EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security NUMBER 015 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Le mardi 25 novembre 2025 Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE November 25, 2025 Committee NUMBER 015 NUMBER 015 NUMÉRO 015 15 25 11 2025 2025/11/25 11:05:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security SECU Chair Jean-Yves Duclos 1 45

(1105) [ Translation ]

The Chair (Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Québec Centre, Lib.)) :

Good morning, everyone. I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 15 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the House order of reference of October 23, 2025, the committee is meeting on its study of Bill C‑12 ,

an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures. I'd now like to welcome the witnesses who will be with us for the first hour of the meeting. From the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, we have Brian Kingston, who is the president and chief executive officer, and from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, we have Liam McGuinty, who is the acting vice-president of federal affairs. Mr. Kingston, you have the floor for five minutes.

[ English ]

Brian Kingston (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association) :

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to participate in your study of Bill C-12 . One year ago, the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, CVMA, appeared before this committee to raise our concerns about the rise in car thefts in Canada. Despite stronger regulatory requirements for Canadian vehicles in the form of mandatory engine immobilizers and the fitment of the same technologies in new vehicles in both Canada and the U.S., Canada's vehicle theft rate was growing significantly faster than that of the United States.

Since then, manufacturers have continued to improve deterrence and security systems to stop vehicle theft. The industry has also been actively working with stakeholders, including federal, provincial and municipal governments, insurance and law enforcement to better understand challenges and find solutions to deter vehicle theft. These efforts alone cannot stop theft. Sophisticated transnational organized crime groups have targeted Canada, where the perceived risk of prosecution was low and the financial reward was high.

To address this situation, we called for a comprehensive plan to target organized crime groups and close the export market for stolen vehicles. Bill C-12 takes meaningful and necessary steps to target organized crime groups and secure our borders.

These include strengthening Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, including through stronger anti-money laundering penalties; amendments to the Customs Act obligating owners and operators at ports of entry to provide, equip and maintain facilities for any purpose related to the administration and enforcement of the CBSA mandate; and allowing the CBSA to access premises under the control of transporters and warehouse operators to perform examinations in places where goods destined for export are reported, loaded, unloaded or stored.

These measures, combined with the Government of Canada's border plan and Bill C-2 , will make it more challenging to operate vehicle theft rings in Canada that primarily export vehicles to foreign markets. The evidence is clear. More resources to secure our border and to target organized crime have already reduced theft rates in Canada. The increase in the number of stolen vehicles has been reversed, with 16,000 fewer vehicles stolen in 2024 compared to 2023. That's a 14% decrease. Through the first half of this year, auto theft rates have decreased by 19.1% compared to the same period in 2024.

To maintain and build on that success, increased border resources must be maintained. There is more that can be done to address new forms of theft. In response to enhanced vehicle security systems and police resources that are targeting theft, organized crime groups have now increasingly focused on auto financing fraud. Organized crime groups are the root of the vehicle theft problem in Canada. Theft will persist as long as these groups find ways to profit from stealing vehicles while minimizing their risk of prosecution. We applaud the actions taken by the federal government.

We remain committed to working with all levels of government, insurance and law enforcement to continue to reduce vehicle theft here in Canada. Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Kingston. Mr. McGuinty, you have the floor for five minutes.

[ English ]

Liam McGuinty (Acting Vice-President, Federal Affairs, Insurance Bureau of Canada) :

Good morning. I’m pleased to be here today on behalf of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. We represent the vast majority of Canada’s home, car and business insurance companies. My remarks today will address the persistent challenge of auto theft in Canada, emphasize the urgent need for sustained federal leadership to tackle the issue and highlight the role Bill C-12 can play in that effort. Auto theft reached crisis levels in Canada a few short years ago. In 2023, the number of stolen vehicles surged to 115,000—a 46% increase over just a 10-year span.

In the lead-up to the crisis, our industry had been sounding the alarm and has since worked closely with governments, law enforcement, stakeholders and consumers to raise awareness of auto theft. Our interest in the issue is clear: Auto theft drives up insurance costs and premiums for all of us. More critically, it undermines public safety. Beyond its immediate impact on driver safety, auto theft serves as a major funding source for organized crime. Because of the data it holds, our industry serves as a barometer on auto theft. Let's start with the good news. Auto theft rates are dropping.

According to Statistics Canada in 2024, theft rates fell by 14% compared with the previous year. Our data shows that these decreases are largely driven by fewer thefts in Ontario and Quebec. We credit this improvement to coordinated efforts by all levels of government and law enforcement. Insurance companies have also played a role through incentives and pricing signals that help consumers make informed choices about the vehicles they drive and how to protect them. Here's the bad news: Despite the recent decreases, theft rates are 25% higher than they were 10 years ago.

Last year, just under 100,000 vehicles were reported stolen. Organized crime continues to drive a significant amount of auto theft in Canada. In many instances, they're targeting newer, high-value models, often luxury SUVs and trucks, then exporting them overseas for close to full market value. In other bad news, the impact of auto theft on insurance premiums has increased. The cost of insurance claims for theft are up nearly 400% since 10 years ago. Thankfully, we've begun to collectively recognize the need to disrupt the stolen vehicle market.

The CBSA and law enforcement have made good progress intercepting stolen vehicles before they leave the country. Provincial governments and the CCMTA have begun cleaning up vehicle registry systems and sharing data, making it harder to fraudulently reVIN vehicles. The federal government has invested in the CBSA's capacity and in proposed tougher bail and sentencing laws for violent offenders. Bill C-12 is the latest encouraging development.

As this committee knows, the bill would obligate owners and operators at ports of entry and exit to provide, equip and maintain facilities to allow for the examination and detention of goods destined for export. It would also allow the CBSA access to premises under the control of transporters and warehouse operators in order to perform examinations in places where goods destined for export are stored. The bill recognizes the strategic importance of our ports of exit as critical choke points—key points where we can intercept and prevent stolen goods, including stolen vehicles, from leaving the country.

Initiatives like Bill C-12 are welcome and demonstrate the federal government's commitment to continuing the fight against auto theft. Here's our concern: The data makes it clear that we're still in the thick of this fight. We can't afford to take our foot off the gas, which is why we've been calling for all elements of the national action plan on combatting auto theft to be adopted. This includes changes to Canada's motor vehicle safety standards that would ensure vehicle security becomes a mandatory safety feature.

In the near term, Bill C-12 , along with any other effort to boost our enforcement capacity and disrupt the stolen vehicle market, is welcomed by our industry. Thank you for the invitation to speak with you today. I look forward to your questions.

(1110) [ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty. Mr. Lloyd, you have the floor for six minutes.

[ English ]

Dane Lloyd (Parkland, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We heard from the CBSA that they're seeing a shift in stolen vehicles on the east coast. It's now moving more to the west coast. Is that something your organizations are observing?

Liam McGuinty :

I'm happy to start. What we track is insurance theft claims at IBC most closely. I think the general trend you've seen is a decrease in the value and volume of thefts in central Canada, in Ontario and Quebec. That's decreased. I'm happy to give some thought and have some discussion on why that might be. Then there's a bit of a whack-a-mole in the rest of Canada. We've seen it decrease and we've seen it either even out in western Canada—

Dane Lloyd :

In western Canada?

Liam McGuinty :

We've seen some parts of western Canada increase, and some parts of Atlantic Canada increase, but it's not been an even experience.

Dane Lloyd :

Thank you. A recent CARFAX report from September claims that 372,000 vehicles in Canada have fraudulent or cloned vehicle identification numbers. This is deeply concerning. What are the concerns of the Insurance Bureau and your organization on these cloned VINs? What would be the impact?

(1115) Liam McGuinty :

It is a growing issue. To give a bit of context, there are three things that happen, typically. They get exported to international markets; they get fraudulently reVINed and then sold to unsuspecting customers; or they get taken apart and sold in chop shops. ReVINing is a growing concern across Canada. Oftentimes a consumer, unaware, will purchase a vehicle they think has a clean bill of sale. It does not, and then there are often consequences for that consumer.

One thing we found encouraging is that provincial governments, including the Ontario government, and the CCMTA have started to clean up their VIN systems. They've started to share data more. That's an encouraging development, because the more we can share data, the more we can root out the kinds of fraudulent data we've seen in this system in the past.

Dane Lloyd :

What would be the impact, if we're talking about over 300,000 cloned VINs, when people discover...? What happens to consumers when they discover that their vehicle has a cloned VIN that was fraudulently a stolen vehicle before they purchased it? What's the impact on customers?

Liam McGuinty :

There are implications. The consumer ultimately has accountability for the car they drive. Law enforcement would be better equipped to speak to the specific consequences, but there absolutely is an onus on the consumer to know what they're purchasing. Oftentimes, though, they're doing it with a hand tied behind their back, because the information that's coming to them appears to be legitimate.

Dane Lloyd :

Are the insurance companies going to come and claim those vehicles back? Don't they belong to the insurance companies?

Liam McGuinty :

I'd have to come back to you on that. No, that's not something I've—

Dane Lloyd :

If an insurance company has paid out a claim to somebody who had a stolen vehicle, and there's a consumer who bought that stolen vehicle, who ultimately owns that vehicle? Is it the consumer who purchased it or is it the insurance company that paid out the claim?

Liam McGuinty :

It's a good question. There could be subrogation involved, ultimately, if it came to that point. I don't know enough about that subject. I'd have to come back to you on that.

Dane Lloyd :

Équité Association has labelled Alberta as a feeder province; Alberta now has the highest per capita rate of vehicle theft. It's clear that organized crime is engaged in reVINing. Now, some people have said that maybe we need a national vehicle registry, but I've already been told that we have an interprovincial record-sharing system. It's just not being used. Can you give us some more information on that?

Liam McGuinty :

There's something called the interprovincial record exchange. It's managed by the CCMTA. I think you are actually seeing provincial governments step up and use the IRE more. It was one of the recommendations in the national action plan on combatting auto theft. I'm encouraged by what I've seen, which is a real focus on improving the data. The problem with a national VIN registry or an IRE is that it's garbage data in, garbage data out.

Jacques Ramsay (La Prairie—Atateken, Lib.) :

I have a point of order, please.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

The floor is yours, Mr. Ramsay.

[ English ]

Jacques Ramsay :

I would just like the witnesses not to use acronyms like CCMTA, please.

The Chair :

Okay. Let's try to hear what CCMTA stands for. The interpreters might also appreciate that.

Liam McGuinty :

Now I'm going to be challenged to actually know what it stands for. I believe it's the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. The IRE is the interprovincial record exchange.

Jacques Ramsay :

Okay. Good.

The Chair :

You have two more minutes.

Dane Lloyd :

Thank you. A concern has been raised to me. A vehicle purchase is sometimes people's largest purchase next to their home. When people discover that their vehicle is not legally theirs, some desperate people might do fraudulent things, such as say that their vehicle got stolen. Is that a concern of the Insurance Bureau? As products come out, as in CARFAX's report that has just come out about these cloned VINs, could we see a rise in increased auto fraud in relation to these stolen vehicles? What is the Insurance Bureau recommending to combat that?

Liam McGuinty :

It's possible that this could be a result. You are seeing an increase in auto fraud across Canada, and frankly, as you've seen a decrease in auto theft, the same kinds of criminals who committed it are looking for other opportunities to make a buck. Ultimately, the consumer needs to undertake full due diligence. There are services available through provincial governments, no matter where you are in Canada. They allow you to verify the VIN. There are also private services—you've referenced one of them—that allow you to do that.

Our job, along with Équité Association, which is funded by the insurance industry and whose mandate is to combat auto insurance crime, is to share information about what you can do to protect yourself from auto theft and from fraud. I think there's more work to do there, but we're encouraged by what we've seen on the auto theft component in the last year or so.

(1120) Dane Lloyd :

I noted that you said there has been a decline in the number of vehicles reported stolen, but has the insurance industry seen a reduction in the financial losses from stolen vehicles?

Liam McGuinty :

Marginally it has. We reached $1.5 billion in auto insurance theft claims in 2023. It's gone down to something like $1.3 billion, but over at—

Dane Lloyd :

You said that auto thefts have gone down significantly in the last two years. Why haven't the financial claims gone down?

Liam McGuinty :

It's the value. The value has gone way up. Over the last 10 years, the value of auto theft claims is 400% higher.

Dane Lloyd :

The number of vehicles have gone down, but the cost of the claims has not gone down. It's gone up proportionally per vehicle.

Liam McGuinty :

Well, to be clear, over the last couple of years, you've seen a decrease in both the value and the volume. Over the long run, though, the value of auto theft claims is significantly up. It's 400% up over the last 10 years. The reality is that the cars being stolen are much more expensive now than they were previously. This isn't about folks stealing cars for joyrides. This is about targeting luxury SUVs and trucks because of the value they hold in the market.

Dane Lloyd :

When luxury vehicles are stolen, does that increase the premiums of poor people's vehicles—

The Chair :

I'm sorry, MP Lloyd. I apologize for interrupting you abruptly, but we need to move on to MP Dandurand for six minutes.

[ Translation ]

Marianne Dandurand (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank the two witnesses for being with us today to talk to us about the scourge of vehicle theft. However, I understand that the measures put in place have improved the situation over the past year, so that's excellent news. Mr. Kingston, since we've been talking about data sharing, I'd like to know what kind of data held by manufacturers could be shared with the government or police authorities to reduce this problem. Does Bill C‑12 address the kind of information you have that could be useful to share in order to reduce vehicle theft?

[ English ]

Brian Kingston :

There is a lot of record sharing between auto manufacturers and local police forces. There's also a lot of activity that occurs where they try to coordinate on vehicle safety systems, ultimately targeting some of these groups. With that being said, it is done on a very regional basis, and that was one of the challenges that we found. Manufacturers may be working with one local police force that was deeply involved in this, but there wasn't necessarily sharing occurring at the national level, for example. Bill C-12 doesn't necessarily address that.

However, the situation has improved dramatically because this became such a pressing issue for all involved. We are seeing better information sharing among municipal, provincial and federal governments, but there's always more to do. The VINing question is a great example of that. We didn't have a coordinated approach on VINing, and different provinces had different approaches to it. It's not perfect, but it's getting better.

[ Translation ]

Marianne Dandurand :

Can you describe in more detail the kind of information you have that could be useful to law enforcement? We know that our cars are being increasingly tracked through various safety systems. In the best cases of information sharing between police forces and manufacturers, what kind of information is shared?

[ English ]

Brian Kingston :

It's largely case by case because what you'll see a manufacturer do, if they're coordinating with a local law enforcement agency, is try to find out how a vehicle security system was overcome, what was used to do it, and then find out what could possibly be done to avoid that in the future. It very much is case by case, and these crime groups are very sophisticated. They're using different methods all the time. However, there is a benefit to sharing some of that information amongst law enforcement agencies so that they can understand what to look for, and of course, sharing it with auto manufacturers so that they can figure out what happened and why the vehicle was stolen in the first place.

[ Translation ]

Marianne Dandurand :

Would you say there is collaboration between the various manufacturers to share information on theft techniques in order to reduce this scourge and increase vehicle safety?

[ English ]

Brian Kingston :

That does occur. We don't have a formal structure for that type of information sharing, although the industry is regularly engaged with Transport Canada, which is responsible for the regulations regarding vehicle immobilizer systems, for example. There are venues for this type of information to be exchanged. I think there's probably room for improvement, though, just to make sure that everybody is responding to the most up-to-date information and the most up-to-date techniques that these groups are using.

(1125) [ Translation ]

Marianne Dandurand :

Thank you. I invite you to create and formalize these exchanges. It can only benefit everyone. Mr. McGuinty, I come from an area where there are no major urban centres. Based on your analysis of the data, is there a difference between vehicle thefts in urban areas and those in peri-urban or rural areas?

[ English ]

Liam McGuinty :

Definitely. This is a problem that has mostly targeted our larger cities. Frankly, Montreal and the GTA have been hot spots for auto theft. In part, that's because of their proximity to the port of Montreal. You still see significant rates of theft in our urban centres, but that's not to say there isn't theft happening in our rural centres as well.

[ Translation ]

Marianne Dandurand :

Do vehicles stolen in large urban centres and those stolen in rural areas have the same final destination? I imagine that vehicles stolen in the regions are more likely to be resold in Canada. Is that the case? Is that a trend we're seeing?

[ English ]

Liam McGuinty :

That might be a better question for law enforcement. What I can say, from what we've heard, is that in Ontario and Quebec, which have been bearing the brunt of the auto theft crisis for the last several years, a lot of those cars are destined for export. A lot of them are making their way up the 401, if you're in Ontario, toward the port of Montreal. That's not always the case, but it has certainly been a commonality among the thefts we've seen in central Canada.

[ Translation ]

Marianne Dandurand :

Is there also information sharing to reduce the scourge? Does Bill C‑12 provide a good framework or a better framework for information sharing?

[ English ]

Liam McGuinty :

Absolutely. One of the things our members did is offer anonymized VINs to car manufacturers in case it was useful in informing product design. We incurred that cost as an industry in the spirit of making sure that we can help create cars that are less likely to be stolen.

[ Translation ]

Marianne Dandurand :

Mr. Kingston, we know that there are thieves who tamper with vehicle identification numbers. Are there ways for manufacturers to prevent this?

[ English ]

Brian Kingston :

Not necessarily. You would be amazed by how much time, energy and resources these groups put into overcoming systems. Companies have tried to make it more challenging for a VIN to be removed or replaced on a vehicle, but there have been situations where a vehicle was recovered and law enforcement found that this organized crime operation had a full VIN manufacturing facility where it was replacing the VIN with a highly convincing new VIN. You have to always try to stay one step ahead, but I wouldn't underestimate the money and resources these groups put into replacing VINs.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Dandurand. I now give the floor to Mrs. DeBellefeuille for six minutes.

Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. During an appearance as part of the study on vehicle theft, the Insurance Bureau of Canada told the committee that, based on its findings, the border was porous, and that the Canada Border Services Agency and law enforcement agencies needed to do their job. However, it's estimated that there's a shortage of between 2,000 and 3,000 border services officers to ensure border security. If we're seeing an improvement in the auto theft file, it's because the agency and the RCMP prioritized this problem, which had received a lot of media attention.

However, one question often comes up: While they are focusing on vehicle theft, what services are being neglected? Organized crime comes to mind, as do other services that require the presence of border services officers. So Bill C‑12 could improve the situation, but I don't get the impression that it gives us the means to achieve our ambitions. In other words, it doesn't seem to provide sustainable resources to combat vehicle theft in the short and long term. That's what I think. It must be said that everything depends on the agency's ability to provide its inspection services.

The Montreal Port Authority tells us that it can take up to two weeks to open containers and that this has consequences for manufacturers. They can't get the vehicles to their customers, since there's a shortage of border services officers and they can't do their jobs any faster. Do you believe that the provisions set out in

part 2 or

part 3 of Bill C‑12 will really make a change or create a deterrent effect when it comes to vehicle theft? Mr. Kingston can go first, and then Mr. McGuinty.

(1130) [ English ]

Brian Kingston :

I think Bill C-12 is absolutely a step in the right direction, combined with all of the funding that was put into CBSA under the borders plan and some of the changes in Bill C-2 . They are making a difference. We're seeing it in the data. Your point is absolutely correct. As the border services put more energy and resources into vehicle theft, there is a risk that other types of illegal activity moving through the ports may see an increase, be it in drugs, guns or other sorts of illegal activity. That said, it was clear that we did not have the necessary resources.

The inspections were not occurring on outbound cargo. Now, because the government has put funding into this, there will be much stronger deterrence against that type of activity occurring at ports. It's a step in the right direction, but there's always more that can be done.

[ Translation ]

Claude DeBellefeuille :

What do you think, Mr. McGuinty?

[ English ]

Liam McGuinty :

I agree with Brian. I will add two things. One, I think for a very long time, and for sound public policy reasons, we had a focus on what was coming into the country, as opposed to the outflows. I think we've realized, especially with the tie to organized crime, that a focus on outflows is also in our public interest. I would say that this bill and other measures by the government, including the increases to the CBSA's capacity, are important, and so too is the technology held by the CBSA. I know there have been pilot projects for new scanners and investments in more scanners.

I think all of that will come together and continue to make improvements in, as I mentioned in my remarks, squeezing that choke point, which is really the final choke point in a very long auto theft supply chain.

[ Translation ]

Claude DeBellefeuille :

I have a question that you may find a little unusual, Mr. Kingston. I must say that I don't really know much about it, and I didn't participate in the committee's study on auto theft, but I wonder why cars are so easy to steal. Why doesn't Transport Canada set high standards to force you to talk to each other, work together and neutralize theft techniques? I understand that technology is evolving quickly, but from what I can understand, it seems quite easy to steal cars in Canada. Why is it so easy? Are other countries similar to us affected by this scourge in the same way as we are?

[ English ]

Brian Kingston :

What we saw, and this is what caused us to raise the alarm when we were last here, is that we have the same vehicles in Canada, largely, as you would see on U.S. roads, but we actually have an immobilizer standard in Canada, which you don't have in the United States. Every vehicle comes fitted with an immobilizer, and yet theft rates here were far higher. That led us to investigate why it was happening, and it turns out it's because they could be easily exported out of market, which is harder to do in the United States.

To your question around the technology, companies are constantly evolving, but the amount of money that gets put into this by organized crime groups means that you put in a new security system, and in some instances, within days, those vehicles are being stolen by these groups and torn down, so they can find vulnerabilities. Then that information is shared. It is almost impossible to come up with a single solution that will make a car unstealable. Let's say Transport Canada mandated that every vehicle should have bars on the window. You can't get into them.

There would be no way possible, without some sort of heavy machinery. Well, what we saw happening here is that as the systems improved, organized crime groups turned to carjackings and violent home invasions. They will do whatever it takes to get the keys, and that's obviously a very dangerous outcome for Canadians. There is no silver bullet on the technology side. It's a suite of measures, including closing off export markets, more law enforcement and higher penalties for criminals. There is no single technological solution that will stop the theft.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Kingston. Mr. Gill, you have the floor for five minutes.

[ English ]

Sukhman Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley, CPC) :

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming in and being witnesses today. Canada's auto sector has been coming to a breaking point for quite a while now. Theft is exploding and is costing Canadians a billion dollars a year in insurance claims, draining household budgets, and it's hammering the manufacturers who are already struggling to stay competitive. Instead of easing the pressure, the federal government is continuing to pile on. After spending years championing the electric vehicle mandate, Mark Carney has finally admitted that the policy is unworkable.

However, rather than scrapping it, he simply pushed it back to 2026 and launched another bloated bureaucratic review. The question is very simple. How do you think the increased theft rates have affected the total cost structure of automakers, insurers and consumers, and how could these theft-related losses reduce the capital that manufacturers need to meet possible EV mandate compliance requirements?

(1135) Brian Kingston :

The automotive industry is under unprecedented pressure, as you've outlined. Some of that is emanating from protectionist policies in the United States, but there are also a number of Canadian policies that have put huge costs on this industry at the worst possible time. We estimate that the federal EV mandate will cost Canadian manufacturers over $3 billion in compliance credits. It must be repealed. We have to take a look at every single element of Canada's competitiveness.

If we're going to protect the automotive footprint, we should be evaluating all of these rules and regulations and determining if they are effective and what the cost is. If it's clear that they're redundant and ineffective, like the EV mandate, get rid of them. Let manufacturers focus on what they do best, which is building cars here and employing Canadians. Don't put these unnecessary regulations on top of them at a time like this.

Sukhman Gill :

Do you agree that the EV mandate should be scrapped?

Brian Kingston :

Absolutely. We've been saying that for the better part of five years.

Sukhman Gill :

How do you think that companies will weigh EV mandate penalties, rising vehicle tariff expenses and cross-border traffic tariff rises when determining whether to invest in new Canadian facilities or shift productions to other jurisdictions?

Brian Kingston :

All of this is factored in when a company makes an investment decision. They evaluate a location on the costs of manufacturing in that location and there are a number of other factors that go into it. If you have an EV mandate that will require companies to sell fewer internal combustion engine vehicles and purchase credits from foreign automakers to operate here, that makes Canada significantly less attractive.

Sukhman Gill :

If auto theft costs continue to rise and insurance premiums continue to go up, how might this affect consumers' willingness or ability to purchase higher-priced EVs?

Brian Kingston :

It will make it a challenge for sure. Canadians are in an affordability crisis right now. If they are forced to purchase EVs, which is what the EV mandate does and this is according to Environment Canada, it's going to raise vehicle prices, reduce availability and ultimately impact low-income, rural and northern Canadians disproportionately.

Sukhman Gill :

Would that be a struggle because the federal government has put a mandate to set a target there then?

Brian Kingston :

Exactly. It's directly related to the federal mandate.

Sukhman Gill :

That's what we've been saying the whole time. Given the soaring costs of theft and rising insurance premiums and the financial strain already crushing manufacturers, isn't it fair to ask whether the EV mandate is actively making Canada less secure by forcing money and attention away from combatting real threats towards unworkable strategies that the government has put forward?

Brian Kingston :

Yes, it absolutely is.

Sukhman Gill :

Would you like to go further into detail with that?

Brian Kingston :

On the insurance question, if you boil it down to cost per consumer, at one point in Ontario, $130 of your premium was going towards auto theft costs. Ontario has been a hot spot. In the last eight years in the GTA, theft claims have increased in value by 700%, far outpacing inflation and other factors that would contribute to an insurance premium.

Sukhman Gill :

Thank you so much.

The Chair :

I'll now turn to MP Ehsassi, for five minutes.

Hon. Ali Ehsassi (Willowdale, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses for doing a great job and providing us with a lot of information. Mr. McGuinty, I think you mentioned the fact that most of these cars are coming from Toronto or Montreal and finding their way through the port of Montreal. You mentioned specifically the 401. As you know, there are many cameras on the 401. I suspect that they are primarily for speeding purposes. Do you think there's any benefit to using that technology for the purposes of doing a better job detecting where these cars are coming from and cracking down on organized crime?

Liam McGuinty :

I think there's merit to it, certainly. Part of the challenge is the number of cars being stolen. Also, sometimes you don't realize that a car has been stolen and it doesn't get reported until sometime after. There are challenges with intercepting a car on the way from, let's say, your driveway to the final port of exit, which is why this bill and other efforts by the government to focus on that choke point are important. It is typically a circuitous journey from your driveway to a cooling-off parking lot to perhaps another cooling-off parking lot and then up the road, etc.

There could be opportunities for law enforcement to intercept. I think you've seen a really strong focus by law enforcement in central Canada and elsewhere, new investments and a keen focus on stopping auto theft. One of the reasons is because they know it is a primary funder of organized crime in this country.

(1140) Hon. Ali Ehsassi :

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty. Next, I will go to Mr. Kingston. First of all, thank you for nice things you said about this bill. It obviously will help in our endeavour to crack down on stolen cars. You also said we should be using every tool available. I wanted to ask the same question insofar as technology is concerned. As you know, the Premier of Ontario has said that he will not be using these cameras for speeding purposes anymore. Do you think they can be put to good use to assist our law enforcement authorities to crack down on car theft?

Brian Kingston :

I would have to defer to law enforcement partners. They are best placed to answer what the tools are that they're missing to interdict and effectively intercept these vehicles before they make it to export market.

Brian Kingston :

We have seen an improvement in recovery rates. It's up 3% this year, but there is a way to go. I hesitate to give you a definitive answer on that simply because I'm not in law enforcement.

Hon. Ali Ehsassi :

I appreciate full well, as you've explained to us, that there is no perfect solution to this. Mr. Kingston, would you agree that auto manufacturers also have to bear some responsibility and there are certain things they can do to make it more difficult for cars to be stolen?

Brian Kingston :

Absolutely. This requires numerous actors and players in this ecosystem coordinating and working together to address this, and the manufacturer role is working with law enforcement and improving their vehicle security systems, which they're doing constantly.

Hon. Ali Ehsassi :

Thank you for that. Mr. McGuinty, is there more that auto manufacturers can do?

Liam McGuinty :

We've called for a whole-of-society approach to tackle this. There's certainly a role for automakers, and there's a role for government too. One of the major outstanding items in the national action plan on combatting auto theft is the finalization of an update to the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We've made input into that process, and so have a number of OEMs. We haven't updated the standard since 2005. We think it's time to update that standard, and I think Transport Canada feels the same way.

Technology has changed significantly since then and we think a standard should reflect that, and one of the ways to ensure a dynamic standard is to make it ambulatory in nature and have it evolve along with trends.

The Chair :

Thank you. [ Translation ] Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

Claude DeBellefeuille :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In your opening remarks, Mr. Kingston, you told us that it was a good thing that operators now have to provide facilities to enable border services officers to do their work. Can you explain to me what concrete changes it could make, in the case of car theft, if there were facilities at a CN rail yard, for example?

[ English ]

Brian Kingston :

One of the challenges we encountered when we started to dig into this and look more at what was happening at the port of Montreal specifically is that it's actually a constrained space and the CBSA didn't have the facilities to inspect outbound cargo at the rate that was necessary and pull cargo. When you think about a port of that size and scale and taking a container off a ship and bringing it somewhere you can safely open and inspect it, it takes quite a bit of physical space to do that effectively.

I think the bill is a step in the right direction because it guarantees and requires that port operators create that space for the CBSA, but there probably will still be some physical constraints at ports in Canada. We cannot allow outbound cargo to leave Canada uninspected. That was what was happening and that was what was causing this problem.

(1145) [ Translation ]

Claude DeBellefeuille :

Ports and railways will face significant costs to expand facilities, infrastructure and technology. Do you think all costs should be covered by the operators, or should they be shared between the government and the operators?

[ English ]

Brian Kingston :

Everybody has a role to play in it. I think the CBSA has to have the space to operate and do its job. I would argue, frankly, that if we don't address this, the costs will be borne by all Canadians in the form of higher theft rates, higher insurance costs and, ultimately, more government and taxpayer money going into addressing these crime issues. While there may be an upfront cost to putting in place these facilities, the long-term payoff will far outweigh that cost.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille. Ms. Kirkland, you have the floor for five minutes.

[ English ]

Rhonda Kirkland (Oshawa, CPC) :

Thank you for your testimony. In one portion of it, Mr. McGuinty, I believe you mentioned that theft rates are 25% higher than 10 years ago. You said it was good news that the government has potentially introduced some tougher bail and sentencing to deter that. Would you say, then, that the light type of bail and sentencing we have had over the last 10 years has increased auto theft over that period of time?

Liam McGuinty :

I'll make a more general comment, because IBC is not an expert in the Criminal Code or—

Rhonda Kirkland :

I bring it up because you said it in your testimony.

Liam McGuinty :

I did. I think that, for too long, auto theft was a very low-risk, high-reward proposition, and there's a lot that went into that. One, it was easy to steal a car, and some models were easier than others. Two, there was a lack of focus on outbound exports. We started to remedy that, and I think that you've heard a number of voices, including from law enforcement, speak to the fact that sentencing was not strong enough. We've supported Bill C-26 . We've supported other measures that the government has introduced. We think it's appropriate to be more severe in terms of, especially, violent auto thefts.

Rhonda Kirkland :

I would like to pick up on something that Mr. Lloyd was asking at the end of his questioning. If more luxury cars are being stolen now, which is what we're seeing, because the cost hasn't really gone down in terms of insurance, is that cost then being borne by average and low-income Canadians in their insurance costs?

Liam McGuinty :

Everyone ultimately pays for higher auto theft costs and claims. If you're driving a high-risk vehicle or a vehicle model that's more likely to be stolen, you're going to bear much more of that risk. In fact, in some provinces, we've seen specific surcharges get levied on high-risk vehicle models. Ultimately, insurance is a risk pool, so all of us pay more for higher risk.

Rhonda Kirkland :

Thank you. Mr. Kingston, if you were to single out the largest barrier, just one, to stopping stolen vehicles from leaving Canada, what would be the largest barrier?

Brian Kingston :

The biggest barrier is a lack of outbound cargo inspection.

Rhonda Kirkland :

Would you say that the absence of mandatory container screening at ports is still that largest one?

Brian Kingston :

Yes.

Rhonda Kirkland :

Do you feel Bill C-12 addresses that enough?

Brian Kingston :

Yes, it does. The CBSA is better placed to answer this. You don't need to inspect every single piece of cargo leaving the country. They use metrics to figure out what's high risk, but they need to have the space, they need to have the equipment and they need to have the officers to intervene when they've determined that something is potentially carrying stolen goods.

Rhonda Kirkland :

Thank you. I'm sorry for the witnesses to do this right now, but I would like to move a motion that I verbally put on notice at our last meeting. I move:

That the committee undertake a study, pursuant to SO 108(2), on the systemic discrimination and toxic workplace culture within the Canada Border Services Agency; That the study include a minimum of five meetings; That the committee invite the Minister of Public Safety, the President of the Canada Border Services Agency, the President and additional representatives of the Customs and Immigration Union, former and current CBSA employees with lived experience, experts in workplace culture and harassment, and any other witnesses the committee deems appropriate to appear before it; and That the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

I believe the clerk has been emailed this motion that I'm moving and will send it out electronically to everyone. I would like to share why I'm at this stage where I feel that I need to move this motion. It actually started in the late summer. In my riding in Oshawa, I very often have coffee and conversation with my neighbours in Oshawa. I say, “Come and talk to me. Tell me what your concerns are.” One woman addressed me briefly. Her name was Caroline. She had some real deep concerns about her treatment as an officer at the CBSA. When she shared these concerns with me, she broke down.

She said, “I'm sorry to get emotional. I think that when I get emotional, people think I'm crazy.” She gets a reputation. Women get that sometimes. We're told that we're crazy and that the things we're saying don't make any sense or that they're not really happening. A little gaslighting sometimes happens to try to convince us that this stuff isn't really going on. I said, “Let me review your file.

Let me read what it's all about.” At the time, I assumed that my mode of action would be to simply reach out to the Customs and Immigration Union president and, on behalf of my constituent and my neighbour, share that I would like to see what's going on with her case. It's at the third level. It's my understanding—and I've said this in committee before—that there are 450 cases in the east GTA alone at the third level. It was my friend Caroline's—now my friend, as I've gotten to know her—understanding that the union only had the capacity to review four at a time per month.

At that rate, with 450, you can see that we're looking at six to 10 years before something is resolved. Caroline felt that she needed to leave the toxic workplace and work somewhere else. She has left, but she still hasn't let it go. She still wants to be able to advocate not only for her case but for many others who have now said, “Thank you for having the strength and the courage to come forward. We want to come forward and share what's going on with us.” I set up a meeting with her. You know how scheduling is; it happened closer to the beginning of October.

It was right around the week that we had in our committee here the Customs and Immigration Union president, Mark Weber. We asked a few questions regarding how the government saw its ability to get 1,000 new border agents in a timely manner, based on the promise the Prime Minister made. Through discovery, I learned that the attrition is very high. Very briefly, Mr. Weber pointed out that the attrition is high because there is a toxic work culture. He touched on it just briefly, but it stayed in the back of my mind, because if attrition is that high, getting 1,000 new border agents is going to be tough.

It's going to make even the topics we're talking about today tougher—auto theft and making sure our border agents have what they need to be able to screen—if we have attrition so high that we can't get this done.

(1150) Caroline came into my office days after I'd heard this testimony. I didn't really discuss it with her. I just listened to her story. Her story was quite heartbreaking. Multiple former CBSA employees came forward with serious allegations, but this is about her specifically. She was diagnosed with breast cancer and had to take some time off. She was worried about what it would mean for her position if she took time off and came back. We know that, in Canada in 2025, if you have to leave for illness, you should expect to come back to work and not be demoted or in a lesser position.

We expect that person should be able to come back and have the position they were supposed to receive. Her experience was devastating. She was essentially removed from a specialty position. After she fought and beat cancer, she became pregnant. I learned throughout several instances now that pregnancy is something that is essentially discouraged at the CBSA. Parental leave is discouraged past 90 days for both the father and the mother. Specifically for the mother, we know it's especially important because sometimes there's healing needed. Pregnancy made things worse.

There's something called the National Integrity Centre of Expertise, which she reached out to. However, the problem with this organization is that it's an internal one. You've seen organizations investigating themselves and closing the case. “Nope, nothing to see here—no wrongdoing. Nothing is happening here to change. Look, we've hired all these women in managerial positions. Clearly, there's nothing wrong. This is all in your head. Really, it had nothing to do with your pregnancy and nothing to do with the fact that you decided to start a family.” It is becoming worse and worse.

Another wonderful young woman wanted to start a family, and she did. She was a dog handler with the CBSA. For those of you who don't know this, dog handlers love their dogs. They become such close friends. They train them. They have so much they take

part in. I want to share with you something that she wrote: “I joined the Canada Border Services Agency in December 2014. When I graduated training, I was proud to put on my uniform.” I'll pause right there because I think that is probably the single most amazing thing I've seen throughout this process. The women I spoke to—a couple of men but mostly women—are very proud to wear the uniform. They love their jobs immensely at the border and with inland security. Caroline, whom I mentioned, was inland security. Jordana was at the border with her dog as a dog handler.

They were devastated when they had to give it up because they became pregnant. How is that possible in this country? It's not okay in any way, shape or form. She had to give it up. She said, “I believed in service and integrity, and in the importance of protecting Canadians. When I first joined, I heard stories about the environment at the Pearson airport.” This is in Toronto, for those of you listening who may not know. The stories that circulated quietly among women in law enforcement were stories about women being passed over for specialized positions in favour of a man or after taking a maternity leave.

They were about women being told they were too emotional for enforcement work, or being excluded from participating in special projects. They were about male colleagues being fast-tracked for opportunities that women had to fight twice as hard for. They were about bullying and harassment complaints from women that were quietly disappeared—not the women but the complaints, to be clear.

(1155) She said that she had hoped things had changed and that things had progressed. She wanted to believe that if she worked hard, did her job well and kept her head down, she'd be judged on her merit and not on her gender. However, to her disappointment, she eventually started to witness and experience these things herself. The boys' club that she was hopeful was dismantled long before she started in 2014 was very much still alive. The women who were in charge were installed to protect it.

She was warned by other female officers that complaining would effectively blackball her career, and she watched the agency silence women who did have the courage to speak out by labelling them as aggressive or crazy. She was told to develop a thick skin and to go numb to survive. She was told this in her workplace at the CBSA—to toe the company line. So, she did, she says. In spite of the environment, she found a way to make the most of it. She says that she spent time on various enforcement teams and eventually was selected to be an agricultural dog handler.

After 10 weeks of intensive training in Quebec at the training college, she graduated as a dog handler. She said that it was more than a job to her; it was a calling. She was incredibly passionate about it and was dedicated to her work. She said that she was proud to serve Canadians in this way, to work in partnership with her highly trained canine partner, and to be part of a unique and specialized program. She loved her work. It gave her purpose, pride and identity. She and Faye were extremely successful and intercepted prohibited food items [ Technical difficulty—Editor ].

(1200) The Chair :

I'm sorry, Madam Kirkland [ Technical difficulty—Editor ]. Please go ahead, MP Dandurand.

[ Translation ]

Marianne Dandurand :

Mr. Chair, I doubt we'll get back to the witnesses soon. They've been very patient, and they may have other things to do. I therefore move that we release the witnesses, so that Ms. Kirkland can continue her arguments on the motion.

The Chair :

If the witnesses wish to leave the meeting, they can do so. We're already past the hour that we had planned for witnesses. We will almost certainly not need their eloquent and informed comments as we continue this discussion. Thank you for your intervention, Ms. Dandurand. Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Kingston, thank you for being here and for your hard work. We really appreciate your coming to work with us. Have a good day. Ms. Kirkland, you have the floor again.

[ English ]

Rhonda Kirkland :

Thank you. I will take this moment to thank our witnesses. We did get good testimony from you. I'm sorry I did take up the last 10 minutes, but it was a very important motion I needed to make. I appreciate your patience. Thank you. As I was saying, she and her dog were extremely successful partners and intercepted close to 700 prohibited food items in the nearly three years that she was a handler. She says that when she became pregnant, that pride slowly turned into fear. Pregnancy made her afraid for her job. We heard in testimony at the last meeting from the president of the Customs and Immigration Union.

He said that this is not a single-issue situation; this is a culture. He wasn't afraid to say it was a culture, because it was. There are too many examples of this happening for it to be an isolated incident. She became pregnant. She said, “I became pregnant. That pride slowly turned into fear. Due to an antiquated policy, I was told that if I was away from the field for more than 90 days of leave, my dog would be removed and I would lose my assignment. The rule was absolute. There was no accommodation, no compromise and no exception.

This was especially concerning because my husband was also a dog handler with the CBSA, so we both stood to lose our assignments over parental leave. We proposed to split our leave, each taking six months, so I could heal from my scheduled C-section, but this was met with the same rigid, callous resistance by CBSA management. The justification I was given was that a dog's operational skills deteriorate if inactive for longer than 90 days, but there are no scientific studies to support that, none.

The agency admitted to me that none existed, and here's where it becomes even more difficult to understand, and the contradiction is glaring. The CBSA canine training college that created this policy also trains handlers and dogs for the Correctional Service of Canada, where handlers can be off for up to a year-long period with their canines and return to their position. Those partnerships and the work environment are maintained.

It protects female corrections handlers and their protected leave. “Why does the Canada Border Services Agency, under the portfolio of Public Safety and the public safety minister, enforce a rule that punishes women for taking maternity leave? We have a federal agency that punishes women for taking maternity leave. How, in Canada, a country with some of the most robust maternity leave provisions, does a policy like this exist with the federal government in 2025,” or ever, I might add. She said, “I was told my canine was an expensive agency asset that must be reassigned and remain operational.

I asked why a dog was given more consideration than my protected rights, my human rights as a woman. During my maternity leave, my dog was removed from me. Being stripped of my assignment at the end of my pregnancy when I was most vulnerable and focused on the well-being of my child left an indelible mark on my professional identity. It signalled to my colleagues and superiors that my commitment and competence was somehow diminished by motherhood.” The mothers in this room know that your commitment and competence increase with motherhood. Well, there's baby brain maybe for a little while, slight baby brain.

She said, “The resulting damage to my reputation has been deeply painful.” I don't think I can express that enough. She lost her position because of pregnancy. She lost her dog because of pregnancy. She said, “I was made to feel as though I did not matter, and all my work invested for the CBSA was erased, replaced instead with the stigma of being unreliable and less dedicated. Why? Because I wanted to exercise my right to maternity leave. At a time when I needed compassion and understanding, I was met with exclusion, not inclusion. (1205) “The worst part was when I questioned it.

I was accused by women themselves in senior management positions as being aggressive. I was vilified. I was often dismissed and told that my last name was now a household name in Ottawa as being a troublemaker, that my career was over. How dare I challenge them? I ended up leaving my career with CBSA—a career that I loved—over the discrimination that I faced. “When I emailed the president, Erin O'Gorman, and two other executives expressing my concerns, I was met with silence. I did not even receive acknowledgement.

I transferred to another department within the federal government where the treatment I received is unheard of. “This doesn't exist elsewhere that I can see in the government to the extent it does at CBSA. My canine that needed to be reassigned so urgently”—remember, so urgent—“sat in a kennel during my leave and was never reassigned.” That's two losses there. “She was eventually retired, thankfully to me, after many months, but all of this was for nothing. “Personally, the emotional impact has been devastating and continues to be.

The timing of this action occurred during what should have been a period of bonding, recovery and joy with my child and transformed a profoundly human experience into one of humiliation, anxiety and loss. I struggled and continue to struggle with immense guilt for subjecting my child to the stress of this while she was in my womb. This situation stole every ounce of excitement and joy from my pregnancy and this is something I can never get back. “At times I question whether I was wrong to prioritize fighting to keep a position I loved instead of focusing on my baby.

The harm from this cannot be measured solely in professional setbacks. It extends to my dignity, my identity as both a mother and a capable professional, and my trust in an employer who claims to value women in law enforcement. “Being penalized for needing time to care for my newborn sent a chilling message, not only to me but to every woman who dares to believe that motherhood and professional ambition can coexist.” This isn't an operational issue. It is a gender equality issue. It is systematic discrimination embedded in policy and it needs to change.

She says that she is not the only one impacted by this policy and it is only the tip of the iceberg for the systematic discrimination issues that plague the CBSA. Four other people that she is aware of, including her spouse, have been harmed by this policy. Most recently, a female handler in Montreal was asked during her interview process if she planned on having children. It's disgusting and it's unacceptable. This young woman is asking for leadership. She's asking for that leadership from us. We are members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which oversees the CBSA.

She says that we have oversight, accountability and we need to fight for the reform within the CBSA to ensure that no woman in the CBSA ever again faces this kind of fear and loss during one of the most vulnerable and meaningful times in her life. She says that no woman should have to choose between her child and her career and no department under our watch should be enforcing policies that make her choose.

(1210) As I asked a few more questions of these ladies, it became clear to me—and we heard this from the Customs and Immigration Union president in our last meeting—that we are dealing with a systemic issue. It is my understanding, from talking to several people, that they are aware of at least 50 women with similar stories because they're speaking out. There are hundreds of young women currently working as officers at the CBSA who are afraid to say something. They are afraid of reprisal. They are afraid they will lose their positions, which they love. It is their life's work. They strove to work for the CBSA.

It is something they wanted all of their lives. Most of these women have spent years trying to get their grievances dealt with. Not only have they have been pushed out of their roles; they've had to leave the CBSA because it became so toxic for them. The president of the union, in his testimony last week.... This is why I decided it was time to put the notice on motion. I couldn't wait any longer. The president mentioned the name of one person who's come forward in a news article. She's spoken out, and she has been speaking out for quite some time, but people are now paying attention. Danielle Getzie is her name.

There's a timeline of some events for her. She was a CBSA canine handler. She has provided a factual chronology of events and evidence illustrating the coordinated efforts to remove her from her position, the subsequent cover-up and the sustained misconduct that has persisted across multiple levels of CBSA management. Corruption and deceit within the agency continue to this day, with senior officials consistently withholding information, providing false statements and obstructing fair process, despite clear findings from multiple investigative bodies.

It should be noted that when the union president gave his testimony, he also said there's an issue with too much middle and upper management, which creates a top-down issue that exacerbates the concerns these women have. There are a few things I want to share from this timeline. They should give a fuller picture of the relentless misconduct, retaliation and mistreatment that Danielle has endured at the hands of the CBSA. The timeline she gives us is drawn from hundreds of pieces of supporting evidence that substantiate every claim contained within it. It forms the foundation for the larger body of documentation.

Of course, my goal is to have this pass one day, and she'll be able to come here and share some of this as well. The documentation has been quite exact and quite damning. Here's a condensed timeline, focusing only on the unjust removal from K-9 that Danielle Getzie experienced. Appreciate that during certain times, there were multiple significant workplace events occurring at the same time as these events that met the definition of workplace violence and bullying.

(1215) Many managers were interviewed in one sitting and asked questions regarding the unjust removal of canine handlers, but also other significant events. The managers had to navigate these interviews, attempting to cover up their culpable actions and often changed their answers from investigation to investigation, depending on the nature and scope of that investigation. What is consistent is that the managers especially refused to tell the truth about their actions and knowledge of the said events.

I'm going to name them from the documents from Danielle herself: Superintendent Duffy, Chief Charlton, Director Linde and Superintendent Wakita. In October 2018, the director of the detector dog service, DDS, was notified that Danielle Getzie was pregnant and removed her from evaluations without notifying her. This was done because the DDS wanted to remove her from the program in anticipation of her maternity leave—which is sex-based discrimination, based on family status.

Getzie found out about the unjust removal and through her manager, Superintendent Wakita, confronted DDS about it and notified DDS that she would not take maternity leave longer than 90 days—so she was already making concessions to keep her position, which is already unacceptable. DDS, however, still refused to put her back on evaluations. Getzie suffered a medical emergency as a result of the stress and was hospitalized until she delivered her baby prematurely at seven months. She then filed a grievance over the 90-day policy. Just to be clear, this was seven years ago.

Getzie and her baby were released from the hospital in December and she then presented her grievance to the regional director general. In January 2019, a grievance response was issued and the RDG, regional director general changed the grievance from a policy grievance to a personal grievance. Getzie was successful. RDG promised that Getzie could evaluate in January 2019. She came off maternity leave to do so. She was told that she would be able to go back to evaluations and that she would not be removed from the K-9 program and would be allowed to take her full one-year maternity leave.

The DDS 90-day leave policy would be changed and she was to be protected from retaliation. RDG instructed the director to protect Getzie from retaliation. In December 2019 she returned to the CBSA from maternity leave and immediately experienced a more hostile workplace, spearheaded by a manager who was a recent addition to the K-9 program and a customs and immigration local executive. This intensified the frequency of meetings—she had almost 20 with managers—about the hostile work environment, including superintendents, chief superintendents and directors, and the bullying and harassment,.

However, management took no action. Video evaluations are mandated by DDS due to COVID, and in July 2020 Getzie received a call from a whistle-blower who was a trainer in the DDS, who stated that the managers of DDS were failing her and Nova without merit. The whistle-blower didn't want to be named. By the way, I'm seeing that a lot. Many women have come forward and they do not want to be named. They're afraid, especially those who are still officers. They're deeply afraid. One woman called me from another province a couple of weeks ago, and I happened to be in my community office in Oshawa.

(1220) When she called one of my case workers, my receptionist put her on hold, came back to my office and said, “There's a woman calling. She says there's something going on with the CBSA." My ears, of course, perked up, because I was thinking, “Okay, what's going on here?” I guess the first time I asked a question about this in committee, word spread that someone asked. Someone finally said something about this, even though it's been a known issue for a long time. She said that she seemed afraid, that she said, “I'm not even sure if I should call you. I don't know, am I going to get in trouble?

Am I allowed to talk to her?” There was that much fear. I took the phone call.... Yes, I'm diverting. This is a rabbit trail. This woman was an administrator, a trainer for the CBSA. We're not just talking about frontline officers here. We're talking about administrators, trainers, inland officers. She had a medical condition for which she needed a transplant, and she had an organ transplant. During that year, she was accommodated because her work—she administrates the training manuals and things like that—could be done outside the office. She did this work for a year, and everything was fine.

Then, she went back for a while and started to get very sick a lot. Her many doctors and specialists wrote many messages to the CBSA, to her managers, to say that, because her immune system was so weak because of the transplant, she needed an accommodation. The simple accommodation requested was that she'd be in an office on her own, with a closed door, or she could work at home, just so she wasn't around too many people all at once because her immune system was so bad from her transplant. She was denied. She was told by people, who were not doctors that, “No, the cubicle is fine. A cubicle will keep you safe.

You're going to work there.” She is now in the middle of trying to fight to go back to work but not be in a cubicle. She's afraid, if she says something to anybody above and beyond her management or her union, that she's going to be treated like she's crazy, ostracized...a crazy woman complaining again about the CBSA and the workplace harassment she has had to undergo. We're talking about a woman who had a transplant. We're not talking just about pregnancies here.

I do suspect that there are men, who have health conditions, who are also treated badly in the CBSA, which is why my motion didn't just specifically mention women. However, I also believe, with my whole heart, that women are disproportionately discriminated against in the CBSA. That should be disheartening to everyone sitting at this committee table. That should make you pause and wonder, and make us want to act quickly because there are women suffering, as we speak, in situations that are unacceptable.

They would be unacceptable if it were a local restaurant that a waitress or waiter worked at, but, for some reason, it's allowable and acceptable in a federal agency. To go back to Danielle, I'm getting calls like this all of the time. There are more stories beyond what I could ever share here. If we don't take this seriously, nothing will change, and I think that we want this to change, all of us. The only way we can do that is if we do it at our level. The women and the workers there have tried, for years, to change this culture, and nothing has changed.

In July 2020, video evaluations were mandated by the DDS due to COVID. Getzie received a whistle-blower call, which I mentioned. The whistle-blower doesn't want to be named or get involved out of fear for their career, but knows Getzie's failure is a farce.

(1225) The whistle-blower stated that the DDS managers are retaliating for the grievance she made in December 2018 over the 90-day policy for maternity leave. That alone should make us disgusted, as we sit here, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. We can get rid of that 90-day policy, but are women who go on maternity leave still going to be ostracized, demoted or moved from specialty positions into far lesser positions when they've worked—I want to swear—darn hard? They've worked their life for these roles, but the act of motherhood or illness is affecting them in such a horrific way.

Getzie informed a director—who already knew about it, by the way, but didn't let on that he knew—who attempted to get Getzie to name the whistle-blower, of course, and she would not. She audio-recorded that conversation, and after that, the DDS alerted them about Getzie's knowledge of the failure. This director and the DDS communicated on how they needed to find the whistle-blower to, quote, deal with them—not hear them, but deal with them.

In September 2020, a chief and a superintendent offer Danielle a replacement—it's Danielle Getzie and I'm going to use her first name—canine partner, as her dog was set to retire. Danielle accepted, and the chief emailed the entire management team of her acceptance. It was a big to-do because they were afraid of her suggesting—I don't know—that they were doing things that they shouldn't. One of the directors was made aware of Getzie's replacement canine and got very angry. He had been saying to all BSOs for over a year how he hated Danielle Getzie.

He called her a bitch repeatedly and said that he wanted to, quote, take her down. If that is not an example of workplace harassment and bullying to the most extreme, I don't know what is. The director met with the superintendent, a chief and director, yelled at them, threatened them and told them to remove Danielle from the canine program because she was just such a witch with a capital B, I guess. The director specifically and repeatedly mentioned that Danielle should not be allowed to drive the government K-9 vehicle nor have access to the government credit card, as her canine partner was uncertified.

The director wrongfully accused Danielle of committing fraud and was told numerous times that Danielle was not committing fraud, yet this person continued his practice of threatening managers and shopped the idea of fraud to every manager in the workplace. We see what that is, right? He was going around the workplace, besmirching her name and making it so that no matter where she went, she would not be not able to work in a safe environment. This director then bragged to everyone about his actions, stating that he got Danielle removed from K-9 and that he would get a policy created to confirm it.

At the end of September, at that point, Superintendent Duffy told Getzie to return her K-9 vehicle, government-issued credit card and clean out her K-9 office locker. Superintendent Duffy signalled that Getzie was now removed from K-9. This was clearly as a result of Lassie's interference. There's an organization—I mentioned it briefly—called NICE and I'm just going to refer back to it briefly here because it's important.

(1230) I do want to go back to Danielle's story, but I feel like I need to add some clarity to the issues. I would say the three main issues are as follows. There's, of course, systematic discrimination against pregnant employees and mothers. There's also manipulation and misuse of internal HR systems to justify that manipulation. Also, in regard to the National Integrity Centre of Expertise, NICE, which I've referred to before, their internal investigative processes and breach of confidentiality in investigations needs to be reviewed.

It's been very clear that the systematic discrimination against pregnant employees and mothers has gone beyond what it ever should.... I can't understand, as a new parliamentarian, how it got here. I've been a member of Parliament since April 28 of this year, so what is that now, seven months? I can't understand how years of this discrimination has gotten to where it is, where pregnant women feel like they have to choose between being a mother and their career. The Customs and Immigration Union president stated here last Thursday that this is exactly the case, they have to choose.

If they become pregnant, they are highly at risk of their career being destroyed, and that is not okay. There have been multiple women removed from acting roles or specialty positions immediately upon pregnancy or maternity leave; human rights protections are being ignored. Pregnancy continues to be treated as a disqualifying factor rather than a protected condition. Testimony last Thursday confirmed that it is a disqualifying factor and not a protected condition.

The practice has become normalized, with some managers even acknowledging it happens often, and that women should simply be grateful for the lesser placements, rather than equitable treatment. Senior leaders knowingly allow this behaviour to persist under the guise of business decisions. Women who report discrimination are labelled as aggressive or difficult, while those responsible for misconduct are promoted. Employees and even labour relations officers fear reprisal for speaking up, leading to a culture of silence. They've been silenced.

Then we have the manipulation and misuse of internal HR systems to justify discrimination. CBSA managers have falsified or misrepresented position numbers in HR databases, is the claim, to retroactively justify decisions to terminate acting roles. Senior officials knowingly provided false information during internal investigations, creating an administrative paper trail to protect management decisions. Despite multiple complaints, no senior CBSA leader has been held accountable, even when evidence of misconduct or deception exists.

To clarify that, as these level three grievances go through the slow, agonizing process of being heard, the persons responsible for the harassment or the discrimination have then gone on to be promoted, moved and protected. We're seeing a pattern here that is so disgusting and unacceptable. I'm happy to see other members here at this table because it's such an important issue and it's an emotional one.

As a mother of two, by all rights, if we behaved the way the CBSA does, I should not be here now as a member of Parliament representing my community, because a pregnancy obviously makes me unable to fulfill my role.

(1235) Being a single mother clearly makes me unable to possibly be here as a member of Parliament advocating for these women, but it's exactly why I'm doing it. If their voice can't be heard, then I would like to be their voice. I hope that everyone around this committee table will start this challenge and this advocacy, and will continue to be their voice until something changes. People who've known me all my life know that if I find something unjust, I'm probably not going to let it go, and neither should any of you.

Despite multiple complaints, again, I'll say that no senior CBSA leader has been held accountable, even where evidence of misconduct or deception exists. Internal reporting obscures real outcomes by marking cases as resolved once they're closed administratively but not substantively. On ATIP review specifics, internal emails revealed that officials who raised concerns about misconduct were ignored, while managers implicated in wrongdoing faced no discipline. Recently obtained ATIP documents further confirmed that CBSA's internal accountability mechanisms are compromised by dishonesty and internal contradiction.

On falsified records, labour relations acknowledges in writing that the employee was never under the position number that management cited as justification for ending her acting role, a claim repeated for three years to defend discriminatory actions. Also, there were false budget claims. The same report confirms that there were no budgetary constraints in the department, contradicting CBSA's long-standing excuse for terminating a pregnant employee's assignment. Also, there were ignored warnings.

Labour relations questioned management's inability to accommodate for only a few additional weeks and noticed that the external investigation failed to address serious concerns, yet the CBSA told the employee in writing that due diligence was complete, and the case was closed. “It's closed. There's nothing more to see here—nothing more.” These contradictions show that the CBSA knowingly misled both the employee and the investigators, reinforcing the need for external oversight and the independent verification of internal investigation outcomes.

Then we come to NICE—sounds good; sounds nice, but it's not that great. The National Integrity Centre of Expertise...internal investigative processes and breach of confidentiality in investigations. NICE has been described as procedurally unfair, biased and prioritizing case closure over truth. “Let's just...oh, case closed. Again, nothing to see here.” Reports are often factually incorrect, dismissive or influenced by management pressure. NICE staff have privately admitted that investigations are actually directed by superiors.

ATIP records confirm that the CBSA's National Integrity Centre of Expertise, NICE, improperly shared a confidential harassment report with labour relations, the same group responsible for defending management in grievance proceedings.

(1240) Labour relations officials directed NICE's communications, approved responses and even drafted decisions, effectively controlling both the investigation and the grievance outcomes. So, they control the outcome. It gets better. This represents a serious conflict of interest and violates confidentiality standards, of course, under the workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations.

There are several news articles, which I suggest that this committee go ahead and take a look at, including one from Global News entitled “Former CBSA dog handler calls out 90-day 'discriminatory' parental leave policy”, and CBC reported on the dog handler's maternity harassment on two separate occasions. In the most recent

article from June 2025, the CBSA claims to have revised the policy, but the revised policy is very similar to the old one. It's on a case-by-case basis, when maternity leave should be non-discretionary. One thing Caroline said to me was that, for a lot of these things, they've talked about putting them in the collective agreement for bargaining for the unions, and she asked why human rights should be part of a collective agreement. We shouldn't have to have an agreement on whether or not people are simply treated correctly. I'll make these quick follow-up points.

Then I'm sure others may want to spend time debating this as well or may have some comments to make on this before we vote on this motion—because this must be studied. There are approximately 450 grievances in level three. That doesn't include level one and level two, and this is just the GTA. I suspect we have that many and more in the border areas of British Columbia and perhaps in Montreal, Halifax and more. They've been told that they're only hearing four grievances per month at level three, which would make it an approximate eight-year to 10-year wait.

Meanwhile, these people are in this toxic environment, trying to survive or deciding that they're going to go. The union receives the grievance submission and then passes it to labour relations at the CBSA, where it gets tied up. The women whom I've spoken to mostly have level three grievances that are still outstanding. They know 30 to 50 other women dealing with similar situations. A lot of women can't come forward for fear of losing their job, as they still work for the CBSA. As I said, the ones coming forward are women who have left, so they feel.... What do they have to lose now?

They've already lost the job they loved so much. The best they can do now is try to protect women and men in the future non-toxic environment that hopefully the CBSA becomes. They're afraid to come forward. Often women are told to take a lesser maternity leave. Labour relations have shared their personal confidential information without consent, as if it were gossip. I can't thank enough these beautiful, resilient, strong mothers, these women who brought integrity and who brought their experience and their expertise to the CBSA, and who have been sidelined and shoved aside.

I'm going to jump ahead quickly in Danielle's story to see what outcomes we're looking at, where we are now. In February of this year, NICE—remember that really nice unit?—closed the file, citing that all regulations had been complied with, including a joint meeting of the employer and the OHS committee, with the institution of recommendations per the WPHV final report.

(1245) Danielle discovered in June this year that the RDG email and statements in January regarding compliance with the regulations and the meeting with the OHS committee, were lies. No meeting and no presentation of the final report ever occurred. When Danielle confronted the NICE unit staff, who attempted to explain their own feelings and those of the directors, they were unable to do so. NICE then was forced to reopen the file after Danielle made her sixth complaint to the Canada labour program regarding the handling of the file. I know I shared a ton of information. I just truly felt that I needed to.

When I read these messages and when I had these women sitting in front of me, telling me these stories, I couldn't not be moved by them. I really felt that it was necessary that I share them, in moving this motion, and that we study the toxic work culture. I know I took a long time, but I will end it there and see if anyone else would like to add their comments. Thank you.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Kirkland. According to my list, the next person to speak is Ms. Dandurand. Then it will be Mr. Lloyd's turn. Ms. Dandurand, you have the floor.

(1250) [ English ]

Dane Lloyd :

I have a point of order.

[ Translation ]

Marianne Dandurand :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to acknowledge the remarks made by my colleague Ms. Kirkland, which we found to be very emotional and deeply sincere—

The Chair :

Wait a moment, Ms. Dandurand. Mr. Lloyd has a point of order.

[ English ]

Dane Lloyd :

Mr. Chair, I think you'll find, if you consult the clerk, that I was on the list before Ms. Dandurand.

The Chair :

I saw Madame Dandurand first and saw you second. Then there might be MP Lawton and MP Caputo. [ Translation ] Go ahead, Ms. Dandurand.

Marianne Dandurand :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I was saying, I want to acknowledge the intervention of my colleague Ms. Kirkland, which we found to be very emotional and very sincere. The subject she raised is really very important, and it really deserves all the attention and time it takes to be properly discussed—

[ English ]

Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, CPC) :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Dandurand. Mr. Caputo, go ahead.

[ English ]

Frank Caputo :

I asked you to consult the clerk on the list. There is a list right beside you as to the order of who asked to speak first. There are far too many times that we as Conservatives are not allowed to speak. Please, look at that list, and tell us the order of that list.

The Chair :

As I just said, I looked at the MPs and also looked at the list. I saw Madame Dandurand first, and then—

Frank Caputo :

Well then, that's very convenient.

The Chair :

—I saw Mr. Lloyd, and then, the list also includes you, Mr. Caputo, after MP Lawton.

Frank Caputo :

Mr. Lloyd is first on the list.

The Chair :

I'm sorry for that.

Frank Caputo :

Mr. Lloyd was first on the list. He should have been acknowledged. He had his hand up first. This is not a matter of the chair picking and choosing who they think should go first. This is a matter of MPs stating, “I want to speak.” We follow an order. I look forward to hearing from Madame Dandurand in due course, but we have to follow rules here. We don't get to adjourn meetings because we feel like it. We don't get to pick which MPs go first because we feel like it. Mr. Lloyd should have been recognized. He should be recognized now. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Caputo. I already shared my thoughts on that. [ Translation ] Ms. Dandurand, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Dane Lloyd :

I have a point of order.

Andrew Lawton (Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, CPC) :

On a point of order, I would like to challenge the chair's ruling on that point of order.

The Chair :

Thank you. There is a challenge to my allocation of the floor to Madame Dandurand.

Andrew Lawton :

Could we see who's on the list first, please?

The Chair :

I would like to see who is in favour of a ruling against my decision please.

Frank Caputo :

I would like a recorded division.

The Chair :

I'll suspend for a moment. I want to check who among the Conservative MPs is actually able to vote. There is a substitution rule, which I need to check with the clerk.

(1250) (1250) The Chair :

We have a designation of the floor. Conservatives MPs are the usual MPs, so the first four will vote, and the others will not. Who is in favour of the motion that was moved, that my ruling be reversed? Four MPs are in favour of that. Who is against that ruling? (Ruling of the chair sustained)

The Chair :

Good, thank you. That means we are now returning to MP Dandurand for her reaction to the motion being moved. Madame Dandurand, please go ahead.

[ Translation ]

Marianne Dandurand :

Mr. Chair, I move that we proceed immediately to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑12 .

[ English ]

The Chair :

That is a dilatory motion, which is immediately moved to the floor and requires an immediate vote. I'll pause for a few seconds to make sure we all understand what the motion says. The motion says that we would be moving to the clause-by-clause work as of now.

An hon. member: I ask for a recorded division. (Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

The Chair: This motion is adopted, which means we will be moving to the clause-by-clause work. However, we will suspend for a few minutes so that we can attend to some of our physical needs. We'll be back in a few moments.

(1255) (1305)

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

We are resuming the meeting. To begin, I want to share two pieces of information with you. First, we will take a break at 2 p.m. so that members can participate in oral question period in the House. Second, I want to share the following remarks with you. We are doing clause-by-clause consideration of a bill. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package of amendments that members have received from the clerk. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. During debate on an amendment, members are also permitted to move subamendments. Amendments must be properly drafted in a legal sense and must be procedurally admissible.

The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, since the principle and scope of the bill were adopted by the House of Commons when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown. I thank the members for their attention and wish the committee a productive, even pleasant, clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑12 . The first clause we're dealing with is clause 2, because pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the

short title, is postponed until the end of clause 2. (On clause 2)

(1310) The Chair :

Does anyone wish to move CPC‑1, which seeks to amend clause 2?

[ English ]

Helena Konanz (Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, CPC) :

Chair, I'd like to move the motion that was presented, during the last meeting, by my colleague Dane Lloyd. I move:

That, given the Department of Agriculture has advised the Penticton Shooting Sports Association (PSSA) that their lease is to be terminated at the end of 2025;

The range has operated for 42 years and is essential not only for recreational shooters but also for the RCMP, B.C. sheriffs and cadets who depend on it for training—

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

I'm sorry to interrupt, Mrs. Konanz. [ English ] I'm sorry, but there seems to be a point of order. Madame Dandurand, please go ahead.

Marianne Dandurand :

Yes, Mr. Chair. [ Translation ] I think we should do the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill first and come back to the motions afterward. We already voted on a motion to move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, so I think we should continue that consideration.

The Chair :

I appreciate that.

[ English ]

Helena Konanz :

I believe that I'm allowed to—

The Chair :

I'm sorry, Madame Konanz, but perhaps I wasn't listening carefully enough. Are you presenting a different motion from the amendment that is called CPC-1?

Helena Konanz :

I'm presenting a motion that was presented, during the last meeting, by my colleague Dane Lloyd.

The Chair :

Unfortunately, that is not possible because we now have a motion, which is the motion on clause 2.

Helena Konanz :

No, it's between clauses. I was given the floor, Chair, and it's between clauses.

The Chair :

That is not possible because we have a motion already. The motion is to adopt or to reject clause 2 of the bill. Now, that motion can have an amendment attached to it. There has, I understand, been a proposal by the Conservative MPs to table an amendment, called CPC-1, which is found on page 1 of the proposed amendments submitted to the clerk.

Frank Caputo :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

If a Conservative member of Parliament wants to move that amendment, it's time to do it now. Otherwise, we'll move forward.

Frank Caputo :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. We are actually in between amendments. She has the floor. She was recognized. It is her time now. You recognized her. This is not a time of...point of order. We are between clauses 1 and 2. Nobody has moved CPC-1 yet, which means that she has the floor now.

The Chair :

I'm sorry, Mr. Caputo, but this is not how the procedure works.

Rhonda Kirkland :

I have a point of order.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

I will explain in French to make sure that everyone understands better. We're currently on clause 2; it's a motion. To get this clause adopted, it's possible to move an amendment.

[ English ]

Rhonda Kirkland :

I have a point of order.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

If anyone around this table wishes to do so, they can do so now. In the list of amendments that the clerk received, one is for clause 2, and that's amendment CPC‑1. If a Conservative member or any other member would like to move it, now is the time to do so.

[ English ]

Rhonda Kirkland :

On a point of order, can I ask you to check? Nobody has moved that amendment yet. You said that it has been moved and that, therefore, we can't hear MP Konanz's movement. It has not been moved. Can you tell me who moved the amendment that you claim was moved?

The Chair :

I'll say it in English this time. Clause 2 is itself a motion. We have a motion to adopt or to reject clause 2—

(1315) Frank Caputo :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

I said in French, and I'll say it in English this time. It is subject to possible amendments. If there is such an amendment to be moved, it's time to proceed now, otherwise we will debate clause 2 and eventually vote on it.

Frank Caputo :

On a point of order, who moved that motion that you just referenced?

The Chair :

This is what the procedure says. If we are going through clause-by-clause, we start with clauses. I can repeat it in Spanish or Italian. I don't think it will be helpful, but that's how it works from a procedural perspective.

Helena Konanz :

Chair, I did make that motion between clauses, and this won't take long. Could you ask the clerk if this [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] take long. It's something that I planned to do between clauses. Those are the rules, but you can ask the clerk, if you'd like.

The Chair :

What I will do is I will suspend for a few minutes so we can each, with our own advisers, and there are many of them around this room, connect—

Andrew Lawton :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

—and listen to the advice that is provided. I will suspend for a few minutes, but don't go far—

Andrew Lawton :

I have a point of order before this, please, sir.

The Chair :

I will suspend and come back to your point of order in a moment.

(1315) (1320)

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

I call the meeting back to order. Thank you for your patience and goodwill. We're on clause 2. I will repeat my invitation one last time: Does anyone want to move amendment CPC‑1?

[ English ]

Andrew Lawton :

I have a point of order.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Yes, I'm sorry, Mr. Lawton. I forgot you had a point of order. The floor is yours.

[ English ]

Andrew Lawton :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this, and I preface this by saying that I'm a new member of Parliament, and I think that, like all of us here, I'm learning the rules. I'm looking at Bosc and Gagnon right now and specifically the

section dealing with committees, which falls under

chapter 20. There's a

section there that delineates “Substantive Motions”, and I think all of us would agree that constitutes what Ms. Konanz's motion was. I understand that this is clause-by-clause. There was a previous motion adopted by this committee to proceed to clause-by-clause. I would like to get some very clear direction from you, Mr.

Chair, on precisely when a substantive motion that has previously been put on notice—I don't think anyone is disputing that—could be raised, because it moved very quickly, it seemed, from clause 1 to clause 2, and there was no recognition of there being, for lack of a term, a dormant time between those two. I would seek very clear direction from you, Mr. Chair, on at what point someone could be recognized from the floor and introduce a substantive motion that has previously been put on notice.

The Chair :

Thank you for your input. First, each clause is in itself a substantive motion to which amendments and even subamendments can be moved. Second, we have, I believe, 138 substantive motions to go through today. Each clause is one, and as I said, there may be amendments and subamendments to them. After those substantive motions are gone through, there might be opportunities for other substantive motions, but that depends on how late this process is going to finish tonight. Is that a point of order?

Helena Konanz :

My point of order is I'd like to know exactly when I am able to make this motion. Am I able to make it between clauses 2 and 3?

The Chair :

I will follow the procedure that we have agreed to in the House business motion that was voted on by this committee. This is an excellent question. I don't know when the committee will have handled all of these motions. If we finish early, then there will be an opportunity, Madam Konanz, to do that, if the committee so wishes.

Helena Konanz :

Am I not able to make it between clauses? I thought that was a reasonable time to do it.

The Chair :

No, because we have 138 substantive motions to deal with now.

Helena Konanz :

The rules don't allow me to make a motion between clauses. Is that correct? Is that what the clerk agrees—

The Chair :

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.

Helena Konanz :

We're changing the rules just for this meeting. Is that correct?

The Chair :

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.

(1325) [ Translation ]

Andrew Lawton :

On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, could you please repeat your explanations in French for our francophone colleagues?

The Chair :

You want me to say them in French?

Andrew Lawton :

Yes. It's because there are differences with the

interpretation.

The Chair :

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. [ English ] Madam Kirkland, please go ahead.

Rhonda Kirkland :

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.

The Chair :

That's a good point, Madam Kirkland.

Rhonda Kirkland :

Thank you.

The Chair :

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.

Frank Caputo :

Can I ask a question?

Marianne Dandurand :

No.

The Chair :

I'm sorry?

Frank Caputo :

She said “no.” I thought it was funny, myself.

The Chair :

Very good. There is no amendment, but obviously we can discuss clause 2. Mr. Caputo, please go ahead.

Frank Caputo :

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.

(1330) Frank Caputo :

Thanks. That was really good. It was a huge help.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Caputo. Mr. Lawton, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Andrew Lawton :

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.

Graeme Hamilton :

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.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

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 :

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

The Chair :

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 :

Okay, that's fine. Could you announce things more clearly for me, going forward?

The Chair :

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 :

We will now move on to clause 3.

[ English ]

Helena Konanz :

I'd like to have the floor.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Is there any discussion on clause 3? Mrs. Konanz, the floor is yours.

[ English ]

Helena Konanz :

Are we between clauses right now?

The Chair :

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

Helena Konanz :

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 :

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. (1335) [ Translation ] 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 :

We'll now go to clause 4. Mrs. DeBellefeuille, would you like to move BQ‑1?

Claude DeBellefeuille :

Yes. Should I read it, Mr. Chair?

The Chair :

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

Claude DeBellefeuille :

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 :

Thank you very much, Mrs. DeBellefeuille. Mr. Lawton, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Andrew Lawton :

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

section 97?

[ Translation ]

Claude DeBellefeuille :

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

[ English ]

Andrew Lawton :

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?

(1340) 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 go