Matt DeCourcey

[Foreign Affairs, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the contract in question was negotiated by the former government and we all know that the NDP strongly supported that contract.

As I said, our government is delivering on our campaign commitment to join the Arms Trade Treaty, which will increase transparency and accountability. In regulating the global trade of arms, we all know that this is the right thing to do.

As we move forward on this commitment, I look forward to an open and rigorous debate in the House with colleagues from all parties, including my hon. colleague opposite.

Our government has clearly expressed its position on human rights: human rights are an integral part of our foreign policy because they are an integral part of who we are as Canadians.

[Foreign Affairs, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say how encouraging it is to see the members of this House, as well as all Canadians, sharing the government's concerns about maintaining the highest standards on issues of peace, security, and human rights around the world.

Regarding Canada's export regime, all applications for permits to export controlled goods or technology are carefully reviewed against the full range of Canada's defence in foreign policy interests. The objective of this review is to ensure that exports from Canada do not cause harm to Canada or to our allies, do not undermine national or international security, do not contribute to regional conflicts or instability, do not contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery, that they are not used to commit violation of human rights, and that they are consistent with economic sanctions.

Our controls are in line with those of our allies and of our partners. However, we have heard the concerns of Canadians and we are fully committed to making Canada's export control regime even stronger.

On June 17, 2016, our government tabled the Arms Trade Treaty in the House of Commons, something that the previous Conservative government failed to do. Canada's accession to the Arms Trade Treaty will further enhance transparency in the export controls process, while not putting Canadian companies at a commercial disadvantage.

Let me remind the member and all Canadians that the Canadian defence industry provides 70,000 Canadian jobs. Canadians rightly deserve and expect a fair and level playing field. However, Canadians also expect us to live up to our commitment to promote responsibility, transparency, and accountability. This is the right thing to do and we will soon be introducing legislation to this regard. When we do introduce the legislation, members of the House, including my colleague opposite, will have an opportunity to study, analyze, and contribute to this discussion.

I look forward to hearing from the member opposite as well as collaborating with her, so Canada can successfully accede to the Arms Trade Treaty.

Furthermore, Canadians will soon see the results of new transparency measures that will be put in place in the form of enhancements to our annual reports to Parliament on the administration of the Export and Import Permits Act and on military exports from Canada. We committed to being more transparent and accountable, and we will deliver.

With respect to the export contract of light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, let me remind the House that this contract was signed under the Conservative government in February 201. All three parties, including the NDP, committed during the 2015 election campaign to respect this contract. To quote the leader of the NDP, “You don't cancel a commercial accord retroactively, it's just not done”. Unlike the NDP, we are sticking to our word in honouring the contract, but will also further enhance transparency and accountability in this regard.

Regarding Saudi Arabia's human rights record, are we passive? Absolutely not. Our government takes every opportunity to raise critical issues with senior Saudi officials like humanitarian issues, consular cases, and universal human rights. We have raised these issues directly with the king, the crown prince, the minister of foreign affairs and other ministers of state, and the president of the Saudi human rights commission. We will never shy away from the opportunity to promote human rights both at home and abroad.

I thank my hon. colleague for giving me this opportunity to point out what our government is doing on this important issue.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[Foreign Affairs, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Swiss Confederation under the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters as amended by the 2010 Protocol”, done at Ottawa on December 22, 2016, and at Berne on December 9, 2016.

I also have the honour to table an agreement on air transportation between the Government of Canada and the Government of Jamaica, done at Kingston on December 20, 2016.

An explanatory memorandum is included in each treaty.

[Foreign Affairs, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to human rights, this government has been unequivocal, both at home and abroad, around the world. Human rights is an integral part of our foreign policy because it is integral to who we are as Canadians.

Canadians can rightly be proud of the progress we have seen, and which this government has helped achieve, in promoting and protecting human rights both at home and abroad. There is more to be done. We are just getting started.

We look forward to working with members in the House and groups, both at home and around the world, to help advance human rights globally.

[Softwood Lumber, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind members of the House that the former Conservative government allowed the agreement to lapse. Our government is vigorously defending the interests of Canadian softwood lumber workers and producers.

We have a two-pronged approach, and the Minister of Natural Resources has announced the creation of a federal-provincial task force. We will continue our discussions with the United States, just as the Prime Minister did last week in Washington and yesterday by telephone. We are looking for a good agreement, and not just any agreement.

[Foreign Affairs, February 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the concern from my friend, I want to assure her and all Canadians that we are working hard to ensure that our children inherit a world free from nuclear weapons, but that requires real concrete action. That is what Canada is doing for the first time ever. Let me be clear, that it was the first time ever that Canada rallied 177 states to support a resolution calling for a fissile material cut-off treaty. This is genuine and tangible change, and this will help phase out nuclear weapons and allow us to get to a world free from nuclear weapons for our children.