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.
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't want to mislead you here, but it is true that in many places in the Customs Act, we would see “enforcement of this act or any other act of Parliament” would be the normal language that we would see in this type of amendment.
I am being told that this could include enforcement of other acts if they are enforced under the Customs Act, so potentially, it is actually broader than just the Customs Act itself.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
I don't expect you to know this, and I'm just thinking out loud. I would imagine the Customs Act incorporates other acts into what it deals with, as in it doesn't just say we deal with this suite of things. It may say we deal with things under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, under the Criminal Code, things like that. Does that sound about right?
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
It does, but the controls are limited to the regulation of imported and exported goods, so not the full suite of authorities under those other acts, but just as they relate to the import and export of goods.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Right. This is quite different from Bill C-2.
I'm going to talk about Bill C-2 because it was born of Bill C-12. I just saw something about the Liberal secretary of state for crime reduction, who asked why the Conservatives aren't voting in favour of parts 14 and 15 in Bill C-2. She said the Toronto Police Association want this. I found that very interesting because the Toronto Police Association also asked for the swift passage of MP Khanna's bill, and the secretary voted against it. It never ceases to amaze me how short some people's memories are when it comes to what they voted against, and now they're saying, “Please vote for it.”
The reason I reference that is that Bill C-2, particularly in parts 14 and 15, grants substantial powers of search for something like intellectual property that's stored with Facebook or Meta, and things like that. This is often called the lawful access regime. I don't think we should make any mistake about it. Lawful access is something we can all look at.
The Bykovets decision, for instance, was a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada that said there is an “expectation of privacy” in an IP address. I'm not an expert at all on IP addresses. If somebody tells me how to find an IP address, I might be able to find it. They would have to tell me or I'd have to look up how to do it. It would probably take me about as long as it would to figure out the serial number on my phone. I'm told that finding an IP address is similar to opening up a phone book. Anybody who knows what they're doing can look at it and figure out your IP address. It's very similar.
In the Bykovets case, the Supreme Court of Canada said you have an expectation of privacy in your IP address. That added another step to law enforcement's steps of investigation.
The way it typically works for Internet offences—let's take an Internet offence against a child—is the provider flags something as potentially breaching the Criminal Code. Let's say it's child sexual abuse material. It sends that to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in Washington, D.C. If it's Canadian, it sends that to the RCMP, identifying the IP address, and then the preliminary work is done to determine whose IP address it is. It can usually be done very quickly if it's just a matter of figuring that out, but this decision in Bykovets says you need a production order to obtain it. That means judicial authorization to say who owns this, even though it's super easy to find.
Once you get that, you would seek a warrant to determine whether you can enter the house and whether a crime has been committed and there's evidence of that crime to be found within that dwelling. It's interesting that this looks at ensuring that there is proper lawful access, if you will, by way of warrant, yet Bill C-2 was plagued by warrantless searches and the Liberals are still demanding that we pass Bill C-2.
When I look at an amendment like this, which seems fairly sensible to me, and I juxtapose it with lawful access—like in the Bykovets decision, which I think we need to address as a Parliament—and going much further than that in parts 14 and 15 in Bill C-2, I have very real questions about whether parts 14 and 15 in Bill C-2 are constitutional. We've seen a number of commentators who have talked about parts 14 and 15.
Can I just clarify if I'm speaking too fast for the translators?
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
No. We're good. Mr. Ramsay's giving me a thumbs-up, and I don't know if that is because he really likes what I'm saying or because he's just hearing what I'm saying.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
My friend and colleague across the way said that you're speaking in favour of lawful access. Lawful access, we have to remember, has to be constitutionally compliant lawful access. I will never vote in favour of lawful access that is not constitutionally compliant. Lawful access, since we started on this, must recognize that there is a relationship between the rule of law, the rights of the individual, and constitutionality and law enforcement seeking to get what they need.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Mr. Caputo.
I believe that concludes the interventions on BQ‑1.
We will now vote on amendment BQ‑1. I'll ask the clerk to do a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We will now vote on clause 4 as amended. We'll go to a recorded vote once again.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
I don't know if we need a recorded division. We may be able to indicate consensus. Is that okay, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Yes. We just want to make sure that everyone is attentive enough to make sure that if he or she disagrees with a clause, he or she has the opportunity to signal that.
We can proceed slightly faster.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Unless there's unanimous consent to discuss the motion that Mr. Caputo proposed earlier, we will move to clause 5.
Is there unanimous consent to discuss this motion?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
In that case, we'll move on to the consideration of clause 5.
Mr. Lawton, you have the floor.
November 25th, 2025 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I appreciate the floor, Chair.
This is now an entirely new debate that we're having, although I realize a lot of these issues are interconnected. I was hoping that our witnesses could speak to what they believe clause 5 will achieve.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I'm sorry to interrupt, but I didn't quite finish with my initial remarks. I was going to point out that clauses 5 to 21 are not subject to amendments at this point.
For that reason, I need to confirm with the members around this table whether there's unanimous consent to combine clauses 5 to 21 for the purposes of voting.
Is there unanimous consent for that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
That means we can vote on clauses 5 to 21.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt clauses 5 to 21?
(Clauses 5 to 21 inclusive agreed to on division)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
That brings us now to clause 22, which could be affected by amendment G‑1.
Do I have a mover for amendment G‑1?
It doesn't look like it.
That brings us to a vote on clause 22 itself.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt clause 22?
(Clause 22 agreed to on division)
