Public Safety Committee on Sept. 23rd, 2025

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

Most of these auto theft vehicles were being shipped out through the port of Montreal, so from Toronto they were moved to Montreal. As I understand it, we have cameras all over Highway 401. Do we deploy those cameras for these types of purposes as well?

[Aaron McCrorie]

It really wouldn't be the CBSA doing so.

[Sean McGillis]

That would most likely be a law enforcement question. Jurisdiction for the 401 falls with the OPP. If they had information, in partnership with CBSA and other law enforcement, we could deploy the CCTV cameras along the 401 to help support vehicles if we knew something was being transported. I can't say for certain that's happening, but I would suspect the OPP is taking advantage of that technology.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ehsassi.

I now give the floor to Mrs. DeBellefeuille for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for you, Ms. Lutfallah.

The mandate of the Canada Border Services Agency is to ensure border security without hindering commercial activities on Canadian territory.

All along the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, there are small ports that are not ports of entry and are not equipped with the infrastructure to scan containers.

As I speak, a Quebec operator is about to lose a major contract. He is going to pick up excavators in Greenland and bring them back on his large ship to the port of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield. However, since the ship will be carrying 20 containers, it will not be able to dock at that port because the containers will not have cleared customs.

The same is true for the ports of Hamilton and Quebec City. Many small ports have asked the Minister of Public Safety to convince the agency to be less rigid and to agree to clear ships with mixed cargo, i.e., bulk and containers.

The entire maritime community is even prepared to commit to clearing a maximum of 1,000 containers per year. Currently, the agency is refusing to do so, which is hindering trade. Trade is therefore moving to the United States because customers do not want to dock in Montreal and pay to transport equipment by truck to the port of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, for example.

Are you aware that six mayors in Ontario and Quebec have already asked the agency to be flexible and agree to clear a few containers from a ship’s cargo that docks in small ports that are not ports of entry?

[Jennifer Lutfallah]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, I am aware of the different ports you mentioned, as well as the mayors' concerns. I received a copy of their letter.

The CBSA is not being rigid. In order to clear containers, there are certain requirements that have to exist at those ports of entry. One of those requirements is having an adequate number of CBSA officers at the port of entry. Another thing would be the RADNET portal. I think you referenced that earlier. Per our agreement with the United States, we need to ensure that cargo containers don't have radiation in them. As well, we need to ensure we have enough space to do our job.

Every port of entry is designated based on what it can accept. It's not just a matter of CBSA being more flexible. We need the appropriate tools and space to do our—

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

I apologize for interrupting, but my speaking time is limited.

I am aware of that. However, I can tell you that, during—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, I am very sorry, but your speaking time expired a minute ago. I encourage you to ask the question again at the next opportunity.

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

I would like to go out to lunch with our witness to discuss this further.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We will all be jealous if you only invite our witness. We would also like to be invited to this nice meal.

Mr. Lloyd, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

To the RCMP, what are the operational capabilities of the Black Hawk helicopter that made it the only choice for Canada?

[Sean McGillis]

I will start the answer, and then I will hand it over to Chief Superintendent McGowan.

As a point of clarity, when we defined our operational requirements, we worked closely with Public Services and Procurement Canada. We leveraged a national standing offer that already existed and had pre-qualified suppliers on there, which ensures that they have the capability we require, but also value for money, from a fair market value perspective, to make sure we are paying only what we need to be paying.

In terms of the exact operational requirements, I'll turn it over to Chief Superintendent McGowan to speak to those.

[Jamie McGowan]

In terms of the operational requirements, there's not one specific requirement that we used to define which helicopter we were looking to use. It was an aggregate of all the requirements, including the range of the helicopter, the capacity to lift a certain amount of weight—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

What would be the weight that you're lifting, people or equipment?

[Jamie McGowan]

It's a combination.

The helicopter is a best-in-breed platform in terms of the operational requirements. When we looked at the PSPC standing offer, based on our operational requirements there was only one helicopter that met those requirements, and that was the Black Hawk helicopter.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Was it PSPC that determined it, not the RCMP?

[Jamie McGowan]

No. The RCMP determined our operational requirements, and from that we looked at the national standing offer and determined it.

Being aware of some of the concerns that have been raised about these particular helicopters, we're in the process of our long-term lease, which is operationally spec-driven. It will be going to PSPC as an open contract that anyone who meets the requirements can bid on.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

My next question is going to be for all the witnesses who are here today. I think it's a yes-or-no question. If the answer is no, you don't need to say anything. However, if the answer is yes, then I encourage you to speak up.

Is there any testimony you've given today that you would have any concerns about being made public?

[Shannon Grainger]

No. I have no concerns.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I'm the longest-standing member of the public safety committee, and know this was great testimony today. There was really interesting information that I think Canadians need to know about. I wasn't at the last meeting, Mr. Chair, but I just find it bizarre that this meeting on this important issue is being held in camera.

Given that not a single witness has stated that they have any concerns with the testimony that has been given today being made public—this is all very basic testimony that we're hearing today, nothing top secret—I would like to move that we move this committee out of camera and that the testimony that has been delivered today at committee be made public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

This is a motion that touches on both the in camera aspect and making public material that was discussed prior to the meeting being in camera. It is a matter that I will need to turn the attention of the clerk to, because that's not the usual dilatory motion. Not being in camera—therefore, the public aspect of the remaining time—is for the MPs to decide.

I understand you are moving that, from now onwards, the rest of the meeting would be public. Is that the case?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Go ahead, MP Sari.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I thank Mr. Lloyd for his contribution. However, the meeting is not yet over. The questions that were asked were answered, but there may be other questions.

I have no objection to the decision to make the information public. That said, before we decide whether to publish the minutes of the meeting, we must first finish the meeting. Otherwise, we cannot know at this point whether witnesses will be uncomfortable to see some of their future answers made public.

In short, on the issue of transparency, I fully agree that the content of the meeting should be made public. I have no problem with that whatsoever. On the form, however, I think we need to finish the questions and answers before deciding.