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

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

Madam Speaker, something that I was pretty devastated to learn earlier as I was getting briefed on the crime issue is that child sexual exploitation, sextortion, is one of the highest reported crimes in Canada today, and it is happening with Canadian offenders. It is happening across lines as well across the world, and it is so important that we tackle this.

One of the challenges that police are facing is that they have to be so far into an investigation, with reasonable grounds to believe that a suspect has committed a crime, rather than the threshold that would be changed in this legislation, which would be reasonable grounds to suspect and would allow officers to get basic information of who an IP address or a telephone number belongs to.

As such, I believe that it is very misleading when the member says that this would give police access to all of the suspect's data. That is not true. It is basic information, so I would like it if the member would correct the facts.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not believe I need to correct any facts about the consequences of how the bill is written and the implications I sought to draw attention to.

In our caucus, we have a former Crown prosecutor, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, who spent his career combatting sexual exploitation. There are many other things we could do in the justice system, which the Liberals have had 10 years to address, related to evidence and discovery that many lawyers and Crown counsel across Canada have been asking for. I would encourage the Liberal justice minister and other members of the Liberal caucus to look at existing things they could do right now, according to the Jordan's principle as well, to speed up access to justice in this country, especially as it relates to the protection of minors.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say hello to the people of Rimouski—La Matapédia, whom I am proud and honoured to represent. The riding name has changed, but I am not forgetting the people of La Mitis, Les Basques and Neigette, and I want to say hello to them too.

My question for my Conservative colleague is quite simple. The bill gives extraordinary powers to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. We want to ensure that the choices made by Quebec, which shares jurisdiction over immigration, are respected.

Does my Conservative colleague agree with the idea of the federal minister being able to cancel visas en masse, including visas for people selected by Quebec? I would like a yes or no answer.

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

Madam Speaker, in many cases, Quebec makes a strong case about protecting its jurisdictions under the Constitution. In fact, sometimes I believe British Columbia could learn a bit from Quebec and assert its provincial authority as well.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has, as all Conservatives have, spent time engaging with police chiefs and police officers in his riding and across his province. Has any police chief said that the pressing crime issue they need to deal with is people using cash?

The bill goes far beyond what the Liberal government says it will. It would prohibit otherwise law-abiding citizens from buying a used vehicle in cash. Have any members of law enforcement said they want this right?

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

Madam Speaker, I recently met with the chief of police of Abbotsford, and he mentioned nothing about cash transactions. In fact, in my conversations with the police forces in the Fraser Valley and in the greater Vancouver region, they were mostly concerned about bail. They want to see bail reform right now. That is what they want to see.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member whether he asked that question in particular. I spoke all summer to law enforcement and they do like the provisions, in particular when it comes to using cash to buy luxury items like cars and luxury bags. It is money laundering, and it has been a big problem in Canada. I know the Conservatives called for action on that.

Why will the hon. member not support it? I would like the member to please let me know if he asked the police that question.

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

Madam Speaker, as it relates to money laundering, I have been up in the House talking about the Peter German report and about the implications it has had for British Columbia probably more than any other member. What I find so ironic today is that the Liberals, for the very first time in my six years in this chamber, are actually speaking about protecting Canadians for a change. Under their watch, we have seen a rise in crime and violence against women and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Northumberland—Clarke.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start out with a very simple principle that I think all of us would agree with. Certainly, science would agree with it: The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Extending grace to those on the other side, I think we all want to get to a point where we have safe, secure borders, borders where we do not have fentanyl flowing, where we do not have the flowing of illegal guns and where we do not have illegal products crossing our borders. I think we would all agree on that.

My question is, why has the government decided to obstruct its own legislation by putting through a number of things that are spurious and really do not have anything to do with the core mission I talked about? We all want to get to the same point. We want to get to a destination where Canada has safe, secure borders.

We know that the men and women at the CBSA work hard every day. However, we also know that, over the last 10 years in this chamber, the Liberals have not given them the tools they need for maximum success. Instead of talking about various issues, why do we not have a laser-focused piece of legislation that focuses on some of the core mandate issues, things we can all agree upon, and pass the legislation? I will talk about why these things are concerns to us.

I will give an example of how we could do this. Bill C-5 is deeply flawed. It is meant to be a band-aid solution for the past 10 years of terrible legislation, such as the cap on oil and gas and Bill C-69. I could go on. It is a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card for certain projects. We saw that at least it would get some projects done. My team and I worked personally and closely with the minister's team to work with that legislation to make it better. Conservatives passed over 20 different constructive amendments to improve that legislation and ended up voting for it. I do not understand why the Liberals did not adopt the same model for Bill C-2. Instead they decided to digress on a number of strange paths.

I will talk first of all about the ability for the government to obtain documents and important, critical information, such as medical information, from ISP providers, from banks and from other institutions without a warrant. That is dangerous. That is not the type of power the government needs. I agree that the member made an excellent point. As a parent of a 10-year-old and an 11-year-old, I want to make sure, to the fullest extent possible, that my children and all Canadian children are protected from the predators who are out there. I am open to discussions on that, but why not have a narrow piece of legislation that is focused on that? Why not use age verification, as in Bill S-209, which would protect children from some of these predators who are online?

The scope of data that would be available to the government is incredible. I do not think the member for Winnipeg North would have gone on a dating app recently, so this is probably not a concern to him. However, millions of Canadians have. I think they would be shocked to know that a border security bill would give the government the ability to access their Tinder profile.

What a digression that was. Once again, I will get back to my original point. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Why would we not have legislation to put that in place?

Then there are restrictions on cash. As I said, there are definitely areas where cash is misused in our economy. It can be used for crimes, such as extortion, blackmail and drug dealing. If someone can name it, it is used for that on the black market. As legislators, we have to be cognizant of this. We want to protect Canadians from being victims of crime.

Canada is known as a haven for money launderers. There is actually a term for it: snow washing. We need to fight money laundering. My colleague, the member for Simcoe North, put forward a great private member's bill that sought to fight money laundering. However, the government refused to support it and eventually it died on the Order Paper, which is unfortunate.

This is always about a conflict of rights. There are very few cases where one person is right and one person is wrong, so when we are dealing with different rights, we need to act like a surgeon. We cannot just go in with a cannon and blow things up. Why not be surgical about our approach? Instead of putting in these massive restrictions, these dragnets around past transactions, let us be surgical. Let us look at the details. Let us make sure that we are not, for example, as a member stated earlier, accidentally bringing in gurdwaras, temples, mosques, churches and synagogues, where often cash is part of transactions. There are many cultural and social activities that still rely on cash, and to have cash included is not the right idea.

At the end of the day, we can see the ideological divide. Conservatives fundamentally believe in the Canadian public. We believe in Canadians. We want to give them every opportunity to do the right thing. It is not to say that there cannot be some restrictions and there should not be restrictions, but on that side of the aisle, the new government and the old government are the same on this principle. The Liberals believe that more government is better government, that the more intrusion in our lives, the better. They believe that government can do no wrong.

We have seen, over the last decade, that the government can do lots of things wrong. We saw it invoke the Emergencies Act and debank Canadians, and it used such broad powers. I have put on the record before that the use of those provisions was fairly narrow, and very few people were debanked. I want to make that clear because that is the truth and I am here to speak the truth. However, the problem was that the proclamation the Liberals used, the emergency measures proclamation, was broad. These are not my words, but one of the expert witnesses we had before the finance committee said they were so broad that the government could have debanked someone who simply sold a pack of gum to someone who participated in the protest movement. That is not from me. Members can check the finance committee records from a couple of years back.

I am not saying that all government is bad and that government workers are bad. I am saying the opposite, as 99% are great people who do great work 99% of the time. The challenge is that we need oversight over everyone, because humans are innately flawed and will not always do the right thing. That is why we have judicial oversight. It is why we should have carefully crafted legislation that uses a laser target to get at the people we want to get at.

Instead of making a straight line, the government has decided to wander all over various places, from restricting cash transactions to getting warrantless access to the records held by ISPs and banks. This is opening up Canadians to abuse at the hands of perhaps an incompetent or worse government official. We want to make sure there is oversight of the government, such as with a search that requires a warrant.

In conclusion, while the Conservatives will always be the party of law and order and we will always stand for a strong border, we are very confused by this legislation.

The House resumed from September 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑2, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, be read the second time and referred to committee.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-2, a major legislative initiative to both strengthen our asylum system and secure our borders. These two objectives go hand in hand, because we need an effective and humane immigration system that protects vulnerable people, while ensuring the safety of all Canadians.

Every year, thousands of people choose Canada to build a better life, to find refuge and to contribute to our society. However, global migration realities are changing quickly. In 2022, we processed more than 92,000 claims for asylum. That number climbed to more than 171,000 in 2024, which means it nearly doubled in two years. The rapid increase in asylum claims is straining our system. Processing times are getting longer, claimants are living in uncertainty, and our public services are grappling with a heavier workload.

Bill C‑2 proposes concrete, well-thought-out solutions to improve this situation while keeping our system fair and compassionate. One of the measures we are proposing is a single online form for all applications, whether they are submitted at an airport, at a land border or outside the country. This will simplify the process, reduce administrative errors and allow for better coordination between Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Furthermore, cases will be pre-screened and scheduling powers will be transferred directly to the board to allow hearings to be held faster and to facilitate planning. This will reduce unnecessary delays and ensure timely decisions. Lastly, we are proposing a simplified process for withdrawing incomplete applications while preserving the applicant's right to explain their situation and present arguments. Together, these measures will speed up decision-making and ensure that asylum continues to be accessible to those who truly need it.

Bill C-2 also introduces clear rules to protect the integrity of the system. For example, a claim for asylum must be filed within one year of the person's arrival in Canada. This time limit will deter people from using the asylum system to circumvent the regular immigration channels or to unduly prolong their temporary stay. The number of irregular border crossings has already diminished since the expansion of the safe third country agreement, but, under this bill, a person who crosses the border illegally and files a claim more than 14 days after their entry into Canada will no longer have their claim referred to the board. These provisions do not close the door on protection, however. Anyone facing persecution will still have the right to a pre-removal risk assessment, so our humanitarian commitment remains intact. In short, we are striking a balance between efficiency, security and compassion, which is essential to the credibility and legitimacy of our asylum system.

The COVID-19 pandemic showed us that we need to be able to respond quickly and effectively in exceptional circumstances. The current laws do not allow a large volume of immigration documents to be suspended, varied or cancelled in response to a widespread crisis. That limits the government's ability to protect Canadians in times of crisis. Bill C‑2 addresses that gap by enabling the government to temporarily suspend certain visas or travel authorizations in the event of a major crisis, whether it be a pandemic, an international conflict or a natural disaster. These temporary powers will enable the government to react quickly to protect the health, safety and well-being of Canadians while ensuring the continuity of essential services.

The second major mission of Bill C-2 is to strengthen border security and combat transnational organized crime. The bill builts on the historic $1.3‑billion investment and is structured around three pillars. The first pillar is to secure the border by modernizing the Customs Act, by improving the efficiency of export inspections, including inspections of rail and marine shipping containers, and by adding security-related activities to the Canadian Coast Guard's mandate. The second pillar is to combat fentanyl and organized crime by facilitating the seizure of mail for criminal investigations, by creating an accelerated scheduling pathway for precursor chemicals, and by providing legal access to electronic data in order to disrupt trafficking networks. The third pillar is to crack down on money laundering by introducing stiffer penalties, a ban on certain cash deposits over $10,000, and better information sharing between banks, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, and law enforcement.

All of these measures come with robust, transparent oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and protect Canadians' privacy. This gives law enforcement the tools it needs while safeguarding the public trust.

Those are not abstract issues. They are having a direct impact on Laval and the riding of Alfred-Pellan. Laval is a strategic economic and logistical hub, being close to the port of Montreal, the international airport, Highway 15 and major railway routes. Those attributes foster innovation and prosperity, but they also attract the attention of criminal networks. In 2024, Laval recorded more than 3,300 crimes and offences, including more than 800 auto thefts. More and more luxury cars are being stolen for export, threatening the safety of local residents and businesses. Thanks to the new export inspection powers, we will be able to intercept those vehicles before they leave the country, enabling us to protect property and strengthen public trust.

The fight against fentanyl is also crucial for our community. Our police services and community organizations are grappling with an overdose crisis that is affecting too many families in Laval. Bill C‑2 provides meaningful federal support to combat this scourge by coordinating the efforts of local, provincial, and national agencies. By protecting the integrity of cross-border trade, we are also protecting innovative Laval businesses in the logistics, pharmaceutical and international trade sectors, as well as the thousands of jobs they generate. This bill helps create a safe and prosperous environment for families, workers and entrepreneurs in my riding.

Like all Canadians, the people of Alfred-Pellan want safe communities, a fair and efficient immigration system, and an economy protected from the threat of crime. Bill C‑2 equips our border, police and justice services with tools for the 21st century. It protects our youth from the scourge of fentanyl, our businesses from financial crime, and our families from auto theft and fraud. It strengthens trust in our asylum system and enables us to respond effectively to global crises. We are reinforcing the system to reflect today's realities, protect Canadians and prepare for tomorrow's challenges. We are also sending a clear message—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The member's time is up.

The member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

Not everyone takes long vacations, and all summer long, I met with groups that will be affected by Bill C‑2. For these meetings, I was joined by my colleagues from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon and Rivière-du-Nord, because we will all be sharing the task of studying Bill C‑2 if it goes to committee, as we hope it will.

My question is quite simple. All of the groups we met with raised serious doubts about the validity of certain clauses that would not even stand up in court. Some provisions do raise legal questions. For example, it will not be possible to compel the minister and his staff to appear before the Refugee Protection Division. There is no explanation as to why or how that will be done in court.

Is my colleague aware of the problems with certain clauses in this bill?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to tell my colleague that a safe Canada is a strong Canada. We are taking steps to keep Canadians across the country safe. We are taking steps to prevent the crime that is threatening our communities and to give police the tools they need to fight it and to hold criminals accountable for their actions.