Strong Borders Act

An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures

Sponsor

Status

Second reading (House), as of Sept. 17, 2025

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-2.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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 Canada Post Corporation Act to permit the demand, seizure, detention or retention of anything in the course of post only in accordance with an Act of Parliament. It also amends that Act to expand the Canada Post Corporation’s authority to open mail in certain circumstances to include the authority to open letters.
Part 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 other Acts and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations and includes transitional provisions.
Part 11 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to prohibit certain entities from accepting cash deposits from third parties and certain persons or entities from accepting cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more. It also makes a related amendment to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations .
Part 12 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 13 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 .
Part 14 amends various Acts to modernize certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation. It, among other things,
(a) amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(i) facilitate access to basic information that will assist in the investigation of federal offences through an information demand or a judicial production order to persons who provide services to the public,
(ii) clarify the response time for production orders and the ability of peace officers and public officers to receive and act on certain information that is voluntarily provided to them and on certain information that is publicly available,
(iii) specify certain circumstances in which peace officers and public officers may obtain evidence, including subscriber information, in exigent circumstances,
(iv) allow a justice or judge to authorize, in a warrant, a peace officer or public officer to obtain tracking data or transmission data that relates to any thing that is similar to a thing in relation to which data is authorized to be obtained under the warrant and that is unknown at the time the warrant is issued,
(v) provide and clarify authorities by which computer data may be examined, and
(vi) allow a justice or judge to authorize a peace officer or public officer to make a request to a foreign entity that provides telecommunications services to the public to produce transmission data or subscriber information that is in its possession or control;
(b) makes a consequential amendment to the Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act ;
(c) amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to allow the Minister of Justice to authorize a competent authority to make arrangements for the enforcement of a decision made by an authority of a state or entity that is empowered to compel the production of transmission data or subscriber information that is in the possession or control of a person in Canada;
(d) amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to, among other things,
(i) facilitate access to basic information that will assist the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the performance of its duties and functions under section 12 or 16 of that Act through information demands given to persons or entities that provide services to the public and judicial information orders against such persons and entities, and
(ii) clarify the response time for production orders; and
(e) amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to provide and clarify authorities by which computer data may be examined.
Part 15 enacts the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act . That Act establishes a framework for ensuring that electronic service providers can facilitate the exercise, by authorized persons, of authorities to access information conferred under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act .
Part 16 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to permit a person or entity referred to in section 5 of that Act to collect and use an individual’s personal information without that individual’s knowledge or consent if
(a) the information is disclosed to the person or entity by a government department, institution or agency or law enforcement agency; and
(b) the collection and use are for the purposes of detecting or deterring money laundering, terrorist activity financing or sanctions evasion or for a consistent purpose.
It also makes related amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act .

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-2s:

C-2 (2021) Law An Act to provide further support in response to COVID-19
C-2 (2020) COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act
C-2 (2019) Law Appropriation Act No. 3, 2019-20
C-2 (2015) Law An Act to amend the Income Tax Act

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, aims to enhance border security, combat transnational crime and fentanyl, and disrupt illicit financing through amendments to various acts. It proposes measures related to export inspections, information sharing, and asylum claims.

Liberal

  • Enhance national security and community safety: The Liberal party supports Bill C-2 to provide law enforcement with updated tools to secure borders, combat transnational organized crime, stop illegal fentanyl flow, and crack down on money laundering, while protecting Charter rights.
  • Strengthen border and immigration systems: The bill equips law enforcement with tools for export container searches to stop auto theft, updates the Coast Guard's security mandate, and introduces measures to improve the asylum system and combat immigration fraud.
  • Disrupt organized crime and illicit financing: Bill C-2 allows rapid control of fentanyl precursor chemicals, enables warranted searches of mail for contraband, and imposes tougher penalties and restrictions on cash transactions to combat money laundering and illicit profits.

Conservative

  • Opposes civil liberties infringements: The party opposes provisions allowing warrantless access to personal information from online service providers, the opening of mail without a warrant, and blanket restrictions on cash transactions, viewing them as government overreach that compromises privacy.
  • Criticizes soft-on-crime policies: Conservatives condemn the bill for failing to address the root causes of rising crime, such as the lack of bail reform for repeat violent offenders and the absence of mandatory minimum sentences for fentanyl traffickers and gun criminals.
  • Bill is an inadequate response: The party views the bill as an omnibus approach that is a delayed and insufficient response to border security and crime crises, lacking concrete action and resources after a decade of Liberal inaction.

NDP

  • Opposes sweeping surveillance powers: The NDP opposes the bill's expansion of warrantless surveillance, allowing government agencies to demand personal information from various service providers without judicial oversight, threatening privacy and Charter rights.
  • Condemns criminalization of migrants: The party condemns the bill for criminalizing migration, denying hearings to refugees from the United States, blocking applications, and ignoring risks of persecution, echoing Trump's asylum policies.
  • Rejects omnibus power grab: The NDP rejects Bill C-2 as a 140-page omnibus power grab that makes sweeping changes across multiple acts, undermines due process, and bypasses parliamentary debate, comparing it to Bill C-51.

Bloc

  • Supports bill in principle for committee study: The Bloc Québécois supports sending Bill C-2 to committee for an in-depth, exhaustive study, but emphasizes this is not a blank cheque and demands sufficient time and expert testimony.
  • Prioritizes border security and crime: The party agrees with the bill's core objectives of securing the border, fighting transnational organized crime, and addressing issues like fentanyl, stolen vehicles, and illicit financing.
  • Concerns about resources and individual rights: The Bloc raises significant concerns about chronic understaffing at CBSA and RCMP, and potential infringements on privacy, rights, and freedoms, including intrusive powers and lower evidentiary thresholds.
  • Protects Quebec's jurisdiction and limits power: The party demands respect for Quebec's immigration jurisdiction, fair distribution of asylum seekers, compensation for Quebec's disproportionate burden, and limits on the Minister of Immigration's expanded discretionary powers.

Green

  • Opposes omnibus format: The Green Party opposes the bill as an illegitimate omnibus, encompassing multiple unrelated legislative purposes, and calls for its withdrawal to focus on its alleged purpose.
  • Harms refugee protection: The bill makes it harder for individuals to claim refugee status, potentially violating international obligations by expediting deportations without due process.
  • Undermines privacy rights: The legislation raises significant Charter concerns by allowing greater access to Canadians' private information for U.S. agencies and permitting government access to mail and internet data with a low threshold.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I had a different beginning to my speech, but after hearing all the long-serving Liberal MPs get up and talk about how great it is that they have finally discovered our border is an issue, that after 10 years in government they are taking some action with this piece of legislation and should be congratulated for it is a bit of an astounding proposition at the beginning of this fall session.

They waited so long to take any action that fentanyl and other drugs are rampant throughout the country, not just in the big urban spaces but in the smallest of the small communities across my riding in rural southwestern Manitoba and in every other riding across the country. I do not know that they are going to get as much sympathy and applause from Canadians as they expect based on their speeches today. They let this go on for 10 years without taking any recognizable action to stop the flow of illegal substances from other countries into this country. Now they think it is wonderful that they have finally come up with a half-decent, but very problematic in some instances, proposal to address this situation.

I will get back to my speech. I will have more to say on that as we proceed.

Brandon—Souris, in the context of the country, is a border riding. There are nine ports of entry in my constituency alone, a number of which have just had their hours reduced, which is impacting trade with our American counterparts. Plus Lake Metigoshe is in my riding. It sits right on the border. It is shared, half Canadian and half American, and is policed by both entities. It is one of the few lakes where people can get in their boats on the Canadian side and drive them across to the American side without having to go through a port of entry per se. It is one of very few examples where that exists in the country.

It is the part of the border that is all-accessible, unlike other parts of the country, like Alberta and British Columbia. There are 226 kilometres of border between Manitoba and North Dakota in my constituency, 302 kilometres if one takes the highway.

We also have the International Peace Garden at the second-largest border crossing in Manitoba, in Boissevain, or the peace garden border crossing if people come from the American side, which shares a monument to peace that both of our countries share and maintain. They also share a cross-border airport. People can actually land on the North Dakota side, the American side, taxi onto Canadian soil and then disembark. It is one of the few instances where that takes place in the country as well. Certainly, my riding shares the border. It is a border constituency, and our economic ties with our immediate partners to the south, North Dakota, and further south into the Midwest states are significant. They are close.

When I grew up, Minot, North Dakota, was just as close for me and my family in our hometown as Winnipeg, the major city in Manitoba. We would often spend family vacations, special birthdays or anniversaries travelling to Minot rather than Winnipeg to share in our collective relationship with the Americans. When we talk about border issues, we know that Manitobans, and certainly southwestern Manitobans, deal, work, live and play crossing that border on a regular basis.

My constituents believe in law and order and a strong border. They have made that very clear to me. During the election and over the course of the summer, I held a number of community barbecues along Highway 3, which is Manitoba's southernmost major highway that runs parallel to the American-Canadian border. I held community barbecues in Melita, Boissevain and Manitou, all border towns. In fact, the Boissevain local hockey team is called the Boissevain Border Kings. That is how close our relationship is in my constituency to the border and its impact on Manitoba's economy.

These are ongoing conversations that take place on a regular basis. People are living the challenges with the border and the relationship that is ongoing between our two countries. For the past decade, Conservatives have been urging the Liberal government to reverse its failed policies and restore safety to our communities.

My communities are at the forefront of the influx of weak border and weak criminal justice policy from the Liberal government. We have seen an influx of crime and drugs infesting small communities in southwestern Manitoba, further up into my colleague from Riding Mountain's constituency and further north into northern Manitoba. These are communities that are collectively calling for better action from the government and calling out its failure to deliver safety and a solution to the influx of drugs. Instead, the Liberals, as we know, have let the situation get out of control.

Now they are scrambling and have put forward this omnibus bill that falls well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other areas. While we are prepared to support some elements of the bill, we are very concerned with others. The bill fails to address bail reform, which is a topic that comes up often in this Parliament. Catch and release is alive and well for those who are trafficking fentanyl and firearms across our border, using our porous border to victimize Canadians. These are illegal firearms, not the legally held firearms that so many of my constituents have taken the courses for, have trained for and responsibly own and use.

There is no mention of sentencing provisions. There are still no mandatory prison times for fentanyl traffickers who are profiting from this weak, porous border the Liberals have created. There are still no new mandatory prison times for gangsters who use guns and commit crimes, despite the Liberals' campaign against legal firearms owners. House arrest is still permissible for some of the most serious offenders in these areas.

We are deeply concerned by the Liberals' further restrictions on Canadian civil liberties, including the ability to open mail without oversight and to compel Internet companies to hand over private information, and warrantless searches.

I would just like to pause here for a minute. I do not know that anybody in my riding, even the Canada Post workers I represent, think it is a great idea for them to just be able to open up mail at will. This is what the Liberals, despite what some of them have said today, are proposing in this piece of legislation. Nobody thinks that is a good idea, even the Canada Post workers I talked to in my constituency when we knew this bill would be coming up. It is way overboard. They have no reason for it to be done. RCMP officers think it is ridiculous.

There is no question that there needs to be a solution and a proposal put forward to deal with trafficking of illegal substances through Canada Post, but it makes perfect sense for these systems to be operated through the court system and with trained investigators and police officers opening up this mail, searching for illegal substances, because if they actually find some, they are the ones who are trained to handle it, not Canada Post workers.

Again, this is the Liberals making a mountain where they should have taken a scalpel in terms of how to deal with these serious, prolific traffickers who are utilizing Canada Post. It needs to be referred to the proper justice officials, not to our everyday postal workers and the folks working in the distribution centres.

While Conservatives have been ignored by the Liberal government and its failures, we have consistently fought for practical, effective policies that secure our borders, protect our communities and uphold Canadians' rights, including adding thousands of border agents; extending CBSA powers along the entire border, not just crossings; and installing border surveillance towers as well as truck-mounted drone systems to spot border incursions.

This is huge in my riding, which is all very accessible along a very rural area that does not have high levels of population. These scanners can also see through walls of containers or vehicles to spot drugs, guns and stolen cars. We have fought for tracking departures so government officials know which deportees are in Canada illegally, toughening penalties for repeat violent offenders, ending catch-and-release bail and house arrest for violent criminals, and the list goes on.

The Liberals, which I have heard already today, have gotten up and said the Conservatives have no solutions. We have been proposing these solutions for 10 years, and there has been no action from the Liberal government to implement a single one of them.

With some of these provisions, they have finally got it right after a decade of failing Canadians on protecting them and securing the border. Now they are saying to trust them. Well, gosh, they have had 10 years to fix the immigration system; that has been a disaster. They have had 10 years to fix the criminal justice system; that has been a disaster. Why should Canadians believe today that the Liberal government's record is going to be any different in fixing the problems it created on Canada's border?

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:35 p.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Mr. Speaker, this summer I got the opportunity to attend the summit of the chiefs of police and was able to sit down with the president. He had rave reviews for Bill C-2. One of the provisions of lawful access in Bill C-2 changes the requirement from “reasonable grounds to believe” and instead makes it “reasonable grounds to suspect”. This is going to help the police in so many different child exploitation investigations.

I have a slew of different examples the police gave me where cases were not investigated and were thrown out. One example was of a father who caught his 12-year-old daughter speaking to someone who said they were a teenager but ended up being an adult. The father had an IP address and took it to the police. The police are not able to do anything about that IP address today, but with Bill C-2, they would be able to take one step forward and lay charges.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I heard a question from the parliamentary secretary. I too have met with chiefs of police in my home province. As I said in my speech, there are some provisions in this bill where the Liberals did get a few things right. Members know the whole thing where a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. They did get a few things right in this bill, but they also got lots wrong.

While we are going to propose constructive criticism and amendments to this piece of legislation, we are also going to call the Liberals out where they got it wrong. That was the premise of my speech today. We hope the Liberals are going to correct what they got wrong and actually do a better job of fixing a system that they broke, just like countless other systems across the federal government.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague and congratulate him on his speech. One interesting thing about Bill C‑2 is that border services officers will not even be allowed to patrol between certain sectors. That will make them less effective.

I just want my colleague's opinion. Does he agree that they should be more effective and that the officers, though too few in number, should be allowed to patrol between border crossings?

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly the case. Obviously, we know that many areas of eastern Canada as well as farther west of me are very inaccessible along our border. Even in Manitoba, the area is so large that despite it being accessible, the RCMP is far too short-staffed to be able to patrol all of that area at any given time. Absolutely, we believe in expanding jurisdiction there. We think that would be an important solution to part of the issue with Canada's border.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:35 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brandon—Souris for his eloquent words. There is something missing, a lot missing, in Bill C-2, and I would like to know what he thinks of this.

I want to ask about the member for Surrey Newton, who spoke previously. A very important thing that is missing in this bill is what the Liberals are going to do about the decriminalization of drugs in B.C. There is no mention of it, and people are dying every day. They talk about finding fentanyl; they talk about finding drugs through mail. What about decriminalizing drugs in one province to see how many people die?

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, along with other colleagues from British Columbia, has more first-hand experience with this than I do. From what I have read, it has been just devastating. The result of that policy by the NDP government, enabled by the federal Liberal team, has been devastating for families and for communities. It has been a total train wreck, in my opinion.

I did everything I could as a provincial politician to urge the NDP government in Manitoba to not follow suit with that disastrous policy. Thankfully, to date, it has not done so. I would strongly support any initiative that recriminalizes those types of substances. Hopefully, no province will ever try that disastrous experiment again.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:40 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, Justice; the hon. member for Northumberland—Clarke, Intergovernmental Affairs.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, many MPs have spoken about different aspects of the very lengthy Bill C-2 today. This afternoon, I rise to focus on just four small words whose removal from the Canada Post Corporation Act would transform this bill from being an act that promises security into one that delivers surveillance. Those words are “other than a letter”.

Under the current Canada Post Corporation Act, Canada Post may open any mail other than a letter if it has reasonable grounds to suspect certain things about the parcel, including, for example, that it contains “non-mailable matter”. The Liberals will tell us that the removal of those four words is about stopping fentanyl. They will tell us it is about organized crime. They will tell us not to worry because police still need a warrant if they want to use the letter as evidence in a criminal trial. They may even tell us that we have nothing to worry about if we are not committing a crime. However, non-mailable matter, under the act, covers far more than just illicit drugs, and there would be no requirement in the legislation to get a warrant before going fishing through people's mail. All Canada Post would need is reasonable grounds to suspect that the item is non-mailable.

Non-mailable matter goes far beyond fentanyl and other illicit substances. It includes, for example, perishable goods. It includes things that do not meet Canada Post's physical or marking requirements. It is actually a very broad concept.

Canada Post defines a letter as much more than just a piece of paper in an envelope. A letter, under the act, includes any paper information weighing less than 500 grams, which is half a kilogram, delivered to a specific addressee that includes a message or information in any form, and it does not even have to be enclosed in an envelope. Bill C-2 could have made a distinction between what we think of as a letter and larger items that meet the technical definition of a letter in the act but are not actually a letter. Whether that reflects sloppy drafting or something else, the net effect of the deletion of these four little words would be far more than a technical amendment to postal operations. It would strike at the heart of our constitutional right to privacy and the trust that underpins our entire postal system.

A sealed letter is not just another object in the mail stream. It is a private conversation on paper, a direct, sometimes intimate exchange. Parcels contain goods. Letters carry thoughts, medical updates, legal documents and family news. Opening a letter is not like inspecting a box of merchandise. It is like eavesdropping on a private conversation in someone's home. That is why the Supreme Court of Canada has consistently held that mail attracts a high expectation of privacy under section 8 of the charter, which guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. It is also why section 187 of the Criminal Code prohibits intercepting private communications without judicial authorization, which is a warrant.

Privacy is essential to liberty. Our charter, our Criminal Code and repeated Supreme Court of Canada rulings all recognize that a sealed letter sent through a government postal service attracts a high expectation of privacy, yet Bill C-2 suggests that the government disagrees with that. The current framework is a deliberate balance. Canada Post can inspect parcels, when needed, to enforce customs rules or keep dangerous goods out of circulation, and then it can alert law enforcement to get a warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has occurred or will occur and that evidence of the offence will be found at the location to be searched. However, no one, and I mean no one, can pry open a sealed letter unless a judge has first issued a warrant based on reasonable grounds. This bill would change that, and it smacks of government overreach.

If the government had wanted to accomplish its goals with minimal impairment, if it had wanted to put small parcels that qualify as mail on the same footing as larger parcels, it could have made a distinction between letters as we know them and something thicker, or small packages that are under 500 grams that still fit through the letter slot at the post office. However, it did not. Even then, by the way, it would have had to reckon with the fact that at least one court in Canada has already held that the provision it is trying to change violates the charter's privacy rights.

This is a change we disagree with vehemently. This change is a litigation magnet, and I submit that the courts are going to spend millions of Canadians' taxpayer dollars litigating it, with little chance of success. Therefore, I rise today to ask the government to please abandon its effort to take those four little words out of the act.

During the long summer recess the government gave us, I spoke with and heard from many community members in my riding on this issue. They do not want to see this change. Allowing Canada Post to open letters would erode the public trust on which the postal service depends at a time when the postal service, quite frankly, cannot afford to lose more of the public trust. It is unnecessary. If there are genuine safety concerns with small packages under 500 grams that fit through a letter slot, modern, non-intrusive screening exists: X-ray imaging, chemical detection and targeted investigation under judicial oversight. These tools protect the public while respecting constitutional rights. Blanket powers, on the other hand, worry the public and invite abuse.

That is why the four little words “other than a letter” are so powerful. Do we as a free and democratic society accept that others may open and perhaps read our private letters without a judge's authorization or before a judge's authorization? If yes, we normalize warrantless intrusion into one of our most intimate forms of communication. If no, we reaffirm that privacy is not a privilege but a right that is central to our values and fundamental to the relationship between citizen and state.

The government has no business rifling through the private letters of Canadians. Our Constitution, our statutes and our shared values say the same thing: A sealed letter is sacred. It deserves the same constitutional respect as the home from which it came and the home to which it is bound.

I urge all members of this House to reject any proposal that weakens that protection. Let us preserve the trust that has carried Canadians' words, hopes and memories across this country for generations. To borrow a phrase familiar to every household, when it comes to our letters, the only thing that should be opened is the mailbox.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:50 p.m.

Brampton North—Caledon Ontario

Liberal

Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Mr. Speaker, when I met with Commissioner Carrique this summer at the summit I was talking about, he pointed out to me that today, a letter under 500 grams that could contain something like fentanyl is not subject to a search warrant. This bill would allow it to be subject to a search warrant. I would remind the member across that 200 milligrams can be deadly to humans. We need to tackle the crisis of fentanyl in our country, and we need to give police the tools necessary to do so.

Would the member not agree that we need to provide our policing agencies with the tools necessary to fight fentanyl?

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I live in a community that is deeply affected by the addictions crisis, and I share the government's desire to stop fentanyl in its tracks. We propose to treat fentanyl dealers as murderers. The government proposes to allow all Canadians' mail to be opened in the hope of finding things in it. I will leave it to Canadians watching this debate at home to decide which would be more effective.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

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

The minister just mentioned something when she asked my colleague a question about fentanyl. The Liberals talk about tackling fentanyl, yet under the Liberals, people who traffic fentanyl can serve their sentences at home. Guns and drugs go hand in hand, and with Bill C-5, the Liberals allowed people to serve their sentence on house arrest for drive-by shootings.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would agree with me that it is a bit rich for the Liberals to now want to tackle fentanyl through the mail with these measures when they will not get hard on the issues that are killing people today, the drugs and guns.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I echo my colleague's sentiments. I am not sure that I have an answer that would disagree with him.

With respect to fentanyl, I would like the government to act with a broad array of measures. I ran on a promise to bring our loved ones home drug-free. What I would really like to see the government do is commit to providing the funding that would allow us to provide the treatment and recovery beds we need in our ridings to do that.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could be clear on this point. Today, if I put a letter in the mailbox and there is fentanyl in it, Canada Post has a legal obligation to deliver that letter to wherever it is going in Canada. Let us say for the sake of argument that for a law enforcement agency to open that letter, it would require a warrant and it gets a warrant to open it. Does she, or the Conservative Party, support that principle?

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, of course I support the process that currently exists where law enforcement has to get warrants to search people's property, including their mail. To the extent that those in law enforcement have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed or is going to be committed, they already have the tools to do that in a court of law. I am not sure what the member thinks he is adding through this change.