Evidence of meeting #15 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was section.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Exactly. I share that. I share that concern from my colleagues here.
I think what we need to be looking at in all of this is a holistic picture that reflects the concerns that have been raised about the lack of trust that Canadians have in this government to respect civil liberties and respect privacy rights. I still get, at my constituency office and my Parliament Hill office, a number of calls and emails on a regular basis from people alarmed that Bill C-2 was proposed in the first place; from people alarmed by Bill C-8; and from people who simply do not trust the government on Bill C-12, because all these other things happened along the way that led here.
If this truly is a new government, which is the line we hear often in question period, then it should be responsive to these concerns. That, I think, is the real problem we're seeing right now. This is not a government that seems to have learned any lessons. This is not a government that wants to play ball with Canadians, or certainly with those alarmed by incursions into privacy. This is not a government that has really shown any real self-awareness on this.
That's dissatisfying to me, and it's disheartening to a lot of Canadians. This is a minority Parliament. It has always been the case that in a minority Parliament, the onus is on the government to find support from opposition parties to enact its agenda, whether it's a budget or other bills, especially ones that are so crucial to the fabric of a country as border security is. This is where I go back to the fact that governments are supposed to unify. Leaders are supposed to unify. The only thing this government has managed to do is unify the NDP, the Green Party, the Bloc and the Conservatives, who have all seen the shortcomings of what this government is trying to do. I guess there is a slight participation medal that can be awarded for that type of unity.
Where we are headed with this, if the government does not honestly take heed of these concerns, is a government that will not get anything done, will point fingers everywhere else, and will blame every other party for that without being able to point to a single thing it has done to truly acknowledge where these frustrations are coming from and where, frankly, the distrust is coming from. All of this comes from an institutional distrust that has ballooned over the last five years in particular. We saw during the COVID period the distrust in institutions. We saw where people stopped believing that the government had their best interests at heart. A lot of these frustrations were the reasons I decided to run for office. I thought Canada desperately needed a change. Despite the proclamations that this is a new government, we have not seen that change really advanced here. I look at where we are on this particular legislation....
I realize, Chair, that we are heading toward question period. I'm happy to continue my thoughts here, now that I've wound down my preamble, after QP, if you so desire.
This is, I think, something that fundamentally can be framed through the lens of when someone shows you who they are, believe them.
This is a Liberal government that has shown us who they are time and time again. It's a Liberal government that has not tried to earn the trust of Canadians, has certainly not tried to earn the trust and confidence of this House and has not listened to the fundamental concerns that have been raised—concerns that I'm certain my colleagues, Ms. May and Ms. Kwan, will speak to in due course. It's a government that cannot truly get anything done without showing that it's willing to engage with critics and willing to fundamentally have some introspection here to look, right down to the granular, at what powers it wants to give itself and how Canadians can trust that it will not abuse those powers.
This has been a question that you can ask in so many ways. It's a question that has become core to the discussion that MPs are having about Bill C-8. It's the discussion in the committee that I sit on regularly, on Bill C-9, which is coming fundamentally from a place where Canadians do not view this government as having engaged with civil liberties issues in good faith.
I know we're going to be getting to other clauses after this. I will admit that some of these arguments will apply there as well, but you saw it in the discussion of section 97 of the act, which is why it's so relevant to what we have at hand here. It really did bring shades of Bill C-2 in the section dealing with mail search. It brought that back because that was the issue that really alarmed a lot of Canadians. That and the ban on cash transactions over $10,000 remain among the top issues that I've had correspondence to my office about because Canadians are so alarmed about that. I'd say it might be in competition with ostriches. I'm sure all members here have received a number of emails about that as well. Before that issue came up, it was exclusively about Bill C-2.
The government, it sounded like, was prepared to take a step back to listen to these concerns. Instead, we have in Bill C-12 some other similar dimensions, where government is giving itself a power without spelling out necessarily—certainly not in these clauses—exactly what is going to be the check on that power, what is going to be the mechanism by which we can assure that power and that authority are not abused, and what is going to be the way that we can be guaranteed, as Canadians, that C-12 will not be a way to shoehorn in provisions that were so resoundingly unpopular when first proposed in C-2, which was the very first substantive bill this government put forward. That was how high on its agenda and its priority list that bill and those authorities were. I think this is why we have to be very skeptical of all of this.
In the previous clause, we have shown our willingness to work across the aisle on this. We voted for the previous clauses. This is about trying to enhance legislation. It's not trying to obstruct. This is actually—
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
My colleague is bringing up many points for discussion, but I feel that he's going beyond the scope of my amendment. He isn't a regular member of this committee, so he didn't have the privilege of hearing the Privacy Commissioner's testimony. He strongly encouraged us to propose this amendment.
Perhaps by speaking slowly, I can make him understand that my amendment seeks to specify what a dwelling-house is, how an officer may enter such a place and under what circumstances they may do so, depending on whether they have a warrant. My amendment does a good job of answering the commissioner's questions.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I believe you're encouraging Mr. Lawton to speak more specifically to your amendment, which he can do after question period in the House, because it's now two o'clock.
I'm going to suspend. We'll be back at 3:30 sharp.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I call the meeting back to order.
The discussion is still on amendment BQ‑1.
I believe Mr. Caputo is next.
Actually, Mr. Lawton, were you finished with your intervention?
Liberal
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you all, members.
I realize it was a very eventful question period, so I appreciate everyone returning here to deal with the issue at hand. Just because some time has passed, I wanted to recap a couple of the core issues that were underscoring my intervention on this, specifically referring to the amendment proposed by Madame DeBellefeuille.
Her amendment I believe deals with some of the issues I was getting at, but in doing so, it exposes one of the core issues that Conservatives have raised with Bill C-2 and now Bill C-12, which is the lack of consideration for the full scope of authority and power that the government is trying to grant the CBSA in some contexts and other agencies in others.
When I was referring to the initial clause 4 of the bill, which refers to CBSA officers having access to transportation and warehouses and being able to search and open packages and all of these things, I mentioned dropshipping, which was just one example of a space that we've seen a bit of a resurgence in.
People have decided to take it upon themselves to run, in some cases, home-based operations for importing and exporting. The amendment proposed by Madame DeBellefeuille specifically looks at a “dwelling-house”. It actually considers this and exposes what I believe is a core issue with the initial legislation. It identifies, the way the bill is currently worded, that if someone is exporting something from their own home, government would be able to go in and, without a warrant, open up doors, open up the medicine cabinet and potentially look at telephones and computers and the contents thereof.
I would like to have some context on this from our experts here.
Regarding the section of the bill we're dealing with here, which is clause 4, when would this be activated? What would be required for these measures to be activated under proposed sections 97.01 and 97.02?
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
There are actually two components at play here, as 97.01 and 97.02 deal with access to the goods, which is separate from the examination authority covered under existing components of the Customs Act, specifically in section 99, and is not part of—
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
What Mr. Hamilton is saying is very interesting, but he's speaking so fast that I don't have access to the content of his answer in real time through the interpretation. It's very difficult for me. However, since it's my amendment, I would like to fully understand his arguments.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille. I think your message has been heard loud and clear.
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
I'll recap a little more slowly. My apologies again, Madame DeBellefeuille.
Your question really invokes two components of the Customs Act.
The first is the one that is dealt with in the amendment under section 97, which deals with access to the goods, so that's our ability to access the goods that are being exported in this particular case.
The second one your question touches on is the actual authority to examine those goods, which is covered under section 99 of the Customs Act and is not part of Bill C-12.
The way proposed sections 97.01 and 97.02 are written lays out specifically within the legislation the conditions that must be met before an officer can request access to those goods. The goods need to be identified by the CBSA as being imminently exported or being loaded for export. We need to know that, and that can be because they're reported or because we have other information that those goods are about to be exported, that they're under the control of the person and that they are in that location because they're loaded, unloaded or stored.
There are some constraints that are written into section 97 that mirror the existing constraints under section 21 of the Customs Act, which deals with the exact same issue but on importation.
November 25th, 2025 / 3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Just to confirm, we are talking about the Customs Act here, so is this searching for the purposes of duty, or also contraband or a combination of both?
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
These are regulatory search provisions, not criminal search provisions.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Then we are not talking here about a section pertaining to access to warehouse space or what's in shipping containers because of suspected wrongdoing but simply the regular checks that are taking place. Is that correct?
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
It's the regulatory enforcement role of the CBSA, yes.