Bill C-2

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

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 .

Strong Borders Act

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to rise in the House at the start of the parliamentary session on behalf of the great people of Windsor West. More importantly, I am here to speak on their behalf in this chamber.

Before I get to the matter at hand, I would like to speak about the workers of Titan Tool & Die in Windsor, the men and women of Unifor Local 195, who have dedicated, on average, 35-plus years of their lives to this factory, which was built by the late Joseph Szecsei, a proud Canadian and a pioneer of manufacturing in Windsor. Today, these workers are locked out while the employer moves jobs and investment capital to the United States. Why? It is not because of tariffs or trade barriers. It is because of government policies that have made it easier and more profitable for Canadian companies to send work and investment south. This is the reality the Liberals have created: constant talk about supporting Canadian workers, yet policies that incentivize moving jobs and critical investment out of Canada.

The people of Windsor built this company. The Liberals' failure to protect these workers is a failure of leadership. I call on the employer to return to the bargaining table with the union, and I call on the government to finally put Canadian jobs first, before they are lost forever.

With respect to Bill C-2, I am not just going to speak about it as the member of Parliament for Windsor West, but as someone who spent nearly three decades serving as a police officer.

I patrolled our streets and answered the calls. I also served in the marine unit along our international border. I know of many colleagues in Windsor-Essex who serve as police officers and CBSA officers and who intercepted shipments of drugs and weapons before they reached our streets. This is real frontline police work, which results in lives saved and communities protected. Let me share one story that illustrates why we cannot be satisfied with half measures.

A Toronto man was convicted this year for smuggling over 36 million dollars' worth of drugs into Canada. However, over 23 million dollars' worth of his meth was seized at the Windsor-Detroit bridge. Despite the scale of his crime, he was allowed to remain out of jail for nearly six months, until the birth of his child, before finally serving his sentence. This was based on a joint submission by the Crown prosecutor and the defence lawyer and approved by a judge. They all patted themselves on the back for being compassionate citizens, which is very commendable, but where is the compassion for the families who have lost loved ones to these drugs? Where is the compassion for parents burying their children? For communities terrorized by gangs, dealers, and the violence that follows them, where is the compassion? Bill C-2 fails to address these realities. It waters down penalties for serious drug offences and violent crimes while doing little for victims or the families who are left to pick up the shattered pieces of their lives.

When I speak with former colleagues, whether police officers or CBSA officers, the frustration is very clear. They see traffickers and gangbangers treated with leniency. They also see that some prosecutors are rushing to throw the book at ordinary Canadians who are defending a family member from an armed home invader. Does that sound like justice to members? It does not to me.

Some people are asking why some prosecutors, or the police for that matter, are timid when it comes to organized crime and repeat violent offenders, but fearless or even punitive when it comes to law-abiding citizens defending their families. These are the questions that victims, families and even frontline police officers are asking us every day. Even experts and legal practitioners have raised alarms that the bill before us is light on consequences. My colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, a former prosecutor, has already highlighted a lack of serious penalties. Without meaningful consequences, the message is clear: Crime pays and victims do not matter at all.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police emphasizes the need for balance. Yes, that is needed. It supports prevention and treatment, but they also know, like any other police officer, as well as those of us here, that enforcement matters. Without enforcement and without accountability, we are left responding to overdoses, chasing repeat offenders and watching our social fabric unravel.

Let us be very clear: Windsor West is on the front lines of these challenges. Every illegal gun smuggled across our border, and every fentanyl pill pressed and sold on our streets, puts our families at risk. That is not only in Windsor, but also in the rest of Canada. Instead of giving prosecutors and law enforcement stronger tools, this bill sends the opposite signal, which is that Canada is a soft target and our justice system bends instead of standing firm.

Another aspect of the bill that raises legitimate concern among Canadians is privacy. We value the freedoms and privacy of every Canadian. No one should fear that their personal correspondence or packages can be opened arbitrarily. It is absolutely true that we cannot and must not ignore the threats posed by illegal drugs, firearms and organized crime. Law enforcement must have the tools to investigate serious criminal activity but only in a targeted, high-risk context and always with proper judicial oversight. Strong safeguards, transparency and accountability are essential to ensuring that Canadians' rights are respected.

There is a deeper concern here, which is our sovereignty. Buried in this bill are provisions that could allow the government to enter into agreements with foreign states. I have heard from many constituents about this issue. These agreements may compel Canadian service providers to hand over information about our citizens. Civil liberties experts have warned that this framework risks weakening judicial oversight, especially if it links to treaties such as the Budapest protocol or the U.S.-style data-sharing arrangements. We cannot have this.

When we make it clear that it is easier for foreign authorities to access Canadians' private information without full and transparent judicial scrutiny, we are not just eroding our privacy and that of our citizens. We are also giving up a piece of our sovereignty. Protecting our borders should not mean handing over control of our citizens' data.

The Liberal government has had nearly a decade to act decisively on crime and border security, but what we see instead are half measures and weak enforcement. Families are losing children to overdoses. Communities are living in fear of violent repeat offenders. Frontline officers are frustrated that the laws tie their hands while criminals exploit loopholes.

Conservatives believe in compassion, but compassion without accountability is weakness. If we want safer streets and stronger communities, we need both prevention and firm enforcement. We need all of our prosecutors to take criminals seriously, not just some of them. We need police and CBSA officers to have the resources and our backing so they can use their powers effectively. We need penalties that match the harm these criminals cause. Canadians deserve better. We will continue to stand with victims, families and the frontline officers who put themselves in harm's way every day to defend our communities.

Windsor West is a community of builders, protectors and entrepreneurs. We deserve a government that stands with our workers, supports our frontline officers and protects our families from criminals who prey on them. We Conservatives will fight for safer streets, stronger borders and a truly sovereign nation that answers to its own people.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the member opposite's comments he talked about the importance of privacy of Canadians, which we believe in. I had an opportunity this summer to talk to an RCMP member in my community, and he was explaining to me why this portion of the bill is really important. He talked about the fact that he worked in Yukon, and he took a week away. In one week, one package came in. There had been one case of overdose, and in only one week, he saw 700 cases.

Can the member talk about why RCMP members are calling for us to bring this measure into the bill to make sure we can reduce overdoses in communities like Yukon?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are many things we need to do to fix our judicial and postal systems, but targeting people and their mail through these measures is not the answer. There has to be better options, better scanners, better things that we can use to intercept, rather than using a blanket opportunity to go after every piece of mail out there to say we are going to treat all our citizens as suspects. That is not how we should treat our people.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my community, I have certainly seen issues with the bail reform that has been put in place by the Liberal government. We have had individuals commit assaults, be out on the street the same day and commit those types of awful crimes again.

I am wondering if the member has seen any of the impacts of the terrible, Liberal criminal legislation in his riding.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is one of the reasons I got involved and came to this chamber. I am sick and tired of us being constant victims. We need to stand up to these criminal elements. We need to be able to stand up to organized crime, and we need to stand up to defend ourselves.

I would love and appreciate if the Liberal government did something about this, rather than telling our folks, “Sorry, we are trying our best.” As a salesman of the justice system in my previous life, I told folks, “This is not a good product,” and I hated to say that. That is not who we are. That is not how our country should be defined.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, I believe the conversation is misleading Canadians to some degree. The Canada postal act currently does not allow Canada Post to inspect parcels that are under 500 grams. There were over 2.2 billion letters sent in 2023. Many of these letters were found to contain illicit drugs, fentanyl or weapons.

Does the member not think that the government, Canada Post, inspectors or police should have the authority to be able to seek a warrant if these types of substances are killing Canadians?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, without proper judicial authorization, we become a lawless country. We have to have some safeguards in place so that we can do all these things.

Yes, I absolutely believe that we should be able to catch the criminals who are using the Canada Post system to send these drugs willy-nilly. That should not be an option for anybody. How about starting with a better intel system where we can identify the idiots who are sending all these things to poor Canadians who are victims of drug overdoses? Let us start with that.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking all the constituents of Abbotsford—South Langley. I am honoured to be here representing my community today.

The citizens of my riding have been advocating for stronger laws and stronger borders. I appreciate that Bill C-2 is trying to tackle high crime rates, but the bill in its current form is unacceptable. It has taken 10 years for the Liberals to put it forward, and if it is passed, crime rates will continue to rise in our communities and individual freedoms will be bulldozed by the Liberal government.

My riding encompasses borders with the United States. The Sumas and Aldergrove border crossings fall within my riding. It is close to the Pacific Ocean ports as well.

In British Columbia, fentanyl continues to be devastating in all of our communities. According to Health Canada, close to 50,000 Canadians died from apparent opioid toxicity between January 2016 and June 2024. Of all accidental opioid deaths in the first half of 2024, 79% involved fentanyl. In November 2024, police uncovered a superlab in Langley, within my community, that was capable of producing multiple kilograms of fentanyl every single week.

Despite these alarming facts, the Liberal government refuses to fix Canada's broken jail system. Members of my community believe that those who are profiting from poisoning community members, especially the children within our communities, belong behind bars. If the government were serious about protecting our borders, our neighbours and the neighbourhoods within our communities, it would ensure that moving fentanyl into our communities carried real jail time.

This bill does not address any mandatory minimums. It would maintain house arrest for serious crimes and includes no minimum sentencing for those who commit sexual assault against children. Since 2015, sexual violations against children have gone up 118%. That is simply disgraceful. If families cannot protect their children and we here cannot protect our children, who will?

Bill C-2 demonstrates a larger issue in Canadian policy. The Liberal government will overlook serious crimes, including crimes against children, without any ramifications. If passed in its current state, Bill C-2 will allow criminals to keep taking advantage of Canadians. Crime rates for extortion and sex-related crimes are growing dramatically. We need to bring in real change, and we need it now.

If this so-called strong borders act was serious about protecting our borders, it would increase mandatory minimums for drug traffickers. Currently, the mandatory minimum is only one year. How could our borders be truly strong if those who are trafficking toxic drugs are not being punished properly? Drug traffickers are bringing death sentences to our communities. One year in jail is insulting to the victims of dangerous crimes. However, it is not surprising considering that the Liberal Party is the one that supported the decriminalization of fentanyl in my province.

Why is it that the more the government fails to address real criminality, the more it simultaneously increases the targeting of innocent law-abiding citizens? The reality is that Canada is desperate for tougher policies on crime. Since 2015, violent crime has gone up 50%. Homicides are up by 27%. Sexual assaults are up by 75%, and 90% of those are committed against women. The Liberals should be ashamed, especially as they claim to champion the support of women. Violent firearms offences are up by 116%, and gun regulations do not stop criminals from acquiring firearms. They only hurt law-abiding citizens.

Since 2015, extortion is up 357%, auto theft is up 45% and human trafficking is up 84%. The bottom line is that if the Liberals cared about strengthening our borders, they would jail the traffickers, and there would be an immediate drop in crimes with illegal weapons, such as extortion and armed robbery. Bill C-2, if passed in its current form, will allow gangsters and traffickers to continue to cause chaos and tragedy in my riding.

This bill would also give the government warrantless power over Canadians' mail. The Liberals seem perfectly fine with intercepting private letters and packages of law-abiding Canadians. This is not public safety; this is government overreach.

Bill C-2 then targets the use of cash, our legal tender, based on hypothetical crimes, while the Liberals stay soft on the real ones. Extortion, auto theft and human trafficking are the real crimes surging, and the government is more interested in regulating what is in our wallets and in our mail. Drug dealers would not be stopped by this bill. They would simply move their operations to different forms and different systems. Money launderers would not be stopped either. They would find new ways to move their cash. The only people who would get squeezed are honest Canadians who pay their bills and send packages.

Canadians want real change and criminals behind bars, not more government control over their mail and money. Under this legislation, the government reserves the right to force the hand of Canadians and Internet companies to surrender sensitive data without a warrant. Police cannot search our homes without warrants or probable cause, so why should they be allowed to search our private communications without warrants? That is not just an attack on privacy. It goes against free speech and expression, both of which are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

To conclude my speech, I want to end on the note that I completely agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government, who once sat in opposition and said, “Could the minister assure those who are listening to the debate that the government does not, in any fashion whatsoever, allow for any sort of invasion of privacy without some form of a judicial court warrant to enable police to do so?” The Liberals once understood this policy, and today they are shredding it. Canadians want criminals behind bars, not their freedom bargained away. Bill C-2 would bulldoze liberties while letting criminals off the hook, and that is why the Conservatives will not stand for it.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite mentioned extortion. I know extortion has increased in his community. It is a concern that I have, and I am glad the member shares it.

This piece of legislation, Bill C-2, would allow police to identify a person from their phone number by getting basic subscriber information from a telco company, meaning their name and address. This is a very important tool that law enforcement has been asking for so their investigations are not delayed or they can rule people out.

Does the member not feel that being able to speed up extortion investigations is an important tool that we should give law enforcement?

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, if the Liberals were so concerned about extortion, they would have supported my colleague's extortion bill, which addressed all these concerns, and voted in favour of it instead of opposing it. The Conservatives are here fighting for Canadians and voicing their concerns. I know on a first-hand basis the damage that is being done by Liberal policies.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals call this bill the strong borders act. Canadians want secure borders, something the Liberals have opened up in the last 10 years through their intentional policies. Why do Canadians want a secure border? It is because the root of the issue comes down to public safety, again something the Liberals have completely shattered in the last 10 years with procrime policies that have unleashed unprecedented levels of crime into our once-safe communities.

If the Liberals care about public safety, why is there nothing in this bill about mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers, who are killing people en masse, to the tune of tens of thousands? Why is there nothing in this bill about mandatory prison time for gangsters who are using guns to commit crimes? Lastly, why does this bill contain nothing about permitting house arrest, which the Liberals have enabled through their soft-on-crime, intentional procrime policies over the last 10 years, when they purportedly want to deal with this public safety issue? Is this just another case of Liberal incompetence or are they trying to mislead Canadians?

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, it is exactly what my colleague from Richmond Hill said. It is Liberal incompetence. We see that our communities are now facing challenges like at no other time before. We have seen that incompetence trickle down year after year, and the effects are more crucial now than we have ever seen before.

We need to make sure that we secure our borders properly and bring forward proper bills and amendments that will make sure we strengthen our justice system. My colleague is very right about the matter, because he is facing the same challenges we are in my community of Abbotsford—South Langley.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to refer back to the member's quote on my principles with respect to getting a warrant. The problem the member is facing is that he is listening to the Conservatives in the back room. They are wrong. In fact, if we look at the legislation, all we need to realize is that Canada Post has a legal obligation to deliver the mail. With respect to delivery, it cannot open letters. If the legislation were to pass and a law enforcement agency were to get a warrant, it would be able to open a letter.

Fentanyl is being mailed today to all sorts of communities. That is why we need this bill. My principal position on this has not changed from years ago. Would the member not agree in principle that getting a warrant to open a letter is a good aspect of the legislation? If the answer to that is that he agrees, then maybe the Conservatives need to revisit their speaking notes.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, we need to make sure we address the concerns our citizens are facing. B.C. is facing a fentanyl crisis like no other. The member across the aisle is correct. He needs to make sure he is competent in what he is stating, as before. At one point, the member across was right, but now he is not aligned with what he said years before.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-2 is being promoted as a crime and border security bill, but it includes sweeping measures that touch on Canadians' private lives. In a data-driven world, it is of utmost importance that governments, citizens and companies have the fundamental right to privacy protected.

The issue with Bill C-2 is that it touches on so many details without enough language or safeguards in place to properly study each component in a way that serves the best interests of Canadians or the implications of the new language contained in this omnibus piece of legislation.

While there are many parts of the bill that could be critiqued, I will focus on the privacy side. This is particularly important to me because in the last Parliament, I had the privilege of working on the industry committee on Bill C-27, which attempted to update Canada's privacy laws. In that process, we sought to enshrine a fundamental right to privacy in legislation. We sought to establish world-leading protections and safeguards for children. We sought to define and limit the socially and commercially acceptable use of personal data. We sought to strike a fine balance between commercial interests and the right of personal data to be protected under the ownership of its user.

I cannot help but think of the relationship to Bill C-2 and the sweeping powers it seeks to provide government that we sought to protect in the last Parliament.

In my opinion, the Liberals have taken this opportunity to develop a secretive, sweeping surveillance regime into a bill that was supposed to be about border and crime issues in response to the tariff challenges we face from the United States.

With that context in mind, let me turn to the specific parts of Bill C-2 that warrant, in my opinion, further study on privacy concerns and are of greatest concern to my constituents and experts alike who have written my office.

Let us look at part 14, an amendment to the Criminal Code. Part 14 would create a new law that would let police make “information demands”. This means police officers could ask Internet or phone companies whether someone is a subscriber, even without a warrant. The standard for doing this in the legislation is very low: police would only need to have a “reasonable suspicion”. The Supreme Court has already said that is not enough when it comes to people's online account information.

That may go against two very important recent Supreme Court decisions. In R v. Spencer, the Supreme Court ruled that Canadians have a right to privacy in their Internet account details and police need a warrant to access that information. In R v. Bykovets, in 2024, the court made it clear that even things like IP addresses are private and also need a warrant to access. Part 14 would let police bypass these privacy protections.

Part 15 of the act, the supporting authorized access to information act, would create a new category of electronic service providers and designate certain core providers. These companies would be forced to build and maintain technical back doors at the request of law enforcement, allow law enforcement to test direct access to their systems and keep all such requests secret from the public. Members should think about the implications of that. The government could tell a telco, an Internet company, that it is going to do things in private with people's personal data, and it does not have to inform the public. This has massive implications that need to be examined carefully.

Part 16 of the act would rewrite Canada's privacy and financial rules. It touches upon the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, under its sections 11.7(1) to 11.7(3). It would create a new part 1.2 of this law, allowing reporting entities, such as banks, credit unions and money services businesses, to collect and use personal information without an individual's knowledge or consent if the data is provided by the government or law enforcement for purposes related to anti-money laundering, terrorist financing or sanctions evasion.

I will note in this request that we do need to improve this bill. Without some of the safeguards that Conservatives and even Liberal members were trying to establish for Bill C-27, it would open the door to future abuse and misuse by law enforcement agencies if these definitions and concepts of privacy and data are not modernized in Canada.

I note the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act's proposed sections 7 and 9. Under this portion of part 16, the bill introduces exceptions so that the usual requirement for knowledge or consent no longer applies when collection or use falls under the above provisions, namely the terrorism financing act. It would also remove the obligation for individuals to access their own information if it was obtained under these rules. Essentially, this would allow for banks and financial institutions to use Canadians' financial information without consent when the government supplies it.

I think again about the implications this would have with the Canada Revenue Agency, financial institutions and the privacy of individuals and what this could do to the makeup of families' information that they want to keep private from other family members, not for criminal purposes, but maybe for business-related purposes. We have privacy in Canada for a reason. This bill would undermine it.

Part 11 is about cash transaction restrictions. Constituents in my community have raised concerns about the provisions related to cash transactions. I know in many cases, in British Columbia especially, at casinos and at car dealerships, cash transactions have been abused, but there may be a better way to treat cash moving forward than what is outlined in this bill. We have to think about the context of religious organizations that collect large amounts of cash at a weekly service, such as at a gurdwara or at a Christian church. We have to look at charities and auctions and the application the bill would have on those aspects of our society.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not quickly touch upon the Canada Post Corporation Act amendments. The Liberals think giving the government the ability to open our mail on very spurious grounds would serve Canada's interests. I would argue that we can find a middle ground. We can apply technology. We could speed up the use of warrants when necessary so that law enforcement would indeed have access to drugs, such as fentanyl, that are mailed in the Canada Post system.

In closing, this bill is litigation in action. I just cannot imagine the number of court cases that are going to come from this legislation if we do not address these major privacy concerns, if we do not get the definitions correct and if the government is not very clear about the safeguards and the application of the things that they are proposing, which would go well beyond everything they promised in the election in a way that Canadians are not even aware of. This legislation needs careful scrutiny, so if this bill passes, I would encourage the minister to critically review whether the privacy and data collection aspect is even necessary for its core objectives of protecting our border.

Coming from a border town, I know we want strong infrastructure at our border. We want to see more CBSA officers enforcing existing laws. We want to see the equipment and the military presence where necessary to keep Canadians safe, but this legislation goes well above and beyond the Canadian consensus about what we need to do to keep people safe today.