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

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it was a government commitment. That said, I do not believe that the 130 pages of this bill, right down to the smallest detail, were actually specific Liberal commitments during the election campaign. The devil is often in the details.

We are quite willing to co-operate, but things need to unfold differently than they did last June, when there was a super closure motion, fast-track procedures and rushed studies. This bill is complicated. The Bloc Québécois has said that it will vote in favour of the bill so that it can be sent to committee, because we want to study it. If my colleague wants our co-operation, there will have to be a thorough study, increased scrutiny and a rigorous process involving experts, groups and individuals who are affected.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate a little more on his comments regarding simply removing the irritants the United States has asked us to remove. It does not feel like leadership. The public safety minister pretty much admitted that this was the purpose of the bill.

What took the Liberals so long? Why did they wait for the U.S. to chime in? I think our government is stronger than that, or it should be, and I would like to hear a couple of more comments on that.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I need to point out that it took a wake-up call, like so many other situations. The same thing happened with the previous American administration with regard to Roxham Road. It took the White House saying that the situation was no longer working and that enough was enough. All of a sudden, the government, which has rediscovered the concept of Canadian sovereignty—so despised in previous decades and supposedly a major concern now—is saying that border security is important. Perhaps stolen vehicles being shipped overseas is important. Perhaps fentanyl matters. Perhaps criminal gangs are important. Perhaps the weapons that enter our country have an impact here. It took an American administration to say those things to get the ball rolling after nine years with this government in power.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say more about this topic, because it is quite surprising. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons says this is a new government, but I do not believe this is the first time I have seen him. He has been rising in the House for some time, and, all of a sudden, he is saying that we need to tighten our borders and toughen up the asylum seeker program.

In June 2024, when he was in office, the former immigration minister announced to great fanfare that a committee would be set up to distribute asylum seekers across Canada. He said that some provinces were doing much more than their share based on their demographic weight, that is, their population. Where is this committee on the distribution of asylum seekers now?

That is my question for my colleague.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is using a figure of speech known as a “rhetorical question”.

If such a committee existed, my colleague, who is the immigration critic, would probably know more about it than I do and know where it is now. I therefore take it that the answer was implied in the question.

Nonetheless, I will take this opportunity to say that it took a long time and a lot of turning in circles to finally get somewhere. We still do not know if it will measure up or whether it will have to be enhanced or improved, but if Ottawa is finally starting to wake up, so much the better.

Why did it take a reminder from the U.S. for Canada's representatives to realize that they have to monitor their borders? Why did King Charles not tell them that when they went to meet with him to talk about sovereignty?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet today to talk about Bill C-2 because I strongly feel there is a balance to be struck between public safety and the safety of our collective community in Canada and of our country, and the safety of individual rights.

I think everybody in this House wants to go after child sex offenders transnationally. We want to make sure that law enforcement is modernized and has the tools it needs to go after bad guys. All of us want to crack down on money laundering, stop the cash flow of organized crime and deprive organized criminals of their illegal profits. We want to stop auto theft and ensure that our vehicles remain within our country and are not exported abroad and sold. We want to make sure that drug production comes to a halt. We want to make sure that fentanyl is not going between borders and, most importantly, is not ending up in the hands of the vulnerable communities all across Canada that suffer for it. At the same time, though, we want to make sure the majority of Canadians do not suffer for our collective safety.

That balance is what this debate is all about, and that balance is what I am hoping the discussion at committee will be about. I am willing to support this bill to ensure that collective Canadian safety is paramount to where we are going with it, but at the same time, providing safeguards to individual Canadians is just as important. We want to make sure that we are not only collectively safe, but individually safe.

A number of concerns have been raised about this bill, but I want to talk about some of the positive things that have been brought about. For example, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has said:

Canada lags behind its international law enforcement partners in the ability to lawfully access electronic evidence associated to criminal activity. Transnational organised crime groups are exploiting this gap to victimize our communities across the country through serious crimes such as human, drug and firearm trafficking, auto theft, and violent profit-driven crime.

These are serious things, and we need to equip our law enforcement, as they are dealing with and protecting our borders and our communities.

The association goes on to say:

The proposed Bill demonstrates a commitment to modernizing legislation and equipping law enforcement with necessary tools to combat transnational organized crime in an increasingly complex threat environment. In particular, the Bill sets out several important law amendments which will address systemic vulnerabilities within the justice system, providing critical tools for law enforcement, border services and intelligence agencies.

I think those are very important pieces to this legislation.

A number of issues have also been raised by civil society. However, I will first address some of the items this bill would and would not do that have been sensationalized and perhaps used to misinform the public.

There have been talks about a ban on cash transactions over $10,000. However, if we read the bill, specifically part 11, line 136, and the exemptions for section 5 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, we see that there are exemptions for financial institutions, credit unions, etc., that would allow legitimate activity to happen. The intention of this bill is to go after the clandestine or nefarious nature of a money transfer.

There is another claim, which I have heard members talk about in the House today, about our mail being opened. Under our current law, that is already allowed. However, the bill would remove the section on exempting our letters so that it not just about our parcels.

When we talk about reasonable suspicion as a ground to open mail, I have some concerns about that, but ultimately, when we are talking about giving discretion to our law enforcement officers, the people we trust to hold office, that discretion needs to be honoured and valued. It also needs to ensure there is no systemic bias within that process. Somebody from a specific country should not be targeted, nor should they raise the reasonable suspicion of a mail officer or border officer. There are many other ways to do that.

One major concern that has been raised is with respect to privacy, an issue of our time. It is not just about the privacy that we have regarding our phones and data tracking at the border. It goes across all ways. It goes across how we use our social media, how our Internet use is sold to third parties, how it is used to advertise and how it is used to basically figure out a pattern of who we are as people.

There needs to be a deeper dive not just at the border, but all across the digital world we live in here in Canada. Where is our information stored? Who is it shared with? Where Bill C-2 addresses a part of that, I think we need to go a little further and expand it, perhaps in different legislation, to look at how we are protecting Canadians' data and their privacy, regardless of where they are within the country. That is a very important aspect of providing safety to Canadians.

One part that does trouble me a bit is about sharing the data of Canadians with international partners. I think that, yes, we absolutely have obligations to our allies and partners, whether it is the Five Eyes, NATO or other partners, but first and foremost, we need to decide how we are going to protect Canadians and what our international obligations are with respect to privacy and human rights, and make sure that Bill C-2 conforms to that as well. We have a very robust judicial system that will eke out exactly how we need to ensure this is regulated.

I realize that I only have two minutes left. I have a lot more to say, but I want to reinforce that this whole debate is not about the technicalities of the bill per se. I think it is a broader conversation about how we balance our need for public safety and security against our individual rights as Canadians.

The majority of Canadians are strong, law-abiding, friendly, amazing people, and they should not have their rights stepped on because of a few nefarious actors. Having said that, we need to explore a little further what the balance could be between the very legitimate and well-founded concerns that civil society organizations have raised and the needs of our country and law enforcement with regard to safety and security.

I find it to be an amazing step forward for our Prime Minister to say that we will have over 1,000 new CBSA officers providing resources on the ground for border safety and security, trying to combat drug trafficking, sex trafficking and money laundering, and trying to clamp down on organized crime. However, I also want to make sure that our laws are fit for purpose and that individual Canadians are well respected per their rights in our charter and Constitution.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated receiving some further information from the members opposite with respect to this bill this afternoon.

With great respect to the government party, this bill feels rushed. There are aspects of it that would intrude upon the rights of individuals. I have yet to hear a justification for the intrusion on privacy rights without the benefit of a third party review. It is our judicial process currently that law enforcement agencies, whatever they may be, when they have a suspicion of crime, go before the courts to obtain a warrant prior to accessing the property of individuals. I have yet to hear a justification for why we should set that aside.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is talking about the ISPs and wiretaps on our phones. There are a number of different acts and laws that really combat this issue. From my understanding, there is no specific provision that says that, without a warrant, we can go and take somebody's data.

Again, as we go through the bill process, I am looking forward to seeing how all of this information and the details and the technicalities come out within the committee stage, as well as to hearing from experts, to see how we can improve this bill to make sure that everybody's rights are protected.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be back in the House, especially after a very busy summer as a new member. I think it is important to go back to basics and acknowledge my constituents in Repentigny, because I am here to work for them.

My question is this. We have seen Chinese drones being used in the past to patrol the border, among other things, which was problematic. The big issue with border surveillance is the number of officers on the ground. We have asked about this over and over, but we have not received a response. The Customs and Immigration Union has been very clear about the fact that nearly 3,000 more officers are needed.

How will these additional officers be paid, and when will they be hired? Can we get an answer to those questions?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety have announced that there will be 1,000 more CBSA officers to help patrol. As the work starts and continues, we have to be nimble. We have to make sure that our border patrol has the resources it needs in order to be successful. As I said in my speech, it is a changing landscape where we have the digital aspect of it and we have the physical aspect of it. Organized criminals are oftentimes 10 steps ahead of where we are, and we need to make sure that we are catching up with that pace. I look forward to working with the member to make sure we have that support—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for London West.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague back into the House of Commons. I know that she had a lot more to say, and maybe she will get the opportunity to do so right now. I just wanted to comment on the fact that she said that this is not the final bill, and we want to take it to committee to discuss many of the issues that many people in the House have commented on.

Could the member maybe speak to how she can continue to convince the opposition to support sending this to committee, so that opposition members' suggestions can actually be discussed and further moved into the bill?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I say often and as I say loudly, there is no government without a healthy and strong opposition. That is where good legislation comes from. In order for us to really think about the issues that we are discussing here today, in order for us to really work and collaborate together for the betterment of Canadians, the bill has to go to committee, so that not only do we hear about members' concerns, but most importantly, we hear from experts on specific aspects of the bill and propose amendments to make the bill stronger, so that both of our concerns are addressed. Those concerns are public safety and individual security.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have always stood for the principle of security and the principle of freedom, and we have managed to do so simultaneously. These are the two pillars of a safe and prosperous society. Sadly, though, after a decade of Liberal governance, Canadians are living with less of both: less freedom and less security. The Liberals would like to move past their disastrous record on these topics, but Canadians are still paying the price and therefore very much paying attention and have some significant concerns.

Today, with Bill C-2, the government is claiming yet again to secure Canada. The Liberals have said that this is the intent of the bill. I would like to explore that a bit, because there are two problems that I see with the bill. I would say that it would neither make our communities safer nor protect our freedoms, and it would actually deepen the failures of the current government from the past decade.

There are two things. The bill claims to enhance security, but it would actually leave glaring holes in our justice system untouched, therefore leaving a person feeling less secure than ever. I will expand on that. The second thing I would like to discuss is the fact that it would infringe on the fundamental freedoms of Canadians in ways that should alarm each and every one of us in this place.

With regard to security of person and the justice system, let us be clear: Bill C-2 is the Liberals' half-hearted attempt to patch over the chaos that many of their policies have actually created. Sadly, Canadians have been truly, not figuratively, paying for those mistakes with their lives. We are told the border is secure, yet the CBSA has lost track of nearly 30,000 people with deportation orders. That is not security; that is negligence. In Falkland, B.C., authorities uncovered the largest, most sophisticated drug superlab in Canadian history in just the last couple of years. In the same province, the RCMP arrested individuals tied to a transnational organized crime group connected to Mexican drug cartels. This is the state of our country.

These are not isolated incidents. They are the product of years of border mismanagement and reckless drug policy experiments that have been done, especially in the province of British Columbia, which the government not only stamped with approval but also funded. That same failed experiment actually resulted in the death of more people due to drug overdose than died during World War II. Let that sink in for a moment: More people died because of the government's failed drug experiment than the number of people who died in World War II. That is a big deal.

Meanwhile, we also have to look at catch-and-release policies and what they have done, because they have sown great chaos across the country. My own riding of Lethbridge has one of the highest property and violent crime rates in Canada, and we are certainly not alone. It is something being experienced in communities from coast to coast.

In Welland, Ontario, just a few weeks ago, a three-year-old girl was violently sexually assaulted in her own bed. A little girl should be able to go to sleep at night with confidence that she is going to be kept safe, that she is going to wake up in the morning without her sleep being disrupted in any way. Unfortunately, because of our weak policies in this country, that three-year-old woke up having been forever changed, and she now has to work through the scarring that has taken place, not only to her physical body but to that little three-year-old heart. That is because of the failed policies of this place.

Folks, more can and should be done in order to make sure that a person is secure. Yes, sure, put more border patrol in place, but at the end of the day, there is so much more. In Kelowna, B.C., Bailey McCourt, a 32-year-old mother of two, was beaten by her ex with a hammer after he got released on $500 bail. That did not have to happen. Folks, if our justice system were stronger, if it stood for victims and did not side with criminals, these things would be prevented.

These tragedies expose a massive weakness in our justice system, and it is one that desperately needs to be addressed. The government has not only the opportunity but, I would dare say, the responsibility.

There are solutions, and I want to outline two of them. We have dozens that we can offer, but these are two of them. One would be bail reform. There are cases like that of Bailey, who was the mother murdered by her ex. He should not have been allowed out on bail. It highlights a massive problem with our bail system, the fact that a criminal can be put in jail and then let out before the ink on the police report even dries. That is what happened here. This man, a very dangerous offender who was known to police, went out and took the life of his ex-wife, leaving two young children without a mom, and a family grieving.

We have put forward a bill called the jail not bail act, and it calls for the repeal of Bill C-75, which forces judges to release offenders at the earliest opportunity and under the lightest conditions. That should not be the case in this country. The bill we are proposing would instead require judges to consider an accused's full criminal history, deny bail to repeat major offenders and toughen risk assessments, which would do a lot of good for victims and innocent Canadians. It would certainly do a lot of good to put criminals where they belong.

The other reform that we could bring forward is sentence reform. We have to confront the fact that our sentencing laws in this country are very broken. In Canada today, the maximum penalty for a third robbery offence is higher than the penalty for a sexual offence. I am going to say that again. Right now in this country, the maximum penalty for a third robbery offence is actually more than for a sexual assault offence.

I want us to think about that for a moment. Physical property in this country is actually given more weight, more value, than a person's dignity. Most often, it is women who are sexually assaulted. It is women who are put in that vulnerable place, that place of having to pull themselves together and heal from what was robbed: their very dignity and their very being.

It is also worth noting that our system allows for violent offenders to actually receive house arrest rather than be put in prison where they belong. How does that protect society? How does that protect those who are just trying to go to work, take their kids to sports or a music lesson, and live life in a safe, law-abiding manner? Why are we not standing up for those folks?

Colleagues, we need tougher, more consistent sentencing that reflects the gravity of the crime committed. Canadians deserve this. When we talk about the security of a person, these are the things that must come to the table. Under Bill C-2, none of this is considered. In fact, in the six or seven months that the government has now been in place under the new Prime Minister, the topics I am bringing up today have not even been addressed. They have not even been acknowledged.

This summer, it felt like every other hour I was opening up my phone and reading an article with regard to a crime committed against another human being. There was another life lost or another person assaulted. It should not be that way. Those in this House have the power, we have the power, to make a difference. We have the power to change the laws of this country and to instruct our law enforcement agents and the courts to act differently. We have the ability to contend for victims, to protect those who are innocent, and to truly provide security of person. When we talk about Bill C-2, there is a whole lot missed there.

I said originally that I was going to talk about security of person, and I was going to talk about the violation of human liberty that is also exposed in this bill. Out of passion, I have run out of time, but I think I have hit my mark. Ultimately, it is the people who matter most. They are the ones who sent me here. They are the ones I am contending for, and I would ask that my colleagues do the same.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks go to the hon. member opposite for bringing attention, and her passion, to this very important and indeed deeply touching issue.

I wish to bring to the member's attention, in case she is not yet aware, a petition that has been moved by the loved ones of Bailey McCourt from Kelowna, whom the member referenced. This tragic story, which occurred this summer in British Columbia, my home province, touched many of us and has rippled out widely across our communities.

In that context, it is my great privilege to be the parliamentary sponsor for a petition that Bailey's loved ones have brought forward. It calls for a number of revisions to the Criminal Code to address some of the shortcomings and gaps that may have contributed to the tragic loss of her life at the hands of her former partner. Some of those proposed changes include requiring the disclosure of a criminal record to one's partner upon receiving a marriage licence, as well as a variety of other measures that I trust the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada will take up in this session.