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 .

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I just saw two Liberals stand up. It appears they want to take up time here. Actually, one of them was the member for Winnipeg North. I really enjoy his interventions on the law.

We are talking about the law today. One of my favourite aspects of our banter in the House with the member for Winnipeg North is Bill C-2. It was really interesting to hear him talk. He will often get up and, dare I say, pontificate on the law when it comes to these issues. On Bill C-2, he repeatedly told us, and let us call it pontification again, about how somebody needs a search warrant to get access to mail. However, in the legislation, it clearly says, “The Corporation may open any mail” to see if it contravenes the legislation.

The member for Winnipeg North should be applauded for his zeal in this regard. I love not only how often he says something but also the fervour with which he says it. Unfortunately, the problem is that his officials contradicted this very thing. We spent literally days in the House of Commons debating about mail. I hope that, when the member gives us exhortations on the legal front, he has done his homework this time.

The member tells us he was right the first time. I do not want to say someone is wrong, but I would say he is wrong.

I will go on to something a bit more serious. I learned that a person from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, Fred Sawada, recently passed away. He was an uncle to one of my friends, someone I went to kindergarten with, Kristy Sawada. He was a brother to her father, Jack. They did a lot for the community. They ran service stations, one of which was a few blocks from where I grew up. My deepest condolences go to Fred's family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I would also like to take this time to recognize Ari Jyrkkänen, a young man from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola who contributed tremendously to democracy. In the last year, he was someone who was of great help to me. I want to give him a shout-out. His father, Ken, is a veteran of our Canadian Forces. We thank him for his service. We thank the family for all they have done. I wanted to give him a shout-out.

I was on the phone with a prosecutor not long ago. One thing they said is deficient in this bill, and perhaps the member for Winnipeg North already knows what I am going say, is regarding section 525 of the Criminal Code. This varies from region to region, but section 525 is on a review of bail. The principle is that nobody should be languishing in custody after charge approval.

Back in the day, for instance, in my prior career, I saw a murder file from 1984, I believe. The file was about this thick, which is what a theft file now looks like. Trial dates were set, I think, on the third or fourth court appearance. In other words, people got to trial. It got done. Now people do not get to trial, oftentimes, for a year and a half or two years. It was this mentality that beckoned the Jordan decision.

I am not here to give a discourse. I am here to raise this issue. We have this antiquated law that says there should be a bail review after 90 days in custody. This is assuming a person has only one file, because section 524 operates this way: Let us say somebody is in custody on an indictable matter, such as robbery. They have a bail hearing at day 81 of detention, which can happen. Counsel can just put it off. The person says they want to apply for bail at day 81. If that person is detained at day 81, by virtue of the operation of section 525 and how it has been interpreted in British Columbia, I am told, that person can then have a review of their bail nine days later.

Obviously, this is completely antithetical to what we intend. If they want to have a review of bail, it should be an appeal of bail. A review and an appeal are two very different things. An appeal is saying that the judge messed up. A review is meant to address this ongoing languishing that we do not want people to do when their matter has not gone to trial yet. To me, this is something that needs to be addressed.

I will go on to sex offences. I am trying to think of how many times I have said this in the House. I rose in the House and questioned former minister Lametti about this very issue of house arrest for sex offenders. In fact, I put it to him in committee that there was a mother who offended against her own child. She facilitated an offence. It was absolutely disgusting. Thankfully, it was overturned on appeal. That mother got house arrest. I have said it no less than, probably, 20 times. I gave a speech on this very issue of house arrest for sex offenders two weeks ago. Every single time, the Liberals looked the other way. “There is nothing to see here. There are no issues.” We were constantly told it is the provinces' fault: “Look this way. Look that way. There is no problem with bail. We have it figured out.” Former minister Virani and former minister Lametti actually told us there was no problem.

Yes, I am speaking with a great deal of passion, because I cannot say how many victims have suffered as a result of that inaction. The Liberals will say that the provinces are responsible for the administration of justice. Yes. However, Mr. Speaker, do you know what? The provinces interpret the laws we make in the House. Those ministers, along with many of the people in the House right now, told us we were out to lunch. Hopefully, one of them will be permitted to get up on a question. This is on sex offences against children and house arrest. This is absolutely nuts.

Another aspect we need to look at for clarification is in the reverse onus provision itself. I will be candid. Reverse onuses typically have their place, but, again, we have heard from the Liberals so often about them. Here is the issue with the reverse onus: Typically, though not always, when an accused person is in a reverse onus, in my experience, they are actually in two, three, four or five reverse onuses. We could have somebody who is subject to literally 10 reverse onuses, so we have to recognize that.

The second issue with the reverse onus is that, oftentimes, it will apply to indictable offences only. When the issue was changed in sentencing to say that just about every summary conviction offence could get two years less a day, I believe the motivation behind that was to put more things in provincial court, which operates in a more streamlined manner. Okay, that is fine. There is no issue there, but what that means is that the Crown will proceed by indictment. For those watching, if they do not know the difference , it is felony versus misdemeanour and summary versus indictment. Then we have hybrid offences; the Crown can elect which is which. The whole point was so that the Crown would elect summary.

The reverse onus says that, if somebody has committed an indictable offence, they are in a reverse onus. What about somebody who has 80 convictions, but the Crown expects to seek 18 months of jail, which is fairly serious jail? If they elect to proceed summarily, that person, according to my information, in certain provinces and depending on the jurisdiction, will no longer be subject to the reverse onus provisions. We have a stymying of legislative intent there. This is something I really hope the Liberals deal with.

The last thing missing from Bill C-14 is Bailey’s law. Let us hope the Liberals do not heckle us on this, this time. The reality is that we need to pass legislation on intimate partner violence. We need to create a specific offence on intimate partner violence. We need to recognize the scourge and the plague that is intimate partner violence. I exhort the House, in the strongest language possible, to pass Bill C-225 with the urgency it deserves.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to the bail and sentencing reform act, one of the most comprehensive updates to Canada's bail and sentencing laws in decades.

I have the privilege of representing one of Canada's safest communities, with an overall crime severity index that is the sixth-lowest among Canadian cities. It is an improvement from our ranking as eighth-lowest in 2023 and a dramatic improvement from our ranking of 19th-lowest in 2018, but Guelph used to be the safest city in Canada, and we are seeing a concerning rise in some serious crimes.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the people in community organizations that work to prevent crime by addressing root causes and that support victims of crime, and of course Guelph Police Service for its excellent work in our community. It is a collaboration.

People in Guelph and across Canada do not just want an improvement in the statistics; they expect and deserve that their communities should feel safe. They want to be safe. They expect a justice system that protects victims, supports the people on the front lines and holds repeat and violent offenders to account, and I agree with them. People expect all levels of government to take steps to ensure that these things happen. The new government is playing its part.

The bail and sentencing reform act would introduce over 80 clauses of targeted reforms to strengthen both our bail and our sentencing regimes to respond to this reality. This comprehensive and constitutional bail reform is more than a motion or a slogan, and it is not a warmed-over version of failed U.S. policies. It is the result of extensive engagements with the provinces and territories, police, prosecutors, victims' advocates, indigenous partners, and community organizations. Through these discussions, it became clear that one of the most urgent areas for reform was the bail system, particularly for cases involving repeat and violent offenders.

Let us talk about bail reform first. Over the past several years, people in Canada have seen too many tragic headlines about violent crimes committed by individuals who were already out on bail, sometimes with a long history of prior offences. Police, mayors and victims' advocates have all told us that the bail system was not working as it should in these cases.

The bail and sentencing reform act would address these criticisms head-on. In fact, Michael Gendron of the Canadian Police Association has said, “Front-line police have long called for pragmatic reforms to strengthen Canada's bail and sentencing framework. This legislation is an important and timely step to improve public safety and restore confidence in our justice system.”

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police welcomes the introduction of Bill C-14, calling it “a landmark piece of legislation that strengthens Canada’s response to repeat and violent offenders, organized crime, and threats to public safety.”

Why do we have the support of these police associations and so many mayors and community organizations? First, it is because Bill C-14 would make bail stricter and harder to get for repeat and violent offenders.

The bill would create new reverse onus provisions, meaning it would be up to the accused person to demonstrate why they should be released, and not the other way around. In particular it would create new reverse onus provisions for violent and organized crime-related auto theft; break and enter of a home; trafficking in persons; human smuggling; assault and sexual assault involving choking, suffocating or strangulation; and extortion involving violence. This is intended to help ensure that the people who pose the greatest risk to public safety would remain in custody until it is proven they can be safely released.

The bill would offer clarity to police and courts regarding how to apply the principle of restraint. This includes clarifying that the principle would not in fact require release and that an accused person should not be released if their detention is justified, including for the protection and safety of the public.

At the bail stage, courts would be required to consider key risk factors, such as whether the allegations involve random or unprovoked violence, and the number or seriousness of any outstanding charges that the accused has accumulated while on bail. Specifically, courts would need to assess whether releasing the accused person would undermine confidence in the justice system. They would also have to impose weapons prohibitions at bail for people accused of extortion and organized crime, unless this is not required.

Importantly, in reverse onus cases, the accused would have to present a credible and reliable bail plan. Courts would need to closely scrutinize those plans before granting release.

These reforms are about protecting the public and ensuring accountability for those who repeatedly show disregard for the law and the safety of others in a way that balances the charter rights of people accused of a criminal offence. However, making bail is stricter is only part of the solution.

Our sentencing laws also need to reflect the gravity of violent crimes and the harm done to victims and communities. The bill therefore proposes significant sentencing reforms to make penalties tougher for repeat and violent offending, including car theft, extortion and crimes that endanger public safety. For example, the act would require consecutive sentences when violent auto theft is committed with a break and enter, or when extortion is committed with arson. This means that offenders would serve one sentence after another rather than serving them at the same time, which may result in a longer penalty's being imposed.

The bill would also enact new provisions concerning aggravating factors, and I think we can all agree on that. Sentencing would be tougher for crime against first responders, which would be an egregious crime; retail theft, which is growing and concerning; and offences that impact critical infrastructure such as power stations, water systems or communication networks, on which we all depend.

The bill would end house arrest for serious sexual assaults and child sexual offences, ensuring that custodial sentences are served in a secure setting appropriate to the severity of the crime. The bill would restore driving prohibitions for offences like criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death, or manslaughter. It would also improve fine enforcement to make sure that penalties are meaningful and are able to be enforced.

As all members know, the criminal justice system in Canada is a shared responsibility. I want to thank the provinces and territories, which have been strong advocates for these reforms. They have shared their on-the-ground experience with repeat violent offending, and they have helped shaped a package of measures that is practical, targeted and grounded in evidence. I look forward to seeing provincial investments in courthouses, detention facilities and mental health services to ease existing backlogs and speed up trials.

The proposed amendments are very focused in nature to clarify areas that have led to litigation and uncertainty and to assist the provinces in administering sentences and making some other technical improvements.

The bail and sentencing reform act is part of a broader modernization of Canada's justice system and action on community safety. Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 would tackle auto theft, money laundering, human trafficking and drug trafficking. We will introduce anti-scam measures in the coming months. We will bring forward further changes to address court delays, strengthen victims' rights and better protect people facing sexual and intimate partner violence, as well as take new steps to keep children safe from horrific crimes. These are all issues that are close to my heart.

Canadians deserve to be safe in their homes, on their streets and in their communities. They deserve a justice system that protects the innocent, supports victims and holds offenders accountable. The bail and sentencing reform act would deliver on that commitment. lt would balance firmness with fairness, and it would strengthen bail and toughen sentencing.

These changes would underscore that a strong Canada means strong communities and a justice system that works for everyone. They would occur in parallel with investments in upstream prevention of crime, such as in housing, mental health and youth supports, to reduce petty crime and property crime before they happen. We are cracking down on the people who pose the highest risk to community safety, while investing in prevention so fewer people turn to crime in the first place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that this is the second day. All she has to do is check with some of her colleagues on the private member's bill.

I do not know his riding, but a member talked about passing his private member's bill and about how substantial it is for legislative changes, which it is, and he wanted it passed unanimously that day. He was trying to speed it up, and there is a limit of two hours of debate before it goes to committee. Members cannot have it both ways.

I would be happy if debate were limited to two hours like that on the private member's bill was, but the point is that we are not saying members cannot debate the bill. The bill can debated in committee. It can be debated endlessly at third reading, but if the Conservatives are genuine and they want bail reform to pass before the end of the year, they need to allow the legislation to pass. They cannot continue to filibuster legislation.

Bill C-2 was debated for over 18 hours. The opposition members are not a bunch of dummies. They understand the optics of filibustering. They understand that if they want to deliver for Canadians on bail reform, they need to allow the legislation to go to committee. Instead of trying to politicize the issue, they need to allow the legislation to deliver for Canadians. We need to put the interests of Canadians ahead of political parties; that is what I would say to my Conservative friends across the way.

The federal government is stepping up to the plate in a real and tangible way. Stakeholders have been very clear on that. We have worked with provinces, other stakeholders and average Canadians. The legislation before us is a true reflection, and that is why it is receiving the type of support it is. It needs to go to committee.

However, it is not just the federal government that needs to step up. I will read a quote from the Winnipeg Free Press from September. It is referring to the government in Manitoba:

The NDP has spoken frequently about its commitment to safer communities. It has announced more funding for police and has supported federal efforts to tighten bail laws.

But those measures mean little if there are not enough prosecutors to move cases through the courts in a timely manner....

The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of investment. Failing to fund the Crown’s office means risking collapsed trials

The point is that the federal government, the provincial government and law enforcement officers who do their job through municipalities all need to deliver for Canadians.

The Prime Minister and government have now presented substantial legislation to reform the bail system. That would have a profoundly positive impact on making our communities safer. I ask the Conservatives to—

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

Madam Speaker, absolutely. Canadians deserve for us to care about their safety and to put victims first. The bill does that. It keeps repeat violent offenders off our streets.

I would also call on all opposition parties to help us get this passed through the House as quickly as possible and get it to the committee process, where we can look at it in detail. I have been disappointed and surprised by the Conservative opposition. We have had other bills that also addressed public safety in this country, such as Bill C-2, but the Conservatives would not agree with portions of that bill, including lawful access, money laundering and searching mail for fentanyl and drugs getting into our country. I am shocked that they do not care about the concerns that Canadians have and that they did not allow us to bring that to pass in this Parliament at this time.

I also call on them to help us pass that original Bill C-2 and those portions of lawful access, which would give police the tools they need to—

Public Safety

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by over 10,000 Canadians across the country. The petitioners note that the Prime Minister made the “elbows up” promise to defend Canadian sovereignty and democracy and to distinguish Canada from the dangerous politics of the United States.

Bill C-2 is a gross concession to the U.S., ushering in Trump-style legislation at the expense of our well-being. It is a dramatic bait and switch on Canadian voters, and the owners of Canada do not approve. It threatens to destroy the lives of nearly one-quarter of Canadians; almost 10 million friends and family members would lose their right to due process under the legislation, allowing their immigration status to be revoked or altered without an individualized review.

Canada's asylum policy is a source of national pride and identity, and Bill C-2 proposes arbitrary limits that abandon the most vulnerable while doing nothing to improve safety and disgracing our identity at home and abroad.

The petitioners also note that Bill C-2 appears to be a Trojan horse for sweeping surveillance policies, expanding police access to personal data without a warrant, lowering privacy thresholds to “reasonable grounds”, weakening protection on international data sharing and allowing Canada Post to open private mail.

They note that the legislation is as offensive as it is undemocratic.

Finally, they note that Bill C-2 tramples on our charter rights and freedoms and puts Canada on a dangerous path of xenophobia and racism.

They are therefore calling on the government to immediately withdraw Bill C-2 in full, uphold the elbows-up promise to reject Trump-style policies, ensure immigration security and privacy legislation, reflect our nation's commitment to democracy and human rights, honour the responsibility of elected office, and affirm our charter and not trample it.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about Bill C-12. I am going to focus my speech. As many of my colleagues in the House know, I do a lot of work with our first responders and our veterans. I do a lot of work dealing with mental health throughout our country, so I will be spending a majority of my time talking about fentanyl and how it has had just an incredible, devastating impact on our country.

I would be remiss if I did not do this first. We have first responders all across our country who put their uniforms on every day to run into burning buildings, to run toward danger. Whether it is a nurse, a paramedic, a firefighter or a police officer, they are there to serve us and our families. They are there to make our communities safe.

One of my very good friends, somebody I deeply respect, Mr. Paul Hills, is in Ottawa today and has been here for the last week. I have worked tirelessly, shoulder to shoulder, with him to stand up for our first responders, who face threats of violence and violent acts each and every day. I am just honoured to call him a friend. I know that we are not allowed to acknowledge people in the gallery, so I will not look up to the gallery, but perhaps my colleagues could do me a favour and just provide a round of applause.

He has worked tirelessly to get Bill C-321 passed. The bill would change the Criminal Code to recognize, at the time of sentencing, that if the victim of violence is a health care worker, a nurse or a paramedic, that would be an aggravating factor in sentencing. He has been here working tirelessly with our Senate and with all of our colleagues on all sides. I send my heartfelt thanks to him.

Furthermore, I cannot speak to Bill C-12, about strengthening our borders, if I do not recognize and talk about Brianna MacDonald, whom I have talked about in this House before. At 13 years of age, she lost her life in a homeless encampment due to an overdose. She turned 13 on my son's birthday last year, on July 15, and she was found deceased on my daughter's birthday, a month later, August 23, in Abbotsford in a homeless encampment. Her parents did everything to try to get her off the drug and get her off the streets. She was 13.

We cannot talk about this bill or any bills when we are talking about strengthening our borders or making our communities safe without mentioning Brianna or Tyler Dunlap, or the nephew of our colleague, who mentioned her nephew passed away from an overdose. I lost my brother-in-law to an overdose. I lost my uncle to drugs. I have a brother on the streets now who is gripped with this crisis. I cannot leave that at the feet of the government because he has been on the streets for a long period of time.

However, I ask those who are watching and those who are in the House today to take a look around our communities. Do they look the same as they did 10 years ago? The answer is no. There has been an increase in crime.

Fentanyl flows across our porous border. We are absolutely powerless to stop this drug from flowing across our border. That is why we are standing here to compel our colleagues, to plead with our colleagues across the way in the government, to protect our youth, strengthen our borders and ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to stop illicit drugs from reaching our communities. Right now, whatever we are doing, it is not working.

Over 50,000 Canadians have lost their lives since 2016. Those are just the numbers that we know. In my home province of British Columbia, overdose is the leading cause of death for youth ages 10 to 18. I say it in every speech because it bears repeating time and time again. Do members want to know what the second leading cause of death is? It is suicide.

Our country is gripped in a mental health crisis and all we look at are band-aid solutions. That is not blaming the current government or previous governments; it is blaming us collectively as leaders, whether provincial, federal or municipal. We are failing Canadians. Bill C-12 does nothing to affect that.

I was elected 10 years ago on Sunday. One of the first debates I undertook in the House was on the suicide epidemic in Attawapiskat First Nation. I remember listening to the debate and hearing some of our colleagues who had been in the House a lot longer than I had at that point say that their first debate, years earlier, was on the suicide crisis we had in Canada. We have done nothing; they are band-aid solutions.

Collectively, as a Parliament, we passed my motion to bring a three-digit national suicide hotline to Canada: 988. We did that in the last session. However, there is so much more we need to do. When we see Bill C-12 and bills like Bill C-2, an omnibus bill with much ado about nothing, we question why.

Those who are new in the House, I remember being in the same seats as some of them in the back rows of both sides. I came here with great intentions and had great hopes for all, but we are failing. I cannot remember who said it, but one of our colleagues said that the time for talk is done; we need action.

Over seven and a half million Canadians are without a doctor. Our borders are broken and we are going to bring more immigrants into Canada, but they are not going to be able to get a doctor. They are not going to be able to afford food. They are not going to be able to afford a house or a roof over their heads. Where is the compassion in that?

Our police officers and first responders are taxed. How far are we falling when it is okay to firebomb an ambulance, to stab a paramedic or to knock a nurse out when they are just trying to help us, heal our broken bones or hold our hand as we take our last breath?

I challenge all of our colleagues here. We get heated during question period, but when we talk about things that matter, like the mental health of Canadians, the health and wellness of Canadians, I think we could all agree that there is no health without mental health and that our addiction crisis is real. Bill C-12 does nothing to stop the scourge of fentanyl, drugs or guns coming over our borders.

We can do better. The government needs to do better. The provinces are calling for it. The attorneys general are calling for it. The municipalities are calling for it. The police agencies are calling for it. I challenge all of us, but I challenge the government, because that is its legacy after 10 years. It says it is new, but it is the same old, same old. I know there are good people on that side, so I challenge them to speak up, those members, those colleagues, and to challenge the guy in the front desk to do better and be better.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in June, the Liberals tabled Bill C-2 without even consulting the Privacy Commissioner or considering its impact on Canadians' rights. Frankly, this is unacceptable. People's lives are at stake, and Liberals are introducing bills through trial and error. I hope we can work together to form a productive outcome for Canadians.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Calgary McKnight. I want to make it clear that today I am rising to speak to the bill because of my constituents. I have received countless emails in my inbox about the concerns they have about Bill C-12 and Bill C-2. Many of my constituents shared their concerns about provisions in these bills that would needlessly violate individual freedoms and Canadians' rights to privacy, and I want to address that.

Bill C-2 seeks to give the Liberal government broad surveillance powers. It would permit warrantless access to Canadians' mail and to their personal data from service providers. Alarmingly, these overarching measures were proposed by the Liberals without prior consultation with the Privacy Commissioner.

In some ways, Bill C-2 reminds me of Bill C-11 from a couple of years ago, which would have given powers to government bureaucrats to censor what Canadians can say or see on the Internet. It also reminds me of the Online News Act from 2023, which banned news from social media platforms and put local new groups at a disadvantage.

What we see, once again, with Bill C-2 is a government that believes it knows better than Canadians, a government that continues to seek control of the information Canadians can access online and to diminish their personal freedoms. Over 300 civil society groups expressed their concerns about Bill C-2, and Conservatives are proud to stand with them to fight against the legislation.

After backing down from Bill C-2, the Liberals have now introduced Bill C-12. Conservatives are examining the bill thoroughly to ensure that the Liberals do not try to sneak in measures that would breach law-abiding Canadians' privacy rights, as they tried to do in Bill C-2.

Before I dive deeper into Bill C-12, I want to highlight two important topics of concern to the people of Calgary McKnight: the rising wave of crime in our country and the drug epidemic, which has claimed over 50,000 lives since 2016.

Since 2015, crime in my hometown of Calgary has gone up by 58%. Firearm offences have gone up by 371%, and extortion has gone up by 353%. As I mentioned previously, the countrywide opioid epidemic has claimed tens of thousands of lives and represents a 200% annual increase since the government began its radical liberalisation of hard drugs. I heard one of my colleagues mention previously that the number of lives lost to drug overdoses in the last 10 year is higher than the number of Canadians who tragically lost their lives in the Second World War.

Conservatives have been calling on the government for years to get serious about crime and to secure our borders. We have urged it to strengthen bail laws, crack down on the flow of dangerous drugs and stop illegal firearms from pouring into our communities. It is deeply disappointing that the Liberals acted on border security only after being told to do so by another country's president. It should not take pressure from a foreign leader for the Liberals to finally do what Canadians have been pleading for all along.

Even in the Liberals' second attempt, Bill C-12 still fails to address several critical issues. It does not include meaningful bail reform but allows the catch-and-release of individuals trafficking fentanyl and firearms. It would not introduce mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers who are fuelling the deadly opioid crisis. It would not implement new mandatory prison terms for gang members who use illegal firearms to commit violent crimes.

Despite the Liberals' tough rhetoric, it still seems that their priority is going after the guns of law-abiding hunters and intercepting the mail of ordinary Canadians.

Canadians deserve a justice system that protects victims and communities, not repeat violent offenders, but after a decade of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime approach, we now live in a country where violent criminals are released within hours of arrest, thanks to the Liberals' Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. The Liberals repealed mandatory prison sentences for some of the most serious offences, like extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and importing illegal guns.

These are not small mistakes; these are deliberate policy choices that have emboldened criminals and eroded my constituents' confidence in the justice system. Conservatives believe in real consequences for repeat violent criminals and in sentencing that prioritizes the safety of Canadians over the comfort of offenders.

The product of the government's soft-on-crime legislation extends far beyond the courtroom. The fentanyl crisis reaches our streets, homes, hospitals and even children's playgrounds. The Liberal government's reckless policies have fuelled a nationwide drug crisis that has overwhelmed communities and left our brave first responders and health workers to clean up the mess. Meanwhile, the Liberal health minister refuses to rule out approving more drug injection sites next to schools and day cares, despite admitting that they are hot spots for fentanyl usage.

Some of the provisions in Bill C-12 appear to be well intentioned. On paper, the legislation seeks to strengthen border security, crack down on gun smuggling and target organized crime networks and trafficking across our country. These are causes that all Canadians can support and that Conservatives have long been calling for.

The measures to inspect more cross-border cargo to tighten tracking of money laundering and to intercept the flow of fentanyl and hard drugs are steps in the right direction. If implemented correctly, these measures could help protect our communities from the violence and drug addiction that have taken root under the Liberal government's watch.

I look forward to the bill's being thoroughly scrutinized to ensure that it can deliver positive results without trampling on Canadians' rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fentanyl scourge that is taking place in North America is very serious for downtowns throughout North America, and I think that it is important that we recognize that, as a governing body, we should be doing whatever we can. We are securing borders, which will help. We attempted, though Bill C-2, to be able to deal with fentanyl being distributed through the mail, which the Conservatives oppose.

However, the question I have for the member opposite is this: If there were assurances that a court order would be necessary in order to look into an envelope to check it for fentanyl, would that member support that?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today to Bill C-12, a broad omnibus bill that, in its current form, seeks to make changes on a number of issues related to the border, immigration and crime prevention. I am thankful to my many constituents, and those throughout Canada, who added their voices of disapproval to its predecessor, Bill C-2. They raised their voices against the infringements it sought to place on individual freedoms and privacy. That bill, Bill C-2, wanted to allow Canada Post to open any mail, including letters, without a warrant, ban cash payments Canadians use and ban the donations over $10,000 that our charitable organizations need.

It wanted to allow warrantless access to personal information. It could compel electronic service providers to re-engineer their platforms to help CSIS and the police access information, and it would have allowed the government to supply financial institutions with personal information if the info were to be used for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes.

It it interesting to me why people are against this. It is their lack of trust in the government to ever consider allowing it to do these things. We certainly saw that when the government chose to invoke an illegal use of the Emergencies Act. It instructed banks to freeze everyday Canadians' bank accounts because it did not like that they were supporting people who needed gas for their vehicles, food and, hopefully, to find a hotel if there was one left downtown that the government had not bought out so they could not sleep in a warm place.

The Liberals also called Canadians all kinds of names, which I would like to see them apologize for, calling us misogynist, racist, extremist. These are the reasons Canadians made the choices they made to stand up against this bill. They do not trust the Liberals.

Because of the pressure they and so many stakeholders have applied, we were able to force the Liberals to back down, split the bill and introduce Bill C-12. The Privacy Commissioner confirmed that the Liberals did not even consult him when they were trying to grant themselves sweeping new powers to access Canadians' personal information from service providers, like banks and telecoms, without a warrant, although they kept saying there would be a warrant.

I am the member of Parliament for the wonderful people, who call the beautiful riding of Yorkton—Melville home, and as of October 15 this month, I have been here for a decade and have risen in this place to speak and intervene on their behalf. Over this tumultuous decade, the people of Canada, especially our younger generations, have become wary of the intentions of the Liberal government. It has tried, time after time, to usurp the rights and freedoms of Canadians, bully and divide, water down and destroy the very fabric of Canadian identity and quality of life.

The government continues to show its true colours as it holds fast to its efforts to make Canada the first postnational state. It holds fast to ravaging our economy with roadblocks and walls that continue to deter private investment in everything from mining to manufacturing and agriculture. The Liberal government is responsible for what Canadians see today. There is poor border security because of the Liberals. There is continued unsustainable immigration because of the leader. There is also an unprecedented financial burden of generational proportions it has orchestrated. All of this is impacting next generations.

This was all orchestrated by Justin Trudeau and the current Prime Minister, who was the instigator as Trudeau’s economic adviser and as the guy ready to finish his art of the deal with values that leave wealth in his hands and nothing for Canada. The exhaustion, attrition, depression and hopelessness felt within our police services, our Canadian Armed Forces, our first responders and our medical professionals are off the charts. The simple reason, the indisputable answer, is that total violent crimes have increased by 50% since 2015 and through to 2023.

I feel like I should have a moment of silence after mentioning each of these violent crimes that are taking place in larger and larger numbers across our nation: homicide, gang-related killings, sexual assaults, firearm offences, extortion, auto theft, horrific violence against children, forced confinement, kidnapping, indecent and harassing communications, human trafficking, and we do not have the numbers yet for 2024-25. This is not the Canada that Canadians have grown up in, and it is not the Canada immigrants who took the proper paths expected to be part of when they came here.

This is in response to the government’s failed bail reforms and the removal of mandatory minimum sentences in Bill C-75, Bill C-5's legalization of the possession of drugs and an open season for drug trafficking and fentanyl production in Canada.

Unfortunately, this bill is weak. It would make no commitments to enforcement, take no action on catch-and-release for those who traffic in fentanyl and firearms, and add no new mandatory prison times for fentanyl traffickers or for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes or who use our porous border to victimize Canadians. Instead of focusing on them, these Liberals are trying to confiscate legal gun owners' firearms, and they are having a bit of trouble accomplishing that, from what I understand.

House arrest is still permissible for some of the most serious offences. Safe consumption sites still do not provide addicts with the encouragement and support to move to treatment, and the Liberals continue to put children in danger with no move to shut down fentanyl consumption sites that are near schools and day cares.

I have to say that on this last part, I feel like I am living in that environment. I moved to Ottawa so that I could do my work, and the place I chose was in a good location. Then they introduced the legalization of drugs and put two safe consumption sites in that area, which is close to a school. Every morning now, as I walk to work, what I see on the streets has multiplied extensively, so this is not due to something that was in place before this happened.

There are people on the street who cannot stand up. They are bent over from the use of these drugs. They sleep on the grates to stay warm. They are sleeping in the little crannies between small businesses, and now there is a regular group that comes and picks up the garbage every morning. At 4 a.m., I am hearing the machines that come down the streets and the sidewalks to wash them, because one of the businesses that was there had to finally move, and it was one of the first in the city of Ottawa, because every morning, as I walk to work, they would be out with big pails of disinfectant cleaning the area in front of their business.

I hear more sirens from police and fire trucks every night, and there are nights when the loudness is so unbelievable, because it travels up through the buildings, that people cannot sleep. I am not blaming the people who are struggling. I am blaming the government for creating the environment that we have today that has added the violence that is taking place with firearms and attacks on people to this form of violence, which has basically caused multiple Canadians across this country to die from the use of fentanyl and caused their families to be in deep distress because of the condition of our country.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Cambridge and North Dumfries in this place, especially to discuss an issue as important as our Canadian borders and keeping people safe.

Everyone watching at home might remember that this is not my first time in the House talking about border security. A few weeks ago, I spoke about Bill C-2, which was introduced by the government with goals similar to those of the bill before us. I expressed my deep concerns with many portions of Bill C-2, including the parts that would allow Canada Post to open any mail without a warrant, ban certain cash payments and transactions, allow warrantless access to personal information, and let the government snoop on people's online activities and see deeply personal financial information from Canadian banks.

While this new piece of legislation, Bill C-12, is intended to address many of the thoughts that I, many of my Conservative colleagues and indeed people from all across Canada had about that old bill, I am grateful that the government listened to our Conservative ideas and the voices of thousands of Canadians, including people in my community, to remove these problematic elements. This proves that the work Conservatives are doing in Ottawa is producing results for the people we serve. Legislation about border security should be about keeping our borders safe, not about completely separate topics like online surveillance, private business transactions and reading people's mail.

Bill C-12 is a small step in the right direction, but it is not without problems. I am really glad that the sections encroaching on Canadians' personal freedoms and privacy rights are no longer in the bill, but let us talk about what else is not in the bill. There is still no action to end Liberal catch-and-release policies, meaning people who smuggle drugs and guns across our borders can still be arrested, get released and go right back to breaking the law all in the same day. The Liberals are still allowing people who get arrested for the most serious crimes to serve what should be multi-year sentences in the comfort of their own homes. There are still no mandatory minimum prison times for fentanyl traffickers, gangsters who commit gun crimes and other heinous offenders.

This soft-on-crime agenda is not just an abstract idea; it is hitting home in my community every single day. Last week, there was a shooting on Dellgrove Circle and Baintree Way. A couple of months ago, bullets struck a home on Park Avenue and Grant Street. Back in June, a house on Roseview Avenue was targeted with six gunshots in broad daylight. These are not supposed to be dangerous places. They are quiet neighbourhoods where families should feel safe. My neighbours in Cambridge did not ask for their streets to become crime scenes. Ten years ago, this would have been unimaginable in a country like Canada and in a community like ours. These are not just headlines; they are real families, real neighbours and real lives disrupted by violence. Every time I hear about another incident, I think of the children growing up in fear and the parents wondering if their street is still safe.

People reach out to me constantly in emails, phone calls, texts and responses to my community surveys. They tell me, “I don't feel safe when I lock the door at night or when I let my kids play out in the yard.” They asked me to bring their concerns to the government. I have stood up time and time again in debate and in question period to let the government know just how badly it is failing law-abiding citizens.

What does the Liberal government say in response? For years, the Liberals said, “Hold on, be patient, the legislation is coming soon”; that is, when they did not call us racist, conspiracy theorists or supporters of so-called American-style policies.

For this government, it has always been about doing something tomorrow instead of doing it today, about blaming someone else instead of taking ownership. The Liberals had an opportunity to fix the justice system in this very piece of legislation. They did not. The bail reform could already be reported out of committee by now. It is not; it is just getting started.

The Liberals had an opportunity to vote for Conservative legislation to put the bad guys in jail and end Liberal bail. They did not. They have ignored this problem for years; they have ignored the police officers, the mayors and the frontline workers. People in communities like mine are paying the price. Every day the government delays is another day criminals are allowed to break the law with absolute impunity, no deterrents, no consequences and no accountability. That needs to stop now.

Let us not forget who else is paying the price for this soft-on-crime, hug-a-thug approach: our emergency services, frontline workers, first responders and hospitals. Police are being stretched thin responding to repeat offenders who should never have been released in the first place. Paramedics are racing from one overdose call to the next, often with no time to recover between emergencies. Nurses and doctors are overwhelmed treating the fallout of drug poisonings, violent assaults and mental health crises, many of which could have been prevented if the justice system actually worked.

Our first responders are doing their jobs with courage and compassion, but are being asked to do more with less. They are expected to manage the consequences of failed policies while the government continues to delay action and deflect responsibility. When the system fails to hold criminals accountable, it does not hurt just victims, but everyone who is trying to keep our communities safe and healthy. It puts pressure on our hospitals, shelters, outreach workers and emergency services. It creates burnout, frustration and fear. These are the people we rely on in our most vulnerable moments. They deserve more than lip service; they deserve a system that works. They deserve a government that stands with them, not one that leaves them to clean up the mess.

While crime continues to rise, it is not the only crisis gripping our communities; the opioid epidemic is another tragedy unfolding in plain sight and one the government continues to mishandle. We see people living in tents in what used to be public parks and green spaces. We see people in doorways, on the sidewalk or the street corner who have lost everything they had because of one mistake. We hear the sirens of ambulances going to help someone who has had yet another overdose. Many people do not make it out alive.

These are not statistics; these are people who get a government in Ottawa that does not offer a helping hand or invest in recovery and treatment, a government that wilfully pushes hard drugs onto our streets through so-called safe supply sites.

There is nothing safe about a government-funded institution that hands out drugs that can literally kill people, all for free. These so-called safe supply sites do not just keep vulnerable people hooked on the poison that is killing them; they also feed the opioid crisis even more because many of the drugs they give away end up on the streets. The health minister testified in front of a parliamentary committee just days ago that not only would she not commit to ending this radical experiment, she would not even commit to ensuring these sites are not placed next to places like schools in our community. That means a safe supply site in a city like mine could be put right around the corner from kids who are literally four or five years old.

It seems like now everywhere has become a drug consumption site. I hear stories from parents who find needles and drug materials in parks and playgrounds, places we never would have dreamed of finding any of these things in just a few years ago. I find it a bit ironic that this bill is supposed to address the fentanyl flowing across our borders, all while the government continues to hand it out here at home and defend a regime that we all know has failed and is failing so many. If we truly want to stop the opioid crisis, then let us stop all the opioids, including the ones the government gives out for free in communities across Canada.

Concerns like these are ones my colleagues and I hope to address at upcoming committee hearings through amendments offered in good faith. We want to make this legislation stronger and better, because stronger legislation means better outcomes for the people we serve.

I would say to the people of my community that they should know that I have one goal in this debate: to keep our communities safe and to finally put a stop to the scourge of crime, chaos, drugs and disorder that is sweeping across—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of debate on this issue, including the previous version of Bill C-12, Bill C-2. We have provided hours upon hours of debate on this.

The member is not new here. He knows the way this works. He knows that, if one side stops speaking, all the speeches will continue to go to the other side until somebody from this side wants to get up. That is how a debate works. I have been sitting in the House, listening to the Conservatives attack the RCMP all day long, and I felt the need to get up to defend it. I wish the Bloc would start defending a national organization like that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

Unlike the Liberals, I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues' speeches all day. I find that they offer interesting perspectives. At the very least, they are contributing to the debate that the Liberals have decided to prolong today. That is to their credit, because we can sometimes engage in discussions with them without necessarily always agreeing with them.

Earlier, I heard my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong talk about the fact that some aspects of Bill C‑2 were not included in Bill C‑12. She was referring in particular to provisions making it possible to search mail or to access personal information, for example.

I would like to know whether my Conservative colleague agrees that there might have been a way to study some of these provisions in committee. They may have been extreme in the first version, but they could have been useful, particularly in the fight against terrorism and serious crime.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and to speak to Bill C-12.

The bill is effectively the second attempt of the government at getting serious when it comes to public safety and dealing with our borders and with drugs. It is frustrating, because Bill C-2 was a giant omnibus bill that the government put forward. The Liberals effectively said, “Don't worry. Just trust us. It's fine”, within days of the bill's coming out, and it was the second piece of legislation the government put forward. It was one of its showcase pieces in the last session. However, civil liberty groups and Canadians came out from coast to coast to coast talking about the massive overreach of Bill C-2.

Bill C-12 is effectively part of the Liberals' listening. It is an improvement on Bill C-2, because it was very clear that Bill C-2 was an intensely flawed bill that would have allowed Canada Post to open people's mail without a warrant, which would have been an overreach on Canadian civil liberties and the freedom of individuals, which is something Canadians hold dear.

Bill C-2 would have gone so far above and beyond, such as banning things like cash payments for anything more than $10,000. The legislation might not have actually been dealt with for a long time, and with where inflation is, it could have had massive impacts on the way many Canadians choose to do a number of things.

I am happy to see that some of those most troubling elements have in fact been removed. However, one thing we know is that crime is completely out of control in our country. My Conservative colleagues and I hear about it every single day from people in our ridings and from people we run into on the streets here in Ottawa or back home.

One of the most common pieces I hear about in my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is the absolute frustration with the catch-and-release policies and our broken bail system. We all hear these stories; I do not think the Liberals are immune. Every single day there are stories of people out on bail who are charged with heinous crimes. In fact earlier this week, an Amber Alert went out for someone suspected of taking a young child. That person was out on bail and, unfortunately, actually killed his ex-wife.

These are the kinds of realities Canadians are facing. People who have been charged and convicted for horrible crimes, violent offences and repeated violent offences, are getting out on bail time and time again.

It is so clear that more needs to happen to protect our communities from the ever-growing crime crisis. This is one of the reasons my Conservative colleague, the member for Oxford, introduced Bill C-242, the jail not bail act: to strengthen bail laws and put public safety first once again in Canada. Basically, his legislation would reverse the Liberal principle of restraint that was brought in with Bill C-75, strengthen bail laws for serious repeat offenders and ensure that criminals with a history of violent crime would no longer automatically be released back into their community. This is one of the big challenges.

The soft-on-crime Liberals for the last 10 years have absolutely destroyed public safety in our country, leaving more and more Canadians unsafe or feeling unsafe. Frankly, feeling unsafe is a problem. Whether someone does or does not break into a person's house at night, if the person is afraid that it is going to happen because it has happened to their neighbours and to other people around them, then that undermines the social fabric we have enjoyed in Canada.

One of the big frustrations we have as well is that we cannot trust the Liberals to do what they say they are going to do. They said they were going to hire more RCMP officers. They have broken their promise to hire 1,000 more CBSA officers. After that, the Minister of Public Safety was asked point-blank, and he denied any accountability, stating, “I’m not responsible for the hiring.” Well, there is a thing called ministerial responsibility, but the Liberals do not abide by any of that at all; that has become very clear.

We have had a decade of reckless, soft-on-crime policies that make more Canadians feel unsafe. Violent crime has increased by 55%, and gun crime is up 130%. Extortion is up 330% across Canada; that is wild. The Liberals are more focused on a gun grab boondoggle that is going to cost Canadians, on a conservative estimate, $742 million and that the minister himself admits is a waste of money and resources and is being pursued purely for political reasons.

We did some research, and one of the interesting pieces is that $142 million could pay for 5,000 RCMP officers. It could pay for 300 port scanners or 37,000 addiction treatment spaces, something that is near and dear to my heart, but instead the Liberals are putting it towards another boondoggle, going after law-abiding gun owners rather than dealing with the real issue, which is that we have a porous border.

One of the big reasons we have a porous border is that we have absolute mismanagement of federal ports by the Liberal government. This mismanagement of our federal ports has turned them into parking lots for stolen cars that then go on to disappear overseas. What we also end up with are drugs and illegal guns coming into our country. What the Conservatives have been calling for is more scanners at the ports, because criminals know those ports are a hot bed for crime.

In fact, according to Peel detective Mark Haywood, the CBSA checks “less than one per cent of containers” leaving this country. Criminals know this, so illegal drugs and illegal guns flood into our country, and stolen cars flood out, further eroding public safety in Canada. On top of this piece that is very troubling about the border, the fire has been fuelled further by a decade of horrific Liberal drug policy and drug experiments.

There has been a dangerous and deadly drug legalization pilot project in British Columbia that removed tools from the RCMP, making our streets completely unsafe, leaving communities to suffer and providing no support to people who are struggling with addiction in this country. There was also the Liberal-NDP so-called safe supply experiment, which gave people with addictions large quantities of government-funded drugs, of hydromorphone and other dangerous narcotics, without any guardrails or pathways to recovery, which fuelled the addiction crisis in our country because the drugs were then being resold in the streets and online, oftentimes ending up in the hands of teenagers who then started their journey into addiction.

These are just two examples of ways the Liberals have made things worse.

We know that fentanyl is 100 times more potent than heroin; as little as two milligrams can kill a person. Through the lost Liberal decade, Canada has become a fentanyl manufacturing hub. Breaking Bad-style superlabs are popping up right across the country. Mass fentanyl production is mass murder, but Liberal laws let the monsters who traffic deadly drugs walk free every single day.

One of the good things I will point out that the legislation brought is that the Liberals are finally taking some action to ban the precursors that allow monsters to produce fentanyl. Chemical precursors are how they make these drugs, so the bill would finally get serious on that, allowing precursors to be banned. This would go a very long way in helping shut them down, but there would still be no mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers. There would still be no new mandatory prison time for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes, despite Liberal campaigns against them and against legal gun owners.

What we will do, from this side, is continue holding the government accountable. We look forward to the bill's going to committee so we can further study it. Conservatives will continue to stand up for Canadian individuals' freedoms and privacy.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I need some clarification. I am trying to understand what is going on.

On the one hand, the Liberals introduced a bill, Bill C-12, to address concerns that citizens, including those in my riding of Shefford, had about Bill C-2. On the other hand, the Liberals are not speaking today. To add insult to injury, as my distinguished colleague from Drummond so aptly pointed out, they are asking questions that do not really help us understand the changes that were made from Bill C-2 to Bill C-12.

We know that mail searches have been abolished because they are an invasion of privacy, and that restrictions on donations of $10,000 have been dropped, as has the collection of private data, but can my colleague help me understand and clarify this?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House on behalf of the good people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

Today, I am going to be discussing Bill C-12. This is the Liberals' second attempt at addressing our broken border and immigration system. It was introduced in the House recently, thanks to my Conservative colleagues' work and my work in forcing the Liberals to back down on their first border bill, Bill C-2, because of its serious violations regarding the freedom and privacy of Canadians.

As the official opposition, it is our job to scrutinize the government and oppose legislation when it is against the best interest of Canadians. The safety and security of Canadians is non-negotiable, and Conservatives have been clear: Canadians should not have to choose between having a secure border and having their civil liberties protected.

Given the scope and complexity of the bill, Conservatives proposed that Bill C-2 be split into two separate pieces of legislation, with one that is narrowly confined to border and immigration measures, to ensure that all aspects of the legislation receive proper scrutiny. I am pleased that, along with our other opposition members, we were able to successfully force the Liberals to table the new bill, which we will continue to examine thoroughly to ensure that the bill does not include any measures that would breach law-abiding Canadians' privacy rights. Bill C-12 may be a starting point, but I believe it requires significant amendments and vigorous study at committee.

There is no doubt that tougher and smarter measures regarding borders and immigration are desperately needed to keep Canadians safe. While I am happy that the Liberals are willing to work with the opposition parties to address Canada's border security and immigration issues, it is important to note that much of the urgency surrounding the legislation is a direct result of 10 years of Liberal mismanagement. The Liberals have failed to take our borders seriously, resulting in increased gun smuggling, driving up violent crime; an immigration system that is completely out of control; a fentanyl crisis; and an increase in human trafficking. These are all destroying the lives of Canadians.

While Bill C-12 contains positive provisions to streamline investigations and improve information sharing, it falls short in addressing some of the pressing public safety concerns facing Canadians. The Liberals' failure to secure our border and crack down on organized crime has fuelled a fentanyl crisis and put countless lives at risk. The Liberals' reckless drug legalization experiment, combined with their soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5, has fuelled Canada's deadly drug crisis. Bill C-5 scrapped mandatory jail for fentanyl production and trafficking, for example.

Last fall, police dismantled the largest and most sophisticated drug lab in Canadian history, capable of producing multiple kilograms of fentanyl each week, along with caches of loaded firearms, explosives and half a million dollars in cash. Fentanyl is not just a drug problem; it is a public safety and national security risk and a crisis fuelled by organized crime and enabled by weak borders.

Part 2 of Bill C-12, as in Bill C-2, would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to fill a loophole in the act by banning precursor chemicals for fentanyl. This is an important first step, but the Liberals are addressing only a small part of the issue and doing too little, too late. Bill C-2 is silent on the tools police and prosecutors actually need to address this crisis. The Liberals' catch-and-release policies are alive and well for those who traffic in fentanyl and firearms. The principle of restraint in Bill C-75 directs the courts to release violent offenders on bail at the earliest opportunity, under the least onerous restrictions. The Liberals' persistence in allowing house arrest for serious offences, which include offences involving firearms, if members can believe it, continues to endanger lives.

It is not just the fentanyl crisis the Liberals are playing catch-up on. Their failure to get serious on our border has allowed for an increase in illegal gun smuggling, driving organized crime in Canada. Gun crime has risen 130% since the Liberals took office. In July, the Prime Minister himself even said, “The vast majority of firearms, illegal firearms, firearms used in crime, come across our border.”

According to the Toronto Police Service, 88% of guns used in crimes seized by the Toronto Police Service in 2024 were traced back to the United States, including 94% of the firearms that were seized. That does not sound like a very secure border to me and, unfortunately, Bill C-12 does little to address the issue.

Instead of investing in border security, the public safety minister has doubled down on the Liberals' failed gun confiscation program, which he himself admitted is a waste of money that will do nothing to keep Canadians safe. The $742 million the Liberals say they intend to spend on gun confiscation could have gone to hiring 5,000 more police officers or CBSA officers or purchasing 300 port scanners. Instead of including measures in Bill C-12 to ensure border officials have the proper resources needed to secure the border, the Liberals remain committed to targeting law-abiding hunters and firearms owners.

Having a secure border also means having a strong, robust immigration system that serves the needs of Canadians and aligns with our national interests. Parts of Bill C-12 attempt to address some of the challenges our immigration system faces after 10 years of Liberal mismanagement. Unfortunately, I am not confident that these measures by themselves will fix our broken system, which is clearly collapsing under the weight of Liberal mismanagement.

This week, the CBC reported that processing times for Canadian immigration applications have reached unprecedented lengths. Wait times, for example, for permanent resident applications are up to nine years for the caregiver pathway, up to 19 years for the agri-food stream and up to 35 years for entrepreneurs under the start-up visa stream. Even worse than that, if anyone can imagine, the Liberals have lost track of hundreds and hundreds of foreigners in this country who have criminal records and are due to be deported. Guess what, they have gone missing.

This backlog of applications, lack of accountability and inconsistent enforcement all stem from a government that has failed to plan, failed to listen and failed to act. Now, with Bill C-12, the Liberals are scrambling to fix the very system they dismantled, but instead of thoughtful reform, they are reaching out for sweeping powers and vague regulations that permit activities rather than legislating requirements for change.

Conservatives believe in responsible immigration in appropriate numbers to keep up with our health care, housing and job markets. We support measures that streamline processing, reduce backlogs and help newcomers integrate successfully, but we oppose policies that put power in the hands of ministers without proper oversight. Canada's immigration system needs complete, wholesale changes to ensure a secure border and prosperous nation, but those changes are nowhere to be found in C-12.

Like many Canadians, Conservatives want safe communities, secure borders and an immigration system that works for our country, not one that is collapsing under the weight of the Liberal government. The safety and security of Canadians is non-negotiable and, as the official opposition, Conservatives remain committed to implementing the tougher, smarter measures that are needed to keep Canadians safe. We are ready to support provisions in the bill that protect our national security and secure our borders while proposing amendments that would improve the bill and opposing measures that go against the best interest of Canadians.

Bill C-12 introduces significant changes that require in-depth study to ensure the problems are addressed appropriately. At committee, Conservatives will scrutinize, debate and propose amendments to Bill C-12 and work together to ensure it achieves its stated goal of improving Canada's public safety and national security. Conservatives remain committed to securing our borders, strengthening our immigration system and cracking down on crime and chaos in our streets.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, and today we are talking about Bill C-12.

For those who do not know what Bill C-12 is, it is the Liberal government's attempt at a do-over of Bill C-2, the border security bill. When Bill C-2 first came out, there was an outcry from the Conservative Party and civil liberties organizations across the country because of the numerous infringements of the Canadian Charter Rights and Freedoms. It would have been violated by Bill C-2, so the government was forced to take out some of these offensive violations.

Part 4 would allow Canada Post to open mail without a warrant. Part 11 would ban cash payments and donations over $10,000. Part 14 would allow warrantless access to Canadians' personal information on reasonable suspicion, which is a very low threshold. Part 15 could compel electronic service providers to re-engineer their platforms to help CSIS and the police access personal information, like a digital snoop.

Part 16 would allow the government to supply financial institutions with personal information if the info was useful for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes. Again, if there was a reasonable suspicion, they could get all of someone's financial information. What could possibly go wrong when the Liberal government gets someone's financial information? I think we learned that with the Emergencies Act when the government froze the bank accounts of Canadians. It is no wonder Canadians do not trust the government.

I am happy to see all of these violations of people's civil liberties were taken out in the do-over. That is the good news.

The bad news is that the government continues to go against people's charter rights and freedoms. We see a continual pattern of behaviour with the government. With Bill C-11, it tried to shut down people's freedom of speech. Bill C-18 tried to mess with the freedom of the press. The freedom of religion issue is constantly coming up, with the Liberals trying to remove charitable status from churches and the Canada summer jobs program. We have to get to the details of this bill to make sure no funny business has been snuck in at the last minute. It is clear the government continually wants to take away the freedoms of Canadians.

Some improvements could still be made to this bill, and I want to talk about a few of those. The first one is in part 1. Part 1 would amend the Customs Act to allow the CBSA to use facilities free of charge for enforcement and access to goods for export, as it does for imports. The dilemma for me is that with the size of the fentanyl issue, the crime issues and the lack of security at our borders, there is no limit on how long somebody's warehouse or space could be seized to use for this kind of enforcement. Of course, that would come at the expense of whoever owns a warehouse or storage space.

In border towns like Sarnia, there is not always a lot of space available at the border, so that could be even more far-reaching. The same is true for Windsor and a number of the other border crossings we have. I think some limits should be put on part 1 to make sure we do not unduly burden private businesses.

Second, let us talk about fentanyl. Fentanyl is a huge issue in this country. About 50,000 people have died of overdoses. The RCMP and CSIS have indicated that there are 400 fentanyl superlabs. I do not know whether they are being shut down, but Justin Trudeau said a very small portion of our fentanyl goes to the States. The reality is we really do not know, because shipping containers coming in from China are not being scanned and are going through the port of Vancouver and down to Seattle.

The precursors of fentanyl are not controlled or tracked. We do not know where they are going, so the people synthesizing fentanyl in these 400 superlabs are getting those chemicals from somewhere. One thing I like about the bill is that it adds some controls to traceability so we would know where those chemicals are coming in, where they are going and who is buying them. That would be helpful to the police.

I think we should start doing what other ports in the world do, which is scan all the shipping containers. This is very important not just on the fentanyl issue but on the issue of people stealing cars. We definitely need an upgrade in our scanning capabilities.

One of the difficulties I have with putting laws in place in this country is the lack of enforcement of the rule of law. It is fundamental to our democracy, but the law is not really being enforced. We have people committing crimes in the country who are let out because the Liberals put in place Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Bill C-75 says that we have to give the least restrictive punishment, which is really bail or a fine, at the earliest opportunity, which is right away. We have people trafficking fentanyl or creating it in these labs, and even if they get arrested, they are back out on bail. Bill C-5 lets them have house arrest. How convenient is that for drug trafficking? They have to stay home, but people can stop by.

We need better enforcement of the law, because we know the Liberals are going to create more laws like Bill C-9, for example, which is supposed to address the rise in hate crimes. There are already laws in this country that could help in that regard. There were 113 Christian churches that burned to the ground. There is a law against arson. It should be enforced. Illegally blocking the streets is against the law, but the police are not enforcing it. Death cries to Canadians and various religions are hate speech. They are against the law. Again, it is about enforcement. As for shooting up schools, stealing cars, home invasions and extortions, we already have laws on the books for these things, but if we are not going to enforce them, we are not going to cure the problem. That is exactly the problem with introducing this border security bill. If there is no enforcement of any of the things in it, then it is absolutely meaningless.

There are immigration measures in the bill, and we need to take action on immigration because it is out of control. Most Canadians would agree with that. We need immigration to build houses and for the nation-building projects we want. We have an aging population. We need more PSWs, nurses and doctors than can graduate from the educational institutions in Canada. We need people to come here and help build the country. I love the idea from our leader of the blue seal program, to take the 50,000 doctors and nurses who already live in Canada and get them accredited so they can help out. It is definitely a great idea.

For the last century, people have come here to work and to help build the country, and we want to continue that. What we do not need is more freeloaders showing up to claim asylum and have the Canadian taxpayer fork out $3,000 to $4,000 a month to put them up in hotels in Niagara Falls. That is more money than we give the seniors who built the country. It is more money than we give to Canadians living with a disability.

Then we see that the majority of these claims, after two or three years of putting these people up, are not eligible after we have spent a huge amount of the taxpayers' money. There are 300,000 of these individuals in the backlog. That is $15 billion a year taken out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers for people we did not invite here. I think moving the IRCC office to the Toronto Pearson, Montreal and Vancouver airports to hear their claims right on the spot would be good. Then if they are not eligible, the cost of a plane ticket is a lot less than the cost of putting somebody up for three years.

At the same time, we need to reintroduce the fair and compassionate immigration system we had when the Conservatives were in charge, which did security checks so that we were not letting people into the country who were going to cause the kinds of crime and trouble we are sometimes seeing.

I think the immigration measures in the bill will help out. I do not think they go far enough. My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill has done a great job of defining what ought to be done to fix the immigration system we have. I encourage anyone who does not follow her to listen to what she has to say on that subject.

I want to talk a bit about making the border more secure. The Liberals have announced that they are going to hire 1,000 CBSA agents. The announcement was made months ago and nobody has been hired. We hear now that it might be done within five years. That is not the kind of response we need to get security in the budget.

With that, I will take questions.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a very important problem. Canada has a very serious problem with terrorist financing and money laundering, and the government needs to do something about it.

Bill C-2 especially and Bill C-12 are very large bills. I did not get to that in my speech, but the Liberals made a mess of Bill C-2. Bill C-12 does not go all the way to fixing it and does not address the serious problem of terrorist financing and money laundering that my colleague mentioned.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is just sad. The Liberals are adding another day of debate on their bill, Bill C‑12, but they are not rising. They are not giving speeches. They are just sitting there. When it is time to ask questions, theirs have nothing to do with the bill. I would ask the government to get serious so we know we are not doing our job for nothing.

I have a question for my colleague. I put this same question to his colleague earlier. Bill C‑2 contained some measures and parts that we found worthwhile and that could have been discussed in committee, but they were all removed from this version of Bill C‑12. For example, part 16 allowed access to the private information of a person suspected of using proceeds of crime to finance terrorist or criminal activities. We thought it was a worthwhile measure, one worth discussing.

Does my colleague agree that this type of measure could have been included in Bill C‑12 and that we could have examined it productively and constructively, contrary to what the Liberals are doing today?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House, as always.

Today we are talking about Bill C-12. It is a fairly large omnibus bill that would amend many different acts, and it goes into many different areas of national policy. It is a second attempt by the government to put forward a bill that would address a number of problems that are well known and well identified, problems that Conservatives have identified for years. The government has finally acknowledged the existence of some of these problems and is trying to fix them.

The Liberals came out with Bill C-2, literally the second bill tabled in the current Parliament. It was a disaster; it fell very flat. Nobody wanted the bill. It contained some terrible measures, including a bizarre outright ban on certain cash transactions, as well as warrantless mail opening. Who was asking for this?

I suppose the government does deserve credit for listening to Conservatives, who had encouraged it through opposition to these measures to try again, so here we are with a new bill. It is a curious mix of ideas plagiarized from the Conservative Party in its previous platform, symbolic announcements that were not fulfilled with follow-through, and some steps for improvement on things that need to be done. I will talk about only a few of them, as it is a huge omnibus bill.

With respect to the border, yes, Conservatives support export tracking in our ports. This is something Conservatives have for years called for. We talked years ago about the crisis of auto theft in our country and the need to have the ability to scan container ships for the thousands of cars stolen from Canadian streets. Members may remember that the then minister of justice had his own ministerial car stolen at least twice, maybe even three times; I do not remember for sure. This is the level of problem we have that the Liberals are trying to solve. We would support that. In addition, with respect to drugs, we certainly support changing the classification of precursor chemicals to controlled substances.

However, I will point out that while the Liberals are taking credit for strengthening our border protection, something Conservatives had for years called for, the departmental plans for the CBSA and the RCMP do not support the announcement material that has come along with the bill, which we see if we take a cursory look at both the main estimates and the supplementary estimates. The supplementary estimates are there to make adjustments when changes in law, announcements or things like that come about, so the government can plan ahead.

The government's current plan for personnel with CBSA would be a net reduction of 600-odd personnel through to 2028. Once again, the Liberals have an A for announcement, but right now it looks like an F on follow-through, which has been the MO of the government for so long.

With respect to fentanyl, we heard some heart-rending testimony from members of the House on the scourge of opioid addiction, with people dying in our streets. There is also the trafficking of fentanyl. Yes, we agree with the changes the Liberals have made in the bill; they are important and supportable.

However, the government is not enforcing the laws we have already. People who traffic in drugs are not getting the full weight of Canadian law as it is. We have a bail not jail regime that the government deliberately brought in as a consequence of its bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 from former Parliaments, and that would not be fixed by the bill before us.

With respect to changes that would be made to the Citizenship Act and to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, again, this is a problem long in the making. There are right now 290,000 asylum claims in the queue. By comparison, at the end of the years of the former Conservative government, there were about 10,000 claims. We have jumped from 10,000 people to 290,000 people in the queue for adjudication of asylum claims.

It is no surprise how we got there. We got there from the tweet heard around the world, the #WelcomeToCanada tweet that explicitly encouraged economic migrants to cross into Canada in order to then apply for asylum. The conflation of economic migrants with migrants seeking asylum in Canada as refugees has been completely intermeshed under the government. It is just a disaster for everyone. It is not fair for all the people in the queue to have this queue.

For the people in the queue, there is an industry now in which we have seen that human trafficking is a factor. People have made a business out of helping economic migrants, desperate people indeed, come to Canada from a safe third country, mostly the United States. We called upon the government repeatedly to make exactly the point that is contained in the bill, to apply the safe third country agreement to the entire land border. It is very late coming to this.

There is so much in the bill that it is hard to really do justice to any of it, but I want to spend most of the rest of my time on a very curious change that the bill would make. There would be an amendment to the Oceans Act that would place the Coast Guard under the ministry of defence, for budget purposes. It would still report, as an institution, to the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Transport and now also to the Minister of National Defence.

This change is an accounting trick the Liberals have done to try to fulfill the important obligation Canada has to NATO to increase its spending to at least the old agreed-to target and now to 5%. However, that would not change the capability of the Coast Guard; it would change reporting mechanisms and just move the budget from one column to another. Moving an expense budget from one column to another would not make Canada more safe and secure.

The ships would continue to be unarmed. They would continue to not meet NATO's own definition of a defence force. The closest things to armaments on these ships are shotguns used to scare off polar bears in Arctic patrol conditions, like firing a banger that is designed to make noise to scare away a predator. I am not even certain that I understand in what circumstance this would happen; perhaps it would be when going ashore, I guess, in the high Arctic.

That would not make Canada safer. It would not meet our actual NATO duty to defend our territory or to be deployable and help other countries. In this omnibus bill, the Liberals have snuck in an accounting trick just to help government members pat themselves on the back for increasing defence spending, when they would be doing nothing of the sort. All they would be doing is moving a number from one column to another.

The bill is a great example of the type of legislation we have become used to, where the government has a nice title and a nice announcement but no actual efficacy or improvement for national policy.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I heard about Bill C-12, I was hopeful. I was hopeful because I believed that the Liberals had listened to what both Canadians and Conservatives have been saying about Bill C-2. On the surface, it looked like there was some reason to hope. Bill C-12 is a repackaged and less offensive version of Bill C-2. It does remove the most egregious of the sweeping new powers that the government sought to grant itself and other government agencies. It no longer proposes to restrict Canadians' use of cash, and it no longer proposes to allow Canada Post to open Canadians' letters.

The Conservatives in the House gave voice to Canadians in speech after speech and forced the government to back down from a bill that would have violated Canadians' individual freedoms and privacy. We are prepared to do our job once again with Bill C-12 as the country's loyal official opposition. The Conservatives will examine every clause and every line of the bill to make sure the Liberals do not erode Canadians' rights.

After listening to the Prime Minister speak on television last night, on television instead of in the House, in front of an audience that even the Toronto Star described as being made up mostly of Liberal staffers, where he does not have to answer our questions and where he does not have to debate, I realized something else about Bill C-12: It might be better, but it would not do what the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith so desperately need it to do. It would not do what British Columbians need it to do, and it would not do what grandmothers across the country who are raising their grandchildren because of fentanyl need it to do. It would not actually secure our borders. It would not actually treat those in our communities who are in the thrall of fentanyl. It would not actually bring safety back to our communities.

While the bill would fill a loophole by banning precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl, it fails to address the sentencing of those who traffic in it. There are still no mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl dealers. There are still no serious penalties for those who profit from destroying our lives and our communities. Bill C-12 would make some incremental improvements, but they are beyond insufficient. Criminals who traffic in fentanyl and firearms will continue to use our porous border to victimize Canadians, and they will continue to walk free soon after being arrested.

I will give the government credit where it is due. Bill C-12 is way better than Bill C-2, but let us be honest. These measures fall far short of what Canadians deserve.

The Liberals continue to permit drug consumption sites near schools and day cares. Last week, I had a call from a constituent about a proposed wet housing site that would back onto a kindergarten in my riding.

At the health committee, my Conservative colleagues called on the government to shut down fentanyl consumption sites near the places where kids learn and play. The Minister of Health refused to do so. She would not rule out approving more of these sites, even after acknowledging that they are now repositories for rampant fentanyl usage.

Last night, the Prime Minister looked Canadians in the eye and spoke yet again of the need for transformational change. He spoke of a rupture, of sacrifice, of responsible choice and of generational investments. Well, the addictions crisis is still in full bloom in Nanaimo, and the numbers are still staggering across Canada. There were more than 50,000 deaths in the last decade. There are more victims of the addictions crisis than there were Canadian deaths in the Second World War. Some 79% of accidental opioid deaths in 2024 involved fentanyl, up 40% since the Liberal government came into power.

The number of emergency department visits linked to fentanyl has more than doubled since 2018. Superlabs in Canada are now producing massive amounts of fentanyl. These are not small operations pressing pills in basements. These are industrial labs producing drugs on a massive scale.

In a country of 41 million people, it is simply disingenuous to argue that with the multiple drug busts in the 96 million dose range, these drugs are meant for domestic consumption. We have to face the reality that drugs are being produced in Canada for both domestic consumption and export. Bust after bust is described as the largest, most sophisticated illicit drug lab in the country. Police seize kilograms of fentanyl; kilograms of meth; illegal unregistered firearms, many of them loaded; silencers; explosives; and millions of dollars in cash.

This is what we are up against. Productivity in Canada is down, and we have a massive wage gap with the United States, except for criminals. Organized crime has set up an innovation sandbox in Canada that boggles the mind. The criminals know how to use AI, how to improve efficiencies and how to find synergies, and they are eating the government's lunch. Why? It is because the Liberal government, for all the Prime Minister's rhetoric, only seems willing to tinker around the margins with tiny pilot projects and token funding announcements.

Yesterday, we had another one of these, with the Liberals proudly announcing $4.3 million in funding, including $442,000 and change for the city of Nanaimo, to address these issues. I will take their money, but I will vote with my conscience. For those following Nanaimo's news, $442,000 is barely enough to build a fence around city hall. It is nowhere near enough to meet the need in a community that has been devastated by the addictions crisis. In Nanaimo, we need the government to spend less and invest more. We need hundreds of millions of dollars in investment for real solutions, not a few thousand dollars of spending for a press release.

If someone gets diagnosed with cancer, they get a full continuum of care: a diagnosis, a prognosis, surgery, chemo, radiation and follow-up for life. If someone gets diagnosed with addiction, they get Narcan. They might get patched up, if they are lucky, and then they get dropped off on the curb. This is not a system of care; it is abandonment. We need triage beds. We need detox beds. We need treatment spaces, recovery centres, sober-living houses and long-term maintenance programs. We need real treatment and recovery options so people can come home to their families, clean and healthy, and we needed it a decade ago.

The Prime Minister started his tenure in the House with lofty comments about Athens and Rome, but now he seems content to fiddle while Nanaimo burns. The Prime Minister is absolutely right. We need transformative change, but he is unwilling to deliver it.

I challenge the Prime Minister to come down from his ivory tower and engage with us in Nanaimo. I know he comes to my riding. He has family there, but I challenge him to spend less time jogging around beautiful Westwood Lake and more time talking with the people who deal with the addictions crisis on the front lines on our streets. He talks a good game about collaboration, but he does not collaborate. He talks about transformational change, but he is not even having the conversations that would allow him to make it. Bill C-12 is proof of that.

The Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down from the worst parts of Bill C-2, and we will continue to hold them to account on Bill C-12, because Canadians do not want more photo-ops, press releases or the seventh announcement of the 1,000 border officers the CBSA has never heard of and has not been given actual instructions to hire. They want real change. They want safe streets, healthy communities and a government that values their lives more than it fear losing an election.

Grandmothers want to stop raising their grandchildren. Addicts want hope, and communities want to stop living in fear. That is what the Conservatives are fighting for, and that is what a Conservative government would deliver.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to speak. I will be speaking to Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system. What a laughable title from a government that has made such a mess of both our borders and our immigration system.

Let me talk about the mess the government has made of immigration. I want to share three short stories.

The first is the case of Mr. Khant from earlier this year. He was a permanent resident, originally a citizen of India. He pleaded guilty to attempting an indecent act. That is a bit of a legalistic way of saying that Mr. Khant tried to purchase sexual services from a minor. Unfortunately for Mr. Khant, the person he tried to purchase sexual services from was the Peel Regional Police human trafficking unit, as part of Project Juno. Rather than a jail sentence, Mr. Khant received a conditional discharge. Why would that be? In the words of the court, “Mr. Khant is a permanent resident seeking Canadian citizenship and professional licensing. A conviction would not only delay his citizenship by four years but could also prevent him from sponsoring his wife and obtaining his engineering licence.”

If people commit crimes in Canada and they are not Canadian citizens, they should no longer be in Canada.

Just over two weeks ago, there was the case of Mr. Sajeevan, an Indian citizen in Canada on a student visa. He was a roommate with several others, including several female roommates at a home in Barrie. His bedroom was in the basement beside the laundry room, which was shared by all the residents. The laundry room was beside the bathroom, which was also shared amongst the roommates.

Over a period of many months, Mr. Sajeevan used a peephole in the laundry room to spy on his female roommates in various states of undress. In July of this year, Mr. Sajeevan pleaded guilty to voyeurism, despite some initial agreement on sentencing and some very troubling victim impact statements from those who had been spied upon. The court went on to say, “The emotional and psychological harm caused is palpable...Mr. Sajeevan's offending has had a significant and enduring impact on his victims.” The court called it “more than curiosity; it was sustained predation”.

Despite all that and despite the serious nature of the crime and its effect on its victims, which the court acknowledged, the court went on to accept “serious collateral immigration consequences”. The result was a jail sentence of only five and a half months. Why? That is a bit of a strange number. Why five and a half months, when in fact the court said the proper sentence should be somewhere between six and 12 months?

It was because a jail sentence of six months would have made him inadmissible to Canada. In other words, he would have had to leave Canada if he were to receive a sentence of six months. However, we did not get that because the Liberals have so screwed up our immigration system.

Last is the case of Mr. Biron, a permanent resident from the Philippines. In 2021, over four years ago, he pleaded guilty to sexual assault against a minor and was sentenced to 20 months in prison. Beginning in 2022, he was advised that he could be inadmissible to Canada because of the serious nature of his crimes. For over four years, he has fought his deportation. How can it be that a non-citizen who has pleaded guilty to sexual assault against a minor is still in Canada after four years?

Bill C-12, despite being called a fix to our immigration system, does nothing for this. These are not isolated incidents, because we know that, despite the strong border rhetoric and the fix to immigration allegedly coming from the government, we have lost track of hundreds of serious criminals in this country. The cherry on the top of this is that the very minister responsible for our public safety is himself interceding on behalf of members of terrorist organizations.

Let me turn to the border and talk about what a mess the government has made of our borders. Fentanyl, of course, is still making its way into Canada. In fact, earlier this year, in the town of Georgina, in my riding of York—Durham, the York Regional Police broke up the largest drug trafficking ring in our town's history, under Project Madruga, through which 1400 grams of fentanyl were discovered. To put that into perspective, two milligrams is enough to kill a human adult. The York Regional Police said that they had never seen a drug trafficking problem or ring of this size or scope in Georgina.

The government promised during the election to hire 1,000 new border officers, but we have discovered that was just another empty Liberal promise. More than six months later, they have hired only a few dozen and, in fact, do not have a plan to hire any more. The CBSA says that it has turnover of between 600 and 700 officers a year, so even at normal speeds, it would take over five years to hire 1,000 new officers. The Minister of Public Safety himself admitted in an interview that it would take five years to hire 1,000 new officers, and that is not even talking about the backlog and vacancies the CBSA has. The Customs and Immigration Union says there is a 3,000-officer vacancy rate and shortage on the border force.

Last, I want to talk about civil liberties because, for all these messes, whether it is the mess on the border or the mess in our immigration system, for some reason, it seems the Liberals' response is always to attack our liberty. The monstrosity that is Bill C-2, from which Bill C-12 emerged, is just one more example of the pattern of the Liberal disregard for the freedoms and liberties of Canadians.

To be clear, I want to make a point that our freedoms, my freedoms and everyone's freedoms in Canada do not emanate from Parliament or princes. We have freedom and liberty, because we are made in God's image and are human beings endowed with those by our creator, but Bill C-2 remains before the House. It would allow law enforcement to snoop on Canadians without judicial authorization. It would allow Canada Post to open mail without a warrant. As a lawyer, I know that a warrant is a basic protection that we, as normal, average citizens, have fought for hundreds of years to maintain to protect us from the arbitrary power of the state.

Bill C-2 is not the only attack on liberties that Canadians have endured under this government. Bill C-8, which we have discussed, would give unprecedented power to the government to kick Canadians off the Internet, on “reasonable grounds” in respect of “any threat”. What is “any threat”? I have been here for just over six months, and I have already been accused several times, by members from the opposite side, of spreading misinformation because they do not like my opinion. Am I now a “threat” to the government, and will I be kicked off the Internet? There would be no warrant, no trial and no due process.

Another example is Bill C-9, which has more unprecedented power for the police to control and to police speech on the Internet. Over all, it seems like, of the legislation the Liberals have introduced thus far, the majority trample on our liberties as Canadians.

This is the Liberals' pattern. They might have a new leader and call themselves a new government, but they exhibit all of the same habits as they had before. Whether it is with Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 or now Bill C-12, it seems for every societal problem, there is another Liberal bill ready to erode our freedom, my freedom and the liberty of all Canadians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for speaking on Bill C-12, but unfortunately I get the feeling that both the Conservatives and the Liberals have forgotten that the public elected a minority government, in other words a government that should work diligently, with as little partisanship as possible. It should take into account the fact that there is no majority in the House and that we have a duty to talk to each other and work together.

Let me explain. The Conservatives supported a Liberal gag order on Bill C-5 last June. Even though it was a major bill, a gag order was nevertheless quickly imposed. Now the same thing is happening with Bill C-12, a bill that even the government acknowledged caused many people a great deal of concern in its previous version, Bill C-2. People in Shefford have reached out to me about this issue, particularly about envelopes being opened, because they are concerned about their freedom.

At this point, the Liberals are no longer taking part in the debate on this important bill, Bill C-12. Changes have been made, yet no other Liberals are speaking. What is my colleague's take on what Canadians must be thinking, since they gave this Parliament a minority government?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I just want to say that I find it rich of the Liberals to add a day of debate on Bill C-12 and then not put up any speakers for the day. When it comes time to ask questions after a speech, we can debate the ideas that were presented, but we cannot deny the fact that the Conservatives are addressing the issue on the agenda. I find it especially deplorable that the Liberals are not taking advantage of an opportunity they created to discuss the bill before us, their bill, which is highly questionable at that.

In that regard, the previous version of the bill, Bill C-2, included a part 16 on the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. It authorized the collection of personal information for individuals suspected of funding terrorist or criminal activities. I understand that this was a special circumstance, but did my colleague think it was acceptable to include such a measure in the previous version of the bill?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise again in the House of Commons to represent the people of Peace River—Westlock.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-12, which sounds a lot like Bill C-2. Bill C-2 has been replaced by this bill. It was less than a month ago that I stood in this place and gave a speech on Bill C-2, during which I outlined a number of deficiencies that I saw with the bill. When I heard the Liberals would be reintroducing Bill C-2 as Bill C-12, I mentioned a number of things for consideration as possible fixes and the concerns I had with the bill. I was hopeful they had the opportunity to listen to my speech and would address a number of the concerns I had. Unfortunately, it does not look like the Liberals listened, once again.

I want to address a number of things that were asked of us. At the time, the member for Winnipeg North pointed out that Canada Post needed to be able to open people's mail without a warrant, but then he said it was with a warrant. Interestingly, that has now been dropped. I guess that was something the Liberals recognized as a problem. I talked about the banning of cash payments and donations over $10,000 and said we had concerns with that, and that piece has also been dropped. Kudos to the government on that. The pressure from Conservatives caused that to happen as well. Then we talked a lot about concerns regarding warrantless access to information. These are some of the most dangerous parts of Bill C-2 and they have been dropped, and I am pleased about that.

At the time that I gave my speech, about a month ago, I was reprimanded and chastised by the members opposite, who said that we should get out of the way and let the bill pass quickly. We saw right away that there were major concerns with Bill C-2. I remember, in particular, that I was challenged on allowing Canada Post to open people's mail, as if we needed this to fight the fentanyl being mailed out. I am interested in knowing if members opposite still hold those positions and why these things have been dropped. I can tell the minister that my constituents and those across the country thought this was a dangerous inclusion in the bill, and I am happy to see that it is gone.

We have always worked hard to fight for everyday Canadians, and one of the other areas of concern was about the $10,000 donations. We see that the government continually goes after the freedoms that Canadians enjoy in Canada, and we see its subtle and dogged attack on things like charitable organizations in this country, whether it is through the recommendations that came out of the finance committee last year about stripping religious organizations of their charitable status, the Canada summer jobs changes or the charitable attestation changes. Now we see a ban on cash donations. The Conservatives will always stand up for the charitable sector and the good work it does.

The bulk of my speech last month was about the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the changes being made to it. I had not had the time to look at it in detail. As members know, when there are amendments to a piece of legislation in the abstract, it is often difficult to see what they are, but since then, I have had a chance to put them in their place in the act and see what kind of effect they would have. I was concerned at the time about the passport markings the Conservative government had put in place and the ability to revoke the passports of folks who are registered to the sex offender registry, and there has been zero action by the government over the last 10 years on either marking passports or revoking them.

I have been digging into this a bit, and I discovered that one of the issues is that the RCMP, which holds the registry, is unable to share this information with other levels of government, other organizations and other law enforcement agencies. The bill says that we could share it with other law enforcement agencies, but the challenge is that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is not law enforcement. The folks who issue passports are not law enforcement, so the bill is unclear. I do not think it will solve the problem of passport marking and the revocation of passports based on the registered sex offender list. This continues to be a problem.

I reached out to stakeholders who work in this space, like the folks from Ratanak International, based out of Vancouver, who flag this for me regularly. Registered sex offenders, convicted sex offenders, here in Canada often go abroad, likely to perpetrate more crimes. Countries around the world are pleading with Canada to alert them that a registered sex offender is coming or to prevent them from coming in the first place by withholding their passport.

I noted last time in debate the reality that a passport has, in the opening page, an endorsement of the individual. It endorses the individual and asks those viewing the passport to give the person free passage through their country. I am not convinced that folks in the sex offender registry are necessarily entitled to a passport. The law has been changed already so we can revoke these passports, but the Liberal government has failed to do this over the last number of years.

The RCMP was able to share with me how many notifications it had of sex offenders travelling. I see there is an update to the notification process. In 2022, the RCMP was notified 1,700 times. In 2023, it was notified 2,200 times. In 2024, it was notified 3,300 times. That was for registered sex offenders travelling abroad. However, the RCMP noted that it is unable to track the number of sex offenders who leave the country, given that if a sex offender does not register to do this, the RCMP does not know. We often know when they come back, as they seem to get flagged in the system then. As they come in, border security gets notified, but we do not know how many leave. Also, the RCMP was unable to ascertain how many times a registered sex offender failed to register when they left, because it does not track this.

For most of the last decade, countries, particularly the United States, have been begging and pleading with us to share this information with them. I think the bill would cover that. The changes the bill would make would allow our law enforcement to share with American law enforcement that a registered sex offender is travelling across the border. It is a particular annoyance for the Americans, and I understand that at a time when we are trying to mend relationships with the United States, rectifying this particular annoyance is the thing to do.

I would point out that I had flagged this for a number of years prior to this situation. I noted that, proactively, the United States has been sharing this information with us. In the first half of 2022, 165 Americans convicted of child sexual offences were allowed entry into Canada. We know this because the U.S. has a whole system to notify Canada that these folks are coming. Another question is whether we can stop them or refuse them entry, but that is another question altogether.

I look forward to seeing some of the questions I have about the bill clarified in committee. I also look forward to seeing if we need an amendment to fix the passport issue.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question.

As the member across the way will understand fully, we are co-operating very clearly on getting Bill C-12 to committee. Without the offensive parts of Bill C-2 in it, we are moving this bill forward. However, a number of issues only have half measures, and we need to make sure they fully address the problems faced by Canadians, not just those visited upon us by the new U.S. administration, which is pushing the government to act. We understand that and we are willing to get this bill to committee. Can we make changes to the drug-pushing laws? Can we make changes to the half measures, as opposed to the immigration asylum system, that are part of this bill?

We would love to see this bill roundly discussed and those amendments clearly made at committee. We will be working toward that end.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Centre and speak about the new bill that is before us.

The actual title of the bill is an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, but I say we should call Bill C-12 the short Liberal title, “We broke the immigration system, and we messed up public safety, border security and law enforcement, but do not worry; we are back to fix it because we know what we are doing.” In other words, it could be called “I break it then fix it. It is my version of job security”, or “If I did not break it first, how would anyone know how good I am at fixing it?”

It is the classic Liberal playbook: They break the system then hold a press conference to announce they are fixing it. They light the fire then show up with a watering can and call it leadership.

The issues we have to address in the bill are based on several parts of the bill. Bill C-12 has numerous parts to it, but a couple of objectives: security of Canada's borders, of course, and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system. For the sake of the public who may be following, I will break down further what is known as an omnibus bill.

The bill is composed of 11 parts that would amend various statutes, including the Customs Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Cannabis Act, the Oceans Act, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and its regulations, the Retail Payment Activities Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.

There is a lot for me to unpack. There is an option for me to spend 10 minutes talking about a plethora of sources and what we can do with the bill going forward. It started with Bill C-2, much of which was pressed on the government by the Trump administration in the United States, which forced us to look at some of the security measures that were not happening in Canada at that point in time. We were pushed to the wall to actually accomplish some things.

The bill came back to the House. The opposition, my colleagues, revisited it, and the Liberal government has taken out of the initial bill a bunch of the quite offensive parts that would really have impeded civil liberties. The government has come back with Bill C-12, which would actually address some of the issues that have long been simmering in Canadian society and have caused significant problems.

Bill C-2 was an error, a Liberal misstep, and now we need to rectify it. If the Liberal government really needs help drafting the kind of legislation that actually works, my Conservative colleagues and I are willing to write the legislation for them to make sure we get the security we need in this country, both in the immigration system, which we have seen explode in the last number of years, and in the border security realm.

There are a number of things going on in the bill for me to pick from. Let us note that it is a fix for the Liberal government's first attempt at the bill, but we must go through fixes in the House at times, and we are willing and happy to do that with this legislation.

I would like to speak to the issues of the illicit drug trade, organized crime, money laundering and human trafficking. For 10 years, the Liberal government has been duly informed of these attacks on Canada's expectations of maintaining peace, order and good government in this country. There are problems that have been evident for a long time.

Money laundering was addressed in budgets delivered by the government, but it never took any action. Dealing with organized crime and the illicit activities that go with it were always kicked down the road. It has been all talk and no action. Let me say that ignoring the avails of organized criminals is, by default, accepting the consequences of organized crime.

Opioids like fentanyl are ruining the lives of Canadians. Fifty thousand Canadians have perished over the last eight years from the use of fentanyl and opioid-related drugs. This has visited misery upon their families, upon our streets and upon our society in general.

Let me share a personal story. Last January, across the street from my office, I went to pick up my dry cleaning, and there was a young man dying on the sidewalk. I was the first person on the scene. I got on my knees and did everything I could to get that man's heart beating. One thing runs through a person's mind: their kids. I have four boys, and that is what ran through my mind at that point in time, that this could be one of my sons.

The situation is a scourge. I do not know the man's backstory but, for 20 minutes, I helped revive him, and I begged other people to help me. That experience does not leave a person. This is something we need to think about, as far as how it impacts all of society.

Imagine losing your sister, brother, or even one of your parents. Imagine losing a loved one with whom you will never again share a meal, a laugh, or a memory, a loved one whose dreams you will never see come true and who you will never get to see grow older. This is what thousands of Canadian families are experiencing every day as they are struck by the scourge of fentanyl. Things could be different, but the current government is failing in its primary mission, which is to protect the public.

Tent cities are growing in every major city in Canada. I represent a riding downtown. The Canadians who live in tent cities are not safe; they are not secure. This is not a future that we see for our kids. It is not a future for any Canadian. The scourge of addiction and homelessness should never have been ignored. This is about priorities, and the priorities for Canadians are very clear.

There seems to be comfort in ignoring the obvious. Obviously, criminals are profiting. What is the number of car thieves considered statistically normal before society pushes back? There are higher insurance costs, higher policing costs and escalating violence; the crimes are not victimless.

One of my proud moments as the member of Parliament for Calgary Centre was my opposition to a second so-called safe consumption site in downtown Calgary, at a place called the Calgary Drop-in Centre, where homeless people can go in Calgary. It is right next to Chinatown, a very important part of downtown Calgary, and to a new development called East Village.

East Village is an area that was built to bring families back downtown. There are lots of nice towers with three-bedroom condos in them. During that time, families were actually leaving because they did not want to raise families on streets that were trafficked by the drug pushers and criminals looking to profit from people's addiction. Imagine one's kids in that type of area.

Think about the homeless people themselves, who have to go through a gauntlet of death in order to get to a homeless shelter. This was never a solution. It was brought forward as a potential solution by the provincial UCP, the United Conservative Party government. The New Democrats, provincially, were all onside, and I will correct my colleague on the other side: The federal Liberals were onside.

I was the lone opposition for some time. Certain members of city council came to join me in that fight, and in the end, there was no safe consumption site opened at the drop-in centre, which serves some of the people in Calgary who need our help the most.

The solution was never a solution. We need to get back to what the real solutions are. The real solution is, of course, to win at the source, and that source is the criminals who are moving this scourge upon our population: the drug pushers, organized crime and the people who are making money at the expense of society.

I propose that we move the bill eventually to committee and actually make those changes that would make the laws more strict for the people who are actually causing the death and destruction in our society and that would make sure we make them pay. Crime should not be a risk-free, profit venture. We need to end this as quickly as possible and make sure the criminals are accountable for their actions.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the vehicle manufacturers of Canada are dead set against this EV mandate, as are all the major car manufacturers. I have talked to representatives from the industry, and they are all dead set against it. How does it even make sense that in a climate as cold as Canada's, the government would force such an insane law upon us?

I have a friend who has a Tesla. He loves it in the summer. He barely even drives it in the winter because when he turns on the heater, as he tells me, it sucks so much of the battery that he worries he will not be able to get back and forth from work. Now the government has paused the mandate for a year. That is true, but it needs to be killed completely, and Conservatives will continue to fight this government overreach.

Now, let us get back to the legislation at hand. The Liberals claim that the new bill, Bill C-12, would crack down on precursor chemicals, which is great. Those are the chemicals that are used to manufacture illegal drugs. At the same time, the Liberal health minister has recently refused to rule out approving additional legal drug consumption sites.

This summer I toured the area around a major drug consumption site in my riding of Edmonton Griesbach with the Edmonton Police Service. To say it was a disaster is an understatement. These sites are allegedly, supposedly, used by addicts to safely inject drugs, including fentanyl, but the reality is that they are just not working. Unfortunately, on my tour, we noticed someone right outside the consumption site in my riding of Edmonton Griesbach injecting drugs. This site, I might add, is located not that far from a day care. What the Liberals are doing with these sites is shocking and appalling.

I have talked with police, and they say that these sites increase the amount of drug activity in the area. The drug dealers are naturally drawn to the area; they know they can sell their wares there. It is like a magnet for them, and we can see the sad, dejected people who are struggling with this illness. It has resulted in a spike in violent crime in the area, including murders. In addition, for all the people who argue that there is so-called safe supply, there is nothing safe about injecting drugs into one's system, especially fentanyl.

It is especially bad in Chinatown. My Edmonton riding includes half of Chinatown, and it is really tragic to see the effect on a community that was once thriving, vibrant and very safe. There was a bakery there that had been in business for 60 long years, but because of the kind of crime linked to these injection sites, the store had to close. They could not keep the addicts out of their shop. They had been broken into. Crime was rampant, and it caused this Canadian small business to close. That is so sad.

Now in Chinatown, the most common sight seems to be “for lease” and “for rent” signs, and it was once such a safe, thriving neighbourhood. I have seen the tragedy of people slumped in the streets, obviously struggling with addiction, and it is largely due to these consumption sites that the Liberals like to encourage. It is shocking that they encourage these sites.

Does it not make sense that, if we truly are a caring society, rather than pushing people into these sites, we do the humane thing and help people recover? Do we not owe that to the most vulnerable in our society? Do we not owe them that, as opposed to, in some cases, watching them die on the street?

As I have mentioned, the original version of the bill, Bill C-2, included significant changes to the immigration system. My riding has a significant amount of immigration casework. I live in a very diverse riding. I recently hosted an event to welcome new Canadian citizens in Edmonton, but we know the Liberals have been very poor on that front. They have broken the immigration system. Conservatives will continue to fight on all these fronts.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know it is not exactly tradition to ask for a round of applause in this House, but our Conservative caucus deserves one today. That is because when the Liberals first introduced the bill in its original form, we fought long and hard against this disaster. It was because of our pressure that the Liberals backed down on the worst of it.

Thanks to the work of our Conservative caucus, the government has not given powers to Canada Post to open any mail, including simple letters, without a warrant. Our work stopped the government from banning cash payments and donations of more than $10,000. We stopped the government from having the ability to access personal information without first seeking a warrant. We stopped the government from being able to use Canadians' personal banking information if it suspected that someone was involved, in any way, in money laundering.

This is a list of groups that were insulted by the ham-fisted first attempt at the bill. In June, 300 organizations were opposed to the government overreach included in the first version of the bill, and it is quite a list. It included the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Church of Canada, the Migrant Rights Network, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International and OpenMedia. They are all opposed. It is hard to believe how many people the Liberals could possibly offend. They have to work hard to cause this kind of outrage.

However, we are not done. There is more. The bill was also opposed by the HIV Legal Network, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Climate Action Network Canada, the Centre for Free Expression, the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association and the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council. Even with this newer, improved bill, there is still opposition from the likes of Amnesty International Canada and other organizations.

These groups are working to protect civil liberties, data privacy and refugee rights, and they all strongly oppose the legislation. They say it tries to fast-track, rather than address, many aspects of the previous bill, which was called Bill C-2.

It is shocking that the Privacy Commissioner said the Liberals did not even consult him before the bill was considered. They did not consult him when they were trying to grant themselves sweeping new powers. They wanted to access Canadians' personal information from service providers, including banks and telecoms. We are talking about access to vital personal information without so much as a warrant.

That is the kind of overreach that the Liberal government would have love to see. I know Canadians are rightly suspicious of government overreach, and they should be. We have seen how the Liberal government tries to take an inch and turn it into a mile.

For example, let us look at what the Liberals are doing to law-abiding gun owners. The government is attacking law-abiding gun owners. In a typical Liberal overreach, the government is trying to force these good citizens to give up the legally purchased and owned guns that they use for hunting and sport shooting. This is the type of government control that alarms Canadians, and it is typical of the Liberals. They want an inch, and it somehow turns into a mile. Conservatives will continue to fight on that front. We will continue fighting so that law-abiding gun owners are not punished for wanting to hunt or go sport shooting.

At the same time, the government still refuses to have mandatory prison sentences for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes. We know that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed using guns that have been illegally smuggled across the border. It is not grandpa with his gopher gun who is committing crimes, yet the Liberals want to go after law-abiding gun owners. Can Canadians believe that? It is incredible. It is almost unbelievable.

Here is another classic example of the Liberal government's overreach: its ridiculous EV mandate. If the Liberals get their way, by 2035, under the EV mandate, Canadians will not be able to buy new gas-powered or diesel-powered vehicles. Can we imagine that? This mandate is a punitive tax on drivers, because those EVs are very expensive, but it is so typical of these “Ottawa knows best” Liberals.

The thing that gets me is that, right now, hybrid vehicles are actually fairly popular in Canada. This mandate would outlaw—

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-12.

As a Conservative member of Parliament, I am proud to stand and express my concerns with this legislation. I have heard from my constituents, and they have made it clear to me that the Liberal government is not going far enough to fix the messes it has created at our borders.

Conservatives negotiated the split of the original bill, Bill C-2, ensuring that one of the most egregious infringements on Canadians' privacy and freedoms was sidelined, while advancing measures that strengthen our border security and protect our communities. Bill C-12 is a step in the right direction, but make no mistake: It is only here because Conservatives held the line against Liberal overreach.

Let me start with the context. Bill C-12 was born out of the Liberals' bloated Bill C-2, introduced in June 2025. The original bill included warrantless access to personal information and the forced re-engineering of tech platforms for surveillance, and it even allowed Canada Post to open mail without judicial oversight, measures the Privacy Commissioner himself confirmed were drafted without his consultation.

As my colleague said, “Conservatives have successfully blocked the Liberals' infringements on individual freedoms and privacy in Bill C-2”, emphasizing, “Law-abiding Canadians shouldn't lose their liberty to pay for the failures of the Liberals on borders and immigration.” If law enforcement suspects something suspicious, they can get a warrant. It is that simple. Thanks to Conservative pressure, those poison pills are gone from Bill C-12, allowing us to focus on real security enhancements.

Let us dive into the substance of Bill C-12, which draws from the supportable elements of its predecessor.

Part 1 would amend the Customs Act to empower the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, to use private facilities free of charge for examining exported goods, mirroring its current authority over imports. This is crucial in combatting the export of stolen vehicles and contraband, which has surged under Liberal watch. According to the CBSA's own reports, auto thefts have become a multi-billion dollar industry, fuelling organized crime with thousands of vehicles shipped overseas annually. By extending the CBSA's reach, this provision would ensure that our borders are not a one-way street for criminals.

Part 2 of the bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a temporary accelerated scheduling pathway for precursor chemicals like those used in fentanyl production. This would fill a critical loophole, but let us be clear that it is long overdue. Fentanyl has devastated Canadian families, with Health Canada data showing that in 2024, fentanyl was responsible for 75% of opioid overdose deaths, a staggering increase of 32% since 2016.

Figures from January to March 2025 indicate that 63% of opioid toxicity deaths involved fentanyl, contributing to thousands of preventable tragedies. I must note that Canada will need to do a lot more than pass this bill to fix the problem.

While this part would ban precursors, it falls short by ignoring tougher sentencing for dealers, as Conservatives have long demanded. Still, it is a tool that law enforcement needs, and we believe in giving our first responders the tools they need to save lives.

Part 3 would formalize exemptions for law enforcement officers from drug charges during legitimate investigations under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Cannabis Act. This is straightforward common sense. Our officers should not fear prosecution while undercover fighting the very cartels flooding our streets with poison.

In part 4, amendments to the Oceans Act would enable the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and share intelligence with defence and security partners. With increasing threats from smuggling and foreign interference, this would bolster maritime security without the overreach seen in Bill C-2. Canada has massive borders and we need to work with like-minded partners to enhance our protections and preserve our sovereignty.

Parts 5 through 8 address immigration integrity, a realm where Liberal mismanagement has been catastrophic. In particular, part 7 would extend authorities to cancel or suspend immigration documents in the public interest, and part 8 would introduce a one-year cap on refugee status filings while tweaking the safe third country agreement, the STCA.

Parts 9 and 10 target money laundering and terrorist financing. Part 9 would amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to hike penalties, mandate compliance agreements with FINTRAC and expand registration to more entities. Let us not forget that money laundering in Canada is a big problem. It exceeds $100 billion, as reported last year. That is something the government has not paid attention to or has totally ignored dealing with or talking about.

The bill would also allow FINTRAC to share info with the commissioner of Canada elections. Part 10 would add the FINTRAC director to the financial institutions supervisory committee.

These steps intend to combat the financial networks behind organized crime, which have thrived amid Liberal soft-on-crime approaches. Also, let us not forget, and let us make sure Canadians listening understand, that the government's soft-on-crime approach has put a tremendous pressure on Canadians' lives and inflation, because money laundering creates an underground economy, which is known to be happening on Canadian soil.

Finally, part 11 would update the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Customs Act, clarifying reporting, allowing physical characteristic records and permitting the CBSA to share travel data with law enforcement to prevent sexual crimes. This would protect vulnerable Canadians, which aligns with Conservative priorities. It is time we start doing more in this House to protect vulnerable Canadians.

This bill would cost money, but the real cost has been the Liberals' 10 years of failures: record overdoses, strained immigration systems and eroded public trust. The Conservatives look forward to the committee stage, where we will call for amendments for tougher sentences, real enforcement and protections for legitimate refugees. Only the Conservatives will deliver tougher sentences for lawbreakers and order at the border and will allow legitimate refugees to find sanctuary here.

In conclusion, Canadians deserve secure borders without sacrificing freedoms. I wish there were more Liberal speakers on their own bill. Unfortunately, they refuse to do that.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to speak to Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.

When Canadians are asked what feeling is most important to them, they say it is the feeling of safety. That is the basic feeling that Canadians need to have. Personally, I am currently concerned about what we are seeing in this country, and today I am going to talk specifically about what is happening at the ports.

I will give the example of the port of Montreal, which is being used by a criminal network from West Africa. According to an article on the Radio-Canada website:

Canadian border services have recovered hundreds of stolen vehicles that were destined to be shipped to Africa by a network that also specializes in romance scams.

It may seem odd to mention romance fraud in connection with car theft, but that is the reality we are living in. The article explains:

From Montreal to the ports of Cotonou, Benin, or Abidjan, Ivory Coast: an increasing number of vehicles stolen in Canada are being shipped via this major maritime route.

As reported by Radio-Canada, a West African criminal group referred to as “African organized crime”...by Canadian authorities has settled in Quebec over the past few years.

This network specializes in online romance scams, but it's also involved in money laundering and exporting stolen cars from Montreal.

The vehicles are sent directly to West Africa. “Every week, our teams recover more than 20 to 25 [stolen] vehicles” before they leave the country, said Yannick Béland, a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) superintendent.

I would like to take a moment to thank all the men and women of the CBSA who are doing such phenomenal work. What they need is additional staff and tools to do their job. One of the tools that the Conservatives would like to put in place are scanners at the ports so they can check the contents of shipping containers.

This is one of our key proposals. It is important because it would provide a way to identify the contents of the containers and cut down on the number of stolen vehicles, which would have a direct impact on Canadians. It would no doubt enable insurers to lower insurance premiums for Canadians, as it would get the job done and reduce the number of stolen vehicles.

As an aside, I arrived on Parliament Hill not quite six months ago, but for eight years before that, I had the privilege of serving as a member of the National Assembly of Quebec. I have seen many bills in my time, and I have to say, I am concerned about the way this Liberal government operates. Right now, the House is also studying a bill to implement affordability measures that will put money back into Canadians' pockets, but it is not as good as what the Conservatives promised. We were more ambitious on behalf of Canadians. Still, Bill C-4 is a step in the right direction for putting money back into taxpayers' pockets.

What we saw yesterday was the Liberals filibustering their own bill. Filibustering means running out the clock to prevent a bill from moving forward. We are seeing this here today. The government added an extra period of time to the agenda so that we could talk about Bill C‑12. I am very pleased to be here with my colleagues today, but one of the reasons we are here is that the government is trying to draw out the legislative process. What I saw yesterday definitely met the definition of what the political world calls filibustering.

For the better part of an hour and a half, one Liberal member after another rose to kill time. Does anyone know how many people who were being paid were in the room yesterday? Fifty. There were 50 people here who are being paid with taxpayer dollars. There were public servants there and they were forced to waste their valuable time. Our public servants have a huge amount of work to do, yet the Liberals invite these officials to appear during consideration of bills and waste their time. This shows a lack of ethics and a lack of respect for the public service, for the work we have to do and for the work public servants do. Yesterday, 50 people had to listen to a string of Liberal members filibustering for an hour and a half. I just wanted to raise that issue.

The Liberals are back at it again today, and we are calling them out for it again. The member opposite brought up the fact that the government added an extra day for consideration of Bill C‑12. Once again, the government is doing this to drag out the process and keep the bill from moving forward. Is Bill C‑12 perfect? No, but we are going to work on it and suggest ways to improve it and make it better, because safety is paramount for all Canadians.

The Conservatives forced the Liberals to abandon Bill C‑2, which would have violated individual freedom and the privacy of Canadians. The Privacy Commissioner even confirmed that the Liberals had not consulted him when they moved to acquire sweeping new powers that would allow warrantless access to Canadians' personal information held by service providers, such as banks and telecommunications companies. Law-abiding Canadians must not lose their freedom in order to make up for the Liberals' failures on borders and immigration.

This bill is important and we will work on it. We know that border security is an issue right now, especially when it comes to fentanyl, a drug that has had devastating consequences for some of our constituents. We must work to strengthen oversight.

The Liberals have brought Bill C‑12 here. As I said, we will examine it in detail to ensure the Liberals do not try to slip a small measure through that would violate the privacy rights of law-abiding Canadians.

In this second attempt at a bill, the government is still not dealing with certain issues, like bail reform. It is also not discussing the practice of arresting and releasing fentanyl and firearms traffickers who take advantage of our porous border in order to attack Canadians. This is an ongoing issue. In our view, it is an important one. We will work to improve the bill and suggest some amendments. We have said that we are willing to work to move this bill forward. We are willing to move Parliament's business along for Canadians, but we need a government that is willing to work with us. Regrettably, what I have witnessed here in the past six months is a dysfunctional, disorganized government that does not help Parliament move forward with business.

Allow me to repeat what happened yesterday with Bill C-4: It was filibustering. We spent an hour and 20 minutes studying the bill in detail. Fifty people being paid by the government were there. It was sad to see. Canadians deserve better. Canadians work hard for their paycheques every day. They send us a large amount of money and expect us to manage it efficiently.

We need to work together for Canadians. We need to bear that in mind every day, out of respect for our constituents. That is what we Conservatives want to do here. We are going to make suggestions, because the safety of Canadians is paramount.

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

Madam Speaker, throughout the debates and discussions on Bill C-12, we have heard a lot of criticisms toward Bill C-2. The question I have for my friend across the way is this: Do the Conservatives have any amendments that they would like to see for Bill C-12? Are there aspects specific to Bill C-12 that they would like to see amended? If so, would the Conservatives be prepared to share some of those thoughts on specific amendments?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-12, the ugly stepchild of the failed Liberal omnibus bill, Bill C-2.

This is, of course, about border security. I am looking through the departmental plan, which was actually signed by the Minister of Public Safety, that covers the CBSA. It talks about human trafficking, and that is what I will be mostly talking about today.

Combatting human trafficking is mentioned five times in the departmental plans. For those opposite, departmental plans are the plans submitted by the government to justify the spending for the money it asked for. It lays out the priorities for the government for the following year. It is not a legal document, but it is a document that supports the request for spending. It was mentioned five times that the government is going to combat human trafficking. It is on page 7 and page 14, and on page 25 it is mentioned twice.

We have an issue with human trafficking in Edmonton, in Alberta and across the country in the construction world. We have illegal labourers being brought in and hired to work on federally funded government projects. A year ago, I presented evidence to the head of the Treasury Board about this practice. I told them that I would not make it political, and I would not publicize it, but I was providing the information so they could act on it. A year later, nothing has happened. Just last week, CBSA raided the LRT construction site in Edmonton, which is partially funded by the federal government. Illegal workers have been detained and taken off other projects, and the government has done nothing.

The reason I bring this up, and I will refer to the failed Liberal former minister for infrastructure and the environment, Catherine McKenna, who basically said that, if one lied loud enough in the House of Commons, people will totally believe it. That is my worry about this departmental plan. If the Liberals repeat it enough that they are going to fight human trafficking, people will totally believe it, but the evidence is that they are not. Again, I delivered documents to the government about illegal labourers and human trafficking on federally funded projects. I offered to work with the Liberals, but nothing was done. Fast-forward a year, and just last week, we decided enough was enough. We tabled a motion in the operations committee to study this issue. Can members guess what happened? The Liberals shut it down and blocked the study on human trafficking on government-funded labour sites.

I want to thank my good friend Rob, who is with Building Trades of Alberta, for championing this issue and bringing it to light. It has fought against this for years, because it is a double-edged sword, a double-sided problem. We have people being abused with human trafficking, and on the other side, we have Canadians, journeymen, ticketed trained union members, who cannot get work on government-funded projects because they are being undercut by workers who were trafficked, brought into Canada illegally, and employed illegally on these projects.

Rob and Building Trades of Alberta, as well as other trade unions, have done yeoman's work. I actually attended a site with them on the Henday, the ring road around Edmonton. We interviewed workers and, miraculously, every single worker we spoke to was a subcontractor to the main contractor who won the bid from the government. Every single worker, Latin American, was a subcontractor. They had no employees of their own, but miraculously, every single one of them just happened to have their own company, working independently and, of course, working for cash under the table.

Legitimate companies cannot win bids on these government projects. Unionized companies are getting outbid because these other construction companies will bid and then subcontract out the entire job to shadowy construction companies that fill the entire job with illegal labour. They pay cash, sometimes $10 an hour. These workers have no protection. They are not eligible for workers' compensation because they are being paid under the table. They are not eligible for unemployment insurance because they are not paying into the system. However, legitimate companies and legitimate trades people are getting shut out. It is getting to a point, as I said, where legitimate companies do not even bother bidding on government projects any more.

Here are some of the things that are happening. General contractors and major government-funded infrastructure projects are using multiple subcontractors to conceal that many of the workers are being paid cash under the table. These are contract carpenters, labourers, cement masons and other undocumented workers. They may be brought in from Facebook sites, so they will come in with visitor's visas or family visas, overstayed student visas, overstayed tourist visas or expired TFWs. They could also be on EI and working on the side. Again, there is no protection.

Anyone who has ever worked in construction, which I did as a youth, building houses, knows it is dangerous work. Injuries happen. One thing I have to say about the union movement across Canada for trades, and especially in the oil sands, is that it puts safety first. That is not happening at these work sites. There are workers without fall netting, without helmets, without proper PPE. I have provided documented evidence to the Treasury Board that companies are also faking journeyman papers and faking workers compensation papers.

What is happening, from the illegal worker's point of view, is that the employer had told them they did not need safety tickets. Counterfeit tickets are provided for a journeyman, boilermakers, etc. They are paid in cash, so there is no worker's compensation, no CPP deductions and no EI. If injured on the job, they are fired and sent home. We had a documented case where a person fell, broke his leg and was basically told to get on a plane and fly back to Colombia. That is what is happening on federally funded job sites in Alberta, B.C. and across the country. They do not do drug and alcohol testing. There is no avenue for these workers to report workplace safety issues. If they complain, they are threatened with deportation.

I am going to read from a Facebook post. It was posted in Spanish, but I have had it translated. It said, “Edmonton area cash-only projects. Five concrete finishers, six labourers, must have WHMIS, H2S certificates. If you don't have them, we'll provide them for you. Cash.” This was for a federally funded project.

I will tell a story about a gentleman who fell. He said that he did not remember falling. He lost his memory for 24 hours and woke up in the hospital. His helmet saved him. It had broken in half, but he got a cut and a bump. He fell 25 feet because he didn't have a safety harness. He broke his shoulder and could not move for two months. Who was it who visited him at the hospital? It was the safety officer from this fake company, who came to threaten that, if this were to be reported it to WCB, he would be fired and deported. He said it was terrifying. When he got back after two months, he was told, “Here's your last cheque. Get out.” This is happening every day on federally funded projects such as the LRT in Edmonton, the Henday. I had the Library of Parliament put this together. This is billions of dollars, and jobs have been taken away from Canadians, legal Canadians.

This is two-sided. We have Canadians who cannot get work, and we have the government funding illegal workers. We asked the government if we could investigate this at the operations committee, and the Liberals blocked it. A year ago, we gave this documented information to the Treasury Board with our offer saying, “We will work with you. We won't make it political. We won't make it a partisan issue. We'll work with you to fix it.” The government chose to side with human traffickers instead of Canadians.

If the government was serious about Bill C-12 helping Canadians and helping border issues, it would act on this issue now.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague had a blockbuster of a speech. She has been in this chamber for a long enough time that she can perhaps understand the member for Winnipeg North better than I, as a new member of Parliament, can, but it strikes me as odd that he insists on such urgency for this legislation, when the reason for the delay on Bill C-12 is that the Liberal government was trying to go after Canadian civil liberties with Bill C-2 by allowing the warrantless searches of mail, the surveillance of electronic equipment and the banning of large cash transactions.

I am hoping the member could speak to whether it is, in fact, the Liberals who have obstructed very real border security measures, on which we would have loved to co-operate with the government if it had presented them.

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

Madam Speaker, we have had a great deal of debate, first on Bill C-2, with well over 18 hours, and now with over six hours, maybe seven or eight hours of debate on the bill that is before us. I bring that up because today is a fantastic day in the sense that the minister introduced bail reform, something that has been anticipated across Canada for months now. There is a very strong desire for bail reform to take place.

I wonder whether the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the issue of bail reform, reflecting on Bill C-12 and the importance of, at the very least, recognizing that at some point in time we need to get things to committee. Would the member not agree that Bill C-12 is getting very close, hopefully, to going to committee stage? Could she also comment on the importance, from her perspective, of having bail reform, ideally before the end of the year?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures. The measures in this bill were first introduced in 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.

I mention this because Bill C-2 was tabled in the House and briefly debated last June; however, it was loudly criticized by civil liberty groups and privacy groups. It included a number of provisions that were concerning not only to our Conservative caucus but to many Canadians as well.

There were provisions that would have allowed Canada Post to open any mail, including letters, without a warrant. It would have allowed the government to ban cash payments and donations over $10,000 and would have allow warrantless access to personal information. It would have allowed the government to compel electronic service providers to re-engineer their platforms to help CSIS and the police access Canadians' private information, and it would have allowed the government to supply financial institutions with personal information if that information were useful for identifying money laundering and terrorist financing.

These provisions were the reason Conservatives opposed the Liberals' attempt at gaining sweeping powers and warrantless access that would violate Canadians' civil liberties. Let us be clear: The Liberals' solution to the problems they created over the last 10 years was to grant them more powers. When the Privacy Commissioner was questioned, he confirmed that the Liberals did not even consult him when trying to grant themselves sweeping new powers to access Canadians' personal information from service providers like banks and telecom companies without a warrant.

The good news is that Conservatives have forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2, which clearly would have violated Canadians' individual freedoms and privacy. Conservatives believe that law-abiding Canadians should not lose their liberty to pay for the failures of the Liberals with respect to borders and immigration.

That brings us to the debate today. The Liberals introduced Bill C-12, which took out many of the parts of Bill C-2 that Conservatives fought to have removed. The parts of the bill that remain, which we are discussing today, would begin to take steps on addressing the many issues that have seen nothing but inaction from the government over the past 10 years.

Although there are provisions for the CBSA laid out, let us talk about the very real challenge the CBSA is facing that the Liberals are not addressing with the bill. The government promised to hire 1,000 new CBSA personnel, though according to the public safety minister, it is not his job to hire them, which would explain why the Liberals have waited 10 years to take measures on border security.

Ninety-nine per cent of all shipping containers are not currently scanned to see what is inside. Where is the plan to purchase and deploy the tools to crack down on the amount of smuggling that is happening through our ports?

Our brave men and women who work at the CBSA protect the front line of our nation's defence. They deserve real, meaningful action from the government to help them and to equip them with the tools they need to help keep Canadians safe. They need action from the government. Conservatives believe in the important work they do, and we will continue to offer solutions and clearly defined measures to assist them in doing the work of keeping our border secure.

Another part of the bill seeks to address fentanyl precursor chemicals that are being used to manufacture fentanyl here in Canada. Though we welcome any efforts to crack down on the drug epidemic facing our communities, it seems the Liberals are more content with simply blaming the chemicals, and not the criminals who manufacture and distribute deadly fentanyl on our streets.

Of all apparent opioid toxicity deaths from January to June 2024, 79% involved fentanyl. The number of emergency room visits for opioid-related poisonings has more than doubled since 2018. Just two milligrams of fentanyl is enough to be a lethal dose and take someone's life. Dealing fentanyl should be punished the same as murder is, because it is effectively murder. If a fentanyl kingpin trafficks just 40 milligrams, that is enough to kill 20 people. There need to be serious deterrents, not simply banning the ingredients that make the illegal drug that people are selling to vulnerable Canadians.

The Liberals continue to push for what they call safe consumption sites near schools. At the health committee, the Conservative member for Riding Mountain and shadow minister for health called on the Liberals to shut down fentanyl consumption sites next to children. However, the Liberal minister refused to rule out approving more consumption sites next to schools and day cares, despite acknowledging that the sites are repositories for rampant fentanyl usage.

The bill does not meaningfully look to defend the victims of the fentanyl crisis either. Since the Liberals took office, all violent crime is up 50% from 2015 to 2023. More money laundering and organized crime have found a home in Canada. The solution the leaders proposed in Bill C-2 was to give themselves sweeping powers to spy on individual Canadians.

Violent crime is up. Organized crime is up. Drug trafficking is up. Even if someone is caught by the Liberal justice system, house arrest is still permissible for some of the most serious offences. While the current government has allowed violent crime to rise all across this country, it allows violent offenders out on bail or house arrest so they can return to the very community they are a danger to. For years, Conservatives have been proposing measures to crack down on criminals and to put the charter rights of victims ahead of their abusers.

Part 11 of the bill would amend the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Customs Act, which would allow for greater accuracy in reporting, tracking and investigating sex offenders. These are welcome changes that the Conservatives have been advocating for years, and they are long overdue. However, the consistent theme the Liberals have presented to Canadians throughout both Bill C-2 and now Bill C-12 is that they are not willing to be held responsible for the last 10 years they have been in government. We hear it often.

While the Liberals would have Canadians believe that they are a new government, just now learning of these problems, they are not. They have been in power for 10 years and are responsible for this mess. Giving them more power to fix it is not the answer.

One thing is very clear: Only Conservatives will continue to stand up for Canadians' individual freedoms and privacy. Only Conservatives will continue to advocate on behalf of Canadians. We will examine the bill thoroughly to ensure that the Liberals do not try to sneak in measures that would breach law-abiding Canadians' privacy rights.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in the House on behalf of the NDP to talk about this important piece of legislation, Bill C‑12. Regrettably, while I am the third NDP member to have an opportunity to rise in the House, it is because the Liberals do not rise to talk about their own piece of legislation because they do not want to talk about it.

This is good for us because it gives me an opportunity to be able to talk about it on behalf of the constituents of Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie as well as several representatives of civil society organizations who are very concerned about the impacts of this piece of legislation on asylum seekers and refugees. I will be discussing this during my speech, but first allow me to provide some background.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister gave an important pre-budget speech at the University of Ottawa. What we saw was a Liberal Prime Minister who, in Canada, takes a very strong Canadian nationalist, protectionist, elbows up line. He talks about defending our sovereignty, our jobs and our companies. However, when the Prime Minister is in the Oval Office in Washington, he completely changes tack. He no longer demonstrates the same strength, the same character, the same determination. He seems to be kowtowing, pandering. The Prime Minister seems to be doing everything he can to appease U.S. President Donald Trump. He is doing everything he can to make him happy. As we have seen on several occasions, despite the Prime Minister's tough talk when in Canada, nothing ever happens.

The current Prime Minister was elected largely because of his platform to stand against U.S. President Donald Trump. Instead, he keeps backing down and making overtures to please the American president. Why is the Prime Minister suddenly trying to revive the Keystone XL pipeline? After promising to make web giants, GAFAM, pay their fair share, why is the Prime Minister now backtracking just because the American president does not really like the idea of taxes being imposed on these big corporations that are making billions of dollars in profits at Canadians' expense? The Prime Minister is not standing up. He does not have his elbows up, ready to lead the fight.

What we are seeing today with Bill C‑12, which is a new incarnation of Bill C‑2, is the same backpedalling and the same attempt to pander to Donald Trump's administration. That man obsesses over certain things. He is anti-migrant, anti-refugee and anti-asylum seeker, plus he is concerned about borders. He is also concerned about drug trafficking, which is entirely legitimate. Opioids and fentanyl are having devastating effects on our communities, and serious measures must be put in place at the border, particularly when it comes to the Canada Border Services Agency. However, the government is playing along with Donald Trump's game, attempting to give him guarantees so that he might eventually negotiate with us. After six months, all we are seeing is setbacks that hurt Quebeckers and Canadians and, in this case, will hurt thousands of people whose fundamental rights will be violated by the Liberal government in an attempt to pander to the American president.

There are people in this field who work for more than 300 civil society organizations and who have already spoken out against the Liberal government's Bill C‑12. I am going to quote them, and I am going to use their line of reasoning to discuss them today, because I think it is important. These are people active on the ground, who know the reality of the situation. They know exactly how this will impact the lives of certain people, including parents, families and children. In some cases, these consequences are very severe.

I am going to begin with the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, or TCRI. It has this to say:

Bill...raises major concerns for migrants, especially migrants who claim asylum. The measures that the government is proposing could prevent vulnerable individuals from obtaining important protections.

These protections existed, or still exist, but they are under threat.

Restricting the right to asylum: The bill introduces two new grounds for inadmissibility. First, a claim will be deemed inadmissible if it is filed more than one year after entering Canada, effective June 24, 2020. The one-year deadline is determined from the first entry after that date, not from the date of the last entry.

If someone came to Canada on a visitor visa as a journalist or a temporary worker, for example, after June 24, 2020, and returned two years later, the one-year period would begin from the first entry, even if the situation in their country has changed and returning to that country would now put them at risk. The government refuses to listen to any new information. Too bad if someone arrived three years ago for the first time. Starting June 24, 2020, the one-year deadline starts at that point. It is absurd.

Second, an asylum claim filed more than 14 days after an irregular entry at a land border will now be deemed inadmissible, as will claims filed less than 14 days after such entry. However, the individual will not be removed to the United States. They will only have access to the pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).

These deadlines do not take into account the realities experienced by migrants (trauma, vulnerability, lack of access to information and legal support, etc.);

These deadlines are completely arbitrary. It seems that everything is being done to send these people home. That obviously makes Donald Trump happy.

The new rules would apply as of June 3, 2025, even before the bill is officially passed. That means that people who applied legally could have their claim determined to be ineligible retroactively;

That is also extremely serious. Retroactive measures may be implemented as soon as the bill is passed.

People whose claim is determined to be ineligible would have access only to the PRRA, a procedure that does not provide the same guarantees as the refugee determination process and whose approval rates are very low, approximately 2% to 4%.

New step in the asylum claim process: The bill introduces another review between the determination of the asylum claim's eligibility and the referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB. [Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC] will be responsible for conducting this review. [It will gather the information and documents related to the asylum claim.] It will have the power to reverse the eligibility decision and to ask the IRB to determine whether the claim for refugee protection has been withdrawn. These new powers raise several concerns about access to a fair process, especially since many important aspects of the review will be determined by regulation.

We do not know what that will look like yet.

Increased government powers [particularly for the executive]: The bill would allow the government to suspend certain claims en masse or cancel immigration documents in the name of “public interest”, bypassing [the transparency] obligations usually associated with the adoption of government decrees.

We have no idea what “public interest” means. Massive powers will therefore be concentrated in the hands of the executive, which will be able to cancel existing claims in a global, massive, and discriminatory manner.

Confusion between migration and security issues: By conflating immigration, asylum, and the fight against organized crime, the [Liberal] bill reinforces the perception of migrants as a threat and justifies a repressive rather than humanitarian approach.

This is extremely serious in the context of rising populism, the far right, hate speech, discrimination, and racism. It is this kind of conflation that Bill C‑12 continues to fuel today.

The TCRI also calls on the federal government to respect its obligations, including the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which Canada is a signatory, and the 1967 Protocol, which enshrines the principle of non-refoulement. This principle prohibits returning a person to a country where their life or freedom is or would be threatened.

The Supreme Court's 1985 ruling in Singh also serves as a legal benchmark. The Supreme Court found that anyone present in Canada, including asylum seekers, have access to Charter protections, including the right to a full hearing.

On behalf of this organization, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and 300 other organizations, I am asking the House to think carefully and to ask the federal government to scrap Bill C‑12.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so surprised to receive that question. I think I explained it to the member during my last two speeches on government legislation.

The Liberals violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they imposed the Emergencies Act, sections 2 and 8. That is not me, but Justice Mosley of the Federal Court who found that. I would love to hear the member apologize for that violation.

Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and Bill C-2 also violate our charter. I am not going to let it get through the net.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-12. This is the fourth time I am speaking to a piece of government legislation in this Parliament.

For the first time, I think it is the story of the bill rather than its content that I find most interesting. I apologize to those following at home if it seems a little bit like inside baseball, but in every Parliament, the government introduces bills and numbers them sequentially. After the pro forma throne speech, Bill C-1, came Bill C-2. The present bill, Bill C-12, is the parts of Bill C-2 that had to be salvaged from the flaming dumpster fire of that original piece of legislation. It is as though the Liberals set their own legislative agenda on fire and the Conservatives had to comb through the charred remains to find something salvageable. What an embarrassment it is for the government.

The new Prime Minister ran on his expertise in government, having spent most of his career as a bureaucrat. He had been waiting in the wings for 10 years to plant his legislative agenda. Do members opposite remember when he was asked if he would ever become prime minister? He said, “Why don’t I become a circus clown?” Well, now he has. He has beclowned himself.

Bill C-2 is the very first piece of legislation that the Prime Minister's government introduced, and it had to be split up in this manner. What an embarrassment that is.

Why did it need to be split up? It is because the forefather of Bill C-12 contained clauses that were so howlingly bad that no one on either side of the House, nor from any coast in this country, could bring themselves to defend it.

Bill C-2 includes a provision that would allow the police to ask a doctor, without a warrant, if their services had ever been used by an individual. This is reprehensible. I am a physician; frankly, this does not just offend me as a Canadian and as a person, but it offends my whole profession. It would violate not just our Charter of Rights and Freedoms but the Hippocratic oath. If a member opposite or their child went to see a doctor who specializes in addictions, mental health, sexually transmitted diseases or reproductive medicine, on what possible planet would they think it was appropriate for the police to ask that physician to disclose them as a client?

Again, I suspect members opposite are getting ready to say that I am somehow being outlandish in my interpretation of their proposed law. Here, once again, I will read them their own darned bill.

In part 14, clause 158, it reads:

A peace officer or public officer may make a demand...to a person who provides services to the public requiring the person to provide, in the form, manner and time specified in the demand, the following information:

(a) whether the person provides or has provided services to any subscriber or client

This is bananas. This is, once again, a Chinese Communist Party level of state overreach.

Once again, if the Liberals do not trust my interpretation of their legislation, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's interpretation or the Canadian Constitution Foundation's interpretation, will they believe their own public safety minister, the one who introduced the legislation? He was quoted in The Globe and Mail in an October 9 article by Marie Woolf, entitled “Public Safety Minister says he wants to push through refined warrantless...powers to help police”. She wrote that the Minister of Public Safety acknowledged that the “provisions in Bill C-2, the original strong borders bill, [allowing police to ask a] doctor without a warrant” if their services had been used by someone, constituted “overreach”.

This is not the first time the Minister of Public Safety has had to throw the Minister of Public Safety under the bus. Who could forget that, just last month, he told his tenant that his own gun confiscation program was a bad idea that he did not support? I would love to believe that it is merely incompetence over there. It is incompetence; it is just not “merely” incompetence.

I am a physician. I do not sign prescriptions that I have not read. I do not give out prescriptions that I do not believe in, because prescriptions are important documents and I have a professional duty to read them. On the other side of the House, we have a Liberal minister who seems not to read the legislation that he tries to pass in the House. On other occasions, he executes a gun grab he does not believe in. This sort of conduct would not be tolerated from any physician in this country. I dare say it would not be tolerated from any professional under any professional body in this country. Why does the Prime Minister tolerate it from one of the highest office-holders in this land?

As I said, it is not merely incompetence over there. I take it that the public safety minister did not write the legislation, but someone did. I want to know who, because this is not a one-off oopsy doopsy in which a junior staffer wrote a law that would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a clear pattern with the government.

The last three pieces of government legislation that I have debated in the House, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and now Bill C-12 have involved significant power grabs by the Prime Minister. I want to know why.

Bill C-8 would allow the Liberals to kick people off the Internet without a warrant. Bill C-9 would allow the Liberals to police speech on the Internet. Bill C-12, in its previous iteration as Bill C-2, would not only violate patient-physician confidentiality but also allow the government to read letter mail without a warrant.

What is going on over there? Why is the Liberals' response to every conceivable social problem to violate our charter rights? Who is writing the legislation?

I know that as soon as I am done, the member for Winnipeg North will ask why we do not fix this at committee, to which I would say, yes, we are going to have to, but every member in this House should be protecting charter rights. The committee should not be the goalie. The Conservatives should not be the goalie. The Liberals should not be trying to get charter violations past the Conservative goalies. They are the Liberals. They are supposed to believe in liberty. I am honestly starting to wonder if they even know what their party's name means anymore.

Here is the Encyclopædia Britannica entry on “liberalism”:

political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

Do the members opposite see themselves at all in this definition today? It has been six months since I was elected to this House, and not once, in between their power grabs, have I heard them make even passing reference to individual liberty or to the fact that the government itself can threaten that liberty.

Conservatives seek to conserve our liberty. Liberals are supposed to seek to expand our liberty. However, this is three times in six months they have tried to get one past us. I am asking them honestly to reflect on this. Are they even Liberals anymore, or have they become something darker? How is it that they have betrayed the Liberal tradition again and again in this House?

I would ask the Liberal backbenchers, in particular, if this is what they signed up to do when they took out a Liberal Party membership and if the Prime Minister's Office ran any of it by them before it tried to ram it through the House. Why do they not do the right thing and withdraw Bill C-2 entirely instead of trying to get it passed piecemeal?

One piece of Bill C-2, Bill C-12, is going to go to committee, but we must not forget the omnibus monstrosity from which it came. We must not forget the questions of competence that the story of Bill C-12 raises, and we must also not look away from the authoritarian tendencies of the so-called Liberals that this story reveals.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to take a moment to thank Divya Dey, who is participating in the parliamentary internship program and who gave me the great privilege of choosing me for her first stint with a member of the House of Commons. She is a brilliant and dynamic young woman from the Greater Toronto Area who speaks excellent French and who chose a member from a rural region in Quebec. I hope that many people from Toronto will do the same thing and follow her example in order to discover the beautiful regions of Quebec.

Today Divya helped me research and write this speech. Obviously, I added the partisan side of my speech myself because interns have to remain non-partisan during their time with us. I wanted to warn people that some of the passages are my own creation. I congratulate all the interns on their achievements and thank the organizers and sponsors of this wonderful program, which gives young Canadians the opportunity to experience first-hand the decision-making process on our beautiful Parliament Hill.

Let me get back to today's topic, namely Bill C‑12. Before going into the details of the bill, I would like to take a step back and look at the big picture of what this Liberal government has done in 10 years. Since this Prime Minister was elected, I believe that we have witnessed the largest pothole repair operation in Canadian history.

What is a pothole? After a long, hard winter, when the snow melts, we discover that our roads are full of holes. There are big ones, little ones, huge ones and potholes in the making. There are holes everywhere, especially in the municipalities. Just before summer, at the turn of spring, municipal road crews get to work filling as many holes as possible as quickly as possible to keep them from getting bigger, to prevent cars from breaking down and to ensure pedestrians do not get hurt. I have no doubt that all this is done with the best of intentions.

However, anything goes when it comes to filling holes. They act quickly. They know that what they are repairing will not really be repaired because it is just a quick fix. They will have to come back a little later. They intervene for appearances' sake, knowing full well that the repairs are cosmetic, which means that instead of being fixed, the problem will get worse year after year. The following year, they will have to come back because the hole will be a little bigger. If it is only a quick fix, they will have to come back again the year after that.

What does this have to do with Bill C‑12? Before the members opposite ask me that question, I will explain. It is very simple. It is as though we are coming out of an extremely long 10-year winter during which the Liberals dug holes everywhere. There are potholes in every department after 10 years of Liberal mismanagement. Whether we are talking about justice, immigration, passports or delays at the Canada Revenue Agency, there are potholes everywhere after the long Liberal winter.

I did not talk about the biggest pothole of all, and that is the country's finances. That is the biggest pothole of all with a deficit that has doubled and inflationary spending that has created many smaller holes in the pockets of all Canadians, who can no longer make ends meet at the end of the month. Canadians are $200 away from being in the red, from no longer being able to pay their bills at the end of the month. They are struggling and they are being forced to make tough choices at the grocery store.

Today, the Liberals would have us believe that spring is right around the corner. They have looked under the snow after 10 years in power, and what they saw was really not pretty. Their woke Liberal ideological policies have caused a great deal of damage, and Canadians will be left to pay the price for years to come.

As I said, a pothole repair operation is a superficial fix that is not used to repair holes for good, but rather to simply fill them in. After how badly Bill C-2 failed, Bill C‑12 is a superficial fix to tackle the damage caused by the Liberals over the past 10 years. By the way, this part was not written by my intern. I just want to clarify that.

Let us talk about immigration. The government made our businesses dependent on temporary foreign workers. Now, with Bill C-12, the government is going to punish the very people it made promises to when they decided to come settle here in Canada. This is not just about compassion. It is contradictory. The government made our businesses dependent on these workers and now it is trying to break that dependency without a plan, leaving businesses and workers in limbo. Most importantly, the government is forgetting that those affected are human beings with children, families and a dream, a dream of settling in Canada.

In the beginning, the temporary foreign worker program had the very specific goal of addressing temporary labour shortages. However, under the Liberals, this program grew and it became a permanent solution to problems that the government refused to address. This program was working well and meeting its objectives, but the Liberals created so much chaos and neglected the program so much that, today, people who should be able to go through the proper channels no longer have time to do so because the system is so broken.

Bill C‑12 is not fixing the problem of temporary workers. This bill would make it harder for all these people, whom we welcomed with open arms after the former prime minister sent a tweet inviting them to come to Canada. This message was heard across the country, but today, it is making many people unhappy. We have all heard about it in our riding offices. This improvised approach hurt people, it hurt families and it hurt businesses.

After a decade of the Liberals' absolutely disastrous mismanagement of the immigration system, the number of refugee claims has risen to 296,000 today. That is huge. Think about it. Ten years ago, we only had 10,000 and now, we have 296,000. At the current pace, it would take the government 25 years to process the 296,000 pending files. Let that sink in. It is absolutely unacceptable. It is a disaster. The Liberal government's attitude to immigration as a whole has created some really desperate situations that are heartbreaking for the people experiencing them.

Let us now turn our attention to crime. I will let the numbers speak for themselves. After 10 years of Liberal governance, the total number of violent crimes is up 49.84%. Homicides are up 28%. Gang-related homicides are up 78%. Sexual assaults are up 74%. Extortion is up 357%. What action did the Liberals take last winter to protect Canadians? They took no action. On the contrary, they made the situation worse by passing legislation like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which set criminals loose, let abusers serve their sentences at home and forced judges to let criminals go as fast as possible.

Sadly, since taking office seven months ago, this Prime Minister has done nothing to act on his promises. Bill C-12 may close a few loopholes, but it will not quiet the fears of Canadians who have never before seen their country change as much as it has in the past 10 years of this long Liberal winter.

Time is flying by. The Liberals would have us believe that spring is coming. However, they have not even started fixing the potholes, and winter already seems to be right around the corner. Never before have we seen a pothole repair be botched so badly. This Prime Minister promised to spend less, but he is spending twice as much as his predecessor. He promised to maintain the deficit, but we now know that it will be much bigger than the one predicted by Canada's most spendthrift prime minister before him. They are not repairing potholes; they are digging more and making them bigger. We were seeing the first signs of spring, but instead we are in for another storm of Liberal spending.

Just today, the Prime Minister confirmed in the House that he will run a generational deficit on November 4. They are not fooling us. Bill C‑12 will plug a few holes, but the root causes of the Liberal legacy of the past 10 years will unfortunately remain.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, we know that much of what is happening in the States with attacks on immigrants and attacks on asylum seekers is primarily impacting people of colour in cities across the United States. I do not want Canada to appease the kind of racist, dogmatic, fascist behaviour that we are seeing south of the border.

Just as in the case of the unconstitutional Bill C-5, Bill C-12 would create power for cabinet to create “Orders Made in the Public Interest”. This would give the government an unchecked power to stop receiving applications for visas and for other residency permits, to suspend processing of immigration applications and to target measures against “certain foreign nationals”.

There is no definition of “public interest” in Canadian law, and no explanation in the bill, so how do we know that the Liberal cabinet, or any future cabinet, would not in fact pursue its own interests or, worse yet, the interests of the Trump administration through this unconstitutional legislation?

The bill would also be very problematic for the safety of women and girls. Several women's organizations, in fact, including Women's Shelters Canada, the Canadian Women's Foundation and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, stated, “Survivors of...violence are uniquely harmed by arbitrary timelines and restricted pathways in immigration, which deny survivors the ability to seek protection when they most need it. Any changes to C-2 that do not remove the immigration provisions will continue to put vulnerable women at risk.”

A broad coalition of civil liberties groups, data privacy organizations, refugee and migrant rights organizations and gender justice organizations strongly opposes the government's introduction of Bill C-12, which seeks to fast-track rather than address many aspects of Bill C-2's myriad problems. In fact, a coalition of over 300 organizations is reiterating its call for a full withdrawal of both bills. That coalition includes Amnesty International, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Church of Canada, the Migrant Rights Network and the Canadian Council for Refugees.

Tim McSorley, who is part of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, indicated:

Bill C-12 does not fix Bill C-2; it fast tracks some of the most egregious aspects, while still moving forward with the rest. Our government has made it abundantly clear that they will continue to fight for every privacy-violating measure Bill C-2 still contains, and are only introducing Bill C-12 to get restrictions on migrant and refugee rights adopted sooner.

As parliamentarians, we are obliged to uphold international law, and that includes international conventions that we are signatories to, including for international human rights that grant asylum seekers the right to seek protection from prosecution. This is most notable in article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the 1951 Refugee Convention. A core principle is non-refoulement, which means that countries are prohibited from returning refugees to a place where their life or freedom is at risk. Countries are obliged to assess asylum claims fairly and protect refugees from being sent back to danger.

I think about the number of refugees who have made Winnipeg Centre their home, whom I am proud to now have as neighbours and who fled life-and-death circumstances. We have a legal obligation to not close our borders to them.

Article 14 states, “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” Article 14 further notes that this right does not apply to those genuinely prosecuted for non-political crimes or acts against the UN principles.

This is a fundamental principle: the principle of non-refoulement. This fundamental principle of international law is also found in other international human rights treaties that we are signatories to. It prohibits the forced return of refugees to a country where they face a serious threat to their life or freedom. This is considered a customary international law that applies to all countries.

I felt very strongly about the NDP's position on this particular bill, a bill that would violate international law. It is a bill that, in fact, would violate the rule of law. It is a bill that would have an impact on our reputation around the world and that feeds into the racist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic tropes that we are seeing coming from the south. Let us put silence on that voice and let us be what Canada has always been, a home welcoming to all.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today quite disturbed and deeply disappointed that despite the widespread criticism of Bill C-2 from civil liberties groups, migrant groups, experts and human rights advocates, the Liberals are attempting to repackage pretty much the same bill under a new title, Bill C-12, which has so many of the same alarming and unacceptable abuses of international law and charter rights.

The revised border security bill would maintain a host of the government's new immigration powers introduced in Bill C-2, including the ability to limit immigration applications and cancel existing documents when the government deems it to be in the public interest, all the while pushing through huge, overreaching powers for the Prime Minister and his cabinet. I am the proud representative of Winnipeg Centre, home to 70% of refugees who move into Manitoba. They are my neighbours and my friends, and they have a right to have their human rights upheld.

The bill has raised much concern, including what experts are flagging as a detrimental impact on women and LGBTQ people.

We know what the bill is about. It is not about border security, from my perspective, but about appeasing a leader to the south who is showing us more every day that he would even have the military go after his own citizens. It is about appeasing a right-wing, authoritarian leader in the White House. We know his immigration policy includes ICE's ordering masked federal officers to go into communities and arrest people, individuals whose human rights are protected under international law.

It is funny to me to watch the member for Winnipeg North across the way smiling during my speech, when his constituency is in fact home to a vibrant and diverse immigrant population. It is a border that I am very proud to share—

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

Madam Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal failure, Canadians now face a cost of living crisis, a crime crisis, a housing crisis and a border crisis, and the government has the nerve to stand up here today and pretend that Bill C-12 will strengthen Canada's immigration systems and borders.

This bill will not fix our immigration system and does not protect Canadians. It does little to stop the flow of fentanyl, guns, gangsters or illegal crossings, and most certainly does not defend the rights and freedoms of law-abiding Canadians. This bill is the second attempt at a failed Liberal bill, Bill C-2, which, of course, the Liberals did not spend much time working on over the summer.

Before we even get into Bill C-12, we have to remember how we got here. About a month ago, the Liberals tried to ram through Bill C-2, which would have given them sweeping, warrantless powers to seize Canadians' personal information from banks and telecoms. There would be no warrants, judicial oversight, transparency or respect for the charter or Canadians.

It was so abusive, invasive and offensive to our democratic tradition that the Privacy Commissioner confirmed the Liberals did not even bother to consult him. The Liberals planned a mass surveillance power grab and hoped Canadians would not notice. The Liberals got caught and Conservatives forced them to back down, go back to the drawing board and rewrite this bill.

That is the only reason we are debating Bill C-12 today, because the Liberals' first attempt was exposed as a direct assault on Canadians' privacy, freedom and basic civil liberties. Law-abiding Canadians will not be treated like criminals just because Liberals cannot control the border that they themselves have broken.

Now the Liberals are back with Bill C-12, promising that this time it is different. Conservatives scrutinize every line, every clause, every hidden catch, to ensure the Liberals are not sneaking in another assault on Canadians' rights, freedoms and civil liberties. The Liberal government has forfeited the benefit of the doubt. The Liberal government tried once to spy on Canadians without a warrant; only a fool would trust them a second time.

This bill barely touches on the number one border threat facing this country: the illegal flow of fentanyl, weapons and violent criminals across our border. It makes no mention of the badly needed bail reform to the Liberals' catch-and-release, revolving-door injustice system. It makes no reference to mandatory prison sentences when the Liberals brought house arrest to dozens of serious crimes, cracking down on fentanyl traffickers and gangs doing drive-bys in our once-safe neighbourhoods or hiring more CBSA officers, which the Liberals promised to do in their election platform.

Under the Liberal government, drug traffickers walk free on house arrest, gangsters avoid mandatory jail time and repeat violent offenders are released again and again under Liberal catch-and-release bail. None of this will stop a single fentanyl dealer or gun smuggler with real punishments and consequences.

The government actually believes that someone trafficking poison into our communities should be able to serve their sentence at home, on the couch, watching TV. Remember, the Liberals legalized hard drugs, they brought in taxpayer-funded hard drugs and flooded them into our streets and they also brought in drug consumption sites.

Conservatives believe that fentanyl traffickers and drug kingpins should be in prison and those possessing 40 milligrams or more should be treated like the mass murderers they are and should receive life imprisonment, yet this bill does absolutely nothing to change that.

The Liberals obsess over legal gun owners while doing absolutely nothing to put the gangsters behind bars. The Liberals target law-abiding hunters and farmers while letting fentanyl traffickers out on bail. It is backward and dangerous, and Canadians are paying the price.

While this border crisis spreads fentanyl into our communities, the Liberals are opening and defending drug consumption sites near schools and playgrounds.

Conservatives demanded not too long ago that the Liberals shut down overdose sites next to locations with children. What did the health minister have to say? They refused to rule out approving more drug-injection sites, even though they acknowledged that these sites are filled with rampant fentanyl use.

The Liberals will not reverse the policies that got us into this mess in the first place. The Liberals will not jail fentanyl traffickers. The Liberals will not stop illegal border flows. The Liberals will not ever protect school zones from drug consumption sites. This is not compassion; it is government-orchestrated chaos.

Let us talk about the reality that Bill C-12 pretends it would address, but would not. Canada now has three million temporary residents, over 7% of our population, and that number is going up every day. Canada now has 500,000 undocumented individuals, and that number is also going up every day. Canada has 300,000 asylum claims in the queue, and of course that is also growing every day. The result is that our housing market is collapsing, our health care is collapsing, our job market is collapsing and our communities are simply overwhelmed. The Liberals created chaos, and now they want more power, not to fix it, but to cover up the mess they made.

Let us not forget how much this border crisis is costing taxpayers. Conservatives uncovered just how badly the Liberals have mismanaged the interim federal health program. Under their Liberal government, federal health care costs for asylum claimants have exploded to $456 million per year, representing a 1,186% increase since 2016. Coverage includes benefits that many Canadians pay for out of pocket or do not receive at all, including vision care, counselling, physiotherapy, assistive devices, home care, nursing homes and pharmaceuticals.

Canadians are a compassionate people, but is it really fair for non-citizens to get health care coverage that Canadians themselves do not receive?

There has been a 376% increase in claims and a 1,100% increase in reimbursements since the Liberals took office. The Liberals spent $1.1 billion on hotels for asylum claimants and gave $1.5 billion more to provinces for refugee costs, while Canadian citizens wait in ER hallways, seniors cannot get long-term care and families cannot find a family doctor.

Canadians are compassionate, but is it really fair that non-citizens get better benefits than Canadians and law-abiding newcomers alike who have paid their taxes and paid their dues their entire lives? Only the Liberals could think that was an acceptable situation.

The Liberal Prime Minister and his Liberal MPs have created a system where Canadians wait, Canadians sacrifice, Canadians pay and everyone else gets priority. Canadians have been paying into our health care system for their entire lives. Our seniors and families all across Canada deserve to reap the rewards of their hard work by getting health care when they need it. Instead, our health care system is already overwhelmed and overcapacity, and Canadian seniors cannot get the treatment they need. It is not sustainable.

Canadians are a proud and caring people, but unvalidated asylum seekers should not be getting better benefits than Canadians do. We need immediate reform. The Liberals call that compassion, but I call it betrayal of Canadian taxpayers. This is not sustainable, it is not fair and Canadians expect more from this Liberal government.

Let us expose this bill's failures every step of the way and make sure that it works for Canadians. Conservatives will always stand up for secure borders; privacy and freedom; jail, not bail for fentanyl traffickers and violent criminals; no more drug sites next to schools; and an immigration system that is fair, sustainable and puts Canadians first. Because compassion must have limits, immigration must be lawful and sovereignty must be preserved. This country is worth fighting for. Our borders matter, our safety matters, our freedom matters, our privacy matters and Canadians matter. Conservatives will always stand up and fight for hard-working Canadians.

The Liberals continue to distract from a border crisis, a crime crisis and an immigration crisis entirely of the Liberal government's making. The bill would not fix the problem; it would not stop the flow of drugs, guns, gangs or illegal crossings that are flowing over the border at record levels. We will not let the Liberals use the bill as a back door to violate the privacy, rights and freedoms of Canadians again.

Conservatives will fight for Canadians. We will fight to restore public safety on our streets, secure our border, restore our sovereignty and put Canadians first once again.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, before I dive into my comments on Bill C-12, I want to acknowledge that I was here 11 years ago on this date, October 22, when Parliament came under attack by a lone gunman. I want to publicly thank the Parliamentary Protective Service and the RCMP for the safety they provided to all members of the House.

I also want to acknowledge that, during that same series of events, Corporal Nathan Cirillo lost his life while being part of the ceremonial guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Constable Samearn Son took a shot to the foot here in Parliament, and Constable Curtis Barrett was able to neutralize the threat. I want to acknowledge those individuals as well.

The Liberal government is asking Canadians to believe that Bill C-12 is different from Bill C-2 and is a new safeguard for the country. It is not. Behind the new title lies the same design: more intrusion, more bureaucracy and less freedom for Canadians. Conservatives will stand as the barrier between Canadians and any act that weakens their privacy or erodes their freedoms, and mistakes government control for public safety.

Bill C-12 must be fixed. When Conservatives forced the government to withdraw Bill C-2, it was more than another Liberal failure. That bill sought to give cabinet sweeping authority to collect and share potential personal data without judicial oversight. By stopping it, we reminded the government and our country that freedom in Canada is not a privilege granted by the government but a charter right, which we will not tolerate being trampled on by the Liberal government. The withdrawal of Bill C-2 proved that a determined opposition can still discipline a government that has grown careless with its authority and abuse of power.

When drafting Bill C-2, the government did not consult the Privacy Commissioner before proposing to grant itself warrant-free access to Canadians' financial and digital records. The text of Bill C-2, and now echoes of it in Bill C-12, envisioned power to retrieve information from banks and telecommunications providers as the “Minister considers necessary”. Wow. There would be no court order, no independent review and no safeguard against those kinds of abuses. A government that can reach into private accounts and call it protection is not defending citizens; it is blatant overreach. Rather than protection, it is control over them, and Canadians deserve better than governance by surveillance.

Law-abiding Canadians should not forfeit their freedoms to pay for the government's negligence at the border. Years of weak enforcement and negligent immigration management have left Canada vulnerable to the very criminal networks that the bill claims to confront. Rather than tightening entry controls, the government has turned inward, treating every citizen as a potential suspect.

Bill C-12 is not a defence of sovereignty, but an admission that the government has been unable or unwilling to control those who seek to enter illegally, so it will instead attempt to control its citizens. Until the government can provide the security and protection of our freedoms and sovereignty, Canadians will be the ones who bear the consequences of bad Liberal policies, policies they never asked for.

Years ago, Justin Trudeau said that he admired what he called the “basic dictatorship” of Communist China. Those remarks were not casual. They revealed a mindset that efficiency matters more than consent, that control is strength and that democracy is a hindrance to decisive rule. Yet again, the Liberal government is demonstrating that it still thinks like Justin Trudeau.

Bill C-12 carries the same impulse. Translated into law, it hides coercion in the language of administration. It expands government access to personal data, centralizes authority in ministerial hands and calls this intrusion public safety. The bill would empower officials to require any person to provide any information relevant to the minister's determination. These are not targeted, investigative powers; they are open-ended instruments of surveillance disguised as administration. Canadians should believe the Liberals when they say things like this. The Liberal project has been to replace accountability with administrative control, one regulation, one surveillance clause and one warrantless power at a time.

Now the government has returned with Bill C-12, revised in wording, but unchanged in purpose. Canadians have learned what that means: less privacy, more bureaucracy and another significant overreach into their lives under the banner of safety.

We will examine every line, every clause and every authority that Bill C-12 would grant. We will ensure there are no hidden regulations that would turn oversight into surveillance. We are not a passive opposition; we are now the country's safeguard in Parliament.

Canadians may have elected the Liberal government, but we will still protect them from its overreach. We will defend their right to live free from suspicion, to transact without intrusion and to remain citizens, not data points in a government database.

Bill C-12 would do nothing to correct the failures of the bail system, which releases violent offenders back into our streets. A government serious about justice would not tolerate repeat offenders moving drugs and weapons while communities bear the costs. The reality is that Canadians are living with the consequences of a system that mistakes leniency for progress.

True public safety begins with control of the border and certainty of punishment. Those who traffic fentanyl, smuggle weapons or endanger lives must face penalties appropriate to the crime and ones that will keep our citizens safe. A government that fails to enforce its own law creates conditions for chaos. A nation that cannot or will not secure its border cannot guarantee the security of its people.

On sentencing, the failures are unmistakable. Bill C-12 leaves untouched the absence of mandatory prison time for those who traffic in fentanyl, an offence that destroys Canadian families and communities every single day. It introduces no new mandatory penalties for gang members who commit crimes with illegal firearms. The government imposes restrictions on law-abiding hunters and farmers while failing to strengthen penalties for those who commit crimes with illegal firearms, which is by far the vast majority of gun-related crimes.

This inversion of justice reveals a deeper problem: the failure to connect law with consequence. Deterrence works only when punishment is certain and proportionate. Without it, every sentence becomes a suggestion and every criminal learns that Canada will forgive what it refuses to prevent.

A government that governs without moral distinction cannot preserve order. When there is virtually no distinction between crime and compliance and they are treated alike, the rule of law decays. Canadians do not ask for vengeance; they ask for accountability. They ask for a justice system that protects the innocent, restrains the violent, re-establishes moral clarity in law and provides appropriate punishments for criminals.

Even for serious violent offences, Bill C-12 would continue to permit house arrest. A criminal who has shattered lives should not complete punishment on the couch in his living room playing Xbox. The government calls this rehabilitation. In truth, it signals that consequences have been replaced by convenience.

When justice no longer imposes real cost on wrongdoing, crime becomes just another risk of the trade for those who profit from it. For those who are accountants and listening today, criminals do a cost-benefit analysis as well and have obviously determined that under the Liberal justice system, the cost is worth the potential benefit. This is so wrong.

The measure of justice is not leniency but credibility. Every time the government offers comfort to those who destroy others' lives, it destroys the authority of law and the safety of the public. If the government will not restore the proportion between crime and punishment, Parliament must.

The government's tolerance of so-called safe consumption sites near schools is a direct failure of responsibility and is abhorrent. No responsible nation permits narcotics facilities near schools and describes it as public health policy. These neighbourhoods deserve order, not policy experimentation presented as compassion by a woke government.

What the government calls harm reduction has become harm relocation, shifting the crisis from alleyways to doorsteps and from addicts to families. Leadership demands drawing lines, and the first line must always be to protect the innocent.

Canadians are watching a government that punishes the law-abiding citizen while excusing repeat offenders. It expands bureaucracy, weakens enforcement and governs through regulation instead of principle.

The Conservatives stand for something different. We stand for a nation where law protects the innocent, not the offender, where privacy belongs to the citizen, not to the government, and where power is exercised under restraint, not carelessly or impulsively. Real leadership defends the public without breaking its confidence. Real justice distinguishes guilt from innocence instead of confusing both through bureaucratic process.

Bill C-12 fails every one of those tests. It would add layers of control but no layers of accountability. It would strengthen institutions while breaking public confidence. It calls expanded surveillance “security” and judicial leniency “reform”.

As Conservatives, we will defend Canadians and ensure the government, once again, serves them rather than manages them. Canada deserves order rooted in freedom, justice grounded in truth and leadership that governs with courage instead of suspicion. That is what Conservatives will restore.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak in the House. I rise to speak to Bill C-12. I would like to remind the House that it was Conservatives who forced the Liberals to back down on Bill C-2, which would violate Canadians' individual freedoms and privacy. The Privacy Commissioner confirmed that the Liberals did not even consult with him when trying to grant themselves sweeping new powers to access Canadians' personal information from service providers, such as banks and telecoms, without a warrant. Law-abiding Canadians should not lose their liberty to pay for the failures of the Liberals on borders and immigration.

Now the Liberals have introduced Bill C-12. Conservatives will examine this bill thoroughly to ensure that the Liberals do not try to sneak in measures that breech law-abiding Canadians' privacy rights.

Canadians are generous and welcoming. We believe immigration should be fair, compassionate and firmly grounded in the rule of law. After years of drift, this bill is a chance to restore integrity at our borders, disrupt transnational crime and reduce the flow of the deadly synthetic drugs that are devastating families across the country.

However, security is not just a line on the map. It is reducing the number of ineligible or bad faith immigration applications so we can better fill vacant health care roles in urban, rural and indigenous communities with qualified health professionals, including medical radiation technologists, rural doctors and nurses. It means making sure that the many families in Edmonton Northwest, who have waited months or years for IRCC to process applications, have certainty about whether their loved ones or caregivers can come and stay in Canada. It is also about welcoming people who are ready to invest their time and resources to help grow Canada’s economy.

Security is built on trust and respect among neighbours, including indigenous partners on the Canadian border. It is today’s newcomers learning Canada’s story, joining the work of reconciliation and building strong communities. Bill C-12 can help us do all this if we get it right.

What does Bill C-12 do in a positive light? There are some things that we agree with. The Liberals have taken steps to strengthen some of the previous iterations of Bill C-2. First, it enables CBSA to access and examine goods upstream, in warehouses and transportation hubs, not just at the last gate. Officers will be able to find contraband hidden deep in supply chains. Second, it accelerates listing the precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl and other street drugs. Third, it improves information sharing among federal agencies, and affirms a coastal security role for the Canadian Coast Guard. This is critical across our vast shorelines and in the Arctic. Fourth, it clamps down on access to financial services by criminal networks that harm our communities. Finally, it helps to address the ongoing epidemic of crimes against indigenous women and girls by enabling information about sex offenders to be shared with indigenous police services.

Conservatives support many of these principles and aims because Canadians expect compassion, safety and accountability.

The toxic drug crisis demands urgency. Drug-related death and illness is a daily, unwelcome part of indigenous realities both on and off reserve and in our cities, where many indigenous people have chosen to live. This has had a devastating effect on current and future generations of indigenous people.

In Alberta, the toxic drug crisis is hitting indigenous people far harder than the general population, both on reserve and in cities. Despite first nations people being 3% to 4% of Alberta’s population, we accounted for 20% of opioid poisoning deaths between 2016 and 2022, and death rates have been reported at five to nine times higher than those of non-indigenous Albertans. When I was last chief, the ISC regional director reported the life expectancy for indigenous men in Alberta to be 58 years old, a nearly 20-year difference between Canadians.

The urban impact is acute. From January to May 2025, Alberta saw a sharp rise in deaths involving carfentanil, with 68% of opioid fatalities province-wide and 78% in Edmonton involving carfentanil. The most toxic supply is concentrated in major centres where many indigenous people live, work and seek services. Organized trafficking networks exploit remote communities and urban corridors, causing loss of life every day.

The losses compound intergenerational trauma, housing and economic insecurity, and barriers to culturally safe care, ultimately the resources and capacity for nations to build self-sufficiency. Nationally, more than 53,000 apparent opioid deaths have been recorded since 2016, with B.C., Alberta and Ontario bearing most of the burden, regions with large indigenous populations both on and off reserve and in urban neighbourhoods.

The reasons are complex. They include racism in system of care, housing insecurity, unsupplied policing services, a poisoned drug supply and many more things. However, one part is clear: organized crime and transnational crime networks are flooding us with deadly products.

Bill C-12 could help to improve collaboration with indigenous police forces, such as the Blood Tribe Police Service’s drug task force, which conducts drug-trafficking investigations and seizures with the RCMP crime reduction unit near the U.S. border. It could also help other indigenous police forces follow the lead set by Akwesasne Mohawk Police, which deals with human trafficking and other smuggling across its internal borders between New York, Quebec and Ontario. There are also opportunities to collaborate among first nations, CBSA, RCMP and the Coast Guard to build capacity, share crime data, and enforce Canada’s laws and first nation laws on land and water.

Bill C-12 could also help to disrupt human trafficking networks and prevent crimes against indigenous women and girls. RCMP-related agencies would be able to better track and share information about registered sex offenders with law enforcement partners, indigenous governments and U.S. partners, as well as facilitate disclosure of offender travel data. Strong cross-border and inter-agency sharing can help track high-risk offenders who move between jurisdictions that intersect with indigenous communities on and off reserve.

I would like to acknowledge the Tsuut’ina Nation Police Service, which has worked with U.S. police forces. Doing this work is a real example of the leadership indigenous communities can show with their police forces this past year.

I ask the government to go beyond symbolic gestures using the tools provided in Bill C-12. After the Auditor General’s scathing reports about the government’s chronic failure to meet its fiduciary obligations to indigenous peoples, here is an opportunity to improve safety through collaboration and reconciliation.

In conclusion, security and reconciliation are not opposites They reinforce each other when we walk together and grow trust. We must work with indigenous leaders on safeguards, such as clear limits on secondary use of data, strengthening community relationships and cultural safety, and indigenous-led measures, so the expanded powers do not encourage racial profiling or erode trust. Bill C-12 gives tools to make Canada safer if we work together with other communities, rural communities, rural Canadians and indigenous communities near our borders, our cities and beyond.

I encourage my colleagues to work in committee to amend this bill to better defend our borders and deepen our bonds through trust and security. Even with the Liberals' second attempt at such a bill, it still fails to address things such as bail reform. Catch and release is alive and well for those who traffic in fentanyl and firearms, as well as those who are using our porous border to victimize Canadians. Sentencing provisions have not been included as much as they should be. There are still no mandatory prison times for fentanyl traffickers. There are still no new mandatory prison times for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes, despite the Liberals' campaign against legal gun owners. House arrest is still permissible for some of the most serious offences.

Liberals continue to push for safe consumption sites near schools. At the health committee, my hon. colleague, the member for Riding Mountain, called on the Liberals to shut down fentanyl consumption sites next to children. This is a common-sense measure. However, the Liberal minister refused to rule out approving more consumption sites next to schools and day cares, despite acknowledging they are repositories for rampant fentanyl usage.

Only Conservatives will continue standing up for Canadians' individual rights and privacy, and hold the Liberals to account on the safety that is needed to protect Canadians.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me put this on the record for all members to hear very clearly. My mother passed away on October 4. She left China, a Communist regime that attacked her and her family. They fled to Hong Kong and eventually moved to Canada, where we established ourselves. I am not a Communist. Let us be clear about that. I am actually being persecuted right now by the Chinese government under the foreign interference act. They are targeting me as an evergreen target.

Let us be clear. I am not Communist, but I stand for equality, justice and what Canada has always been in my eyes, which is standing up for people and protecting them. That is what the refugee system has been, and bit by bit, the Liberal government, under Bill C-2 and now under Bill C-12, is eroding that.

I want refugee and asylum claimants to have access to due process under the IRB. Yes, there needs to be reform, but not this way.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak today in strong opposition to Bill C-12, the so-called border security and immigration act.

Let us be clear: The bill is not a new approach. It is a repackaging, a political sleight of hand. Bill C-12 is simply Bill C-2 with a fresh coat of paint. It would not fix the fundamental problems of its predecessor. It doubles down on the same anti-migrant, anti-refugee agenda that civil society, legal experts and human rights advocates have already rejected in overwhelming numbers. More than 300 civil society organizations, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to the United Church of Canada, have called for the full withdrawal of both bills.

The organizations are right, because Bill C-12 would maintain the sweeping new powers in Bill C-2 related to refugee asylum seekers, whereby the minister and cabinet, at the expense of transparency, fairness and human rights, could engage in a host of actions and would be given a host of authorities.

Let us talk about some of the most egregious elements of the bill and what it would actually do. Bill C-12 would give cabinet the authority to suspend or terminate immigration applications and cancel visas, work permits or permanent resident documents whenever it is deemed to be “in the public interest”.

However, there is no definition of “public interest”, none; there are no guidelines, no guardrails, no requirements for evidence and no judicial oversight. The government could use this clause to shut down entire classes of immigration overnight.

As reported by the CBC, for people who apply under the humanitarian compassionate stream, the processing time right now is up to 600 months. That is 50 years. For caregivers, it is nine years; for the agri-food stream, it is 19 years. For entrepreneurs, it is 35 years. This is unheard of. By the way, all this came out of the minister's transition binder.

The fear is that the government will just cancel applications en masse. That is what Bill C-12 would allow the government to do. It is stoking fear. If the government wants to say that Canada wants to shut its door to asylum seekers, then it should just say that instead of doing this under the pretense that somehow this is just and fair and respects procedural fairness.

This is not good governance. It is not just the actions that the government might take with this kind of power that we should be concerned about. It would be giving that power to future governments as well.

The bill also allows the government to block refugee hearings, to impose retroactive one-year bars on asylum claims and to strip people of their status en masse. These are powers that echo some of the most extreme anti-migrant policies we have seen south of the border.

The Prime Minister likes to claim that this is about modernization and efficiency. It is not. It is peddling a racist, discriminatory narrative with Trump leading the charge.

The bill would directly harm refugees and vulnerable migrants, people fleeing war, persecution and violence. Frankly, it is un-Canadian. Let us remember that Canada once prided itself on being a refuge for those in need. Bill C-12 sends the opposite message. It says, “If you didn’t file your paperwork within a year, we don’t want to hear your case.”

We can imagine a woman fleeing gender-based violence, arriving in Canada with nothing, struggling with trauma, with no access to legal support, just trying to survive, and then being told she is too late to seek safety. As Women’s Shelters Canada and LEAF have pointed out, arbitrary timelines such as these deny survivors the ability to seek protection when they need it most.

We should be upholding the rule of law, not concentrating power in cabinet. Bill C-12 represents a dangerous step backward. It undermines our international obligations, our charter values and our reputation as a country that welcomes those in need. The NDP stands with the hundreds of organizations across this country, civil liberties advocates, refugee lawyers, women’s groups and faith communities who are united in saying that we should withdraw Bill C-12 and Bill C-2.

How can the government put forward legislation that will knowingly endanger survivors of violence or those being persecuted for who they love? Sixty-four countries criminalize homosexuality. That is not all. Under the U.S. administration, Trump's executive orders threaten the rights, the health care and the existence of transgender people. More and more, actually, my office has heard from people who are living in fear in the United States.

Bill C-12 is also a blow to civil liberties. It authorizes unprecedented information sharing across departments without proper safeguards. It empowers border agents to access private facilities and detain goods for export. It expands the Coast Guard’s role into intelligence collection and surveillance.

Even though the government removed some of the most intrusive measures from Bill C-2, such as the warrantless access to Canadians' private data, the spirit of the bill remains the same: centralization of power and erosion of rights. The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group has warned that the bill “fast tracks...the most egregious aspects” of its predecessor. It would not fix the problems; it would accelerate them.

Let us not kid ourselves: Bill C-12 exists because Bill C-2 became too toxic to pass. Rather than listening to the hundreds of organizations demanding its withdrawal, the government chose to split the bill into two, hoping Canadians would not notice. However, we do notice. We notice that these measures come at a time when asylum claims have dropped by 34% and when the average number of daily refugee claims has plummeted from 165 to 12.

What is the crisis, exactly, that the government is responding to? This is not about border security; it is about politics. It is about appeasing a Trump-style, anti-immigrant, anti-migrant narrative that is creeping into our political discourse. There is a dangerous pattern emerging under the current government, an obsession with centralizing authority and sidestepping accountability. It is carrying out the Conservatives' agenda but with a new Liberal leader dressed in red. Bill C-12 would expand cabinet's ability to rule by order. It would give ministers unilateral power to cancel applications, suspend rights and make regulations without parliamentary oversight. This is not the Canadian way. Our immigration and refugee system should be based on clear laws, fair processes and independent decision-making, not on who happens to sit in cabinet.

Let us recognize who would bear the brunt of these policies: women fleeing violence, LGBTQ2+ refugees seeking safety, migrant workers exploited in precarious jobs and indigenous people in border communities, who already face racial profiling. Bill C-12 would deepen these inequalities instead of addressing them.

Let us make sure we do this right. When we talk about immigration, we are talking about people: families, workers and children who come here seeking safety and a better life. We should be strengthening our refugee system and not weakening it. The Liberals put women and girls at risk of being deported back into danger. The one-year bar is a copycat of the U.S. refugee determination system. Get this: In the U.S., the one-year timeline starts at their most recent entry into the United States. Canada's proposal is actually worse; it starts at the beginning, the first time they visit Canada. This means that if someone visited Canada some years ago as a child and they are now being persecuted, they will not be able to apply for asylum here in Canada, and that is wrong.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as the member of Parliament for Windsor West to speak to Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.

Let us begin with how we got here. The original version, Bill C-2, was deeply flawed. It would have given the government warrantless access to Canadians' financial data and unchecked powers to manipulate platforms. It would even have allowed Canada Post to open private letters without a warrant. All of this was proposed without consulting the Privacy Commissioner, of all people. Conservatives and Canadians said it was enough, so our Liberal friends backed down.

Now we have Bill C-12. It is more focused, yes, but it still misses the mark, especially when it comes to public safety, border integrity, and fentanyl and meth trafficking.

Windsor is Canada's busiest border crossing, handling over half a billion dollars in trade every single day, yet our frontline agencies there are stretched thin, underfunded, understaffed and overwhelmed. When President Trump raised concerns earlier this year about the northern border, Ottawa scrambled. The government spent $5.3 million leasing Black Hawk helicopters and flew 68 patrol missions in just six weeks. That program has ended, by the way. The RCMP called it rapid response capability, but only one interdiction came out of all that effort. That is not enforcement; it is border security theatre.

Senator Sandra Pupatello, who hails from Windsor, recently raised the alarm about illegal crossings by kayaks and motorboats in southwestern Ontario. She is absolutely right that if it floats, it can be used to smuggle guns, meth, fentanyl and cash. It is all moving across the river, yet the federal government continues to ignore the voices of those on the ground who are sounding the alarm.

Canada's failure to act has had consequences far beyond our borders. After an investigation done by W5, a report aired this past week. According to W5, a young man named Aiden Sagala died in New Zealand in 2023, after unknowingly drinking liquid meth disguised as beer, which was exported from right here in Canada. He was just 21 years old. Authorities in New Zealand seized 29,000 cans shipped from Toronto. Did we do anything about it? Sadly, no. There were no charges, no suspects and no answers. The RCMP has remained silent. That is not just negligence; it is a public safety failure.

Since 2016, 49,000 Canadians have died from opioid overdoses, and I have been to a few funerals myself. Seventy-nine per cent of those deaths involved fentanyl, yet Bill C-12 does not include mandatory minimum sentences for fentanyl or meth traffickers or for gang members using firearms. That is not progress. That is abdication of the government's responsibility to Canadian citizens.

In British Columbia, labs are producing kilograms of fentanyl every week. These criminals are profiting from addiction and misery. Canada has become a low-risk, high-reward destination for traffickers, and not just for drugs. We have also become a haven for money laundering, with billions flowing through shell companies, real estate and even casinos. TD got fined last year by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for these kinds of activities. This is not just a health crisis but a national security emergency.

Our bail system is broken. Known traffickers and repeat violent offenders are walking free, sometimes the very same day they are arrested. In Windsor and across Ontario, auto theft is up 167%, extortion is up 350%, and firearms violence is up 97%. Roughly 90% of the guns that are used in crimes are smuggled across our borders. There are no answers to that either. What is not up, one might ask? Resources, helicopter patrol hours, Coast Guard funding and border surveillance equipment are not up. We are asking our officers to do more with less while criminals operate with complete impunity.

Windsor is not just the front line of Canada's economy; it is now the front line of the drug crisis and the fight to secure our borders. If the government cannot track lethal drugs hidden in beverage cans that are exported overseas where innocent people are dying, how can we trust it to protect our own communities?

We are not just risking lives; we are also risking our relationship with other nations, and our reputation as a reliable security partner is also being questioned. The question we need to ask ourselves is this: What message are we sending to our allies, our citizens and the brave officers who are out there? Whether they are from CBSA, the RCMP or municipal or provincial police services, what are they expecting of us, and how are we helping them to stay safe?

Conservatives support sending the bill to committee. There are elements worth exploring, but we will be pushing for serious amendments to ensure that law-abiding Canadians are protected, criminals are held accountable and border communities like Windsor are no longer left behind. Canada's border is not just a line on the map; it is a front line in crisis, and it is time we started treating it that way, with urgency, investment and real leadership.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, a piece of legislation the Liberals have hastily introduced in the wake of Conservative opposition to their previous omnibus bill, Bill C-2.

Before addressing Bill C-12 directly, it is essential to reflect on the deeply flawed Bill C-2. This omnibus bill, which sprawls across 140 pages and would amend over a dozen pieces of legislation, was a dangerous attempt by the Liberals to consolidate sweeping powers that would trample on Canadians' fundamental rights and freedoms. The bill was so broad and so intrusive that it sparked serious concern not only from Conservatives, but from legal experts, privacy advocates, opposition parties and of course everyday Canadians. At my office, we received numerous calls and have had numerous correspondence with constituents who are deeply concerned with the provisions of Bill C-2, which I will detail later in my speech.

The Conservatives played a pivotal role in pushing the government back from its original overreach in Bill C-2. Part 4 of Bill C-2, for example, would have allowed Canada Post to open any mail without a warrant, which is a flagrant violation of privacy in a country that prides itself on liberal democratic values. Thankfully, this part has been stripped from Bill C-12, though it is still in Bill C-2, which remains before Parliament.

Similarly, Bill C-2 included sweeping warrantless powers for the government to demand personal data from electronic service providers, banks and telecommunications companies, which was done under parts 14, 15 and 16. These powers would have allowed the government to collect detailed location and subscriber information without judicial oversight, disregarding basic principles of privacy and due process. The Privacy Commissioner himself confirmed that the government had failed to consult him before pushing these alarming measures, which is a stark reminder of how little regard the Liberals have for Canadians' privacy rights.

The clauses within Bill C-2 were sharply criticized for threatening personal privacy and potentially breaching the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including section 15, the right to be treated equally under the law. This is according to an analysis by the Library of Parliament.

Matt Hatfield, the executive director of the advocacy group OpenMedia, said, per The Globe and Mail:

...the proposal could compel a large range of electronic service providers, including social media platforms, e-mail and messaging services, gaming platforms, telecoms and cloud storage companies, to disclose information about their subscribers including the province and local area where they use their services without judicial oversight.

This is not the Canada that Canadians expect. Law-abiding citizens deserve privacy protections, not to be treated as collateral damage in a government's quest to expand its control.

Again, the Conservatives have been proud to stand firm and force the government to remove these unjustified intrusions from Bill C-12. That is the duty of a principled opposition: to safeguard Canadians' freedoms and hold the government accountable.

While Bill C-12 is an improvement and is something that the Conservatives plan to support and send to committee for further study, it does remain incomplete. One glaring failure of Bill C-12 is that the Liberal government still refuses to take seriously the fentanyl crisis, a crisis ravaging Canadian families, devastating communities and destroying lives across this country.

Let me remind the House of the Prime Minister's own words earlier this year, when he dismissed the fentanyl crisis as merely a “challenge” in Canada, while calling it a “crisis” in the United States. Such minimization is not only out of touch, but deeply irresponsible.

Health Canada reports that fentanyl was involved in 79% of opioid-related deaths in the first half of 2024, a staggering increase over previous years. Despite this crisis, the Liberals continue to push for drug consumption sites near schools. At the health committee, the Conservatives called for the Liberals to shut down fentanyl consumption sites next to children, but the health minister refused to rule out approving more of these consumption sites next to schools and day cares.

Canadian police have uncovered and dismantled superlabs manufacturing kilograms of this lethal drug within our borders, fuelling a national emergency that the government continues to downplay. Bill C-12 fails to implement mandatory minimum sentencing for fentanyl traffickers, the very criminals who are poisoning our streets and fuelling the opioid epidemic. The Liberals continue to resist measures that would ensure traffickers face serious consequences for flooding our streets with this extremely lethal poison.

The Liberal government claims to be tough on crime. We have heard the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime say this very thing, yet people of my riding of Vaughan-Woodbridge and across this country see it very differently. They see a much different reality, one marked by rising shootings, brazen bank robberies and increasing violent crime.

The Liberals continue to refuse to close the loopholes that allow catch-and-release bail for fentanyl dealers and firearms traffickers, loopholes that criminal gangs exploit to terrorize our communities. The Liberal government has had ample opportunity to address the seriousness of crime affecting our country. Since they have taken power, violent crime is up 50% and violent firearms offences are up 116%, increasing for nine straight years. Auto theft, which is a huge issue in Vaughan, is up 46% nationally. Everyone in my community knows someone who knows someone who has had their vehicle either stolen or attempted to be stolen. Gang related homicides are also up 78%.

The Conservatives unequivocally believe that trafficking lethal fentanyl is the moral equivalent of murder. That is why we demand mandatory, harsh prison sentences for those who manufacture, import, export and traffic fentanyl. Those who profit from addiction must face swift and serious consequences. The government's unwillingness to adopt these common-sense measures sends a clear message: Criminals can operate with impunity while Canadians suffer.

The failures do not end there. The Liberals also refuse to acknowledge their abject failure on border security, another critical element that Bill C-12 purportedly aims to address. Earlier this year, the Canada Border Services Agency revealed that 600 foreign criminals were scheduled for deportation, but now they have gone missing in custody. This is completely unacceptable and represents a grave threat to public safety.

Canada's border must be secure to protect Canadians from criminals and illegal activities, including fentanyl trafficking and gun smuggling. Canadians deserve better from their government, one that respects their privacy, does not overreach with warrantless surveillance powers and is serious about fighting fentanyl by imposing real consequences on traffickers. Canadians deserve a government that protects our borders, enforces immigration laws fairly and firmly and supports law enforcement in combatting organized crime, and a government that does not leave foreign criminals at large in our communities.

Canadians are looking to this House for leadership, not partisanship, on critical issues like public safety and immigration. While we have serious concerns about how the government first approached matters in Bill C-2, we also acknowledge that Bill C-12 represents a step in the right direction. This very step came because Canadians raised their voices and the Conservatives did our job: We were listening, we pushed back and we demanded better on behalf of the citizens of this country.

Our work here is not done. We will support moving Bill C-12 to committee, where it will be scrutinized carefully, and we will work to improve it even further.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be representing the people of Beauce today once again in the House.

Today, we are debating a bill that goes to the very heart of our country: our ability to welcome, integrate and protect those who choose to come to Canada. The Liberal government's Bill C‑12 is an improvement over Bill C‑2. We must acknowledge this.

Bill C‑12 aims to modernize the immigration system. It claims to make the process more transparent and to improve the planning of the long-term immigration levels in order to meet Canada's economic needs. In reality, this bill lacks clear direction. It is weak and has lax security measures. Most importantly, it is disconnected from the reality on the ground. We need to listen to Canadians. Paying attention to the reality on the ground should be a priority for everyone, but especially this Liberal government.

For years now, the Liberals have been promising to reform the immigration system. During these years, the system has been crumbling, backlogs have been piling up, processes have gotten increasingly complex and the provinces have been left to fend for themselves to deal with the consequences of the decisions made by the Liberals in Ottawa.

While the government keeps coming out with more and more announcements and slogans, communities are feeling the direct pressure of these poorly planned policies. Canadians, the people of Beauce, families and business owners are all saying the same thing: The Liberal government has lost control.

My colleague will be pleased to hear me say that Roxham Road became the symbol of this loss of control. It was wide open. Tens of thousands of people entered Canada illegally in plain sight. Everyone saw that. There was no security and no proper screening. What did the government do? It did absolutely nothing. It allowed things to get worse, weakening our immigration system and eroding public trust.

Let us be clear, there is a difference between legitimate refugees fleeing war and persecution and illegal migrants circumventing the law. The situation is also very different when it comes to economic workers, who are desperately needed in certain regions of Canada. The Liberal government created and maintained this confusion.

Meanwhile, the consequences are very real: We have a housing shortage, skyrocketing rents and overburdened public services. This is not ideology; it is a simple mathematical reality. When hundreds of thousands of people arrive without a plan to accommodate them and without enough housing, rents go up. It is simple math. That is fundamental. It is simple. Everyone saw it.

Bill C-12 claims to strengthen the security and integrity of the system, but once again, it is superficial. There need to be more resources, fewer announcements and some decisive action. The government needs to implement effective mechanisms to deport criminals and improve border surveillance.

While the government dwells on processes, criminals are getting organized. Drug traffickers, arms smugglers and groups associated with cartels are taking advantage of these government loopholes. As we said earlier, the border is really porous. Our borders have become a vulnerable point.

Canada needs a clear plan, well-monitored borders and rigorous screening at entry and exit points. Our border officers and police officers need more support. Most importantly, there needs to be the political will to act. Bill C‑12 is weak on crime, weak on gangs and too weak to address what is actually happening on the ground. Again, I am talking about the reality on the ground.

Beyond immigration, another crucial issue for the safety of Canadians is the reform of the bail system. Too often, individuals accused of serious crimes are being released without sufficient safeguards, which endangers the public and undermines confidence in our justice system.

The Liberal government has failed to take decisive action on this issue, favouring measures that prioritize the rights of alleged offenders over the safety of victims and citizens.

It is essential that Bill C-12 or any other reform include more rigorous mechanisms for denying bail to individuals who pose a real risk to society. We must strengthen the role of judges so that they have the tools they need to protect Canadians, taking into account not only the presumption of innocence, but also the paramount importance of public safety.

Furthermore, protecting the fundamental rights of Canadians must remain an unwavering priority in any legislative reform. A responsible government must be able to rigorously defend these rights, while ensuring social peace and the rule of law. This is how Canada will maintain its status as a free and orderly society.

A poorly monitored border is an open door to illegal activities such as arms and drug trafficking or illegal immigration. Our border officers do an excellent job, but they simply lack resources. Again, the government is only making announcements. It is not taking action.

It is important to remember that some regions, like Beauce, share a direct border with the United States, in my case, with the state of Maine. This geographic reality demands greater vigilance. Bill C-12 does not propose any measures to better protect these sensitive areas. It completely ignores the unique challenges specific to border regions. This is a serious flaw in an already fragile system. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that protects them, takes action and stands up for the integrity of our country. The safety of Canadians must always come first. We have seen the consequences when that is not the case: exploitation, fraud, crime. A responsible government does not throw open its doors without ensuring that those who enter share our values, respect our laws and contribute to our society.

Demanding rigour does not mean one is against immigration. We support a system that is fair, orderly and respected. The Conservative Party believes that we can welcome people with compassion, but also with caution and judiciousness. It is a matter of respect for Canadians and for newcomers.

Meanwhile, the Liberals are inflating immigration thresholds without taking the reality on the ground into account. The housing crisis is getting worse. Inflation is driving up housing prices. Millions of Canadians, including people in Beauce, are struggling to find housing. Rents are skyrocketing. Mortgages are drifting out of reach. There is no coordination with cities or provinces to adapt infrastructure, hospitals, schools or housing. That is irresponsible. In many regions, including Beauce, businesses are desperately looking for skilled workers. The current federal system is failing employers. They have to navigate a complicated and lengthy bureaucratic maze while highly skilled foreign workers wait in limbo.

Bill C‑12 is a step in the right direction, but it does not solve anything. It does not align immigration with actual economic needs. It overlooks rural and industrial regions. It does not support businesses, families or local growth.

Another essential element is that the provinces have been excluded from the planning. There is no coordination, no serious dialogue. However, they are the ones that must provide education, health care and housing services. As a result, schools are overwhelmed, hospitals are overflowing and there is not enough housing. Ottawa makes all the decisions but then always blames everybody else.

The Conservative Party is proposing a different path, an approach based on collaboration, listening, and shared responsibility. Provinces and municipalities have to have a say, because they are close to the reality and know their limitations. Immigration cannot be simply a matter of quotas. It also needs to take integration, social cohesion and shared values into account. That is what we, as Conservatives, promise to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, a border is not just a line on a map. It is a symbol of our security, our sovereignty and our ability to make our own decisions.

For 10 years, the federal government has been turning a blind eye while stolen vehicles leave our ports, fentanyl crosses our borders and Quebec alone bears the brunt of unprecedented migratory pressure.

Today Ottawa is taking action, but only because it no longer has a choice. During all that time, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for better border control and increased efforts to combat organized crime and drug trafficking.

To us and the Government of Quebec, Bill C-12 is a step in the right direction. However, let us be clear: Our support is not a carte blanche endorsement.

Before praising the bill, we must also recognize its limitations. This bill incorporates several measures already included in Bill C-2, which is intended to combat transnational organized crime. Rather than piling up more legislation, the government would do better to enforce existing laws.

I would like to remind the House that the government's border security promises are not new. On April 10, 2025, in the midst of the election campaign, the Liberal leader, the Prime Minister that is, proudly announced in Brampton that his government would hire 1,000 RCMP officers and another 1,000 CBSA officers in order to curb the flow of migrants and combat fentanyl trafficking.

Six months later, on October 17, the same Prime Minister repeated the same announcement word for word, this time presenting it as a bold new measure. The same numbers, the same promise, the same speech—in short, nothing new at all.

If anyone is looking for concrete proof of the disparity between words and actions, they need only think of Roxham Road, a symbol of the Liberals' failure to control our borders. Between 2017 and 2023, more than 150,000 people crossed this border irregularly. In 2022 alone, there were nearly 40,000 crossings, more than all previous years combined. Of these irregular entries, nearly 90% were in Quebec. Quebec therefore bore the human, logistical and financial burden of this situation alone, spending more than $400 million on accommodation, services and support. Rather than taking action, Ottawa allowed the issue to fester, repeating that nothing could be done, until the pressure became untenable.

When the Bloc Québécois asked to renegotiate the safe third country agreement to close Roxham Road, the government responded with bureaucratic excuses. As a result, there have been six years of neglect and Quebec was left to fend for itself.

This makeshift system where Quebec's role is to pay up while Ottawa communicates is a shining example of the federal government's denial. A border left open for six years is no border. It is an abdication of responsibility.

Ottawa likes to talk about a strong Canada. However, a strong country is not built on press releases. It is built with staff, equipment and commitment.

Let us talk about staff. The customs union estimates that the Canada Border Services Agency currently needs another 2,000 to 3,000 officers to properly fulfill its mandate. The government keeps making announcements, but on the ground, positions remain vacant. Inspections are not being conducted at ports, and border regions are still awaiting reinforcements.

The government even promised to review the pension plans of frontline officers in recognition of the fact that their jobs are so difficult, but once again, there was no meaningful follow-up. Officers are still waiting for concrete action, not press releases.

The government may be proud of its promises, but what it is saying in press conferences does not match reality. Trust is built on action, not on mere intentions.

The Bloc Québécois, like the customs union, is asking that Ottawa authorize CBSA officers to patrol between border crossings. We are not talking about replacing the RCMP, but rather empowering CBSA officers to intervene on the ground in places where trafficking and illegal border crossings occur. Nothing is preventing the government from doing so, apart from its own inaction.

When containers filled with stolen vehicles leave our ports without undergoing any inspection, this is not an administrative detail. It is a loss of sovereignty.

The border is also a matter of economic sovereignty. When imported products are brought into the country in violation of trade rules, our producers and local businesses pay the price. The Bloc Québécois will support any measure that protects Quebec's security and economy.

As the Bloc Québécois's science and innovation critic, I would also like to address the issue of asylum claims filed by some international students. For months now, universities have been sounding the alarm about the worrisome issue of fake students who enter Canada on a student visa, attend no classes and make an asylum claim after one year. These cases of fraud undermine the credibility of our university system and deny genuine talent a place at these institutions. In a system that limits the number of international students, every spot matters.

The most troubling thing about this is the way Ottawa has reacted. Instead of taking responsibility, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is asking universities to police foreign students and to verify every student's attendance record and legitimacy. It seems to expect deans to act as immigration officers. Meanwhile, the same department is refusing to provide universities with data on individuals who filed a refugee claim after getting a study permit. In other words, Ottawa is asking universities to solve a problem without giving them the necessary information to do that. This inconsistency is irresponsible. The Bloc Québécois will not allow universities to become an administrative appendage of a department that is not doing its job. We are pleased that the bill seeks to close this loophole, but a lot more needs to be done to make Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada genuinely transparent and accountable.

This bureaucratic inconsistency is also clear from the way Ottawa administers the safe third country agreement. For too long, this agreement allowed anyone who entered irregularly outside an official point of entry to file an asylum claim if they were not intercepted within 14 days. This provision encouraged clandestine and sometimes hazardous crossings. The government partially closed this loophole, but it did so without negotiating with Washington, preferring a unilateral solution instead. Now, anyone intercepted after 14 days will be returned to their country of origin, unless it is a moratorium country. This is progress, but it is still incomplete.

The Bloc Québécois will be monitoring the impact of this reform to ensure it does not create any new inconsistencies. We will also be scrutinizing the provisions that give new powers to the federal immigration minister, particularly the proposed addition to section 87 that would allow the minister to suspend, cancel or refuse to process visas, electronic travel authorizations or study permits. There is a legitimate objective for that, namely to combat fraud.

However, these powers must be circumscribed, especially if they impact permanent residents selected by Quebec. If there are no guardrails on this power, it could even invalidate decisions made under the Quebec experience program or other federal-provincial agreements. This would set a momentous precedent.

For years, Quebec has accepted a disproportionate number of asylum seekers, significantly in excess of its intake capacity. This situation has become untenable. The Bloc Québécois will ensure that Quebec's voice is heard, so that a fairer redistribution can be put in place and refugees can be accommodated in a way that respects Quebec's capacity and jurisdiction.

At committee, we will propose that the public safety minister be required to table a public report each year on the resources and operations of the CBSA. Quebeckers have the right to know whether their border is really being protected. This debate highlights a broader issue. When Ottawa centralizes, Quebec waits. When Ottawa promises, Quebec must be patient. When Ottawa fails, it is Quebec that pays the price.

To summarize, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-12 at second reading, but let us be clear: Our support is not a free pass.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-12, legislation the Liberal government claims will strengthen our borders and protect our immigration system, but when examined closely, this bill is not about proactive security, it is about political damage control.

Bill C-12 is not a fresh start. It is a rebranded version of Bill C-2, legislation the government withdrew after Canadians were outraged by its sweeping powers to access personal digital data without a warrant. Bill C-2 would have allowed authorities to obtain Canadians' communications from phone companies, dating apps and even mental health platforms, with no judge, no oversight and no accountability. Conservatives said no. We believe in strong border security and effective enforcement, but never at the expense of Canadians' fundamental freedoms. Security and privacy are not competing objectives. In a democracy, they must coexist.

The government removed the most invasive powers from Bill C-2 only because it was exposed, not because it understood the threat to Canadians' rights. The public safety minister has openly stated that those powers are still being pursued. The RCMP commissioner confirmed they are working with the minister to bring them back. Canadians' privacy has not been safeguarded, as this has merely been postponed. We must remain vigilant because the government has shown a willingness to reintroduce these measures quietly when public attention shifts.

While seeking new powers, the government has failed to deliver on basic enforcement. It promised to hire 1,000 new CBSA officers. That promise was broken. At major border crossings, such as the Pacific Highway and Douglas port near Vancouver, officers are stretched thin, trying to stop sophisticated smuggling operations with inadequate staffing and outdated resources. Organized crime is exploiting these enforcement gaps right now, yet Bill C-12 contains no staffing commitments, no new resources and no operational enhancements. lt does not address the real challenges facing our border agents.

Bill C-12 amends 11 acts. Some of these measures are constructive and will assist law enforcement, for example, allowing CBSA to use private export facilities for inspections, enabling the Minister of Health to quickly ban precursor chemicals used to manufacture fentanyl, allowing the Canadian Coast Guard to share security information with law enforcement and tightening safe third country rules so that illegal border crossers may be returned to the United States within 14 days if they do not qualify for asylum. These are constructive elements. Conservatives support targeted reforms that improve enforcement and close gaps in coordination.

However, these improvements are overshadowed by sweeping new powers the bill grants to the minister, powers that lack clear safeguards, transparency or due process. Bill C-12 would allow the minister to unilaterally cancel immigration documents based on allegations of fraud or criminality without defined criteria or independent oversight. Canadians expect fairness, transparency and accountability, not political discretion that could undermine the integrity of our immigration system.

In Richmond Centre—Marpole, residents are deeply concerned about the pressures on housing, health care and public safety. They support legal immigration and strong enforcement, not a system where ministerial power replaces due process.

More than 50,000 Canadians have died from opioid toxicity since 2016, and nearly 80% of those deaths involved fentanyl. Police have dismantled superlabs in Langley, Falkland and Richmond capable of producing kilograms of fentanyl every week. Just two milligrams, a few grains of salt, can kill a person. This is not recreational drug use. It is deliberate mass poisoning.

Conservatives believe that, if someone is manufacturing or trafficking fentanyl in lethal quantities, they are knowingly causing death and should face a mandatory life sentence. We have tabled targeted proposals to ensure major traffickers, importers and producers face real prison time, yet Bill C-12 is silent. There would be new offences, no new mandatory penalties and no enhanced enforcement measures for cross-border traffickers. While Canadians are losing their loved ones every day, the government refuses to act. We cannot accept a justice system that allows fentanyl traffickers to receive house arrest or suspended sentences. Conservatives will continue to fight for real consequences to protect Canadians and save lives.

To be effective, Bill C-12 must be strengthened. Conservatives are calling for mandatory life sentences for major fentanyl traffickers, real resources and staffing for CBSA to enforce our laws, strong privacy protections with independent judicial oversight and mandatory public reporting for any future orders affecting privacy or mobility rights. Canadians deserve legislation that delivers security with transparency and accountability, not legislation written to manage headlines.

Bill C-12 reflects a pattern we have seen repeatedly from the government, which is to introduce sweeping and vague legislation, face public push-back, retreat temporarily and then attempt to reintroduce the same measures under a different name. That is not leadership. It is governance by reaction, not reflection. Canadians expect responsible, balanced legislation that protects both public safety and constitutional freedoms. Conservatives reject the government's approach of overreach first and correction later. We believe law must be grounded in principle, built through consultation, and transparent in application.

Conservatives believe in strong borders, safe communities and an immigration system that is both fair and firm, one that welcomes those who follow the rules and holds accountable those who do not. Bill C-12 may have removed the most extreme intrusions, but it still reflects the same pattern: overreach, retreat and repackaging. The bill would fail to address the fentanyl crisis, would fail to fix enforcement gaps and would fail to protect Canadians' privacy rights.

We will continue to stand up for the safety and freedoms of Canadians, defend the integrity of our immigration system and fight the scourge of fentanyl with the seriousness it demands. Canada can have security without surveillance and compassion without chaos. That is balance and that is common sense. That is what Conservatives would deliver.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk about this piece of legislation, we should put a couple of things into context.

The first thing I would put into context is that this is another bill the Liberals are trying to bring forward to allegedly do something to deal with the massive surge in crime that has gone on in Canada over the last 10 years. It is a remarkable turnaround. I still recall when former minister of justice Arif Virani sat in this chamber. He would get up in question period and say we were trying to scare Canadians and were engaging in typical Conservative fear on the issue of crime when we raised the staggering increase in crime and violent crime. That was his answer. Now it seems like the Liberals have had their reckoning and realized that over the last 10 years, due to their policies, we have had a massive surge in crime.

If members do not want to take my word for it, I have a few statistics that I would like to go through so that Canadians can understand just how bad crime has gotten. in this country under the Liberal government. Total violent crime is up 49.84%. Let us round that up to 50%. There has been a 50% increase in violent crime after a decade of the Liberals running the country. Homicide is up 28%. Gang-related homicide is up 78%. Sexual assault is up 74%. Extortion is up 357%. Let that sink in for a moment. A decade ago, we had a certain amount of extortion and it is now up 357%. We know the terrible things that happen when people are trafficking in persons. That is up 83%. All of this has happened over the last decade with the Liberals running the country.

They introduced a massive omnibus bill, Bill C-2. To get to Bill C-12, we have to talk a little about Bill C-2. I am old enough to remember when the Liberals used to say it was a terrible thing to introduce omnibus pieces of legislation, and they would never do such things, but here we are. Bill C-2 was going to amend 15 statutes and had 120 pages of technical statutory changes. As Conservatives, we said, “That is a no go.” In fact, it is due to Conservative pressure, because of a number of things that were included in Bill C-2, that we ended up here with Bill C-12, which actually has some things that we think might do some good. I know it is a strange thing to say, but as they often say, a broken clock is right twice a day, so they may have gotten a couple of things right in Bill C-12.

To go back to Bill C-2, I really want to talk about some very deeply troubling things that were included in that piece of legislation. It shows the mindset of the Liberals, who have turned around on some of these issues.

One of these is how Canada Post would be able to search mail. In and of itself, it is problematic, but the statutory change the Liberals were trying to bring in said this could happen with reasonable suspicion. Bill C-2 reads, “reasonable grounds to suspect”. That is the lowest threshold in law that could be used to do this. Normally, to be able to search something, we need the much higher standard of “reasonable grounds to believe”. The Liberals were putting in the very lowest standard possible of reasonable suspicion.

Because this was about the corporation, it would mean that any employee of the corporation who had a reasonable suspicion could be opening mail. It is a particularly troubling standard that they were trying to put into the bill. It has been through hard work from the Conservatives, who said “absolutely not”, that those parts of the legislation remain in Bill C-2 and are not included in Bill C-12.

It is also very interesting to note what is not included in any of these pieces of legislation which is trying to deal with the issue of crime that the Liberals are belatedly waking up to. For example, there is nothing in Bill C-12 that would deal with the issues of fentanyl trafficking and sentencing for fentanyl traffickers. Something like that could have been incorporated into it to crack down on fentanyl trafficking. We believe it needs to be done, but it is not in there.

The Liberals also did not take the time to eliminate, for example, house arrest for drive-by shootings, which is still okay. They put together a massive omnibus piece of legislation, in part to deal with crime, but they left things like that out of it. It is available, so somebody engaging in a drive-by shooting is eligible for house arrest.

If we go back to the statistics I talked about, gang-related homicide is up 78%. Generally speaking, the kinds of people who are engaging in drive-by shootings are people in gangs trying to cause homicides. The Liberals had so much opportunity to do better, and they failed on that.

Another thing they failed to do is make it crystal clear that so-called safe consumption sites should not be allowed anywhere near schools. We know the effects of these safe consumption sites. They become a blight in a neighbourhood, and having them near schools and children is not the kind of thing we want. Again, this was a simple place for the Liberals to have made that change, and they chose not to.

Let us quickly switch and talk a bit about some of the changes to immigration. I was around when Stephen Harper was prime minister and changes were made to the asylum system, and we brought asylum claims down to about 10,000. It sounds like a lot, but it is 10,000. If we look at where things are now, again, after a decade of these Liberals and their absolute and utter mismanagement of the immigration system, asylum claims are now at a whopping 296,000. Think about that. A decade ago, they were at 10,000, and now they are at 296,000. I think the estimate to process these 296,000 cases in the backlog is 25 years. Let that sink in. That is the backlog on asylum claims that has been created by the Liberals' absolute mismanagement of the immigration system.

What we are now hearing from some experts is that the proposed changes would not fix the broken system. This problem would be transferred to the courts, because they have decided they cannot fix it. The fix is not to figure out a way to quickly process the backlog, because we know so many of these claims are bogus asylum claims. In fact, one of the things we did under Prime Minister Harper was try to eliminate bogus asylum claims from certain countries by imposing visa requirements. One of the first things the Liberals did was eliminate those visa requirements. Surprise, surprise, we are up to 296,000.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced the bill to provide us with the tools we need to curb abuse and to process more quickly so case loads and costs can go down.

The member knows, and the party opposite knows, we published the charter statement on Bill C-2. The member knows that the provisions in the current Bill C-12 with respect to immigration are identical to those in Bill C-2. The immigration measures are the same.

Again, on this side of the House, we know we have institutions we need to protect. We respect our institutions, and we respect the rule of law.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is once again an honour to rise on behalf of the resilient residents of Oshawa. Those are the residents who I believe are among some of the hardest-working Canadians in the country, but they are concerned about their safety. They are concerned about their safety when they are in their neighbourhoods and walking downtown, and they are concerned about border safety and the drugs that are freely flowing in our country, not just through the border, but from the free drugs people are getting from the government, which are being resold. We will talk about that later.

Canadians have heard a lot of big promises from the Liberal government about keeping our country safe, protecting our borders and restoring confidence in our immigration system. There are all of these wonderful things, yet after 10 years of Liberal government, both our borders and our public safety have rarely been in a worse place.

The legislation before us today is Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, which the Liberals claim would fix the very problems they created. I am reminded of something I learned in my education, and that is something called narcissism. I bring this up because narcissists engage in what clinicians call “crisis creation” or “drama seeking”, which is to manufacture a situation. In my opinion, the Liberals have created the situations that allow them to dominate, control and be admired for saving others. They are keeping Canadians in constant trauma and creating, therefore, a trauma bond. The Liberal government constantly disappoints and then claims it is going to be the hero we can trust to come in to save the day from a crisis it created.

The bill is being sold as a solution, but Canadians have learned that, with this government, the title rarely matches the contents. Bill C-12 is a sequel to Bill C-2. Thankfully, Conservatives looked closer, and what we found were some sweeping data collection powers, warrantless search authorities and new threats to Canadian privacy. Therefore, through pressure, thankfully the Liberals have been forced to take Bill C-2 apart. Now we are left with Bill C-12, a slightly repackaged Bill C-2, but with many of the same problems.

In my job as an educational therapist for 20 years, we talked about breakdown points, and sometimes it seems very negative to talk about breakdown points when we are talking about families, children with learning disabilities and things like that, but in this scenario, I think breakdown points are very important because we cannot come to a conclusion or a solution unless we discover what the breakdown points are, so let us talk about that.

Canada's asylum system, once the envy of the world, is now buckling under the weight of Liberal mismanagement. A decade ago, the backlog was under 10,000 cases. Today, it is over a quarter of a million and growing. Legitimate refugees wait years while bogus claims clog the system. Failed claimants appeal for years, and more and more often remain in Canada indefinitely, collecting benefits that many Canadians themselves do not receive, so this is not compassion. This is the chaos creation I was speaking about.

It started when the government decided it was going to play politics with our borders. In 2017, Justin Trudeau's #WelcomeToCanada tweet encouraged tens of thousands of people to cross illegally from the United States to claim asylum, many after already having been rejected in that safe, democratic country. Since then, more than 100,000 people have entered Canada illegally. Most are still waiting in the system, many housed at taxpayers' expense, while the truly vulnerable, those fleeing real persecution, are left behind.

This is not fairness. It is, rather, failure.

A broken asylum system does not just strain compassion. It undermines public safety. We have seen the consequences at our borders and on our streets. Under the government, criminals slated for deportation have disappeared, illegal guns continue to cross our borders and the fentanyl crisis is devastating communities across the country, including in my own community of Oshawa. If we were to walk through downtown Oshawa, we would see the toll this crisis has taken: lives lost, families shattered, and neighbourhoods struggling under the weight of addiction and fear.

Our first responders, outreach workers and volunteers are doing their best, but they are overwhelmed. According to Health Canada, more than 49,000 Canadians have died from apparent opioid toxicity since 2016, an entire community worth of lives. From January to June 2024 alone, 79% of accidental opioid deaths involve fentanyl, nearly double the proportion from 2016. Six months ago, my nephew, Cody Kirkland, died from an accidental overdose. Fentanyl and its precursors are the reason for that.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish the entire House a very happy Trafalgar Day, a day on which we remember the sacrifice and brave leadership of Admiral Horatio Nelson, who gave his life in defence against Bonapartist tyranny. In addition, I would be remiss if I did not mention that today the Royal Canadian Navy is celebrating Niobe Day; 115 years ago today marked the first day of a Canadian warship, the HMCS Niobe.

It is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. We are discussing the bill here today instead of Liberal Bill C-2, because Bill C-2 was met with considerable opposition from members of the House and from civil society groups that made it clear that the legislation would not be able to move forward without significant revisions.

Therefore, today we are debating Bill C-12. Despite the sweeping powers the government proposed in Bill C-2, the Liberal government did not even bother to consult with the Privacy Commissioner about the impacts that the legislation would have on the privacy rights of Canadians. It is only because of the accountability provided by members of the opposition in the House that we were able to push that legislation back so we could focus on legislation that would at least try to repair the damage of the last 10 years of the Liberal government by introducing changes on the border.

The objectives of the bill, I will say for those constituents of mine who are watching at home, are several. They include but are not limited to creating an expedited pathway for the Minister of Health to add precursors chemicals used in the production of deadly drugs such as fentanyl as controlled substances under the Criminal Code.

Over the past few years, we have seen the devastation of the fentanyl overdose crisis in Canada. At the public safety committee, we have been hearing about some of the many gaps we have in this country, including testimony that has indicated that the non-resident import program is being used to smuggle precursor chemicals into Canada with less stringency at the border, which is creating a situation where Canada has become a major producer of fentanyl, which is being exported. We have heard recent stories of countries like New Zealand and Australia being the recipients of drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine. Clearly this is not the reputation that a great country like Canada wants to have.

Another part of the legislation seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to eliminate the designated countries of origin regime, which has been identified as a loophole. It would give the minister the powers to specify that required documents are needed to support a refugee claim. It would require the suspension of certain refugee protection proceedings if the claimant is not present in Canada, something I think should be common sense; somebody should be present in Canada if they are claiming refugee status here.

It seeks to change the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to increase the maximum monetary penalties for those charged under these acts. It also seeks to make certain changes to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to allow for increased reporting of the offender's description, as well as changes to the circumstances and frequency of reporting. It would also allow for information previously collected to be disclosed if it can reasonably be expected to assist in the prevention or investigation of a crime of a sexual nature.

Once again, I think these things are long overdue. We probably need to go even further, but we are certainly not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. Even with the second attempt at the legislation, the Liberal bill still fails to address the key issue of bail reform. We know that catch-and-release is alive and well for people who traffic in fentanyl and use illegal firearms, using our porous border to victimize more and more Canadian families.

We know that the sentencing provisions that were passed by the Liberal government under Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have made it so that there no mandatory prison times for the people who traffic fentanyl, and there are still no new mandatory prison times for gangsters who use illegal guns to commit crimes, despite the Liberal government's incessant campaign against law-abiding gun owners. We also know that house arrest is still being used extensively in cases relating to violent criminals. Once again, this is unacceptable.

That said, I think we can all agree that strengthening our border is critical, and that is why legislation is desperately needed in this area. After 10 years of reckless Liberal policies, our border is broken, and we need to fix it. The Liberals' soft-on-crime agenda has made Canada a destination for international organized criminals trafficking in drugs, weapons, people and stolen cars. Gangs are committing brutal crimes on our streets every day.

The public safety committee has looked at the issues in depth, and we have repeatedly heard it is the broken bail system that has contributed to the crisis. Organized criminals have chosen to make Canada their home because of our weak laws.

We also know the government's failed immigration policies have assisted in making Canada a destination for international organized crime. In the past, the government has removed visa requirements over the objections of law enforcement agencies, which stated that the removal of visas would increase the risk of organized crime's taking root in this country. The government moved forward with it anyway, and it is critical that the policies be reversed so we can once again make Canada the safest country in the world.

I want to be clear that nothing I am saying today is a criticism of our brave frontline law enforcement officers in the RCMP and the CBSA. We know they are doing their absolute best. We have heard from police associations in Ontario. I have heard from RCMP members in my riding, when I was out knocking on doors during the past election, for example, that they are arresting people and seeing them back out on the street mere hours after being arrested for drug offences. How demoralizing this is for our frontline officers.

We have heard from Mark Weber of the Customs and Immigration Union, the union that represents CBSA workers, that morale at the CBSA is at the lowest level he has ever seen. This is after 10 years of the Liberal government. We now see that the government keeps recycling its promises to keep hiring more border services officers, but it is clear much more needs to be done to strengthen our border and our security service.

Canada has the largest undefended border in the world, which is something we can all be very proud of as a country, but the lack of resources for the CBSA to fulfill its role has seen a rise in smuggling and human trafficking in this country and people coming to this country to pursue their criminal activities. It has skyrocketed over the past decade.

The CBSA has been sounding the alarm, but the government has not been listening. There is plenty of evidence to substantiate these points, but I will pick one specific example. At the immigration committee, IRCC officials stated that they believe there are hundreds if not thousands of violent criminals who are here illegally, violent criminals who are not citizens or permanent residents. They are temporary residents who are violent people, and officials have no idea where they are. When I asked the customs union employee, they said that there are only a couple hundred CBSA officers who are tasked with trying to track down the thousands of violent criminals who are at large in this country. This is unacceptable.

On the non-violent side, we know there are currently around 50,000 people who have come to Canada on student visas and whose visas have now run out. They are here illegally, and CBSA does not have the resources to reach out to these people or to remove these people who are now in this country illegally. Despite the shockingly high figures, as I said, there are something like only 300 CBSA officers who have been dedicated to this gargantuan task.

One of the reasons CBSA is suffering so much, as its union said, is that it is drowning in middle management. It is not getting the frontline officers it needs to do the job. This is endemic in everything the Liberal government has done for the last 10 years. Let us look at the great paradox, where we have a government where the bureaucracy has grown by 45% across the civil service yet there are fewer frontline workers in critical areas like the CBSA, the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces than ever before. How does that make any sense? The government is padding middle management and upper management, to the detriment of frontline workers who are doing the dangerous jobs we need them to do to keep us safe.

Action is desperately needed, and the largest beneficiary of the government's failed immigration and criminal policies has been organized crime. Canada has become a low-risk, high-reward environment. Criminals choose the path of least resistance. The strict border controls put in place during the pandemic saw the Canadian market shift from being an importer of fentanyl to becoming a domestic producer. CSIS has found that synthetic drugs are increasingly being produced in Canada using precursor chemicals from China. This is what experts are saying. It is estimated that about 80% of the precursor chemicals that are being used in fentanyl—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C‑12, which deals with border security and immigration and follows on from an earlier bill, Bill C‑2. The government ultimately came back with Bill C‑12. We are now discussing this whole matter of border security and immigration against the backdrop of these two successive bills.

Of course, we will study Bill C‑12 at committee with the thoroughness we always bring to any examination of this subject. This legislation is necessary, but we want to ensure it is complete. Among other matters, we will be discussing the lack of human resources at the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, and the RCMP.

The Bloc Québécois is committed to improving this bill at committee with the same goal in mind, specifically, having a border that operates efficiently, humanely, and in a way that respects people's rights. I am especially interested in this question since I grew up not far from the border with our American neighbours, I come from a region in southern Quebec and my riding is not far from the border. I am therefore going to paint a general picture of the situation. I will then look at some numbers relating to certain problems that are addressed in the bill, and I will close by saying a few words that pertain more to women and seniors, files for which I am responsible as the Bloc Québécois critic.

The first general observation we can make is that understaffing is a major issue. The Liberals promised to hire 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional CBSA officers. What progress has been made on that front? An announcement was made for the RCMP, but there has been no mention of the CBSA. According to the Customs and Immigration Union, they are currently short 2,000 to 3,000 officers. This means they have neither the tools nor the human resources needed to do their work effectively.

The Bloc Québécois is calling for patrols between border crossings to be authorized. That is what we are asking for. We are also calling for more operational flexibility and a real hiring plan. Regarding all of these Bloc Québécois proposals, I would like to commend the work of my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, who has been working on this bill as the public safety critic. She does a really thorough job of it and has had several meetings. Our position is well documented. It is based on facts, not disinformation.

I would now like to provide a few figures, since Bill C‑12 deals with auto theft and organized crime. Over 100,000 vehicles are stolen every year in Canada. That is a 48% increase since 2020. There is also an economic cost to all of this: Claims totalled $1.5 billion in 2023.

I have had lunch with insurance company officials, and I can say that this is a real problem. They want us to deal with the situation. Interpol finds more than 200 stolen vehicles a week. In Quebec, there was a 57% increase in thefts between 2021 and 2023. The CBSA is often unable to inspect trains because it lacks the necessary infrastructure. Bill C‑12 fixes that with mandatory access to warehouses and train yards. The Bloc Québécois wants to see this implemented. It may be helpful, but it will be somewhat ineffective if all the necessary staff and resources are not in place. I think that with these figures, we are showing our Liberal colleagues that crime is on the rise. There is no denying that.

Fentanyl is also a problem, but let us approach it from a public health perspective. This is no trivial matter: There were 42,000 opioid-related deaths between 2016 and 2023, and 70% of those deaths involved fentanyl. The minister has the power to quickly add chemical precursors to the list of prohibited substances. That cannot hurt. The important thing is to save lives and protect families. Behind the statistics are human tragedies. We therefore support the measure, but we also demand rigorous monitoring.

As my hon. colleague from Montcalm, our health critic, would say, we need to address the opioid problem holistically, combining several approaches, particularly in terms of public health.

With regard to immigration and asylum seekers, there are new rules. Asylum claims become inadmissible after one year in Canada. Irregular entry for more than 14 days results in removal to the country of origin. The aim of all this is to cut down on abuse and backlogs.

Quebec welcomed 55% of the 180,000 asylum seekers in Canada in 2023, which is a staggering number. Obviously, there is no denying that this has had an impact on public services, which are already saturated and overloaded, particularly schools, health care and community services. The Bloc Québécois hopes that Ottawa will rebalance the distribution of asylum claims and transfer the promised funds to Quebec to welcome claimants in a dignified and acceptable manner. That is our demand.

In Canada, money laundering and illicit financing activities are estimated to be between $45 billion and $113 billion annually. The bill provides for new measures and increased collaboration, particularly between the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee and law enforcement agencies. In cases of non-compliance, fines will be multiplied by 40. The bill aims to improve and increase information sharing, but that requires caution in terms of privacy protection. The Bloc Québécois supports this modernization but is demanding that individual freedoms be protected.

When it comes to protecting rights, what has been taken out of this bill compared to what was in Bill C‑2? Mail searches have been scrapped. That was an invasion of privacy. Restrictions on $10,000 donations have been dropped, and so has the collection of private data. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of that, because there really needs to be a balance between security and freedom.

Most importantly, Quebec wants a secure border, a fair immigration system and respect for its areas of jurisdiction. People forget this, but these are the demands of Quebec, on whose behalf the Bloc Québécois speaks.

I am going to talk a little more about the issues that concern me. As my party's critic for women and families, I want to expand the issue of crime and its impact. Women are often responsible for household budgets, so they are on the front lines of the cost-of-living crisis. There are proven links between economic insecurity and social insecurity, and between poverty and financial stress, which increase the risk of violence and distress.

By cracking down on criminal networks linked to fentanyl, fraud and exploitation, we are reducing the economic and social pressure on women and children. Security must also be viewed from a social, economic and human perspective.

Seniors are increasingly being recognized as among the primary victims of crime and inflation. They are increasingly targeted by theft, fraud and scams, with over 35% affected in 2024. The rising cost of living only makes them more vulnerable. More than 55% of seniors who are renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Vehicle theft and fraud are causing insurance premiums to go up, which impacts people living on fixed retirement incomes. The cost of housing, an essential need, is on the rise because of money laundering in the real estate sector, which totals between $20 billion and $30 billion annually. Organized crime and the underground economy undermine seniors' incomes and deprive the government of resources that could be used to fund affordable housing, home care, and support programs for seniors.

For the Bloc Québécois, strengthening economic security also means protecting the dignity and financial peace of mind of seniors, as stated by FADOQ, which considers fraud against seniors to be a major political issue. According to this organization, seniors have become a prime target for phone scams, “grandparent” scams and bank fraud. It is calling for a review of the Criminal Code to strengthen minimum sentences for these types of offences. That is FADOQ's proposal, and we are willing to study it. The organization promotes awareness and prevention programs, particularly its Senior-Aware program, to educate seniors and equip them to deal with fraud. FADOQ has made it clear that education alone is not enough. Strong political and legal action is also needed.

FADOQ often cites statistics from the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, which found that in 2024, more than 130,000 cases of fraud were reported across the country, with financial losses in excess of $650 million. The centre estimates, however, that only 5% to 10% of fraud is reported. People age 60 and over account for approximately 25% of reported victims, with average losses that are higher than in other age groups. Quebec is one of the hardest-hit provinces, mainly due to phone and bank scams.

In closing, I would remind members that seniors are not naive; they are being targeted by sophisticated networks. It is important to note that the average loss for senior victims is often two to three times higher than for other age groups, at approximately $25,000 per major fraud. It should be noted that fraud erodes seniors' savings, trust and sense of dignity. It is an issue of mental health and dignity.

I want to say one last thing, which is a key message: fighting organized crime and strengthening our borders also means protecting Quebeckers' and Canadians' pocketbooks. Fewer thefts and reduced instances of money laundering and corruption means more money for real priorities, such as seniors, women, families and safer communities.

We could also talk about the importance of supporting communities dealing with the consequences of fentanyl. Health care services in Quebec are facing major financial challenges. In closing, Quebec and the provinces need to be given increased powers over immigration to ensure that they alone determine their levels.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we ever wanted to see a government that does not know what it is actually doing and what that looks like and what that manifests itself as in the House of Commons, it is this: It will table a bill and realize that it has got it wrong, and then it will table another bill in the hopes that it might have actually gotten it right.

This has been talked about. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, spoke about it as well. We now have two bills on the Order Paper that do essentially the same thing.

My confidence in the government's getting Bill C-12 right, in lieu of Bill C-2, has improved a little bit, but the reality is that we are only going to support Bill C-12 as far as getting it to committee goes, and then we will take a look.

If what I understand is true, if reasonable amendments could be made to actually strengthen the bill and make it better, we might have another conversation at third reading.

At this particular point in time, this is how incompetence looks. We have one bill, and then we have another one that does the same thing, because they did not get it right the first time.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government has two very similar bills on the Order Paper right now: Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. The second bill is missing a few things that the first bill has, but the government has still retained the first bill on the Order Paper. We asked the Liberals this question this morning, over and over again, to get an understanding of why they would have both of these bills, which are essentially doing the same thing, on the Order Paper.

The member, by the way, gave an outstanding speech. I wonder if he could shed some light on why he thinks the Liberals have both of these live bills right now on the floor of the House.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on behalf of the residents of Ponoka—Didsbury.

After a long decade of nihilistic Liberal rule, chaos and disorder reign supreme in our streets. Criminality may be only one of the many problems Canadians face, but it is a significant one.

A survey by Abacus Data released this year, in 2025, found that 46% of Canadians ranked crime and public safety among their top concerns. This can be contrasted with an Ipsos poll taken in June 2015, the year our previous Conservative government left office, which found that 15% of Canadians ranked crime and violence among the issues on the national agenda at the time. I will let Canadians ponder those two statistics to find out just who has been a better steward of peace, safety and security in this country.

Canadians understand that the situation is untenable. After all, it is they who have had to shoulder the burden of this rise in criminality in our communities. For context, since 2015, violent crime has spiked significantly, and it is up nearly 50%. That is not all; crime of almost every category has seen an increase: Sexual assaults are up nearly 75%, homicides are up 28%, gang-related homicides and organized crime have increased by 75%, violent firearms offences with illegal guns are up 116%, extortion is up 357%, auto theft is up 46%, and trafficking is up nearly 84%. Fraud, homicide and anything we can name are all going up. I could continue, but I think my colleagues get the picture.

This upswing in violence is not a coincidence; it is a result of soft-on-crime policies and a porous border. It is the realization of the law of unintended consequences brought on by a decade of bad policy, informed by a world view that cares more about optics than it concerns itself with the real-life effects of its own self-serving ideological agenda.

We now have a so-called government that is presenting bills in the House that purport to fix this collection of self-inflicted issues that Canadians face. These are the same problems that the members across the aisle from me created. In 2015, our Conservative government oversaw a Canada that had its lowest total crime rate since 1969. Unfortunately, the last 10 years has seen this progress almost completely erased.

It is the hypocrisy of the government that it has opposed and demonized those who support our hard-on-crime agenda while now implicitly acknowledging that Conservatives were right all along.

How did we get here? In 2022, Bill C-5 was passed. In this piece of legislation, the Liberal government removed the mandatory minimums on 14 different Criminal Code offences. These were common-sense penalties on dangerous offences that were instituted and put in place by our Conservative government; these were bills that I proudly passed when I sat on the other side of the House. They include using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence, which people do not have to go to jail for anymore in Canada, thanks to Liberals. Possession of a firearm or weapon, knowing that its possession is unauthorized, so illegal possession of a gun, for example, is another offence that people no longer have to go to jail for.

Possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition is an offence that people do not have to go to jail for anymore. Possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, so if someone steals a gun, they do not have to go to jail. Weapons trafficking, possession for purposes of weapons trafficking and smuggling, so someone can smuggle weapons now, in this country, and not go to jail. Importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized is another example of smuggling; someone can traffic smuggled firearms, guns, ammunition, weapons or anything we can name. Discharging a firearm with intent and discharging a firearm recklessly are offences that people no longer need to go to jail for. If someone wants to commit a robbery, they might as well do it with a gun, because they do not have to go to jail for that either in this country anymore. Did I not just say that extortion is up 357% since 2015? The mandatory minimum penalty for extortion with a firearm is gone thanks to Bill C-5 and thanks to the Liberals and the NDP, which supported them at the time.

In fact, these policies were all informed by expert opinion, yet the Liberals did not seem to care. Instead, before passing Bill C-5, they doubled down and passed Bill C-75 during their majority tenure from 2015 to 2019. The bill eased bail provisions and legislated the principle of restraint, which was codified in the Criminal Code for police and courts to ensure that criminals would be released at the earliest possible opportunity with the least amount of restrictions. Essentially, this favours release over detention; it is precisely these two bills, along with a copious number of bad decisions made, that created the revolving door in our justice system by which offenders are free to continue to terrorize communities.

While the Liberals were making life easier for criminals by passing Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, they increased their attacks on law-abiding firearms owners, who are in no way responsible for any of this crime wave. They did so with a trifecta of bills with zero public safety value. These bills include Bill C-71, which created a backdoor gun registry; the 2020 order in council, a massive list of newly restricted firearms; and Bill C-21 in 2023, which created a national freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns for law-abiding citizens and sport shooters, as well as a new prohibition on many long guns used for hunting and sport-shooting purposes. Since the passing of these bills, the government has not stopped adding firearms to the restricted list.

The Liberals have now embarked on their so-called voluntary assault-style firearms compensation program, the gun grab, which is a program to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. It completely misses the mark by letting criminals go free and going after people who follow the law. If implemented, this costly and ineffective gun buyback is estimated to cost at least $5 billion, even though only $742 million has been allocated to it. With that kind of money, the government could easily fund such programs as acquiring modern scanning technology at our 119 ports of entry to secure our border.

I have an example to share that I also brought up during the committee hearings on Bill C-21. In the Cayman Islands, a high-efficiency scanner was bought. Someone can drive right through it in a truck, or a sea-can can go through it. It can be put at any port of entry. It will scan a container. It is safe for anyone who happens to be going through, and it will find all manner of contraband: drugs, people, firearms and illegal weapons. Those are about $3 million U.S. apiece.

The Liberal government is going to spend $750 million to take lawfully acquired property away from Canadians. That is about $500 million U.S. If we divide that by $3 million per scanner, we could easily put 150 of these scanners at our ports of entry to make sure we scan at least 10% of all containers coming in and going out. I think most Canadians would be shocked to realize that we do not scan a single container that leaves our country.

The shocking thing about all of this is that, with the change in administration to the south, the administration has claimed that fentanyl was flowing from Canada into the United States and, as a result, was killing American citizens. We would think a prime minister in Canada would have said the flow of illegal guns across the border from the United States into Canada is killing Canadian citizens, pushed back on the American administration and stood up for law-abiding firearms owners in this country.

However, the Liberals did not do that, because they did not want to admit that it was illegal guns killing Canadians on the street. They wanted to maintain the mantra of going after law-abiding citizens. We know that because the current public safety minister said as much when he thought nobody was listening.

How does all of this relate to Bill C-12? If the last decade is any indication, the government has an issue understanding that policy work is a careful game of trade-offs. When enacting policy, we have to heed the law of unintended consequences and try to understand the downward effects a piece of legislation may have. The Liberals did not do their due diligence on crime, and I do not think they have done it on the border bill.

When Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down on Bill C-2, we did so because we understand that the policies contained in Bill C-2 have unintended consequences and unforeseen ramifications. As with Bill C-2, we believe there could be provisions in Bill C-12 that violate people's freedoms and privacy, and it is our duty to ensure that Bill C-12 receives the proper scrutiny it deserves at the committee stage to ensure Canadians do not pay for another boondoggle of unintended, or not unintended, consequences.

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

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

I want to pick up on what the member for Winnipeg North said. There is a resounding loyalty to the mess that is Bill C-2. I still do not think he has given up on the warrant issue and on believing that Canada Post should be able to open our mail without a warrant. This is the type of verbiage we are hearing in the House when it comes to Bill C-2.

We all agree on the overall aim of having a secure border. I wonder if my hon. colleague would agree that the government really missed the mark on that and that is how we got to Bill C-12.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of concerns for the residents of northern Manitoba. They face many issues, and we should certainly pay attention to the Port of Churchill.

There are many things that need to be done, but no one needs to open our mail to protect us from fentanyl. I have talked to the Minister of Justice about this. Many accommodations could be made. Mail, unlike many other objects that may contain illegal drugs, is addressed to the person who is going to receive it. As such, one could ask the post office to set it aside, contact the recipient and ask if they mind having their letter opened or if they would like to be present when their letter is opened.

The government has just said on the record that it has not given up on Bill C-2. Mark that well.

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

Mr. Speaker, our new Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to secure the border and take certain actions to ensure that we stabilize immigration-related issues. I see the legislation as being very positive and encouraging. Bill C-12 will hopefully garner the support necessary to ultimately get through. It is important to Canadians.

This does not mean we give up on Bill C-2. As an example, in northern Manitoba, fentanyl in the mail really has an impact. There are many rural communities in northern Manitoba that want the government to take action on it. That action is in Bill C-2. I hope the leader of the Green Party will be more sympathetic to people in northern Manitoba—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-12, which is what is listed today under Government Orders. We have a very strange situation at the moment in that the bill is substantially similar, with the same title and almost all the same sections, to Bill C-2, which remains on the Order Paper. I draw attention to that as I go over the rules only because this is, to me, an unprecedented experience.

I have not been in this place forever, only since 2011, but I have never seen the government introduce two bills that are substantially the same. Sometimes, there is a private member's bill and we look at the order of precedence. As I read the rules, I think the government is within its rights to have two bills that have the same title and are substantially the same, but at the moment that it chooses one to put forward for a vote, we will know that the other one is withdrawn, because we cannot vote on two bills that are the same in the same session.

As a member of Parliament, I wonder what kind of game the government is playing with this. These are both government bills. Why is Bill C-2 still in the order of precedence, and why are we getting nonsense statements from Liberal members, who have said Bill C-12 builds on Bill C-2? That is clearly not what is happening here.

Bill C-2 is an omnibus bill whose title is about stronger borders, and it references many other pieces of legislation within it. Bill C-12 does the same. As some of my hon. Conservative colleagues have already noted, the parts that have been removed are those that were the most obviously egregious. The idea that the Canada Post Corporation Act has to be changed is in Bill C-2, but not in Bill C-12. It would allow people to open our mail in case there might be controlled substances. There are also the parts that would allow information from our Internet accounts to be accessed and shared. This is a source of real concern for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Bill C-2 is an omnibus bill touching on 10 different bills. I think Bill C-12 is down to touching on eight different bills now. It would change the Customs Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Oceans Act, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. I have not read all of them into the record.

Omnibus bills are a problem, because when we deal with subjects that may be somewhat related but are sufficiently different, they should be studied separately. They should not be put together and called an omnibus bill.

In this case, omnibus Bill C-2 attracted omnibus opposition. A broad coalition of over 200 civil society organizations put together a demand to Parliament before we resumed in September, as the original Bill C-2 was tabled in the spring. It attracted concern from civil liberties organizations, refugee protection groups and migrant protection organizations. I can mention some of the groups by name.

Specifically, over 300 organizations called for Bill C-2 to be withdrawn, including the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Church of Canada, the Migrant Rights Network, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International, OpenMedia, Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, Climate Action Network Canada, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association. They all called for a full withdrawal of Bill C-2. I have not read all of the groups' names into the record.

Now we have Bill C-12. Have these groups said the government has heard their concerns and, obviously, Bill C-2 is going to be withdrawn? No. Bill C-2, as I mentioned, is still on the Order Paper. More than that, though, removing the parts that were in Bill C-2 from Bill C-12 does not make Bill C-12 acceptable.

I am going to quote Matt Hatfield, the executive director of OpenMedia, one of the many civil society organizations concerned about this bill. This is his position on privacy rights and other aspects of the way in which Bill C-12 is still offensive. He said, “The story of this legislative package is the same today as it was on day one of Bill C-2’s introduction; it’s about pleasing President Trump”.

Like the preceding speaker from Niagara, my riding is also a border riding. Saanich—Gulf Islands is on the Salish Sea, which is an ecological region shared with Washington state. The Gulf Islands referenced in the title of my riding, Saanich—Gulf Islands, are close relatives, one might say, to the San Juan Islands. They have the same ecosystem. The same endangered whales go through both waters of the Salish Sea, and whales and salmon do not carry passports.

The indigenous people of Washington state, the Lummi Nation, are relatives to the Saanich people I am honoured to represent here in this place. They are intrinsically linked, and our borders are strong in that we respect each other's nationalities. I have to say, there are certain strains when the Mariners are playing the Jays, but never mind. Let us set that aside. In my riding, we cheer for the Jays. This is clear.

On Friday last week, we had a cross-border forum and invited into Saanich—Gulf Islands representatives from local governments, indigenous governments, NGOs and civil society groups, and we all agreed that we are still neighbours and friends. We do not like Trump's tariffs and we do not want to kowtow to him, but we want to deepen the relationships that exist between us. We would really like to get our ferry service back, by the way, between Anacortes, Washington, and Sidney, British Columbia.

We can deepen relationships, but given the strong border language and the rhetoric around this, I have to agree with the comment from OpenMedia. The language in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 is all about pleasing Donald Trump.

What gets offended in the process? I used to practise refugee law. I was a lawyer in Halifax, and in those days, the refugees I helped were mostly ship-jumpers. With nothing more than the clothes on their back, they escaped from eastern bloc and Warsaw Pact countries, like Romania, came to Halifax Harbour and found themselves a lawyer. Generally, that was me.

I was so grateful for this. It has been mentioned a few times in debates that Canadians would hate the idea that we provided hotel rooms, which we did. I will never forget the brilliant young man who called me, probably four decades later, after I got elected, and wanted me to know how he had done in Canada once I helped him get a hotel room in Halifax and start his refugee claim. He started and ran a small construction company and had a number of sons, who are still running his construction company. He was awfully glad we had immediate help for refugees and did not require that they cross at the proper border. Sometimes, a person crosses where they can, with the clothes on their back. This is why I am proud I was a practising member of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. It is also absolutely opposed to what is being proposed here in Bill C-12, and remain so.

Going back to the fact that it is an omnibus bill, this means it is not going to go to the immigration committee for proper study with enough witnesses and experts brought to bear to say, “This is what is wrong with this bill, and this is how we might fix it.” The Green Party still maintains that these issues are not fixable and that both Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 should be withdrawn immediately. In the meantime, the greater likelihood is that they will not be. The Liberals have caved to what the Conservatives demanded in this place, and I thank those on the Conservatives benches who demanded it, but they are not demanding enough. Both bills should be withdrawn immediately.

Bill C-2 had egregious sections regarding the post office and the Internet, but Bill C-12 is still unacceptable. It has provisions that invade privacy and hurt refugees, with innocent people caught in the gears of what is now an increasingly Trumpian world. We do not have to accept that. We can make laws that work for Canadians and for those who legitimately need our protection. Canadians will always want to say “elbows up”, but with arms outstretched to the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola on his incredible work and his adopting some of the greatest parts of Canada into his new riding, especially the Fraser Canyon.

The member has been working incredibly hard, and he was leading the charge in many respects on getting to Bill C-12. Why did we need to get to Bill C-12? Bill C-2 included provisions that would allow our law enforcement agencies to look at our Internet data, our Internet traffic and our mail without a judicial order. For many people in Canada, that was a step too far.

As I mentioned in my speech, we need to improve public trust in our institutions. Bill C-2 did not do that. Bill C-12 is a step in the right direction.

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

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

I know that my colleague comes to the House with great passion and a very rich sense of a desire to do well by his constituents, and Canadians for that matter.

The bill we are debating here today is a rehashing of Bill C-2. I wonder if my colleague could comment on what he saw as the issues of Bill C-2, as well as how we got here and why.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on Bill C-12.

Bill C-12 touches upon immigration and border security, issues that matter deeply to the great people of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

The bill is actually a direct result of Conservative leadership, our commitment to holding the government accountable and our pushing back against some of the divisiveness we saw in Bill C-2. Let us not forget that, after the election, Canadians were very clear with everyone across Parliament that we needed to work together and that they wanted to see leadership from the Conservative Party to put the best interests of Canadians forward. I think that what we are seeing here today, which is actually quite historical in the context of government legislation, shows to Canadians that, while we are willing to compromise, we are also standing firm in our principles about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

We supported the tax cuts the Liberals put forward. We supported measures to improve interprovincial trade, and today, we are supporting some long-standing measures in Bill C-12 that would improve public safety.

The bill before us today covers everything from border measures and money-laundering rules to sweeping surveillance powers buried deep within it. Excuse me. That was in the previous bill. In the previous bill, there were provisions on Canada Post and sweeping new surveillance powers. These are not included in the legislation, which many Canadians are thankful for. In fact, many of my constituents wrote to me, explaining that they did not want me to support a bill with such measures.

In the new bill, in what we can see today, there are measures for the Canada Border Services Agency that would grant authority to inspect outgoing shipments in the same way that border services agents inspect imports. That is an important change. Canada has long monitored what comes into the country but not always what leaves. These new powers could help stop illegal exports, arms trafficking or the flow of fentanyl precursors across our borders.

According to Health Canada, between January 2016 and June 2024, more than 49,000 Canadians lost their lives to the opioid toxicity crisis. In the first half of 2024 alone, fentanyl was involved in nearly 80% of accidental opioid deaths, a 39% increase since national tracking began. In the last two years alone, police have dismantled major fentanyl labs in Langley, Falkland and the Hatzic valley in my own riding.

Strengthening CBSA's ability to track and intercept illegal exports, particularly precursor chemicals used in fentanyl production, is a necessary step if we are serious about disrupting the flow of deadly opioids, which are taking lives unnecessarily in our country.

The bill would also amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to allow the Minister of Health to quickly schedule new precursor chemicals used in fentanyl production. Conservatives support this because we have been calling for tougher and faster action in response to the opioid crisis for years. These are warranted powers for the minister. It would also give law enforcement officers clarity and legal protection while handling controlled substances during investigations, which makes sense from an operational perspective.

The bill would expand the Coast Guard's authority to share information with security and intelligence partners, and it modernizes how departments handle immigration and refugee files. It strengthens penalties for money laundering and terrorist financing by reforming FINTRAC, our national financial intelligence agency. Real reforms are needed to fix what the previous government broke, to rebuild trust in a fair, secure and efficient system.

I will note that it is a Liberal government that is fixing the problems of a previous Liberal government, but there are still problems with the bill. The Liberals have left too many details to regulation. Rather than writing clear, enforceable laws, they have chosen to permit future decisions through regulation, decisions that can be quietly changed by cabinet behind closed doors, with no parliamentary oversight. That means that the real power, in some cases, may remain in the hands of the ministers, not in the text of Canada's Criminal Code and accompanying legislation.

There is a lot of public interest in how refugee and immigration claims are being handled, and people want to know how the system is being managed responsibly. This is a pattern we have seen time and time again with the government. Whether it is how they spend, how they tax or how they regulate, the Liberals do prefer a regulatory approach over clarity, and secrecy over accountability. That is why the Conservatives will support Bill C-12 to committee, but we need to insist on a couple of things that I believe should be looked at closely when the bill is brought to the committee stage.

The first is FINTRAC. We need to ensure Canada's financial intelligence agency has the proper tools and oversight to effectively tackle money laundering, transnational crime and the illicit flow of fentanyl that undermine both our economy and our border. From this bill alone, we cannot tell if it does a good enough job. We need to study that in detail at the committee stage.

Second, we need to look very closely at the broad discretionary powers included in this bill. For example, it gives ministers wide latitude, particularly on immigration and refugee files. Committee study must examine whether these powers could be misused and how to include clear safeguards, because Canadians deserve a fair, transparent and accountable system.

Third, there is the CBSA's authority to inspect outgoing cargo. While these powers are essential for stopping criminal gangs and fentanyl traffickers, we must also ensure there is a balance. Trusted exporters, through the trusted exporter program, should not be burdened unnecessarily, and inspections must be targeted and reasonable. Again, we need to see this carefully addressed at committee.

From my first reading of the bill, I believe that by focusing on the three amendments, or things to be studied closely, we can hopefully strengthen the legislation to give our law enforcement the necessary tools to improve public safety and work toward improving trust in government institutions across our country.

In British Columbia, I have seen containers ready for export to Asia full of stolen cars. I have seen the devastating impacts of fentanyl, which is destroying lives. Billions of dollars have been laundered into Canada's economy and, in some cases, it is driving up the price of real estate and increasing crime in our community. My hope is this bill takes some measurable steps to improve all the things Canadian society sees wrong with the way our institutions handle these critical issues.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, the House is debating Bill C-12, a reincarnation of Bill C-2. Bill C‑2 sparked a great deal of criticism regarding privacy rights, so the government was forced to go back and make revisions. It has returned with a new version of Bill C‑2, now called Bill C‑12.

The main difference we see is the removal of the controversial elements of Bill C‑2 involving invasion of privacy, most of which were found in part 4 of the bill. They would have allowed Canada Post and customs officers to open people's mail. These provisions drew heavy criticism.

Generally speaking, we in the Bloc Québécois were already open to working on Bill C‑2, sending it to committee, and working collaboratively on moving it forward. With Bill C‑12, we have even more reason to want to see this bill advance. We are keeping an open mind and are willing to work with all members of the House and with the witnesses who will testify in committee. I will not have the opportunity to sit on that committee, but I wish I could.

Without going into a comprehensive analysis of the bill, I will nonetheless raise a number of points that merit our attention. The first is part 1, which makes amendments to the Customs Act to expand customs officers' law enforcement powers, including access to facilities. It is that access to facilities that I wish to discuss.

Often, when CBSA officers inspect goods, they are goods coming into the country. Goods leaving the country, however, are usually not inspected, and this causes all sorts of problems, as the media recently reported. These include auto theft, a crime that is plaguing Ontario, Quebec and, presumably, the rest of Canada as well. Resources are an issue, of course, but there is also the matter of facilities for doing the work, especially in rail yards. If they want to pull a rail car out for examination, for example, they need a place to put it. There will now be an obligation to provide facilities so customs officers can do their job. Without facilities, without dedicated areas for the inspection of goods, this was becoming problematic.

One of the problems raised by customs officers was that they needed to get a warrant every time they wanted to open a container. The process was becoming difficult, complicated and time-consuming. The bill includes measures that would make it easier for them to open containers as needed and inspect the goods inside without the many authorizations required in the past. We see that as something positive.

However, this provision raises the challenge of resources. We can provide customs officers with all the extra authority, infrastructure and facilities we like, but if there are not enough officers to do the work, we have a problem. The Liberals, incidentally, made that promise during the last election campaign. They promised 1,000 more customs officers and 1,000 more RCMP officers. Although one of these two promises—the one concerning the RCMP—made its way into the Speech from the Throne, we are still waiting to see whether it had any tangible impact on RCMP staffing.

As for the CBSA, the wait continues.

Also, will the 1,000 additional employees mentioned in the government's election promise be enough? The answer is no. The Customs and Immigration Union says that 2,000 to 3,000 people are needed. The election promise covers one-third, and we do not even know whether the government is really going to try to keep the promise, because we have no indication that it is really going to give the CBSA what it needs to do a reasonable job.

We know that it takes resources to secure the borders and deal with illegal immigration, arms trafficking, drug trafficking and auto theft. Unfortunately, that is not in the bill, because bills do not prescribe the hiring of staff. If it could be done, however, perhaps it should be, to ensure that this government hires the necessary staff to do the work that needs to be done at our borders.

Another point that we would like to address with respect to this bill is part 4, which amends the Oceans Act to allow a minister other than the Minister of Fisheries to be responsible for the Coast Guard. Essentially, this would transfer the Coast Guard from the Department of Fisheries to the Department of National Defence. We completely agree with that. Transferring the Coast Guard to the Department of National Defence was actually in the Bloc Québécois's election platform.

From an accounting standpoint, it would make it possible to increase defence spending, enabling Canada to fulfill some of its commitments in that area and enhancing coordination between the two services. We know that the Coast Guard is not armed, and this occasionally limits its scope of intervention. Placing it under the Department of Defence would, at a minimum, enhance coordination and information sharing with the Department of Defence, particularly when it comes to interventions that require the presence of National Defence or individuals who are better equipped to face a possible threat. For that reason, we think part 4 is very positive.

I will now turn to part 7. Obviously, I will not go through all the sections. Part 7 of the bill grants more powers to immigration officers to suspend, vary or cancel a visa or document under conditions to be prescribed in regulations. Immigration officers will be given more powers to suspend or vary visas, but the details will be prescribed in regulations. That is all interesting, but we would have preferred to see more details. Bills always provide more certainty than regulations do. Governments always want to have more flexibility, but we do not necessarily agree. We will see how this goes.

The bill also adds an interesting provision that would allow the minister to personally suspend, refuse to process or cancel permanent or temporary resident visas, work permits, electronic travel authorizations or study permits.

We think that is quite interesting, because we know that there have been many allegations of fraud in relation to permits and visas. The problem is that if people obtained documents, visas or resident status fraudulently, we should not simply allow them to run loose without taking any action. We should not just say that now that they have a visa, there is nothing we can do. That is more or less what is happening now. With these kinds of powers, the minister will be able to share information with Public Safety and cancel these fraudulent visas and permits so that the government can take the kind of action that is long overdue. We applaud this step, though we wonder why it was not taken sooner.

We now turn to part 8, which is the most substantial part of the bill and the one that has got the most people talking. I think this is the part that will probably have the greatest impact. Part 8 addresses the Bloc Québécois's concerns regarding the safe third country agreement.

Under this agreement, a person wishing to claim asylum must do so in the first safe country they reach after leaving the country where they were in danger. However, we know that what often happened at Roxham Road was that people were leaving the United States and coming to Canada to file a claim for refugee protection because they believed that they had a better chance of being allowed to enter Canada or that they would receive better treatment in Canada. That led to a large influx of asylum seekers that Quebec had to take in, since Roxham Road is in Quebec.

We found that problematic because we felt that if someone were really in a life-threatening situation, they would not cherry-pick the country they want to settle in. They would go to the first country they could move to to be safe, and this is perfectly legitimate. We felt that this was a problem, but part 8 closes some loopholes. With the safe third country agreement, if a person could come to Canada and hide here for 14 days, they would not have to go back to the United States or another country and could file their claim in Canada.

The new measure in the bill means that people will be sent back to their country after the 14 days. That means it is in their best interest to turn themselves in to the authorities quickly rather than go into hiding. We see that as a fairly positive thing. For the first 14 days, a person caught during that period would simply be sent back to the United States. Obviously, Canada does not have extradition agreements with all countries. This would not apply in those cases. Furthermore, people whose lives are in danger could still report that.

Will this bill fix all the problems? No. Will it help solve some of them? Yes, absolutely. We wish the government had listened to us much sooner, because we know that Quebec—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us get back on track to the topic at hand.

In Bill C-2, there was a failure to group the different topics that were in it. Bill C-12 is a step in the right direction; however, serious amendments are required to the bill.

Can you just highlight, in your opinion, some of the more poignant issues that Bill C-12 needs amendments for? We are hopeful that the government will listen to the amendments that Conservatives intend to bring forward.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleague to the House. This is the first chance I have had to address the new member for Bow River. I will miss his predecessor. We always had a good time in this place.

I just want to correct one aspect of my hon. colleague's speech. This is certainly not a point of order; it is debate, but he did say that only the Conservative Party will stand up. I just want to make it very clear that the Green Party also vigorously opposes Bill C-2, which is still on the Order Paper, and Bill C-12. Somehow, the Liberal members of this place have claimed they built on Bill C-2 to come up with Bill C-12. They subtracted some parts of Bill C-2 that were offensive, but not all parts that are offensive, and the legislation is substantially the same.

I double-checked our parliamentary procedure, but I wonder if the hon. member for Bow River thinks that both bills should be in front of this place at the same time.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-12 today.

Conservatives have forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2. That bill would have given the government broad powers to access Canadians' personal information from banks, telecoms and other service providers without a warrant. The Privacy Commissioner confirmed that the Liberals did not consult him before proposing these sweeping powers.

Law-abiding Canadians should not lose their freedoms because of the Liberals' overreach. Now the Liberals have introduced Bill C-12. Conservatives will examine the legislation carefully. We need to ensure that it does not infringe on Canadians' privacy rights. We will hold the government accountable to protect individual freedoms and ensure transparency in how it exercises its power.

Bill C-12 is a broad omnibus bill. It includes changes to border security, crime prevention, privacy laws and immigration. For example, it amends the Customs Act to allow the CBSA to use facilities free of charge for enforcement. That is good for the budget.

Bill C-12 also amends the Oceans Act. It enables the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and share information with law enforcement and intelligence partners. It increases penalties for money-laundering violations and expands FINTRAC's authority. That is laudable. However, it also allows for more information sharing between government departments, raising serious concerns about privacy protections. We will not allow the Liberals to quietly erode Canadians' rights in the name of administrative efficiency.

Some of the most troubling parts of Bill C-2 have been removed, such as part 4, which allowed Canada Post to open any mail, including letters, without a warrant, as well as part 11, which banned cash payments and donations over $10,000. Those were egregious overreaches. It was due to pressure from the Conservatives that, thankfully, those parts were removed. However, my Conservative colleagues and I believe this still falls short on many issues facing everyday Canadians.

For example, crime is rising across Canada. Since 2015, violent crime has increased by 37% in my home province of Alberta. Nationally, homicides are up nearly 28%. Gang-related homicides have risen 78%. Firearms-related violent offences have more than doubled, rising 116%. Extortion is up a whopping 400% in Alberta, and sexual assaults have increased by 75%. These are alarming trends. The Liberals' soft-on-crime policies are making our communities less safe.

Bill C-75, passed in 2019, introduced a principle of restraint on the granting of bail and prioritized early release for offenders in lieu of public safety. This has led to catch-and-release practices for serious criminals, including those trafficking fentanyl and firearms. Bill C-5, passed in 2022, repealed mandatory prison sentences for crimes involving firearms and reinstated house arrest for serious offences, such as sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking.

These changes send the wrong message to Canadians and put people at risk. Conservatives proposed Bill C-325 to reverse those changes and strengthen sentencing. The Liberals and the NDP voted against it.

While Bill C-12 does well in filling in an important loophole by banning precursors of fentanyl, it fails to address sentencing for fentanyl dealers. Tougher penalties for traffickers and producers are essential if we are serious about stopping the spread of this and other deadly drugs.

The fentanyl crisis demands urgent action. From January 2016 to June 2024, over 49,000 Canadians died from apparent opioid toxicity. Nearly 80% of those deaths involved fentanyl. Emergency visits for fentanyl poisoning have more than doubled since 2018. This is unacceptable. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister downplayed the opioid crisis during a campaign stop in Kelowna, calling it only a “challenge”. That is deeply offensive to the families of the more than 49,000 Canadians who have died from overdoses in under 10 years.

We are seeing the impact in communities across the country. Just this week, in Medicine Hat, police and ALERT carried out a major drug bust, seizing 598 grams of fentanyl, as well as other illicit drugs and cash. That amount of fentanyl alone represents nearly 300,000 fatal doses.

Across Canada, fentanyl superlabs are producing massive quantities of this deadly drug, and police in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec have seized tens of kilograms of fentanyl and thousands of kilograms of precursor chemicals. These operations often include stockpiles of weapons and explosives and pose a serious threat to public safety, yet the government's response still falls short. Without tougher sentences and stronger enforcement, fentanyl will continue to devastate families and communities.

The Liberals have also refused to back down from supporting safe consumption sites near schools. My Conservative colleague from Riding Mountain called on the government to shut down these sites near children. The health minister suggested more might be approved, even after admitting that these locations often become hot spots for fentanyl use.

Law-abiding Canadians deserve better. They deserve strong protections for privacy and freedom. They deserve laws that keep our communities safe and hold criminals accountable. They deserve a government that takes the drug crisis seriously, not one that shrugs it off as a mere challenge.

Bill C-12 also touches on immigration and asylum, areas where Canadians' compassion has been abused by the government. Canadians are generous and fair-minded, but that must never be taken for granted or exploited.

The Liberals have exploited Canadians for the past decade on this matter. A decade ago, Canada's asylum system was in control. The backlog accounted for fewer than 10,000 cases. Today, that number has exploded into the hundreds of thousands, and many of these claims are bogus. This is unacceptable.

Let me be clear that it is wrong to jump the line. It is unfair to take advantage of a system that was built to protect people fleeing real persecution. There are Nigerian Christians who face death for their faith. There are Ukrainians fleeing war. In decades past, Canada opened its doors to Vietnamese boat people escaping communism. These are the people our asylum system should protect.

My own father fled Communist East Germany with nothing but his hands, his family and the hope that Alberta would be a place where his children could live freely and safely. He came to Canada the fair and legal way. He never cut corners or skipped the line.

When false claims flood the system, it is real refugees and hard-working Canadians who pay the price. Our housing crisis worsens. Emergency rooms are overwhelmed. Many Canadians still do not have a family doctor. Classrooms are overcrowded. Teachers are struggling and students are falling behind. All across the country, essential services are stretched beyond capacity, and we need a system that protects the most vulnerable, not one that rewards abuse.

Our asylum system was designed to help those fleeing persecution, in accordance with the 1951 UN refugee convention. It was never intended to become a back door for economic migration, but that is exactly what is happening under the Liberal government.

Social media posts are now encouraging temporary residents to claim asylum as a way to stay in Canada after their student visas or work permits expire. This is a dangerous trend. It undermines the credibility, the capability and the fabric of our immigration system and hurts those who truly need Canada's protection.

Bill C-12, in parts 5 through 8, proposes several changes to our immigration and refugee system, but these changes do not go nearly far enough. The bill would largely shift responsibility away from the government and onto the courts, and it would permit certain actions through regulation instead of legislating clear, enforceable rules. Without strong enforcement mechanisms, meaningful change will not follow.

The bill also includes a proposed change to the safe third country agreement, but it fails to explain how or when it will be negotiated with the United States. In the meantime, Canada continues to accept asylum claims from G7 countries that are safe, democratic and fully capable of protecting their own citizens.

The Liberal government's record on immigration and refugee integrity is clear: The backlog has soared, the rules are weak and the system is being abused.

Conservatives believe in a compassionate and rules-based immigration system, one that prioritizes those most at risk, treats Canadians and newcomers with respect and restores integrity to the asylum process. Future performance is best demonstrated by past behaviour, and the Liberal government has not shown us anything promising in the last 10 years. Only Conservatives will stand up for Canadians' individual freedoms, their safety and the integrity of the systems that make this country strong.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is why we introduce a bill. It goes through first and second readings, and then it goes to committee, which debates it and adds or takes away whatever is needed so that all Canadians can be protected.

It is important to note why Bill C-12 is even here. All of this was actually part of Bill C-2. I want to ask my hon. colleague whether Conservatives will be supporting making the bill better and having it go through.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today the House is debating important legislation: Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. Bill C-12 would strengthen our country's security by proposing changes to support border security and immigration, to fight transnational organized crime and to disrupt illicit financing. We urgently need to update many of our laws if we want to be able to address the complex security challenges our country is currently facing.

With Bill C-12, CBSA officers would have the capacity to inspect exported goods in warehouses and transportation hubs. Owners and operators of certain ports of entry and exit would be required to provide facilities for export inspections just as they currently do for imports. These changes would strengthen the CBSA's ability to detect and seize contraband for export, including illicit goods such as fentanyl and stolen vehicles.

Canada's coasts also face new security risks. That is why this bill would allow the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols. It would also be able to collect, analyze and share information for security purposes. Canada strictly controls synthetic drugs and the precursor chemicals used to produce them. Unfortunately, the illicit drug market is constantly evolving in an attempt to evade these controls. Bill C-12 would ensure the Minister of Health can rapidly control the precursor chemicals used to produce illicit drugs, including fentanyl.

Border security and immigration are top priorities for the Liberal government. Notably, this bill would also help us enhance the integrity and fairness of our immigration system. Canada's asylum system exists to protect people who are fleeing persecution or risks to their life or safety in their home country. The strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act would, among other things, improve how we receive, process and decide on asylum claims to make the system faster and easier to navigate.

The amendments contained in Bill C-12 would also help law enforcement respond more effectively to evolving border security challenges. Border security requires a coordinated effort across the entire government, as information from various federal institutions may be required to thoroughly assess the situation.

Federal departments and agencies need to work together to share information in order to understand and respond to demands and to keep people safe. For that reason, Bill C-12 would enhance the ability of the RCMP to share information on registered sex offenders with domestic and international partners.

It would improve how IRCC shares information so that federal, provincial and territorial partners can make timely, accurate decisions to ensure the integrity and better delivery of public services. IRCC already shares applicant information with its domestic partners in limited circumstances, but this bill would create clear and direct legal authorities to allow for proactive and systematic information sharing and to reduce administrative burdens.

Any new use or disclosure of personal information under these new authorities would follow existing privacy laws, policies and best practices. Additionally, the proposed measures would strengthen Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, including through stronger anti-money laundering penalties. It is well known that money laundering supports crimes like human trafficking, fentanyl trafficking, fraud, theft and other economic crimes. This is why we need new tools to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated criminal threats and techniques.

The measures contained in the bill would strengthen businesses' compliance to anti-money laundering obligations, including through a 40-times increase in administrative penalties. This would ensure non-compliance is not treated as the cost of doing business.

The bill would enable FINTRAC to exchange supervisory information on federally regulated financial institutions with other members of the financial institutions supervisory committee, and it would add the director of FINTRAC to this committee.

Because international organized crime networks represent the biggest threat to our country's security, we have already taken several important measures. First, our government established the integrated money laundering intelligence partnership with Canada's largest banks, which is enhancing our capacity to develop and use financial intelligence to combat fentanyl trafficking and other organized crime.

Second, we have listed seven transnational organized crime groups as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. Listing is an important tool that supports criminal investigations and strengthens the RCMP's ability to prevent and disrupt criminal activities. We continue to monitor this and will add more to the list as needed.

Finally, Canada appointed its first fentanyl czar, who serves as the main interlocutor between the Canadian and U.S. governments for enhancing our collaboration in combatting fentanyl. While less than 1% of illicit fentanyl seized in the U.S. is linked to Canada, we are working to ensure fewer drugs and their precursor chemicals cross our shared border. To increase our illegal fentanyl detection abilities, we are training and deploying new border detector dog teams that specialize in fentanyl detection.

We have also taken into account stakeholders' concerns and have introduced Bill C-12 to advance these legislative priorities as quickly as possible. Bill C-12 draws on elements of Bill C-2 that are designed to combat transnational organized crime and those who seek to exploit our immigration system. This streamlined bill would balance the need to protect our borders with concerns about Canadians' privacy.

Bill C-12 would complement ongoing efforts to secure our border from coast to coast to coast and keep Canadians safe. We must act with urgency on all these issues. Now is the time to update our laws to continue to address increasing and more complex security challenges. I wish to reassure this House that there is no greater priority for our government than to keep Canadians and our communities safe. That is why we are taking strong measures to combat crime and ensure our border remains safe and secure.

I hope that my hon. colleagues from all sides of the House will join me today in supporting Bill C-12.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada’s immigration system and borders act. This legislation would protect Canadians, secure our borders and uphold the integrity of our immigration system. I am proud to support this legislation, which would help keep Canadians safe.

There is no greater priority for our government than keeping our communities safe and our economy thriving. Our economy cannot thrive if we do not take strong measures to combat crime and ensure that our border is safe and secure.

We live in a time of evolving global threats. Transnational criminal organizations, rising auto theft networks and the flow of illegal drugs continue to devastate families and our communities. We also face new migration pressures driven by conflict, climate change and economic instability. Bill C-12 would respond to these realities with a balanced approach. It would equip our law enforcement agencies with modern tools to protect Canadians, while safeguarding their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Before I go further, I note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Brooklin.

Bill C-12 is built around two pillars. These are securing our borders and combatting organized crime, illegal fentanyl and illicit financing.

Under the first pillar, amendments to the Customs Act would empower the CBSA to examine and detain goods leaving Canada. This new authority would help officers intercept stolen vehicles, firearms and narcotics before they leave our ports. Across Canada, and especially in urban regions, auto theft is fuelling transnational organized crime. Criminals are exploiting export loopholes and shipping stolen cars overseas. Bill C-12 would close those gaps and give the CBSA the tools to act firmly.

The bill would also amend the Oceans Act to grant the Canadian Coast Guard a security mandate. This would allow the Coast Guard to patrol our coastal waters, collect and share intelligence and work hand in hand with the RCMP and CBSA. For the first time, our maritime borders would be integrated into our broader national security strategy.

Bill C-12 would further enable the RCMP to share information on registered sex offenders with domestic and international partners, strengthening community safety and aligning Canada with its allies.

Within our immigration system, Bill C-12 would make important reforms to ensure fairness and integrity. It would streamline asylum claim processing, prevent misuse and strengthen information sharing with the provinces and territories. The new measures would help manage sudden surges in claims while ensuring that those genuinely in need of protection continue to receive it.

I want to be clear that there would be no ban on asylum claims. People found ineligible under specific circumstances would still have access to a pre-removal risk assessment to ensure that they are not returned to danger. This strikes the right balance between compassion and credibility.

The second pillar of Bill C-12 directly targets organized crime and the illegal drug trade. Amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act would allow the government to rapidly control new precursor chemicals used in the production of drugs such as fentanyl. This flexibility would allow law enforcement agencies to act faster and prevent dangerous substances from entering our communities. In my home province of British Columbia, the opioid crisis has taken a devastating toll. Stopping the supply of illegal fentanyl before it reaches our streets is a crucial step in saving lives.

Bill C-12 also strengthens Canada’s defences against money laundering and terrorist financing through amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. It increases penalties for financial crimes and adds the director of FINTRAC to the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee to improve oversight and collaboration. By cutting off the flow of dirty money, we would make it harder for organized crime to thrive. These measures would make a tangible difference in people’s lives.

Since the start of this year, the CBSA has seized more than 2.7 million grams of cocaine, 2,500 grams of fentanyl, 662 firearms and nearly $30 million in currency. This results in lives being saved and communities being protected.

Bill C-12 is the product of listening to law enforcement, provincial partners and Canadians who want a government that is both compassionate and firm. We listened to the concerns of stakeholders and colleagues in the House on Bill C-2. That is why we have introduced Bill C-12, which is tailored specifically to border security and combatting transnational organized crime, illegal fentanyl and illicit financing to ensure the safety of Canadians.

Bill C-12 does not cover bail reform, but the Prime Minister announced this past Thursday that our government will soon be tabling legislation to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code regarding reverse-onus bail for major crimes. This bill shows Canadians that their government is serious about security, serious about fairness and serious about protecting the values that define us. It modernizes our systems, respects privacy protections and ensures that our law enforcement and security agencies have the authority they need without compromising the rights of individuals.

In Surrey Newton and communities throughout the country, these issues are deeply felt. Residents want to know that stolen vehicles are not disappearing across the border. Parents want their children to be safe from fentanyl. Newcomers want to see a system that is efficient, fair and worthy of their trust. Bill C-12 delivers on all those priorities. A secure Canada is a strong Canada. This legislation keeps Canadians safe, reinforces public confidence and ensures that Canada remains a place where opportunity and safety go hand in hand.

I urge all members of Parliament to support this bill. Together, let us strengthen our borders, protect our communities and build a safer, more secure future for all Canadians.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2 for overstepping Canadians' freedoms and privacy, they have now returned with Bill C-12. Would my colleague not agree that Parliament must carefully scrutinize this revised legislation to ensure that nothing has been added that could once again put the privacy rights of law-abiding Canadians at risk?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course the Liberals are going to try to deflect from the debate in the House. We are talking about Bill C-12, which is a changeup from Bill C-2. We are talking about people being murdered in the streets. My colleague may not have heard what I said, but let me tell her that there have been two murders in my community in the last 30 days.

It is shameful that the government wants to politicize issues it should be focusing on: keeping these criminals off the streets, keeping illegal guns off our streets and keeping criminals in jail where they belong. Enough of this Liberal cover-up and continuing to support the Liberals' bail instead of jail policies. Every single Canadian across this country expects people who commit crimes in this country to spend time in prison.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very thorough and informed speech.

I have a question. We have a Liberal government that has been in power in this chamber and governing the country for the past 10 years. It is now 10 years later, and the government is pretending, in my opinion, to be serious about border security.

I wonder if the member feels that after the government's first attempt with Bill C-2, Bill C-12 shows that the government is finally taking this seriously and is looking at improving security for our country, especially with the illegal guns coming across the border.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to a previous question. It has been pointed out that Bill C‑2 had already been introduced. This is one of the bills that people were asking me about because they had concerns.

Was it these concerns or other factors that motivated this change? How did we go from Bill C‑2 to this new version, Bill C‑12, and what was the main reason for this change?

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the five provisions that remain in Bill C-2 are still extremely important.

Law enforcement has been calling for years for the lawful access and information provisions that are essential to keeping Canadians safe. Canada is the only country among its Five Eyes partners that does not have lawful access legislation. We must address this gap.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not taking that bill out. We are strengthening and further moving toward Bill C-12. There are some changes being made to Bill C-2, and we are moving toward Bill C-12.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague for Hamilton Centre could provide any insight. I have asked previous Liberals speaking to Bill C-12 whether Bill C-2 is going to be withdrawn.

On the Order Paper, we now have two bills that are nearly identical. Both are unacceptable. Are there plans to withdraw Bill C-2?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on behalf of the people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay to speak to Bill C-12, , an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system.

This bill is of critical importance to my constituents, especially those living in border communities along the B.C.-Washington State line. We have six crossings: Osoyoos, Midway, Rossland, Grand Forks, Cawston and Rock Creek. This is a very mountainous terrain and one of the longest sections of border between Canada and the United States.

Our entire riding is on the front lines of serious challenges: cross-border crime, drug trafficking and illegal weapons smuggling. Crime rates in communities throughout the riding of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay have soared in the past decade. Sadly, the federal government has been slow to respond. Conservatives have long pushed for concrete measures to strengthen border security and disrupt criminal networks. For years, the Trudeau Liberals chose to look the other way.

Bill C-12 is an improvement, but only because Conservatives and Canadians pushed back against the original version, Bill C-2. I received so many emails about Bill C-2 from people who were extremely concerned about Liberal overreach again. As Conservatives, we have argued that this had much less to do with strong borders and, of course, much more to do with government overreach.

Let us be clear. If the Liberals had passed Bill C-2 unopposed, they would have granted themselves sweeping powers, including letting Canada Post open my private mail and other people's without a warrant, allowing warrantless access to Canadians' personal data, and forcing tech companies to re-engineer their platforms for easier government surveillance. Those proposals were not about protecting our borders. They were about infringing on law-abiding Canadians' privacy. That is a victory for Canadians and for democracy, but vigilance is still required.

Let us examine the government's track record. Since 2015, there has been a 632% increase in U.S. border patrol encounters involving people illegally crossing from the U.S. into Canada, many of whom are linked to drug and firearms trafficking. In Canada, 350 organized crime groups have been identified, yet instead of targeting gangs and smugglers, the Liberals have spent millions harassing licensed, law-abiding firearms owners with arbitrary bans that do nothing to make our communities safer. Meanwhile, gun crime is up 116% and 85% of gun offences involve illegal firearms from the United States from that porous border for the last decade.

Our border is dangerously understaffed. Mark Weber, national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, says the CBSA is short 2,000 frontline officers. As well, while the public safety minister keeps reannouncing plans to hire 1,000 agents, when asked why none have been hired yet, he said that he was not responsible for hiring. If he is not responsible for hiring, who is? What is the point of a minister who cannot deliver on his own promises? Even if hiring were to begin today, the CBSA is treading water.

Thanks to sharp questioning from my colleague, the member for Oshawa, we learned from Mr. Weber that the agency trains just 600 officers per year, exactly the same as the attrition rate, when one does the math. In Mr. Weber's words, “I don't know how we're going to get our numbers up”.

What about hiring 1,000 RCMP officers? The border communities in my riding do not have enough RCMP officers, due to a lack of people applying at Depot. How is the government planning on bringing 1,000 more, when we cannot even address the needs we currently have?

If the government truly wants to support border enforcement, here is one easy step: Please renew the lease of the Penticton Shooting Sports Association, which is in my riding. This facility has 400 members and has provided firearms training for law enforcement for 40 years. It is often the only option in southern British Columbia. The RCMP wrote a public letter supporting the club, and the Liberal member for Kelowna recently called in a public letter for its lease to be renewed.

The lease expires in a matter of months. We are asking the Liberal government to find a way for this 40-year-old club to survive. This can be a bipartisan, common-sense decision. Do not shut down critical RCMP, CBSA and prison guard training infrastructure. Support this very important community club.

Now I want to draw attention to a key section of the legislation, section 2, which would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to give the Minister of Health a faster process to restrict precursor chemicals like deadly fentanyl. That is so overdue, but granting the power is not enough. Will the minister use it? Will she act quickly enough? People are dying on a daily basis in our communities.

Just this month, at the health committee, I asked why the health minister will not revoke the Health Canada exemption that enabled a pilot program of hard-drug decriminalization in B.C. Premier Eby has now called the policy a mistake, and a Liberal MP recently admitted that “it was a terrible policy decision.” The exemption clearly states that the minister can end the program at any time. When asked why she has not, she deflected, suggesting that B.C. must request it. Let me be clear: British Columbians want it ended immediately.

A member from across the aisle just told a story about an envelope full of fentanyl that was distributed throughout her community, and said to think of all of the people who were hurt by it because Canada Post could not open the envelope. I want to know how many MPs in this room would like to join the pilot program and have fentanyl decriminalized in their hometown. The experiment has gone horribly wrong. It has increased drug availability and public disorder while failing to connect addicts with real treatment. Why do members think no other provinces have joined the program?

The minister should act today and end the program immediately.

In closing, Bill C-12 is a major improvement over its original form, but only because Conservatives held the government to account. There is more work to do, and we will continue to push for common-sense changes, such as strengthening our borders, protecting civil liberties, targeting real criminal threats and giving our border communities the tools they need to stay safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying I will be splitting my time with the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

It is always a privilege to stand in the House representing the wonderful people of Abbotsford—South Langley. Today, I rise to address many serious issues affecting my community, something I wish I did not have to keep doing over and over again.

Bill C-12 fails to adequately address several key issues within our immigration system and at our borders. While the public safety minister claims that the legislation will make Canada safer, the bill ultimately falls short on delivering on those promises. In my community of Abbotsford—South Langley, a major border crossing and hot spot for illicit drugs and arms smuggling, this failure is very real with real consequences.

I have stood in this chamber numerous times to raise concerns about extortion and the rising wave of gun violence that is occurring, terrorizing our neighbourhoods and communities. We are calling for stronger border security, yet the Liberals have turned a blind eye, ignoring the urgent need to secure our borders, toughen crime laws and prioritize the safety of victims over the interests of gun smugglers, gangsters and violent criminals. My community members should not have to live in fear wondering if they will be the next victim of a drive-by shooting, or worry that their children might be hit with a stray bullet while sleeping in their bedroom or playing at the park.

Securing Canada's borders and being tough on crime means giving our citizens peace of mind that illegal firearms and harmful drugs are not flooding our streets. Why do the Liberals not understand these basic measures? The Liberals' track record says it all. They are not serious about securing our borders or keeping Canadians safe. According to Health Canada and the latest figures, there were a total of 49,000 opioid deaths reported between January 2016 and June 2024. Many were due to drug ingredients trafficked from China and Mexico.

The Washington Post reported in December 2023 that fentanyl super labs in Canada are producing mass amounts of drugs as well. The super labs that police are finding in Canada differ because they are synthesizing the drug with chemicals sourced primarily from China. In Langley, British Columbia, in my own community, police recently uncovered a super lab containing enough fentanyl and materials to kill 95 million people. Langley authorities also reported on how this super lab was capable of producing multiple kilograms of fentanyl on a weekly basis, yet this bill still lacks mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers. This is just disgraceful.

To make matters worse, with so many lives lost, the Liberals continue to push for safe consumption sites near schools. Conservatives urged the Liberals at the health committee to shut down fentanyl consumption sites located close to schools and children for their safety. However, the Liberals and the Liberal health minister refused to rule out approving even more sites near schools and day cares, despite admitting these locations have become hot spots for rampant fentanyl use.

In my riding, the Liberals are planning to slap a safe consumption site right across the street from a school. I have spoken with many parents, such as the parents from the Abbotsford Traditional School and those in the PAC that is also responsible for the school. They are genuinely concerned for their children's safety. They want to know what is happening in our communities. It is troubling. I find myself asking, alongside them, the same question, as this is truly concerning for our communities and children. Is this the Canada our children should be brought up in?

If that was not bad enough, the Liberals' own public safety minister admits he will not even do his job to keep Canada safe. He has stated that he is not responsible for hiring a thousand new CBSA agents. Why are Canadians paying him? His role is to protect Canadians by securing our borders, and right now, he is failing at that. We are not expecting him to do the job interviews himself, but we expect him to follow through, do his job and hire agents accordingly. The fact is that fewer than a hundred agents have been hired. This is simply unacceptable.

To make matters worse, gun crime under the Liberal government has risen by 116% over the past nine years, and the Toronto Police Association reports that 85% of gun crimes involve illegal firearms trafficked from the United States, yet the Liberal government will still allow some of the worst criminals to receive house arrest. How exactly is this supposed to make Canadians feel safe?

Canadian agencies have identified 350 organized crime rings inside our country, including 63 linked to international groups from China and Mexico. The Liberal government allowed multiple ISIS terrorists into Canada, including one who was caught desecrating a body abroad and who was later charged with planning attacks in Canada.

In 2022, a senior Iranian official was banned from entering Canada due to human rights abuses and terrorism, yet several investigations into Iranian agents on Canadian soil remain open. We know the government has lost 600 foreign nationals with criminal records, and over 400 of those evading the government are convicted of serious criminality right here in Canada. The government has openly admitted it has lost track of how many people are living in Canada illegally.

In my own riding, a sergeant from the Abbotsford Police Department reported that in my community there have been 60 incidents involving border jumpers on just one road alone. It is obvious that in my community there is an urgent need for border security and that it remains insecure, yet this bill fails to adequately address these concerns and serves as nothing more than Liberal empty promises.

Conservatives are focused on making sure we prioritize Canadians' safety. Conservatives forced the Liberals to retreat from Bill C-2, which threatened Canadians' freedoms and privacy, as we believe wholeheartedly that law-abiding Canadians should never be made to pay for the government's failures on borders and immigration.

We will continue to defend Canadians' privacy and demand that the Liberals become tough on crime, end their soft-on-crime sentencing for serious violent repeat offenders, put a stop to drug trafficking that kills a record number of Canadians, secure our porous borders that risk this country's very own fabric and put criminals behind bars where they belong.

It is my duty to stand up for my constituents and to hold the government accountable. I will continue to fight for meaningful action to restore the safety every Canadian deserves. The minister opposite may claim the border is secure, but it is easy to say that when the evidence and statistics my colleagues and I continue to raise are ignored.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why it is important to introduce the elements we are proposing in Bill C‑12 rather than in Bill C‑2, which was introduced initially.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Bill C‑12 is basically Bill C‑2 with minor improvements. For one thing, the government has removed the infamous provision that allowed mail to be searched without a warrant from a judge.

Does my colleague agree with us that it was a good idea to remove that provision? If so, why did her government initially propose to allow mail searches without a warrant?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just finished reading, over the past couple of hours, emails from people in my constituency, and elsewhere, who are concerned about their rights and freedoms being eroded. They are concerned that the bills the Liberals are bringing forward are being used to suppress their rights and also increase the power of the state. This was brought forward during the debate on Bill C‑2; Conservatives are also concerned about this bill.

Can the Liberal parliamentary secretary speak to the fact that law-abiding Canadians feel like they are being criminalized and that the Liberals are not standing up against real criminals?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by sharing a recent experience I had when I went to a Canada Post mailing facility. The Liberal government, in 2019, was the first government ever to put scanners in place at our mailing and courier facilities. This has resulted in many weapons and drugs being seized that were coming into our country through the postal centre I went to. What our government did there was done at many ports as well, and we will continue to invest.

I am so happy to stand today to talk about Bill C-12, because this bill would strengthen Canada's immigration system and borders act. It is a crucial piece of legislation that would address the evolving and complex challenges of crime that our country faces. This bill is about protecting Canadians, securing our borders and equipping our law enforcement agencies with the modern tools they need to combat sophisticated criminal networks.

As hon. members will recall, this bill builds upon Bill C-2 and has been introduced so that we can accelerate key legislative changes. These changes are focused on four primary areas that would significantly bolster our fight against crime. Under Bill C-12, we would secure our borders against illicit goods, combat transnational organized crime, disrupt illicit financing and enhance information sharing between law enforcement agencies.

Our borders are the first line of defence against illegal goods and criminal activity. Bill C-12 introduces key amendments to the Customs Act that would modernize our border security framework. Under these amendments, the Canada Border Services Agency officers would be given new authority to access warehouses and transportation hubs to inspect goods that are being exported. This would close a critical gap in our enforcement and would prevent criminals from using Canada as a launching point for their illegal activities.

The Customs Act would be amended in order to obligate transporters and warehouse operators to provide access to their premises to allow for export inspections by CBSA officers. Furthermore, amendments would require owners and operators of certain ports of entry to provide facilities for export inspections, just as they currently do for imports. These changes would strengthen the CBSA's ability to detect and seize contraband for export, including illicit goods such as fentanyl and stolen vehicles.

The bill would also further expand our maritime security. The Oceans Act would be amended to allow the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and intelligence operations. This would strengthen our sovereignty and surveillance capabilities, particularly in remote regions like the Arctic, to better detect threats to our country.

Finally, Bill C-12 would further our efforts to tackle auto theft by targeting vulnerabilities in the export process. This bill would help curb the flow of stolen Canadian vehicles out of our country.

I forgot to mention at the beginning of my speech that I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

International organized crime networks pose one of the most significant threats to public safety in Canada. Bill C-12 directly targets these groups in several ways.

First, it aims to stop the flow of fentanyl. The bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to accelerate the scheduling of precursor chemicals. This would give the Minister of Health the power to rapidly control chemicals used to produce illicit drugs, allowing law enforcement and border agencies to act swiftly and shut down illegal manufacturing.

Second, Bill C-12 includes measures that would disrupt illicit financing and money laundering. It would increase maximum penalties for violations of Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime. Money laundering supports and perpetuates criminal activity by allowing criminals, such as fentanyl traffickers, to benefit from their illicit activities. Strong and effective anti-money laundering controls are, therefore, a critical component of a secure Canada-U.S. border. This bill proposes a comprehensive set of amendments to help ensure businesses and professionals are effective in detecting and deterring the money laundering and organized criminal networks that support and perpetuate fentanyl trafficking and other economically motivated crimes.

Bill C-12 also aims to improve the capacity of law enforcement to respond to complex criminal challenges. It would enhance the RCMP's ability to share information on registered sex offenders with domestic and international law enforcement partners. Currently, registered Canadian sex offenders are required to report any international travel 14 days prior to their departure. Once reported, the RCMP conducts a risk assessment and provides notification to the destination country that the individual is travelling to, when warranted. As currently written, the threshold for sharing this information is high. Adjusting the legislative threshold would enhance the RCMP's ability to share this information with key law enforcement or government partners, including the United States, to prevent or investigate crimes of a sexual nature. Addressing these issues would strengthen the RCMP's ability to protect public safety both within Canada and abroad.

We owe it to Canadians to do all that we can to keep them and their families safe. The government has taken and continues to take action, and we know this legislation would help us to further reduce crime. Bill C-12 is a proactive response to modern crime, providing border agents and police with the tools they need to disrupt criminal networks. By passing this legislation, we will be strengthening our borders and protecting our communities.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know they are not happy with what I am saying, but their policies are what hurt Canadians every single day.

Under the Liberals' watch, we have had the fastest-shrinking economy, in which Canadians are now lining up at food banks. Crime, chaos and drugs are running rampant right across our country. There is a record amount of crime. Drugs are now being sold on our streets. Our kids are losing their lives.

Under their watch, in 10 years, 50,000 Canadians have lost their lives to drug overdoses, which is more than were lost in the Second World War. We have a homelessness crisis. Encampments are popping up in my riding in Oxford County and across our country from coast to coast to coast. Canadians are suffering from the Liberals' failed policies.

We had one of the best immigration programs in the world. It was the envy of the world. We brought in the brightest and the best, people who could achieve their full potential, who filled major needs in our country and were able to raise their family. However, under the Liberals' watch, they broke that too. They broke our immigration system, and then they started hijacking our institutions. They started censoring Canadians. They started telling Canadians what they could do, where they could go, what they could say and what they could see. It became all about control.

When the Liberals first brought in Bill C-2, they talked about public safety and immigration, but it was another attempt to attack Canadians' freedoms and privacy. The Liberals wanted to attack Canadians' way of life. It is because of the Conservatives, other parties and Canadians who raised their voices, who objected and said no to the Liberals' policies, that we have Bill C-12 in Parliament today.

I am a proud son of immigrants. My parents chose Canada in the early 1980s. They came for that Canadian dream. They worked hard and played by the rules. They were able to earn a decent living and raise a family under their watch. However, we do not have that system anymore. The Liberals have broken that system in almost all respects.

Let us take a look at the asylum system. We have over 300,000 folks lined up to get asylum. Many cases are bogus and fake asylum claims. It is a system that is now full of fraud and abuse, with an average wait time of almost 44 months to be processed in our country. This all started because of the Liberals' actions.

Members might remember that it was the government that put out a famous tweet when Trump was voted in the first time, which said that everybody is welcome. Can members guess what happened?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-2, giving the power to employees of Canada Post to seize and search mail without a warrant is a complete violation of our charter rights. Everybody is entitled to jurisprudence, and that was undermined by the Liberals. In Bill C-2, they were also going after the seizure of information through Internet service providers and telecom companies, which we know is also in violation of privacy rights. Finally, under Bill C-2, the Liberals want to limit the use of cash to under $10,000 a year. Undermining our legal tender in this country is ridiculous.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that we need better controls at the border and that this requires many new measures.

Bill C‑12 is the new version of Bill C‑2, which created a significant backlash in civil society because many people outside Parliament and in the opposition believed that, in an attempt to strengthen border protections, the government would be infringing on certain rights and trampling on the privacy of many people. It seemed a bit contradictory.

Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety told us that the government removed from the bill many of the elements that civil society and the opposition found unacceptable in order to table Bill C‑12, on which there is a broader consensus. At the same time, we are being told that all the other measures that were unacceptable are not being removed, that the government is still interested in them and that the government is ultimately going to come back to Parliament with these measures, such as allowing the police to open mail.

Could my colleague please explain which measures were in Bill C‑2 but are not in Bill C‑12 and which ones he would like to see again in another bill?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in this place to speak on behalf of the great people of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. I also speak as the shadow minister of national defence to reflect the concerns of the defence community, including the brave women and men who serve in uniform. I want to speak about some of the changes taking place because of the Liberals, as well as the lack of interest and investment in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I will be splitting my time with the great member for Oxford.

I want to give a big shout-out to the member of Parliament for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, the shadow minister of public safety; the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill, our shadow minister of immigration; and the member for Saskatoon West, who just spoke. They have really put a lot of work into Bill C-12 on the immigration side, on public safety issues and on border security.

It is through their good work and the amount of exposure we, as Conservatives, have been able to give that we were able to mobilize citizens and civil society on Bill C-2 and look at all the violations of civil liberties being done by the Liberals. That bill was a big power grab that would erode charter rights, including the search and seizure to be done by Canada Post employees and the invasion of privacy rights online, through telecoms and banking changes. They would all violate the civil liberties of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The Privacy Commissioner himself said that he was never consulted by the Liberals on the drafting of Bill C-2 and had a number of concerns about it. We should never bring forward bills that erode the civil liberties of law-abiding Canadians, and that is what the Liberals continue to do time and time again. They go after people, like law-abiding firearms owners, rather than going after the gun smugglers and those using guns in illicit crime. They always do the easy thing and make it sound like they are doing something, but at the end of the day, all they are doing is targeting law-abiding Canadians.

On Bill C-12, as Conservatives, we will do our homework. We will continue to look through this bill to make sure that Canadians' rights are protected, that the Liberals are not bringing forward any sneaky new laws trying to breach the rights of Canadians through this bill, especially civil liberties and privacy rights. We are concerned that there are things in here that are not going to do anything to improve immigration, improve public safety or strengthen our borders.

There is nothing in the bill on bail reform. There is nothing in the bill to give the Canada Border Services Agency the ability to police the entire border, not just ports of entry. There is an increase in sentencing provisions for those who are either smuggling in guns or trafficking fentanyl, and for other crimes that are being committed by transnational organizations. With the Liberals, house arrest is still allowed for some of the most serious crimes and offences, including for those who have breached the border.

I am going to spend the rest of my time talking about the Canadian Coast Guard, which is part 4 of the bill. We support the great people at the Canadian Coast Guard for the work they have been doing for a long time. We believe we should expand their national security and defence mandate. We do support the idea of bringing them in under national defence, but we want to make sure it is being done for the right reasons and that the Coast Guard is given the right tools to do the job that we are going to be asking of it.

We are concerned that the Liberals are only doing this for creative accounting purposes to try to increase their spending to meet the NATO 2% target, which they have to do in the next five months. Here we are in the middle of October, and we still do not have a plan or a budget from the Liberals on how they are going to get to that level. The estimates that we have to date show we are going to spend somewhere around $44 billion on national defence. In reality, to hit the 2% target, the Liberals are going to have to spend $61 billion. Where is that money coming from? What are they going to spend that money on?

We only have five months left, and we know that the Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada have always had a hell of a time trying to spend money before the end of the year, and this money cannot just be shovelled out the door. There needs to be a plan on how that is done, and we do not think that is going to happen. That is why we will see some creative accounting through bringing the Coast Guard in under national defence. We are going to get some extra spending but not necessarily any new defence capabilities for Canada.

We would like to see, on every Coast Guard vessel, new sensors and weapon systems, so not only could the personnel do the surveillance that would be asked of them under Bill C-12, but they could also defend themselves if need be. As my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford said earlier today, the only things that are currently on Coast Guard vessels that have any fire power are shotguns for personnel use to protect themselves in case they run up against any predators.

Thinking about icebreaking ships in the Arctic and polar bears, they have a few shotguns with banger shells in them to scare off the polar bears. They have another rifle that shoots beanbags so that they can throw a rope and tether to another ship or come alongside another ship for those purposes. However, there is no actual capability to defend themselves if need be. As the bill says, we would give them some security patrol capabilities, or responsibilities without any new capability. That is something we are really concerned about.

I want to make sure that Canadians and the House understand that the Canadian Coast Guard to date has no interdiction or enforcement capabilities or mandate. Right now, if the Coast Guard vessel operators encounter somebody fishing illegally, they have to contact the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to bring on one of its enforcement officers to make the arrest and levy the fines. We know that if they encountered somebody in our waters who was smuggling guns or involved in human trafficking, they would have to bring on board RCMP officers to make the arrest. They do not have any of those available at sea.

The current Coast Guard budget is about $2.4 billion to date. It has been able to include, in the defence allocation for NATO in the last fiscal year, only $560 million out of that $2.4-billion budget. Again, with a stroke of the pen, the Prime Minister is trying to take money from the Coast Guard and move it under the Department of National Defence without actually meeting the NATO requirement.

I will just read what the NATO requirement is. This is out of one of its fact sheets from June 2024, regarding the definition of NATO expenditures that has been in place since the 1950s. It states:

A major component of defence expenditure is payments for Armed Forces financed from within the Ministry of Defence budget.... They might also include parts of other forces such as Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force.

The Canadian Coast Guard is a civilian operation that has none of those capabilities or training at this point in time, and that is why we need to make some changes.

Taking aside the creative accounting in trying to find another $20 billion, and the shell game, we look at the order in council that was done by the Prime Minister on September 2. He gave the powers, under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, that the Coast Guard would be transferred from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over to the Department of National Defence. That includes the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Coast Guard support services group.

As we just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, the Coast Guard would still maintain its responsibilities under the Oceans Act. Under the Oceans Act, “minister” means the minister of fisheries and oceans, and Coast Guard services are included. This is under paragraphs 41(1)(a) to 41(1)(e):

(a) services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters through the provision of

(i) aids to navigation systems and services,

(ii) marine communications and traffic management services,

(iii) ice breaking and ice management services, and

(iv) channel maintenance;

(b) the marine component of the federal search and rescue program;

(c) response to wrecks and hazardous or dilapidated ships;

(d) marine pollution response; and

(e) the support of departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada through the provision of ships, aircraft and other marine services.

We now know that the Coast Guard would have two masters: the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of National Defence. How is that going to work, and how do they capture all of this, with no paramilitary or border security role or mandate, out of the Oceans Act into Department of National Defence spending?

Even though, in part 4 of Bill C-12, on page 11, they would add 41(1)(f), “security, including security patrols and the collection, analysis and disclosure of information or intelligence”, the bill does not provide anything beyond that.

Conservatives support the move of the Coast Guard, but let us make sure that if the Coast Guard is under the Department of National Defence, we give it the tools, the capabilities and the training so that it can do the job that will be accounted for by the Liberals in their budget.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑12 is the new version of Bill C‑2, with fewer irritants.

The reason we have Bill C‑12 before us today is that there has been a huge backlash in civil society against Bill C‑2 and the privacy violations it entailed, particularly with respect to the police opening mail. This led to the introduction of Bill C‑12, which is much more balanced. Many of the irritants that bothered us, the Conservatives and civil society have been removed. That is why we are able to work on it again today.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether he thinks that this type of work, namely reintroducing a bill when the opposition parties speak for civil society, is one of the advantages of having a minority government.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to dive into some of the refugee questions, but I know the member's knowledge of this place, and I wonder whether she would agree with me that the change from Bill C-2 to Bill C-12 still leaves us with an omnibus bill.

The member has chosen to focus on the refugee portions, which I appreciate. I am very concerned about the refugee portions of Bill C-2 and now Bill C-12. They are almost the same. They would get rid of the warrantless access to private information by Canada Post and Internet providers, but not the concerning parts.

When we have an omnibus bill like this, it means that one committee studies the whole bill. Would the member agree with me that it would be better to split the bill up so the committee on immigration could study and call witnesses only on the immigration portions of the bill?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's asylum system is deeply and fundamentally broken after 10 years of Liberal government. This was not the case 10 years ago, but today, Canada's once compassionate asylum claim system has been absolutely ruined, absolutely abused and absolutely made a mess of by the Liberal government.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-12. I will direct my comments to parts 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the bill, which would amend the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act as well as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These parts are similar to the immigration provisions contained in Bill C-2.

A decade ago, Canada's asylum claim backlog sat at less than 10,000 cases. Today, that backlog sits at several hundred thousand cases, with thousands more claims being made every month. While there are many highly persecuted persons around the world who are legitimately seeking refuge in Canada, there are many claims currently in that massive backlog that are bogus. Those claims are taking years, not months or weeks, to process, and worse, even after being found to be a bogus claim, an applicant can appeal their process for years more and then not be deported for years after that, if they are deported at all. During this time, bogus claimants can draw social benefits that Canadians do not have access to, such as vision care.

In effect, over the last decade, the Liberal government has allowed Canada's asylum system to veer far away from the original principles of its design and turned it into a backdoor, skip-the-line, economic migration stream, which is not accounted for at all in federal immigration levels planning, including the impact on housing supply, health care access and jobs. The Liberal failure has had many negative impacts, which I will outline today, with the two most noteworthy being the destruction of the fairness and compassion of Canada's asylum system and, in turn, the inability of the system to prioritize the world's most vulnerable persons.

When the Minister of Immigration claimed that the immigration provisions contained in Bill C-2, and now in this bill, would do something about this problem, she said it “would improve the flexibility and responsiveness of the asylum system”. However, in reality, the immigration provisions of this bill are structured to do one thing, which is to shift the responsibility for addressing Canada's deeply broken asylum system to the courts and away from the Liberal government that broke it in the first place, potentially past the horizon of the next election. As such, it is my assessment that the immigration provisions in the bill are likely to fail without substantive amendment and additional measures to both reduce the incentive for economic migrants to abuse the asylum system, to swiftly remove bogus asylum claimants from Canada, and to restructure this asylum system to ensure that the world's most vulnerable persons do not continue to be let down by the Liberal government.

I will now demonstrate to colleagues and the IRCC bureaucrats listening in the government lobby why this failure is likely to occur and what changes must be made. To begin, it is important to understand the extent to which Canada's asylum system is broken and how we got to this point because we cannot fix something if we do not understand what the problem is.

In 2017, the leader of the Liberal government tweeted, “#WelcomeToCanada”, in a tweet that was designed to encourage failed asylum claimants in the United States whose temporary protected status had been revoked by a due process to come to Canada instead, and come they did. After that tweet, well over 100,000 people illegally crossed the border into Canada and claimed asylum, many in spite of the fact that they did not have valid asylum claims in the United States, which is considered to be a safe third country.

Said differently, if somebody had a failed asylum claim in the United States, they never should have been allowed to claim asylum in Canada after illegally crossing the borders, but the Liberals opened the floodgates in 2017, even putting up infrastructure at the illegal border crossing most used, Roxham Road, and instructing RCMP officers to help people with their baggage. In many instances, scammers, unscrupulous consultants and even human traffickers exploited the system at the expense of the integrity and compassion of Canada's asylum system and the safety of all involved. The Liberals encouraged this for years.

I have been standing in this place for years now saying this and here we are. At that time, I remember the Liberals implied I was a racist for saying these things, and here we are with Bill C-12 in front of us because of this failure.

Well over 100,000 people have entered Canada illegally from the United States since 2015 and claimed asylum. Most have bogus claims, most are still in the processing queue, most have work permits and access to health care, and many have been put up for years in hotels at the taxpayers' expense.

At the same time, the Liberals lifted visa requirements from countries that have had a long history of high levels of bogus asylum claims, like Mexico, without any plan in place to prevent those claims from skyrocketing again. At that time, I raised many concerns about this issue, which fell on deaf ears. It is unfortunate, because since that time, over 60,000 asylum claims have been made by Mexican nationals due largely to the visa lift. Most have bogus claims, most are still in the processing queues and many have abused the government's payment of hotel rooms for people. It is insane that we are here having this debate again.

Experts have raised concerns that there are likely many more asylum claims on the way from the record three million temporary residents the Liberals allowed into Canada over the past few years whose visas are about to expire. Social media posts have encouraged people to attempt to extend their temporary resident permits by making bogus asylum claims. The result is that Canada's asylum claim system is drowning in over 296,000 claims, with average processing times of 29 months or more. At current rates, estimates suggest it could take 25 years to clear the current inventory, while thousands more claims keep pouring in.

The prolonged uncertainty and volume created by this backlog strain resources and people with valid claims alike. This backlog is failing the world's most vulnerable, who have real claims of persecution.

Nearly $1 billion has been spent by the Liberals on something called the interim federal health program, which provides benefits to asylum claimants that in some cases Canadians do not even have taxpayer-funded access to. Since the Liberal government came to power, the program has increased in cost by 1,200% because of the backlog in the asylum claim system. This is on top of the billions of dollars that have been spent on providing funding to house asylum claimants in hotels and affordable housing, many of whom are bogus, while Canadians struggle to afford rent.

A shocking number of claims do, in fact, appear to be bogus, with news reports revealing nearly identical stories in hundreds of applications under one immigration consultant who had coached them unscrupulously. They often originate from low-risk countries with high volumes of issued temporary visas, serving as a back door to extend stays after student or work permits expire. Loopholes abound: easy inland claims, fraudulent labour market impact assessments and consultants peddling fake persecution narratives for fast-tracked permanent residency. Lax enforcement and limited oversight of immigration consultants have massively exacerbated this problem.

The determination process of these claims itself is inefficient, with inconsistent decisions that plague an already massively clogged system. Some experts suggest that the higher rates of acceptance in recent years are due to a desire by bureaucrats to rubber-stamp applications in an effort to clear the backlog. What does this type of action do instead? It incentivizes more abuse of the system.

Said differently, the Liberals' breaking of the asylum system is a direct affront to the principles behind the 1951 refugee convention, which aimed to protect individuals fleeing true persecution. It was never meant to support economic migration. Today, thanks to the Liberals, many of the claimants in Canada's system are trying to claim asylum for reasons far beyond what the scope of the Geneva Convention imagined or proposed, and most are likely economic migrants.

Now we find ourselves here with the provisions in Bill C-12. The provisions outlined herein would undoubtedly face, without question, charter challenges, and given the state of Canada's judiciary, they are likely to be struck down by the courts. Consequently, considering the Liberal government's history of not appealing court rulings on immigration matters, as evidenced by the events that precipitated the current federal bill, Bill C-3, this would probably result in a further clogging of Canada's already overburdened judicial system and the continued deterioration of the asylum system.

Advocacy groups have claimed that Bill C-12 may precipitate tens of thousands of court cases. The Refugee Law Lab, for example, in its report on provisions inherited from Bill C-2, highlighted potential infringements on section 7 of the charter due to the one-year bar on refugee claims, as well as section 15 on equality rights. This group has also suggested that it is already planning empirical research for litigation. The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association suggested that the immigration provisions in Bill C-12 could be challenged because the Governor in Council powers for mass revocation of immigration status risk violating section 7 by enabling arbitrary politically motivated actions. Amnesty International and a coalition of another 300 organizations suggested that the bill should be challenged for potentially violating section 8 of the charter.

For Bill C-2, which has provisions similar to Bill C-12, the federal government's charter statement asserts that any engagements are justified under section 1 as proportionate for border security and safety. It also makes a bunch of other assertions and says that everything is fine.

Here is the thing. There is a massively vast gulf between legal lobbyists, who do not want any sort of boundaries on the abuse of the asylum system because they are financially motivated to make endless appeals by the big glut of people coming in and abusing the asylum system, and what the Liberals are saying would be charter-compliant. In fact, when I was at the immigration committee and asked some department officials what they thought about the charter compliance of the provisions in Bill C-2 that are now in Bill C-12, they were fairly silent on the matter, which told me everything I needed to know. This is the Liberals' “let the courts sort it out later” approach to a system that is massively broken. It will only lead to abuse of the system without massive amendment and other massive actions to reduce the intake of people and their incentivization to abuse the system. I can say one thing, though: This is definitely going to make lawyers and immigration consultants a lot richer.

After the Liberals established a reputation for not challenging court rulings, the ruling that precipitated Bill C-3, an unmitigated chain migration bill, was never challenged by the Liberals. They did not even bother to assert Parliament's supremacy on the laws that had been made in this place. They said, “No, this is good”, and we have all of these other potential problems with Bill C-3. Now, after the Liberals have refused to challenge that ruling, they are trying to say that all of the lobby groups that are saying this bill is not charter-compliant are somehow going to magically accept that it is charter-compliant and will somehow solve the problems, which I find ridiculous.

The other thing is that the Liberals have gone out of their way to eschew the validity of section 33 of the charter. What have they essentially done with that? Even though their history says they are not going to challenge immigration rulings and they know that every legal group in the country is saying that this bill will need a charter challenge review, the Liberals have said they are probably not going to do anything about it. Mark my words: I cannot wait to come back to this in the House a few years from now, or whenever it may be if this bill passes, and say I was right. What the Liberals are doing is punting this issue to the courts while the system continues to get worse.

The Economist magazine recently published an article entitled “Scrap the asylum system—and build something better” that stated, “Rich countries need to separate asylum from labour migration.” I agree. Bill C-12 is silent on several other measures that could restore order and fairness to Canada's asylum system right now. For example, the Liberals should immediately undertake a system-wide review of the benefits that asylum claimants receive, particularly bogus asylum claimants, those with claims that have been found to fail, with an eye to reducing the benefits that bogus asylum claimants receive, especially when they are benefits that Canadians themselves do not receive.

For example, did members know that bogus asylum claimants get taxpayer-funded vision care through the interim federal health program? I know a lot of Canadians who do not get that. Years of taxpayer-funded hotel stays for bogus asylum claimants while Canadians make ends meet serve as a draw for system abuse. These types of benefits must be reviewed, and where possible, they must be curtailed to prevent the abuse that further draws on the system.

Why is Canada, at this juncture, still accepting asylum claims originating from the G7 and other safe third countries? The Liberal government needs to give its head a shake if it believes that someone who is arriving in Canada after having reached the safety of the United Kingdom, Germany or Japan is fleeing persecution in the spirit of the refugee convention and should be allowed to stay in Canada for years on a pending claim receiving taxpayer benefits like free hotel rooms.

Also, Canada's laws regarding the removal of people with no legal right to be in Canada need to be enforced. Canada needs timely removals and anonymized but publicly released departure tracking, and we need to know how this is getting done within the CBSA. While hearings and immigration tribunals must be conducted in a timely and efficient manner to ensure that claimants receive a fair process, those who do not have valid claims must be swiftly removed from Canada if our laws require them to be. Otherwise, we will just keep incentivizing people to abuse the system, because there is no disincentive for them not to. This could mean ensuring the detention of offenders attempting to enter Canada undetected when conditions are met. Peace officers must be empowered to carry out their duties as set out in the law, and national security warrants must be issued and executed in a way that Canadians expect them to be.

We have seen reports that the Liberals have allowed foreign nationals with known criminal histories into the country. New rules are needed to ensure that those with serious criminal convictions are rendered inadmissible to our country. The Liberals also need to get serious about closing loopholes and backlogs that further overload the system and cause frustrating delays up and down the immigration system. Applications failing the physical presence requirements, false information and endless rights to appeal need to be modernized to ensure the system works for the folks who it is intended to serve: the world's most vulnerable. The existing inventory of asylum claims should be reviewed on a last-in, first-out basis, while the criteria for making new claims must be tightly narrowed to prevent the system from being abused by economic migrants.

The Liberals could be pursuing new rules and engagement strategies for countries with high levels of asylum claims, particularly resulting from bogus asylum claims made by temporary resident visa holders whose visas have expired. Educational institutions that have profited off of massive and unsustainable numbers of foreign student visas could be made to pay fines and be held financially liable when their students on these permits make bogus asylum claims. When the asylum-claim backlog reaches a certain number of claims or approval rates, an automatic review of the system could be triggered to ensure that officials are not incentivized to rubber-stamp applications as opposed to making thorough and consistent decisions.

Asylum claimants could be made to prove that their claims were made in a timely manner, as opposed to having that responsibility fall on the government. We could reverse the onus. This would prevent fraudulent claims from being made long after someone arrived in Canada.

Additionally, there are many reports of unscrupulous immigration consultants aiding and abetting the abuse of Canada's asylum system. Shame on the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants for rejecting a request to appear in front of our committee. We will be reinviting it. It is absolutely shameful what some of these consultants are doing. The fact that its executives left under mysterious circumstances and are not coming to our committee suggests that maybe it is time these consultants report to lawyers after all.

Also, the government should pause the acceptance of new United Nations-selected, government-sponsored refugees and use those spots to find room for highly persecuted persons who are already in Canada and who the government has already made promises to, like those waiting for news through the Hong Kong pathways program, or Ukrainians in Canada, who the Liberals made promise to and have failed.

The reality is that there are hundreds of millions of people who want to move to Canada, but we do not have the housing, health care or jobs to support them all. Our immigration system must be fair and orderly to make consistent and smart decisions and to prioritize, especially in the asylum system, the world's most vulnerable persons. The Liberals have moved us far away from that. ln that context, with regard to the asylum system, careful decisions must be made to ensure that our asylum system prioritizes the world's most vulnerable, is immune to abuse and fixes the mess the Liberals have created.

In the 30 seconds I have left, I will say this. The Liberal immigration minister has not answered any of these questions. She has put this bill out, it has been massively denigrated by all sides of the public and she has not come up with a solution. I have solutions. I have put them out, and I hope the minister will respond to some of these things in her speech so I do not have to keep doing her job for her.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, many interest groups looked at the immigration provisions in Bill C-2 that are now contained in Bill C-12. They have raised concerns about the constitutionality of these principles. Several groups have actually done this. The minister suggested she thinks it is constitutional.

My concern is that if we have all these groups saying it is unconstitutional when the minister thinks it is constitutional, and there are no other provisions to deal with the massive backlog of asylum claims, then how is the Liberal government going to functionally reduce the asylum claim backlog? What I am worried about with the bill is that the Liberals are just punting the problem to the courts and potentially past the next election date, as opposed to making a serious structural reform that would reduce the incentive for economic migrants to abuse Canada's asylum system.

Could my colleague comment on the fact that many groups have said it is unconstitutional when the minister has said it is constitutional, and this is likely an attempt by the Liberal government to punt the asylum claim system problem to the courts?

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

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my question, I appreciate many of the comments the member from the Bloc party has raised here this afternoon. I think this is very much a responsible approach to deal with the legislation that we have before us. I can assure the member that many of the concerns and questions she has raised will no doubt be talked about extensively during the committee process. Hopefully, the member will be able to get the answers she is looking for.

Obviously, we have a minister who is committed to getting the legislation through. I appreciate the frankness and the manner in which the Bloc appears to be supporting the legislation. Ultimately, we will have to wait and see what sort of priority the opposition, collectively, will put on this legislation.

It is important for us to recognize, right at the beginning, why legislation of this nature has become such a priority. Canada's new Prime Minister, along with the cabinet, members of the Liberal caucus and others, understands that things have changed a great deal over the past year. We have seen great emphasis put on the border between Canada and the United States. Border security concerns have been elevated to a degree I have not seen in my many years of being a parliamentarian. We have a prime minister who recognizes just how important it is that the government act quickly to address a number of those concerns. That is the reason why Bill C-2 was introduced as early as it was. The Prime Minister was amplifying just how important border control is because of some of the crimes being committed in Canada. He has made it a priority in Bill C-2.

In listening to the many comments thus far, both from the Bloc and the Conservatives, I can appreciate that there are aspects of Bill C-2 they are concerned about to the degree where the legislation was not receiving the type of support that can see it go to committee in a quick fashion. In fact, I believe we had just over 18 hours of actual debate on Bill C-2.

There are some issues within Bill C-2 that are somewhat contentious, and concerns have been raised about them. However, just because they are not necessarily incorporated in Bill C-12, which we are debating today, it does not take away from the importance of other measures in Bill C-2. It is important that we recognize it is not just the government's opinion but also that of stakeholders, particularly law enforcement agencies. We recognize there are many aspects of Bill C-2 that address concerns Canadians justifiably want to see some form of action taken on.

To those who have been following Bill C-2, the government is not saying no. It recognizes that we need to get other aspects incorporated into Bill C-2 to move it more quickly through the House of Commons. We believe that the legislation we are proposing today deals with these concerns to a degree where we will hopefully see the bill get to the committee stage.

We need to take a look at the changing dynamic that Canada is facing today, compared to where it was a year ago. One only needs to look at the last national election in the United States. President Trump has made it very clear that he has concerns on a number of fronts with respect to Canada and Mexico. He wants to see specific actions taken in order to foster more co-operation, if I could put it that way.

I will use the issue of fentanyl as an example.

The United States says that fentanyl coming from Canada into the United States is a huge problem. I believe that what is being brought into the United States is less than 1%, but we still take it seriously. The Prime Minister has been very clear about the impact fentanyl is having not only in our communities but also in other nations. He recognizes the impact that drugs coming into Canada is having.

Back in late spring, the government attempted to address concerns expressed on many occasions about how Canada Post was obligated to deliver first-class mail, or size 10 envelopes, which are just standard envelopes. Canada Post was being used to distribute fentanyl in my province and in particular in northern communities. This is a legitimate concern that comes from stakeholders in rural Manitoba. The government responded by ensuring there are more checks in place to minimize the amount of fentanyl going through Canada Post. That is the goal. The Prime Minister, cabinet and the Liberal caucus want to see less fentanyl in our communities. Whether it is through Bill C-2 or Bill C-12, and our talking about the principles of these, this is what we are hoping to accomplish.

Stronger borders is another issue that has been of great concern in the last 12 months. Actually, it has been less than 12 months. Again, we have the newly elected Prime Minister. He was elected back in April. He has committed not only legislation but also budgetary measures to this. A budget is coming on November 4. We often receive questions about RCMP officers, Canada border control officers and the commitment the Prime Minister has made.

It is no small commitment. The Prime Minister says that we are serious about securing Canada's borders. This means not only bringing in Bill C-2, which would provide extra strength, but also factoring in 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new border control officers. This is a significant commitment that goes over and above the legislation. As a government, we recognize that we can bring forward legislation and that, in this situation, there is a need to put more boots on the ground. This is something that will be materializing. I suspect we will hear more about that on November 4, when we present the fall budget to Canadians through the House of Commons.

The legislative component is absolutely critical. The sharing of information is so important. Things have changed over the years. We all know that, through technology and the advancement of the Internet, there are things that can be done through the Internet with all the different types of weapons out there. I am not just talking about guns. Weapons can take many different forms. There is a need for legislation of this nature.

Bill C-12 has two pillars. The first is securing the border and the second is combatting transnational organized crime in terms of things like illegal fentanyl and illicit financing. These are the types of issues being dealt with in this legislation.

I want to recognize the efforts of our border control officers. There are interesting statistics, which we always like to talk about. Whether it is the RCMP or our border control officers, I do not think we give them enough credit for the fine work they do. When I say “we”, I am talking about parliamentarians as a whole and, even beyond the House of Commons, provincial politicians. To give a sense of the type of work that border control officers do for us, I will provide some statistics from January 1 to September 19 of this year. These are all seizures by the Canada border security agents.

Regarding cannabis products, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 37,467,000 grams were seized. For hashish, it was 379,000 grams. For cocaine or crack, it was 2,702,000 grams. For heroin, it was 73,946 grams. There were 770,534 grams of other opioids and 22,237,913 grams of other types of drugs seized. With regard to firearms, something that is constantly discussed, 662 firearms and 11,119 prohibited weapons were seized. In terms of hard dollars, it amounted to $29,961,000. In suspected proceeds of crime, the amount was $2,919,000. This work was done in the first nine months of the year. That is why I say the work our Canada border control officers do for us is so critically important, as is the RCMP's.

I asked the Conservative shadow minister or critic a very specific question related to the RCMP. I want to raise this because I take it very seriously, as I know Canadians do. When I posed my question to the Conservative opposition critic, he chose to sidestep the issue and not answer. It is the same question I posed to the minister responsible for introducing Bill C-12, and it is in relation to the RCMP.

I am offended because, over the last number of days, there has been a lot of news and social media coverage about a statement the leader of the Conservative Party made. The Winnipeg Free Press said that the leader of the Conservative Party called the leadership of the RCMP “despicable”. That is a very important issue in this debate. The government says it is going to increase security at our border, reinforce the strength of the RCMP by investing in another 1,000 officers and that we should, collectively, support those two institutions.

As I indicated, the RCMP as an institution is recognized around the world as a first-class security and law enforcement agency. Let there be absolutely no doubt about that. A politician who says that the leadership of the RCMP is despicable, and goes on in great detail, does a disservice not only to the institution of the RCMP but to all of us who sit inside the House, let alone if it is the leader of Canada's official opposition making that statement.

That is why I posed the question earlier to my colleague across the way from the Conservative Party, who was appointed by the leader of the Conservative Party to take on the role of shadow minister: Does he support what the leader of the Conservative Party is saying? I respect, to a certain degree, that the member chose not to answer the question. I suspect that he understands why it was not an appropriate thing for the leader of the official opposition to say. I believe that the leader of the official opposition owes an apology to all Canadians on this issue. What is despicable, and I would add a few other words to that, is the damage that it causes when the leader of the official opposition makes comments of that nature. I would suggest that the leader of the official opposition owes a sincere apology inside the House to all Canadians for saying what he has said.

Bill C-12 would amend the accelerated scheduling pathway that allows precursor chemicals that can be used to produce illicit drugs to be rapidly controlled by the Minister of Health. This would allow law and border enforcement agencies to take swift action to prevent the illegal importation and use of precursor chemicals and would at the same time ensure strict federal oversight over any legitimate use of these chemicals. The legislation would also provide more strength in terms of the anti-terrorist-financing regime, including through stronger anti-money-laundering penalties.

With respect to the substance of the legislation, the Bloc member referred to the Coast Guard, saying that the Coast Guard would have expanded responsibility. I believe that the sharing of information that a Coast Guard can receive can be exceptionally valuable in terms of the security of our nation. As a result, I agree that there need to be checks in place related to privacy and actions that would not adhere to our Constitution, but at the end of the day, that is valuable information and I would suggest that this information, if accessed appropriately, can ultimately save lives and a whole lot more. That is the reason some of the initiatives Bill C-12 would bring in add more value to the legislation. It becomes a question of whether we want to see that sharing of information, either with the Coast Guard or with immigration.

If I had another 20 minutes, I could go into detail as to why we need to protect the integrity of the system and to be able to recognize that there is abuse within the system and that there is the potential for significant abuse. These amendments are absolutely critical for dealing with the issue of asylum, for example.

Many issues that I have, whether they are related to asylum or other issues related to security, can best be addressed in one-on-one discussions and debates and by the presenters who go before the standing committee.

We have had Bill C-2. We now have Bill C-12. I hope we will see the legislation pass—

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I am just wondering what my colleague thinks about the remainder of Bill C-2. Does she have any advice for the government on what is clearly a flawed bill, a bill that Canadians have spoken out against in droves?

What are her thoughts as to what should occur with the remainder of Bill C-2, given the concerns regarding privacy and civil liberties?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon for her speech, which was very relevant given the circumstances.

First, the reason why Bill C‑2 was introduced so early on is that it was an urgent matter for the government. Donald Trump forced the government to improvise, and Canadians are under a lot of pressure in the climate of fear and insecurity that he is creating. However, with the new Bill C-12, the government is removing mail searches, privacy invasions and restrictions on cash transactions for charities.

How will the U.S. President react to that? Are we expecting the United States to retaliate? I am curious to hear what my colleague thinks will be the consequences of removing these two clauses. They were problematic, and I do not think anyone wanted to see them in a bill.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I tend to agree with the first part of my colleague's question; it is true that workers are losing their jobs right now because of American tariffs. It does not seem as though the government is acting very quickly to support the small regions and medium-sized businesses that do not have the cash flow they need to cope with these changes. Quite frankly, we had very high expectations of this Liberal government based on what we heard during the election campaign. Unfortunately, we have been very disappointed.

Take, for example, the aerospace industry and secondary processing facilities. There have been closures and staffing cuts in my riding and across Quebec. Unfortunately, the government is not paying much attention to that and does not seem to be acting very quickly. The government is not very quick on the draw, as they say. It is not very quick to respond to communities' urgent and pressing needs.

The most problematic parts of Bill C‑2, namely, the privacy invasions, were taken out of Bill C‑12. Bill C‑2 was completely unacceptable. Canadians, Quebeckers, all organizations and everyone were against the fact that the government would allow such a major invasion of the privacy of Quebeckers and Canadians. When the government saw that its bill would not make it any further than this if it did not make amendments, it finally listened to reason and introduced Bill C‑12, which removed the three most problematic parts of Bill C‑2.

What concerns me is that the government does not seem to have given up on these three parts. I hope that people are listening today and that they will keep up the pressure on the government so that these three parts, which invade privacy, are never passed.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to speak when you are sitting in the chair.

I would like to congratulate the newly acclaimed mayors in my riding. We recently had an election in Quebec for cities and municipalities. I would like to congratulate Alain Dubuc, who was re-elected as mayor of Beauharnois. I would also like to congratulate Daibhid Fraser in Dundee, Deborah Stewart in Elgin, Mark Wallace in Hinchinbrooke, André Brunette in Huntingdon, Michel Proulx in Les Cèdres, Sylvain Brazeau in Les Coteaux, Peter Zytynsky in Pointe‑des‑Cascade, Sylvie Tourangeau in Saint‑Anicet, Mylène Labre in Saint‑Clet, Daniel Pinsonneault in Sainte‑Barbe, Shawn Campbell in Sainte‑Justine‑de‑Newton, Jinny Brunelle in Sainte‑Marthe, Martin Dumaresq in Saint‑Étienne‑de‑Beauharnois, Yves Daoust in Saint‑Louis‑de‑Gonzague, Jean-Pierre Ménard in Saint‑Polycarpe, David McKay in Saint‑Télésphore and Miguel Lemieux in Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield. Eighteen mayors out of 25 have been acclaimed in my riding. I would like to wish them all the best and may they have a successful term for the coming year.

Today, we are discussing Bill C‑12. With the exception of three parts, it is almost identical to Bill C‑2, previously presented by the government with considerable fanfare. Viewers at home will recall that the bill's number, Bill C‑2, reflects the fact that the government was intent on bringing this bill forward urgently at the start of this Parliament. That is why today, in mid-October, we are dealing with another bill that has the same objectives, but is now known as Bill C‑12.

What does that mean? It means that this bill was initially intended to appease the President of the United States after he set a very high bar for Canada in terms of border security requirements. The Prime Minister promised to respond forcefully to the problem and to introduce a very strong bill to secure the borders, known as Bill C‑2 at that time.

The Bloc Québécois has carefully examined Bill C‑12 and we want the government to know that we support sending it to committee for study.

However, what worries me is that I heard the Minister of Public Safety say that Bill C‑2 has only been postponed, and I have read that too. In other words, in order to be able to pass the other parts of Bill C‑2 through Bill C‑12, he removed the contentious parts that were preventing it from being passed unanimously, namely all the parts that violated privacy or anything that did not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In its report, the Library of Parliament provided a whole list of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms violations, including the section that protects the right to life, liberty and security of any person in Canada, and section 8, which provides protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Obviously, we have talked at length about everything akin to opening mail without a warrant and about section 15, which provides that every individual is equal before the law.

There was a risk of arbitrary discrimination. I could not find a single organization or agency that had anything good to say about the parts that were removed from Bill C‑2. That is why we are discussing and debating Bill C‑12 today. I could not find anyone to defend those parts because they represented a potential for intrusion. One very well-known expert witness told me that parts 14 and 15 of Bill C-2 would spell the end of privacy. If those provisions were not amended, it would have been the end of privacy.

The government clearly took its shot, but it wrote this in a hurry. What scares me is that if the Liberal government had won a majority, Bill C-2 would have been passed and rammed down the throats of Quebeckers, Canadians and the opposition, all because the Americans felt it was very important. However, they do not value privacy as highly as we do here in Quebec and Canada.

That is scary, because there is no guarantee that Bill C‑2 will not be brought back to life. Parts of that legislation can still be found in Bill C‑12. The minister has not given up hope of getting the highly contentious parts of Bill C‑2 passed.

What matters is that the opposition did its job. The government realized that it did not do its job properly, that it had rushed things and had been too hasty in introducing Bill C‑2, which did not at all meet the needs of Quebeckers and the people of the other provinces.

Bill C‑12 was pared down, because it is better to have something than nothing at all. This bill does have some interesting parts, which we would like to explore. We in the Bloc Québécois do not simply oppose or criticize. As a political party, we truly want to improve things and propose ideas, especially when they are in the interest of Quebec. All the better if they are also in the interest of other Canadians.

When it comes to the whole issue of border security, the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for stronger action. We know that it took the President of the United States to tell us that our border is like a sieve. The Speaker of the House will surely recall that, at the time, we were very critical of the fact that the Liberal government opened Roxham Road and that we were told that we were racist and unwelcoming to refugees. Slowly but surely, Ontario came around to our way of thinking, as did the other provinces, and all of a sudden, the government managed to solve the problem and began welcoming refugees through the proper points of entry.

The Bloc Québécois also made suggestions about how to better monitor the borders and better protect citizens. The first was to create a department of borders. I asked the minister questions at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security two weeks ago, but instead of answering me, he looked to the president of the CBSA to answer for him. That is rather unfortunate. He needs to be accountable. This is his responsibility, and he needs to answer the questions. Given the current context, we think it is high time that the government incorporated a border department into this department, where all security interventions are entrusted to a minister who is responsible and accountable.

We also proposed a measure that we believe could improve border security. We propose that border officers be given more flexibility in performing their duties. On Friday, I visited the school where Canadian border officers are trained. The training centre is located in Rigaud, in the riding of my neighbour from Vaudreuil. I had a wonderful time seeing first-hand the serious training provided to border officers and the highly-qualified personnel it produces in all matters related to border security. Why not let these officers respond to situations as they arise, leave their post, perform interceptions and call the RCMP to come and deal with packages, shipments or people trying to enter Canada illegally?

I fail to understand the government's resistance to this proposal, since not a single border officer would deny that it is a good idea. In times of limited resources, it is wise to use our resources as effectively as possible. That is an idea proposed by the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc Québécois also continues to demand better control of firearms that are circulating illegally and are prohibited on our soil. I represent a riding that borders the Akwesasne reserve, Lake Saint‑François, Lake Saint‑Louis, and the U.S. border in New York state. We know there is trafficking of illegal arms. We are therefore asking for more patrols and more resources to be allocated to this part of the country, where we know there is a lot of smuggling and even human trafficking, which occurs more by waterways than by land.

We will continue to demand oversight to clean up the Toronto big banks and money laundering activities linked to criminal groups. We will also propose tougher penalties for border smugglers. The current penalties are a joke. We have even seen smugglers get caught and deported back to their countries, only to return to Quebec and resume the same criminal activities. Our border control system is clearly dysfunctional.

Obviously, we also want to take action in the fight against the fentanyl crisis, which, as everyone knows, is a public health crisis. In the Bloc Québécois, we agree that we need to invest in public health, which means increasing federal health transfers. The government must be more attentive to the needs of Quebec and the provinces in terms of support and funding, whether for rehabilitation centres, rapid access to emergency rooms, social worker services, supervised consumption centres, or harm reduction initiatives.

The Bloc Québécois believes that border measures to crack down on organized crime continue to be not only necessary, but extremely important. In addition, we must have seamless co-operation among American, Mexican and Canadian authorities so they can be more effective in their response and capture the criminals, who have had it easy for the past few years. These criminals have figured out the flaws in our system and learned how to take advantage of them.

Of course, Bill C‑12 also deals with the issue of refugee claimants. If the bill is sent to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we will have an opportunity to debate it there and get a better idea of the sections that amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I must say that the Bloc Québécois has some questions about Bill C‑12. Under the bill, rail companies will have to create a space in their marshalling yards, including a warehouse and offices, because right now customs officers are unable to inspect railway cars leaving Canada for the United States. To do that, rail companies such as CN, CP and CSX will have to build infrastructure in their marshalling yards. The big question I have is this: Are those rail companies going to have to cover 100% of the costs associated with setting up this infrastructure?

For example, it could cost millions of dollars to set up infrastructure that includes a warehouse and two or three offices for border officers, as well as a scanning system to detect if cars contain explosives or other important illicit substances that could threaten national security. I do not have the exact figure, but it could be more than $30 million. I know this because it is what is required at the Port of Valleyfield for border officers to be present and for containers to clear through the port. Will the rail companies also be required to set up this very expensive infrastructure? Will they receive financial support? Will they have a certain amount of time to comply with the new requirements?

As is often the case in legislation, the devil is in the details, and yet the current text of Bill C‑12 is lacking in this level of detail. In committee, we will have an opportunity to hear from many witnesses. For example, CN officials may tell us that this is not a problem, that they are willing to invest several million dollars in their marshalling yards to ensure that the agency has the infrastructure it needs to inspect the rail cars. I may be a pessimist but, given the times we are living in, I question whether a rail company would want to invest so much money in order to meet a government request. I suspect that enforcement delays may be much longer than what is anticipated in the context of the bill.

In terms of rail companies, allowing border agents to come into marshalling yards to conduct inspections is a new way of doing things. Practices are going to change as a result. Ultimately, with Bill C‑12, the government is announcing a lot of changes today. A law can be changed, but it can take several months or even years before the law is implemented and practices on the ground actually change. There are bills that were passed two years ago that we still do not have regulations for. The Official Languages Act is a good example.

Bill C‑12 also provides for changes to the mandate of the Canadian Coast Guard. As we know, the Coast Guard is responsible for patrolling various parts of Quebec and the provinces by water, but it does not have the authority to relay information to other authorities. It is not allowed. I do not know if it does so in practice, but it is not supposed to. This bill therefore corrects that by giving the Coast Guard the ability to help document information it deems suspicious.

Since the Coast Guard has been moved back under the military budget, what we are wondering is whether Coast Guard officers will be armed and how much they will be able to intervene. I did not see anything in the bill to indicate whether that might change. It is rather odd to be part of the armed forces but to not be allowed to be armed. That is another question. We can have that debate during committee hearings when we study the bill more thoroughly. As long as we do not know the answers to these questions, if the Coast Guard's only mandate is to provide information and surveillance, then we have to wonder whether it will truly be integrated under the umbrella of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I think everyone knows that this is needed first and foremost for the Arctic, to safeguard the border and protect Canada's territorial sovereignty. However, as a member of Parliament representing an area near Lac Saint-François that also borders the Akwesasne reserve and New York State, what I am seeing is a decrease of at least 50% in maritime patrols in that area. The government talks about adding resources, but I think it is more a question of managing resources. The government is going to take resources away from the Coast Guard, give it a little more power and move its officers to priority areas, thereby neglecting other areas, including areas in my riding, which is a hot spot for gun smuggling, tobacco smuggling and human trafficking.

For the past year or year and a half, the government has been making one announcement after another. I think this is the fifth official announcement of plans to hire 1,000 border officers. Hiring 1,000 new officers takes a lot of organization; after all, border officers do not grow on trees. It takes at least 18 weeks to train them, not including the specialized training delivered at various campuses in Quebec and Canada. What is less clear in the bill is who will be training them. Do we have enough instructors? Are the 1,000 officers really going to be assigned to the border? It seems not. Instead, we hear that 800 border officers will be trained at Rigaud and another 200 will be assigned to intelligence or administrative investigation duties. These are some of the areas we will have to clarify when we ask questions in committee.

In closing, we obviously intend to take a serious and thorough approach to Bill C-12. We are going to help improve it, and we hope that the governing party will listen to our amendments and recommendations.

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

Where should I start, Madam Speaker? My colleague proved his intellectual fortitude one more time with that brilliant intervention.

On the issue of enforcement at ports of entry, my colleague raises a very important point, something that I do not believe gets enough coverage in the House. If somebody commits an offence, despite the fact that border officers with the CBSA are police officers, which grants them specific powers under the Criminal Code, their mandate does not permit them to go beyond a port of entry. Let us say somebody had a kilogram of cocaine and it was dropped outside a port of entry. Even if it was in sight, the CBSA could not get it. This has been stated to the government time after time. If it wants to make meaningful changes, that is something we should be debating in this House.

When it comes to the member's comments on Bill C-2, I could agree more. It remains on the Order Paper and we need to scrutinize it. I wonder if the Liberals will pull back from it. They have obviously shown some willingness to do that given that Bill C-12 is now before us.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on some of the comments made.

Bill C-12 has taken up the parts of Bill C-2 that we agree with and moved them over, but Bill C-2 is still sitting on the Order Paper. That bill, as my colleague mentioned, would give the power to Canada Post employees to do search and seizure, which is in complete violation of our charter rights. We know that through Bill C-2, the Liberals want to take cash and make it illegal to make deposits of over $10,000. Last time I looked at the back of any currency in Canada, $20 bills, $10 bills and five-dollar bills say “Canada”. We are talking about legal tender, guaranteed by the government and the Bank of Canada, yet they want to make cash illegal.

I want to ask the member whether he believes the Liberals are going to turn away from Bill C-2 and the flawed policies they still have in it. Should we be making some suggestions about them? Does he think, through Bill C-12, the Liberals are going to empower CBSA officers to police the entire border, not just ports of entry?

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to acknowledge a few people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I want to acknowledge the life of Dana Evans. I was very saddened to read about Dana's passing. She was mother to one of my friends in high school, Derek Luce, and his brother, Louie Luce. I did not know this, but she was born in Yakima, Washington, a place where I spent a great deal of time, and attended school in Ellensburg. I have a good friend from Ellensburg.

However, what stuck out to me most was that Dana Evans graduated from Thorp High School. I have a couple of friends from Thorp. It is basically a postage stamp in Washington; I always used to make fun of, to my friends, how small it is. Lo and behold, my friend's mom was born there. I have distinct memories of sleeping over at the house and of Ms. Evans being up early to make us pancakes and send us on our way, making sure that her sons and their friends did not get into too much trouble.

I would like to express my deepest condolences to the Evans family, Louie Luce and Derek Luce, and all others who are impacted by her passing. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I also want to acknowledge Les Consenheim, a resident of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, for his outstanding contributions to democracy. He has been a huge help to me, and I am so grateful that people like him are so involved. He recently sponsored an event that I was at this weekend, where people bid on art based on volunteer hours. If somebody liked an art piece, they could volunteer, say 100 hours, to an organization. Among those organizations was the Canucks Autism Network, an organization that is very close to my heart, for those who know me. I thank Mr. Consenheim for all he has done for the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Let us start at the beginning. Bill C-2 was tabled as what I would call a panacea. It was meant to be a cure-all, a reaction piece and something to contain a number of Liberal promises or not so many promises, requests, bureaucratic lingo and things like that. I can still remember, even though I was not here, how the Liberals spoke about omnibus bills and how bad they were. They spoke about the big, bad Conservatives' passing big, bad omnibus bills, and they said that the Liberals would never, ever pass omnibus bills, yet here we are: One of many omnibus bills comes to us in the form of Bill C-2, with a number of problems.

Bill C-2, if memory serves, would enact or alter 15 pieces of legislation. It is about 120 pages long, if memory serves, and the Liberals told us to just pass it, just trust them. Given some of the rhetoric in the House today, it is somewhat comical that the Liberals would use this type of language: Just pass this, just trust them.

As members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, our job is to listen to Canadians and to closely scrutinize government legislation. In a 120-page bill, there are problems. I am going to highlight one of those problems, and I really hope that the member for Winnipeg North is listening closely to this one: the warrantless search.

The member has spoken to the House ad nauseam, no fewer than five or six times, about the fact that Canada Post could not open up mail without a warrant. They have a number of lawyers on the Liberal side. We have a number of lawyers here. However, the legislation actually speaks really clearly, so I am going to read the legislation into the record just so that we are really clear on this, and then I will speak about what we have been through with a number of bureaucrats.

Bill C-2, in part 4, proposes to replace subsection 41(1) of the act with the following:

The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that

The reasonable suspicion part relates to regulation, so if any regulation is suspected to be breached, Canada Post could open our mail.

If I am understanding it clearly, the intent of the legislation is to cover up a gap, in that mail cannot not be opened with a warrant. In other words, we want to make it so that anybody shipping something that is 499 grams or less could be subject to a warranted search, a search that is authorized by a judge.

I admire the member's zeal for sticking with this position, which is a position I thought was untenable, so let us go through that again. Bill C-2 states that the corporation may open any mail, so that includes letters, parcels or anything. I think we are all on solid ground and know what “any mail” means. It states that it “may” open it, so it would not be compulsory. The government would not have to open mail, but the legislation would be permissive; the government could open any mail if it had reasonable grounds to suspect.

The bill refers to the “Corporation”, which is very interesting. The corporation legally has personhood, but the corporation is made up of people. Those people, generally, are not going to be peace officers. In fact, I do not know whether Canada Post has any peace officers in its employ. The legislation would not even require a peace officer, so theoretically it could be somebody in the mail room who has no training. We hear all about RCMP training and things like that. Somebody with no training could open up mail; they may, not shall, do so if they have reasonable grounds to suspect.

The member for Winnipeg North has told us so many times that a warrant would be needed. I went to a briefing with top officials from the government, and they told me that based on the provisions, a warrant would not be needed. Imagine that. The words are so clear that a warrant would not be needed, so let us just go through it one more time for clarity.

Bill C-2 states:

The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that

It does not state that the corporation may apply for a warrant. It does not state that the corporation shall apply for a warrant. It says that it “may open any mail”.

Here is the real kicker: reasonable grounds. I have not practised law for about four years, but my recollection is that a search warrant is issued by a judge when there are reasonable grounds to believe, based on oath or affirmation, than an offence has been committed, that there is evidence of that offence and that the place to be searched will yield evidence of the offence. Those three characteristics are needed with reasonable grounds to believe.

Let us go back to the plain language:

The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that

Wait a minute. That is not reasonable grounds to believe, as is needed for a warrant, yet the Liberals have repeatedly stood up in this place and said that Conservatives are full of conspiracy theories and that a warrant would be needed, when it says right in the bill that a warrant would not be needed.

The member for Winnipeg North is very active in questions and comments, and God forbid that any member of the House would misspeak, so I really look forward to his addressing the issue in questions and comments. In fact, perhaps a page can run the document over to him, because it says it right in it, and the member can tell us whether he still believes this, or acknowledges perhaps that Conservatives were correct on the issue.

This leads me to Bill C-2 generally. Bill C-2 was a mess. The government went very far. We can all acknowledge that border security is an issue, but the legislation went very far, and we heard about it from Canadians. The Liberals have said that we need the legislation and need it done, and they have asked how we dare stand in the way of border security and things like that. However, as Conservatives, we played our role as opposition, and we did so very clearly.

We took issue, and people will notice that the matters with which we took issue are not matters in Bill C-12. I take great pride in what we have done, because that is what an opposition does. An opposition scrutinizes, considers and opposes, when and where it is appropriate to oppose.

Lo and behold, part 4, which speaks about the inspection of mail, is no longer in Bill C-12; it remains languishing in Bill C-2. It is by no coincidence that occurred, because we as Conservatives consistently raised the plain language in Bill C-2, which I think I will quote again:

The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that

Then it goes on to the regulations.

What other things are missing? Conservatives raised substantial questions about privacy concerns, parts 14 and 15, what is colloquially called lawful access. People have said I should know about the R v. Bykovets decision. I do know about the Bykovets decision very well. I think I was still practising law when it came out. That decision said there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in an IP address. As parliamentarians, we have to remedy the problem.

We have actually seen that when the Liberals want to remedy an untenable decision for the House, they have no problem doing it quickly. I will note that they have failed to do that on the issue of bail. There were three or four decisions on bail that they actually codified. That means they took the language from the decision and put it into legislation. They did not push back on it. Section 33.1, the defence of extreme intoxication, was struck out. There was legislation before the House within weeks of that happening.

The Liberals did not want a law on the books. They did not want a lack of law that said that extreme intoxication is an excuse for a general intent offence, that is, when someone does not legally have the ability to commit the offence. I believe it goes to the actus reus defence, but it has been a while. In any event, the Liberals responded with legislation very quickly.

The Liberals did not really care so much about bail, but now they say they are tough on crime. This is after former ministers of justice Virani and Lametti stood just across the aisle in the House to tell us there is no problem with bail. The Liberals have no problem responding when it is consistent with their agenda.

In Bill C-12, what the Liberals will not acknowledge is that it was robust opposition that led to elements that should be debated in Bill C-2's forming Bill C-12, as well as other very questionable issues in Bill C-2's remaining in Bill C-2. It also begs this question: What is going to happen in Bill C-2?

Perhaps we can have another debate on Bill C-2, and the member for Winnipeg North can stand up and speak about warrantless searches of mail. The Liberals could also discuss cash transactions, how much money should be permitted, and whether we should actually be telling Canadians how much cash they can or cannot use.

I just want to pause to acknowledge somebody who has done tremendous work when it comes to democracy and participating in democracy. That person is named Dawson McKay. He is a Crown prosecutor in British Columbia. I admire his passion for the rule of law and what is right, and I want to thank him for his contributions to democracy. He is somebody with a deep conscience, a deep desire to do what is right. I thank him for his work.

I would also like to thank somebody else, another prosecutor, Alex Wheele. He works out of the Kamloops Crown counsel office in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. He is somebody I had the pleasure of meeting when he was in law school and was just thinking about becoming a prosecutor, and we spoke. I taught his now wife in the faculty of business back then. I am very proud to call Alex a friend. I am so grateful for his work in contributing to democracy. I am also proud of his work in contributing to public safety. I want to recognize that formally in the House of Commons.

We have spoken about the mail provisions, and we have spoken about Bill C-2 generally and how we got here. Now let us focus on Bill C-12, what is in it and what is not.

I know that my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman will be giving a speech today. I am sure he will give it with his characteristic zeal and great detail, as he is so often known for in the House.

What is not in Bill C-12? There is no mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers. I believe we heard from the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime that the Liberals are “tough on crime”. That was actually said in the House. Really? Apparently, now the Liberals are going to come out with legislation. We have not even seen the legislation yet, but we are being told that we should support it. I would think the House would support a bill on intimate-partner violence, but that remains to be seen.

I am told the legislation has good stuff in it and speaks about sex offences and people who committee sex offences no longer getting house arrest. I have probably raised this issue 15 times in the House, and the Liberals have openly mocked our views when it comes to justice. I actually raised this issue with the minister of justice at one time, and I heard, “Do not worry. When somebody commits a serious crime, they will get serious time.” What happened to the mentality of trusting judges? The Liberals told us we should trust judges; they are appointed. Now they say, “Wait a minute. There is no more house arrest for sex offences.” They do not trust judges any more; they are tough on crime. It is something they mocked us for. I am worried that I am going to wake up with a stiff neck tomorrow based on the whiplash I am getting from the government, which is now tough on crime.

What else do we not have in the bill? There is no mandatory prison time for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes. A person can get house arrest for a drive-by shooting. What is worse is that this was not the court's doing; it was the Liberals' doing. For Bill C-5, Mr. Lametti, then a minister, said he did not think that somebody had to go to jail for popping off a couple of shots into a bar after having a couple of pops.

Intending to discharge a gun, if done in a car, is called a drive-by shooting. If it is done otherwise, it is a called a shooting with intent. There used to be a four-year mandatory minimum, which was constitutionally upheld in a case called Oud, I might add, for the Liberals who say that everything was always struck down under the Conservatives. However, it went from a four-year sentence to potentially house arrest. Now the Liberals are tough on crime, but not tough enough to put this into an omnibus bill to keep us all safe.

The Liberals have created what I would call a porous border, and that porous border is allowing firearms to get in like never before. What should we be doing? People will say to me that denunciation and deterrence do not work. They have been our sentencing principles in the Criminal Code from time immemorial, but they will say they do not work. I am starting to have serious questions about the fact that people can repeatedly commit crimes and believe they are untouchable. I saw this happen on so many occasions in my employment before I was blessed to be present in the House. When we let somebody operate with impunity when it comes to the criminal law, we will invariably have an outcome that they repeat the behaviour, because they have learned that there will be no consequences from it. Bill C-12 is silent on that.

I hope the Liberals will give credit where credit is due as to how Bill C-12 came here. We will scrutinize this legislation and we will go from there.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I echo some of the questions the minister has heard from members on the opposite benches about similarities with Bill C-2 and whether Bill C-2 remains as it does on the order of precedence.

My question is about RCMP training. It is really critical. I want to know if the Minister of Public Safety has read the report of the Mass Casualty Commission that was compelled after the deaths of 22 Nova Scotians. These were preventable deaths largely due to RCMP incompetence. The commission recommended that we expand training for the RCMP to a three-year required course instead of the current 26 weeks.

In hiring 1,000 new RCMP officers, is the government looking at improving the training, and is it looking at the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have gone through Bill C-12. I appreciate the fact that the minister took the Conservatives' advice, listened to Canadians and took out the sections of Bill C-2 that were egregious and violated the charter rights and civil liberties of Canadians right across this country.

The government is talking about moving the Coast Guard to the Department of National Defence. However, part 4 does not name the Department of National Defence or the Minister of National Defence. It is rather open-ended on the Coast Guard still being under the control of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Fisheries since its creation under the Oceans Act.

Will the Liberals formally announce or put in place the legislative powers to make sure the Canadian Coast Guard is part of the Department of National Defence and under the control of the Minister of National Defence, not make some ambiguous statement within the clause itself?

Will they also ensure that, since the Coast Guard is going to be asked to take on the role of security, its members will be given the tools to defend themselves when they are doing interdictions, along with the ability to encounter ships at sea when they are doing border security? That is very important since, right now, they are unarmed. When doing surveillance, all they can be are eyes and ears. Even the Canadian Rangers are allowed to carry guns, whereas the Canadian Coast Guard cannot.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his speech.

The Bloc Québécois has long called for better border control, whether to combat the export of stolen vehicles, reduce the number of asylum seekers in Quebec, or fight fentanyl and money laundering.

We are pleased that Bill C‑12 is doing away with the most problematic elements of Bill C‑2 with regard to privacy violations. However, there is one major issue on which we are still looking for clarification.

The minister said he would add 1,000 RCMP officers and 1,000 border officers. The 1,000 RCMP officers were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but the 1,000 CBSA officers were not. The unions tell us that it would take at least 2,000 or 3,000 more CBSA officers for the agency to be able to truly fulfill its mandate.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-12 is being introduced with three major elements that were left out of Bill C-2, which are lawful access, postal services and the $10,000 amount as part of money laundering. These elements are quite important to law enforcement. I have heard from law enforcement across Canada as to the need to ensure that there is a lawful-access regime. Canada remains the only country where lawful access is not entrenched in law.

I had a meeting with Grand Chief Fiddler this morning. He talked about the need for inspection of mail coming into first nations communities. In some cases, we know that fentanyl and other illicit drugs go through.

Quite to the contrary, what we are trying to do here is ensure that Bill C-12 passes, with the expectation that we can work together on passing the elements of Bill C-2 that were left behind.

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

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

I listened with great interest to the minister's speech. Bill C-12 is obviously a reiteration of some portions of Bill C-2. Conservatives have been very vocal on problematic aspects of Bill C-2. The minister framed it as “we have listened to Canadians”, as in the Liberals have listened.

Will the minister admit that the Liberals simply got it wrong with Bill C-2, based on Conservative pressure and otherwise from Canadians, and that this is their attempt to salvage a very flawed piece of legislation?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved that Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. Bill C-12 is important legislation that would keep Canadians safe by strengthening immigration and border security.

Security risks and the danger they pose to our national and economic security are constantly evolving.

This is true when it comes to transnational organized crime groups that seek to facilitate illegal border crossings and smuggle fentanyl, precursor chemicals, other harmful drugs and illegal firearms into our communities.

Our government is committed to ensuring that law enforcement agencies have the right tools to keep our borders safe.

We have listened to the concerns raised by stakeholders and by my colleagues during debate here in the House. This new bill, Bill C-12, would strike the right balance between the need to protect our borders and the concerns about Canadians' privacy.

Bill C-12 draws on the elements of Bill C-2 that were designed to combat transnational organized crime and those who seek to exploit our immigration system. These include stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl, cracking down on money laundering, bolstering our response to increasingly sophisticated criminal networks and enhancing the integrity and fairness of our immigration system.

It is essential that we take urgent action on this issue.

That is why Bill C-12 was introduced. It would enable Parliament to quickly advance legislative priorities where we see the most agreement, while taking the time necessary to debate the provisions remaining in Bill C-2 that we have raised concerns about.

Responding to these changes and cracking down on transnational organized crime groups and their illegal activities are essential to maintaining the safety and security of our country. Border security is a priority that we share with our neighbours to the south. Addressing it will further strengthen our relationship with the United States.

We can always do more, and we are doing more, but I want to assure members that the border is secure. Our law enforcement and border agencies identify, neutralize and mitigate threats on a daily basis, and we are building on those operational outcomes.

Last December, Canada launched several key measures as part of a comprehensive border plan. This plan is bringing meaningful operational and policy changes, but we need legislative change to advance the plan and further strengthen border security to keep our communities safe. The amendments contained in Bill C-12 would help law enforcement by giving them the tools to respond more effectively to the evolving security challenges.

There are two main themes to Bill C-12. The first is securing the border. The second is combatting transnational organized crime, illegal fentanyl and illicit financing.

Under the first theme, securing the border, we are proposing to amend the Customs Act to secure our borders against illicit drug trafficking, weapons smuggling and auto theft. We would obligate owners and operators of certain ports of exit and entry to “provide, equip and maintain” facilities for “any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of” the Canada Border Services Agency's mandate.

This includes examining and seizing goods destined for export.

This change would allow the CBSA to access premises under the control of transporters and warehouse operators to perform examinations in places where goods destined for export are reported, loaded, unloaded or stored.

Second, Bill C-12 would amend the Oceans Act to add security-related activities to the Coast Guard's services. This would allow the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze and dismantle information and intelligence for security purposes.

Third, we are proposing amendments that would enhance the ability of the RCMP to share information collected on registered sex offenders with domestic and international law enforcement partners.

Fourth, related to immigration, the bill introduces measures to protect the asylum system against sudden increases in claims by introducing new ineligibility rules, as well as to improve how asylum claims are received, processed and decided. The bill also proposes to strengthen authorities to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents and to cancel, suspend or stop accepting new applications. This would give us the ability to respond to potential crises in the event that a large number of immigration documents are affected by the same issue.

Finally, the proposed measures would improve how client information is shared within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, and with federal, provincial and territorial partners.

The components related to the second theme include, first, amending the accelerated scheduling pathway to allow precursor chemicals that can be used to produce illicit drugs to be rapidly controlled by the Minister of Health. This would allow law and border enforcement agencies to take swift action to prevent the illegal importation and use of precursor chemicals, and it would ensure strict federal oversight over any legitimate use of these chemicals.

Second, the proposed measures would strengthen Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, including through stronger anti-money laundering penalties.

Third, the measures contained in the bill would enhance supervisory collaboration and support high standards of regulatory compliance by adding the director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, to the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee. FINTRAC would also be enabled to exchange supervisory information on federally regulated financial institutions with FISC.

I am happy to say that these proposed measures would complement ongoing efforts to secure our border from coast to coast to coast, including the $1.3-billion investment made in December last year to increase resources dedicated to border security.

Meanwhile, Bill C-2 will continue, with further study, to advance the elements that would facilitate law enforcement’s access to basic and subscriber information, introduce the supporting authorized access to information act, expand the inspection authority of Canada Post, introduce new restrictions on third party deposits and large cash transfers, and clarify public-to-private information-sharing provisions to help better detect and deter money laundering. We heard the concern that it is important that we get this right.

As a result of our strong partnership with the United States, last year, nearly $3.6 billion in trade and about 400,000 people crossed the Canada-U.S. border every single day. We want to make sure that this continues. Following both the former prime minister's and current Prime Minister's discussions with President Trump, Canada committed to a set of measures that would further strengthen security at the border and expand on our $1.3-billion border plan.

In support of the plan, in February, a new intelligence directive on organized crime and illegal fentanyl was signed, and it will be backed by a $200-million investment. This includes the creation of the joint operational intelligence cell, which builds on existing co-operation mechanisms between law enforcement partners and security agencies to better leverage information sharing to target transnational organized crime, money laundering and drug trafficking and improve border security.

The integrated money laundering intelligence partnership was established with Canada's largest banks. It is enhancing our capacity to develop and use financial intelligence to combat fentanyl trafficking and other organized crime.

Canada has also appointed its first fentanyl czar, who serves as the primary liaison between the Canadian and U.S. governments to strengthen our collaboration in the fight against fentanyl.

Additionally, we have listed seven transnational organized crime groups as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code and are constantly monitoring whether more should be added. Listing is an important tool that supports criminal investigations and strengthens the RCMP’s ability to prevent and disrupt criminal activities.

Canada has also committed to providing surveillance at the border 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are working on our border. As we announced just last week, we will be hiring 1,000 new RCMP personnel and 1,000 CBSA officers to bolster these protection efforts. We will mobilize law enforcement officers with new and modernized equipment to make them even more effective for our communities.

This equipment includes state-of-the-art technology, drones, surveillance equipment, canine teams and helicopters.

All of this important work takes place every single day at border crossings right across this great country.

I would like to note that, while illegal crossings from Canada to the U.S. are already down by 99% since the peak in June 2024, we have also deployed new drones and helicopters to the border.

These tools are enabling us to stop more illegal cross-border activity.

The border plan makes investments in both agencies, allowing them to procure tools for better detection and to build even stronger collaborative relationships between the CBSA and the RCMP, and between law enforcement across the country and in the United States. Through our border plan, we are building our information and intelligence-sharing capacity among federal, provincial and territorial authorities as well as with the United States and other international partners, including our Five Eyes partners. Enhanced information sharing allows authorities to identify, monitor and collaborate with partners to intercept high-risk individuals and goods attempting to travel between countries.

Meanwhile, as too many families know, illegal fentanyl has a devastating impact on both sides of our border. While less than 1% of illegal fentanyl seized in the United States is linked to Canada, we are working to ensure fewer drugs and their precursor chemicals cross our shared border. To increase our fentanyl-detection abilities, we have trained and are deploying border detector dog teams that specialize in fentanyl detection.

With respect to immigration, under the border plan, we have already strengthened our visa screening and integrity to keep those who seek to remain in Canada illegally, or to cross into the United States illegally, out of Canada. We have increased our ability to remove bad actors from Canada. As well, the CBSA removed over 18,000 inadmissible people in 2024-25, the highest in a decade and an increase from approximately 16,000 the year before. The border plan provides $55.5 million to support immigration and asylum processing and to increase CBSA’s capacity to reach 20,000 removals over the next two years, including this year.

With our current focus on the border and our plans to introduce further measures to strengthen the criminal justice system in the future, Canadians can be confident that Canada has a strong border and that we continue to build an even stronger one. We will always ensure that the actions we take will have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure due process for all.

We will continue to work with our U.S. partners to ensure that our border remains secure while we also continue to manage the fast and efficient movement of people and goods between our respective countries. These additional measures we are taking to further strengthen Canada’s border will help sustain this partnership and friendship for many years to come.

As a final point, I would like to thank the RCMP and CBSA officers who work so hard every day to keep us safe.

I was able to visit several Canadian ports of entry this summer, and I saw first-hand the crucial work that our frontline men and women of the RCMP and CBSA do each and every day.

This is integral legislation. I hope that my hon. colleagues will support Bill C-12 today and ensure that we can provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to keep Canadians and our communities safe.

Business of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, it is time for the Thursday question. I would like to use this opportunity to ask a few very specific questions.

First and foremost, we see that the embattled public safety minister has had to come, cap in hand, back to the House of Commons and restart his efforts with Bill C-2. It was literally the first piece of legislation the government introduced, and the government has had to do a complete do-over because it got it so wrong, infringing on Canadians' individual rights and liberties, completely violating charter principles of the right to privacy and due process. Now that the Liberals have tabled the do-over, mulligan piece of legislation, I would like to ask them when they might be calling that piece of legislation.

Second, I would like to ask the Liberals something very specific. The member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay has asked for an emergency take-note debate on softwood lumber. We note that yesterday the Prime Minister came home empty-handed; he did not get a deal on softwood lumber tariffs. Many mills have been closing across the country, and my colleague, who represents a lot of the forestry workers in British Columbia, has asked for an emergency take-note debate. I am wondering if the government will agree to that and schedule such a debate.

I would also like to seek the opportunity to help inform the Prime Minister. He said during question period that the Liberals voted against something that does not exist when it comes to the oil and gas production cap. I have here the actual regulations for the oil and gas production cap. Perhaps the Prime Minister has not had a chance to read that, but, if the House gives its consent, I will table that right now.

Maybe the government could also tell us what the business will be for the rest of this week and all of next week.

I have one more thing. Before we go, I would like to wish all Canadians a very happy Thanksgiving. I hope that all members of the House from both sides of the aisle, and all the support staff who work here and help this place place function, have a great, happy Thanksgiving with their friends and family.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the issue of crime and safety in our communities, we have a new Prime Minister who has made a solemn commitment to Canadians. Along with the Prime Minister, we had 340-plus candidates canvassing the entire country, dealing with important issues for Canadians. The issue of crime and safety was a priority. That is the reason the Prime Minister of Canada made that solemn commitment in the last election to bring forward bail reform legislation.

I listened to what the member is saying, and he is of the impression that we should have brought forward the legislation the moment after the election. There is an obligation of the Prime Minister and the government to work with the different stakeholders who are out there to build consensus in terms of how and in what form that bail legislation should be presented. That is the way it was done previously, and that is the way it needs to be done, because the judicial system is a shared responsibility. Ottawa has a role to play, the provinces have a role to play, and municipalities have a role to play.

Before we can actually present the legislation, it is critically important to work with the other stakeholders, along with the provinces, municipalities, territories and indigenous communities. The Conservative Party knows full well that the legislation is coming this fall. Yes, there is no hard and fast date, because the commitment from the Prime Minister was to give that legislation and present it this fall. That means we have to wait for the legislation to get here, and once it is here, I hope we will get the same enthusiasm that the Conservatives like to portray to Canadians on the issue in the form of their wanting to see the legislation actually pass.

When we have provided legislation, such as Bill C-2, which would make communities safer in Canada, the Conservatives' response has been to filibuster. We are still debating Bill C-2, and it was introduced weeks ago. Now we have the Conservatives jumping up, saying they want bail reform legislation, and the government and the Prime Minister are doing the background work to ensure that we have bail reform that is widely accepted and that we have a consensus based on the feedback we are getting from provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders, because it is a shared responsibility.

We will bring in the legislation to change the Criminal Code to ensure that we have the bail reform that is going to make our communities safer. This is a commitment our newly elected Prime Minister made, and I can assure the member that we will deliver on that commitment. I hope he and his caucus will get behind it—

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be up here today to talk about accountable government and speak to Bill C-10. The government has put forward this piece of legislation, and I think it is a total admission of the Liberals' failure to keep first nations included in the Canadian economy and ensure first nations are part of the Canadian conversation. Therefore, one of the trinkets they are putting forward is the commissioner position, to acknowledge that they have been a failure over the last 10 years.

I want to talk about accountable government more broadly. People back home always say, “Arnold, you are part of the government,” but I say no, I am part of the opposition. The government is generally considered to be the front bench on the government side of the House. That is the government that lives inside of our legislative chamber. Unlike in the United States, where the administration lives outside of the legislative process, in Canada, in a parliamentary system, the government lives in the front bench, and that is the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

They direct the administration of our country, and they answer directly to the legislature. They are right here, and one of the key functions of this place is to hold the government to account, principally through question period. That is probably what people see the most. That is the Government of Canada. It then branches out from there to all the ministries, the ministry offices across the country, and the folks who work for those ministries would also be part of the government. Very soon, I hope to be part of the governing party of Canada, if not part of the government, Lord willing.

I also want to inform the House that I will be splitting my time.

When we talk about accountable government, this is an important part of Canadian history. This is something that this particular place fought vehemently for at the founding of Canada in response to being a colony of Great Britain, asking and pushing for our own responsible government. I would also point out that the responsible, accountable government that was fought for at that time was immediately put to the test in the riot reparations act that the brand new Canadian Parliament passed. It then ran out to ask the Governor General to not sign it into law, because the government had suddenly realized the ramifications of the riot reparations act. The Governor General at the time asked if we wanted a responsible, accountable government or not. He signed that into law, and the negative implications of it came to fruition. Parliament then reversed itself on that particular bill.

I tell that story just to point out that the things that happen in this place have an impact on Canadian society. I hope that is the case, and I know that to be the case. The point is that the Liberal government is the government of this country, and it has duties it has to implement. The Liberal government is classic in terms of causing a problem or failing to address a problem and then, rather than fixing the problem, coming back here for another piece of legislation and saying that this is the one that will fix the particular problem. In reality, it generally has the tools and ability to fix the particular problem or manage the particular issue or maintain the relationship around the world that it currently has.

We hear from the Liberals often that a particular UN document is demanding that they do something. Maintaining the relationship with first nations across this country, ensuring they are full participants in our economy and living up to the treaty obligations this country has signed onto are just basic functions of the government. We do not need a UN document or a UN declaration to tell us to do these things. The Government of Canada should be doing these things because we are upholding the honour of the Crown and we are upholding the things that make us this country.

In the case of the current government, it is the Government of Canada, and it should live up to its obligations. This means treaty obligations, keeping the peace in this country, working on maintaining our borders and reducing the crime. On all of these things, many times, we see total mismanagement, and then the Liberals come in here and say, “If we only had this piece of legislation.” We see this in front of us over and over again, with bills such as Bill C-2, Bill C-8 and Bill C-11, where the government is trying to solve problems it could already solve and is the cause of.

With Bill C-10, we see a classic case of Liberal mismanagement. We failed to sign new treaties across the country and failed to manage the relationship. We have seen the resource industry stalling out because of our inability to build major projects across this country, and now the Liberals are bringing this forward.

The other thing I find very interesting is that, although I say it is the tired old Liberal government, this is a “new” government, but we have yet to see any major new pieces of legislation. This is not a new piece of legislation from a new government. It is something that is long sought-after. The Liberal government has introduced this idea over and over again. This is not something new.

We are looking forward to the removal of Liberal bail. That would be a new piece of legislation. The reversal of Liberal bail in this country would be an impressive thing in order to get crime under control. That would be new, but this is not a new idea. This is something the Liberals have talked about for a long time, and now, because their legislative agenda is kind of empty, suddenly they are going to put it forward.

I am going to turn my attention to the Bloc. I always find it interesting when I agree somewhat with the Bloc. Bloc members are saying that this commissioner would not achieve anything, that it would not do anything, which is also kind of our position on this. It would not do anything and is just spending money for the sake of spending money, which, I acknowledge, is generally the Liberal test of success: Success is how much money it spends on a particular thing.

I point to the border. When we say the Liberals are failing to maintain our border and are allowing people to run across our border and things like that, their response is not that they are doing a good job managing the border; it is that they are spending more money managing the border than the Conservatives did and are therefore being successful. They are not. The problem is that the border is porous and unmanaged by the Liberals. If we could spend zero dollars to manage the border, I would be in favour of that as well. The amount of money the Liberals spend to manage the border is irrelevant if we are not getting the results we are looking for. Fundamental to an accountable government is who is responsible.

This commissioner is a distraction from the responsibilities of the government. The government is responsible for maintaining these relationships and cannot outsource it to a commissioner. It cannot outsource it. I guess the same goes for the Parliamentary Budget Officer, for example. Does his advice get followed by the Liberal government? No, not at all. Will this commissioner's advice be followed by the Liberal government? Maybe, or maybe not. The fundamental issue is the results the government has caused.

We see it over and again, whether it is with the Liberals' bail system, which they totally made a hatchet job of, border security or cybersecurity. Over and over again, the Liberals fail to be responsible for the issues the government is supposed to be responsible for in this country. We see a failure, and then suddenly the Liberals will say we need a particular piece of legislation in order to fix it. When we then look at that piece of legislation, it generally does something other than what they say it will do, or it fails to change anything.

I just want to put on the record that, in some weird way, we agree with the Bloc on this, that the commissioner would not do anything. I also want to close by stating that the bill is an admission by the Liberal government that its inabilities over the last number of years have led to failure.

Firearms

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston for this very important question.

Let me advise him that on October 1, we launched the firearms compensation program in Cape Breton. We already have people signing up and registering to ensure they are eligible for compensation. We look forward to the expansion of this program across Canada. In addition, we are working to secure the border, including with Bill C-2 and a $1.2-billion investment in border security. We will have comprehensive bail, as well as other reforms coming forward.

We will keep Canadians—

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, our bill is comprehensive and is much stronger than the Conservative bill. I believe the Conservatives will be happy to see it in the coming days. It addresses all their issues and much more.

We have been a tough-on-crime government since we took office. Our top priority has been to address these issues, with Bill C-2 and with listing the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist organization. We have been able to crack down on criminals across this country. I want to thank law enforcement for all the arrests they have been making and the many—

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

Mr. Speaker, do members know what else has been endorsed by police across this country? It is Bill C-2, our stronger borders bill. Every police agency across this country has endorsed that piece of legislation. Canada is the only country among the G7 and the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access legislation. It is so important for protecting children who are being exploited online. Will the Conservatives stop being concerned about the privacy of criminals?

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

Mr. Speaker, we spent this summer consulting with experts across this country to come up with a comprehensive plan to address criminality in our country.

Quite frankly, their bill is weak. Our bill will address everything that is in their bill and much more. It will keep a wide array of criminals behind bars. We have Bill C-2 in front of the House right now. Bill C-2 addresses many cases, such as murder, extortion, child exploitation and sextortion. Many of our vulnerable children have committed suicide in this country. I asked the Conservatives—

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we have government legislation in front of the House, Bill C-2, which the party opposite could support and pass. These are very important items that law enforcement has asked for. Throughout the summer, I had the opportunity to meet with police chiefs, police associations and others in law enforcement who have asked for very important tools so they can do their job better and make sure criminals are off their streets.

If the party opposite is serious about criminal justice reform, it will start by supporting Bill C-2.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, if the party opposite wants to be serious on crime, it needs to support legislation in front of the House that will advance criminal justice reform. We have Bill C-2 before the House, which the opposition is unwilling to support. This is a measure that was asked for by law enforcement. It will strengthen our border to make sure our country is safe. There is no doublespeak here because, on this side of the aisle, we will bring forward bail reform, and we will ensure it is safe and charter-compliant.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that we have important, crime-fighting legislation before Parliament. He should get behind Bill C-2, the strong borders act. Just as my colleague indicated, we will be inviting him to get behind bail reform and measures to prevent intimate partner violence.

The problem with Conservative legislation is that it always ends at the Supreme Court. It gets struck down and laughed out of court because it is against the Constitution, against Canadian values and against the things we hold dear in terms of managing the justice system.

An Act Respecting Cyber Security

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, for his excellent speech.

I am proud of our government, which has proven that it takes public safety seriously with Bill C‑2, the strong borders act, Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act, and our upcoming bail reform.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on why it is so important, in the current context, to have a strong legislative framework for cybersecurity.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I firmly believe that words need to be backed up by actions. If members are serious about public safety, why block a bill designed to strengthen our border security? If it truly believes in public safety, I hope that the Conservative opposition will work with us and allow us to move Bill C‑2 on to the committee stage.

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

Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate the approach of my colleague and friend in dealing with the legislation in general and his position on the motion.

The question I have for the member is in relation to the issue of crime and safety in our communities. If we want a good example of the Conservatives' behaviour on this issue, all we need to do is take a look at Bill C-2, which would provide a stronger sense of security and tangible actions for Canadians to be safer in their homes. On that legislation, the Conservatives have now debated 18 plus hours, and they are not allowing it to go to committee. On the other hand, they say that crime and safety is important. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that contradiction.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we were clear during the campaign. We are going to take public safety seriously. Our actions speak for themselves. As soon as Parliament came back this fall, we introduced Bill C-2, the strong borders act. We also introduced Bill C-9 to combat hate crimes.

We will soon be introducing an ambitious bill to reform bail in Canada. We are reviewing this bill seriously and thoroughly to ensure that it complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Implementing hasty measures to amend the Criminal Code is not acting in the interest of public safety; it is merely a short-term publicity stunt. We are seeking to improve public safety in the long term. We owe it to Canadians to take this seriously.

I hope that my colleagues in the opposition will work with us when this bill is introduced and that we will work together to get it passed.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, Canadians across the country asked us to take concrete measures to build a safer Canada. They elected a new Liberal government, and they had a clear and legitimate expectation: reform our bail system, improve public safety and ensure that our communities are safe.

Today, I am speaking to my House of Commons colleagues, but I am also speaking to Canadians, especially those in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, and I want to make one thing clear: Our government intends to deliver on this promise. We are determined to take serious, rigorous, responsible action to ensure that every citizen enjoys the safety they deserve.

These commitments are deeply rooted in our thoughtful, balanced and evidence-based public safety platform. Our Liberal platform states that we intend to: fight gun violence and organized crime by cracking down on smuggling at the border and by equipping police with modern investigative tools; strengthen the bail system to keep repeat violent offenders off the streets, while respecting the charter; support victims of crime by improving services and ensuring that the justice system hears their voices; invest in prevention and community safety, including mental health care, addictions treatment and youth programs that address the underlying causes of crime; and protect Canadians from emerging threats, like human trafficking, cybercrime and increasingly sophisticated organized crime networks.

These are not just promises, however. Concrete actions are already under way. Bill C‑2, the strong borders act, was introduced in the House in June. It will enable us to advance our new government's priorities: ensuring that Canadians are safe, strengthening our borders, combatting transnational organized crime and protecting the integrity of our immigration system. This bill builds on Canada's border plan, which has $1.3 billion in funding. This is the largest investment in border security in the history of this country. I invite my colleagues in the official opposition to work with us to ensure that this bill moves forward to committee stage. A party that claims to care about public safety should certainly want to strengthen security at our borders.

We also introduced Bill C‑9, which will help us fight hate crimes. This bill introduces a series of targeted reforms to the Criminal Code aimed at ensuring safe access to community spaces, denouncing hate crimes, clarifying the legal meaning of the term “hatred” and criminalizing the wilful incitement of hatred against an identifiable group by displaying certain symbols of terrorism or hatred in public. This bill is designed to protect the safety and dignity of Canadians, while preserving space for lawful protest and charter-protected freedom of expression.

Our government will also soon introduce ambitious and responsible legislation that will aim to strengthen Canada's bail system to make it harder for repeat violent offenders to get bail, increase penalties for the most serious repeat violent crimes, particularly those related to organized crime, break and enters, auto theft and human trafficking, and address court delays so that serious cases are dealt with quickly and victims are not retraumatized by court backlogs.

I would also like to highlight the collaborative approach that is key to our government's work. Over the summer, the Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary held a series of consultations across the country. They met with provincial and territorial partners, police chiefs, peace officer associations, defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors to hear their concerns, ideas and experiences on the ground. This collaborative approach reflects a core Liberal value.

We understand that the only way to strengthen the justice system is by working hand in hand with those on the front lines. These conversations will continue at the upcoming federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers of justice and public safety in October, where bail reform and community safety will be on the agenda.

We must all recognize that public safety is not just about repressive measures; it is also about prevention and support initiatives that address the root causes of crime.

That is why our government is investing in community programs, mental health services and addiction prevention. These efforts complement our legislative measures and strengthen the resilience of our communities. What is more, by collaborating closely with the provinces, territories and local stakeholders, we are ensuring that our measures are tailored to the specific realities of different parts of the country.

I would also like to note that, despite our willingness to take action, we must ensure that the proposed measures fully respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The motion put forward today by our colleagues in the official opposition does not appear to have benefited from this in-depth reflection. The approach set out in Bill C-242, introduced by the Conservative Party, raises serious constitutional concerns. It would be irresponsible to rush ahead with changes to the Criminal Code without properly reviewing them. I wonder if the bill, which is sponsored by the leader of the official opposition, actually underwent a rigorous legal analysis. Did my opposition colleagues truly take the time to verify whether this bill complies with the requirements of the charter? These are important questions.

Effective public safety requires more than just slogans. If this bill were to be struck down by the courts, it would only increase public frustration, waste time and resources, and, above all, disappoint Canadians.

The Harper government's track record reminds us that an ill-conceived reform can backfire on its own objectives. A number of Criminal Code amendments introduced by the former Conservative government were found to be unconstitutional. As a result, they did not improve public safety. On the contrary, they caused longer court delays and spread doubt and frustration in a certain segment of the public.

We will not make the same mistakes. We need to stay focused on evidence-based reforms and sustained investments in policing and prevention. The Liberal approach centres on a targeted, responsible approach to reform, consistent with the charter, that runs no risk of being immediately struck down by the courts, as seems possible for Conservative opposition's Bill C-242. We have a responsibility to build a robust, balanced and sustainable legislative framework that complies with our Constitution in every way. That is how we intend to keep Canadians safe, not only in the short term but also, and I want to emphasize this, in the long term.

Under our Liberal approach, community safety will also top our list of priorities without sacrificing fairness, basic rights or the effective administration of justice. We believe that we can and must do both: protect the public while respecting our constitutional obligations.

That is why Canadians elected us. They elected us to improve public safety, maintain confidence in the justice system and ensure that violent offenders face real, proportionate and fair consequences.

Today, I invite all parties to set partisan differences aside and work together to build a robust, compassionate and efficient justice system based on evidence and co-operation, not fear and confrontation. Canadians are watching us. They expect results, and they deserve a government that lives up to those expectations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

Every Canadian deserves to be safe in their community and in their own neighbourhood. Whether it is walking home from work at night, taking their children to school, playing at the park or simply opening the doors of a small business, people should not have to worry about violence or repeat offenders undermining their security and safety. The truth is that Canadians are worried. Violent crime is a real issue. Repeat violent offenders are a serious problem. Our government acknowledges this, and we are taking action to address it.

However, the motion before us today suggests that the Conservative proposal is some sort of magical solution to these issues, a single piece of legislation the Conservatives have branded the jail not bail act, another three-word clickbait slogan. They claim that passing this one bill will make Canadians safe. I have heard today and in the past a really unfortunate trend of Conservatives repeatedly politicizing awful, violent crimes to promote their political agenda and raise money. It is disgraceful. Canadians know better and Canadians deserve better. They deserve safety, and that requires more than just slogans. They know it requires real reform.

Let me remind the House of what has already been done. In 2023, our government passed bail reforms that made it harder for violent repeat offenders to be released. These reforms were targeted toward individuals charged with serious violent crimes and firearm crimes. They were supported by premiers. They were supported by police, and they are already in force across Canada today.

We also know this work is not finished. This is why, during the most recent election, our new Liberal government campaigned on and received a strong mandate for further reforms. In our platform, we committed to strengthening bail further. We committed to ensuring that prosecutors have the resources they need to oppose bail where appropriate, and we committed to ensuring that judges have the tools they need to keep Canadians safe while respecting fundamental charter rights. We are delivering on those promises. In this very session, in a few weeks, new measures will be brought forward to strengthen bail laws and tighten federal sentencing guidelines.

Let us look at the broader picture. The Conservatives claim that bail reform alone will solve violent crime, but the reality is that keeping Canadians safe requires work on three fronts: prevention, prosecution and protection. Our government has been clear that on prosecution, we are investing in federal Crown attorneys. Too often, federal Crowns are overloaded, their cases are delayed and dangerous offenders can slip through the cracks. Our government is committed to new funding for federal Crowns so they can prepare stronger cases, challenge inappropriate bail applications and move trials forward without unnecessary delays.

On protection, we are expanding victim services, because Canadians who are harmed by violent crimes need support. Our government is increasing funding so that victims can access counselling, legal assistance and safety planning. This is part of our commitment to a justice system that protects people and also brings criminals to justice.

On prevention, our government has made historic commitments. We are expanding youth programs so that young people have positive opportunities and do not end up in the justice system in the first place. We are investing in mental health and addictions treatment, because untreated illness and addiction are drivers of repeat offences. We are also supporting indigenous justice initiatives, because reconciliation and fairness are also part of public safety.

None one of these measures are mentioned in the Conservative motion. None of these measures fit neatly into a silly three-word bumper sticker, but Canadians know they are essential to safe communities. The Conservatives like to talk about the need for urgency. They say, “Pass this bill today and rush it through.” Let us be clear: Urgency is not the same as effectiveness. Canadians do not want legislation that is rushed, half-considered and ultimately ineffective. They want reforms that work, that last and that withstand the scrutiny of courts and the test of time.

That is what our government is delivering. Our approach is comprehensive. We are reforming bail laws further this session, we are funding federal Crowns and judges to ensure that cases move more effectively, we are investing in victim services and community safety programs, and we are addressing the root causes of crime through youth initiatives, addiction treatment and mental health supports. That is the difference between this government and the opposition. It wants a headline and to divide Canadians for clicks, but we are delivering a real plan. The opposition wants to pretend that there is a silver bullet, but we know that Canadians deserve more than silly three-word slogans.

I want to pause and remind our colleagues of the history. For 10 years, even under a Stephen Harper majority, the Conservatives had the chance to fix this. For 10 years, they could have strengthened bail. For 10 years, they could have funded prosecutors. For 10 years, they could have invested in prevention. They did not. Canadians remember the failures of the Harper years. Now they show up with silly slogans hoping people forget their record. Canadians deserve better than that.

Our new Liberal government was elected with a clear platform, a platform that promised to strengthen bail, support victims, resource prosecutors and invest in prevention. Canadians chose that platform and gave us the mandate to deliver, and that is exactly what we are doing in this session.

Let us acknowledge that crime is a serious problem. Let us commit to keeping repeat violent offenders off the streets. Let us strengthen sentencing for violent crimes and drugs. However, let us also recognize that one bill is not the answer. A safer Canada requires a safer justice system at every level. It requires prevention, prosecution and protection, and that is exactly what our government is delivering.

Our forthcoming legislation on strengthening bail reform and sentencing is part of a broader suite of public safety measures. Bill C-2, the strong borders act, would add 1,000 border security agents and 1,000 new federal RCMP officers. It has additional measures that would give police the tools they need to bring international criminals to justice. It would strengthen our borders to keep U.S. firearms off the streets of our cities.

Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, would add new provisions to protect vulnerable communities from targeted hate at places of worship and community centres. It would also classify as a hate crime the use of terrorist symbols such as those of Hamas and Hezbollah, which are sometimes used to promote hate.

I want to take a moment to reflect on my record as a municipal councillor for the City of Hamilton, Canada's eighth-largest city, where I worked closely with law enforcement partners at the Hamilton Police Service. I want to thank the chief of police and the senior leadership team in Hamilton for their invaluable insight and leadership. I have been through the defund the police nonsense, I have been through the activist efforts to decriminalize drugs like fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamines, and I have been through the activist efforts to allow homeless tent encampments in city parks, and it is clear that public opinion has shifted on those failed ideas.

In Hamilton right now, gun crime, youth and gang violence, property crime associated with tent encampments, and public drug use are all top of mind for residents in my riding. These are all issues that require solutions beyond the federal level. Of course, federal legislation is required that sets responsible federal law on bail and sentencing, and we need to ensure that police have the tools necessary to bring criminals to justice, but that also requires the provinces to do their part. The provinces are responsible for provincial superior courts, for appointing and training justices of the peace and for funding and regulating municipalities. Municipalities have a duty to ensure that police have the tools and resources they need to uphold public safety, and even local school boards have a responsibility to make sure they work collaboratively with police to ensure that youth have an opportunity for positive interactions with police as part of the public education system.

In closing, it is clear that there is work to be done on bail reform and sentencing at the federal level. Our government is committed to making those changes, along with wider initiatives, in order to improve public safety across Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “hate”, but let us realize that fundraising plays a critical role in why the Conservative Party takes the position it takes. It is all about raising money. Let me give a good example.

Here are four emails. These are all emails that the Conservative Party has sent out to literally thousands and thousands of people. Every one of these emails actually has a link to donate to the Conservative Party. One says, “More criminals loose on the streets to terrorize our people.” Another one says, “Criminals are WREAKING HAVOC across our country.” The third one says, “The cause of this VIOLENT uptick in crime? The Liberals' radical catch-and-release policies.” The fourth email says, “Crime is out of control — and it's only going to get worse”.

These Conservative fundraising emails are circulating for one purpose, to raise money. Is it any wonder I make the statement that the Conservative Party uses the issue of crime and safety as a mechanism to fill its political coffers? That is the reality.

At the end of the day, if we want to look at how to serve Canadians on the crime file, it is first and foremost to reflect, as we have as a new government, as the Prime Minister has in the commitment to bail reform, on what it is Canadians are telling us. We are prepared to accept judgment when the time is right, when we have the bail reform legislation before us.

However, let me warn my Conservative friends across the way that there is other legislation before the House that would make our communities safer, that would provide more support for our law enforcement officers and our border control officers. The Conservatives have yet to pass that legislation. I am referring to Bill C-2. Bill C-2 is substantial legislation. With the very limited amount of time that the House has for debate, the Conservatives continue to talk that legislation out. Bill C-2 would make a difference. It would make our communities safer. If the Conservatives really and truly are genuine in wanting to make our streets safer, why are they holding up the bill at second reading?

In fact, the motion we are talking about today is about how we could speed up a private member's bill. It is not the first time. The member who stood up on the point of order spoke about his private member's bill, Bill C-225, an act to amend the Criminal Code. He said, “This bill is a monumental change.” He continued, “I ask that the House streamline the passing of this bill as quickly as possible.” That is a programmed bill. It gets two hours of debate at second reading. Bill C-2 has already had 18 hours of debate. After two hours, his bill gets to go to committee, yet he is asking us to speed it up even more, just as we saw here today on another private member's bill.

The work involved in getting legislation before the House needs to be respected. Oh, how the Conservatives cry if the government applies a bit of pressure or attempts to shame them into doing the right thing, to be there for Canadians by passing legislation. When it comes to their legislation, democracy goes out the door. That is what I witness. If members challenge what I am saying, I invite them to have me go to a public meeting at a university.

Let us see if we can bring in some independent individuals who would take a look at the arguments the Conservatives have. I would take no issue at all. Ideally it would be in Winnipeg North, but I can be flexible; it could be in Ottawa. Including with the member opposite, I would welcome the opportunity to have a good, healthy debate in Ottawa, although we cannot be sitting in session, in terms of the hours. Outside of the hours, I am sure we can arrange something. The bottom line is that the Conservatives apply a double standard.

Here is the reason I raise this: We know that Canadians are genuinely concerned about crime and safety in their communities. We know that for a fact. We understand that there needs to be bail reform. There needs to be tougher penalties for repeat violent offenders. Canadians elected the Prime Minister and the Liberal government on a platform of reforming the bail system. We are, in fact, committed to working together to ensure that we can make stronger laws and have safer communities.

In these five to six months, we have put into place legislative measures and budgetary measures from a commitment to increase RCMP officers by hundreds and do the same thing in terms of border control. There has been extensive consultation, and I think there is a responsibility for all members of Parliament, no matter what side of the House they are on, to recognize the agenda before us and to come down and talk about how we can achieve what all of us say we want to see: safer communities and individuals who are committing these crimes, especially repeat offenders, being held to account.

These are all important things, but it is also important for us to recognize that the federal government plays a significant role that we are living up to. When I think of our judicial system, it is not just Ottawa. There are provincial governments and, arguably, municipal governments that also have a significant role to play. We know that. The last time I was speaking on a very similar issue, I referred to the need for more Crown prosecutors. I cited a story in the Winnipeg Free Press from September 9, an editorial. It amplified and tried to say that the province was at fault because of the issue of Crown attorneys.

Members can go ahead and look up the story to read it for themselves. I will read one line from it. The bottom line is this:

The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of investment. Failing to fund the Crown’s office means risking collapsed trials, emboldened criminals and disillusioned victims. It means communities losing confidence in the courts’ ability to protect them.

This is something that reflects on provincial governments. Municipal governments provide law enforcement officers. To not recognize that law enforcement officers play a role or that provinces play a role is irresponsible. At the end of the day, it is a shared responsibility. Ottawa needs to do its job, and the Prime Minister and the new government that were elected just last April are doing the job that Canadians want us to do on this critically important issue. That is why we see bills like Bill C-2 for our borders, Bill C-9 for hate or the bail reform legislation, which is going to be coming down very shortly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not provide any further comment on the member's lack of a response to my question, but I think it is a legitimate issue when we take a look at the stats the Conservatives continue to provide the House. I would suggest to anyone who is listening to do a bit of a follow-through on the stats.

I will start off by reflecting on the last federal election. Every member of the House, I am sure, is aware of what was taking place on the streets, homes and communities we all represent. I can say with absolute confidence, as I have said earlier today, and even last week when the Conservatives brought in another motion dealing with the issue of crime, that it is an issue the government is acting on. The Conservative opposition knows that. Canadians know that, because we made a commitment in the election platform to have significant bail reform for this fall. The Prime Minister has made and reinforced that commitment, and we will see bail reform coming to the floor of the House of Commons. Why? It is because it is not only a reflection of what Canadians were talking about in the last election but also a commitment that every Liberal member of Parliament made to their constituents. We are going to see bail reform legislation. That is the motivation.

I say to my Conservative friends across the way that, not only were we given a solid mandate in the last election to bring forward our platform, but also the opposition was given a message. We all have a responsibility to our constituents to advance legislation and ideas for the betterment of our communities. That is why, earlier today, I had the opportunity to ask a number of questions. One of those questions was dealing with Bill C-2.

Bill C-2 is one of the measures to secure and make Canadians safer by doing more at our borders. We have now had over 18 hours of debate on that legislation. There is no indication whatsoever from the Conservatives as to when they are going to allow that bill to pass the House of Commons, let alone get it out of second reading so that it can go to committee, where Canadians and stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide direct input. We even had a minister indicate that he is open to ideas and suggestions that might give additional strength to the legislation. I say all of that because I want the people who are following the debate on the issue of crime and safety in our neighbourhoods to understand what is motivating this, whether it is the Prime Minister, the cabinet or the entire Liberal caucus.

I will contrast that to what I have witnessed from the Conservative Party. What is motivating the Conservative Party as Conservatives continue to ratchet up hard feelings and division? I believe that it is very real and very tangible. I have some quotes that I would like to share. There are three in particular. Here is something that the member for Cariboo—Prince George said in September, “in my riding, 98% of the crime is created by five or six prolific offenders. When they are in jail, the crime rate goes down.” I would question the numbers, but I question the numbers on a lot of things with the Conservatives.

However, here is something that I find truly amazing.

This is what a Conservative member said on the floor of the House. The MP for Oxford said, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada.” He was referencing the issue of crime and safety. How ridiculous a statement that is. We can think about that, having a member of Parliament standing up and saying we are in a war zone. I think the member needs to get a better understanding of what a war zone actually is. However, I cannot blame him because it comes right from the leadership.

Leadership within the Conservative party has gone so far to the right. Members can listen to the things he says, the extreme comments we get from the leader of the Conservative Party. Today, when I was asking him a question, in part this is what his response was: “The extreme bloodshed and violence that Liberals have unleashed is what is radical.” I expect the member might want to clip that and put it out on his social media because it truly reflects the type of leadership we are seeing from the Conservative Party. Nothing has changed with the leader.

I remember a quote that I said last year, that the leader of the Conservative Party said to his caucus. The entire Conservative caucus got together, and what did the leader of the Conservative Party have to say? The headline was “...'nuclear winter,' [leader of the Conservative Party] tells his MPs”. I quote from the article:

“There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high…our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter,” [the leader] said.

“Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere.”

This is the type of leadership we see coming out of the Conservative leadership office: extreme positions. Then we wonder why we get members making the statement that we are in a war zone when it comes to crime. It is ridiculous.

What motivates the Conservatives on crime? I will contrast what motivates the government, which is, as I pointed out, an electoral mandate and listening to our constituents. The legislation that is ultimately brought forward on bail reform will be a true reflection of their expectations and needs and what Canadians want to see. It is something that is being well taken care of.

The Conservatives say he has been Prime Minister for five months and ask where the legislation is. If we are going to have significant bail reform legislation, there is a responsibility to do some consultation. There is a responsibility as a government, and as a minister, to work with the many different stakeholders, whether the police, non-profits, territories or provincial governments, and the list goes on. It is not something where they lock themselves in a room and then come up with a substantial piece of legislation and put it on the table of the House of Commons. There is actually a lot of work involved in bringing forward the type of bail reform we are going to be seeing this fall. That gives us a sense of what motivates the Liberal caucus.

I have argued and I have seen over the years that the Conservatives love to talk tough about crime. They really do. It is as if there were no horrific crimes when Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada. That is sarcasm. There were a lot of horrific crimes. I can assure members there were. At the end of the day, whether home invasions, murders or whatever type of crime, I can assure members that it took place even under Stephen Harper, even when their leader sat around the cabinet table.

The motivation for the Conservative Party is not Canadians. It is not that Conservatives want reform because of Canadians. They utilize the issue of crime and safety, I would suggest, to generate funds, money, and ultimately, to promote hate. That is what I believe. They may not like it, but let me give tangible examples of that. For some reason, I actually receive emails, and let me quote, these are email—

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians' trust in their immigration system is paramount. That is why we are constantly working to improve immigration security screening processes, particularly in response to new challenges and pressures.

We have the border bill, Bill C-2. I invite my colleagues to help us pass that bill, which will further strengthen our immigration system.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, cases like this one are exactly the reason we are taking the action that we are. With Bill C-9, we made murder-motivated hate crimes a constructive first-degree offence. I want to thank the Conservatives for allowing that bill to go to committee. Bill C-9 would create more hate-related crime offences in the Criminal Code, with tougher penalties.

Bill C-2 brings tough-on-crime legislation as well. I am afraid that the Conservatives think it is too tough and have not been—

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if they want to talk about criminal experiments, let us talk about the 10-year, tattered legacy of the Harper government, which finished every single time at the Supreme Court of Canada having bills struck down. That is not helping victims.

In this session of Parliament, we are going to see the true agenda of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives can vote for Bill C-2; they can vote for bail reform, and they can vote to restrict intimate partner violence. We will see where the Conservatives stand on criminal justice in this session of Parliament.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we will be bringing forward bail reform in very short order.

Let me take this opportunity to talk about other legislation that is in the House that the party opposite could pass today. That is Bill C-2, which would give law enforcement officers additional tools to do their job more effectively in order to make sure that guns do not come through our border. That is the type of commitment that we have on this side of the House, and we invite the party opposite to support us.

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

Mr. Speaker, community safety has been our top priority. That is why our first pieces of legislation have all addressed this area.

One of the rising types of crime in our country is cyber-attacks against our children. Sextortion is rising in this country more than almost anything else. Bill C-2 would address that issue. It would give tools to the police to be able to catch these child predators who are roaming free in our country. I hope the Conservatives will support Bill C-2.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 is legislation that we have had before us for quite a while. In fact, we have had over 18 hours of debate on it.

We have a Prime Minister who has made a commitment to substantial bail reform. That bail reform is going to be coming soon to the House of Commons. Can we anticipate that the Conservatives will do what they are doing on Bill C-2 by having a filibuster as opposed to allowing it to go to a standing committee where Canadians can have more input?

My specific question to the member is this: Does he support quick passage of legislation dealing with bail reform this fall?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, those are discussions that we are prepared to have in the context of Bill C-2.

Today we are talking about the motion to adopt Bill C-242, which was introduced by our opposition colleagues. Crime is a problem. We know that and we acknowledge it. We want to get to work and that is why we are holding consultations with police forces, municipalities and provincial and territorial premiers. We want to ensure that we present a comprehensive plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, many things the member referenced are going to be in the comprehensive bail reform legislation the government will be putting out. It will be much more comprehensive and in depth than the private member's bill the motion mentions today.

Beyond that, in order for someone to reach a bail hearing or sentencing hearing, they have to be caught and charged. Bill C-2 has provisions that would allow police to apprehend and charge extortionists by allowing police to receive subscriber information such as telephone numbers and IP addresses. This is essential to protecting our children from cybercrime and threats, and protecting our seniors, who are facing this issue, from extortionists.

I hope the member will support that bill. Will she or will she not?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are aligned on many issues, and that is upsetting the member quite a bit, it seems. We are bringing forward tough laws, and Bill C-2 is a prime example. There would be a lot of tools for law enforcement to crack down on fentanyl and organized crime.

I would hope that the Conservatives support Bill C-2. It has been recommended by police agencies across this country, and I feel that it would be detrimental if we do not give them the tools to lay charges.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with a lot of what the member says, minus a lot of exaggeration and some oversimplification at times. We are bringing forward legislation that is going to reform the bail process. We have also brought forward other, smaller bills, wherein a lot of the work was already complete. Our strong borders act, Bill C-2, was the second piece of legislation we brought into the House, and Bill C-9, hate crime, is what we have before us. In a few weeks, we will have the bail reform as well. We are hard at work on this.

I would like to know, from the member, whether he is going to support Bill C-2, because what I have heard from a lot of the Conservatives is that they are in opposition to what law enforcement has asked for.

Combatting Hate Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-9, although I have grave concerns, not with the objective, but with the manner in which the Liberals have gone about trying to achieve it.

From the outset, let me say that I am grateful the Liberals have finally recognized there is a wave of hate sweeping this country. I am glad they have realized what the Jewish community in this country, among others, has been crying out for for years, which is a government that will listen to these concerns and understand the very real threats that are targeting them on a regular basis. However, just as the Liberals have done with Bill C-2 and the firearms file, they take a legitimate issue and offer a remedy that attacks the rights of citizens and expands the state’s power, often without the checks and balances necessary.

Bill C-9 would do five things: “repeal the requirement that the Attorney General consent” to proceedings for hate charges, “create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place”, “create a hate crime offence of committing an offence...that is motivated by hatred”, “create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship” and “create an offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places.”

Of these five things, three are already covered by existing laws, such as creating an offence of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying a symbol. Subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code already targets the wilful promotion of hatred. It targets the incitement of hatred, and the courts have been very broad in their interpretation of how that communication must take place. Symbols are a part of that. I can give an example from my own riding, where someone was charged, just within the last two weeks, in Central Elgin, Ontario, with a hate charge under subsection 319(2) after mowing a swastika into their front lawn. The display of a hate symbol led to a hate charge under the existing law.

Creating a hate offence is also redundant because hate motivation is already an aggravating factor under section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, and it has consistently been applied by the courts.

Offences of intimidation and obstruction at places of worship are already criminalized under sections 423, 431 and 434.1 of the Criminal Code, as well as under the laws pertaining to threats in section 264.1.

What we are left with when we strip away these three things, which are already covered by existing laws, are two things. Bill C-9 really does two things. Number one, it would remove the requirement for the Attorney General to consent. This has been viewed by activists and advocates on the left and the right in this country as a necessary safeguard against overzealous and political prosecutions by law enforcement or by Crown attorneys who simply do not understand this because it is a rarely applied provision of the law.

The next part is the most egregious part, where I will spend the remainder of my time. The government is codifying a new definition of hate. Bill C-9 describes hatred as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. The government has said this is adapted from the Keegstra Supreme Court decision, a seminal free expression case in Canada, but it actually changes something very key. In Keegstra, the court held that hatred “connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.” This was expanded upon in the Whatcott decision, which says that hatred is “extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words 'detestation' and 'vilification'.” The word “extreme” does not appear in Bill C-9.

The government is very proud of this bill. The Liberals have had all summer to work on it, and they have had I do not know how many stakeholders, staffers, bureaucrats, lawmakers and lawyers go over every clause, I imagine, with a fine-tooth comb. Omitting an operative, very key word in a very key section of this bill is no accident. The government is, to use a legal term, wilfully lowering the threshold on what constitutes hate and, by extension, expanding the state's power and lowering the threshold of what can be regarded as free expression in this country.

The reason this is so important to me and to the Canadians who have been speaking out about Bill C-9 to this point is that the government has been, to its credit, very transparent on where it wants to go on free expression.

In the last two Parliaments, under the auspices of tackling so-called online harms, the Liberal government has introduced sweeping censorship bills that have been decried by voices on the left and the right. The Liberals have told us, as recently as last week, that this is coming back. The online harms bill is still very much a live issue, so we cannot look at Bill C-9 in isolation. We cannot disentangle it from the Liberal government's stated attitudes about freedom of expression and, quite frankly, the contempt in which they hold free expression and open debate.

I am going to quote someone for whom I believe the Liberals have a great affinity, and that is former Canadian chief justice Beverley McLachlin.

In her Keegstra dissent, she wrote:

If the guarantee of free expression is to be meaningful, it must protect expression which challenges even the very basic conceptions about our society. A true commitment to freedom of expression demands nothing less.

We do not need to look far to see what happens when the threshold for hate is lowered. In the United Kingdom, police are not even rarely knocking on doors and arresting people over mean tweets, because the same desire that we are seeing behind some of the negative and concerning impulses in Bill C-9 is criminalizing hate based on the grounds that words are violence. Censors justify their limitations on freedom of expression by elevating speech to violence. It is not for the state to discern, let alone prosecute, hate that may exist in one's heart; the law is to punish action, and the existing laws already do this.

I would be remiss not to point out that the Liberals get tough on crime only when they are talking about thought criminals. These are the only people that the Liberals want to put behind bars.

Let us look at some of the real hate crimes across the country. According to Juno News, 130-some churches have been vandalized or victimized by arson since 2021. Synagogues in Canada have been firebombed and vandalized. Jewish schools have been shot at. If the Liberals were serious about real hate crimes, they would be seeking mandatory 10-year prison sentences for these heinous assaults on places of worship. Again, the law should punish bad behaviour and not bad feelings.

To be fair, we cannot confront the hatred that exists in Canada and in Canadian society without acknowledging some of the root causes of it. The crisis of hate is a direct consequence of 10 years of divisive Liberal identity politics and the reckless breaking of the immigration system by the Liberal government. We cannot talk about hate without talking about the breaking of the immigration system that has resulted in the importation of foreign conflicts, and, in some cases, very hateful ideologies into the country.

Much of this happened under the watch of the justice minister who tabled the bill. He was the immigration minister who looked at the first six years of Justin Trudeau's government and how immigration was bungled there and said, “Do not worry; I can do worse”, and he did. It is no coincidence that hate crimes have risen as Canada has become less discerning and more reckless in its handling of the immigration system.

This is a crisis of the Liberals' creation. I do not trust those who caused the problem to solve it. I think that all people who may agree with the motivation behind this bill should be very cautious about handing over this level of power to the Liberals, when they have already demonstrated where they want to go. They have already demonstrated what they want to do.

I will return to another quote by former chief justice McLachlin.

She says:

[It] is not to say that it is always illegitimate for governments to curtail expression, but government attempts to do so must...be viewed with suspicion.

The Liberal government does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on hate. It does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on protecting charter liberties. It does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on any of the problems that it has been instrumental in either allowing to fester or, in some cases, in causing outright.

In Bill C-9, the good is already done by additional laws. The bad should be a warning sign. The Liberals should be very ashamed of trying to sneak this through the back door with a lower threshold for hate in a country that needs to protect and double down on free expression.

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

Mr. Speaker, with my limited time, I will do a bit of an overview. When we look at the issue of combatting hate, we see that the legislation is substantive and would in fact make a significant difference in our communities.

I would also suggest that one needs to look at the last election, where there was a commitment to bring forward legislation of this nature. I say that because the election was not that long ago. A new Prime Minister and new government were elected based on a series of commitments. Those commitments, at least in part, to date, have come in the form of legislation.

I could talk about Bill C-2, the stronger borders legislation; Bill C-4, the middle class tax break for Canadians; Bill C-5, the one Canada economy legislation; Bill C-8, the critical cyber-system legislation; or Bill C-9, which we are debating today, about hate crime. It is very real and very tangible.

With that mandate, not only the government was given a responsibility, but so were all opposition members. It was a very clear mandate given to all of us. Canadians want and expect that their parliamentarians here in Ottawa will work co-operatively in order to have legislation and budgetary measures pass through the system.

My appeal to all members of the House is to recognize the mandate that was given to us by Canadians: Legislation like we are debating today, other pieces of legislation that we have already introduced, or legislation such as our bail reform, which is going to be coming out shortly, should all be allowed to get to the committee stage. That is what is in the best interest of Canadians. This is not to limit debate, because we still have third reading and all sorts of debate and consultations that take place in our standing committees.

With respect to the legislation before us today, it is important that we recognize how much racism and hatred have increased over the last number of years. Race or ethnicity is number one in terms of hate, followed by religion and by sexual orientation. Those are the big three.

Hate happens every day in communities throughout Canada. It is one of the reasons it is so critically important that we not only recognize the legislation as a commitment that was part of our electoral platform but also recognize that communities are hurting and that the bill is legislation that would advance more peaceful communities. I would encourage all members to support it.

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, we are fighting crime on all fronts. We are fighting guns at our borders with historic investments. We are in the process of hiring more CBSA and RCMP officers. We have a bill in the House, Bill C-2, which would help fight criminal organizations and make our borders stronger.

Getting assault-style rifles and shotguns out of our communities is also important. We are going to make sure we do this on all fronts. There are still 19,000 other makes and models of guns available for hunters and sport shooters, and they can use those options.

An Act Respecting Cyber Security

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that parliamentarians, particularly on our side as opposition, should have the opportunity to voice their concerns. Does that mean Conservatives are going to put forward 140 speakers to the bill? No. At the same time, the reality is that the member is asking me whether I promise. I promise to do so as long as he concedes I am right on Bill C-2.

We are here in our democracy, and I spoke about the honour of being here as members. At the end of the day, I think the people who have concerns about Bill C-2 or want to endorse it from the government side should have their opportunity to speak. I believe we should afford them every opportunity to do so. At that point, we can look at the bill's going to committee.

Firearms

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, in addition to the compensation program pilot that we launched this week in Nova Scotia, we have invested $1.3 billion in our borders. We brought forward Bill C-2, which is in front of the House right now. With the support of the opposition, we could pass it today to ensure that our borders are stronger so we can keep illegal firearms off our streets. We will also be hiring 1,000 new CBSA and RCMP officers, and we will be making criminal justice reforms.

It is a combination of efforts on this side of the House that will ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, to have a serious conversation about crime, we need to have a serious conversation about guns. As of this week, we have launched the program in Cape Breton, where we are compensating lawful gun owners who are willing to forgo their AR-15 or other harmful weapons. In addition to that, we are securing the border with $1.3 billion in investments. We have Bill C-2 right in front of the House, which the party opposite, if it is serious about gun crime, can support and pass through the House.

We are looking—

An Act Respecting Cyber Security

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

Madam Speaker, misinformation is really important on this. What the member is trying to say is that if any of the 55,000 people who work for Canada Post have any sense that there is any sort of a drug in a number 10 envelope, they will have the authority to open that envelope. I believe he knows full well that is not the case. A warrant would be required. Bill C-2 legislation would put Canada Post on the same playing field as Purolator and other companies.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my friend's comment earlier on Bill C-2, and I want to pursue it a bit. I know we are talking about Bill C-8.

I would like the member's thoughts on this as a lawyer. Why would we not consider something else instead of thinking we can open people's mail? It has the addressee's name right on it. If we think a package or a letter is suspicious, does the hon. member think there is a better way to pursue what is in the envelope by asking the addressee before we open it without their permission?

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

I would remind all members that we are on Bill C-8, not Bill C-2.

The hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is still fighting it. His own departmental officials have said a warrant is not needed. I can tell the member for Winnipeg North that a warrant is not needed, and I will leave it at that. It had better be a good coffee.

Conservatives fully recognize the importance of cybersecurity as part of our national defence strategy. We can all be united on that. There is no doubt about it. Unfortunately, it is the Conservatives' position that the government has lagged behind when it comes to recognizing the importance of cybersecurity as part of our national defence strategy. The government is slow to address cyber-threats, over a number of serious incidents to occur, with no substantive legislative response in 10 years. That means that when this legislation comes before us, even for a second time, we have to get it right.

We as Conservatives want to review this legislation and ensure ways it would stand up for the security of Canadians, but not at the expense of privacy and charter rights. The Liberals will often say they are the party of the charter, and yet so often we will see pieces of legislation, and I see it in Bill C-2, that I think certainly offend section 8, the search and seizure provisions of the charter. We need to ensure that any such provisions are subject to Canadians' rights and, at the same time, reach our goals.

Some of the Conservatives' key concerns are transparency and accountability. The bill could be stronger when it comes to oversight measures with respect to retention limits. When we give the government our intellectual property and information, meaning the collective “we” as Canadians, what happens to that?

I come from a criminal law background, and I know that in certain cases, those doing investigations would say, “Look, we are asking for something voluntarily. We will destroy it so that you know this will never be used again.”

When people give information to the government compelled by legislation, it is my position that people need to know to what extent that information will be used or shared and with whom. When we are talking about digital information, something that, let us face it, the expertise of which is beyond so many of us, as a legislature we need to be extremely careful and concerned about the extent of that sharing.

What does “personal information” mean? This is building on what I just said, the information that can be used, which could leave Canadians' privacy vulnerable. This bill is often about operating in secrecy. There is a time to be secret and there is a time not to be secret, obviously. As Conservatives, we want to ensure that we are not being secret when we do not need to be and that we have an open and accountable government.

One of my greatest criticisms over the past 10 years is the lack of accountability and the obfuscation. I cannot say how many times I have sat in this House when questions were asked and there were absolutely no answers to them. We cannot even figure out how many trees were planted some days. I note the government said it would plant two billion, and it could not do that. I do not know how it is going to build houses, but that is a different speech on a different day.

I know I am coming to the end of my time. I can see the member for Winnipeg North is really wanting to get up and ask about Bill C-2. With that, I will sit down, and I will answer any questions he or others may have.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and it is an even greater pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola as a critic for a bill. I have been fortunate to be a member sitting in this House, which is itself one of the greatest honours that a Canadian could ever have. Let us bear in mind that there are 38 million or 40 million Canadians, and only 343 of us get to sit in this chamber and to walk on this green carpet.

That in itself is an honour, but I am just so grateful to be a critic as well. It is a job I absolutely love, and I thank my leader and my party for that and for the support I receive, whether it be on this bill, Bill C-2, or on the private member's bill I just put forward on intimate partner violence last week. I am grateful for those around me and for this opportunity.

Before I begin, I want to recognize a life very well lived. It is my great sadness to say that a pillar of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, Chris Rose, recently passed away. Those in the community will know that Chris Rose was an exceptional humanitarian. In fact, the Chris Rose Therapy Centre for Autism is a centre on the north shore, about six blocks from where I grew up, that helps children with autism. It is a school that they can attend, with resources that it provides. Those who know me and my family well will know that autism is a cause that is close to my heart.

Chris passed away just this week, and I express my deepest condolences to Mr. Rose's family. I wish them all the best in this difficult time. May perpetual light shine upon Chris Rose.

At this point, I also want to highlight the life of Dana Evans. I was saddened to read this obituary. Ms. Evans was the mother of a friend of mine from high school, Derek Luce. I can recall staying over at Derek's house when we were about 15 or 16; Ms. Evans would make us pancakes in the morning and then send us on our way. I never forgot that hospitality. I know that her son Derek, whom I run into sometimes in the Kamloops area, has gone on to do wonderful things. He is certainly a reflection of her stewardship and the maternal influence that she had on his life. My deepest condolences go to her siblings, who are left to mourn her memory and their loss, and also to her sons, Derek and Louie.

I noticed that she went to Thorp high school, which is in a tiny community. I always used to make fun of Thorp and how small it was, because I had some friends who grew up in Thorp, and Derek's mom also went to high school there. I wish great condolences to the family, and may perpetual light shine upon her.

The minister, in his opening comments, talked about Orange Shirt Day and September 30, and that is something very important. For those who watch the news, Kamloops is a very important centre when it comes to the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. In fact, I moved a unanimous consent motion a number of years ago that spoke about bringing the flag to half-staff on every September 30, so I appreciate the minister's highlighting that.

Last, before I really launch in, I would be remiss if I did not recognize that yesterday was my mom's birthday. I was not in the House at all yesterday, so I wish my mom a happy day-late belated birthday. Happy birthday, mom.

Let us get into the crux of this. My hon. colleague from the Bloc raised a critical point. I have actually got the Library of Parliament report right here. My Bloc colleague mentioned the exceptional work, and this is great work when we are dealing with a highly technical bill. I do not know how many people in this chamber out of the 343 of us can say, “I am an expert on cybersecurity.” We have a very technical bill. The work that was done and that was distilled into this report is incredibly helpful.

By way of background, Bill C-8 came before Parliament as a renewal of Bill C-26. It is virtually identical to Bill C-26, which made it to third reading but did not make it to royal assent. We are grateful to the Senate, because it found a glaring hole in the bill, which was ameliorated by the Senate's work. However, the bill died on the Order Paper. For history, Conservatives voted for the bill at second reading, and I anticipate we will do so again.

My position as critic is that, yes, the bill passed third reading, on division, here in the House, and then went to the Senate and passed there on third reading over the votes of the Conservative senators. However, at the end of the day, as my Bloc colleague pointed out, as the commentary in the Library of Parliament report stated and academic discourse has stated, we should not be content to just accept the bill, to take a bill that previously passed and not make it better.

The concerns remain alive. Obviously, the public safety minister has been quite embattled of late. However, as much as we can be told by the government that this is the be-all and end-all, that we should pass the bill quickly and that there are no concerns, we are part of His Majesty's loyal opposition; we should be scrutinizing the bill, especially a highly technical bill, with a fresh set of eyes. I have no problem saying that the bill, with the Conservative vote, will likely go to committee, but at committee we will be scrutinizing it closely, particularly as it relates to privacy concerns.

My colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, just asked the hon. minister about privacy concerns and about the Privacy Commissioner. When I reviewed the proceedings, I found that the previous bill was at committee for about eight meetings, which is a fairly long time. This tells me that there was a fair amount of contention around many of the bill's provisions.

I really look forward to scrutinizing the bill. It addresses an area in which Canada lags behind. After 10 years of Liberal government, I can say that we lag behind our Five Eyes intelligence partners greatly. It feels as though there is an undertone when we hear from international media that Canada is no longer trusted, that Canadian intelligence is no longer well regarded. I remember Justin Trudeau saying, “Canada is back”. No, we are not, if we are not trusted by our allies or respected by our allies. The government had 10 years to bring this forward; we are now seeing it done, and we will scrutinize it.

As has been stated, the bill has two parts. The first part would amend the Telecommunications Act and aim to strengthen the resilience of Canada's critical infrastructure. There is no doubt that our critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Any expert, I am sure, would come to committee or to the House and tell us that. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The need for the bill is not disputed. I would never say, “Wow, why are we bringing the bill forward?” I would say that on a number of other bills, and the Online Streaming Act would be one of them, thinking, “Why is the government doing this other than to further an agenda that a number of Canadians disagree with?”

As I stated earlier, Bill C-8 is largely a reinvention of Bill C-26. The first part of the bill would amend the Telecommunications Act and bring about changes to ensure that we can counter cyber-threats, and the second part would enact the critical cyber systems protection act, imposing new cybersecurity measures on federally regulated entities operating in sectors that are considered vital to public and national safety.

I will not get into the response to a number of government reports, but when we look at the Telecommunications Act, one thing that was a really big issue, which I think the government took far too long on, was the issue of Huawei.

For context, I was elected in September 2021. When I first got here, there was this issue of Huawei. Unfortunately, the government dithered when we needed decisive action on whether to ban 5G. It took until May 2022, when the decision was finally made to ban Huawei and its 5G networks for national security reasons. Our Five Eyes allies, which are the United States, the U.K., Australia and Japan, had already acted on this. One has to wonder why we took so long. Australia, as well, acted on cybersecurity.

What does Bill C-8 really do? What are some of the issues?

The bill does not include some of the proposed amendments to the Canada Evidence Act. Bill C-8 makes the judicial review process more transparent by removing the government's ability to make confidential submissions to the court and refuse to disclose information.

For those people who are watching Bill C-2, it is a parallel piece of legislation. It is also a piece of legislation that has been sponsored and put forward by the public safety minister. I understand the notion of confidentiality. I worked as a lawyer for many years, and I know that confidentiality has to happen, but far too often what I see in the House is something that is a laudable cause, a cause that we should be embracing, going further.

Sometimes secret things have to remain secret. The problem is that, far too often in the House, what I see is the Liberal government going further. Yes, we have to keep some things secret, but it is just keeping everything secret. Yes, we have to do this in this regard, but we are going to go one step further. That puts the opposition in a really awful place; we might agree with the goal of the legislation, but we do not agree with the mechanism by which we get to the goal. That is when we have protracted debate and then sometimes go to committee for a committee meeting.

This results in vigorous debate, which is actually wonderful. We should have vigorous debate in this place, but at the end of the day, the government will often hear from stakeholders, as they did with Bill C-26 formerly, and then it is walked back. There were so many amendments. I believe all but one or two of the Conservative amendments that were put forward for Bill C-26 were adopted. I do not understand that.

I can see the same thing in Bill C-2 as I see here in Bill C-8, for example, with respect to the mail provisions in Bill C-2. The government can open a person's mail. Why is that? The whole purpose of Bill C-2 is to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, as I believe it is called. This is because the government is worried about fentanyl being sent through the mail, which is a notable concern, a laudable concern. Anything under 500 grams cannot be opened, so let us make sure that letters under 500 grams can be opened so that 499 grams of fentanyl and fentanyl precursors cannot get through. That is the goal. Great. Now how do we go about achieving that goal? In Bill C-2, we go about achieving that goal by saying that if Canada Post, not a peace officer, has reasonable suspicion, then it can open a person's mail without a warrant.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly Bill C-8 has a number of improvements based on the debates we had in this place before Bill C-26 died on the Order Paper and, as my hon. friend from Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong just mentioned, on work done in the Senate as well. However, these persist.

As the minister knows, under part 2, proposed section 35, there remain very serious privacy concerns that this would open a back door to surveillance on Canadians, as would Bill C-2, which is not being debated today. There is a pattern here of reducing the threshold for Canadians' private information to be not just obtained by our government but also shared with other governments and actors.

Is the minister open to amendments to repair these flaws?

Public Safety

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can hear the urgency in my hon. colleague's voice. We share his expectations.

However, I would remind him that, in the meantime, Bill C-2 still needs support and has to be passed. Other bills will follow in order, as quickly as the House sees fit. I invite my colleagues on the other side of the House to participate in the work and to co-operate fully.

We have better data on bail releases. We are now in a position to propose measures that will ensure that we can safely keep repeat offenders inside our institutions.

Firearms

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, law-abiding citizens abide by the law. We launched a program this week to support law-abiding Canadians in giving up their AR-15s and other prohibited weapons to obtain compensation. It is a fair way to treat law-abiding citizens. It is about ensuring that our streets are safer. It is in line with the work we are doing at the border, with $1.3 billion in investments and Bill C-2, which is before the House today, as well as adding 1,000 CBSA and RCMP officers.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we have a comprehensive plan to address guns. It starts with the buyback program that we launched this week. It is about investing $1.3 billion at our borders to increase scanning capabilities, as well as new tools for law enforcement. It is about hiring 1,000 new CBSA and RCMP officers. It is about Bill C-2, which is in the House right now. If the party opposite is serious about guns, it should support Bill C-2's passage and get it to committee.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to launch the assault-style firearms compensation program in Nova Scotia. We look forward to expanding it across Canada. It is part of a broader plan to ensure that our guns are off our streets. It includes changes to the Criminal Code. It includes resources at the border, a $1.3-billion investment at the border.

Bill C-2 is in the House today. I invite the party opposite to support us so that we can get that through Parliament.

Firearms

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I have too little time to address all the issues, but let me go back to something the Leader of the Opposition said. He described farmers and duck hunters using AR-15s to hunt. I do not see that in my great province of Alberta.

I also know that the Minister of Public Safety and the government are tightening the border with Bill C-2. Will the opposition stand up to support the tightening of the border, as the Leader of the Opposition claims he will do?

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, we take crime, all types of crime, very seriously. That is why this government's second piece of legislation in this House was Bill C-2, to make sure we give our policing organizations the tools they need to crack down on organized crime and on criminals who are running our streets.

We do not need AR-15s in our country. That rifle was designed to kill human beings.

If I could ask the Conservatives, why are you on the side of crime?

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians gave us a mandate to bring international student programs back to a viable level, and we are doing just that.

Nearly 100,000 fewer new students arrived in 2025. The House is also considering Bill C‑2, which would reduce the number of applications and prevent sudden spikes in applications. We are here to strengthen our borders and make them more resilient as well.

I invite all parliamentarians to support us.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, our government is working hard to secure our borders. This morning, I had the chance to meet with the president of the CBSA, who advised that border crossings are down 60%. We will strengthen our borders and invest more resources through security screenings as well as quickly identifying and removing those who are inadmissible. We will hire a thousand more RCMP and CBSA officers.

We have Bill C-2 in the House right now. If the members opposite are serious about border crossings and immigration, then they should pass it swiftly.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to thank the member for that question, but I will answer the question. I have spent my summer, a whole 10 or 11 weeks, working seven days a week without taking one day for vacation.

Having said that, this government is intent on ensuring that our immigration system becomes sustainable, as well as intent on protecting our borders. That is why we have Bill C-2 in front of us in Parliament, which would be an aid for us here. I urge all parliamentarians to get on board and support it.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we just campaigned on strengthening our borders. Fraud is getting increasingly sophisticated, so we need effective tools to maintain a migration management approach.

The House is currently considering Bill C-2, which seeks to ensure equity in our immigration system and to improve visa and asylum application processing. We want to protect the integrity of our system, and I invite all parliamentarians to support us.

Public Safety

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what the constituents in the Lower St. Lawrence, and I dare say even the Conservative constituents in the Lower St. Lawrence, want to know is whether Parliament can function. They want to know if Parliament can function well enough to crack down on crime, implement reforms, prevent firearms from crossing our borders and deal with the issues, the scourge of drugs on our streets. The hon. member has the opportunity to vote in favour of a bill. He has had numerous opportunities to vote for Bill C‑2, which will clean up our legal system, which will clean up our system—

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the initiatives my colleague, the Minister of Justice, just outlined, we are studying a very important bill, Bill C-2, which will give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to fight crime. We are talking about fentanyl, firearms smuggling and transnational gangs. This will have a direct impact on our communities and on safety in our streets. We will always be there to keep Canadians safe.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of legislation, there is legislation before this House as we speak: Bill C-2, which would secure our borders, deal with the scourge of fentanyl and bring order to our immigration system. That member has had many opportunities to get tough on crime by voting for Bill C-2. Where has he been?

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, importantly, our public safety minister has been consulting from coast to coast to coast over the summer, talking to police chiefs, talking to victims, talking to everybody who is involved in the justice system. He will be bringing forward comprehensive legislation this fall to strengthen Canada's bail system, increase sentences for the most serious repeat violent crimes and address court delays so that serious cases can proceed quickly and victims will not be retraumatized by procedural backlogs. We will be introducing this bill based on evidence, consultation and important reforms that will keep our community safe. Additionally, there is an option for people in the House to support public safety right now. That is Bill C-2, which is before us.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for caring about community safety. I think everyone in this House stands united in caring about safety and ensuring the communities we serve are safe.

Our government does take this issue very seriously. I signed up to run because it was a commitment of this government to address bail reform and strengthen our borders. Right now before us, we have Bill C-2, which is giving law enforcement the tools it has been asking for.

Our government has already made an initial investment of 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional border services agents. In addition, we will be bringing forward comprehensive legislation on bail reform that I am very much looking forward to and that I am sure Canadians are very much looking forward to. Importantly, it has been—

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question from my colleague. It is very thoughtful.

That is what I have been trying to say: This policy did not work in the United States. The research shows that instead of bringing about the desired change, this policy increased the crime rate. Instead of proposing such legislation, the Conservatives should support the bills the government is already proposing in the House. We have already introduced Bill C-2, and we are getting ready to introduce a bill that will fight crime in our country.

As I already said, there are victims of crime in all of our communities. We were elected and have the mandate to solve this problem. However, the type of legislation being proposed today does not work. In several U.S. cites, it was actually associated with an increase in crime. This U.S. policy will not work in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second bill we put forward in this House was a public safety bill, and I would urge the member opposite to support that bill. It has been informed by law enforcement from across this country. Today, if a father catches a predator preying on their child, has an IP address and takes it to the police, the police cannot lawfully investigate and carry the case forward. This is a real example. Bill C-2 would allow that to happen.

I hope the member will support this bill. I would like to hear if he will, to put an end to child sex offenders.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is tough on crime. We are introducing new legislation this fall to strengthen our bail system for those charged with violent offences. Through our proposed stronger borders act, Bill C-2, we are cracking down on organized crime, auto theft, fentanyl and human traffickers, and securing our borders. We are listening to Canadian law enforcement agencies, and we are going to ensure we put forward measures that keep Canadians safe.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, I understand. I understand my colleague when she talks about how hard it is to walk down the street as a woman. I have experienced that and still experience it from time to time.

However, what is being proposed today will not help make our streets safer. Common-sense laws and regulations, drafted after discussions with the community and all levels of government, are what will enable us to come up with a collective solution.

Together, by passing Bill C‑2, we will be able to do something for Canadian women.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the ways that the Conservatives can be effective is they can help us pass Bill C-2. Currently, all mail couriers, like UPS, FedEx and Purolator, can be checked for drugs. What cannot be checked are Canada Post packages under 500 grams.

Two grams of fentanyl is lethal. It can kill a human being. Why are the Conservatives on the side of drug traffickers?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to thank those in law enforcement for their diligent and hard work in ensuring that guns are off our streets.

If the member is serious about protecting our borders, he will support us in passing the strong borders act, Bill C-2. It would help us crack down on fentanyl, auto theft, money laundering, illegal firearms, irregular migration and organized crime, while upholding the privacy and charter rights of Canadians. It would give law enforcement the tools needed to dismantle increasingly sophisticated organized criminal networks.

A secure Canada is a strong Canada, and we are taking action to ensure the safety and security of—

Opposition Motion—Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, I have not donated, and I do not plan to, either.

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about misinformation and slogans. They have turned crime and safety into nothing more than the creation of slogans, propaganda and bumper stickers just to feed a certain element of their party to generate funds. That is what it has come down to. That is why they criticize Liberals constantly on crime.

At the end of the day, we need to look at the actions Conservatives have taken to date on the issue. We will wait to see what happens when the bail reform legislation comes forward. I am somewhat of an optimist at times, even though I have been discouraged in recent years with how the Conservatives have dealt with federal legislation.

However, if they recognize what we have recognized in terms of what Canadians and the many different stakeholders are saying on the issues, I would hope that the leader of the Conservative Party, to whom I asked the question, would be open to, at the very least, allowing bail reform legislation to hit the committee stage before the end of the year. That does not mean they have to pass it; it just means that they are prepared to allow it to get to committee stage. That is a reasonable request.

The Conservatives will say they have not even seen the legislation yet, which is a valid point. It is much like their wanting us to vote on a motion today, when we have not seen any legislation on it yet. We have no sense of what consultation was done on it, but they will expect us to vote.

The Conservative critic introduced for first reading today a bill that talks about massive changes to our justice system and is guaranteed only two hours of debate, not to mention limits in committee plus limits in third reading. With respect to the massive change that he is proposing to the justice system, he would consider that as being done. What kind of consultation did he conduct? What kind of debate did he allow for? I will assure members that we will guarantee more debate than he would have had during the private member's bill debate, if that is all it takes to get Conservatives to get legislation ultimately passed.

They can say they do not have the legislation, and stick to that line, but then I will go back to Bill C-2. What would Bill C-2 actually do? In part, it would enable RCMP to share data. Extortion is a very serious issue in Canada. By enabling the legislation at the very least to get to committee, we would be able to have more debate on it. Stakeholders from across Canada could come to provide opinions and address concerns.

The Conservatives say they have some amendments. They would be able to propose amendments to the bill and continue to debate it. After second reading, if it goes into third reading, they could debate it as long as they like there too. Let them just realize one thing: If they are serious about dealing with crime, they should not just talk about it but also allow things to take place.

With respect to Bill C-2, extortion is just one aspect of it. If we were to do a Hansard search for the word “fentanyl”, we would find that the Conservatives are talking a lot about the issue of fentanyl. So are the Liberals, but the Conservatives are being very critical of the government for not doing enough. Bill C-2 would enable law enforcement agencies to open a letter if they get a warrant from a court because they suspect that there could be fentanyl in the envelope.

The Conservatives do not even support it. We heard that yesterday. Why would the Conservatives not support an RCMP officer, for example, who gets a warrant to be able to search an envelope for something like fentanyl? Fentanyl and other drugs are actually being distributed through Canada Post. We need the legislation to enable our RCMP officers to open those envelopes if they get the warrant.

If the Conservatives really do care about the issue of bail reform or issues that are encompassed by Bill C-2, they need to recognize that at some point they have to allow legislation to get to the committee stage. That is why, at the beginning, when the leader of the Conservative Party stood in this place and spoke today, I made the accusation that the Conservative Party needs to be less focused on raising money for the Conservative Party, using crime and safety as a mechanism to do that, and more focused on addressing the needs of Canadians, which is what the Prime Minister has actually done.

We are anticipating that there will be substantial bail reform legislation. Hopefully the Conservatives will do the right thing when that happens and will get behind it, at least get it to committee where they could potentially make amendments. I realize that at the end of the day this would make a whole lot of Canadians happy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought that was an interesting question in the sense that I have had the opportunity to ask numerous Conservatives over the last couple of days about the whole process of passing legislation. Time and time again, depending on the member, they will stand up and talk about how they want to serve their constituents and see legislation passed that would make our communities safer.

At the end of the day, that is all they do: talk. They are not prepared to allow things to go to the next step. A good example of that is Bill C-2. We have now had many hours of debate on Bill C-2. It was introduced back in June, we have had more hours of debate, and now we are having 10-minute speeches. We still cannot get a Conservative to commit to at least allowing it go to the committee stage, yet it deals with issues that are important in terms of making our communities safer.

Conservatives come up with excuses, that they want every member to be able to speak to it and so forth. Interestingly enough, one of the critics introduced his private member's bill today and said it is transformative and would really change the justice system in a very big way. On second reading, it will get two hours of debate and then go to committee. There is an absolute double standard there, I would suggest, coming from the critic who stood in this place saying that we need to talk more about Bill C-2. Why? What we have witnessed in the past is that the Conservative Party talks tough on crime, but when it comes time to deliver, Conservatives just want to talk, and that is it.

The last time we had bail reform come to the House of Commons, the Conservatives had to be shamed into allowing it to get to committee stage and ultimately to third reading. I know that because I was one of the MPs who had to remind them at the time of the importance of bail reform, which they, in part, said they supported.

If we look at the Hansard record, we will see that they actually voted in favour of the legislation, not only at second reading and third reading, but they wanted to see it receive royal assent. It did receive royal assent. There was a consultation process done for that.

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but when I hear Conservatives talk tough on crime, their real priority is raising money for the Conservative Party, and that is what it is all about. That is the reason I specifically asked the leader of the Conservative Party earlier today about his commitment to see substantial legislation pass, at least through second reading. It is not that much to ask for. He virtually ignored the question and would not give a commitment. If history has anything to do with the future, with regard to this particular leader and the Conservative caucus, they will talk about it, but when it comes to taking action, unless they are shamed, they are very slow on it.

Let us reflect on the last federal election. Every Liberal candidate from all regions of our country knocked on doors and listened to what Canadians had to say. Crime and safety in our communities was an important issue. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The Prime Minister, Canada's newly elected Prime Minister, made a solemn commitment to Canadians that we would in fact bring forward bail legislation and we would see significant changes to bail reform.

If we listen to the Conservatives, they are asking why it has not been brought forward and saying they want to see the legislation. Then, if we had brought it forward at this point, they would ask if we had done any consulting.

The Prime Minister made the commitment not only to deliver on bail reform but also to do the consultation necessary so we could encompass within the legislation a true reflection of Canadians' expectations. In essence, this is what we are going to see when the minister tables the legislation. We will see substantial changes to the system that reflect what we have been hearing at the doors, which is what Liberal members of Parliament have been advocating for, and what the many different stakeholders have been talking about.

Whether it is municipalities, the provinces or the federal government, we need to recognize it is not the federal government alone that is responsible for ensuring safe communities and streets. It is a shared responsibility. We all have a responsibility, but at the very least, we need to recognize it is not just Ottawa that is responsible for this.

As our newly elected Prime Minister has indicated, Ottawa will step up. We will act where we can, where our responsibilities lie. We will see that legislation tabled this fall. This is a guarantee from the Prime Minister and Liberal members of Parliament. We need to recognize it is not just Ottawa's responsibility.

Some might say I am somewhat biased in my opinions at times, so I thought it would be advantageous to quote a few things from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press. This editorial was published on September 9, with the headline “More Crown prosecutors needed—now”.

The editorial reads, “The Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys has filed a formal grievance, saying the office requires at least 20 per cent more prosecutors”. Those are prosecutors that the province is responsible for hiring. Further down it reads, “But blame only goes so far.” This refers to the current government blaming the previous government. I quote:

But blame only goes so far. After two years in power, the government of the day owns the problem and the responsibility for fixing it.

Further:

The NDP has spoken frequently about its commitment to safer communities. It has announced more funding for police and has supported federal efforts to tighten bail laws.

That means consulting with the new Prime Minister, which is a little off topic, so I will go back to the quote.

But those measures mean little if there are not enough prosecutors to move cases through the courts in a timely manner.

Without an adequately staffed Crown’s office, government promises to crack down on violent repeat offenders are little more than political slogans.

Again, this is an editorial about provincial responsibilities. I will repeat the last part: “Without an adequately staffed Crown’s office, government promises to crack down on violent repeat offenders are little more than political slogans.” It continues:

The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of investment. Failing to fund the Crown’s office means risking collapsed trials, emboldened criminals and disillusioned victims. It means communities losing confidence in the courts’ ability to protect them. Ultimately, it means eroding the very rule of law.

In fairness, it is not just the responsibility of the Province of Manitoba and the federal government. All levels of government have a responsibility.

Let us look at that responsibility and the expectations of the different levels of government. The Prime Minister, who was elected just a few months ago, had to deal with the important issues of building one stronger Canada and bringing forward legislation of that nature. He brought forward legislation to deal with affordability so that 22 million Canadians get a tax break. He had numerous meetings and consultations on a wide spectrum of issues, including crime and safety. He has a responsibility to ensure that the minister responsible for the legislation is getting us into a position to fulfill the commitment he made to Canadians, which was to deliver substantial legislation on bail reform. That is the federal responsibility, and we have a Prime Minister who is committed to doing just that.

In the 1990s, I was an MLA, and for a short period of time, I was the justice critic. I understand how jurisdictional responsibility is not necessarily the most efficient way to deal with problems at times, but that is part of our Canadian system, and I respect that. During the early 1990s, I assisted in forming what we call the youth justice committees. One was the Keewatin youth justice committee, and after a few years, I became the chair. It was interesting to see how things changed over time. A youth justice committee, I should say for members who are not familiar with them, was composed of individuals who live in the community and volunteer to deal with young offenders who commit a crime, typically the first offence.

In the first few years, we dealt with quite a few crimes. They were primarily petty theft, such as shoplifting crimes and things of that nature, but as the years went by, things started to change. Petty thefts were not happening to anywhere near the same degree as in the early 1990s. As the chair, I discussed it with the provincial parole officer responsible for our justice committee. Apparently, there was a decision made between the province and the city that it was better for the city police to deal with young offenders as opposed to a youth justice committee. There were a number of them in the province.

I use that example to highlight that we need to recognize, and I will continue to amplify this, that the issue of crime and safety is a shared responsibility. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives. Looking at their fundraising emails, and I have seen many of them—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not have to speak to Bill C-2 right now, so I will not bother. I will reserve the right to speak to it when the time comes.

Bill C‑2 has both good and bad aspects. One of its proposals is an invasion of people's privacy, and this type of intervention strikes us as deplorable and dangerous. We will have to look at this bill and clarify some things. However, it does have some positive aspects.

Regarding Bill C‑2, I have to say yes and no. We will see. We said we would vote in favour of the bill to send it to committee. I am not sure we will still support the bill after it comes back from committee. We will have to decide at that time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is also important that we brought forward Bill C-2. Within the bill, there are in fact measures that would deal with issues such as Canada Post and the possibility of fentanyl being put into envelopes, the sharing of information to deal with issues like extortion, and so forth.

I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts on this: We can bring legislation forward, and it is good to have a healthy debate in the House on it, but we must also recognize that debates can continue in the standing committees, where, along with consultations with Canadians, they can potentially lead to positive amendments.

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

Madam Speaker, my comment has been mis-characterized. I am inviting all levels to co-operate, coordinate and maybe evolve. All of us need to evolve to address the current rise in crime, violent crime, that we are seeing in some of our communities. I think that is really important.

That is why we are putting in place changes in upcoming legislation and in current legislation that we are debating, such as Bill C-2, the strong borders act. I hope the member across the way will support us, because it is exactly what law enforcement has been asking for. It is important that we give law enforcement the tools they need because they do have a very difficult job on the ground. That is exactly what we intend to do. We are going to support law enforcement and our officers who work at the forefront of these issues.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the speech on Bill C-2 has been good. There are some good parts to it, but there are some that are very questionable, for our side of the floor, that need to be addressed.

The thing that concerned me, and that I picked up on, was the comment that there are a lot of mental health issues in our country right now and that they have grown. The question has to be, why? When Canadians are struggling with the economy, with their ability to pay their bills, with food banks, with loss of freedoms and all kinds of issues going on in our society over the last 10 years, how can the member not take responsibility for the fact that Canadians are really struggling and that this causes them to get into situations they should not be in?

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

Madam Speaker. I rise in the chamber to address today's opposition day motion, which was brought forward by the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot. The motion proposes a “three strikes and you're out” law aimed at keeping repeat serious offenders, particularly those who commit violent crimes, behind bars longer; limiting their access to bail, probation, parole and house arrest; and establishing a mandatory minimum sentence.

The government is deeply troubled by violent crime and is committed to keeping Canadians safe, strengthening confidence in the justice system and ensuring that the bail system promotes public safety first. It is committed to doing so in a smart, evidence-informed way, drawing on empirical research and real-world experience to address repeat and dangerous offenders effectively while respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The member for Battle River—Crowfoot has raised the issue of violent offending. I want to speak to two areas of particular concern for Canadians: extortion and auto theft. These are not abstract or distant problems. They involve violence, or the very real threat of violence, and they leave lasting impacts on victims and families, particularly many in my community. Auto theft and carjacking put Canadians in immediate physical danger and threaten their sense of safety in our neighbourhoods. Extortion preys on fear and vulnerability, targets individuals and small businesses, and can destabilize entire communities.

Take, for instance, a recent and deeply troubling incident in Brampton. On April 30, 2025, a local business situated near Queen Street and Kennedy Road South was targeted with gunfire. While no one was inside at the time, the owner began receiving threatening messages demanding money. This act of extortion not only endangered the victim but also instilled fear within the broader community.

In response, Peel Regional Police swiftly initiated an investigation leading to the arrest of three individuals on charges of extortion: Harpal Singh, Rajnoor Singh and Eknoor Singh, all from Brampton. These arrests underscore the severity of the crime and the commitment of law enforcement to uphold public safety. Such incidents highlight the urgent need for comprehensive measures to combat extortion and ensure the protection of our communities.

That is why the RCMP has created a national task force to coordinate investigations and share intelligence across the country, focusing in particular on cases that have affected the South Asian communities in Brampton, Surrey, Edmonton and Abbotsford. It is expanding to other regions as well. This task force is working not only with domestic law enforcement but also with international partners to track and disrupt organized crime networks.

Addressing these challenges requires more than words. It demands concrete action. The government has taken, and continues to take, meaningful steps to strengthen the tools available to law enforcement and the justice system, ensuring that repeat and dangerous offenders are held accountable and that Canadians can feel safe in their homes, on their streets and in their businesses.

Key changes to the Criminal Code's bail provisions came into effect on January 4, 2024, under the former Bill C-48. Individuals charged with serious repeat violent offences, particularly those involving weapons such as firearms, knives or bear spray, now carry the burden of demonstrating a reverse onus, in particular demonstrating why they should be released on bail, rather than Crown counsel having to fight against the bail. Courts are required to consider an accused person's history of violent convictions and to state on the record how community safety, as well as circumstances of Indigenous peoples and other overrepresented populations, have been taken into account.

These reforms ensure that public safety is at the forefront of bail decisions, while they respect individual circumstances and their rights protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and provide judges with clear guidance to make informed, evidence-based decisions, but we are going to take this even further. In our new upcoming bail and sentencing legislation, we are going to make sure that the courts are committed to these basic principles. Public safety should be at the forefront for the reason for denying bail. If somebody is a public safety risk, they should not be provided bail.

I hope the courts and Crown counsel are taking this under advisement, or will take it under advisement, and that we see decisions made in accordance to that in the future. It is quite concerning to me as well, and this new government is a tough-on-crime government. It takes public safety very seriously. That is why the Prime Minister has created a new rule, in particular, just to address the issue of crime in our country.

Turning back to extortion, we know that extortion has increasingly moved online. Nearly half of reported cases involve cyber elements. Bill C-2, legislation that we just debated in the House yesterday, has many measures in it that would provide law enforcement with the tools needed.

This summer, I spoke to many extortion victims across the country. I received advice from them and from law enforcement as to the challenges they face in investigating these cases. Some of the challenges are with being able to get information on IP addresses and phone numbers across our borders, and Bill C-2 would help in that regard.

I hope Conservatives will support Bill C-2 and the measures in it, because all of the measures have been guided by recommendations of law enforcement across the country, particularly with examples of cases where they have not been able to put criminals behind bars due to those challenges. This bill would give them those tools. It is our new government's second bill in the House. However, it has been disappointing to hear that a lot of Conservatives take issue with the bill, although the chiefs of police in their areas are all in favour of the elements that are contained within it. I hope they will reconsider and support the entirety of the bill.

Turning back to extortion, the government has also responded by equipping agencies with the resources they need to combat cyber-enabled crimes. For example, Cybertip.ca is supported in its work to intervene directly with platforms, such as Instagram and Snapchat, to help protect young people in Canada in real time. The Department of Justice Canada's victim services directory is expanding access to community supports for victims of sextortion and online child exploitation, which is a rising concern for me and a rising issue for children in Canada. Bill C-2 also addresses this, and would give the capabilities that are needed to put criminals that exploit our young children behind bars.

As well, the government has updated legislation in response to these troubling offences. Recent changes expanded the national sex offender registry to include serious crimes, such as sextortion and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, ensuring that police have access to critical investigative tools when responding to these offences.

Turning our attention back to auto theft, which has rightly been described as a national crisis, last year, we saw the government put together an auto theft summit at which law enforcement and government at all levels came to the same table to work on how we can address this issue. Since then, we have been having a lot of success. Organized crime groups that are stealing cars at an alarming rate are using new technology to do so. In response to this, in particular, the government has invested significantly in prevention, enforcement and international co-operation.

I will list some of the results that came out of that auto theft summit.

Public Safety Canada has committed $15 million over three years to help law enforcement combat serious and organized crime, including auto theft. This includes bilateral agreements with provincial, territorial and municipal police forces to strengthen their ability to seize stolen vehicles from the Canada Border Services Agency.

International collaboration is also key, and that is why Canada has invested in Interpol's transnational vehicle crime project, which is enhancing information sharing and investigative tactics to identify and recover stolen vehicles across borders.

When speaking with those in law enforcement across the country, they mentioned the help Interpol has been able to provide to seize these vehicles and basically freeze criminal organizations from being able to successfully get proceeds from the crimes they are committing. If we are able to stop them from making money on auto theft, as a result, we see a decrease in that type of crime.

The government, in addition to that, has also provided $28 million to CBSA for the investigation and examination of stolen vehicles at ports. Supported by new detection technologies and advanced analytics, including artificial intelligence, Transport Canada is working directly with port facilities to address security vulnerabilities and update security plans. At the same time, we are partnering with the automotive industry to ensure that vehicles are harder to steal in the first place.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada is working with Canadian companies to develop solutions to prevent theft and assist with vehicle recovery.

We are also pursuing ways to remove devices used by organized criminals to override wireless entry systems from the Canadian marketplace.

The government's decisive actions to combat auto theft are already yielding tangible results. According to the Équité Association's “First Half of 2025: Auto Theft Trend Report”, Canada has experienced a 19.1% national decrease in the theft of private passenger vehicles compared to the same period in 2024. Notably, Ontario and Quebec, previous hot spots for vehicle crime, saw declines of 25.9% and 22.2% respectively. These improvements are attributed to a coordinated effort involving federal and provincial governments, law enforcement agencies and the insurance industry. Initiatives such as the national action plan on combatting auto theft, led by Public Safety Canada, have been instrumental in implementing comprehensive strategies to protect Canadians from the organized crime behind auto theft.

While challenges still remain, these early successes demonstrate that targeted, collaborative efforts can effectively reduce auto theft and enhance public safety as a result. These actions show that the government is not standing still, but providing law enforcement with the resources they need, modernizing technology and regulations, and strengthening partnerships at home and abroad. This is how we address the complex threats posed by serious and organized crime and ensure that Canadians are safe. The government is responding in a coordinated, thoughtful and practical way. Canada's bail system already allows for detention where there are risks to public safety. Courts can impose strict conditions where release is appropriate. Our responsibility is to ensure that these decisions are informed by robust law enforcement capacity and strong tools to manage and prevent crime.

I would like to also say that in some instances courts should be allowed to enforce strict sentences on one strike. Why stop at three? In certain cases, there should be the stiffest penalty given depending on the circumstances of that case and the seriousness of the crime committed.

There are many provisions we are going to put forward that I think the House and all of its members can support. They are going to be informed by law enforcement and experts. We are going to make sure that we act responsibly, not just put forward ideas and implement things the Supreme Court would then overturn, which would end up putting us in the same spot we began in. Oftentimes, I hear the Conservatives talk about these ideas that may sound interesting in theory. They have done this before. They have put in place provisions that the Supreme Court has overturned and that our government then had to deal with. Therefore, it is really important that we act responsibly and come at this with the view of making sure we have comprehensive bail reform.

I am looking forward to sitting down with the provinces and territories, as well, in the upcoming days because there are lots of responsibilities that are within their jurisdiction that they have to implement.

I spent some time in courts in my area this summer, sitting in on bail hearings. I have to say that I was really sad to see the lack of resources, including the inability of Crown council at times to effectively argue a case for bail because they are overworked. They have a lot of files.

We need to make sure our provinces have the appropriate number of Crown council and well-trained judges. This is really important. A lot of Canadians may not be aware, but the administration of justice, when it comes to the majority of criminal cases, happens in our provincial courtrooms, so it is really important that the provinces do their part and efficiently handle the volume of cases coming in. They can use technology. I think there are many ways we can improve our court data sharing to better inform ourselves as to where the issues and blind spots are, how we can address them and how the federal government can also help at the provincial level.

We have heard that many judges are releasing people due to not having space in provincial holding centres. That, too, is an issue that needs to be addressed.

At the end of the day, I know all of us are here for the best interest of Canadians, and we want to make sure people are safe. That is exactly my interest. I am going to work hard to make sure that we collaborate and do everything possible to make sure some of the headlines we are reading in news articles that are very upsetting do not continue to repeat themselves, but we are going to do it in the proper way.

It is also very important, and many constituents of mine also talk about, how we address the root cause. How do we prevent crime from starting in the first place? How do we make sure that we continue to have some of the lowest rates of recidivism around the world? We do.

It is very important that we continue to invest in our correctional facilities as well, to make sure proper programming is there so that at the end of someone's appropriate sentence, they reintegrate into society and do not reoffend and also to make sure there is good programming at the youth level so kids have an opportunity to succeed. All of these things are very important when we talk about public safety, and I think sometimes the Conservatives are missing a key component of the puzzle.

It is my commitment here today, and my government's, to make sure we address all of these issues in the coming time and create a safer Canada for everyone.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, the second bill we introduced in the House was Bill C-2, our stronger borders measure, which gives police the tools to deal with many issues, including organized crime.

The next thing we are going to do is stiffen bail and make sentencing a lot stricter. We are going to partner with police services across the country to fight organized crime, make it tougher for violent offenders to get bail and impose stricter sentences. We are taking action on this front to make sure that Canadians are safe.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, one of the goals of the campaign we ran a few months ago was to restore the vitality of our immigration system in order to alleviate the housing and services crisis.

Our measures are working. Admissions of new students and temporary workers have decreased by more than 60%. Asylum applications have fallen by a third. The number of new residents will be reduced by 20%.

With Bill C‑2, we will continue that work. I invite all parliamentarians to join us.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we just ran a campaign on restoring sustainability to our immigration system to ease pressure on housing and social services, something the Conservatives also voted for. Our immigration levels plan reduced targets for permanent residents. That plan is working. New student and temporary worker admissions are down more than 60%, asylum claims are down one-third and new permanent residents will be down 20% at the end of the year. With Bill C-2 we can do even more. I urge parliamentarians to support it.

Justice

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the government's efforts to address crime and public safety.

The impacts of crime on victims, their families, their friends and their entire community are far-reaching and long-lasting. Canadians deserve communities that are safe. The government is committed to ensuring that the criminal justice system works effectively to keep Canadians safe and to hold offenders accountable. While this Parliament is still relatively young, the Government of Canada is focused, and it is already taking action to address pressing issues facing our communities.

During the election, we promised to strengthen the Criminal Code and move aggressively to protect victims by making bail laws stricter for violent and organized crime, including home invasions, car thefts and human trafficking. The Prime Minister and Minister of Justice have both signalled the government's intention to move quickly on this legislation. Today, we heard the justice minister talk about how that legislation will be forthcoming in short order.

I share my colleague's concern, obviously, about the devastating impact that illegal drugs have had on Canadian communities, and my community is no exception. The Government of Canada has already introduced legislation through Bill C-2, the strong borders act, to ensure that law enforcement has tools to keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crack down on money laundering. It will bolster our response to increasingly sophisticated criminal networks and enhance the integrity and fairness of our immigration system while protecting Canadians' privacy and charter rights.

I would encourage all of my colleagues in this place to work together to ensure that we can achieve these goals as quickly as possible. Bill C-2 builds on past investments made by the Government of Canada, notably through December 2024's border plan. The plan focuses on five key pillars: first, detecting and disrupting the illegal fentanyl trade; second, introducing significant new tools for law enforcement; third, enhancing operational coordination; fourth, increasing information sharing; and, fifth, minimizing unnecessary border volumes.

With an investment of $1.3 billion over six years to bolster security at the border and reinforce the immigration system, the plan also targets law reform to strengthen capabilities for immediate deployment of people and equipment. The government also appointed a fentanyl czar to provide national leadership, coordinate federal efforts and strengthen the response to the escalating harms caused by fentanyl and other toxic opioids.

The Government of Canada is serious about addressing illegal drugs and organized crime. While we could speak for much longer about the importance of this issue and the efforts the government is making, I will conclude by highlighting that laws on their own will not result in safer communities. We require action by those responsible for the criminal justice system to effectively implement those laws and to ensure that there are resources in place so that the system is working as intended.

That is why I am happy that the government is making significant real investments in addressing these issues through recruiting 1,000 more RCMP officers and 1,000 additional CBSA personnel, including border services officers, intelligence analysts and specialized chemists.

There is much more to talk about, but members should have no doubt that our government is focused on cracking down on crime and is addressing some of the bail reform issues we have heard about that lead to repeat offenders.

Citizenship Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's time and effort in putting on the record a number of situations that have had a fairly profound impact. That is why it is so important that we see some form of the legislation actually pass. If we were to focus, let us say, on this and Bill C-2, a couple of bills, and every member were to speak to the legislation, we would not even be able to bring in the budget until the end of November or beginning of December, or that type of thing. At the end of the day, we need to see this legislation sent to committee.

I wonder if the member opposite could provide his thoughts in terms of the important role that a standing committee of the House can play in terms of improving legislation and advancing it, keeping in mind the superior court's decision.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, while the opposition is concentrating on making assumptions and speaking about things that are not there, let me tell members that, with the asylum system, our numbers are down 40%. We have also introduced Bill C-2, which will strengthen our border, and this legislation is in front of the House. We campaigned on it, and Canadians gave us a mandate. So did Conservatives, and we hope that the Conservatives will help us pass it.

Public Safety

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, fentanyl is ravaging our communities and tearing families apart. That is a well-known fact. Bill C‑2 will step up the fight against fentanyl trafficking through important measures such as tighter controls on the chemical precursors used to manufacture fentanyl and enhanced powers for law enforcement to intercept and search shipments suspected of containing illegal drugs. We have also designated drug cartels as terrorist organizations. We will always be there to protect Canadians.

Motions in Amendment

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has pointed out, it deals with fentanyl too, a very serious issue here in Canada. In fact, around the world, fentanyl is a serious issue. As a government, we are looking at ways in which we can protect Canadians, and that is Bill C-2, not to mention Bill C-4.

Bill C-4 is the legislation that would put into law the tax cut for Canadians. Contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, it would be a substantial tax cut through which people would realize, in a fiscal year, over $800, for an average family with two workers in the home. They could get up to $840, I believe. It is a significant amount of money. There are 22 million taxpayers who would benefit by that—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that members opposite would be somewhat more respectful when members are speaking.

At the end of the day, when the voters spoke on April 28, they sent a very strong message to all members of the House that the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, had a mandate to build one economy instead of the 13 that we currently have in the country, and that is what the legislation is all about.

If we look at the election platform on page 1, if we look at the throne speech and if we look at the announcements made by the Prime Minister, we will see that the primary focus is to build one strong, healthy economy. The strongest economy in the G7 is the goal; that is something that the Prime Minister and Liberal members of Parliament are four-square behind. The focus of the government has been to enhance and build on that theme, and that is why we have Bill C-5 before us today, because the people of Canada were concerned about the economy, jobs and the direction that we were going in.

There is a new Prime Minister and a new administration, with a focus on building our economy. When we think in terms of trade and in terms of opportunities, there is a special focus in regard to exploring ways in which we can trade with other countries around the world, expanding our opportunities.

We have a Prime Minister who, just over two weeks ago, met with all the first ministers, all the premiers of provinces and territories across the country, about the idea of building the one Canadian economy. There have been provinces that have taken initiatives to build upon that. We have to be able to demonstrate here on the floor of the House of Commons that we are listening to what Canadians want and to their expectations. Their expectations are that there would be a high sense of co-operation, political parties aside, focused on what is in the best interest of Canadians, and that is exactly what our new Prime Minister has done.

We met with first ministers of all political stripes. When meeting with indigenous leaders and with all the different stakeholders to date, the first priority has been Canadians and building our economy. That is what we are striving to do. Imagine April 28 to six or seven weeks later; look at what we have been able to accomplish in that very short period of time. We can talk about legislative measures, such as Bill C-5, which we are talking about today, which in essence captures the one Canadian economy by looking at special projects and encouraging labour mobility, in law.

We also have Bill C-2, which is to strengthen our borders. It is a tangible investment, not only from a legislative perspective but also from a budgetary perspective, where we would commit to 1,000 more CBSA officers and 1,000 more RCMP officers. This would have a real impact on making our borders that much more secure, dealing with issues such as extortion and illegal immigration of different forms. These are the types of things—

Citizenship Act

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled. Members are saying, “Well, the NDP is not in government.” I do not know why the Liberals would just support their bill. It is completely strange.

Here is the thing: We do not know how many people the bill would affect. The government could not say, over a 10-, 20- or 30-year period, how many people would be able to draw health care benefits in Canada, draw on the services of our country.

We asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Again, he was kind of stonewalled in his analysis on the government, because I do not think it wants the public to know. I think the government knows how many people this could impact. Earlier my colleague said there is about four million people currently living abroad that have Canadian citizenship. We could start thinking about the exponential downstream impact the bill would have. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that at a minimum it is going to be 100,000 people over five years. That is his best guess.

Why would the Liberals propose a bill that would essentially allow mass chain migration to this country through automatic Canadian citizenship without any sort of substantive tie to the country? It really does speak to motive. Why are they doing this? They could have kept the Conservative bill with just a minimal scope, but no. They did this on purpose, and they have now done it twice. Instead of making amendments to the bill as were required, they have now done this twice.

There are two things that are missing in the bill that absolutely, 100%, need to be instantly changed. The first is that missing requirement of a substantial connection to Canada. I mentioned, in questions and answers, that the court ruling some of this applied to, which the Conservative bill and not the government tried to address, had a requirement or a definition for a substantial connection to Canada. How have the Liberals defined that? There is nothing. We heard that in the non-answer of the colleague who spoke just before. She could not really define that.

What we need is a substantial connection to Canada. Precedent for this type of situation in virtually every other country around the world is something like five or 10 years in a set period of time. Earlier my colleague from the Bloc asked if it would stop somebody from leaving Canada. It is usually five or more years within seven years, and at least a chunk of that is spent in the country as an adult, over the age of 14 or over the age of 16. That point was brought up in the hours of debate, with witness after witness giving testimony in the last Parliament.

The Liberals could have harmonized that with other jurisdictions around the world, but instead they purposefully tabled a bill with that missing. I think that they did that because, again, they want to have a devaluation of the Canadian citizenship. Let us think about it; it is literally like devaluing currency. If they want to refute me on this point, this should be their response: It should be that they will entertain an amendment to have a consecutive residency requirement, as a bare minimum amendment. That is what I think. That makes sense to me.

The second thing that the bill absolutely needs amended is the fact that there is no security vetting requirement whatsoever for somebody applying for this. Let us think about what that means. If somebody looks up their ancestral food chain and finds an ancestor who held Canadian citizenship, even though that person has never been in the country, they could come, three years over some period of the course of their life, and then be granted Canadian citizenship without having been vetted for any sort of security risk whatsoever. There is an automatic get-into-Canada pass with the bill, and that is not right.

I want to talk about fairness too because there are millions and millions of positive stories. Many people who now work and serve other Canadians in this place have migrated to Canada, played by the rules and played fair through Canada's immigration system. They checked all the boxes, waited for years, had security tests and had all of these different tests. I cannot imagine how they feel looking at this bill. It is not right, and it is not fair.

Again, I want to be very clear: I think one of the things that Canadians have always been proud of, and are proud of and open to today, is the concept of immigration that functions within the context of the pluralism of Canada. That does not work under what the Liberal government has done, which is increase immigration to a level that is so unsustainable that we do not have houses, we do not have health care and we do not have jobs to adequately address everybody in the country, newcomer or not.

I think what has happened here is the Liberals have tabled the bill without amendments, partially because of an incompetent minister. However, they have also put the bill forward without amendments because they put Bill C-2 in place. They broke Canada's asylum system so badly that they had to put the immigration provisions of Bill C-2 in there. That is another debate. I will have a lot to say on that in the future.

There are people, “consultants” in loose quotations, who have made an entire industry of scamming people who want to come to Canada to build a better life. I think the Liberals are afraid to stand up to those people. I think what they try to do is talk out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. That is why the bill came in unamended.

If the Liberals had come in with a bill with a narrow scope that looked a lot like our colleague's bill from the other place, in which she had very tight definitions to address the very real needs of some of the stakeholders who are considered lost Canadians, everybody could have supported that. It would have been fast-tracked. However, the Liberals and the former NDP members stalled the bill at committee because they gutted it and then made it this endless chain migration bill.

I need to hear from the government that it is going to amend the bill so that there is a substantive presence test that includes some sort of consecutive presence, as well as, at a minimum, security vetting for people this would apply to. The government has not signalled that, and every Canadian should be asking why. Conservatives will continue to press the Liberals on this issue because we will not let Canadian citizenship be devalued by poor Liberal legislation and the poor Liberal broken immigration system.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian Heritage

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a number of thoughts, particularly with the members opposite. This is important for people who follow the debate of the estimates. It is a very important debate that is actually taking place.

We often make reference to our having a new Prime Minister, a new administration and a government that truly understand the economy. There are 8.5 million Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have supported the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, which is a record number of votes in the history of Canada.

Ultimately, I think it is important that we respond to the mandate that we have been given in a very aggressive yet positive fashion. We need to work hard for Canadians and co-operate where we can with opposition parties, in anticipation that opposition parties will also co-operate with the government at times, as they have demonstrated to a certain degree already. I will get into more of those details, but suffice it to say that there has been a change in government, the Prime Minister and the administration. An example would be the consumer price on carbon. The Conservatives called it the carbon tax. It is now gone. We have a new Prime Minister, and that policy is now gone.

We now have a Prime Minister who has brought in legislation through the cabinet and caucus to deal with issues such as border control through Bill C-2. We could talk about the tax break, Bill C-4. We could talk about the one Canadian economy, Bill C-5. We could talk about what the Prime Minister has done since April 28, over and above that substantial legislation and over and above the estimates that have been provided in the ways and means. We can talk about, for example, the first ministers' meetings that have taken place. We could talk about the G7 conference that is taking place today, not to mention the many other initiatives where we have seen the new Prime Minister tackle the issue of building Canada strong, elbows up. Damn right.

I believe that we have a Prime Minister who does have his elbows up going at it, dealing with the different issues that are before Canadians today, with an objective of building the strongest, healthiest economy in the G7. That is the goal, and I believe we will be able to achieve that goal. Now, we are very much, given the minority situation, going to be looking for a co-operating partner. Today it might be the Conservatives, while tomorrow it might be the Bloc. That is possible. It could even be some of the independents, but at the end of the day, we are going to continue to move on important initiatives to build the economy.

Before I go into the details on that, I want to talk about something that has been referenced by the Prime Minister: our social programs. I have always been a very strong advocate on the issue of health care. I do not say that lightly because, since I was first elected in 1988 to the Manitoba legislature, I have had the opportunity to play many different roles. Since I came to Ottawa in 2010 as a member of Parliament, one of the consistent issues has been health care. It seems to have always been one of the top three issues over the past 35-plus years. I truly believe it is a part of our Canadian identity. It is one of the reasons why many people feel passionate about saying, “I am a Canadian.”

One of the shared values we have is our health care system. I am a nationalist in the sense that I believe that individuals, no matter where they live in Canada, should have access to a very basic level of health care services throughout the nation. That is why it is important that we support and get behind the Canada Health Act. That is why health care transfers are so critically important. The federal government does have a role, a significant role, to play in health care in Canada.

I was glad when the Justin Trudeau administration, of which I was a part, put such a strong emphasis on health care and providing health care services through issues such as long-term care and mental health; the creation of the true national pharmacare program, or at least the beginning of one; and the advancement of the dental care program, something I think we should be looking at ways we could ultimately be improving still.

Having said that, I want to go to what the Prime Minister has been so focused on. We can review the last election and look at election night. I hear a lot from my friends in the Bloc, who said that all that people wanted to talk about was the Trump factor, the trade and the tariffs, and that this was the reason the Bloc lost all the seats in the province of Quebec. I think the result was 44 Liberals, 22 Bloc members and 11 Conservatives. We had a substantial increase, but the province of Quebec was not alone; there were 8.5 million votes, and every province in the country has Liberal members of Parliament.

I can tell members that it did not matter where we went in the country, people were genuinely concerned, and that concern was addressed in a very tangible way by the Liberal Party of Canada, in particular by the Prime Minister of Canada. I reflect on the election, and one of the very first announcements, which, if it was not on day one of the election, it was shortly thereafter. The Prime Minister indicated that he was going to give a tax break to Canadians. By the way, that promise was kept, and I will get to that point, but shortly after and throughout, he also amplified the issue of Trump trade tariffs and the impact that they were going to have on Canada.

I believe that Canadians saw a contrast between the Prime Minister, the current leader of the Liberal Party, during the campaign, and Pierre Poilievre, and what they saw in the Prime Minister was an individual who had a background in dealing with the economy. He was appointed by a Conservative prime minister to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He was appointed to the Bank of England, again as the governor. The leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada, has a history of working with and developing an economy, and when Canadians looked at that and compared it to what the Conservative Party was offering, I not only believe that they made the right decision, but I also believe that it was in the best interest of Canadians.

Shortly after the election, we saw the Prime Minister take on the issues and put things into place in the form of legislation and budget measures. I will cite one of the best budget measures coming from the Prime Minister, which was announced just last week: the 2% of GDP for the Canadian forces. How long have we waited for a prime minister to not only actually make the commitment but also to realize it in the form of a budget, which we will be seeing later this year? “Patience is a virtue”, they say. The budget will be before us, and we are going to see the 2% of the GDP.

If members flash back to the time Pierre Poilievre sat in the cabinet of Stephen Harper, it was borderline 1%, or maybe even a little less than 1%, of the GDP. In the following administration, Justin Trudeau did increase it substantially.

For the first time in generations, we can now say that Canada is going to be living up to the United Nations target of 2%, which is a significant budget achievement.

We can also take a look in terms of the other actions that this new Prime Minister and government have put into place.

We talked about border controls, and we now have Bill C-2 before us, which will be complemented by an additional 1,000 CBSA officers along with another 1,000 RCMP law enforcement officers. The legislation would even improve the strength of our border, which is something we talked about during the campaign. The campaign ended April 28, and we now have legislation before us to be able to deal with the election platform. Again, we would think that members opposite would see the true value. They are a little slow on Bill C-2, but I will not push them too hard on that. At the end of the day, I know in my heart that this is substantial legislation that will ultimately make a positive difference, especially if we contrast it to the days in which Pierre Poilievre sat around the cabinet table with Stephen Harper, and they actually cut border control officers, cut money from our borders and the safety of our borders. It is an amazing contrast.

We can advance to yet another piece of legislation, Bill C-4, which would primarily do three things. First, it would provide the 2% tax break that the Prime Minister committed to during the election. Second, it would provide, for first-time homebuyers, the elimination of GST on a home of up to $1 million, which does a couple of things in itself. It would make it more affordable for young people to actually purchase a home, and, ultimately, it would assist in increasing Canada's housing stock at the same time. Again, I could draw the comparison of when Pierre Poilievre sat around that cabinet table. In fact, he was actually the minister of housing. How did he do on the housing file? Well, everyone knows he was challenged to build six houses, and as I have said in the past, we still do not know where those six houses were, but we are told that there were actually six houses. Contrast is really quite surprising. However, third, the bill would ultimately take out of law the consumer price on pollution, which is a substantial piece of legislation, again from April 28. This is legislation that should pass.

Let us fast-forward to another piece of legislation that we have had a great deal of discussion on: Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act. It should be no surprise to anyone in this House that the government has made that legislation a priority. From my perspective, it was the number one priority for the Prime Minister of Canada during the campaign. It provides assurances to Canadians that, as a government and a Prime Minister, we are going to push, and push hard, to build a stronger, healthier one Canadian economy by taking down those federal barriers before July 1. It was a solid commitment that was provided by the Prime Minister. I appreciate the fact that my friends in the Conservative Party actually recognize that, because without the support of at least one other party or some independents, we would not be able to pass Bill C-5, and that has been made abundantly clear by my friends in the Bloc.

It does not take much to prevent legislation from passing. Time allocation and closure motions are tools used at times in order to be able to get something through the House, because often there is no commitment to seeing it pass. If we listened to the Bloc members, that bill would never pass, so we had to bring in closure. The Bloc then says doing that is anti-democratic and is not parliamentary. We are a minority government and cannot do it alone.

Fortunately, the Conservatives were also listening to Canadians in all regions and recognized that it was an important piece of legislation. If they would like to see amendments to it, that is fine, but at the end of the day, Bill C-5 is a reflection of what Canadians expect of this Parliament. I am disappointed in my friends in the Bloc.

Take a look at what the Prime Minister has done. I made reference to the fact that there was a first ministers meeting two weeks ago, where the Prime Minister sat with premiers of the different provinces and territories and had a thorough discussion about identifying national projects that would advance Canadian interests. Even the Province of Quebec participated in that. Each province has projects. I can recall the Prime Minister asking what those national projects were and soliciting opinions and thoughts on them.

As opposed to potentially filibustering the bill, the Bloc could have actually contributed by talking about the many things that could assist the Province of Quebec through a national perspective. For example, hydro is something that could ultimately help not only my own province of Manitoba in terms of grids but also the Province of Quebec. I would suggest there are other potential projects there that need to be talked about and brought to the attention of the administration, to the premiers and the Prime Minister so that we can develop those projects.

I think of things such as the Port of Churchill and the potential of rail, and, absolutely, pipelines matter. There are issues we can take on as national projects and advance them. Bill C-5 is an important piece of legislation.

In a very short period of time, we have seen a Prime Minister who understands what Canadians want and developed a platform that highlights the legislation we introduced and that highlighted many of the budgetary allocations that are already starting to go out. The budget will be coming out in the fall, but it will be a budget that reflects Canadian interests and the direction this Prime Minister, the cabinet and the Liberal caucus want us to move forward on, which is based on listening to what our constituents are telling us. It is a true reflection of what Canadians want.

We are going to continue to build a country that is second to no other in the G7 in strength and economic power on a per capita basis. This is something that can be achieved. All we need is to continue to work together, where we can, to develop those ideas. When an idea is sound and good, I suspect it will receive a very positive outcome. It might take some time, but at least let us talk about those issues. We can, in fact, make a difference.

To conclude, I look forward to the questions that might be asked.

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

Madam Speaker, the member says that he wants to see specific actions. A specific action would be Bill C-2, which deals with borders. Specific actions would be dealing with giving a tax cut to Canadians, having one Canadian economy, meeting with the different premiers, and hosting a G7 summit. We have a very proactive, aggressive Prime Minister who believes in hard work, and we are seeing the results today.

I am wondering whether the member would not agree that this is actually action. That is more than words, and there are a lot more words and action to follow.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, this new government was given a strong mandate from Canadians to keep our communities safe, and we will do exactly that.

We are committed to hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers and 1,000 more RCMP personnel to secure our borders and to keep our streets safe. We will make it tougher for violent criminals to get bail and impose stricter sentences for repeat violent offenders. This government is acting quickly. We brought in Bill C-2 immediately, to provide police with the tools necessary to catch criminals.

Consideration of Government Business No. 1

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege it is to rise in this House today on behalf of the people of Mississauga East—Cooksville. It is a pivotal time for our country and for Canadian families alike.

I would like to congratulate all the dads out there for a belated happy Father's Day. They do a great job.

Canadians sent us here with a clear message to make life more affordable, to make our economy work for everyone and to bring this country together stronger, fairer and more united than ever before. That is exactly what our government is doing. When I speak with a young couple in Mississauga trying to buy their first home, a small grocer who wants to expand their business across provincial lines or a retired couple feeling the pressure at the checkout line, one thing is clear: Canadians are looking for action and not slogans. They are getting that action through bold, focused leadership under our Prime Minister and our new government.

This is not just about responding to challenges; it is about seizing the opportunity. Today, all eyes are on Kananaskis, Alberta, as Canada hosts the G7 summit. This is a moment to showcase what makes Canada strong: our resilient middle class, our clean and conventional energy leadership, and our commitment to building a modern, unified economy where no one is left behind. We will stand on the global stage and show the world that Canada is not just keeping up; we are leading.

Here at home, we are moving quickly to deliver real relief for Canadians. Bill C-4, now before this House, delivers on the 2025 campaign promise to cut taxes for the middle class, reducing the lowest tax bracket. That would mean more money in the pockets of 22 million Canadians, up to $840 a year for a two-income family. This relief would start on July 1, so the time to act is now. Families cannot afford delay; they need this support and they need it now.

We are not stopping there. We are tackling the housing crisis with a targeted GST exemption for first-time homebuyers on homes up to $1 million. This would be especially impactful for families in cities like mine of Mississauga. We are helping young Canadians enter the housing market while investing in housing supply to make sure the next generation has the same shot at success.

This past weekend, I had the honour to attend a Luso charities event, which raises vital funds for individuals living with cognitive disabilities. What stood out to me was not just the generosity in that room, which was tremendous, but that there were developers, union leaders and construction workers. People from every corner of the building sector came together for a common purpose.

Do members know what they told me? They said they are optimistic. They believe in the direction our country is going, the way we are headed. They know that by working together with government, community, industry and labour, we can build the homes Canadians need while creating good jobs and delivering inclusive, progressive growth. This is what nation building looks like, and it starts with partnership. This is what it means to build fairness.

Now let me speak about trade, infrastructure and opportunity, because these issues are deeply connected. It was a busy weekend this weekend. I also had the pleasure of attending North America's biggest halal food festival, right in the heart of Mississauga. Fifty thousand people came out, including families, entrepreneurs and business leaders from across our country. Amir Shamsi, the founder, took me around to speak with many of the businesses. Built from the ground up, many of them are newcomer-run, women-led or youth-run. They told me they were ready to grow. They want to move their products across provincial borders and access new markets abroad, but right now they are hitting red tape, different standards, fragmented rules and unnecessary costs. We need to fix that.

That is why Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, is so important. It is vital that we do this. The bill tears down those barriers, creating one unified marketplace across Canada. It helps small and medium-sized businesses, like those at the halal food festival, expand faster, hire more workers and compete globally.

Trade policy is not enough. Nation-building infrastructure is the backbone that supports our economic growth. That is why Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, would help unleash strategic trade and energy corridors, projects that connect our natural resources to markets, our businesses to ports, and our goods to global demand.

We need to modernize Canada's ports, from Halifax to Vancouver, to handle large volumes and higher efficiency. We need to expand rail and highway infrastructure to reduce congestion and speed up delivery. We need to build clean energy corridors that will move electricity across provinces, so that Canadian power can fuel our homes, our factories and our vehicles from coast to coast to coast. This is how we unlock the full potential of the Canadian economy, by investing in the hard infrastructure that makes trade real. This is inclusive, bottom-up trade, where the benefits start with the people on the ground, in places like the great place of Mississauga, and ripple outward across our country.

At our borders, where economic and national security meet, we are acting with Bill C-2. The bill would modernize trade routes, strengthen enforcement and stop the illegal flow of guns and drugs, while speeding up the legal flow of goods. That is good for safety and good for business, and it is essential for a modern economy.

These are just bills, but they are all part of a unified vision, a 2025 Liberal vision, a Liberal plan that Canadians voted for: tax relief for working families; housing access for the next generation; strategic infrastructure to support trade, innovation and energy; a clean economy that grows with people-powered innovation; and a strong Canada united from coast to coast to coast.

It is a plan to build on economic expertise, empowered by the values that Canadians hold dear. We have a Prime Minister with real-world experience in global finance and public service, who held a job as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, as well as the Governor of the Bank of England. This person comes with this experience and brings us all together to a new government, a cabinet team that reflects Canada and delivers for Canadians.

Members have probably heard the announcement that Michael Sabia will be the incoming Clerk of the Privy Council. We have someone, again, who understands both business and public policy and brings those together. He has done it in Quebec. He has done it across our country. That will help. It will help as we build our team Canada.

This Canadian team, working together with all of us, and I say all of us because I speak to all members in the House, our provinces, our territories, our indigenous partners, the private sector, labour and 41 million Canadians, will unlock Canada's full economic potential. That is what real partnership and real leadership look like. What unites all of this is simple. We are focused on people: not partisanship, not posturing, but people.

This is how we restore faith in government, by showing that it can work and that it can deliver for our people. As we show the world in Kananaskis today, Canada is leading, not just with words, but with action. Let us build one economy. Let us support every family. Let us continue building a Canada that works for everyone. Let us build Canada strong.

Public Safety

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the strong borders act would combat organized crime, protect the integrity of our immigration system and equip law enforcement with the tools it needs to strengthen our border. Bill C-2 would also contribute to our crackdown on fentanyl trafficking with important measures to support law enforcement, such as improving inter-agency intelligence sharing and empowering law enforcement to intercept and search shipments suspected of smuggling illegal drugs.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my hon. colleague that there will be a government budget in the fall, which is something that all Canadians except the Conservatives seem to know. It will be an excellent budget that will invest in the Canadian economy and create opportunities from coast to coast to coast.

This afternoon, we will continue the debate on the Conservative Party's opposition day motion. In accordance with the order adopted by the House yesterday, we will have a fifth and final committee of the whole debate on the estimates later this evening for two hours. Tomorrow morning, we will start the debate on Government Business No. 1, which establishes a process to adopt Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act. We will continue with this debate on Monday.

I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday will be the last designated day of this financial cycle. On Wednesday, we will resume second reading of Bill C‑2 respecting the security of the border between Canada and the United States. On Thursday, we will begin second reading debate on Bill C‑3, which amends the Citizenship Act.

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak to Bill C-4. First of all, I want to make a couple of observations about the legislation we are seeing in this place under the new government.

I am distressed. It may be a manageable issue, and maybe I am the only one who is noticing that almost every bill that comes before us is in omnibus form; in other words, many different bills are addressed within the same bill. Some of the issues are connected one to the other, which makes it a legitimate omnibus bill, and some seem to be for the purpose of convenience, to save the government time. For instance, in Bill C-2, the strong borders act, there are some aspects that do not really have to do with borders at all, and there is significant concern from people who are in the refugee law community, and from Amnesty International.

We are looking at Bill C-4 tonight, and I will give it more detail, but briefly, Bill C-5 should have been two different pieces of legislation. Part 1 deals with interprovincial barriers between labour mobility and recognizing different kinds of restrictions to moving goods. Part 2 is the building Canada act, which is entirely different. Part 1 has drawn attention from the Canadian Cancer Society, as it is concerned the bill may lead to a weakening of standards across the country. Meanwhile, part 2 needs massive study, appears, at least to me, to give unprecedented levels of unfettered political discretion to cabinet, and is unprecedented in its scope.

On Bill C-4, before I go to the affordability section, let me just point to the anomalous inclusion of changes to the Canada Elections Act. The Canada Elections Act and privacy concerns for Canadian citizens under the Elections Act have no connection whatsoever to affordability. However, here we have it: part 4, Canada Elections Act amendments that are similar to what we saw in the previous Parliament in Bill C-65, which I do wish had carried before we went into the last election, as it would have certainly expedited the collection of signatures for candidates and their chances of getting nominated candidates onto ballots.

This is weaker than that, but it does have some connection to what we saw in Bill C-65 in relating to restrictions on political parties' ability to save information and violate Canadians' privacy. It does not belong in an affordability act at all. We have heard at least one other MP tonight, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, mention the issue that we want to protect personal information and that privacy laws should extend to political parties.

Unusually, in Bill C-4, new subsection 446.4(1) would assert an ability for federal legislation to negate provincial privacy laws and what provincial privacy laws can say about federal political parties. That is questionable at best. It also, to me, is somewhat offensive, or very offensive I suppose, that clause 49 of part 4 of Bill C-4 deals with the date of coming into force.

Experienced members of this place who look at statutory interpretation, which we do, and I hope we all read the legislation and all bills carefully, know certainly that coming into force is usually a date in the future. A bill would pass through the House, pass through the Senate and then come into force, sometimes at a date that is certain. I have a pretty good memory. I may have forgotten that there was ever a bill like this one, but within my ability to remember everything I have ever read in legislation, I do not think I have ever seen a bill that purports to come into force 25 years before the date on which it is passed.

Members who are learning this for the first time, if they look at clause 49 of Bill C-4, will find that the date on which the bill we are discussing today, June 11, 2025, would have come into force is May 31, 2000. This would exempt federal political parties from any offences they may have committed in failing to obey provincial legislation to which we were subjected, by going all the way back, resetting the clock, to May 31, 2000.

In this place, we like time travel; let us face it. We do like seeing the clock at midnight when it is not midnight, and we can do that in this place. We can say, “Gee, I wish it were midnight. I am ready to go home. Let us all agree we see the clock at midnight.”

I do not know whether anyone has ever tried a trick like seeing the year at 25 years ago. I am worried about this, and I do not know that we will have time, but I certainly hope we will properly study Bill C-4 in committee, and maybe we can persuade the government that part 4 should be pulled apart and studied separately from the rest of the bill.

The rest of the bill is tax measures. There is only part of the tax measures I would want to address at this point, and I am cognizant of the time. I know we are coming near a point where I should close to avoid being interrupted, but I do not mind interruptions, certainly for unanimous consent motions, because I think we are unanimous on that.

However, let us just say I am probably the only remaining member of Parliament who will stand up and say that the consumer carbon price was a good idea. It is a shame to see such cowardice on all sides of the House from the parties that used to support using market mechanisms, which is actually from the right-wing tool kit invented by Republicans in Washington, D.C., of how we can reduce emissions of whatever. Air pollutants in the area around Los Angeles is one of the first places market mechanisms were used.

Carbon pricing is being accepted by economists around the world as having a more efficient economic impact, reduced transactional costs of implementing the regulatory approach. Generally, people on the right do not like regulation. That is a choice: If we are going to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, we could use a regulatory approach. We could use the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, part 4, which already exists, and put in place regulated, required hard caps on emissions of any pollutants, thus bringing them down sharply without having to use the more complex measures of pricing.

I would rather see the consumer carbon price used as what is called, in the literature, carbon fee and dividend, in other words, maintaining pollution taxation as revenue-neutral. A key feature in good, solid gold-standard carbon pricing is that the government should not live on pollution as a source of revenue to government. We want to make sure that whatever we take in on a carbon price is rebated as efficiently as possible to those who paid it.

To the idea that we do not want to have this, I just add again that according to the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development—

Public Safety

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the so-called stronger borders act makes Harper's Bill C-51 look like child's play. Bill C-2 is a sweeping attack on Canadian civil liberties. It would allow the RCMP and CSIS to make information demands from internet providers, banks, doctors, landlords and even therapists, without judicial oversight. This is not about border security. It is about government overreach and Big Brother tactics, plain and simple. It is a violation of our privacy, and it will be challenged in court.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, respect the charter, and withdraw this dangerous bill?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chair, that was very good; they are all the same, which emphasizes what it is that Canadians were saying at the doors, and that is one of the reasons 8.5 million Canadians voted for the Prime Minister and the Liberal candidates throughout the country. The Liberal Party was the only political party to actually get a member elected in every province.

I believe that this evening we have heard from two of the ministers who are playing a very important role. I think of the issue of international trade. In the past 10 years, we have actually had more trade agreements signed off on than in any other administration in the 40 or 50 previous years, and now there is a minister who has really taken charge of what the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister wants us to be able to diversify and to look at other countries and how we can increase exports.

That is why I was really encouraged, even in the off-the-cuff question I had for the Minister of International Trade, when I made reference to the Phillippines, a country I am very passionate about because I see the potential that is there and match it with some of the things the Prime Minister is talking about. There are many countries we can look at and enhance trading opportunities with. This is actually incorporated into our legislative agenda.

There is also the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, who has done a fantastic job of getting the legislation that is so critically important.

Again, in the last election, what commitment was made? To deal with the issue of affordability, the Prime Minister made it very clear that he wanted to give Canadians a tax break. That is what the Minister of Finance has been working on, bringing forward legislation that not only gives a tax break to 22 million Canadians but also brings in a first-time homebuyer tax break on the first $1 million for people who are purchasing new homes, thereby helping first-time homebuyers while at the same time encouraging and promoting housing construction.

These are two very important initiatives that complement what the Prime Minister committed to prior to the election being called, which was to cancel the carbon tax. We have a new Prime Minister with a new mandate and a new government that have brought these initiatives forward for debate and ultimately passage here in the House of Commons, as has been demonstrated this evening with the ministers presenting on the estimates, estimates that the Conservative Party voted for.

The Conservatives were not alone. Every member of Parliament voted in favour of the ways and means motion, which is the estimates, and we appreciate that vote of confidence. At the end of the day, I truly believe that what we need to do is not just give the government a vote of confidence, thereby saying, yes, we are fulfilling in part a very major aspect of the last campaign, but, as part of that, also look at the legislative agenda.

The legislative agenda does just that. It gets rid of the carbon tax in law, the consumer component. That is actually incorporated into Bill C-4. Not only does it have that aspect, but it also ensures the tax cut for 22 million taxpayers. Eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers is also incorporated into Bill C-4.

Think about it. These are three major initiatives in the legislation, a part of the Prime Minister's campaign to deliver for Canadians. I believe that every member of the House supports it. After all, they supported and voted unanimously in favour of the ways and means motion. One would think they would support this legislation.

Why is the legislation important? It is because the tax break is to take effect on July 1, which is coming up soon. Everyone needs to be aware of that. I hope the Conservatives will recognize the value of passing that particular piece of legislation.

The good news does not stop there. The Minister of Finance talked about having the strongest economy in the G7. The Minister of Finance is not alone. The Prime Minister has been talking about that fairly extensively. We want to build that strong economy.

We can talk about Bill C-5. Bill C-5 does just that, recognizing one Canadian economy. That will make a difference. There are also the border controls in Bill C-2. These three are wraparounds to address election platform issues that every member not only should be looking at but should be getting passed, I would suggest.

My question for the Minister of Finance is related to Bill C-4 in particular: How critically important is it that we deliver tax breaks on July 1? We need to see Bill C-4 passed, as well as the other two pieces of legislation. Can he provide his thoughts with regard to the Prime Minister's commitment, how this legislation in good part delivers for Canadians, and the responsibility of the opposition, in particular the Conservative Party, to see the legislation go through?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Chair, I know the member works very hard for her constituents, and I appreciate that. She spoke about the borders act, which is Bill C-2. What I will say, and this is what I have said, is that the integrity of the immigration system is critical to supporting border security and assuring Canadians that the system is well managed, including protections against fraud and misuse. The border bill would provide Canada with—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, there are two minutes to each of us then.

I begin with the Minister of Immigration. At 9:27 p.m., Minister, you said, “Legitimate asylum seekers, we want to protect you.” Minister, can you reconcile that with the expert opinion of Amnesty International and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, who say that Bill C-2 is an attack on the human right to seek asylum?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, we are getting there. We are reducing our immigration targets. We have Bill C-2 in front of us to deal with the large surge of asylums—

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, we are working on reducing processing times. I have already met with representatives of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, who assured me that they are working very hard and efficiently.

I think that Bill C-2 will help a lot.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, that is why the ineligibility requirements in Bill C-2 are there. It is to ensure that we deal with the people who do not have legitimate claims. My—

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, the measures in Bill C-2 were introduced for the fact that we are seeing a high number of asylum claims, some of which are not legitimate, and that is meant to ensure—

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Chair, we have introduced Bill C-2 to ensure that we protect our integrity on the borders and—

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, the safety of Canadians is of prime importance, which is why we have also introduced Bill C-2 to strengthen our borders, ensure the immigration system and visa—

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, Bill C-2 is critical for ensuring the integrity of our immigration and asylum system. We want to make sure that people around the globe know we welcome talent and welcome people to come visit, but when their time expires, we want them to go back home. If someone is a legitimate asylum seeker, we are here to protect them, but our borders are not a shortcut for people claiming asylum.

These measures ensure that those who need protection most have access to it. I invite all members in the House to help us and support this bill.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I also want to ask about Bill C-2. The government recently introduced the bill. It focuses on a number of areas, but it is in many ways a bill that strengthens our immigration system.

Can the minister focus on particular aspects of Bill C-2 that she thinks really stand out for ensuring the integrity of the immigration system?

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Immigration on an excellent appointment.

Many immigrants and asylum seekers are very worried that they might be sent back to countries where things are unstable or dangerous. How will Bill C‑2 protect the basic rights and the security of vulnerable people in such cases?

Opposition Motion—Food Inflation and Budgetary Policy

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Spadina—Harbourfront on her first remarks in this House of Commons. We share one thing in common: We are both former parliamentary interns. I welcome her to the House of Commons. I would encourage her to use her voice in this chamber. The Liberal Party has a tradition of allowing the member for Winnipeg North to disproportionately take up all the time. Therefore, I encourage her to stand so that we hear less from the member for Winnipeg North.

So far, the government has tabled Bill C-2, Bill C-3, Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. Today we heard from the government that it is going to spend billions upon billions of dollars more on defence. We are also facing the reality that the Liberal budget misallocated over $20 billion in its fiscal projections on what the government would be collecting on tariffs.

Amidst all the uncertainty and the major defence spending commitments, why has the government not committed to tabling a budget this spring, in this session, to give Canadians clarity?

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from King—Vaughan for her excellent speech and especially for her advocacy for seniors. I introduced a private members' bill in the 42nd Parliament to eliminate the mandatory RRIF withdrawals entirely. It would help seniors. I want to note that every single member of the Liberal Party voted against that and actually voted against affordability for seniors.

To get back to the bill, one of the failures of Bill C-2 is that every penny of these tax cuts is coming from borrowed money. The Conservative plan was costed; we were going to reduce reliance on Liberal-friendly consulting companies instead of packing on the debt.

I wonder if my colleague thinks that, perhaps, instead of adding more debt, the Liberals should cut back the billions they are giving to their friends at McKinsey and other management consulting companies.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member said to call for an election. Well, we had one just four or five weeks ago. I do not know whether Canadians want to see another election, but we will continue, moving forward, being a little more optimistic in that the last election made a very strong statement in itself. Canadians do have an expectation that Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc members will work along with the government and support some critical initiatives.

There is a deadline with the piece of legislation. We need to get the legislation passed.

I would hope that my Conservative colleagues and friends across the way will give Canadians what they were asking for in the last election. The Prime Minister made the commitment to give them that tax break, along with 169 other Liberal members of Parliament. I believe that we can do that. There is no excuse for us not to do that.

This is a new Prime Minister and a new government. We can take a look at the legislation, where we highlight the benefits of Bill C-4. We can look at that legislative agenda. I want members to reflect on those three priority issues that I was able to comment on at the very beginning of the speech. We can think in terms of the one Canadian economy act, Bill C-5, which was just introduced today.

I reflect on what Canadians were telling us during the election. They are nervous. I would think everyone inside this chamber would recognize that Canadians would be better off if we were able to tackle those internal trade barriers. That could make a huge difference in terms of future taxation policy, as an example.

I am talking about billions of dollars. In fact, if we were to take down every possible barrier, it is estimated that it could be up to $200 billion. Imagine the economic and taxation benefits, in terms of potential future tax breaks. One never knows. We have to build that one economy.

Again, that is a commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians. It is an election-mandated commitment. Today, we receive another piece of legislation to deal with that commitment, just like Bill C-4, where we made that commitment. Think about it.

Just earlier this week, the Prime Minister was in discussions, meeting in Saskatchewan with all the different first ministers. Four or five days later, here we are, on the floor of the House of Commons, being provided the opportunity to once again take on an issue of great substance and ultimately bring Canada together in a stronger and healthier way.

We look towards the opposition members of all political stripes. We had political parties of all stripes in Saskatchewan. We have Canadians of all stripes, everyone we can possibly imagine, virtually coming together and wanting to see a higher sense of co-operation on these election platform issues. That is one of the reasons the Prime Minister today is the Prime Minister today: understanding and being able to explain to Canadians the types of actions that are necessary to manage the economy and to bring us through, over the next two, three or four years, whenever the next election might be.

I could talk about Bill C-2. Again, when thinking in terms of potential budget expenditures, securing our borders, is a priority piece of legislation. It is a priority because Canadians mandated it from the last election in a very clear fashion. It is not as though the election was a year ago. We are talking about six weeks or five weeks ago. April 28 was election day, where they raised the issues of one Canada, tax breaks and concern related to our borders, dealing with things like fentanyl and automobile theft. Again, we have legislation that is there to deal with that.

Members opposite talk about safety in communities. We are talking about 1,000 new RCMP officers. We are talking about 1,000 new Canada border control agents.

We can bundle them together, take a look at Bill C-2, Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. All three of those bills come out of the election we just had.

Members opposite want to talk about if we believe it is out of our platform, then there should be no reason we do not support it. One would think. The point is that we are not here to serve a political party per se. We are here to serve our constituents and, collectively, all Canadians. This is something Canadians made very clear, crystal clear. They want the legislation to get through. We can do that.

It is amazing what one can do with unanimous consent when it comes to legislation. We have seen it in the past, and there is no reason we cannot see it this time around. Trust me, Madam Speaker, there will be a lot more legislation coming, and it will be thoroughly debated, no doubt. It will go through the committee process and so forth.

The three big items this week that have been introduced have been mandated by Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Opposition members have their choice. We live in a parliamentary system, and if they feel so inclined, they could prevent legislation from ultimately passing.

However, I can assure members opposite that I like to think I am a very opinionated person, and I will be sharing my thoughts and reflections on opposition parties and what they do over the next couple of weeks with the constituents I represent. I suspect the same will be duplicated throughout the country, because Canadians are watching. There is an expectation there.

It is not like we have a legislative agenda of 25 bills, not yet anyway. We have the priority legislation that is coming directly out of the election in the anticipation that, by putting it together, we would get a high sense of co-operation coming from all members of the House and ultimately be able to see it pass.

My ask of all members today is to take a look at it almost as a package deal where Canadians are very, very supportive. Nothing prevents members opposite from approaching the appropriate ministers if they have specific concerns. For example, yesterday, in talking about the border bill, Bill C-2, there was a lot of misinformation on the Conservatives' benches in regard to the mail system and how we are going to make Canadians safer by making changes in the legislation to enable law enforcement officers to get a warrant, in essence, to go through a letter, something they could never do before.

There is a lot to go through; I recognize that. However, I challenge members to raise concerns. Let us get legislation in a position where we could ultimately see it passed. This is what I am hoping to see and what I am going to continue to advocate for.

I did want to comment on housing, because housing is a very big issue and it is incorporated inside the legislation we are talking about today. I want to emphasize the program “build Canada homes”. I do believe the Prime Minister is very much focused on results. We will see tangible results, but we have to be prepared to see things ultimately passing through the House.

We will continue to work with different levels of government. Housing is a responsibility of the three different levels of government, not to mention the many different stakeholders that are out there. Ottawa will be there to support housing here in Canada.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I understand this matter involves Correctional Services Canada and is subject to the release by the parole board. Of course, Bill C-2 has a number of important measures in place to protect the border, including ensuring that in regard to those who are predators, especially on the Internet, using child pornography, for example, law enforcement has the right tools to be able to do its job more adequately.

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

Madam Speaker, yesterday I asked the government why a convicted child sex offender in New Brunswick is out on bail while appealing his jail sentence. The government blamed the provinces, judges and the police, yet this child sex offender was already arrested and sentenced for his crime. The predator got out on bail under federal law, and the government is not closing this dangerous loophole. Now, the minister pointed to Bill C-2 as an answer, but this bill does nothing to stop this from happening again.

I ask again, when will Liberals stop convicted child sex offenders from receiving bail?

Main Estimates, 2025-26

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

Mr. Chair, Bill C-2 is a border bill. We are talking about sex offenders and jail. Will the minister keep them there?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, we have brought forward Bill C-2. It addresses a number of issues around the border. That is a critical priority.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, the first act of the government was to bring forward legislation, Bill C-2, which would impact many crimes. I am hoping the member—

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, Bill C-2 addresses the issue of guns that are coming into the country. It is a border bill, and I expect the member to support this bill.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, Bill C-2 makes progress in dealing with convicted offenders in part 13. Why does the bill not treat convicted fentanyl traffickers with the same depth of approach?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, Bill C-2 addresses money laundering and terrorist activity financing issues with monetary penalties. Where two milligrams of fentanyl can kill a person and the mass trafficking of fentanyl can be considered mass murder, could Bill C-2 be amended to recognize the trafficking of fentanyl as a terrorist or mass murder activity?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, Canadian communities are not secure when addiction victims constitute a demand structure for the flow of fentanyl and its precursors. Why was the treatment for our addicted community members left out of the Liberal's Bill C-2?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, Canadian communities are not secure when the producers and traffickers of fentanyl avoid jail time. Why was the repeal of the Liberal Bill C-5 on house arrest policies not in Bill C-2?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, Canadian communities are not secure when repeat offenders can be released on bail within hours of arrest. Why was the repeal of the Liberal Bill C-75 catch-and-release policies not in Bill C-2?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Chair, Bill C-2 is a borders bill and does not include overall criminal justice reform.

I want to take this opportunity to welcome the member for Markham—Unionville to the House.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time.

Bill C-2 only addresses fentanyl production with a focus on a precursor in part 2. Our borders are weaker when there are no consequences for drug dealers. What minimum sentencing will Bill C-2 impose on fentanyl dealers?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, there are resources available, including through Bill C-2, which we introduced this week. I know that many police services are doing a great job in their local jurisdiction. They are working with the support of the RCMP in their respective regions.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, in the three weeks since I was appointed, I have been working on a bill, Bill C-2, that would ensure that we continue to fight fentanyl at our borders.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, my number one priority since being appointed to this role has been to bring forward Bill C-2.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Chair, the minister promised to tighten bail rules just last week, but why did he not do that in Bill C-2?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chair, I know that a good number of members, especially from the Brampton Liberal caucus, raised the issue of auto theft. The member will recall that we actually had a summit dealing with auto theft, bringing the different stakeholders together. I think people would be encouraged to hear that within Bill C-2, there is a really good attempt to take yet another step in dealing with that particular issue.

Could the minister provide some thoughts on the auto theft component?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Chair, as we were ready to table the bill, I was hoping it would be Bill C-1, but I was told that that had to be for the Speech from the Throne.

With great respect, Bill C-2 is the first formal bill this 45th Parliament is debating, and we are debating it for a very good reason. It is to ensure that the safety and security of our borders are strengthened, that Canadians feel safe at home and that guns, fentanyl and illicit drugs and money do not come over our border.

It is a very important step, but it is only a step. There is a lot more to do, including bail reform, which I look forward to coming back to the House for under the leadership of our Minister of Justice. As my friend heard and many in this House and I have heard, securing the border is a top priority for the Prime Minister and for this government.

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments from the minister. I want to pick up on how important it is that we advance Bill C-2.

Border control-related issues were raised extensively during the election, and when I reflect on the election, I believe this bill is something Canadians want to see. I would highlight that the Canadian Police Association, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, is supporting Bill C-2. Bill C-2 would, in fact, give much more strength to protecting Canada's borders.

I am wondering if the minister could reflect on it being the second bill, which clearly demonstrates its priority. Can he provide his thoughts on that?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Chair, I wish you and the hon. committee members a good evening. I want to thank everyone for this invitation.

It is my privilege to appear before everyone as Canada's new Minister of Public Safety. Let me thank the officials who are here today. Let me also express my deepest condolences to the late Marc Garneau. His was one of the first names I learned when I came to Canada. He is a national hero. He impacted so many people and so many generations of Canadians. He served this House and Canadians with such grace and such incredible strength and integrity. I want to thank his family for sharing him with Canada.

I am humbled and honoured by the Prime Minister's appointment. I recognize it is a role that comes with great responsibility. I am to undertake my duties to serve Canadians with the utmost dedication and commitment. Protecting the public is one of the government's foremost duties, and it is an obligation shared by all parliamentarians. As I serve in this role, I also commit to working with all members of this committee, and indeed all parliamentarians, as we aim to fulfill this fundamental obligation.

These main estimates will ensure we can deliver on our collective duty to Canadians. To fulfill our obligation, we must first ensure that we can continue to support all of Public Safety's dedicated personnel, those who work hard each and every day to keep Canadians safe from harm.

As a reflection of its importance to our country's security, the Public Safety portfolio is the largest non-military portfolio in the government. Altogether, the Public Safety portfolio includes over 60,000 personnel. Every day, each of these individuals is dedicated to keeping Canadians safe and secure while they safeguard our rights and freedoms.

One of the first things I did after being appointed Canada's Minister of Public Safety was meet with some of those 60,000 personnel. I went to Cornwall to meet with the CBSA and RCMP officers securing the border and protecting our country. I look forward to meeting with many public safety personnel over the coming months to thank them for their dedication to their communities and their country, and for all they do to keep Canadians safe. However, it is not enough just to thank them for their work. We must give them the tools and resources they need to do their jobs effectively.

On a portfolio-wide basis, the total authorities sought in the main estimates for the fiscal year will result in funding approvals of $16.2 billion for the Public Safety portfolio. That will result in a net increase of $3.1 billion, or 23.7%, over the previous year's estimates. For Public Safety Canada, the total funding sought is $2.16 billion, which is an increase of $557.7 million, or 34.7%, over the previous year. For the Canada Border Services Agency, the total funding sought is $2.99 billion, an increase of $343.4 million, or 13%, over the previous year. For the Correctional Service of Canada, the total funding sought is $3.86 billion, an increase of $691.3 million, or 21.8%, over the previous year. For the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the total funding sought is $980.1 million, an increase of $277.5 million, or 39.5%, over the previous year. Finally, for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the total funding sought is $6.08 billion, an increase of $1.23 billion, or 25.3%.

As part of these estimates, $128.7 million has been designated to the CBSA and the RCMP to further enhance the integrity of Canada's border. As hon. members are aware, earlier this week we introduced Bill C-2, the strong borders act. I want to thank members who have already lent their voices to debating this bill. The strong borders act would ensure that in addition to the increased financial support we are providing to the agencies tasked with keeping us safe, we will be, to quote the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, “modernizing legislation and equipping law enforcement with necessary tools to combat transnational organized crime in an increasingly complex threat environment.”

We need to make it harder for organized crime to move money, drugs, people and firearms that endanger our communities. We need to ensure Canada's law enforcement is equipped with the tools needed to stay ahead of organized crime and is empowered to crack down on illicit activities. This is essential to maintaining the safety and security of our country.

Bill C-2, the strong borders act, would help us achieve just that. The bill would keep Canadians safe by ensuring law enforcement has the right tools to keep our borders secure, to combat transnational organized crime, to stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and to crack down on money laundering. We will also train 1,000 new CBSA officers and 1,000 more RCMP personnel.

Finally, further action will be taken over the coming months to keep our communities even safer, to get guns off our streets and to make bail harder to get for repeat offenders charged with car thefts, home invasions, human trafficking and drug smuggling.

As the Minister of Public Safety, my top priority will always be to ensure that each and every Canadian is safe and secure in our country. As I have already mentioned, it is a responsibility that I do not take lightly. Public safety is an issue that I have been seized with for a number of years in my riding and community, and as the Minister of Public Safety, I take great pride in this position of leadership, which has a direct impact on the safety of all Canadians and their communities.

Once again, I am thankful for this invitation today. I look forward to questions.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Chair, of course, Bill C-2 is one aspect of the way we are going to fix this. If members look at the provisions relating to the sharing of information within the IRCC and among different agencies of the federal government and provincial government, it is one way to track the number of people who are here or who have left. Of course, the role of the CBSA is also to enforce removals that are put in front of it, and we look forward to ensuring that expedited removals take place.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Chair, we have often seen that the government does not really know who is leaving Canada. For example, following a study by CIBC economists in 2023, the government discovered that Canada was undercounting its population by one million. Unlike some other countries, Canada has no exit immigration controls, such as biometric data checks on foreign nationals. As a result, the government is losing track of the temporary immigrants on its territory.

Bill C‑2 contains a provision about reporting the departure of sex offenders from Canada. However, without tighter controls, this measure could be ineffective, since the government often has no idea who is leaving the country. It must rely solely on airlines and information shared by foreign countries.

How does the minister plan to fix this situation?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Chair, the best way to support Canadians is deterrence. One of the things Bill C-2 incorporates is deterrence of those who may be crossing through irregular ports of entry. We believe that other measures contained in the bill would support deterrence of those who are crossing the border irregularly.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Chair, I will ask the minister to be more specific.

Given that some officers are retiring, does the minister believe that training 600 officers per year will be enough to meet current and future requirements following the passage of Bill C‑2?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chair, I was encouraged, and I am sure the minister was too, this morning. We had a high sense of working together when every member of the House of Commons voted in favour of the ways and means motion. The minister talked about unifying Canadians and the chamber. One of the things that we could also do is get behind Bill C-2 and the initiative of building a stronger Canada.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Chair, were any police or chiefs organizations consulted during the drafting process of Bill C-2?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Chair, were any indigenous groups consulted in the drafting of Bill C-2?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Chair, has Bill C-2 been costed?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Chair, were any women's rights organizations consulted during the drafting of Bill C-2?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Chair, these are human lives. Does Bill C-2 repeal previous Liberal legislation that grants predators the possibility of bail, yes or no?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Chair, does Bill C-2 include the Prime Minister's promised bail reform?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Chair, were any victim rights organizations consulted during the drafting process of Bill C-2?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Chair, does Bill C-2 itself include any additional funding for police services, maritime patrol, IRCC, CBSA or Public Safety, yes or no?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Chair, Bill C-2 does not grant human traffickers running across the border the possibility of bail. Is this true or false?

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it must be said that rarely is the sequel better than the original, but the member will have an opportunity to prove the opposite.

We are particularly grateful to the opposition and, through my hon. colleague, his caucus. I thank them for adopting a great throne speech that sketches out a very clear and bold agenda for fixing the Canadian economy and taking on the tariffs. It must be said that steel and aluminum producers are far more concerned about tariffs, and the Prime Minister is singularly committed to addressing the tariff challenge the United States has put to us.

We will have tributes today to a former colleague, friend and member of this House.

After the round of tributes, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-2, which contains measures relating to border security between Canada and the United States.

Pursuant to the order made by the House last week, we will debate the estimates in committee of the whole later this evening, as well as next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, as I said in my previous Thursday statement.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin debate on the bill introduced earlier today regarding affordability measures for Canadians. Lastly, next Monday and Tuesday will be allotted days.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take an opportunity to say that today we are debating Bill C-2, one of the first measures this government has taken to make our streets safer. We are committed to doing the work that is necessary, and there is also good news. The chief of police of Toronto has stated that auto thefts have decreased by nearly 39%, home invasions are down 42%, homicides are down 67% and shootings are down 46%.

We will be there to protect Canadians.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, those figures are inaccurate. That is misinformation. The new government is hard at work to improve our immigration system, and the introduction of Bill C-2 on Tuesday was an example of that. We are taking significant steps to preserve the integrity of our system while also upholding our humanitarian commitments, because we understand that a well-managed immigration system is essential to a safer, stronger Canada.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

It is my enormous pleasure to rise in this House to respond to the Speech from the Throne. However, before I begin, I want to thank the residents of my constituency of Davenport for their faith and trust in me. I am enormously grateful that they have re-elected me for a fourth term to serve them as well as serve our great country.

I give a special thanks to my incredible team and my created family. There is no way I could do this job without their love and support.

Davenport residents came out in full force to vote in this election, because they are worried. They are worried about the threats by the President of the United States to our sovereignty, to our economy and to our future prosperity. They also know that the world is a more dangerous and a more uncertain place than at any other point since World War II. They feel that Canada is facing challenges that are unprecedented in our lifetimes, and so they voted for a leader and a party with a plan to make Canada more economically resilient.

We have a plan to unite our country, and to defend and secure our country. We have a plan to turn the challenges that we face today into incredible opportunities so that Canadians can face the future with confidence, strength and the resources we need to succeed and prosper in the 21st century.

Canada is the greatest country in the world. We are a strong and brave country, and our potential is unlimited. We are also a country that is in crisis, and we must act urgently and immediately to ensure that Canada remains strong and free.

Key segments of our plan are outlined in the Speech from the Throne, and I will highlight some that I believe are particularly meaningful to the residents of my constituency of Davenport.

At a time of global uncertainty and economic threats, Davenport residents are very happy that part of our plan is to ensure a more resilient Canada, one that is anchored in our own internal economic strength. We have virtually everything in this country. We now need to eliminate the roadblocks and ensure the resources to build us up.

How do we do this? Our Prime Minister is clear: We will have one Canadian economy, not 13, which is what we have now. We will eliminate interprovincial trade barriers. Our federal government has promised to pass legislation to remove all remaining federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility by July 1. The impact will be the freer movement of people, goods and services across our country. This will also allow our small and medium-sized businesses as well as our innovators to expand and grow across our country, which is something Davenport businesses will be very happy and very excited about. Best of all, lifting these barriers has the potential to add $200 billion to our economy each and every single year.

Second, we will unite the country by investing in nation-building projects, primarily infrastructure, transportation and supply chain corridors. This would mean more supply chain options in Canada, which would mean more railroads, ports, highways, etc. The focus will be on projects of national significance and projects that will connect Canada, which will deepen Canada's ties with the world and will create high-paying jobs for generations of Canadians. Of course, all of these projects of national significance will have to ensure meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples, and all projects must adhere to our climate commitments. Best of all, Davenport residents are so excited by the ambition of our government. We truly believe that if we implement these measures and more, we can become not only a resilient economy, but also the strongest economy in the G7.

As our Speech from the Throne says, the economy is only truly strong when it serves everyone. Many Davenport residents, like so many Canadians, are having such a hard time making ends meet, and so we are responding by introducing a middle-class tax cut, which will save two-income families up to $840 a year. Our government has also committed to continue to fund programs that we introduced over the last almost 10 years. This includes national child care, national dental care, pharmacare, the Canada child benefit and the Canada disability benefit. All these programs and more are life-changing programs that the residents in my constituency of Davenport love. I know they will be delighted that we will continue to support them.

Our Speech from the Throne also contains a clear commitment for our government to build more housing. We are located in downtown west Toronto, and Davenport residents are worried that they are not going to be able to continue to live in the city that they love, that their kids and their grandkids will not be able to live in the city where they were raised. Our government has committed to a number of measures that will greatly benefit Davenport residents. We are going to provide more support for Canadians who are trying to buy homes. We will cut the GST on homes under $1 million for first-time homebuyers, which will deliver savings of up to $50,000. We are going to lower the GST on homes between $1 million and $1.5 million.

Davenport is a multi-ethnic working-class/middle-class riding, and most of our homes are in these price ranges, so both of these measures are very welcome and will be very helpful. In addition, we are spending a lot more to build houses.

Our federal government has committed to double down, with an ambitious new housing plan that will double the rate of homebuilding in Canada. We have learned a lot over the last few years about what worked and what we can do better. Based on this data, we have announced the most ambitious housing plan since World War II. These measures will include the creation of “build Canada homes” to accelerate the development of new affordable housing. We will invest in innovation. We are going to invest in the growth of modular and prefabricated housing. We will increase the financing for affordable home developers. We will eliminate red tape and development costs by cutting municipal development charges in half for multi-unit housing.

All of this will rapidly increase housing supply and bring housing costs down. Members will be happy to learn that our additional funding and ambitious housing plan will use Canadian technology, Canadian skilled workers and Canadian lumber. All these measures, in addition to the ones we have already had in place over the last seven to eight years, will go a long way in ensuring greater housing supply and affordable home prices for the residents of my riding of Davenport and, indeed, for all Canadians.

Community safety is vitally important to Davenport residents. For us, there are way too many American handguns on the city streets of Toronto. While the numbers have gone down, we still have far too many car thefts in Canada's largest city. I know that Davenport residents will be happy to know that our government, just yesterday, introduced Bill C-2, which would enhance security at the border.

When passed, CBSA officers who work at our borders will have new powers to stop stolen products, like cars, from leaving our country. They will also ensure the deployment of more scanners, drones and helicopters, additional personnel and canine teams, which will help stop guns and drugs from coming into our country.

Finally, our government has committed to toughen the Criminal Code, to make bail harder for repeat offenders charged with violent crime and/or major offences.

We have made serious commitments to spend more money to protect Canada's sovereignty. We have to do more to secure borders, to secure the Arctic and to secure Canada from coast to coast to coast. We have made a commitment to fulfill our NATO commitment of 2% of our GDP and we will achieve this with haste. I also believe that we will commit to even greater NATO spending, but we have to wait for NATO meetings in June for the total number and commitments.

In conclusion, Canada is in crisis. It is time for Canadians to continue to stay united. It is time to build a resilient Canadian economy, to invest in national building projects and to spend less but invest more. It is time for us to secure our borders and protect our sovereignty, to build more affordable housing and put more money in the pockets of Canadians. These measures and more, as well as working together, will continue to ensure a prosperous Canada, the strongest economy in the G7 and an economy that truly serves everyone.

Canada is the greatest country in the world. We are a confident country with an ambitious plan. We are indeed a country that is strong and free.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is a bill that was tabled, Bill C-2, the strong borders act, which does address and start to discuss issues around security, gun controls, drug trafficking and all of those issues that certainly are having impacts on the security and the safety of our communities.

I would hope my neighbour across the aisle will consider that bill once it comes to the floor for debate and will vote in favour.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened by the news coming out of the city of Toronto this morning. The gun violence is unacceptable and perpetrators must be brought to justice.

We are partnering with police services across the country to fight organized crime and disrupt firearm smuggling and trafficking operations. The strong borders act, introduced in the House yesterday, includes provisions to crack down on illegal firearms and organized crime.

I look forward to working with the member opposite to pass this important legislation. We will continue to work tirelessly to support police across Canada.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in this honourable House to serve the people of Whitby. I have been elected for the third time, and it is a great honour to be back in this chamber representing my community once again.

We have begun the 45th Parliament at a time of real challenge and great promise for our nation. Around the world, alliances are shifting, economies are evolving, and uncertainty is rising. Here at home, our economic security and sovereignty have been tested recently, but I believe Canadians remain hopeful and focused. They sent us here, I believe strongly, to find solutions and build a stronger country together.

In Whitby, families are working hard, caring for one another and trying to make ends meet. They are the reason we are all here. That is why the Speech from the Throne that was delivered by His Majesty King Charles III matters. It calls on us to meet this moment the Canadian way, by coming together to build, protect, secure and unite. This is our government's commitment to Canadians: to protect our progress, build on what we have, secure our future and move forward together.

Today, I want to speak on the priorities that must guide our work: number one, building the strongest economy in the G7; and number two, making life more affordable, keeping our communities safe, as well as uniting Canadians in a common purpose.

We begin where it all starts, with the economy. When I think about the economy, I do not think of charts and stock indexes. It is not just about numbers. Economies are, first and foremost, about people. I think of the entrepreneur in Whitby starting a small business and hiring local grads from Ontario Tech University. I think of the skilled trade student at Durham College earning his ticket, saving for a home and ready to build a life. I think of the auto worker at the General Motors plant with two kids who lives with uncertainty because of the tariffs placed on us by the U.S., the newcomer with global experience who cannot seem to find the right job or families who are wondering if and when their hard work will truly pay off. That is the real economy: people striving to reach their potential. It is up to us to shape it.

That is why the government is focused on building an economy that delivers for everyone. We are breaking down old barriers to trade between provinces. Removing these barriers could add $200 billion to our economy. That is how we grow: by working as one, one economy for all Canadians.

We are also looking outward. Canada has free trade agreements with 51 countries, covering over 60% of global GDP. By diversifying our trade, we reduce our reliance on any one partner, and we can deepen ties with trusted allies who share our values. We are fast-tracking major nation-building projects in energy, transit, trade, housing and digital infrastructure. As the Prime Minister has said, it is time to build; we have done it before, and we can do it again. That includes cutting red tape, streamlining approvals and driving nation-building projects forward, projects that create jobs, lower emissions, connect our regions and expand the flow of goods to markets.

We are also doubling the indigenous loan guarantee program to $10 billion, empowering more indigenous communities to be equity partners in major projects. Economic reconciliation is not a slogan; it is a path to shared prosperity.

We are also scaling up businesses and boosting productivity, starting with critical minerals and AI adoption. We are modernizing the SR&ED program, launching a patent box to help protect Canadian ideas, introducing flow-through shares for start-ups and recapitalizing the venture capital catalyst initiative with $1 billion. These are all tools to attract investment, leverage our strengths, scale innovation and lead the G7 in economic growth. When Canadians have the tools to succeed, when we invest in their potential, our economy grows for everyone.

Affordability is a key topic in my riding. In Whitby and across Canada, I hear the same message time and again. Life is getting too expensive: groceries, rent and energy. People are doing their best, but they just cannot get ahead. Now, affordability is not just about statistics; it is about dignity. It is about making sure hard work actually pays off. We are protecting the progress we made with universal child care, dental care, pharmacare and the national school food program. These are not luxuries but lifelines for some of the most vulnerable in our community, and we are going further.

We have introduced a middle-class tax cut. The average dual-income family will keep $840 more of their hard-earned dollars this year and every year after. That is a real difference. It means sports for the kids, school supplies or a few more bags of groceries at the grocery store. We are also keeping $10-a-day child care going strong. It is not just good for kids; it is great for the economy. It allows parents, especially women, to get back to work, and it saves families thousands of dollars each year.

We have expanded dental care, so no Canadian has to choose between healthy teeth and putting food on the table, and we are making bold moves on housing. For too many Canadians, we know the dream of home ownership feels out of reach. Young people, newcomers and seniors, everyone deserves a place to call home. We are removing GST from new home purchases and saving first-time homebuyers up to $50,000. This builds on existing measures for helping first-time homebuyers, like 30-year mortgages, a 25% reduction on mortgage insurance and tax-free savings accounts to save up for their first home.

We are also cutting development charges in half, with federal support to offset the cost of housing infrastructure. We are launching “build Canada homes”, a public developer that will build deeply affordable housing; investing $25 billion in innovative prefab builders and $10 billion in low-cost loans for affordable housing developers; and using public lands, standardizing design and scaling up Canadian-made modular and mass timber construction. We will build faster and better; buy Canadian steel, lumber and more; and create good jobs right here at home.

In Whitby, we have seen results, with $25 million from the housing accelerator fund, a motel transformed through the rapid housing initiative, the expansion of a local housing co-operative and over 11,000 units on our waterfront that will be unlocked through the housing infrastructure fund. These are real, tangible results in my community, and I am very proud of the Liberal record. I am certain that is why Canadians returned us to this side of the House to continue leading the country forward. Now we are committing to building 500,000 homes per year across Canada, because housing is a foundation for a good life for Canadians.

Now let us talk about security for a moment. Our country can only thrive when people feel safe, and right now, Canadians are deeply concerned. Auto theft, gun violence, drug and human trafficking and organized crime are real threats that keep my community members up at night. I want my constituents to know we are responding. The example today is the tabling of Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, and we are going to do much more.

We are investing boldly to protect Canadians and defend our sovereignty, starting with our armed forces. We are giving a raise to Canadian Armed Forces members, building more housing on bases, improving access to health care and child care for military families and much, much more.

As climate change continues to impact our north, we are protecting our Arctic sovereignty, which has become more and more urgent. We will forge a new Canada-Europe Arctic security agreement to meet the moment. We are also stepping up at our southern border. We are training 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new CBSA officers, and deploying new scanners, drones, canine units and much more.

We are also cracking down on repeat and violent offenders, making bail harder for car thieves, human traffickers and home invaders. Sentences will be tougher for organized crime and sexual violence, including online abuse and deep fakes. As hate crime rises in our communities, we are acting decisively. We will make it a criminal offence to intentionally obstruct access to or intimidate those attending schools, places of worship or community centres. This is great progress. When we protect what matters, our families, our communities and our country, we give every Canadian the confidence to build a better future, together.

Lastly, let me wrap up by saying the throne speech lays the foundation for progress. It gives us the tools to build a strong economy, make life more affordable, keep our communities safe and strengthen our democracy and country. More than that, it gives us a vision we can rally around.

I believe in Whitby, in Canada and in the strength and determination of our people. Let us get to work with compassion, courage and conviction. Let us build a country our children can be proud of, a Canada that is stronger, more affordable, more secure and more united than ever before.