Senator Dalphond: Thank you, Senator Ataullahjan, for this question.

I’m not the expert on the issue, but there is one in this chamber. It’s Senator Jaffer. She made an important declaration at the committee study when she referred to exactly that type of experience and why she is always singled out in the line for a “random” check and sent to the second line. When she shows her green passport, they apologize and say, “Oh, sorry. It’s a mistake. We should not have called you for a second inspection.”

No doubt the system is not perfect. The current system is, according to some witnesses and the personal experience of Senator Jaffer, certainly deficient, because it seems to target some people more than others, especially after 9/11. Regarding the threshold that is being proposed, the evidence shown before the committee has illustrated that it is designed to codify the current practices of the customs officers.

Senator Dagenais asked an important question. He asked how many more employees they will need to teach these new criteria, because it’s a new test. Therefore, it will have to be explained carefully since it’s not a test that has been applied so far. It’s not the reasonable test that has been understood and developed by the courts. It will take time to flesh out.

How many more officers will you need? How many more training sessions? How many hours will you give to the officers to understand that new concept? The response from the border agency representative was, “No problem. We already have the training in place. We don’t need more people. That’s already what we do.”

What they are saying is that what they intend to do is to have this new threshold be equivalent to the current practice. But the current practice is in the guidelines; it’s not in the law. They say now that it’s in the law, it’s valid. I fear that, in practice, what is going to happen at customs won’t change with this new test. The old practices will continue under a new hat.

It’s important to me that we better define and flesh out the concept of reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to suspect rather than have a new test. This is the concept that has been recognized elsewhere in the act, so let’s be consistent. Either they change the whole act, or they change it only for computers, which is very unconvincing to me.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: I rise today in support of the adoption of the report. I just wanted to point out that section 99 of the Customs Act, which we are currently discussing, is entitled “Examination of goods.” It states, and I quote:

That means any act of Parliament administered or enforced by the officer.

To inspect a package, a bus, or to ensure that the right rate has been applied, the officer must have reasonable grounds to believe. I would be more convinced if the government changed these other sections of the legislation to say that, for all these other sections there has to be reasonable concern, but no. Regarding the computer, the thing most closely linked to your privacy, the one thing that contains all the data and can describe you more accurately than you can, we cannot decide that it warrants a lower threshold than all these elements that are necessary formalities to prevent a firearm from being imported to Canada.

We are told about pedophilia. It is important. It is serious, but we cannot allow computers to be searched under the guise of wanting to counter pedophilia by accepting a lower threshold than the threshold for allowing packages to be opened to verify whether there are firearms inside. The government is on the wrong track. If it wants to convince us that a lower threshold is possible — as suggested in Canfield by the Alberta Court of Appeal — then I invite the government to amend the other parts of the legislation to have the new proposed test apply everywhere. If there is no consistency in the legislation we cannot justify measures before a court. Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, as we prepare to conclude debate on the principle of Bill S-7, allow me to offer a few comments that may be useful during the committee’s study.

First, I would like to thank Senator Boniface for her April 28 speech, in which she did a very good job explaining the origins of the bill and its substance. In essence, the government is proposing that personal digital devices, such as smartphones, tablets and computers, be subject to a search or examination only if the customs officer has a reasonable general concern that an offence has been committed under the acts that the officer is responsible for enforcing.

As the senator said, this bill is the government’s proposed response to a Court of Appeal of Alberta ruling on October 29, 2020. In Canfield, the court found that the application of paragraph 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act to the inspection of these devices was a violation of section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees all Canadian citizens a sphere of autonomy and privacy. The ruling also gave Parliament 12 months to amend the legislation. That deadline was extended to April 28, 2022, and no further.

In a ruling issued in the Pike case on April 14, after this bill was introduced, the Ontario Superior Court came to the same conclusion as the Alberta Court of Appeal. The judge also refused to grant the government a further one-year extension, choosing to uphold the deadline set by the Alberta Court of Appeal. As a result of these two rulings, as of April 29, 2022, customs officers in both Alberta and Ontario may search one of the above-mentioned digital devices only if they have a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed under a law that they are responsible for enforcing.

[English]

It means that currently, at the busiest airport in Canada, Toronto Pearson International Airport, customs officers can only ask for access to the content of a digital device if they entertain a reasonable suspicion that it contains a document that cannot be legally imported to Canada. This is, of course, also true at all international airports in Alberta and Ontario and at all border customs stations located in these two provinces. In other words, since April 29 a large proportion of travellers entering Canada can only be subject to a search of their personal devices if the customs officer entertains a reasonable suspicion that the traveller is trying to import illegal material — a threshold that has been described, and rightly so, by Senator Boniface as being higher than the one proposed in the bill.

During committee study of this bill, this important new fact should be studied in order to measure the difficulties, if any, met in the operations of customs officials in Alberta and Ontario compared to the rest of the country. The rest of the country can still operate under the existing regime where customs officers apply section 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act to search personal devices, being restricted only by internal guidelines issued by the Canada Border Services Agency. These guidelines have been found by both the Court of Appeal of Alberta and the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario to be insufficient to meet legal requirements because they are not legally binding.

Incidentally, this is the same test that customs officers have always applied to the inspection of material in the mail without complaining about their inability to ensure that illegal products such as child pornography are not imported to Canada through the mail service. This is certainly another feature of the current system that could be studied in committee.

As observed by the Court of Appeal of Alberta, the content of a personal device is incredibly larger in terms of personal information than what you could find in a letter, even a long one.

(1430)