Marwan Tabbara

[Preclearance Act, 2016, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of goods, about $400 billion per year in goods and services are transported to the United States. Therefore, instead of having congestion at the border, we need to ensure the flow of our goods, services, and people from here to the United States is quick and easy, and that we can grow both our economies.

[Preclearance Act, 2016, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-23, an act respecting the pre-clearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States.

The bill would modify the legislative framework governing pre-clearance operations, the process that allows people travelling from Canada to the U.S. to go through American customs and immigration procedures while still on Canadian soil. This currently exists at eight Canadian airports, and as anyone who has taken advantage of it is aware, it makes travel to the United States much faster and more convenient.

With Bill C-23 in place, it will be possible to expand pre-clearance to new locations and modes of transportation, to implement cargo pre-clearance, and to establish for the first time Canadian pre-clearance operations in the United States. This entails substantial advantages for Canadian travellers and for the Canadian economy.

Certain members have raised concerns about the bill and the new legislative framework it would create. Obviously, that is fine. Each of us has the responsibility as members of Parliament to scrutinize legislation and bring any potential issues to the House's attention. However, we also have the responsibility to avoid exaggerated statements and keep our analysis tethered to the facts. Unfortunately, certain critics of Bill C-23, in particular the NDP candidate for Ottawa—Vanier, have been making, I assume unintentionally, blatantly incorrect assertions about the bill. It is important to set the record straight.

To begin, the candidate has written that Bill C-23 would allow American border security officers to arrest Canadians on Canadian soil. This is completely wrong. Under this legislation, U.S. officers would have no powers of arrest whatsoever. She has also written that Bill C-23 would allow U.S. pre-clearance officers to detain, question, seize property, frisk, strip search, and arrest Canadian citizens on Canadian soil. Once again, the claim about powers of arrest is simply fictional.

As for the first four items in that list, U.S. officers have already had those authorities for decades. In fact, during the debate, NDP members have been calling for the current framework to remain in place. While the current framework empowers U.S. officers to detain, question, seize property, and frisk Canadian citizens on Canadian soil, it seems worth asking whether the NDP candidate in Ottawa—Vanier considers her own party's position in favour of the current pre-clearance arrangement to be an affront to Canadian sovereignty.

With respect to searches, the current framework allows U.S. pre-clearance officers to detain a traveller for the purpose of a search, and requires them to request a Canadian officer to conduct the search. This remains the case in Bill C-23. The only change is that in the exceptional circumstance that a Canadian officer is unavailable, the U.S. officer would be allowed to conduct the search himself or herself. If the NDP considers this a bridge too far, it is free to make that argument, but I think most Canadians would rightly see this as the minor adjustment that it is.

On the subject of travellers who enter a pre-clearance area and then change their mind and decide to withdraw, the NDP's candidate has written that there is no escape. She claims U.S. officers would have all the power they need to hold anyone they want. The reality is that travellers would be free to withdraw from pre-clearance, just as they are now. Bill C-23 merely adds that withdrawing travellers may have to say who they are and why they are leaving in order to guard against people probing the pre-clearance area for security weaknesses. Moreover, it is already the case under existing law. Anyone detained by a U.S. pre-clearance officer must be transferred to Canadian authorities as soon as possible.

She has also written that Bill C-23 would protect U.S. pre-clearance officers who abuse their powers from all prosecution. Once more, this is just plain false. The new pre-clearance agreement with the United States, the one that would be implemented by the bill, would establish a fully reciprocal framework for shared criminal jurisdiction. The U.S. would have primary jurisdiction over most acts committed by its officers in the course of their duties, just as Canada would have primary jurisdiction over most criminal offences committed by our officers in the United States. The host country would retain primary jurisdiction for the most serious offences, as well as any offence committed by an officer while off duty.

With respect to civil action, Bill C-23 maintains the existing rules. As is currently the case, a traveller who feels he or she has been mistreated could not sue an individual officer, but could sue the U.S. government. The same would apply in reverse for Canadian operations on American soil.

In all circumstances, American pre-clearance officers operating in Canada would be required to comply with Canadian law, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights, and the Canadian Human Rights Act. The more we expand pre-clearance, the more Canadian travellers could undergo U.S. border procedures while protected by Canadian law and the Canadian Constitution. The alternative is for Canadian travellers to be searched and questioned in the United States with none of these safeguards.

Finally, the NDP candidate in Ottawa—Vanier has written that Bill C-23“threatens the right of permanent residents of Canada to be able to return home from abroad”. Once again, this is incorrect. There is absolutely nothing in the bill that would prevent permanent residents from returning to Canada.

Her assertion seems to be a reference to the unlikely confluence of multiple hypotheticals that could result in a person with major admissibility issues having to return to Canada the usual way rather than through pre-clearance. In the event that Canada established pre-clearance operations in the U.S. and in the event that a permanent resident of Canada develops a major admissibility issue, such as committing a serious crime, and in the event that a person is nevertheless allowed into the United States, such a person may have to re-enter Canada through an ordinary port of entry rather than benefiting from pre-clearance, simply because pre-clearance officers may not be equipped to deal with that particular situation. Now the NDP is free to argue that this quadruple hypothetical, whereby a person with a record of serious criminality would be inconvenienced, is a good reason to deny millions of Canadians the advantages of expanded pre-clearance, but I strongly disagree.

That is the heart of the issue here. Do the concerns raised by the NDP justify saying no thanks to the huge upside of pre-clearance expansion? It seems quite clear to me that they do not.

The changes that would be made by Bill C-23 to the legislative framework governing pre-clearance are moderate and reasonable. They would pave the way for substantial benefits, benefits such as reducing congestion to 12 million passengers per year, benefits such as in 2015 when Canada exported over $400 billion in goods and services, some $50 billion in services, to the United States, benefits of 600,000 jobs, benefits of tourism activities. We are talking about reducing hassles and delays for Canadian travellers, making it more convenient for tourists and business travellers to come to Canada, and making it quicker and easier for Canadian businesses to ship goods to and from the United States. Bill C-23 would be good for travellers, good for business, and a major step forward for the Canadian economy.

I invite all hon. members to engage in thoughtful, informed discussion of this legislation both today and hopefully at committee. I certainly intend to support the bill.

[Volunteerism, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of two exceptional Waterloo Region volunteers, Diane Bonfonte and Gloria Rudney, founders of Flag Wavers of Waterloo Region.

In addition to their tireless work for multiple community organizations, they have a long history of involvement in organizing Flag Day and Canada Day events in our region.

Today is the 52nd anniversary of the first time our flag was raised on Parliament Hill. During this 150th anniversary of Confederation let us celebrate our flag.

I invite all Canadians to search online for Flag Wavers of Waterloo Region and listen to its video of students at Kitchener's Smithson Public School singing about our flag. Then post a picture or video of themselves with the flag and inspire others to do the same: #canadianflag.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, there are many industries that would benefit. As I mentioned, advanced manufacturing in my riding would benefit. On the west coast, it would benefit many forestry industries and many rural areas would benefit in the agricultural sector.

This is a great deal that would benefit many different sectors.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I have full confidence in our justice system to protect Canadians and to protect Canadian jobs. That is why our government and the previous government have worked on a historic deal, one that is equal to NAFTA, or second to NAFTA, and we are looking to protect Canadian interests and Canadian jobs.

I want to quote from a CTV News article. “Stefan Renckens, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, whose research interests include international trade deals and EU politics, said the elimination of tariffs on Canadian products in the EU will make Canadian companies more competitive in those lucrative markets”.

There are many experts who have been talking about this trade deal saying that CETA is a historic trade deal that will benefit in many different avenues, many different fields, and a lot of entrepreneurs and companies would benefit from this gold standard trade deal.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, according to Canadian Business magazine:

The sectors where higher tariffs still exist—agricultural goods; food, beverage, and tobacco; chemicals, rubber, and plastics; and motor vehicles and parts sectors—will experience the largest export gains as a result of tariff elimination under CETA.... Overall, we estimate that tariff elimination on goods is likely to result in over $1.4 billion being added to Canada's product exports to the EU by 2022.

This deal is a historic deal that would benefit all sectors, and many sectors that the hon. member mentioned.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Joliette.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today on this important piece of legislation. It is a privilege to speak in support of the passage of Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

I congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the minister of the previous government who was involved, as well as the team of negotiators for their diligent and successful work in bringing this international trade agreement to the final steps required for implementation.

There are many reasons to support freer trade. It ensures that consumers, businesses, and government have access to a broader assortment of goods and services. It enhances competition and makes available better quality products at lower prices. In a broader policy context, it provides leadership, with an inclusive, progressive approach to global trade and the development of more sophisticated, effective, and valuable trade agreements. However, most of all, trade leads to economic growth, and economic growth means more jobs, and more jobs means greater opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

In an uncertain global trading environment, Canada's economy will thrive only if we pursue a market diversification strategy. That strategy requires that we should always be exploring new markets while at the same time improving sales performance in as broad a set of our existing markets as possible. The European Union is the world's second-largest market. To illustrate the scale, 500 million Europeans buy more from the rest of the world every year than everything that Canada produces in a year.

When trying to improve sales, the first place to look is whether there is room for improvement with the customers we already have, like Europe, where we have been doing business for 200 years. Europe is already one of Canada's best customers. The European Union is Canada's second-largest trading partner, after the United States. In 2015, Canada's merchandise exports to the EU totalled $38 billion.

I represent the electoral district of Kitchener South—Hespeler, in southwestern Ontario. To bring the issue a little closer to home, in 2015 Ontario's merchandise exports to the EU totalled $19.7 billion, more than half of all of Canada's exports to the EU. Ontario and Kitchener South—Hespeler stand to benefit from increased access to the European market.

Once CETA is implemented, Canada will be strategically positioned to become one of a few developed countries with preferential access to the world's two largest markets, which are the European Union and the United States.

I want to bring this a little closer to home. In my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler, the implementation of CETA stands to benefit advanced manufacturing, which is a big economic driver there. It employs many people with well-paying jobs in my riding.

We are able to achieve that $38-billion level of sales to the EU despite the fact that 75% of what we sell to the EU is currently subject to tariffs and taxes, which the EU collects on Canadian goods at the border, adding to the cost of our goods for Europeans, making our merchandise less price competitive. CETA would make Canadian goods more competitive and give our goods an edge over goods from countries that do not have preferential access to the European Union markets.

On the first day that CETA enters into force, 98% of EU tariff lines on Canadian goods will be duty free, including the most significant Ontario exports: metals and mineral products, manufactured goods, chemicals and plastics. Within seven years that duty-free percentage will rise by one more per cent to 99%. Virtually all manufactured goods Canada exports to Europe will be duty free.

Similarly, for agricultural and agrifood products, 94% of EU tariff lines would become duty free immediately, rising to 95% within seven years.

The European Union is also the world's largest importer of services. Under CETA, Canada's service providers would benefit from the greatest access the EU has ever provided in an agreement. This is particularly important for the Ontario economy, in which services accounted for 77% of the province's total GDP and employed more than 4.9 million Ontarians in 2015. Once Canadian goods or services have been imported into the EU, CETA provides that they must be treated no less favourably than the locally produced products. For example, they cannot be subject to higher taxes, stricter product regulation, or restrictions on sale than for a similar domestic good.

At the end of 2015, Europe was a venue for 21% of foreign direct investment by the Canadian companies, totalling $210 billion; and $242 billion of foreign direct investment in Canada had been made by European companies, representing 31% of all foreign direct investment in Canada.

CETA would provide investors in both Canada and Europe with greater protection while respecting governments' ability to enact legislation and to regulate in accordance with the public interest, such as environmental protection or people's health and safety.

Governments are some of the most substantial purchasers of goods and services. The annual procurement spending by European governments is estimated to be in the area of $3.3 trillion. CETA would provide Canadian firms with the opportunity to bid on contracts to supply their goods and services to European governments at all levels.

Under CETA, skilled Canadian professionals and business people would find it easier to work on a temporary basis in the EU and to move across borders as required; for example to establish branch offices and to provide services related to goods sold.

I stand here today, enthusiastic about the increased trade agreement with CETA. Trade means more growth. Growth means more jobs. More jobs mean greater opportunity for those trying to enter the middle class. CETA would be good for my constituents in Kitchener South—Hespeler, creating jobs and opportunities, it would be good for Ontario, and it would be good for all Canadians.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to touch on a little of what the minister said earlier, that exports are 30% of our GDP. Exports consist of $16 billion in services to Europe alone.

The hon. member mentioned that it came down to cities and how cities could benefit. He mentioned eastern Europe. Could he talk about a city that has benefited from these trade deals?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 8th, 2017]

Sorry, Madam Speaker.

Would the minister also agree with B.C. trade minister Teresa Wat, who said that compared to NAFTA, CETA is Canada's most historic trade agreement?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on his new appointment.

Would you also agree with the B.C. minister—