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
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Am I not able to make it between clauses? I thought that was a reasonable time to do it.
Liberal
Conservative
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
The rules don't allow me to make a motion between clauses. Is that correct?
Is that what the clerk agrees—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
This is the process that we have agreed to. This committee asked me to go through clause-by-clause today, and that's what we're starting to do.
Conservative
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
We're changing the rules just for this meeting. Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
No, we're following the rules that were adopted by this committee. We're doing this and then, thereafter, depending on when we finish that process, we can collectively decide what we want to do next.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, could you please repeat your explanations in French for our francophone colleagues?
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Yes. It's because there are differences with the interpretation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
It would be my pleasure to do so. In fact, I'm very happy to note your excellent French. I'm going to speak to you in French next time, knowing that you have not only the ability to understand it, but also an interest in French. Thank you for that.
We have 138 substantive motions to deal with. We're on clause 2, but there will be other motions after that. Once we've dealt with those 138 substantive motions, depending on the time and the will of the committee, there may be further debate on other substantive motions.
Madam Kirkland, please go ahead.
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
I'll be quick.
I'm asking you to possibly.... There is a translation happening at times and sometimes we're jumping from one thing to the other very quickly. If you could be careful to let the translation finish for us before you jump to the next thing, that would be very helpful for me.
Also, I would ask the chair, with due respect, to be cautious and careful. I know you didn't mean to sound belittling when you said you will say it in English and French and Spanish and a bunch of other languages, but it did sound a little demeaning, so I would appreciate if you would not do that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I appreciate your saying that. I'll be more careful in my future remarks so that we all have a spirit of respect that we all deserve.
Having said so, let me again check whether amendment CPC-1 is going to be moved. I understand it's not.
We are therefore going to move to a recorded vote on clause 2.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
She said “no.” I thought it was funny, myself.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Very good.
There is no amendment, but obviously we can discuss clause 2.
Mr. Caputo, please go ahead.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Thank you to the officials.
This actually is of interest to me, believe it or not.
Right now, the way section 6 of the Customs Act is worded, infrastructure and property must be provided for duties related to the proper detention and examination of goods. This is quite a bit of an impact.
My question is twofold.
Firstly, with respect to private border crossings versus border crossings that are owned in whole or in part by the government, is there a difference? At a private border crossing, would private enterprise be expected to put this up, whereas at a government-owned or partially government-owned border crossing it would not?
Secondly, what is the import of the proper detention and examination of goods as opposed to the all-encompassing wording? Does that mean, for instance, if the CBSA says they need a new lunchroom, the private enterprise has to pay for it?
Graeme Hamilton Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
I'll unpack it a little bit, and then feel free to ask any follow-up questions if it's not clear.
The language in section 6, as drafted now, specifically requires those facilities to be provided uniquely for “imported goods”. It's not just about the examination of goods; it specifies only imported goods right now in section 6.
Where it comes down to what is provided at the 67 different private ports that operate across the country—we call them “legislative facilities” versus what we call “custodial-owned facilities” for the rest of the 200 and some-odd ports that the CBSA operates—there are a variety of different requirements from a commercial inspection point or from a passenger perception perspective, simply based on the volumes and type of traffic coming in.
The marine ports, for example, are all privately owned marine ports. The marine container examination facilities, for example, are provided by our section 6 owners and operators, and are unique to marine ports of entry, whereas, when we look at our land borders, which are, for the most part, majority-owned by the Government of Canada, there are significant inspection facilities, including secondary examination facilities, large-scale imagings, etc., at those busier commercial ports, like we have in southern Manitoba, southern Ontario and B.C.
The facilities that are required are specific to the type of traffic received, and there are differences between what's required from private sector-owned ports versus ones that are owned wholly by the Government of Canada.
On the second part of your question related to what is covered in that section 6 and what is not, and the difference between the specification around the inspection of goods coming into the country versus the language that has been submitted under Bill C-12, which is around advancing the CBSA's mandate, it's really just to make sure that in those facilities where the CBSA does not own the land or the buildings, we are able to work in partnership with those section 6 owner-operators to ensure that we're able to fulfill the full mandate of the agency in terms of its inspections of people's goods.
To your question around whether lunchrooms, parking, etc., are provided to the CBSA, those are done in negotiations and discussions with the section 6 operators under a framework that exists in order to delineate which goods are deemed part of the delivery of our service and which ones are ancillary and therefore covered by the Government of Canada.
November 25th, 2025 / 1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Thanks. That was really good. It was a huge help.
Liberal
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you very much.
I was wondering if you could clarify, on fentanyl in particular, sources of origin and how granular the data is, to your best estimation, and where the points are where we're seeing that, and inflows versus outflows.
Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
Unfortunately, I'm not a technical expert in the intelligence world of the CBSA and wouldn't be in a position to comment on trends, sources or locations, either import or export. I'm more, within my job, focused on the policy development around commercial and traveller policies as opposed to the intelligence piece, which is where your question is coming at. I wouldn't want to mislead you with an ill-informed answer.
