Debates of March 6th, 2017

Preclearance Act, 2016

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this many times today.

Clearly, this right is something new. The difference is that if there is an unreasonable delay, the search may proceed. I do not think this is unreasonable. If someone travels to the U.S. without pre-clearance, and they arrive without Canadian protections, the same thing will happen. Accordingly, it is much more efficient to go ahead with the system proposed in Bill C-23. That does not really bother me.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague because many of the things that are new in this bill really are troubling.

For example, in the past, people in the pre-clearance area on Canadian soil had the right to say that they did not like the interrogation, that they were uncomfortable, and that they were going to go home and not travel to the U.S. Now people no longer have the right to halt the interrogation. Canadians can be detained and forced to answer U.S. officers' questions.

What does my colleague think of that? Is he okay with it? Does he think Canadians should be okay with it?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the question. To me, this is not a major departure from what is currently happening. If someone currently travelling to the United States gets off the plane and changes their mind, what are they going to do? Get back on the plane and leave? That does not work. Clearing customs in Canada is more efficient. Rights are protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but nothing really changes. When someone arrives in the United states, they will be subject to the same restrictions as they are right now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks a great deal about the province of Quebec, his home province. Quebec will benefit in two ways directly. One is through the new airport and rail line where pre-clearance service will be offered, which was not there before. There are many benefits through pre-clearance. We have heard the debate for many hours in regard to how Canadians and the U.S. benefit by pre-clearance.

Could my colleague expand on why it is so important that we not only settle for the eight airports we currently have, but also look at other airports because then more Canadians will actually benefit by it?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that there is only a handful of airports that have this and it only goes in one direction does not really benefit us nearly as much as it possibly could. If we have pre-clearance in the U.S. to come to Canada, that is a huge advantage for Canada, a huge advantage for regions like mine in the Laurentians where we have an international airport without international flights because it is too difficult to offer customs. It is very important we have this system expanded a little everywhere for rail, for goods, for people, and flights. This is a terrific expansion of this service. I am very much looking forward to it being implemented.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to the legislation before us, Bill C-23, an act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States.

As members know, the Prime Minister pledged to Canadians that our government would work hard to renew the relationship we had with the United States and that we would provide greater security and opportunity for Canadians. The legislation before us is part of the action we are taking to fulfill that pledge.

Last week, I spoke with grade 10 civic students in Guelph at Bishop Macdonell High School. This topic came up with the students talking about the benefits of doing clearances in Canada versus on foreign soil, so it is great to be part of this discussion this afternoon. We have strong evidence from long-standing operations at eight Canadian airports that pre-clearance is an effective and efficient way to move millions of people from Canada into the United States every year, some 12 million people, in fact. It offers many benefits, both directly and indirectly, to both nations.

For example, it allows travellers from Canada to fly directly to a larger number of U.S. cities, including to smaller American airports, with no customs presence. It makes for faster connections. Pre-cleared passengers do not have to go through customs inspection upon arrival in the United States, which means shorter connection times and early arrival at final destinations. It adds predictability to travel plans, with passengers knowing they are already screened and can just collect their luggage and leave the airport on the other side. It enhances security by better managing risks and threats.

While pre-clearance formally exists only at airports at the moment, we also know that pre-inspection of rail and marine passenger exists and works with great success at several locations in British Columbia. For the past 20 years, U.S. customs and border protection has safely and successfully used passenger pre-inspection to streamline travel and security for travellers in that province.

In addition to the concrete direct benefits, there are a number of positive impacts that flow directly and indirectly from pre-clearance operations. For example, reduced border costs and fewer delays for commercial operations can lead to increased trade and increased foreign investment. The reduced wait times for passengers can lead to increased tourism and business travel.

The economic and security benefits of these pre-clearance and pre-inspection operations have led to calls from stakeholders and governments on both sides of the border for expansion to all modes of travel and to more locations. With the proposed legislation, we are taking an important step toward making that happen. Bill C-23 will enable us to continue moving ahead with expanded operations and modes of transportation that were agreed to in principle by the Minister of Public Safety and the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security in March 2016.

In brief, the bill has two key elements.

First, it will put in place the necessary legislative authorities to allow the United States to conduct pre-clearance operations in Canada. Today, pre-clearance is authorized only at Canadian airports under the Preclearance Act of 2001. The new authorities will allow for expansion subject to site-specific agreements to marine, rail, and land modes, as well as to pre-clearance of cargo.

Second, it will provide authorities for Canada to conduct pre-clearance in the United States in all modes of travel. The bill sets out where and when pre-clearance can occur, who has access to the pre-clearance area, the authorities of U.S. pre-clearance officers working in Canada and vice versa, and how police and border services officers can assist and work with pre-clearance officers. It also includes provisions affirming that pre-clearance operations in both countries must be conducted in accordance with Canadian law, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Our government is firmly committed to moving ahead with pre-clearance measures and building on our strong partnership with the United States. Indeed, this legislation is good news for Canadians and Americans. It would strengthen Canada's economic competitiveness by accelerating legitimate trade and travel, while keeping our borders secure.

In fact, after Canada and the United States signed an agreement in principle for new pre-clearance operations in March 2016, the president and CEO of the U.S. Travel Association said, “Customs preclearance is one of the innovative programs that demonstrates there need not be a zero-sum choice between security and an efficient travel experience”.

Similar sentiments have been expressed by Canadian businesses and associations like the Tourism Industry Association of Canada. With specific reference to rail travel, its vice president of public policy and industry affairs, Rob Taylor, has pointed out that pre-clearance makes sense from a security standpoint because border officials can intercept people before they cross the border. It makes sense for travellers, because if they get cleared before they get on the train, it is so much easier than having to stop that trip half way through.

This is exactly what pre-clearance offers. It is a way to encourage legitimate trade and travel, while keeping our borders secure. It is an idea that is gaining ground around the world, with more and more countries looking to introduce or expand pre-clearance at their airports.

This brings me back to the importance of Bill C-23.

The benefits of expanded pre-clearance have been touted by everyone from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives to local tourism operators, as well as mayors and airport authorities. Pre-clearance improves the competitiveness of Canadian business and the experience of Canadian travellers. Now is the time to expand these operations in Canada and to examine how and where the Canada Border Services Agency could implement pre-clearance facilities in the United States.

Our government is committed to working with our allies, particularly the United States, to increase travel and to enhance North American competitiveness, as well as our collective security. I urge all members to support Bill C-23 and ensure its swift passage.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as we get closer to an actual vote on this important legislation, it bears repeating just how important pre-clearance is to Canada's economy. Both Canada and the U.S. benefit from it.

I often talk about and use the example of Folklorama. It is one of the best multicultural events in the world. Many Americans fly into Winnipeg to participate in Folklorama. That is not unique. We get many tourists coming from the U.S. They use pre-clearance. Millions of Canadians use pre-clearance to go to the U.S. The convenience of pre-clearance has proven to be beneficial, both to Canada and the U.S.

Would my colleague agree that the more the government can move toward making it easier for Canadians and Americans to cross our shared border the better it is?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need more travel between Canada and the United States and we need less barriers to that travel, provided our security is intact.

One of the great things about the bill is that all the clearance happens on Canadian soil, which means that people who are going through the process of pre-clearance fall under the regulations and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms within Canada. If they have a problem, it is better to have it in Canada than on foreign soil. The easier it is for Canadians to welcome Americans and for Americans to visit our country, the better it will be for tourism.

More important, as the Chamber of Commerce has said for many years, thinning out the borders so goods can travel between the borders is also as important, in fact more important in terms of dollars per GDP. Having that border opened up, securely, is very important to both countries.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the hon. member's attention to part three of the bill, which provides related amendments to the Criminal Code and to the Firearms Act. It basically provides the United States pre-clearance officers with an exemption from criminal liability under both those acts with respect to the carriage of firearms. It seems to me that in our current pre-clearance system, if a United States agent on Canadian soil needs assistance that necessitates the use of a firearm, why does that person not simply use the services of the RCMP, or if a CBSA officer is similarly armed, the services of that officer?

This is the crux of the matter on our sovereignty. Why are we allowing U.S. agents to carry a weapon, which is an extreme use of force, on Canadian soil? Why do we not have faith in Canadian police authorities and CBSA officers to do that job for us? They have been authorized by this Parliament and by the government to do that force on behalf of the Canadian people. It is a jurisdictional issue, and I would like to hear the member's response on that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his continued questions on this topic.

I think we have answered this in the past, but to continue our answer, the border patrols on both sides of the border would be equal in terms of carrying arms. If we do not have arms, as in our airports, they do not have arms. If at some point we have arms at the land crossings, then there would be arms. However, in both cases, the laws of Canada would apply when we are on Canadian soil.

There is no threat to Canadians by using the types of force that Canadian border officials would be using, which is very much identical to what the American border officials would be using as well.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise toward the end of this evening's debate to talk about this important piece of legislation. Bill C-23 will implement the agreement reached with the United States to expand pre-clearance operations to new locations and modes of travel, and it opens the door to cargo pre-clearance as well as Canadian pre-clearance operations in the U.S.

I am pleased that throughout the course of today, and over the last week or so, we have seen lively debate about Bill C-23. However, I do think it is important that as we study and discuss this proposed legislation, we ensure that we are working from a sound understanding of the bill, and a full appreciation of the significant benefits that we stand to gain from expanding our pre-clearance operations with the United States.

After the many hours of debate that have taken place for this bill, we certainly know by now what pre-clearance is, and we know that it works. We have heard how it has been a part of the Canada-U.S. border management success story. Many of us have been pre-cleared ourselves before boarding flights to the United States. As has been noted, we have been operating pre-clearance successfully in the air mode since the 1950s.

In terms of volume, we know that Canadian pre-clearance facilities process 12 million passengers headed to the United States annually. We know that the eight airports that have pre-clearance operations are far more competitive than they would be without them. With pre-clearance, Canadian airports have special direct access to non-international U.S. airports. For example, Canada is the only country serving Reagan airport with direct air services. Without pre-clearance, Toronto Pearson airport, for example, could only serve 27 U.S. cities instead of the 50 that it serves now. Pearson is the fourth-largest point of entry into the United States worldwide.

It is not only in air travel where we have seen the benefits. As members have heard, some pre-inspection sites serve rail and cruise ship businesses on the west coast. The cruise ship industry brings $435 million in economic benefits to British Columbia's coastal region, including 4,600 local jobs. Pre-inspection, which is a kind of partial pre-clearance, is important to that success. The legislation before us will enable full pre-clearance operations for those sites, with considerable advantages for the tourism industry on the west coast. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is a clear demand for more pre-clearance facilities and that both the current and previous administrations in Canada and the U.S. have been working diligently together to put the legal frameworks in place to make that happen. With the legislation before us, we will be able to further expand on these unquestionable economic benefits by paving the way for additional sites in all modes of travel and in both countries, as well as the pre-clearance of cargo.

We have heard the concerns raised about the protection of Canadians' rights, and we are certainly all sensitive to that. That is why I am proud to highlight that the protection of Canadians' rights and the requirement for compliance with Canadian law and the charter are central elements of this bill.

Pre-clearance operations in Canada must be conducted within Canadian law. It is explicitly set out in part 1 of the bill, which sets out the powers, duties, and functions of U.S. officers under the act. It states:

A preclearance officer must exercise their powers and perform their duties and functions under this act in accordance with Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

This includes powers of questioning, examination, search, seizure, and detention, powers that already exist in the current pre-clearance arrangement. Similarly, Canadian officers conducting pre-clearance in the U.S. would also be bound by the charter. That is specified in article II of the agreement with the U.S. being implemented by this bill, Bill C-23.

By undergoing U.S. customs and border procedures while still on Canadian soil, Canadian travellers will be protected by our laws and the Canadian Constitution.

I know that certain members of the opposition have argued that because this is already the case in eight Canadian airports, Bill C-23 is unnecessary. However, pre-clearance is not in place at all Canadian airports or at train stations and marine ports. Bill C-23 would pave the way for travellers in those locations to have legal and constitutional Canadian protections that are unavailable to them now.

For those who remain unconvinced of the benefits of this, I would ask that they consider the alternative. Without pre-clearance, travellers are required to submit to immigration and customs processing once they arrive on American soil. That processing is done entirely on American soil and therefore on American terms.

Another concern that has been raised is the issue of withdrawal from pre-clearance areas. It must be noted that should travellers change their minds about entering the United States and wish to leave the pre-clearance area, withdrawal will be allowed under the new act. Officers will have limited latitude to question withdrawing travellers as to their identities and reasons for withdrawing. Without this, people of ill intent can approach, enter, examine, and then leave these controlled areas, potentially weakening our border security.

To conclude, I simply wish to reiterate that pre-clearance is a crucial border management tool for Canada, both economically and from a security perspective. It also has the added benefit of allowing Canadian travellers to undergo American border procedures while protected by Canadian law and the Canadian Constitution, including our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By adopting this important piece of legislation, which is necessary to implement the Land, Rail, Marine and Air Transport Preclearance Agreement with the United States, the advantages of pre-clearance would become available to many more Canadian travellers and businesses.

I urge all hon. members to keep these significant benefits front of mind as we further examine and study this bill, and I look forward to more constructive debate in the House.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's speech with great attention, and I could not help but feel that maybe there was a slight incoherence lurking in the argument. I am hoping to give him the opportunity to address that.

We hear, on the one hand, that the great virtue of Bill C-23 is that Canadians will not have to submit to American processes, American law, and American officers on American soil. However, when we talk about the safe third country agreement and the travel ban, Liberals say that they are quite comfortable with the American processes, that there is no problem at all with those processes, that Canadians have nothing to fear, and that they are treated normally at the border and get good treatment. Which is it? Do Canadians have something to fear from being subjected to American border security processes, or do they not? If they do, maybe the member would reconsider his position with respect to suspending the safe third country agreement.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that my hon. friend was listening that intently, because I was entirely coherent in explaining that Bill C-23 would provide all Canadians undergoing pre-clearance with U.S. border officials the security of having that pre-clearance done under Canadian law, the Canadian Constitution, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Canadian Bill of Rights all at play.

This is an important piece of legislation that would allow for the timely exchange of people and goods, something that for many years has been central to our strong trade relationship with the United States. This is another step in ensuring that the important relationship we have with the United States continues to grow and prosper for the benefit of Canadians.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

If he ended up at customs and an overeager and cranky U.S. customs officer proceeded to conduct a strip search, and only a female officer was available on the Canadian side, would he be comfortable with that? Bill C-23 generally looks a lot like the existing system, but there are some very serious exceptions like this one.

Does my colleague have a problem with that? I know that there are many people who would have a very serious problem with that.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour of living very close to the United States. Ever since I was born I have been crossing the border with my family, my friends, or alone and this situation has never presented itself. I would say to Canadians watching us this evening that under the current conditions, whenever a U.S. officer has problems with a Canadian traveller, the latter is transferred to Canadian officers as soon as possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to pre-clearance, we recognize that it is reciprocal between the United States and Canada. We will see many Americans who will also be pre-cleared coming into Canada.

From a tourism perspective, whenever we can enable tourism in our country, the better it is for Canada as a whole and for our middle class. In fact, all Canadians benefit the more we get American tourists coming to Canada.

Can the hon. member provide some thoughts on that?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we want to see American tourists coming to Canada. My colleague sitting right in front of me will emphasize along with me that we want to see those tourists coming to Atlantic Canada to enjoy all there is to offer in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. We are open to having tourists from right across the United States come to visit our lovely country. I would ask them all to take an opportunity to visit us on the east coast, specifically as we celebrate Canada's 150.

However, for the next 150 years, we want a border that allows the flow of people to come and visit and enjoy all we have to offer.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. It being 6:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #204