Public Safety Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

If there's no further discussion, we'll go to a recorded vote on clause 2.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to clarify something: Is this not the amendment we just discussed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

No. It's normal for there to be confusion. In theory, there was an amendment to this clause, but it wasn't proposed.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Okay, that's fine.

Could you announce things more clearly for me, going forward?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Yes. I'm indeed going to have to improve considerably, because we clearly have a long day of sensitive and important work ahead of us.

Since the amendment in question wasn't moved, we're now going to vote on clause 2.

I'm going to ask the clerk to do a recorded vote.

(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas, 9; nays, 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We will now move on to clause 3.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'd like to have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Is there any discussion on clause 3?

Mrs. Konanz, the floor is yours.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Are we between clauses right now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We're following clause-by-clause, so clause 3 is now up for discussion.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'm wondering.... Because I was doing this as quickly as I could, and with the translation and everything that comes a little late, I wasn't able to quite get in between clauses 2 and 3.

I'll maybe have to talk while you're talking next time, just so I can get it in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Just to make sure I don't sound as irritating as I can be, we are following the clause-by-clause process. After a clause is voted upon, I introduce necessarily the next clause unless there is a point of order, which may be relevant, but a point of order doesn't allow any MP to introduce a motion.

If I don't follow the procedural order that is appropriate, MPs are free to mention that through a point of order, but we're going to go through clause-by-clause until we have finished the 138 clauses and whatever amendments and subamendments there may be.

That brings us back to clause 3.

Are there any members who wish to speak to this?

Seeing none, we will now vote on clause 3. I invite the clerk to proceed with a recorded vote.

(Clause 3 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

(On clause 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now go to clause 4.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, would you like to move BQ‑1?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Yes.

Should I read it, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

You have the opportunity to share your comments on this amendment.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Okay.

We in the Bloc Québécois moved this amendment because we were very mindful of the testimony of the Privacy Commissioner, who strongly recommended that we clarify the whole concept of a dwelling-house. We believe that this amendment will improve the clarity of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Mr. Lawton, you have the floor.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Just to confirm, is this the amendment adding 97.01 and 97.02 to section 97?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

This amendment to clause 4 would be at line 32 on page 2 of the bill.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Okay. I just wanted to make sure. I appreciate that.

This section is one that I have heard some concerns about. Just because there are a number of individuals connected in this space, there are going to be questions around anything that looks like it's suggesting or inviting warrantless access, anything that looks like it's referring to officers being able to—with no evidence, no probable cause and no reasonable grounds—scrutinize any space.

Just so there's an understanding of what we're talking about here, this section, the original section, which I think is germane to Madam DeBellefeuille's amendment, adds the following after section 97 in proposed section 97.01 and says:

Every person who transports or causes to be transported within Canada goods destined for export must, at an officer's request, give the officer free access to any premises or place under the person's control that is attached to or forms part of any place where any goods destined for export are reported, loaded, unloaded or stored and open any package or container of those goods or remove any packaging from those goods.

This is fairly broad in its wording in licensing officers' access to basically any room, any cabinet and any box, case or envelope. I think you have to look at this in the broader context of the original Bill C-2. One of the chief criticisms of Bill C-2 was that it was giving the government unfettered power to trample on due process, to trample on civil liberties, to allow warrantless searches of people's mail and to ban cash transactions. That's why there is a fairly substantive amount of mistrust about powers that government is giving itself under the auspices of border security.

When I look at some of these regulations around exportation, I understand why people have raised some concerns about this. I know there have also been a number of discussions regarding Bill C-2, and now Bill C-12, about access to electronic devices. Now, electronic devices and digital information are not specified here. It refers to access to “goods”, but given the expansive language we see in this proposed section, I actually don't see any reason that CBSA officers would not feel like they are empowered to not look just at any box, cabinet, or room in a warehouse, but also the contents of an iPhone or a computer that may be found in there.

Always, whenever we are talking about powers and authorities given to government, I think we have to look at what the worst possible outcomes would be of a government using such authority, and then work back from there to ensure civil liberties are never put in jeopardy.

I think this is something that's incredibly germane when we look at this government's track record on this and at the authorities and powers that this government has given itself and has abused. One notable example is the Emergencies Act. This is something that is still—right now, actually—going before the court. You have the Federal Court decision saying that the Liberal government broke the law and trampled on Canadians' rights and freedoms.

To look at this in the context of border security, there is not a single bit of objection from any member of the Conservative Party that we need to take border security very seriously. We are the ones who have been raising these alarms, talking about the inflows of fentanyl and talking about the lack of examination and the export of shipping containers. In fact, we support more scrutiny over things that are leaving Canada, over things that are being exported, but obviously this scrutiny has to be measured and it has to be restrained when we are talking about giving governments quite significant power.

We've heard, by the way, this criticism from the left and the right. I note that on this committee right now we have a member of the New Democratic Party. We're graced with the presence of the Green Party leader herself. We, on the Conservative benches, are raising some concerns about this as well. I believe that, looking at this particular section, there are always going to be concerns about what officers are empowered to do and what limitations there are on that, if any.

I'll go back to the precise wording here—“any premises or place under the person's control that is attached to or forms part of any place where any goods destined for export are reported, loaded, unloaded or stored, and open any package”—and so on. Are we talking about the bathroom at the warehouse where certain products are being prepared for export?

Are we talking about executive offices?

We go back to some of the concerns raised on digital materials. You go on to proposed section 97.02, and it goes beyond there, not simply the transportation aspects but also warehouses.

We know that warehousing is an incredibly diverse space. We have dropshipping, which has become a bit of an industry that has been becoming more and more popular. I think that was something over the COVID era in particular.

I suspect that the government may have been planning to add some clarity to the law, but you always have to acknowledge that, as they say, the devil is in the details. What may be done ostensibly to provide clarity actually opens up a new terrain for government.

The reason that Bill C-12 exists in the first place is that the government had such a reckless disregard for privacy rights in Bill C-2. We were told that Bill C-12 would be the answer to these problems, that Bill C-12 would be the way the government could strip out some of these concerning aspects of Bill C-2, have a bill that would have broad appeal and would reach across party lines. Instead, we have a bill that has some of the same core fundamental issues that we saw in the original legislation. I'm not getting a sense that the government has fully understood or realized that.

We have to look at these individually. I think the value of clause-by-clause analysis is that we go through this and we find things that you don't necessarily see in the summary, that you don't see in how the government has originally specified this.

If you look at part 1, it's very vague. It says that the first part of the legislation deals solely with the Customs Act. If you look at the summary of this, it simply talks about making sure that there are “facilities free of charge for carrying out any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of that Act”. It doesn't talk about the additional powers that the government is—

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Go ahead, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

My colleague is speaking so quickly that the interpreter is having trouble interpreting. It's very painful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

The good news is that Mr. Lawton understands French well.

If you want to speak in French, Mr. Lawton, it will be a bit slower.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

If I speak in French, it will be very slow.

I appreciate that, and I am happy to slow down because I know every member here is eager to hear all of the thoughts I have on this.

I thank my honourable colleague. I was a bit excited because this is such an important bill. I may have been speaking so quickly and trying to pack as much as I could into question period, but I will happily slow down. I thank my colleague for that.

We all need to take some lessons from that, especially in the holiday season, and slow down from time to time and smell the roses, as they say. It's a very good reminder of something that applies outside this committee as well.

Returning to the bill—my colleague can feel free to add any points of order she'd like to if she feels I am speaking too quickly again as I get excited about this—the summary really dilutes what we see in the details of the section in part 1 of the bill and, specifically, where we are now, which is clause four and the amendment from Madame DeBellefeuille.

The government has not been forthright about where it would limit these authorities. We saw this in Bill C‑2, when a warrantless search of letter mail was proposed. There was this default position taken any time these concerns were raised that we should just trust the government. We should trust the government that broke the law by freezing Canadians' bank accounts. We should trust the government that wanted to ban cash transactions. I think a lot of Canadians don't trust it, which is why we are very concerned about this.

I regularly sit on the justice committee, so my view is that we need to be very serious about law and order, but we can never let that come at the expense of due process and privacy rights. That's why I've raised these concerns with this section and the changes this bill proposes in adding sections 97.01 and 97.02.

I realize this is the debate on the amendment. When we get to the opportunity to ask some of the officials questions about this, I will ask what, precisely, will limit that power. Is there going to be a line drawn for where officers cannot search? If not, does one need to be drawn? Has there been an appropriate charter analysis done of this section and this authority, and of what, if any, limitations are required to ensure that it does not violate the constitutional rights of Canadians?

I live an hour from the Canada-U.S. border. This is very important to the economic vitality of my region. When you work in cross-border trade, you have to deal with other countries. It's not as simple as saying, “I'm a Canadian and I have rights as a Canadian citizen,” because you are subject to the laws of the United States and the laws of other countries to which you may export. We still have to ensure that we are not compromising privacy rights or disadvantaging companies that are engaging in cross-border trade by putting them through the wringer and forcing them to engage in all of these different things that make it more complicated and more convoluted, and prevent them from being able to do what they're doing, which I hope all members here can understand is crucial to the economy.

This leaves us forced to question exactly what the implications of this will be for Canadians and Canadian businesses. It leaves us forced to question precisely why the Liberal government did not, in Bill C‑12, take in good faith the criticisms that were being made not just by legislators, but by civil society groups and Canadians from the left and the right, and produce in Bill C‑12 a bill that deals with the border issues that are very real and we've been seeing for many years.

I remember when the government couldn't even point to Roxham Road on the map. It was the fault point in the flow of illegal immigration into Canada. The government wouldn't even acknowledge it and call it illegal immigration.

This is not a new issue to Conservative members of Parliament, but it is an issue that needs very real solutions. We had in our platform a very real border security proposal that would have beefed up the border. It would have responded to the issues that have been identified by border officials, people living in border communities and people in other countries that have been forced to deal with the repercussions and consequences of the Canadian government's failure over the last decade to deal with these issues. That proposal, which very much resonated with a lot of Canadians, is not the one the government has chosen to go with.

What we're left with is now Bill C-2, which is still a live bill, and Bill C-12, which has not responded to these issues. That's exactly why we're having the discussions on this that we are. Where in the demands that have been coming from Canadians to get serious on the border have the calls been that border guards need to be able to open every matchbox in every room in every warehouse? Precisely what limitations, if any, will there be on the power of those officers?

This is, I think, a very legitimate question. It's one that, for the sake of those members here who have been engaging in this debate, I would love to hear an answer to. Instead, whenever we've been trying to raise issues that are germane to this committee's work and to what Canadians are going through, we've found roadblock after roadblock and certain Liberal members who want to obstruct discussion and debate on issues that are incredibly important to Canadians.