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

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat part of my speech: Bill C-75 requires judges to prioritize releasing an accused person at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous conditions.

Clearly, after 10 years, the Liberals must realize that bail reform is needed. They must be listening to their constituents. That is why I bring this up, so it can be added to Bill C-2, because we have been talking about it for years. It needs to be repealed for the safety of everyone and all Canadians. Again, in good faith and working together on what is best for Canada, I hope that the Liberals—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I do have to interrupt the member. The time for questions and comments has expired.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, it is highly disturbing that I am again obliged to call out the government's glaring violations of Canada's Constitution, including international covenants to which Canada is a signatory, in Bill C-2, the so-called strong borders act.

This is the second occasion where the Liberals have presented a piece of legislation that would provide government with sweeping executive powers. In fact just before summer adjournment, the NDP had to hold the Liberals accountable for how Bill C-5 undermines the Constitution.

Now we are here today debating Bill C-2, a bill that would disregard constitutionally enshrined rights, undermine civil liberties, criminalize migrants and asylum seekers, and bypass Parliament and public debate. Who are the Liberals targeting? They are targeting marginalized communities.

Just like Bill C-5, Bill C-2 is an omnibus bill. It is vague and dangerous. The NDP is once again calling out an undemocratic power grab.

It is clear that the measures are meant to appease Trump, which is the opposite of what the current Prime Minister campaigned on. Do not just take it from me; the Minister of Public Safety said the Liberals carefully crafted Bill C-2 to address Trump's “irritants”, lifting up disinformation that Canada is causing America's fentanyl crisis, appointing a fentanyl czar and enacting draconian border policies that terrorize migrants and refugees and result in the detaining of citizens. That is the American administration the current Prime Minister is lifting up.

According to the Migrant Rights Network:

[the Prime Minister] campaigned on being different from Donald Trump, yet his very first bill is a shameful capitulation to racism and xenophobia, which abandons Canada’s legal and moral obligations to refugees and migrants. We’re witnessing the deliberate expansion of a mass deportation machine designed to tear apart families and communities.

It is shameful.

I have to question the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. Are they going to keep undermining rights to appease a president who has demonstrated that he is erratic, or are they committed to upholding human rights? Are they, along with the Conservatives, going to keep entertaining the lie that immigrants are driving the housing crisis, when the real blame lies with landlords and profit corporations? As we have seen from extremist anti-immigrant and anti-migrant riots in Toronto, entertaining this violent rhetoric is no way to build a unified country.

This week, the Prime Minister called Trump a “modern man”, indicating he texts him regularly. Are we going to pretend that this “modern man” is a reasonable partner in protecting democracy, when he is using his ICE police force, the National Guard and the army to terrorize people, his very own citizens, as well as visitors, including Canadian citizens?

The bill goes beyond what the Liberals have tried to convince people across Canada it is, a bill to protect our borders. In fact, it would result in violating civil liberties and violating rights to privacy. In fact, through the legislation, the Liberals would be ushering in sweeping surveillance powers for police, intelligence and even vaguely defined “public officers” to enforce upon anyone in Canada.

In fact, if the bill is passed, these actors can, without a warrant, demand people's personal information from doctors, banks and landlords; track their locations, associations and service usage; open their Canada Post mail; and share their data with foreign governments such as the United States government. This is a violation of the right to privacy, a charter right that has been affirmed and upheld by the Supreme Court as an essential part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

According to a letter sent to the government by 39 civil liberties and human rights groups, and 122 lawyers, Bill C-2 “is a multi-pronged assault on the basic human rights and freedoms Canada holds dear. It is likely unconstitutional, and deeply out of step with the values Canadians expect our government to embody and respect.”

This violation of privacy will be felt the most by those who are already the most impacted by oppressive systems: women, gender-diverse folks and the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community. Several organizations representing women and gender-diverse people, including Action Canada, have condemned the bill for allowing a range of powers for law enforcement to access private medical records on abortion history without a warrant, violating the charter-protected right to privacy that people throughout Canada possess with regard to health care services.

Even worse, Bill C-2 includes provisions for intelligence sharing with other countries, including the United States, which would allow authorities from jurisdictions where abortion or gender-affirming care is banned to find out whether a person has obtained these services in Canada. What happens when somebody comes from the United States, where some practices have been made illegal? Does Canada want to be involved in jailing people for exercising their human rights?

This legislation lacks a gender-based analysis. That has been made clear, full stop. It even fails to acknowledge the reality of survivors of gender-based violence. According to Action Canada, “Survivors fleeing gender-based violence abroad are learning about legal processes while living with profound trauma, often under the control of abusive partners who restrict their access to information and support. Imposing strict time limits on these most marginalized refugees”, for example, “ignores Canada's commitments to gender equality and safety.” That also applies to people fleeing intimate partner violence in Canada.

Under Bill C-2, a survivor of violence can be endangered if their abuser or abusive partner, for example, is a member of law enforcement who, without a warrant, is capable of accessing information on their whereabouts and the services they use. However, we should not be surprised if the Prime Minister seems oblivious to the issue of gender-based violence; he plans to cut funding for women and gender equality by 81%, even though several municipalities have declared gender-based violence an epidemic.

I would be remiss if I did not add that Bill C-2 further advances the Liberals' attacks on those who oppose the government agenda, such as land defenders and workers. In fact, just last month, the Liberal government abused its power and its use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to violate the right to strike. As the Canadian Union of Public Employees has stated in regard to Bill C-2, “Trade unionists and activists know how surveillance can be used in attempts to limit labour and social movement fights for justice.”

The NDP will not stand for these infringements on our privacy and human rights. The NDP is calling for the bill to be withdrawn in its entirety. Let us not fall into the trap of undermining our Constitution, our human rights and the rule of law.

I am urging the Liberal government to withdraw this harmful bill and to put forward something that upholds human rights and truly ensures that people can live in security and safety.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the member opposite bringing forward some of the troubling authoritarian tendencies in the U.S. It is an important issue, but I am trying to figure out where the NDP actually stands on law enforcement and public safety. In Hamilton, NDP activists not only want to defund the police, they want to abolish the police altogether. They are in favour of illegal encampments in city parks, and they want to actually legalize all drugs, including fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamines.

Why is the NDP consistently opposed to law enforcement and public safety as their benchmark reflex?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should join the Conservative Party. That is a lot of sound bites. The reality is that what the NDP opposes is the violation of constitutional rights, the violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the putting forward of a bill that impacts particularly women fleeing violence without a gender-based lens. This has been highly criticized by over 122 lawyers, as well as civil liberties organizations. This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff. This is another example of the Liberal government trying to give itself sweeping powers to violate constitutionally enshrined rights.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to my fellow colleague from Manitoba, her riding of Winnipeg Centre is certainly facing the brunt of the fentanyl crisis. I used to drive through her constituency to get to work at the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. I think we know, or it is universally accepted, that a lot of these drugs are coming into Canada across the border. That is under discussion here.

If the member from the NDP thinks that the bill should be completely withdrawn, does she have any solutions as to how to deal with the crisis of drugs coming across our border, or is she content to just let that continue?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we know, even from what has happened in the States, that tough-on-crime approaches to drugs do not work. We have seen that. What our community organizations are calling for on the front lines of this issue is to deal with the toxic drug supply. We have a record number of overdoses in our community. I am not into political responses that have resulted in people dying in the streets that I represent. I am into public health responses. I am going to listen to the experts, not to politicians with a bunch of really good sound bites.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up where my colleague's response left off, when she mentioned the need to listen to the experts. I liked her speech. As I understand it, however, the New Democrats are going to vote against the bill. We are going to vote for it, but with the aim of dissecting it in committee. We will listen to the experts and the affected groups. Then, if necessary, we will vote against the bill or try to amend it. That may be where our positions on this matter diverge.

That said, is my colleague not concerned that the Liberals are trying to introduce an overly fast-tracked procedure that would stop us from doing our job and scrutinizing this bill?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we saw that with Bill C-5, certainly. With Bill C-2, they are not really getting members up to speak. This is a far-reaching bill. This is an omnibus bill that is over 132 pages. Where are the Liberals? The same people are here talking about the bill. We are talking about a bill that violates civil liberties, constitutional rights and international law. Yes, migrants and asylum seekers have human rights that are protected under international law. We have an obligation, as members of Parliament, to uphold the rule of law. The bill does not cut it. We are voting against it.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on Bill C-2. I have been here almost 10 years, long enough to remember the Liberals in 2015 and their campaign promise of no more omnibus bills. Obviously, that promise, along with so many others, has been broken.

This is another example of an omnibus bill, with the government trying to squish everything into one large bill and jam it through Parliament despite very valid concerns expressed by quite a few people in the House today. They have tried to paint Conservative, Bloc and NDP members as not co-operative if we disagree with one part of this massive omnibus bill.

Bill C-2 reminds me, like many other government bills, of Seinfeld. This one specifically reminds me of a Seinfeld episode where they did a play on the “Son of Sam”, David Berkowitz, except it was Newman, the post office man, playing the criminal. I think it was about killing his neighbour's dog. When Jerry and Elaine catch him, he asks what took them so long. That is the question I have for the Liberals. What took them so long?

We have had crime issues, border issues and immigration issues for 10 years, not just since the new government. It is not a new government. It is the same old, tired, corrupt, incompetent Liberal government that has been running things for the last nine and a half years. It is the same people who have been in charge for all these years and have done nothing.

Bill C-2 talks about finally bringing in controls over precursors coming in from mainland China, which are being used for fentanyl. It is not legislation yet; only now are the Liberals talking about it in a bill after almost 10 years. They are talking about strengthening the border, again after 10 years. They are talking about crime. We on this side have been bludgeoning the government over crime.

We heard earlier today my colleague from Lethbridge, in tears, going over a horrific crime inflicted on a Canadian, and the government says, “Just wait a bit longer. Didn't you hear? We're going going to bring in bail reform.” It brought in bail reform I think a year or two ago with Bill C-48, which did nothing. However, now it is promising this again because it is a new government, not the old government. The new government will fix things, maybe.

As for money laundering, if we read Sam Cooper's book, it is about $128 billion a year in this country. I cannot talk about this year's budget because we will not see it, but in last year's budget, I think it was about $450 billion. If we think about that, money laundering is almost 30% of the value of our tax haul, and the government has done nothing for 10 years. I do recall that Sam Cooper's book identified several Liberals with their fingers in the till earning money off of money laundering, including one of their former MPs, who was linked to money laundering. Again, as Newman says to Seinfeld, what took so long?

When we ask this of the Liberals, they stand up and say Harper cut from CBSA.

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

Lamoureux never says that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I know; we would think that, but I actually brought receipts.

Mr. Speaker, this is just in the last couple of years. The Prime Minister, eight different ministers and six different parliamentary secretaries have stood here in this House and said this is about the Harper cuts. Members can see how many pages I have. Most of it is said by the member for Winnipeg North. I am just going to read from them; they are not a prop. According to him, Harper cut a thousand jobs. Jennifer O'Connell, who is no longer with us thankfully, repeatedly said Harper cut 1,000 jobs and cut $400 million.

Let us just put that to rest once and for all. I am going to quote numbers from the government's own Treasury Board site. I brought this up before, and the member for Winnipeg North said they were just statistics and they do not count, that what counts is what they say on that side. This is from the government's own websites: GC InfoBase, the Library of Parliament and the Treasury Board.

On full-time equivalents to CBSA, when the Liberals took over from big, bad Harper, there were 14,113 full-time equivalents with the CBSA. Two years later, under the Liberals, there were 13,707 full-time equivalents, so where was the cut? The cut was not under Harper. The cut was under the Trudeau Liberals.

On spending for CBSA, we saw, as I said, eight different ministers, including the former minister in charge of CBSA, who is now doing the free trade attempt with the U.S., stating that $400 million was cut by Harper. Well, in 2012-13, spending was $1.7 billion. The next year it was went up, under Harper, to 8.3%. The year after that, it went up 8.16%. Then the Liberals took over and what happened? The spending dropped 11% on the CBSA. Again, these are the government's own numbers. I know the Liberals are saying, “There are lies, damn lies, statistics and Treasury Board numbers,” but this is from the public accounts, from the Treasury Board. In 2016 and 2017, another full year into their mandate, it had dropped 18% from the Harper era.

Let us look forward. I quoted earlier Trudeau's election promise to end the omnibus bills. Let us look at the government promise from the last election. It reads:

Canadians deserve to feel safe where they live, play, work.... My government will hire thousands of new RCMP and CBSA officers to crack down on illegal drugs and guns coming from the United States, increase funding to prosecute violent criminal gangs [and let them out later], make bail laws stricter for home invasions....

Apparently, that is for those who fight back against home invaders.

Later, it reads, “Recruit 1,000 more RCMP personnel to tackle drug and human trafficking”.

What do the Liberal numbers show?

This is from the departmental plans, for those who follow the estimates process, which I think is one of us. Departmental plans forecast spending requirements as approved by the government three years forward, but also lays out the goals and priorities that justify spending to be approved by Parliament, should there ever be a budget.

Now, our current full-time equivalents is 31,743 for the RCMP, so a thousand more would be 32,743, but under Liberal math, planned full-time equivalents drops over the next couple years to 33,000. Next year it is going to be 33,076, and if we add 1,000, it goes to 33,632. Where is the rest of the thousand they promised?

For CBSA, it says, “Train 1,000 new CBSA officers”. Next year, the Liberals plan 17,289 dropping to 16,615 CBSA officers. Again, do not take my word for it. The Minister of Public Safety and the new member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre, who replaced the scandalous other Randy, signed off on it. This is their departmental plans. These are their numbers.

Spending for CBSA is due to drop from $3.1 billion this year, dropping $200 million, so when we add in all the Liberal inflation, it is still dropping $200 million.

I asked earlier what took the Liberals so long, but I have to ask why they are pushing forward this fantasy world to Canadians. Why are they continuing with this bait and switch where they promise they are going to do this and then deliver that? It is another example of them believing, “Hey we announced it, and therefore, it is done.” Well, they announced more for the RCMP, but their own numbers show they are going to drop. They announced more for CBSA, but their own numbers show a drop. They have announced repeatedly that they are going to do something about crime, and the reality shows the other way.

We on this side do not believe anything the government is putting forward, and its own facts prove that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I give the member opposite credit. He has consistently argued that point, but at the end of the day, the reality is different from the images the member tries to portray. We know Stephen Harper did cut, and it is within his own Harper budget. Yes, the current leader of the Conservative Party was part of that cut to Canada border control.

The member might be able to convince members of his own Conservative caucus, but the reality is those individuals who are in the workforce in CBSA, as well as others outside the Conservative caucus, recognize that Stephen Harper was not a friend when it came to beefing up border controls.

This Prime Minister, who made a commitment in the last election, made it very clear that we are going to beef it up, not only budget-wise, but legislatively, and that is why we have Bill C-2.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the emperor has no clothes, clearly.

These are the government's own numbers. These are not my numbers. These are not Conservative numbers. These are the numbers of the current Liberal government. The Treasury Board posts these numbers.

I would encourage the member opposite to, instead of spending all his time in this House spewing misinformation, maybe take a few minutes outside the House and look at the facts. The government cut CBSA dollars. It cut CBSA full-time equivalents. Its own documents, signed by the Minister of Public Safety, say that for the next three years it is going to continue to do—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Repentigny.