's a mistaken reason, and has to go through a strip search, have you considered that?
3:50 p.m.
Vice-President, North America, Business Council of Canada
We have.
I think what I would offer in exchange is that if, for example, one of our members was travelling from an airport where pre-clearance wasn't offered, they would be entering the United States and would be subject to those searches if a reason were found for the search to be undertaken. However, they would not be operating under Canadian law, and they wouldn't have a Canadian official present.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I would point out that the exercise you're doing is either-or, isn't it? But that's not the reality. We have the opportunity, now that we're doing the legislation, to interact, namely with the Americans in this case. It might not always be the Americans, but we're talking about the Americans, and therefore influencing.... There could be a third option. It would not simply be it's either on Canadian soil or American, and therefore, they rule and they govern the entire relationship. There is a third option.
The third option is that we try to negotiate with them to obtain a better deal. Have you made representations for your members to obtain a better deal?
3:50 p.m.
Vice-President, North America, Business Council of Canada
I think the only comment I would make is that the either-or scenario that you present is one that only applies to facilities that currently have pre-clearance. There are a number that don't.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Vice-President, North America, Business Council of Canada
There are currently only a certain number of facilities within Canada that offer pre-clearance. All of the other travellers from Canada, the more than 1.6 million travellers from Quebec City, don't have the opportunity to travel under pre-clearance, and therefore must cross into the United States and be subject to some of the issues that you have.
In a certain way, I feel as though we're almost protecting those 1.6 million travellers, who will be able to undergo search in Canada under Canadian rights and laws, and with a Canadian official present. That is not a protection that they enjoy today.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Can we improve that deal? That's what we need to know.
Can we improve it, because, for lack of a better word—and I usually speak French—you seem to have a blind approach, blind faith in the government, that whatever the government does or says or enacts is better than nothing.
What I would like to know from your organization, and you represent these seasoned individuals, this 1.6 million—probably your members have a disproportionate representation in that 1.6 million—is don't you want to improve on the deal that they get?
3:55 p.m.
Vice-President, North America, Business Council of Canada
I'm sorry. I can only offer that in our review we support an agreement that provides the opportunity to enhance pre-clearance, to expand the number of facilities that this appeals to, and to offer greater protection within Canada to ensure that Canadian travellers are able to travel and be protected under Canadian rights and laws with Canadian officials present.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm afraid we're at seven and a half minutes.
I do want to just remind members that our witnesses in Vancouver are also welcome to address an issue, so I'm going to give Mr. Di Iorio another half a minute or so if BCCLA would like to respond to your last question. I wasn't sure whether you knew you could....
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
My question was an either-or, for Madam van Vugt. I want to know your view of that. Is it either-or? We could have a third option, which is to improve on what we're coming up with.
3:55 p.m.
Joshua Paterson Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Thank you very much for the question.
Mr. Chair, of course, we await being told that we can speak rather than jumping in.
It isn't an either-or, and this is the message we have heard. With great respect to Ms. van Vugt, indeed we support virtually everything that she is saying in terms of the benefits of this to the business community and to other Canadians. We take no issue with Ms. van Vugt's testimony in that regard, but it isn't an either-or. The government could choose to renegotiate. Parliament could choose to have the government renegotiate. Parliament could choose to improve the bill in ways that weren't quite in line with the agreement, just to see whether that would be okay.
There are of course political ramifications to some of those choices, but there aren't legal restrictions here in terms of what Parliament can do, and so for business people.... On some of these things, I think it's quite right that it's going to be business people, particularly a lot of business people of colour who wind up being detained, being questioned in uncomfortable ways. It's not because you're a business person that you're excused from some of these issues at the border, so it is to the benefit of all Canadians, including the business community, that some of the issues we addressed last day be cleaned up so that there are better rights protections and better remedies for people who feel they may have had their rights violated, whether business people or tourists.
3:55 p.m.
Vice-President, North America, Business Council of Canada
The only thing I would say is that with the length of time it took to negotiate this agreement with the United States, and the fact that it was negotiated under a previous administration with President Obama and Prime Minister Harper, and was then reiterated and supported by President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau, I think for the certainty that our travellers would receive in being able to access additional pre-clearance facilities that they can't now, we want to go forward.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you.
Just to warn other parties, you'll get a bit more time, too, because I gave a little more on this side.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Am I entitled to ask questions of the BCCLA, as well?