House of Commons Hansard #148 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-23.
Marc Garneau LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member if he is clear on the notion that U.S. customs officers in airport terminals will not be carrying weapons. They must comply with the same rules as the host nation, and customs agents in Canada do not carry weapons. I want to make sure that he understands that. I would like to hear if he does.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, in response to the minister, I am absolutely aware of that fact, and nowhere in my speech did I make that allegation. What I was pointing to—
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
No, I simply did not. What I was pointing to was part 3 of the bill, which gives U.S. customs officials the power to carry firearms if Canadian officials carry firearms. My question with regard to this specific provision was why it is necessary. Why are the Liberals ceding our sovereignty to U.S. agents? Why are they writing it into the bill?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Things were going so well this afternoon, and suddenly we are starting to lose it again. I want to remind hon. members that there is a process, and it usually starts with someone making a speech and then being asked questions, but not shouting across the floor while someone is answering.
Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Science.
Kate Young LiberalParliamentary Secretary for Science
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in debate today about Bill C-23, the preclearance act, 2016. This legislation has a number of significant implications for Canada. It is important to our economy and security, just as it is for our most important bilateral relationship with the United States.
As members well know, Canada and the United States share a proud history of working together, particularly when it comes to the management of our shared border. Our government is committed to building on this relationship in many ways, including through the pursuit of border measures that facilitate the free flow of people and goods and keep us safe.
Border management is a top priority for our government, with officials from Public Safety Canada and its portfolio agencies working closely with their counterparts in the U.S. on a wide range of issues that ensure we keep our borders effective and functional. This includes putting in place the best frameworks and policies that allow for the smooth flow of people and goods while securing our borders from shared threats.
It should therefore come as no surprise that we have been especially enthusiastic to make further bilateral progress on the pre-clearance initiative. As members know, pre-clearance has long been a part of our strong border relationship, and it will be key to our future relationship. With Bill C-23, we have an opportunity to usher in even greater security and economic benefits when it comes to Canada-U.S. cross-border travel.
Let me highlight the key elements of the bill and why it is so important that members join me in supporting its passage. Once passed, the bill will essentially open the door for us to move ahead with ratification and implementation of the land, rail, marine, and air transport preclearance agreement, which was signed by Canada and the United States in 2015. That door, once opened, offers tremendous economic and security benefits for both nations. It does this in two key areas. One is by setting out the legislative authorities governing pre-clearance operations conducted by the United States and Canada, including possible future expansion to additional sites and modes of travel. Two is by providing the authorities and enacting the provisions necessary for Canada to eventually conduct pre-clearance in the United States, as the U.S. has long done in Canada. Indeed, the United States has conducted pre-clearance at Canadian airports for many decades. From its early days at Toronto Pearson International Airport, to its current presence in eight major Canadian airports and five pre-inspection sites in B.C. for rail and marine, pre-clearance has been a boon for business and leisure travel for both nations.
The first part of the bill would allow for potential expansion of U.S. pre-clearance to other forms of transport in Canada, defining important aspects, such as where and when these new sites can operate, who would have access to the pre-clearance areas, what U.S. pre-clearance officers can and cannot do while working on Canadian soil, and how Canadian police and CBSA officers would work with these U.S. officers. As has been clearly stated, all pre-clearance operations in Canada must be conducted in accordance with Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no compromise on this. Canadians expect us to keep their rights and values top of mind in all of our work, and this is no exception. On this point, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has been abundantly clear.
The second part of the bill is where we see the reciprocal element come into play. Along with enforcement authorities that would be provided under U.S. law, it would give the Canada Border Services Agency the authority to conduct pre-clearance in the U.S. in all modes of transport: land, air, rail, and marine. CBSA officers and other Canadian public officers, as appropriate, would have the authority to administer, at designated sites in the United States, the Canadian laws that they regularly use at ports of entry in Canada, including the Customs Act.
The bill also clarifies how the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act applies in the pre-clearance context.
As we have heard, this legislation will pave the way to expanding the benefits of pre-clearance to any site and any mode of transport in either country, pursuant to future agreements.
Already Canada and the United States have announced the intention to begin that expansion with Quebec City's Jean Lesage International Airport, Billy Bishop airport in Toronto, Montreal's Central Station, and the Rocky Mountaineer in B.C. These sites were the object of agreements in principle reached during the state visit to Washington last March.
The necessary American legislation was adopted last December. It is now time for Canada to do likewise so we can move forward with this important initiative.
Bill C-23 will allow us to build on more than 60 years of pre-clearance co-operation, further enhancing our two countries' mutual security and facilitating the cross-border movement of travellers and goods in all modes of travel. This is vital to Canada's prosperity.
I encourage all members to give this legislation their support.
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member from London north centre. She lives in the same part of the world as I do, and we know how important it is to have clearance at the border. Our industries rely on that. We have many pieces of equipment that go back and forth across that border on a regular basis, so pre-clearance is essential.
Our Conservative government obviously took a major role in that and committed to putting in the Gordie Howe bridge, which will certainly enhance industry in my riding and also industry in the city of London, which this member represents.
I have a serious concern. I wonder if there has been any discussion about what the Americans will do about it when and if we legalize marijuana. We know that the border crossing gets thick. Frequently, when we have members who drive trucks with shipments, and they admit to being users of marijuana, they get shut down at the border.
I am wondering if there have been discussions with the American government about that particular issue, because it will thicken the border.
Kate Young Liberal London West, ON
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is great to be able to talk about this with my colleague who lives very close. Actually, I am the member for London West. London North Centre is adjacent to my riding, but I wanted to clarify that in case anyone was watching and thought I had jumped over a riding.
I think the member has a good point. It is something the committee could ask, and certainly that is one of the questions we should be concerned about. Of course, we have a lot of questions that are still to be answered about the legislation dealing with marijuana. I look forward to those questions being raised at the committee level.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, in the debate today, government members have tended to pooh-pooh the concerns of the Green Party and the NDP about the changes in pre-clearance. I just want to add a voice in posing my question to the hon. member, not from a political party but from the former chair of the Canadian Bar Association, citizenship and immigration section. Michael Greene notes the following:
Under the new proposed bill, [a prospective visitor to the U.S.] wouldn't be able to walk out. They can be held and forced to answer questions, first to identify themselves, which is not so offensive, but secondly, to explain the reasons for leaving, and to explain their reasons for wanting to withdraw. And that's the part we think could be really offensive and goes too far.
Mr. Greene also notes the change in administration since this was originally negotiated. In the Trump administration we have a more volatile and potentially more discriminatory approach to travellers to the U.S.
I ask my hon. colleague if she is at all troubled by the change from working with the Obama administration, when this was negotiated, and now working with Mr. Trump.
Kate Young Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, as is currently the case, travellers will be entitled to withdraw from pre-clearance at any time. Under Bill C-23, withdrawing travellers may be required to identify themselves and give their reasons for withdrawing. This is simply to avoid the illicit probing of pre-clearance sites by people trying to discover weaknesses in border security before leaving the area undetected. That is part of the bill.
We have this agreement, and it is time for Canada to move forward. I hope the committee will, again, discuss this at the committee level.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could expand on the idea that we are going beyond the eight airports that currently have pre-clearance. In particular, could she focus some of her thoughts on the rail lines in Quebec and in the province of British Columbia, where we will have pre-clearance for two companies?
Kate Young Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that making sure that goods cross our borders quickly is very important, whether it be by rail or by air. There is no question that we have to ensure that our borders are open for our goods for Canada to prosper.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this debate today. I have been looking at this issue very closely for some time now. Obviously, when we review a bill our constituents ask us questions about that bill and what it entails. These discussions with constituents keep our democracy strong.
I am pleased to continue our debate at second reading of Bill C-23, a legislative measure that allows for quicker, charter-protected travel. These essential updates to the pre-clearance framework will improve security and cross-border traffic, and will bring with it great economic and travel benefits.
We already have more than six decades of successful pre-clearance under our belts. It has been a boon to business, the economy, and regular travellers. We are now well placed to implement an agreement reached with the United States that will help provide these benefits to an increased number of Canadians in more regions of the country than ever before.
There has been a positive response from leading stakeholders, including businesses, chambers of commerce, the tourism industry, municipalities, governments, and ordinary Canadians, about the growth this bill can generate. More recently, before we adjourned the week before last to spend time in our ridings, we heard from a number of MPs who said that Bill C-23 will generate benefits for the economy and for travel while protecting Canadians' rights. It is on the right path in terms of the legislative process. We also heard from some members who expressed concerns.
We have already addressed most of those concerns in debate here and during last week's media technical briefing by Public Safety Canada and Canada Border Services Agency, which was broadcast live. That was in addition to technical briefings for parliamentarians last year. However, to ensure clarity with respect to some of those issues, I would like to focus my remarks today on two specific subjects: travellers' rights and Canada-U.S. reciprocity.
First of all, let us talk about rights. Everyone knows that Canada and the United States establish and enforce their own rules about who or what enters their own country. However, for Canadians, undergoing U.S. customs procedures while they are still on Canadian soil ensures that the Canadian legal and charter standards apply to that process. This is a distinct advantage over entering the U.S. through a regular point of entry where Canadian charter standards do not apply to the conduct of American officials.
Let us consider withdrawal, for example. If travellers changed their minds and wanted to withdraw from a pre-clearance area in Canada and not go to the United States, they would be able to do so under Bill C-23, as they can under the current pre-clearance arrangement. The only change would be that the U.S. officials could ask the travellers to identify themselves and give their reasons for withdrawing in order to prevent the illicit probing of pre-clearance areas.
The other option would be for travellers to go to the United States and be cleared by U.S. officials on American soil.
At that point, travellers can no longer withdraw from the process because they are in the United States. Travellers who change their mind or want to withdraw once in the United States are stuck on American soil in a U.S. airport.
Some members have stated that, because travellers already have that protection under the existing pre-clearance arrangement, no change is needed. The problem is that we currently have pre-clearance at only eight Canadian airports.
Travellers coming from elsewhere have no protection with respect to U.S. border procedures in Canada, so they do not have the right to withdraw. Bill C-23 will enable us to expand pre-clearance so that more Canadian travellers can enjoy its benefits and protection.
It is important to clarify another point about travellers' rights. U.S. pre-clearance officers will not have the power to enforce American criminal law or arrest people in Canada. If a U.S. pre-clearance officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a traveller has committed a crime under Canadian law, let me emphasize that I am talking about Canadian law, the officer can detain the traveller without arresting him or her, but only for the purpose of immediately transferring that person into the custody of Canadian authorities. This is not a new procedure. It is part of the pre-clearance regime that has been in place since 1999.
In other words, rights and values are not being compromised here. On the contrary, Bill C-23 extends protection guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Canadians whose flights depart airports such as Billy Bishop and Jean Lesage in Quebec City. That protection will also apply for the first time to Canadians who employ other modes of transportation, beginning with train stations in Montreal and British Columbia.
Canadians expect us to ensure that their rights and values, the protections found in the charter, the Canadian Bill of Rights, and the Canadian Human Rights Act, remain a priority in all legislation that we examine in this House. By further guaranteeing the protections set out in the charter, Bill C-23 is a step forward for the rights of Canadian travellers.
I would like to address some of the questions we have heard regarding reciprocity. I think it is important to emphasize that the updated and broad-based approach to pre-clearance that we are discussing is absolutely fully reciprocal. No power or privilege is conferred upon the border officers of one country and not the other. Accordingly, each country preserves the primary jurisdiction regarding most criminal offences that could be committed by its officers in the performance of their duties, while the host country retains the primary jurisdiction regarding most serious crimes. Accordingly, any fears that this bill jeopardizes our sovereignty are unfounded.
On the contrary, Bill C-23 implements a mutually beneficial agreement that imposes the same obligations and confers the same authorities on both parties. It helps improve security for both countries and makes travel and trade more efficient and expeditious. Also, as is clearly laid out in article II of the agreement with the United States, it would ensure that each country's rights and constitutions would apply to all pre-clearance operations. This means that U.S. officers operating in Canada would have to abide by the charter, just as Canadian border officers in the United States would have to respect the laws of that land.
We cannot emphasize enough that more than 400,000 people cross the border every day. Nearly $2.5 billion in two-way trade moves between our countries every day. It is mutually beneficial for both countries to build on the success of existing pre-clearance operations while simultaneously protecting, even enhancing, the rights of Canadian travellers. That is the backbone of the bill before us today.
This legislative measure will ensure that more Canadians have access to the protections provided by pre-clearance, while making cross-border travel and trade easier, more profitable, and more secure.
I encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-23.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's comments. I must say that, if it were merely a matter of increasing the number of pre-clearance stations in Canada, a consensus would be reached fairly quickly.
This week, a woman was questioned for six hours. She is a Canadian citizen who wanted to go to the United States. Six hours is a long time, especially since the individual in question did nothing wrong. For those who decide that they have had enough of being questioned, that they no longer want to go to the United States, and that they would prefer to return home, Bill C-23 does not indicate what constitutes a reasonable period of time before a person can withdraw. It is often said that the devil is in the details, and this is a good example of that.
According to my colleague, how long does a normal interrogation last, if the interrogation of a Canadian citizen who simply wants to visit the United States can be considered normal?
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.
It all depends on what is said. The member is presenting a theoretical example. If an individual wanted to withdraw and it was not a complex case, I imagine that it would be fairly easy to do so. There are standards set out in Canada's jurisprudence. These standards will be applicable under Bill C-23. If Bill C-23 had been in effect, perhaps authorities would not have been able to question this woman for six hours.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate my hon. colleague's speech. I hold him in high regard from the time that we served together on the electoral reform committee.
The member made reference to the fact that concerns over sovereignty are unfounded. I would like to argue that point, because if we take the concept of sovereignty as an actor, such as a state, having the exclusive jurisdiction over the use of force within a prescribed border, if we take that as a basic definition of sovereignty, what this bill is proposing to do through part 3 is to allow U.S. agents, foreign agents, the power to carry firearms. Yes, I know they will not be carrying them at airports, but they will still be able to carry them where CBSA officers can carry them.
Would the member not agree that giving a foreign entity the power to use force on Canadian soil in some way violates our sovereignty according to the definition of the concept? I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned in his very thoughtful speech, which I listened to intently, he uses pre-clearance when he travels by air. I would imagine that at pre-clearance, if there was an incident and there was some kind of struggle, obviously the pre-clearance officer at the airport where the member uses pre-clearance would no doubt be engaged in some kind of altercation. That would probably also be considered a use of force, even though it does not involve a firearm.
The fact remains that if there is a problem, under this law the American officer on Canadian soil would be required to bring a Canadian officer into the picture as soon as possible. I think that is a reasonable provision in this legislation.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today but disappointed in many respects, because Bill C-23 is being expedited through the House. It is unfortunate. Many times Liberal members criticized the Conservatives for using time allocation as an archaic way of processing legislation through the House, and today it seems to have become the regular way of doing business. It was an exception to the rule no less than 15 years ago, but now time allocation has become the standard operation of Conservative and Liberal governments. That is unfortunate because errors in bills continue to happen because they do not have a full examination.
The Liberals are starting to see that come true by what is taking place. Not only is there the arming of U.S. border patrol agents but also the basic disregard of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is quite alarming that the so-called party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has disavowed standing up for Canadians. We saw that today in the House of Commons with the weak-kneed approach of Liberal members to what is taking place on the border where Canadians are being denied entry into the United States for racial and ethnic reasons. The website states why they cannot enter into the United States but racial and ethnic profiling is not one of the reasons. The Liberal government has had plenty of opportunities to speak strongly to the United States, but it has not done that. That is a charter right. It is quite clear that the way the United States processes individuals entering the country violates our strong relationship with that country.
Before I move from that topic, it is important to note that the Liberal government is compliant with the U.S. behaving in such a manner. We have signed agreements with the U.S. on several issues relating to border security, relating to processing at the border, relating to immigration and other things, and that country has decided to dump those agreements, go it alone, without a peep from our government. It is shameful.
Back in 2002-03 I was at the Canadian embassy when then ambassador Raymond Chrétien identified that there were going to be five to seven nations, such as Pakistan, that were going to be put on a separate list for going into the United States. I said that we should object to this because a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, and that once an individual has been vetted through our process, that person should be treated as such. To this day we have yet to have a prime minister, whether it was Prime Minister Chrétien or Prime Minister Martin, stand up against this. We knew Prime Minister Harper was not going to do that. However, this body here has had plenty of opportunities to do so.
Putting closure on this debate brings up a number of sensitive issues that need to be vetted.
I grew up near the border. I live and work there. I am raising my family there. I have been crossing the border all of my life. One of my first negative experiences with crossing the border was at the age of 18 when my best friend Jeet Pillay and I were going over to watch a baseball game. He was asked by U.S. officials what country he was from. He said that he was from Canada. I am as white as a bag of milk on a beach but he happens to be brown skinned. These border officials said, “No, no, no. We want to know what country you are from. Where were you born?” He said that he was born at Hôtel-Dieu Grace hospital, which is only three blocks away from where we were crossing on the Canadian side. The officials pulled us in and detained us for about three hours just because of Jeet's skin colour. We missed most of the game.
I have become very used to what is taking place at the border and also what happens under the leadership of presidents and others. The Department of Homeland Security, which has become the over-arching thing, is a relatively new phenomenon. We forget about this. It has become one of the biggest bureaucracies, if not the biggest, in the world, but it is only a recent creation by the United States government.
We have problems with customs and border protection and also having their agents on Canadian soil and making decisions about our citizens. We also have problems with its agents on Canadian soil being able to make decisions about Canadian citizens, decisions that could affect their livelihood, decisions that could prevent them for social reasons from entering the United States. Decisions that could embarrass them publicly and shame them are being made by U.S. officials on our soil.
On top of that, they could now be armed on our soil. People say, “That is not too bad, they would have to go under these rules, terms, and conditions; they are really good fellows and there is no problem there, it is fine”, but what have we done in this act? We have not done any oversight as in making sure that we are actually going to screen and have accountability there. It is very weak. Who are we talking to?
We are talking about a problem that they have in the United States, that the customs and border protection system right now has a corruption issue. The Americans have a serious corruption issue that has been growing in the United States. Those recent problems that they have faced involved everything including drug trafficking, bribery, human smuggling, false statements, and breaking of personal privacy. These are real things that are actually happening. These are real men and women who have done those wrong things in the hire of the U.S. government for many different reasons that I do not know, but they are real cases. I am going to talk about a couple of those cases because it is important that we know the type of people who could be on our soil doing our yeoman's work that should be done by Canadians, and without the proper checks and balances. The Liberals know because they are getting squeamish about this. There is no doubt about it. When they allow another country to come in with arms and put their beachhead down here, then they ultimately have to be overseeing this properly, which the Liberals have not done.
Hence, there is the rush to put this through. At a time when the U.S. is basically tearing up agreements that we have had and denying people entry into the United States for reasons that the Americans describe as normal cause and at a time when we have more people from the United States coming to Canada as refugees, the Liberals want to rush this out the door. It does not make any sense, aside from political pressure and political damage, as opposed to doing the right thing and going through this every single step and every single way to make sure every voice is heard. In watching the debates today, it might be one of the reasons Liberals often do not take their full allotted time. That is the reason to shorten their time in the House.
I want to talk about a few of the cases because they are important. Manuel Eduardo Pena, customs and border protection officer, was convicted by a federal grand jury in Brownsville. Special agents witnessed Pena take the firearm from the store and deliver it to another person in exchange for money. He was sentenced to five years' probation. Adam Bender, from my neck of the woods, worked on the Windsor-Detroit border crossing at the tunnel, minutes from my home. He admitted that he used his position to allow illegal immigrants to enter through his lane at the Detroit-Windsor tunnel and the Ambassador Bridge. For human smuggling, he got 24 months in prison. John Ajello is another customs and border protection officer. He got a misdemeanour of supplementing federal salary. He was accepting payments during an operation related to information sharing that he should not have done. He was making money during an investigation. Luis Alarid got seven years in prison for trafficking and bribery, conspiracy to smuggle more than 100 kilograms of marijuana into the United States, and receiving more than $200,000 in bribe money. They were all convicted. Noe Aleman Jr.'s crime was encouraging and inducing illegal immigrants to stay in the country. He was a veteran of six to 10 years. A lot of them, well over half, are veterans of the service. It goes to show us that the danger is not just with the new people who are hired, but it actually can be corruption through the system that the Americans have.
There are many good officers out there. I deal with this. I travel. I have season's tickets to sporting events in the United States. I go through all the time. There are wonderful people there, but there is also this shadow of conspiracy, conviction, and unauthorized behaviour that now we are actually empowering at a time when there is investigation.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have listened and cannot help but think of this fear factor that the New Democrats have. They come up with some ideas that are so much outside the ballpark in their opposition to this particular piece of legislation. On the one hand, we have the Conservatives, and we appreciate the support that is being given by the Conservative Party. The NDP's opposition to the bill just does not make sense. It seems that there is this fear thing that it has. The member is making reference to the Americans coming over with arms and it is almost as if we go to an airport where there is pre-clearance, there are going to be American customs officers with guns in their hands. Canadians should be fearful.
I have news for the New Democratic Party. Canadian border control officers at our airports do not have guns and, therefore, American customs officers cannot have guns. The fear factor is unbelievable that is coming from the New Democratic Party.
Canadians should understand and appreciate this is good legislation; legislation that is going to have more economic activity. If people have gone through pre-clearance, they will appreciate that this is positive legislation.
My question for the member is, why the fear? Why is the NDP promoting things that just are not true on this legislation?
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the member likes to wind himself up and let himself go like that. At any rate, I think it is important to note that we were not talking about just at airports. We were talking quite clearly about some of the crime and corruption that is taking place and the fact that we are actually increasing the flexibility, the rights, and the provisions at this time. There is clearly a distinct difference between what the Liberals want to do here with unaccountability, with no thorough process and due diligence later on, versus that of right now of making sure we clearly understand what we would be dealing with. Having done this and grown up on the border, being in Washington all the time, working with customs and also working with American senators and Congress as well, they are very aware of the fragility of what is taking place. Ironically, they are also some of the strongest advocates who are also concerned about this empowerment.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member was speaking about his experience at the borders and being with a friend from an ethnic minority. I just today saw an article from Global News about a Montreal woman named Manpreet Kooner, born and raised in Montreal, being refused access at the border. She was with her Caucasian girlfriends who were not stopped. They were going to go to a spa on the U.S. side of the border and were turned away. It was clearly racialized. It was clearly profiling. It was clearly an attitude from U.S. customs officials and border guards.
In this pre-clearance process, which we generally support, it is very convenient to be able pre-clear before we go through the border. What I do not understand and no government member has explained it to me, maybe the hon. member from the NDP can explain it, is why we have this change in Bill C-23. We have pre-clearance now, in the Ottawa airport, before going to the U.S. It is a good idea to expand it to other places. Why do we need to give permission to U.S. border guards, in the current climate of racial profiling, to behave in this way? I think that is one of the key things the Trump White House is telegraphing to border guards: they can discriminate and it will be okay. Why give them active powers?
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. There is no valid reason that can be provided. These are simply best practices that are operating now and that are working very well. In fact, what we should be doing is expanding those opportunities in the current guide and model that is actually working. What we are talking about right now, and that is the reason I mentioned some of those cases, is that those are officers who are coming to work on our border and some of them could have issues like that. We will not be able to have those types of checks and balances. When they have the question of this going on right now, there is no question that there should be that accountability.
Again, there is no reason to arm them at this particular point in time. It is a seceding of jurisdiction. It is a seceding of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are many cases as I have worked the border file over a number of different years of problems related to that. Most recently, we even had an American police officer discharge his firearm on himself while he was smuggling it into Canada. That is a recent one that took place over the last five years. There are other ones, as well, but none of the things that we have mentioned here will solve those problems if we do not have these accountability measures.
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-23, which would provide the necessary authority under Canadian law to implement the land, rail, marine, and air transport preclearance agreement, thereby expanding U.S. pre-clearance operations in Canada and, for the first time, enabling pre-clearance of cargo and Canadian pre-clearance operations in the United States.
Pre-clearance makes travel faster and easier for tourists and business travellers alike, and makes it faster and easier for Canadian companies to do business with Americans. It also allows Canadian travellers to undergo U.S. border procedures while under the protection of Canadian law and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The proposed expansion of pre-clearance enabled by Bill C-23 has been greeted with enthusiasm by chambers of commerce across the country, by the tourism industry, which is in fact extremely important in Laurentides—Labelle, by the trucking industry, and by government partners, among others. For example, the mayor of Quebec City has called it a great victory for his city.
Pre-clearance operations for passengers have been a success story for more than 60 years, but they currently exist in only eight Canadian airports, and they do not exist for cargo at all. It is time to build on that success.
The proposed expansion to new locations and modes of travel requires an agreement with the United States. That agreement has been reached, and the United States has passed the legislation needed for implementation in their country with unanimous support in both houses of Congress. However, if we do not pass Bill C-23, the agreement will come to naught, and the benefits of pre-clearance will remain limited to those Canadians who already enjoy them.
Nevertheless, throughout this debate, the NDP members have been advocating in favour of the existing legislative framework. According to the member for Vancouver East, the current pre-clearance system is working well. The member for Beloeil—Chambly has said that the current pre-clearance system works just fine. The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke said that pre-clearance is working very well already. In addition, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh said that she understood that pre-clearance is a process that exists today and it works.
Yes, it does, and I agree that the current legal framework, which has been in place since 1999, has served Canada well, but the NDP support for it is interesting because, in 1999, when this legal framework was proposed, the NDP had a very different take.
At the time, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, Bill Blaikie, said that the bill raised questions about privacy protection. Mr. Blaikie stated reservations concerning the power of U.S. authorities to detain people, in particular, and he was afraid that U.S. law would be applied on Canadian soil. This sounds somewhat familiar.
The then member for Winnipeg Centre, Pat Martin, said he had serious reservations about the bill. He said it was too “intrusive” and “a breach of Canadian sovereignty”. He was worried that foreign officers would have the right to hold people and stop people from leaving. He argued that by passing the bill, the House was granting foreigners powers on our soil, which the NDP did not think was necessary. He went on to declare that the NDP remained firmly opposed to the creation of Canadian offences for resisting or misleading a foreign pre-clearance officer. He accused proponents of the bill, a group that now seems to include the NDP caucus, of being ready to trample on Canadian sovereignty. The best part is that he said that the bill opened up such a can of worms that it should be sent back to the other place for them to try again and take into consideration such basic things as national pride.
Clearly, a couple of decades later, the NDP realizes that its concerns back then were overblown, not to say unfounded, but here we are again. A new legal pre-clearance framework is again being proposed and the NDP is again sounding the alarm about perceived threats to Canadian sovereignty and perceived powers granted to foreign officers. It will not surprise me if 20 years from now New Democrats leap to the defence of Bill C-23 while insisting that any changes to it would mark the demise of the sovereignty of Canada.
Let us be reasonable. In many respects, Bill C-23 is very similar to the current framework. As concerns authorities to detain, question, search travellers, and seize goods, Bill C-23 is either identical to the existing law or very nearly so.
The same is true regarding penalties for obstructing or lying to an officer, and the right to withdraw from a pre-clearance area is maintained. A traveller just has to say who they are and why they are leaving.
The totality of U.S. pre-clearance operations in Canada would be subject to Canadian law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act. That is an improvement over the present situation, where travellers arrive in the United States and clear customs without any of those protections.
The motion put forward by the member for Beloeil—Chambly asks us to reject Bill C-23 because of what he referred to as the climate of uncertainty at the U.S. border, but it is precisely with legislation like this that we are best able to reduce uncertainty for Canadian travellers.
The bill provides a clear legal framework governing the actions of U.S. officers on Canadian soil and requires U.S. officers in Canada to adhere to Canadian legal and constitutional standards.
Today, for instance, a Canadian taking the train from Montreal to New York has to disembark after crossing the border and submit to U.S. customs and immigration processes without any Canadian legal protection. With Bill C-23 in place, that traveller could be processed at the train station in Montreal with Canadian constitutional safeguards in force and with Canadian authorities on site.
In other words, not only would the legislation bring about substantial economic benefits and make trips to the United States quicker and more convenient for Canadian travellers, it would also enhance constitutional and legal protection for those very travellers.
That helps regions like mine. In my riding, we have the Mont Tremblant International Airport at La Macaza, where flights coming from outside Canada land. At present, it is very difficult to get customs services at that airport, even though it is a port of entry, since it is very costly to bring customs officers from Mirabel.
In the long term, it would help us if U.S. airports already had Canadian customs officers, since they would be able to go to any airport in Canada. That would save a lot of time and improve the economy in the Laurentians. It would solve a problem that has existed for a very long time: the fact that La Macaza is unable to accommodate enough flights from outside Canada, since the costs associated with customs services are too high.
I therefore think this bill is very important for the Laurentians region. I hope it will pass and we will see a number of U.S. airports offering Canadian services. I think that will benefit our entire economy. I know of a number of situations where it will save a lot of time.
When I was younger, I often travelled to the United States. I attended secondary school there, and I took the train or drove to get there. If I had had the option of clearing customs before getting on the train, I would have saved a lot of time. The train left Toronto at 7:00 a.m. and arrived in Buffalo at 2:00 p.m., when the trip by car took less than two hours. That enormous waste of time was caused by customs procedures.
Often, when the train gets to the border as it leaves the country, whichever direction it is going, customs officers check exports, and that takes an hour and a half. Then, when the train gets to the other side of the border, customs officers check imports, and that takes another hour and a half. That means that, altogether, passengers spend three hours at the border, something that simply would not happen if that checking were done at the outset.
Bill C-23 is an improvement over the existing situation. It gives Canadian officers on American soil the same rights as American officers on Canadian soil. It will also improve the economy in all of Canada’s tourist regions.
I am very eager to see this bill come into force.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.
He just said that Bill C-23 changes almost nothing in terms of the current situation, but what about the fact that the current law does not allow a U.S. customs officer to conduct a strip search without a Canadian officer of the same gender present? This has been changed, which is rather troubling, considering the eagerness of U.S. personnel. Earlier my colleague from Windsor said he was very familiar with borders. In fact, people from Detroit and Windsor spend much of their lives going through customs.
The fact that a stip search could be conducted from now on by a U.S. officer without a Canadian officer of the same gender present is a huge change.