Bill C-12

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

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

Part 1 amends the Customs Act to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with facilities free of charge for carrying out any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of that Act and other Acts of Parliament and to provide officers of that Agency with access at certain locations to goods destined for export. It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 2 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a new temporary accelerated scheduling pathway that allows the Minister of Health to add precursor chemicals to Schedule V to that Act. It also makes related amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulations and the Precursor Control Regulations .
Part 3 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to confirm that the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, make regulations exempting members of law enforcement from the application of any provision of the Criminal Code that creates drug-related inchoate offences when they are undertaking lawful investigations.
Part 4 amends the Oceans Act to provide that coast guard services include activities related to security and to authorize the responsible minister to collect, analyze and disclose information and intelligence.
Part 5 amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to disclose, for certain purposes and subject to any regulations, personal information under the control of the Department within the Department and to certain other federal and provincial government entities.
It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the making of regulations relating to the disclosure of information collected for the purposes of that Act to federal departments and agencies.
Part 6 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) eliminate the designated countries of origin regime;
(b) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to specify the information and documents that are required in support of a claim for refugee protection;
(c) authorize the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been abandoned in certain circumstances;
(d) provide the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with the power to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been withdrawn in certain circumstances;
(e) require the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division to suspend certain proceedings respecting a claim for refugee protection if the claimant is not present in Canada;
(f) clarify that decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board must be rendered, and reasons for those decisions must be given, in the manner specified by its Chairperson; and
(g) authorize regulations to be made setting out the circumstances in which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must designate, in relation to certain proceedings or applications, a representative for persons who are under 18 years of age or who are unable to appreciate the nature of the proceeding or application.
It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 7 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order specifying that certain applications made under that Act are not to be accepted for processing, or that the processing of those applications is to be suspended or terminated, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order to cancel, suspend or vary certain documents issued under that Act, or to impose or vary conditions, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
(c) for the application of an order referred to in paragraph (b), require a person to appear for an examination, answer questions truthfully and produce all relevant documents or evidence that an officer requires; and
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing circumstances in which a document issued under that Act can be cancelled, suspended or varied, and in which officers may terminate the processing of certain applications made under that Act.
Part 8 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to add two new grounds of ineligibility for claims for refugee protection as well as powers to make regulations respecting exceptions to those new grounds. It also includes a transitional provision respecting the retroactive application of those new grounds.
Part 9 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum administrative monetary penalties that may be imposed for certain violations and the maximum punishments that may be imposed for certain criminal offences under that Act;
(b) replace the existing optional compliance agreement regime with a new mandatory compliance agreement regime that, among other things,
(i) requires every person or entity that receives an administrative monetary penalty for a prescribed violation to enter into a compliance agreement with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (the Centre),
(ii) requires the Director of the Centre to make a compliance order if the person or entity refuses to enter into a compliance agreement or fails to comply with such an agreement, and
(iii) designates the contravention of a compliance order as a new violation under that Act;
(c) require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act, other than those already required to register, to enroll with the Centre; and
(d) authorize the Centre to disclose certain information to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, subject to certain conditions.
It also makes consequential and related amendments to the Retail Payment Activities Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations and includes transitional provisions.
Part 10 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to make the Director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada a member of the committee established under subsection 18(1) of that Act. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to enable the Director to exchange information with the other members of that committee.
Part 11 amends the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to, among other things,
(a) make certain changes to a sex offender’s reporting obligations, including the circumstances in which they are required to report, the information that must be provided and the time within which it is to be provided;
(b) provide that any of a sex offender’s physical characteristics that may assist in their identification may be recorded when they report to a registration centre;
(c) clarify what may constitute a reasonable excuse for a sex offender’s non-compliance with the requirement to give at least 14 days’ notice prior to a departure from their residence for seven or more consecutive days;
(d) authorize the Canada Border Services Agency to disclose certain information relating to a sex offender’s arrival in and departure from Canada to law enforcement agencies for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of that Act;
(e) authorize, in certain circumstances, the disclosure of information collected under that Act if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will assist in the prevention or investigation of a crime of a sexual nature; and
(f) clarify that a person who discloses information under section 16 of that Act with the belief that they are acting in accordance with that section is not guilty of an offence under section 17 of that Act.
It also makes a related amendment to the Customs Act .

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. Bill C-12 is important legislation that would keep Canadians safe by strengthening immigration and border security.

Security risks and the danger they pose to our national and economic security are constantly evolving.

This is true when it comes to transnational organized crime groups that seek to facilitate illegal border crossings and smuggle fentanyl, precursor chemicals, other harmful drugs and illegal firearms into our communities.

Our government is committed to ensuring that law enforcement agencies have the right tools to keep our borders safe.

We have listened to the concerns raised by stakeholders and by my colleagues during debate here in the House. This new bill, Bill C-12, would strike the right balance between the need to protect our borders and the concerns about Canadians' privacy.

Bill C-12 draws on the elements of Bill C-2 that were designed to combat transnational organized crime and those who seek to exploit our immigration system. These include stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl, cracking down on money laundering, bolstering our response to increasingly sophisticated criminal networks and enhancing the integrity and fairness of our immigration system.

It is essential that we take urgent action on this issue.

That is why Bill C-12 was introduced. It would enable Parliament to quickly advance legislative priorities where we see the most agreement, while taking the time necessary to debate the provisions remaining in Bill C-2 that we have raised concerns about.

Responding to these changes and cracking down on transnational organized crime groups and their illegal activities are essential to maintaining the safety and security of our country. Border security is a priority that we share with our neighbours to the south. Addressing it will further strengthen our relationship with the United States.

We can always do more, and we are doing more, but I want to assure members that the border is secure. Our law enforcement and border agencies identify, neutralize and mitigate threats on a daily basis, and we are building on those operational outcomes.

Last December, Canada launched several key measures as part of a comprehensive border plan. This plan is bringing meaningful operational and policy changes, but we need legislative change to advance the plan and further strengthen border security to keep our communities safe. The amendments contained in Bill C-12 would help law enforcement by giving them the tools to respond more effectively to the evolving security challenges.

There are two main themes to Bill C-12. The first is securing the border. The second is combatting transnational organized crime, illegal fentanyl and illicit financing.

Under the first theme, securing the border, we are proposing to amend the Customs Act to secure our borders against illicit drug trafficking, weapons smuggling and auto theft. We would obligate owners and operators of certain ports of exit and entry to “provide, equip and maintain” facilities for “any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of” the Canada Border Services Agency's mandate.

This includes examining and seizing goods destined for export.

This change would allow 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.

Second, Bill C-12 would amend the Oceans Act to add security-related activities to the Coast Guard's services. This would allow the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze and dismantle information and intelligence for security purposes.

Third, we are proposing amendments that would enhance the ability of the RCMP to share information collected on registered sex offenders with domestic and international law enforcement partners.

Fourth, related to immigration, the bill introduces measures to protect the asylum system against sudden increases in claims by introducing new ineligibility rules, as well as to improve how asylum claims are received, processed and decided. The bill also proposes to strengthen authorities to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents and to cancel, suspend or stop accepting new applications. This would give us the ability to respond to potential crises in the event that a large number of immigration documents are affected by the same issue.

Finally, the proposed measures would improve how client information is shared within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, and with federal, provincial and territorial partners.

The components related to the second theme include, first, amending the accelerated scheduling pathway to allow precursor chemicals that can be used to produce illicit drugs to be rapidly controlled by the Minister of Health. This would allow law and border enforcement agencies to take swift action to prevent the illegal importation and use of precursor chemicals, and it would ensure strict federal oversight over any legitimate use of these chemicals.

Second, the proposed measures would strengthen Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, including through stronger anti-money laundering penalties.

Third, the measures contained in the bill would enhance supervisory collaboration and support high standards of regulatory compliance by adding the director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, to the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee. FINTRAC would also be enabled to exchange supervisory information on federally regulated financial institutions with FISC.

I am happy to say that these proposed measures would complement ongoing efforts to secure our border from coast to coast to coast, including the $1.3-billion investment made in December last year to increase resources dedicated to border security.

Meanwhile, Bill C-2 will continue, with further study, to advance the elements that would facilitate law enforcement’s access to basic and subscriber information, introduce the supporting authorized access to information act, expand the inspection authority of Canada Post, introduce new restrictions on third party deposits and large cash transfers, and clarify public-to-private information-sharing provisions to help better detect and deter money laundering. We heard the concern that it is important that we get this right.

As a result of our strong partnership with the United States, last year, nearly $3.6 billion in trade and about 400,000 people crossed the Canada-U.S. border every single day. We want to make sure that this continues. Following both the former prime minister's and current Prime Minister's discussions with President Trump, Canada committed to a set of measures that would further strengthen security at the border and expand on our $1.3-billion border plan.

In support of the plan, in February, a new intelligence directive on organized crime and illegal fentanyl was signed, and it will be backed by a $200-million investment. This includes the creation of the joint operational intelligence cell, which builds on existing co-operation mechanisms between law enforcement partners and security agencies to better leverage information sharing to target transnational organized crime, money laundering and drug trafficking and improve border security.

The integrated money laundering intelligence partnership was established with Canada's largest banks. It is enhancing our capacity to develop and use financial intelligence to combat fentanyl trafficking and other organized crime.

Canada has also appointed its first fentanyl czar, who serves as the primary liaison between the Canadian and U.S. governments to strengthen our collaboration in the fight against fentanyl.

Additionally, we have listed seven transnational organized crime groups as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code and are constantly monitoring whether more should be added. Listing is an important tool that supports criminal investigations and strengthens the RCMP’s ability to prevent and disrupt criminal activities.

Canada has also committed to providing surveillance at the border 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are working on our border. As we announced just last week, we will be hiring 1,000 new RCMP personnel and 1,000 CBSA officers to bolster these protection efforts. We will mobilize law enforcement officers with new and modernized equipment to make them even more effective for our communities.

This equipment includes state-of-the-art technology, drones, surveillance equipment, canine teams and helicopters.

All of this important work takes place every single day at border crossings right across this great country.

I would like to note that, while illegal crossings from Canada to the U.S. are already down by 99% since the peak in June 2024, we have also deployed new drones and helicopters to the border.

These tools are enabling us to stop more illegal cross-border activity.

The border plan makes investments in both agencies, allowing them to procure tools for better detection and to build even stronger collaborative relationships between the CBSA and the RCMP, and between law enforcement across the country and in the United States. Through our border plan, we are building our information and intelligence-sharing capacity among federal, provincial and territorial authorities as well as with the United States and other international partners, including our Five Eyes partners. Enhanced information sharing allows authorities to identify, monitor and collaborate with partners to intercept high-risk individuals and goods attempting to travel between countries.

Meanwhile, as too many families know, illegal fentanyl has a devastating impact on both sides of our border. While less than 1% of illegal fentanyl seized in the United States is linked to Canada, we are working to ensure fewer drugs and their precursor chemicals cross our shared border. To increase our fentanyl-detection abilities, we have trained and are deploying border detector dog teams that specialize in fentanyl detection.

With respect to immigration, under the border plan, we have already strengthened our visa screening and integrity to keep those who seek to remain in Canada illegally, or to cross into the United States illegally, out of Canada. We have increased our ability to remove bad actors from Canada. As well, the CBSA removed over 18,000 inadmissible people in 2024-25, the highest in a decade and an increase from approximately 16,000 the year before. The border plan provides $55.5 million to support immigration and asylum processing and to increase CBSA’s capacity to reach 20,000 removals over the next two years, including this year.

With our current focus on the border and our plans to introduce further measures to strengthen the criminal justice system in the future, Canadians can be confident that Canada has a strong border and that we continue to build an even stronger one. We will always ensure that the actions we take will have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure due process for all.

We will continue to work with our U.S. partners to ensure that our border remains secure while we also continue to manage the fast and efficient movement of people and goods between our respective countries. These additional measures we are taking to further strengthen Canada’s border will help sustain this partnership and friendship for many years to come.

As a final point, I would like to thank the RCMP and CBSA officers who work so hard every day to keep us safe.

I was able to visit several Canadian ports of entry this summer, and I saw first-hand the crucial work that our frontline men and women of the RCMP and CBSA do each and every day.

This is integral legislation. I hope that my hon. colleagues will support Bill C-12 today and ensure that we can provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to keep Canadians and our communities safe.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I listened with great interest to the minister's speech. Bill C-12 is obviously a reiteration of some portions of Bill C-2. Conservatives have been very vocal on problematic aspects of Bill C-2. The minister framed it as “we have listened to Canadians”, as in the Liberals have listened.

Will the minister admit that the Liberals simply got it wrong with Bill C-2, based on Conservative pressure and otherwise from Canadians, and that this is their attempt to salvage a very flawed piece of legislation?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-12 is being introduced with three major elements that were left out of Bill C-2, which are lawful access, postal services and the $10,000 amount as part of money laundering. These elements are quite important to law enforcement. I have heard from law enforcement across Canada as to the need to ensure that there is a lawful-access regime. Canada remains the only country where lawful access is not entrenched in law.

I had a meeting with Grand Chief Fiddler this morning. He talked about the need for inspection of mail coming into first nations communities. In some cases, we know that fentanyl and other illicit drugs go through.

Quite to the contrary, what we are trying to do here is ensure that Bill C-12 passes, with the expectation that we can work together on passing the elements of Bill C-2 that were left behind.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his speech.

The Bloc Québécois has long called for better border control, whether to combat the export of stolen vehicles, reduce the number of asylum seekers in Quebec, or fight fentanyl and money laundering.

We are pleased that Bill C‑12 is doing away with the most problematic elements of Bill C‑2 with regard to privacy violations. However, there is one major issue on which we are still looking for clarification.

The minister said he would add 1,000 RCMP officers and 1,000 border officers. The 1,000 RCMP officers were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but the 1,000 CBSA officers were not. The unions tell us that it would take at least 2,000 or 3,000 more CBSA officers for the agency to be able to truly fulfill its mandate.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and his work.

I want to acknowledge the work my colleague has done for many years on a number of issues, including medical assistance in dying. I thank him for that.

I want to talk about the 1,000 new CBSA officers announced last Friday in Niagara Falls with my good colleague from St. Catharines, and the hiring, training and deploying of the new officers. We were delighted to be able to do that. It is a promise we made during the campaign, and it is a promise that we intend to execute.

I want to note that, as part of the work we have done, there is a retention component at CBSA that includes enabling CBSA officers to retire with as little as 25 years of service, along with increasing their stipend from $125 a week to $525 a week. These are substantial elements to ensure that we have proper retention and training of CBSA officers, and we look forward to the new men and women joining the CBSA over the coming years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to talk about the minister's role with regard to the RCMP.

The RCMP is recognized worldwide as a first-class law enforcement security agency. Let there be absolutely no doubt about the degree to which it is apolitical. The leader of the official opposition is calling into question the leadership of the RCMP. That has to cause concern among Canadians in terms of confidence in the RCMP.

I am wondering if the minister would take this opportunity to reinforce the important role the institution of the RCMP has played in the past and will continue to play in the future, as well as talk about the irresponsible comments from the leader of the official opposition.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question.

The RCMP is an organization that is sacrosanct in Canada. It has defended Canadians for over 150 years. It is an internationally recognized leader in policing. In Canada, we have separation of the executive branch from police functions and judicial functions. The RCMP is an independent body that is accountable within its system. It is not accountable to a minister or prime minister, and it is not biased in any way.

For anyone in the House to suggest that the RCMP is acting in a partial way is outrageous and shameful. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to retract those statements and ensure the public's trust is restored in the RCMP.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have gone through Bill C-12. I appreciate the fact that the minister took the Conservatives' advice, listened to Canadians and took out the sections of Bill C-2 that were egregious and violated the charter rights and civil liberties of Canadians right across this country.

The government is talking about moving the Coast Guard to the Department of National Defence. However, part 4 does not name the Department of National Defence or the Minister of National Defence. It is rather open-ended on the Coast Guard still being under the control of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Fisheries since its creation under the Oceans Act.

Will the Liberals formally announce or put in place the legislative powers to make sure the Canadian Coast Guard is part of the Department of National Defence and under the control of the Minister of National Defence, not make some ambiguous statement within the clause itself?

Will they also ensure that, since the Coast Guard is going to be asked to take on the role of security, its members will be given the tools to defend themselves when they are doing interdictions, along with the ability to encounter ships at sea when they are doing border security? That is very important since, right now, they are unarmed. When doing surveillance, all they can be are eyes and ears. Even the Canadian Rangers are allowed to carry guns, whereas the Canadian Coast Guard cannot.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me confirm that the Coast Guard plays an integral role in protecting Canadians. The measures we are taking will enhance its role with respect to surveillance, making sure, particularly in northern Canada, that information is shared with law enforcement agencies as well as the Department of National Defence.

As members are aware, we are investing 2% of our GDP in defence starting this year, something previous governments have been unable to do. I am very proud to say that the Coast Guard will play an integral role in that work.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I echo some of the questions the minister has heard from members on the opposite benches about similarities with Bill C-2 and whether Bill C-2 remains as it does on the order of precedence.

My question is about RCMP training. It is really critical. I want to know if the Minister of Public Safety has read the report of the Mass Casualty Commission that was compelled after the deaths of 22 Nova Scotians. These were preventable deaths largely due to RCMP incompetence. The commission recommended that we expand training for the RCMP to a three-year required course instead of the current 26 weeks.

In hiring 1,000 new RCMP officers, is the government looking at improving the training, and is it looking at the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, concerning the new RCMP officers who would be onboarded, the commitment we have is that those RCMP officers would be mandated to do federal policing. They would receive training that is consistent and that is customized for federalized policing; it is something that Commissioner Duheme and his senior team have been working on with the depot to ensure that the officers have the right training to do their work more effectively.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to acknowledge a few people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I want to acknowledge the life of Dana Evans. I was very saddened to read about Dana's passing. She was mother to one of my friends in high school, Derek Luce, and his brother, Louie Luce. I did not know this, but she was born in Yakima, Washington, a place where I spent a great deal of time, and attended school in Ellensburg. I have a good friend from Ellensburg.

However, what stuck out to me most was that Dana Evans graduated from Thorp High School. I have a couple of friends from Thorp. It is basically a postage stamp in Washington; I always used to make fun of, to my friends, how small it is. Lo and behold, my friend's mom was born there. I have distinct memories of sleeping over at the house and of Ms. Evans being up early to make us pancakes and send us on our way, making sure that her sons and their friends did not get into too much trouble.

I would like to express my deepest condolences to the Evans family, Louie Luce and Derek Luce, and all others who are impacted by her passing. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I also want to acknowledge Les Consenheim, a resident of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, for his outstanding contributions to democracy. He has been a huge help to me, and I am so grateful that people like him are so involved. He recently sponsored an event that I was at this weekend, where people bid on art based on volunteer hours. If somebody liked an art piece, they could volunteer, say 100 hours, to an organization. Among those organizations was the Canucks Autism Network, an organization that is very close to my heart, for those who know me. I thank Mr. Consenheim for all he has done for the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Let us start at the beginning. Bill C-2 was tabled as what I would call a panacea. It was meant to be a cure-all, a reaction piece and something to contain a number of Liberal promises or not so many promises, requests, bureaucratic lingo and things like that. I can still remember, even though I was not here, how the Liberals spoke about omnibus bills and how bad they were. They spoke about the big, bad Conservatives' passing big, bad omnibus bills, and they said that the Liberals would never, ever pass omnibus bills, yet here we are: One of many omnibus bills comes to us in the form of Bill C-2, with a number of problems.

Bill C-2, if memory serves, would enact or alter 15 pieces of legislation. It is about 120 pages long, if memory serves, and the Liberals told us to just pass it, just trust them. Given some of the rhetoric in the House today, it is somewhat comical that the Liberals would use this type of language: Just pass this, just trust them.

As members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, our job is to listen to Canadians and to closely scrutinize government legislation. In a 120-page bill, there are problems. I am going to highlight one of those problems, and I really hope that the member for Winnipeg North is listening closely to this one: the warrantless search.

The member has spoken to the House ad nauseam, no fewer than five or six times, about the fact that Canada Post could not open up mail without a warrant. They have a number of lawyers on the Liberal side. We have a number of lawyers here. However, the legislation actually speaks really clearly, so I am going to read the legislation into the record just so that we are really clear on this, and then I will speak about what we have been through with a number of bureaucrats.

Bill C-2, in part 4, proposes to replace subsection 41(1) of the act with the following:

The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that

The reasonable suspicion part relates to regulation, so if any regulation is suspected to be breached, Canada Post could open our mail.

If I am understanding it clearly, the intent of the legislation is to cover up a gap, in that mail cannot not be opened with a warrant. In other words, we want to make it so that anybody shipping something that is 499 grams or less could be subject to a warranted search, a search that is authorized by a judge.

I admire the member's zeal for sticking with this position, which is a position I thought was untenable, so let us go through that again. Bill C-2 states that the corporation may open any mail, so that includes letters, parcels or anything. I think we are all on solid ground and know what “any mail” means. It states that it “may” open it, so it would not be compulsory. The government would not have to open mail, but the legislation would be permissive; the government could open any mail if it had reasonable grounds to suspect.

The bill refers to the “Corporation”, which is very interesting. The corporation legally has personhood, but the corporation is made up of people. Those people, generally, are not going to be peace officers. In fact, I do not know whether Canada Post has any peace officers in its employ. The legislation would not even require a peace officer, so theoretically it could be somebody in the mail room who has no training. We hear all about RCMP training and things like that. Somebody with no training could open up mail; they may, not shall, do so if they have reasonable grounds to suspect.

The member for Winnipeg North has told us so many times that a warrant would be needed. I went to a briefing with top officials from the government, and they told me that based on the provisions, a warrant would not be needed. Imagine that. The words are so clear that a warrant would not be needed, so let us just go through it one more time for clarity.

Bill C-2 states:

The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that

It does not state that the corporation may apply for a warrant. It does not state that the corporation shall apply for a warrant. It says that it “may open any mail”.

Here is the real kicker: reasonable grounds. I have not practised law for about four years, but my recollection is that a search warrant is issued by a judge when there are reasonable grounds to believe, based on oath or affirmation, than an offence has been committed, that there is evidence of that offence and that the place to be searched will yield evidence of the offence. Those three characteristics are needed with reasonable grounds to believe.

Let us go back to the plain language:

The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that

Wait a minute. That is not reasonable grounds to believe, as is needed for a warrant, yet the Liberals have repeatedly stood up in this place and said that Conservatives are full of conspiracy theories and that a warrant would be needed, when it says right in the bill that a warrant would not be needed.

The member for Winnipeg North is very active in questions and comments, and God forbid that any member of the House would misspeak, so I really look forward to his addressing the issue in questions and comments. In fact, perhaps a page can run the document over to him, because it says it right in it, and the member can tell us whether he still believes this, or acknowledges perhaps that Conservatives were correct on the issue.

This leads me to Bill C-2 generally. Bill C-2 was a mess. The government went very far. We can all acknowledge that border security is an issue, but the legislation went very far, and we heard about it from Canadians. The Liberals have said that we need the legislation and need it done, and they have asked how we dare stand in the way of border security and things like that. However, as Conservatives, we played our role as opposition, and we did so very clearly.

We took issue, and people will notice that the matters with which we took issue are not matters in Bill C-12. I take great pride in what we have done, because that is what an opposition does. An opposition scrutinizes, considers and opposes, when and where it is appropriate to oppose.

Lo and behold, part 4, which speaks about the inspection of mail, is no longer in Bill C-12; it remains languishing in Bill C-2. It is by no coincidence that occurred, because we as Conservatives consistently raised the plain language in Bill C-2, which I think I will quote again:

The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that

Then it goes on to the regulations.

What other things are missing? Conservatives raised substantial questions about privacy concerns, parts 14 and 15, what is colloquially called lawful access. People have said I should know about the R v. Bykovets decision. I do know about the Bykovets decision very well. I think I was still practising law when it came out. That decision said there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in an IP address. As parliamentarians, we have to remedy the problem.

We have actually seen that when the Liberals want to remedy an untenable decision for the House, they have no problem doing it quickly. I will note that they have failed to do that on the issue of bail. There were three or four decisions on bail that they actually codified. That means they took the language from the decision and put it into legislation. They did not push back on it. Section 33.1, the defence of extreme intoxication, was struck out. There was legislation before the House within weeks of that happening.

The Liberals did not want a law on the books. They did not want a lack of law that said that extreme intoxication is an excuse for a general intent offence, that is, when someone does not legally have the ability to commit the offence. I believe it goes to the actus reus defence, but it has been a while. In any event, the Liberals responded with legislation very quickly.

The Liberals did not really care so much about bail, but now they say they are tough on crime. This is after former ministers of justice Virani and Lametti stood just across the aisle in the House to tell us there is no problem with bail. The Liberals have no problem responding when it is consistent with their agenda.

In Bill C-12, what the Liberals will not acknowledge is that it was robust opposition that led to elements that should be debated in Bill C-2's forming Bill C-12, as well as other very questionable issues in Bill C-2's remaining in Bill C-2. It also begs this question: What is going to happen in Bill C-2?

Perhaps we can have another debate on Bill C-2, and the member for Winnipeg North can stand up and speak about warrantless searches of mail. The Liberals could also discuss cash transactions, how much money should be permitted, and whether we should actually be telling Canadians how much cash they can or cannot use.

I just want to pause to acknowledge somebody who has done tremendous work when it comes to democracy and participating in democracy. That person is named Dawson McKay. He is a Crown prosecutor in British Columbia. I admire his passion for the rule of law and what is right, and I want to thank him for his contributions to democracy. He is somebody with a deep conscience, a deep desire to do what is right. I thank him for his work.

I would also like to thank somebody else, another prosecutor, Alex Wheele. He works out of the Kamloops Crown counsel office in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. He is somebody I had the pleasure of meeting when he was in law school and was just thinking about becoming a prosecutor, and we spoke. I taught his now wife in the faculty of business back then. I am very proud to call Alex a friend. I am so grateful for his work in contributing to democracy. I am also proud of his work in contributing to public safety. I want to recognize that formally in the House of Commons.

We have spoken about the mail provisions, and we have spoken about Bill C-2 generally and how we got here. Now let us focus on Bill C-12, what is in it and what is not.

I know that my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman will be giving a speech today. I am sure he will give it with his characteristic zeal and great detail, as he is so often known for in the House.

What is not in Bill C-12? There is no mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers. I believe we heard from the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime that the Liberals are “tough on crime”. That was actually said in the House. Really? Apparently, now the Liberals are going to come out with legislation. We have not even seen the legislation yet, but we are being told that we should support it. I would think the House would support a bill on intimate-partner violence, but that remains to be seen.

I am told the legislation has good stuff in it and speaks about sex offences and people who committee sex offences no longer getting house arrest. I have probably raised this issue 15 times in the House, and the Liberals have openly mocked our views when it comes to justice. I actually raised this issue with the minister of justice at one time, and I heard, “Do not worry. When somebody commits a serious crime, they will get serious time.” What happened to the mentality of trusting judges? The Liberals told us we should trust judges; they are appointed. Now they say, “Wait a minute. There is no more house arrest for sex offences.” They do not trust judges any more; they are tough on crime. It is something they mocked us for. I am worried that I am going to wake up with a stiff neck tomorrow based on the whiplash I am getting from the government, which is now tough on crime.

What else do we not have in the bill? There is no mandatory prison time for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes. A person can get house arrest for a drive-by shooting. What is worse is that this was not the court's doing; it was the Liberals' doing. For Bill C-5, Mr. Lametti, then a minister, said he did not think that somebody had to go to jail for popping off a couple of shots into a bar after having a couple of pops.

Intending to discharge a gun, if done in a car, is called a drive-by shooting. If it is done otherwise, it is a called a shooting with intent. There used to be a four-year mandatory minimum, which was constitutionally upheld in a case called Oud, I might add, for the Liberals who say that everything was always struck down under the Conservatives. However, it went from a four-year sentence to potentially house arrest. Now the Liberals are tough on crime, but not tough enough to put this into an omnibus bill to keep us all safe.

The Liberals have created what I would call a porous border, and that porous border is allowing firearms to get in like never before. What should we be doing? People will say to me that denunciation and deterrence do not work. They have been our sentencing principles in the Criminal Code from time immemorial, but they will say they do not work. I am starting to have serious questions about the fact that people can repeatedly commit crimes and believe they are untouchable. I saw this happen on so many occasions in my employment before I was blessed to be present in the House. When we let somebody operate with impunity when it comes to the criminal law, we will invariably have an outcome that they repeat the behaviour, because they have learned that there will be no consequences from it. Bill C-12 is silent on that.

I hope the Liberals will give credit where credit is due as to how Bill C-12 came here. We will scrutinize this legislation and we will go from there.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives try to give the impression that whether someone is a letter carrier or a mail organizer for Canada Post, they are going to start opening the letters of Canadians. I find that amazing.

I am going to sidestep that particular issue because we see a more serious issue from over the last number of days. The leader of the Conservative Party made very serious statements against the RCMP at the highest level. I think the member would agree with me that the RCMP is recognized around the world as a first-class institution. When his leader starts providing the types of comments he has put on the record, false comments, at the end of the day he is displaying a great deal of disrespect for the RCMP.

I am wondering if the shadow minister would agree that the leader of the Conservative Party crossed the line when he said that the RCMP is “despicable”. I think Canadians need to hear what the member has to say about the comments his leader made. Does he support those comments?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, what I find very despicable is that the Liberals, an hour ago, refused to support my private member's bill, Bill C-225. I hope they reconsider that.

On the mail issue, I hope the member reconsiders it. I am going to read the bill one more time in hopes that he will concede. We have had our back-and-forths in this House many times. Perhaps some of them have been draws when it comes to debate, but I will not concede this one. Let me just say it one more time:

The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that

The member made my argument for me by wondering whether a mail carrier would be able to do this. Obviously, Canada Post has a policy, but the legislation as written would actually allow it if that person were part of the corporation. I commend him for helping me with my argument.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the Customs and Immigration Union estimates that we need an additional 2,000 to 3,000 officers in order to truly ensure better border control.

What are his thoughts on the fact that the Canadian Coast Guard, despite having a mandate to control and monitor the border, is not authorized to intervene and is not a part of DND?