Public Safety Committee on May 29th, 2017

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

Bearing in mind that the agreement was reached under a previous U.S. administration, you did mention where some of your members may be from and what their religious beliefs are, so it's safe to say that you and your union share our concerns about the Trump administration's approach and how that may be applied with whatever derogatory information is being provided and the way that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security might treat someone based on their background versus how the Government of Canada and Transport Canada, the current regime, would.

[Robert Ashton]

Yes. My union was founded on the basis that every person is equal, period. It doesn't matter who you are, what you look like, where you're from, or what your sexual orientation is. We have a government not too far down south from where I am right now that is banning people because of their religious beliefs. As I said, a vast number of my people are of South Asian descent. When you have an ability to target my members, and we have no ability to find out why and no ability to fight back, and our people have no rights and ability to defend themselves because of what religion they might practise, it is a very scary state of affairs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Mr. Spengemann.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will split my time with Mr. Picard

Mr. Ashton, to stay with you for a moment, is this unique to the Port of Vancouver, in your view?

[Robert Ashton]

We've been told that this is unique to Canada Place when it comes to the maritime industry. It will only be applied to Canada Place. That's correct.

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

Bearing in mind that this was an agreement that was negotiated not only under a former U.S. administration but also under a former Canadian government, the Conservative government, do you have any greater insights into the negotiation history of the underlying agreement?

[Robert Ashton]

I wish I could say I do, but as per just about every other agreement that was negotiated with other countries under the last administration, we know nothing about it. We've never been consulted about it. We've never been told about it. We've never been asked to give our opinion on it.

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

But if you were to speculate, would you say that the pending changeover and then the changeover that happened in the U.S. administration had a great deal to do with the current dynamics in which this might be interpreted? You alluded to this in your previous answer, that there's a possibility of targeting.

[Robert Ashton]

There's a possibility of targeting? Yes, for sure. When this was discussed, it could have been targeted back then.

We have another fear as well. On April 8, Bruce Josten, the executive vice-president of government affairs, sent a letter to Patrick Leahy and Ron Johnson of the United States Senate about the fact that U.S. personnel cannot be tried in Canadian courts. I'll quickly read a little excerpt from it:

The legislation would clarify that any U.S. employee or contractor working in Canada at a preclearance facility who commits a crime may be tried in a U.S. court of law, as opposed to a Canadian court, which would ensure the accountability of CBP officers, but also protect American personnel.

Protect them from what—Canadian laws? If they break our laws, they should be tried in Canada. They shouldn't be given immunity.

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

No, and thank you for that.

I want to take you back to the reference you made to the agreement. If I have you correct, it's article VI, section 2. Is that right?

[Robert Ashton]

That's correct.

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

So it's persons who are authorized by the host party, in the course of the normal certification and recertification process, in consultation with the inspecting party. If you look at that on its face, it's not actually that we're giving the U.S. a veto over Canadian hiring practices or pre-clearance. As you point out, if you take at face value the statement that our system is better, we're not obligated to take the U.S. information into account or to change our mind on a pre-clearance decision on the basis of what you call “derogatory information”.

[Robert Ashton]

Let me put it to you this way. If U.S. Homeland Security sends up derogatory information to my employer, and my employer chooses to ignore that, and they operate the cruise ship facilities, what do you think happens? The U.S. authorities, Homeland Security, I'm sure would take exception to that.

I don't even know what they could do, to be honest with you. I don't know if they could—

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

That's what I'm trying to get at. I think if the quality of the Canadian process proves itself, again, this goes to the operation and the long-term implementation of this process. Depending on the course it takes, it may well be that the U.S. won't send any derogatory information and simply trust the Canadian process as revealing what needs to be revealed.

[Robert Ashton]

I don't believe that. I don't.

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

But certainly legally, there isn't a U.S. veto. Would you agree with that?

[Robert Ashton]

No, I wouldn't agree with that.

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

Okay. I think much of this really is an operational question in terms of the relationship between the two departments, and how this will play itself out in practice is open-ended.

[Robert Ashton]

I mean no disrespect by this, but if you feel that a foreign government taking away Canada's sovereignty by refusing Canadians their right to work in Canada is an operational issue, then I respectfully believe you're wrong on that.

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

No, but if there were a refusal, what I'm trying to get at is that legally we're not at the point where refusal by the U.S. authorities will be determinative. They may say there's derogatory information. If our system is as good as you say it is, it may contradict that, and then it's an open question as to what happens to that individual.

I agree with your concern about the accountability of the mechanism, and I also very much agree with you on the concern about potential targeting. But the way I read the agreement itself, at the moment, it doesn't give the U.S. authority of a veto power to say this person isn't going to inspect this cruise ship or do this loading function.

[Robert Ashton]

But why would you even give a foreign government the ability to do that, to even enter that path? We're Canadians. We're working in Canada. No foreign government should allow that.

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

The cruise ship or the cargo will end up in the U.S., which I guess is its security interest. But again, it's the balancing of the two interests. I take your points very much. I just wanted to check with you to see whether, legally speaking, you read this as a U.S. veto.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to delegate the rest of my time to my colleague Mr. Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

I'll go back to you again, Mr. Ashton. Is your organization subject to the C-TPAT customs program in Canada since it is part of the Transport Canada chain of transactions?

[Robert Ashton]

I'm unsure. All I know is that in my union, members get their background checks when they go to work on the waterfront. And if they go to work in secured areas of the cruise ship terminals and other parts of the waterfront, they have to go through the marine transportation security clearance.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Can you summarize for us the main big changes you had to go through in the last 10 or 15 years in terms of security? What would be the most important changes you had to go through in order to be up to date with security issues today?