Public Safety Committee on May 29th, 2017

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

That's all for me. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Spengemann.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I may not need the entire 10 minutes, so I'll delegate it to the next Liberal speakers.

Thank you both for being here.

Ms. Greenwood, I want to ask you about the composition of the council and its membership. Can you tell us a bit about the council's background, what it does, and what its function is?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

I would be delighted to. Thank you.

With my testimony I gave the clerk a progress report like an annual report, and if there aren't enough I would be delighted to send more.

The Canadian American Business Council is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that has been in existence for 30 years. It's our 30th birthday. I know you're 150 and Montreal is 375.

Happy birthday to everyone. You look amazing.

The Canadian American Business Council works on issues of importance to Canada and the United States in a policy area. Our members are iconic big companies and small start-ups, so companies that you've heard of and some that you haven't. CN Rail would be one, TD Bank, on the Canadian side. On the U.S. side, it would be Google, Amazon, energy companies, Ford Motor Company, and then some start-ups. Beauty Revolution is one of my favourites. It is an Ottawa-based company that has organic cosmetic products from Vermont.

We advocate for good public policy between Canada and the United States. This year, we're also bringing attention in the United States to the special nature of the Canada-U.S. relationship. Since you asked, I'll tell you we have a book that has just come out called With Faith and Goodwill. It's presidential and prime ministerial speeches and photographs for the last 150 years. Again, if the clerk would like, we can make copies available to members of the committee.

We're launching it with presidential and prime ministerial chats at presidential libraries across the U.S. We're trying to build an understanding, especially in the United States, about how special this relationship is with Canada, so that when the NAFTA negotiations get fully into the difficult conversations that will occur, people will have a better appreciation for that special partnership. We find that the same education is not as needed in Canada because people in Canada already appreciate the importance of our integration.

Much of our work is done in the United States. I'll add that we just hosted your colleague, Minister Sajjan, for a conversation on defence policy in Washington. It's non-partisan, bilateral advocacy.

[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]

We do both, informally and formally.

We have a policy review every year where we engage our members and ask what's important to them, what are they worried about? Efficiency at the border has been something, ever since I started in 2001, that has been in the top three issues. Companies will just come to us and say, “You seem to have a pretty good megaphone, will you take on our issue?”

We have a criteria. It has to advance the Canada-U.S. relationship. It has to be a consensus of our members that agree with it. You wouldn't think that Campbell Soup would be focused on border policies so much, you'd think they'd be focused on food and ag regulations, but border policy is their top issue.

[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?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

No. Our members were for the underlying agreement, and we see this legislation as enabling the underlying agreement. The difficult conversations, if you will, would have occurred back in 2011 with Beyond the Border, and then in 2015 with the agreement. This we see as almost housekeeping, to make it a reality.

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

Within the context of the agreement then, were there any concerns raised in terms of some of the provisions that were migrated from the agreement into the bill?

I want to just zoom right in here. Particularly, I think one of the scenarios that's giving us cause for some concern is the possibility of a U.S. officer, for example, performing a strip search in the absence of a Canadian officer.

How often a scenario like that might happen is a statistical question, but in terms of the legal mechanism and trust in this process both from the American and Canadian public, what would be the considerations there?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

Yes, I understand.

Again, our view is that the governments have been working together in good faith for generations and that they will figure out.... You know, you have an option, which is don't go into the other country.

Our sort of overall view is to the extent that you want travel at the 49th parallel to be more efficient, the further away from the border you can have the screening, the better it is both for efficiency and security. There are trade-offs, as I mentioned.

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

I'd like to ask for your reflection just personally.

You know Canada very well. You know the U.S. very well. How divergent are we when it comes to an inspection regime at the border and the potential for somebody being detained and questioned, potentially searched? How close are Canada and the United States in terms of the daily operation of their respective legal regimes, both of which have constitutional protection? Are we far apart, or are we really close?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

I think it's pretty close. When there is a raised threat level, it becomes a little more difficult, regardless of which way you're going.

As you mentioned, I travel back and forth, both ways. It depends a bit on how you're acting. I would say that maybe 20 years ago coming into Canada felt more like you were being welcomed by the Convention and Visitors Bureau, as opposed to law enforcement. I think that's all changed.

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

That's very helpful.

Mr. Chair, that's all I have. Thank you.

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

Is there any time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We'll get a round. We had only about 20 seconds left in that little bit of the round.

Ms. Watts, you have five minutes.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay.

Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Great thinking.

I'm quite new to this committee, and I want to say to all my colleagues that it's a pleasure to be here.

Thanks to both of you for being here, and especially to you, Ms. Greenwood, for being away from the pool on a national holiday and your kids—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I'm going state up front that I very much support additional pre-clearance. I very much support the intent of this legislation. I have a business background, and all the things you've talked about are things that we have also been talking about, such as efficiencies and moving trade back and forth. We understand the importance of the economic relationship.

That being said, I will tell you that this is an issue of great importance for people in my riding of Davenport. They have raised two key things. They've raised the fact that, under the new legislation, if they wanted to walk away from going into the United States in a pre-cleared situation, they would have a bit more of an issue in walking away, because they would have to be questioned.

[Maryscott Greenwood]

Right.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

They also feel a little bit uncomfortable with regard to whether there will be a bias against them if they are a person of a particular religion or culture. I think it's because of the U.S. travel bans that have actually been put in place, although they're not supported by the courts in the United States, and we know that. That's been where the concern has come out.

Here are the questions they ask me. To what extent do the U.S. pre-clearance officers know Canadian law? To what extent do they know the charter? The other thing they ask about is that even though the travel ban is not backed up by the U.S. court system, what might the impact be on Canadians who might be of particular backgrounds in terms of them crossing over?

I know that this is not your area of expertise, but I wonder if you have a response that we might be able to give them. I'll direct that question to you, Ms. Greenwood.

[Maryscott Greenwood]

I understand the anxiety. The rhetoric has been heated. As heated as it's been in the United States, it's been welcoming in Canada, so I understand that.

However, my answer on that question is that our customs and border patrol officers are extraordinarily professional. They're extraordinarily well trained. Also, they are public servants, so they serve not at the pleasure of any particular administration; this is their career, and they know a lot about what they're supposed to do in their job.

As you rightly point out, the proposed travel ban is being held up in court, so our system of constitutional democracy is working. The President isn't above the law and, regardless of his rhetoric, our system is working and our officials are acting as they should.

In terms of the question of approaching the border and not being able to turn away, I think people just have to get used to deciding a bit earlier whether they want to go. If you're going to change your mind, do it before you enter the zone, if you will, and then you can leave without any further questioning. Again, it's a trade-off. Do you want to come into the United States to do business, or travel, or vacation—and the same in the United States for Canada—or not? It's your choice, but it's also important to recognize how closely our countries work together.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

If I can just be clear, Ms. Greenwood, you said that U.S. officials are very professional and they know their job. Would you say that also includes knowing Canadian law and the Canadian charter? Those are the rules under which they are supposed to be operating in pre-clearance situations here in Canada.

[Maryscott Greenwood]

I believe they are. I believe that's part of their training. Again, U.S. officials have been operating in Canadian airports on Canadian soil for more than my entire lifetime. I think it's baked into the DNA of living and working up here.