Bill C-2

Strong Borders Act

An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures

Part 1 amends the Customs Act to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with facilities free of charge for carrying out any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of that Act and other Acts of Parliament and to provide officers of that Agency with access at certain locations to goods destined for export. It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 2 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a new temporary accelerated scheduling pathway that allows the Minister of Health to add precursor chemicals to Schedule V to that Act. It also makes related amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulations and the Precursor Control Regulations .
Part 3 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to confirm that the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, make regulations exempting members of law enforcement from the application of any provision of the Criminal Code that creates drug-related inchoate offences when they are undertaking lawful investigations.
Part 4 amends the Canada Post Corporation Act to permit the demand, seizure, detention or retention of anything in the course of post only in accordance with an Act of Parliament. It also amends that Act to expand the Canada Post Corporation’s authority to open mail in certain circumstances to include the authority to open letters.
Part 5 amends the Oceans Act to provide that coast guard services include activities related to security and to authorize the responsible minister to collect, analyze and disclose information and intelligence.
Part 6 amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to disclose, for certain purposes and subject to any regulations, personal information under the control of the Department within the Department and to certain other federal and provincial government entities.
It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the making of regulations relating to the disclosure of information collected for the purposes of that Act to federal departments and agencies.
Part 7 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) eliminate the designated countries of origin regime;
(b) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to specify the information and documents that are required in support of a claim for refugee protection;
(c) authorize the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been abandoned in certain circumstances;
(d) provide the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with the power to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been withdrawn in certain circumstances;
(e) require the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division to suspend certain proceedings respecting a claim for refugee protection if the claimant is not present in Canada;
(f) clarify that decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board must be rendered, and reasons for those decisions must be given, in the manner specified by its Chairperson; and
(g) authorize regulations to be made setting out the circumstances in which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must designate, in relation to certain proceedings or applications, a representative for persons who are under 18 years of age or who are unable to appreciate the nature of the proceeding or application.
It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 8 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order specifying that certain applications made under that Act are not to be accepted for processing, or that the processing of those applications is to be suspended or terminated, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order to cancel, suspend or vary certain documents issued under that Act, or to impose or vary conditions, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
(c) for the application of an order referred to in paragraph (b), require a person to appear for an examination, answer questions truthfully and produce all relevant documents or evidence that an officer requires; and
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing circumstances in which a document issued under that Act can be cancelled, suspended or varied, and in which officers may terminate the processing of certain applications made under that Act.
Part 9 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to add two new grounds of ineligibility for claims for refugee protection as well as powers to make regulations respecting exceptions to those new grounds. It also includes a transitional provision respecting the retroactive application of those new grounds.
Part 10 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum administrative monetary penalties that may be imposed for certain violations and the maximum punishments that may be imposed for certain criminal offences under that Act;
(b) replace the existing optional compliance agreement regime with a new mandatory compliance agreement regime that, among other things,
(i) requires every person or entity that receives an administrative monetary penalty for a prescribed violation to enter into a compliance agreement with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (the Centre),
(ii) requires the Director of the Centre to make a compliance order if the person or entity refuses to enter into a compliance agreement or fails to comply with such an agreement, and
(iii) designates the contravention of a compliance order as a new violation under that Act;
(c) require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act, other than those already required to register, to enroll with the Centre; and
(d) authorize the Centre to disclose certain information to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, subject to certain conditions.
It also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations and includes transitional provisions.
Part 11 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to prohibit certain entities from accepting cash deposits from third parties and certain persons or entities from accepting cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more. It also makes a related amendment to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations .
Part 12 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to make the Director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada a member of the committee established under subsection 18(1) of that Act. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to enable the Director to exchange information with the other members of that committee.
Part 13 amends the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to, among other things,
(a) make certain changes to a sex offender’s reporting obligations, including the circumstances in which they are required to report, the information that must be provided and the time within which it is to be provided;
(b) provide that any of a sex offender’s physical characteristics that may assist in their identification may be recorded when they report to a registration centre;
(c) clarify what may constitute a reasonable excuse for a sex offender’s non-compliance with the requirement to give at least 14 days’ notice prior to a departure from their residence for seven or more consecutive days;
(d) authorize the Canada Border Services Agency to disclose certain information relating to a sex offender’s arrival in and departure from Canada to law enforcement agencies for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of that Act;
(e) authorize, in certain circumstances, the disclosure of information collected under that Act if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will assist in the prevention or investigation of a crime of a sexual nature; and
(f) clarify that a person who discloses information under section 16 of that Act with the belief that they are acting in accordance with that section is not guilty of an offence under section 17 of that Act.
It also makes a related amendment to the Customs Act .
Part 14 amends various Acts to modernize certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation. It, among other things,
(a) amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(i) facilitate access to basic information that will assist in the investigation of federal offences through an information demand or a judicial production order to persons who provide services to the public,
(ii) clarify the response time for production orders and the ability of peace officers and public officers to receive and act on certain information that is voluntarily provided to them and on certain information that is publicly available,
(iii) specify certain circumstances in which peace officers and public officers may obtain evidence, including subscriber information, in exigent circumstances,
(iv) allow a justice or judge to authorize, in a warrant, a peace officer or public officer to obtain tracking data or transmission data that relates to any thing that is similar to a thing in relation to which data is authorized to be obtained under the warrant and that is unknown at the time the warrant is issued,
(v) provide and clarify authorities by which computer data may be examined, and
(vi) allow a justice or judge to authorize a peace officer or public officer to make a request to a foreign entity that provides telecommunications services to the public to produce transmission data or subscriber information that is in its possession or control;
(b) makes a consequential amendment to the Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act ;
(c) amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to allow the Minister of Justice to authorize a competent authority to make arrangements for the enforcement of a decision made by an authority of a state or entity that is empowered to compel the production of transmission data or subscriber information that is in the possession or control of a person in Canada;
(d) amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to, among other things,
(i) facilitate access to basic information that will assist the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the performance of its duties and functions under section 12 or 16 of that Act through information demands given to persons or entities that provide services to the public and judicial information orders against such persons and entities, and
(ii) clarify the response time for production orders; and
(e) amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to provide and clarify authorities by which computer data may be examined.
Part 15 enacts the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act . That Act establishes a framework for ensuring that electronic service providers can facilitate the exercise, by authorized persons, of authorities to access information conferred under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act .
Part 16 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to permit a person or entity referred to in section 5 of that Act to collect and use an individual’s personal information without that individual’s knowledge or consent if
(a) the information is disclosed to the person or entity by a government department, institution or agency or law enforcement agency; and
(b) the collection and use are for the purposes of detecting or deterring money laundering, terrorist activity financing or sanctions evasion or for a consistent purpose.
It also makes related amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act .

Strong Borders Act

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved that Bill C-2, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating you on your election as Speaker. I know it is well deserved. In my many years of sitting beside you, I know the wisdom that you carry with you each and every day.

I want to also take this moment to congratulate all of my colleagues here who were elected on April 28.

I want to take a moment to thank the people of Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park for the mandate they have given me four consecutive times. If anyone is counting, this time it was with 64% of the vote in my favour. Throughout the campaign, I heard a lot, some of which I will be sharing with the House today.

Permit me to acknowledge the land we are gathered on, which is the traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

On April 28, Canadians gave the Prime Minister a mandate to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. This was reinforced by His Majesty King Charles III in the Speech from the Throne last week. Canadians expect those of us in Parliament to work together and deliver for them. To be truly strong, Canada must be secure. A strong border is essential to our national security, to foster safe communities and our support for the economy. In recognition of this, our government has taken a number of important steps.

In December of last year, we introduced Canada's border plan, an ambitious $1.3-billion investment to strengthen border security. We appointed a fentanyl czar, Kevin Brosseau, to work closely with our U.S. counterparts and law enforcement agencies to accelerate Canada's ongoing work to detect, disrupt and dismantle the fentanyl trade. We made sure to have eyes on the border 24-7, with more officers, drones, Black Hawk helicopters and sensors. We listed seven cartels as terrorist organizations and launched a Canada-U.S. joint strike force.

As part of a national law enforcement operation in early 2025 targeting fentanyl production and distribution, Canadian law enforcement made 524 arrests and seized more than 46 kilograms of fentanyl, 74 kilograms of other drugs, 122 firearms, 33 stolen vehicles and over $800,000 in cash. Just last week, the CBSA released the results of Operation Blizzard, a month-long cross-country surge to intercept fentanyl and other illegal drugs. The operation resulted in 116 fentanyl seizures. Our enforcement-focused plan gives frontline officers the tools they need to secure our streets. We are seeing more busts, more arrests and safer communities.

This is important work, and I want to be clear with Canadians: Our borders are strong and secure, but we can always do more to strengthen them. The reality is that there are always new risks emerging that threaten our national and economic security.

For example, in recent years, transnational crime organizations have become more sophisticated. Increasingly, they are using technologies to evade law enforcement, which is hamstrung by outdated tools.

We need to make it harder for organized crime to move money, drugs, people and firearms and to endanger our communities. We need to ensure Canada's law enforcement is equipped with the tools it needs to stay ahead of organized crime and 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 achieve just that. The bill would keep Canadians safe by ensuring law enforcement has the right tools to keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crack down on money laundering. It would bolster our response to increasingly sophisticated criminal networks and enhance the integrity and fairness of our immigration system, all the while protecting Canadians' privacy and charter rights.

Let me take a moment at the outset to talk about some of the safeguards that are in place. As we know, when we ran in the election, we did confirm and reiterate our support for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, it was a previous Liberal prime minister and justice minister who brought forward the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, it is a foundational piece of the work that we do.

King Charles III, in his Speech from the Throne last week, reiterated our government's support for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the guideposts by which we will work to govern this country. As a result, when we speak about national security legislation, which essentially enforces additional tools for law enforcement, it should be with the premise that the rights of Canadians will not be violated. Privacy rights will be protected. Charter rights will be protected, and due process will always be there for Canadians.

Let me share an experience that I had just last month, days after I was appointed to this role. I travelled to Cornwall to meet with the frontline officers of the CBSA and the RCMP, who work hard each and every day to keep our country safe and our border secure. Those officers shared with me their perspectives and ideas on how this government can best support them in their important work. I hope those officers will see their feedback reflected in the bill we are now debating in Parliament. When I spoke to them, they spoke about some of the challenges and limitations they have and some of the basic tools they are missing, tools they need in order to do their work effectively and efficiently to ensure that our borders are safer. It is a safe border, but we want to make it safer.

The strong borders act would keep Canadians safe by, for example, equipping law enforcement with the tools needed to disrupt, dismantle and prosecute the organized criminal networks threatening our communities. It would grant border officers more powers to search export containers to stop auto theft rings from smuggling stolen cars out of the country. It would update the Coast Guard's mission and responsibilities to protect our sovereignty and conduct security patrols to collect, analyze and share information and intelligence for security purposes. The bill would give us the tools needed to, for example, clamp down on clandestine drug production by stopping the flow of precursor chemicals that are used to make fentanyl. We would go after transnational child sex offenders by sharing more information with domestic and international policing partners and crack down on money laundering to hit organized crime groups where it hurts. Further, the strong borders act would strengthen measures to stamp out immigration fraud, improve the asylum system and protect the integrity of our visas.

My colleagues do not have to take my word for it; let me share some of the perspectives already offered on this bill. First off, the Canadian Police Association, the largest law enforcement advocacy organization in Canada and the national voice for over 60,000 frontline law enforcement personnel serving across every province and territory, said:

[T]his proposed legislation would provide critical new tools for law enforcement, border services, and intelligence agencies to address transnational organized crime, auto theft, firearms and drug trafficking, and money laundering. It's important to emphasize that these are not abstract issues, our members see first-hand that they have real impacts in communities across the country and require a coordinated and modern legislative response.

Mr. Speaker, permit me to share the comments by Marta Leardi-Anderson, the executive director of the Cross-Border Institute at the University of Windsor, who said that the new measures are “long overdue”.

Équité, the national authority on insurance crime and fraud prevention, said:

This legislation directly supports law enforcement and the CBSA in strengthening their ability to combat sophisticated criminal networks threatening the safety and security of communities across Canada.... [T]he enhanced authorities granted to CBSA and law enforcement agencies...will strengthen our collective ability to disrupt illegal operations, including the trafficking and distribution of drugs and firearms funded by the proceeds of auto theft.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection, an incredible organization, a national charity dedicated to the personal safety of all children and whose goal is to reduce the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, said that the changes proposed in the strong borders act “would reduce barriers Canadian police face when investigating the growing number of online crimes against children [and] have the full support” of the organization.

Let me also quote from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which made a statement yesterday:

Canada’s legislation related to lawful access is significantly outdated and urgently needs to be revised to align with modern technology. Canada lags behind its international law enforcement partners in the ability to lawfully access electronic evidence associated with criminal activity. Transnational organised crime groups are exploiting this gap to victimize our communities across the country through serious crimes such as human, drug and firearm trafficking, auto theft, and violent profit-driven crime. The provisions contained within the Strong Borders Act are an important step in advancing Canadian law enforcement's ability to effectively combat the ever-evolving nature of transnational organized criminal groups.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada added that the strong borders act is “an important step toward combating auto theft & organized crime. This legislation shows leadership and is a win for Canadians.” The strong borders act is a win for Canadians and deals a blow to transnational organized crime.

When developing the legislation that is before the House, the government had three major objectives: one, secure the border; two, combat transnational organized crime and fentanyl; three, disrupt illicit financing.

To secure the border, we propose to amend the Customs Act to compel transporters and warehouse operators to provide access to their premises to allow for export inspections by CBSA officers, and require owners and operators of certain ports of entry and exit to provide facilities to export inspections, just as they currently do for imports. Just to be clear, currently the law allows the CBSA to do inspections upon exit of goods from Canada. However, there is no compulsion of any of these organizations to provide the adequate space and resources to do the inspection. This amendment would ensure that space will be available for that inspection to take place, which is a critical tool for us to fight, for example, auto thefts.

We are proposing to amend the Oceans Act to add security-related activities, such as countering criminal activity and drug trafficking, and enable the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and share information with security, defence and intelligence partners.

We would be amending the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to share information collected under the act with domestic and international partners.

We would be amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, and we would secure and extend legislative authorities to cancel, suspend or vary immigration documents and cancel or suspend processing of new applications en masse for reasons determined to be in the public interest. A perfect example of this is the number of applications that came in for temporary resident permits during COVID. We were compelled to process them, because there was no mechanism under IRPA to be able to cancel or suspend those applications. This essentially gives additional tools to the minister of IRCC to do just that.

We would amend the act to disclose information for the purpose of co-operation with federal partners and to uphold the integrity and fairness of the asylum system, including by streamlining the intake, processing and adjudication of claims. As an example here, the sharing of information between federal and provincial partners is critical. However, it does not lead towards sharing of information with foreign actors without the express written consent of the minister of IRCC, which is subject to many multilateral and bilateral agreements that currently exist. It will ensure, once again, the safety and privacy rights of those who come to Canada.

The strong borders act would also create new ineligibility measures to make certain claims ineligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board. For example, it would limit the safe third country agreement provision where someone makes a claim after 14 days when they come through an irregular port of entry; they would no longer be eligible for an asylum claim. Similarly, those who have been in-country for more than a year and have not sought asylum before the one-year period are ineligible. In both cases, the safeguard that is in place is the availability of what is called a pre-removal risk assessment, which would ensure that those seeking protection and those in need of protection will have protection within Canada. It abides by our commitments to the UN convention on refugees.

To combat transnational organized crime and fentanyl, we are proposing to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to change the pathway to allow precursor chemicals that can be used to produce illicit drugs to be rapidly controlled by the Minister of Health. Currently, it can take up to a year. This would happen within days or weeks, which would enable us to be close to changes in precursors and the impact of new precursors on the drug supply. It would be an important tool for us.

We are also introducing amendments to support authorized access to information, to ensure that electronic service providers have the capabilities in place to support legally authorized requests from law enforcement and CSIS. I have already heard some misunderstandings of what we are trying to do. Let me just quickly walk through some of the major components of the amendments related to lawful access.

First and foremost, we are seeking for CSPs to be able to have the capacity to share data. Right now, not all service providers have that capability. This essentially compels service providers to have the capacity to share data. Second, it would enable law enforcement to go to a service provider and ask if the phone number they have is with that company. It is simply a yes-or-no question. If it is with that company, then, if additional information is required, law enforcement would go to court and seek a production order, which is through an affidavit and an application to court, to be able to get, on the basis of what is called reasonable grounds to suspect, authorization to get information on a subscriber, very basic information on a subscriber. It oftentimes includes name, address and phone number, very basic information.

The fourth element is this. If there is a much more serious investigation taking place, where law enforcement believes that something may have happened, it can file, on the basis of reasonable grounds to believe, an application to the court, once again, to seek authorization toward additional investigation. In all of these steps, whether it is on the basis of reasonable grounds to suspect or reasonable grounds to believe, it is through judicial authorization. It is something that I want to be very, very clear about. It is a tool that is so essential right now for law enforcement to be able to investigate many of the crimes that are now evolving in a modern era, where so much information is within individuals' control.

Bill C-2 would enact significant penalties for illicit financing, and it would enable law enforcement and agencies to enforce, in a much stricter way, penalties for any form of illicit fundraising that takes place.

Let me just conclude by saying that we committed to investing in 1,000 new CBSA officers and 1,000 new RCMP officers. They are critical.

The bill that we have brought forward is a response to what we heard at the doors. Many of us heard about the concerns that Canadians have. This is a moment when all of us can come together and ensure that our borders are safer and secure. As a result, our communities and our streets would be safer and more secure. This should be a non-partisan exercise, and I invite our friends opposite, all of the parties, to support this bill.

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

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

One thing the minister and I agree on is safer borders and safer streets, but the really big area where I think we part company is how to do that. On the one hand, we have the Liberal approach, which is to talk about safer streets and safer borders and do little about that, and in fact do the contrary, in the form of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Then we have the Conservatives, who want to take definitive action.

We have an omnibus bill here; let us make no mistake about it. Why is there nothing in it about precluding fentanyl traffickers from serving their sentence at home and precluding people who use firearms from serving their sentence at home? Why are there no tough-on-crime measures like that, which are tangibly needed?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to acknowledge my critic opposite. I have worked with him before at committee, and I look forward to working with him in this role.

Let me be very clear. We will be bringing forward criminal justice legislation in due course. This is the first bill that our government has introduced, which is to ensure that we have a safer border and safer streets.

With respect to changes to the Criminal Code, once again, we look forward to working with all parties in order to keep Canadians safer.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced two days ago, and we have had to analyze all 130 pages of it. At first glance, we are generally in favour of the bill in principle.

However, given that it is 130 pages long, affects more than three departments and could possibly amend some 20 laws, I hope that the minister agrees with me that it will require thorough, detailed work in committee. There is no way that such a bill should be fast‑tracked; that would not make any sense. There are far too many clauses to consider, and we do not even know if some of them would stand up in court.

I am going to test the minister. There are so many questions surrounding this bill, but there is one that must be raised. I am thinking in particular of the suggestion to remove the possibility of compelling the minister and members of his staff to appear before the Refugee Protection Division.

Why was this included in the document presented by the minister today?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me see if I understood the question properly. With respect to the measures, the additional tools that are given to the Minister of Immigration, particularly the suspension of documents, are subject to an order in council that has to go through cabinet, and it has to be approved before the minister can exercise control.

If I misunderstood the question, I would be glad to speak with the member further, but the tools are in place to ensure that the Minister of Immigration has additional tools so that in the modern era, whether we have, for example, a pandemic or issues around cybersecurity, she will have the tools to make those decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the minister for being so quick to present this bill in the House. There are needed provisions in this legislation that fill the gaps.

As we know, we are dealing with a lot of sophisticated, organized criminal networks that are threatening our communities. These tools will help disrupt, dismantle and prosecute these individuals. I can think of some examples, and I know the minister named some in his speech: fentanyl trafficking, extortion, child exploitation and all the problems we are having that involve criminal organizations.

I am wondering if the minister could provide some other examples of criminality that this bill would help solve.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for her hard work and her comments.

One thing the member has been advocating for for many years is the issue of auto theft. While we know the numbers with respect to auto theft are coming down, whether it is in the city of Toronto or across Canada, the tools that law enforcement need have to be strengthened, and this bill would ensure that. I highlighted the issue of inspections upon export. Right now, although the legal authority to do them exists, the physical space and capacity do not exist in most ports of exit, and this is one tangible thing included in this bill that would enable the CBSA to do searches.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if Bill C-2 passes, it would allow CSIS, police and peace officers to demand personal info from online service providers without a warrant based only on vague suspicions of potential crime or legal breaches of any act of Parliament. Whether or not a Canadian uses an online service, where they use it and when they use it are personal information, and the government has not provided a charter statement for the same.

With Bill C-2, combined with Bill C-63, the government could target whatever it deems to be spreading hateful content. Bill C-2 would combine with Bill C-63 to essentially form Voltron-type censorship. The government has not indicated what policy concerns, aside from vague references to security, these provisions are needed for. These snooping provisions are a massive poison pill that should not have been included in this bill.

Why, as they did with Bill C-63, are the Liberals making Canadians choose between their civil liberties and safety and fixing the broken immigration system that the Liberals broke themselves?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. The issue around lawful access requires modernization in Canada. We are the only Five Eyes and G7 country that does not have a lawful access regime. Every other country in our category has provisions to ensure that as new technology emerges, new techniques are available for law enforcement.

Having said that, this bill does not violate the civil liberties or rights of individual Canadians. It is subject to judicial oversight. This bill was only introduced two days ago. There will be a charter statement coming, and there will be a robust debate on this issue.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his bill. It addresses many of the Bloc Québécois's concerns regarding border security, organized crime and so on. However, there is one thing in this massive bill that bothers me and raises numerous questions, and that is the security of personal information. The bill would significantly expand police powers.

Would it not be possible to limit the ability to conduct searches without a warrant? This could include the obligation to prove that obtaining a warrant is impossible.

The section about communicating information to other countries is very troubling. My colleague is telling us that there will be measures, eventually. I understand that, but I would like him to tell us more. What will those measures be?

This aspect of the bill could be a concern.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two elements that I want to highlight. First and foremost, the sharing of information is subject to judicial oversight, and it is clearly written in the bill. I invite my friend, who I know is a learned individual and whom I have worked with extensively in the past, to understand that it is a safeguard built into the bill. This is not about taking away privacy rights or in any way impinging on the privacy rights of Canadians. It is about securing the ability of law enforcement to have limited access, with judicial oversight. That is in there.

With respect to the sharing of information with third countries, again, safeguards relating to IRPA are in place and are embedded in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for the introduction of this bill.

Much of my time here in Ottawa is spent on the public safety committee, and many of these issues have been brought up for years, as has the need to improve upon the law. In my previous career in law enforcement, we had similar issues that we were bringing forward over and over again.

My question is twofold. There has been so much pressure to deal with the smuggling of firearms, the fentanyl issues and the porous borders with immigration. One, what took so long to get at this? Two, we have provisions in the act—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to provide some time for a response.

The Minister of Public Safety may give a brief response.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to having a longer discussion with my friend opposite.

We were elected on April 30. The Prime Minister had a mandate to ensure that we address the border issues. As a first act of Parliament, we brought in this legislation, and we are looking for support from all parties to get this bill through the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I welcome you to the chair. I am amazed at how quickly you got your robes: congratulations.

As always, it is an honour to be here. It is an honour to share this space with colleagues from all parties. As somebody who was the child of immigrants and never really thought he would see the green carpet of the House of Commons, except when I saw it at 12 years old looking through doors similar to the ones here but in Centre Block, it is such a profound honour. With that, in my first substantive intervention in this House, I want to thank the voters of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

It is Italian Heritage Month, which seems quite poignant given that there are so many people of Italian heritage. I know we are welcoming two or three to our side of the bench and that there are a few on the other side. I congratulate all members.

Speaking of congratulations, I want to begin by congratulating a former colleague at the bar in Kamloops. Her name is Justice Lorianna Bennett. She was actually promoted to the bench, I believe, by the Minister of Public Safety when he was the minister of justice. I appeared briefly before Justice Bennett when I was still working as a lawyer for the province. I believe she will be a wonderful addition to the Supreme Court of B.C., to which she was recently elevated. It being Italian Heritage Month, I should note as well that she is of Italian heritage, like me and many others here. I wish Justice Bennett all the best in her judicial career.

On a bit of a sadder note, a lot of people have passed during prorogation and the election. Those who have heard me speak in the House before know that during my speeches, I often like to recognize people who have passed.

I want to recognize the life of David Richard Bartlett, who was just 37 years old. His father Jim was my boss when I first entered the workforce at about 22 years old as a parole officer. His dad taught me a lot. David leaves behind his brother Andrew. May perpetual light shine upon him.

On a sadder note, I also want to recognize the life of Augusto Bernardo. Like my family, he originated from Calabria in southern Italy. I have such fond memories of Augusto. I remember going to his farm when I was eight or nine years old to get chickens with my dad. He was such a character. I always remember him smiling whenever I saw him. He was always so excited and happy to say hi to me. I miss that vivacious smile. I know he lived a really good life. His children Donisa, Gisella, Marcella and Dino are all incredibly successful people, but more importantly, they all have wonderful hearts. They all serve their community in such a beautiful way. His legacy is well entrenched in his children. May perpetual light shine upon him.

Another person who passed away very young was a man by the name of Chris McKenzie. He was about my age or maybe a few years older than me. We got to know each other when we were in youth group. We travelled all the way from Kamloops to Denver to see the Pope in 1993. We went to high school together. He was a talented musician. He had a love of music, and he always had a smile on his face when we were in school. He leaves behind daughters Trystan, Brooklynn and Danica, their mother Tammy, his mother Darlene, his father Dawayne and his siblings Charla, Heather and Andrew. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I have a few more people I wish to go through, but in the meantime, perhaps I will get to the substance of my speech.

Let us make no mistake about it: This is an omnibus bill. I cannot say how many times the Liberals spoke about omnibus bills. We often hear about the ghost of Stephen Harper, and the Liberals have frequently railed against the Harper government and omnibus bills, yet here we have the government tabling an omnibus bill.

However, the bill is not quite omnibus enough to include key areas. Let us look at the bill. It is 130 pages. I am just looking at it right now, and I do not see anything about bail, which is a pretty big issue in the news today. It is pretty much in the news every single day. There is nothing about bail in the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Does he want bail in it?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just asked if we want bail in it. Heck yes, I want bail in it. We really want to deal with bail. We, as Conservatives, want to deal with bail. In fact, I had two private members' bills that dealt with bail during the last Parliament. One of the bills was in response to the killing of Constable Pierzchala, a police officer. He was in his mid-twenties.

I believe I could say that Constable Pierzchala was killed, as the person is no longer accused, as they went to trial. He was killed by somebody who was out on bail. It was the constable's first shift alone. He had just passed his probation period. That person also had a firearms prohibition, and those prohibitions are now being treated like they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Therefore, to my colleague from Winnipeg, who heckled me and asked if I want bail in the bill, yes, we want bail in the bill. I will gladly take him up on that. I will gladly meet with the Minister of Public Safety.

In fact, in questions and comments, I want the member for Winnipeg North to stand up. It does not take much to cajole him to stand up, even if there are 30 people behind him. The Liberals are laughing because they know it is true. I want the member to stand up to tell me whether the Liberals will pass Bill C-313 from the last Parliament, which would make the hill much harder to climb for people who were previously convicted of gun charges and placed on firearms prohibitions. This is a small, discreet group of people.

In the member's prelude, I challenge him to say that the Liberals will support Bill C-313 or my other private member's bill on bail, which targeted a very small, discreet group of people who were being accused of three indictable offences at one time, as in those files had not been resolved, with 10 years or more. Those are offences such as robbery, manslaughter, assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, by indictment. The member has been here for a long time, and he speaks on behalf of the government. Does he have the guts to stand up to say that the Liberals will incorporate the principles of those bills in this bill? I would love to work with the government to address bail.

What about fentanyl sentencing? I wonder if the member for Winnipeg North is onside with his party's views on sentencing. We are getting this tough-on-crime stuff from the Liberals. Do members know what we heard? In fact, now that I come to think of it, it was from the member from Winnipeg. I introduced a bill about sexual offences, and the whole point of the bill on sexual offences was to raise the sentences. A lot of people do not know this, but sexual offences are treated less seriously than property offences in some regards. For instance, if someone breaks into a house, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. If they rob somebody, which is theft with an element of violence, they can go to jail for life. However, if someone takes a person's dignity and consent, which is a crime of violence just like robbery, the maximum sentence is 10 years, so I brought this up. The member for Winnipeg heckled, “Tough on crime.” The Liberals are telling us how tough on crime they are now, when they mocked us the last time. They will not only tell us how tough they are on crime but also do little about it.

In this omnibus bill, it says that offenders can serve their sentence for trafficking in fentanyl from their couch. There is going to be 10 minutes for questions and comments, and I challenge any Liberal who rises to say to me, through the Speaker, “I agree with that. I agree that, for people who traffic in one of the deadliest drugs, if not the deadliest drug that we know of, who are literally peddling poison, it is okay that they sit at home playing their video game system, listening to their favourite music and sleeping in their bed, when they are literally peddling poison.” I am speaking right to the Liberals here, those who are prepared to look me in the eye to say that.

Let us go to another one, which is firearms offences. One of the offences in a case called R. v. Oud, out of British Columbia, and it was upheld by the B.C. Court of Appeal as being a constitutional mandatory minimum. Discharge with intent is a drive-by shooting and those types of things. The Liberals legislated that offenders could serve that sentence at home. Previously, it was a four-year mandatory minimum. They kept the five-year minimum if it was a handgun or a restricted firearm, but oftentimes the guns are not ever recovered. Nobody says, “I just did a drive-by. Police, here is the gun.” This does not happen.

The Liberals are telling us that they are tough on crime. They say, “Look at our borders act.” It is 130 pages. “Look at this, we are so tough on crime.” I challenge any member of the Liberals to stand up to say, through the Speaker, “I am okay with people who do drive-by shootings to serve their sentence at home.” People will say, “Oh, you are just tough on crime indiscriminately.”

To the contrary, I think most people deserve a second chance. In fact, a lot of people do. Some people deserve a second chance because they have done something stupid. They have made decisions. They got into an addiction. A lot of people I saw were in a car accident and were then prescribed opiates. The next thing they knew, they had an opiates addiction.

We are not talking about locking the door and throwing away the key for the majority of offenders. We are talking about a small, discreet group of offenders. Nowhere in this bill does it talk about those things. We are prepared to talk about everything but. We are prepared to talk about Internet service providers and whether they have to turn over their materials without a warrant. That is in response to a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision. For those who do not know, an ISP address is easily discoverable. As I recall, and I have not read or looked at the case in some time, the court said a warrant is needed. There is an expectation of privacy there.

I could go on and on about what is not in this bill. Again, I will challenge my Liberal colleagues. Will they have the guts to stand up to say, “I am okay with those things.” If they are not okay with those things, then why are they not petitioning the government to amend the bill to be tough on the crimes they say they are tough on.

This bill has a number of elements to it. It has 16 parts. Obviously, the first part we are dealing with looks at CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, and its ability to do searches. This is interesting, as the Leader of the Opposition, in the last Parliament, would say people were literally tracking their cars to our ports and seeing them go into containers. They were told they could not trespass on that port. People wanted to get their cars back, but they could not do it. We got laughed at, as Conservatives, for this, for our supposed tough-on-crime approach, yet the Liberals are saying that Conservatives need to pass this omnibus bill.

We have a lot of questions about the bill, and I think Canadians deserve to have those questions answered.

The Canada Post Corporation Act would be amended, through part 4 of the bill “to permit the demand, seizure, detention or retention of anything in the course of post only in accordance with an Act of Parliament.” As I understand that, this is a judicial authorization commonly known as a warrant. Typically, it is a warrant that is embedded there. This is really interesting, and I would love for the government to expand on this, because this is something I know I am going to get mail about, if I have not gotten it already.

Part 4 would allow Canada Post Corporation to open mail in certain circumstances. As I understand it, and I am not an expert in this regard, the nature of mail has been that it has been regarded as private since Confederation. In other words, Canada Post has not been able to open somebody's mail. This is the reason we are now talking about the language in the Charter and what is referred to as an expectation of privacy.

The highest expectation is on our bodies. Then we have things like our phones and letters, but there is still an expectation of privacy there, so I would really like for the government to explain what that threshold would be and why it is that Canada Post would be doing this. Those are questions that we really need to have answered.

Similarly, there are the Canadian Coast Guard provisions. How are they going to look in practice? This is a really significant bill that I think we need a bit more information on. I am mindful of the fact that we always will have rights of the individual, and I noticed that many of my Liberal colleagues stood up and clapped when they spoke about being the party of the Charter of Rights. As my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill noted, there is no charter statement here.

The government was able to give us a 130-page bill with 16 parts, and when we ask where the charter statement is, there is a bit of the proverbial shoulder shrug, with the statement, “It just came out two days ago.” If the Liberals can put out a 130-page bill, certainly they can put out a four- or five-page charter statement. It would amaze me if nobody in the government went through this document and asked if it was charter compliant. Certainly somebody did.

We have a government that is saying, “We are all about the charter; we believe in this,” but it will not tell Canadians what its experts have said about whether this legislation is charter compliant. As a critic, how am I to respond to people who have very good faith inquiries about this type of legislation?

The next part of the bill gets into citizenship and immigration. I am not going to touch on that, because I know that my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill will be dealing with that.

The last thing I want to do is reflect on the life of a good friend. His name was Mark Evevard. He was not Canadian, but he touched the lives of many Canadians. Mark passed away unexpectedly of a heart attack just before the election. I cannot understate the profound influence that this man had on my life. He leaves behind his children, Stephen, Lauren and Patrick. I got to spend time with Mark and Patrick right around the pandemic and just before it. Mark touched so many lives, and I wanted to recognize him here, through his work in youth ministry for the church and as a servant. May perpetual light shine upon him. It was my honour to know him.

With that, I will conclude my speech and take questions.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the opposition member for his speech and his challenge to us on this matter. I listened to him carefully. We agree on a number of points. What we want is for all Canadians to feel safe and secure.

That being said, we must not mislead Canadians. We are talking about a bill that will be discussed and debated. There are a number of elements that I hope will lead to co-operation from the members opposite. When we present a working document, we hope to have their co-operation. That is a good discussion that we could have.

That being said, in his speech, I think my colleague tried to see what is not really in the bill and what should be added, but he seems to have forgotten to talk about the initial work that is already there. I do not really understand where the opposition is going with this. We are trying to give our police forces the tools they need to do their job. We know that criminal groups are adapting their way of doing things and accelerating their use of technology for cybercrime, among other things. We want to give police forces the tools they need.

We want to fight crime, but we see that, unfortunately, the members opposite are not following suit. In his speech, my colleague talked a lot about police work, but I see that what is missing from the opposition's discourse is prevention—

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

I must interrupt the hon. member because the question has far exceeded the allotted time.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague. He may not know, and I did not talk about it because people are tired of hearing about it, but I was a prosecutor in my prior life, where I focused mostly on prosecuting Internet offences against kids. I am very well aware of judicial authorizations, of the hurdles those types of things can present, and of the fact that the bill is a direct response to some of the decisions. I am very clear on that.

My colleague did mention that he was rising to the challenge, but we did not actually hear him say whether he supports house arrest for fentanyl traffickers and for people who do drive-by shootings. I would invite him to get up again, very briefly, and say, “Yes, I support this.”

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I will have the honour of serving on the public safety committee, which will hopefully be convened soon.

He talked a lot about privacy. I agree with him. There will be a lot of discussion in committee on this issue, because there is a thin line between protecting security and protecting personal and confidential information.

I would like to take him in another direction. The bill would give additional powers to border services officers to inspect rail cars in marshalling yards, for example. Rail cars are currently inspected at the time of import, but not at the time of export.

Does he agree with the part of the bill that calls for rail cars to be inspected by border services officers? As a result, is he not concerned that there are not enough officers right now to meet the demand? How does he think the government is going to manage to add more powers when resources are limited?

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

Madam Speaker, it will be an honour for me as well to sit with my colleague around the committee table as the public safety critic. We have not had a chance to work together before, but I do look forward to working with her and perhaps practising my French. Her question was what I would call a fairly loaded one because it had elements of generalities with respect to our not having enough agents to do this, but also the specificity about the rail cars.

What I can say right now is that she is right; we do not have the agents to do this. The minister actually spoke about, and I think $300 million is what was was referred to earlier, how we are going to start having scanners and things like that. Why are they not there already? It is just a colossal failure by the government to not have them there.

My colleague is right that there is a labour shortage in this regard. This actually highlights one of the biggest issues I have with many of the government's interventions: It is always “we are going to” and is never “we are going do this, and this is how we are going get there.” The government cannot build homes. The government cannot even plant trees. How is the government going to secure the border?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the intervention by my friend and colleague was great, and I want to thank him for the expertise he brings to the chamber on the issues of public safety and criminal justice.

One of the reasons I got involved in politics in 2003 and was elected in 2004 was that I opposed the Liberals' long-gun registry. Over the past 10 years, the Liberals have continued to vilify law-abiding long-gun owners, licensed firearms owners, and to give a pass to criminals who are actually committing crimes.

I want to just ask my colleague, our shadow minister for public safety, whether he sees anything in Bill C-2 that would actually restore the property rights of law-abiding firearms owners and take guns away from criminals who are committing crimes on our streets.

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

Madam Speaker, I have learned a lot from my colleague. We first met a number of years ago, and it has been really great just to walk with him in my parliamentary journey.

I see nothing in the bill that deals with firearms.

Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, like so much of Canada, is a rural area. I believe there are 27 first nations in my riding, and hunting is integral to those first nations. We have heard the Liberals speaking out of both sides of their mouth on the issue; they say that we need to really crack down on guns and illegal guns used in shootings, yet they are burying us in more bureaucracy without going after people who repeatedly breach firearms prohibitions and things like that. I see nothing in Bill C-2 on this.

I see that the member for Winnipeg North is going to ask a question. I challenge him to stand up and say whether he is in favour of my proposed bill, Bill C-313, on bail, and whether he still supports house arrest for people who do drive-by shootings and who traffic fentanyl.

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

Madam Speaker, a little bit more relevant to the issue is whether the Conservative Party actually supports Bill C-2.

We have the Canadian Police Association, which represents tens of thousands of frontline law enforcement officers, and the Conservatives are playing this whole cat-and-mouse game, trying to put out a little bait here and there. The bottom line is that, whether this is about President Trump's concerns, Canadian concerns, or law enforcement concerns, the bill should go to committee, ideally soon.

Does the Conservative Party, and does the member opposite, who represents the Conservative Party, support the legislation? Would they not agree that time is of the essence?

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

Madam Speaker, that was the most cat-and-mouse response I have ever heard. I challenged him. He speaks more than all other Liberal members combined, so I think he could address the challenge. Does he support house arrest for people who traffic fentanyl? I challenged him, but he would not even answer; he just heckled me. He should give me an answer.

We do not even have a charter statement yet. The bill is a 130-page document. The Liberals say they want to move in an expeditious manner, but they took 10 years to get here. They have been talking out of both sides of their mouth in that regard.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, since this is the first round of speeches on the bill, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the official Bloc Québécois public safety and emergency preparedness critic, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-2.

I would remind the House that, today, we are beginning the speeches and debate on a bill and related measures aimed at securing the border between Canada and the United States. As my Conservative colleague mentioned, this 130-page bill amends some 10 laws. The session has just begun, and, as the new critic in this area, I find the study of this bill very challenging. This is a massive and complex bill with three main objectives: securing the border, fighting transnational organized crime and fentanyl, and cracking down on illicit financing. The bill is divided into 16 parts

It is no secret that the Bloc Québécois has long been demanding stricter border controls, including stronger measures against the exportation of stolen vehicles, a reduction in the number of asylum seekers in Quebec and a crackdown on fentanyl and money laundering. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois agrees in principle to allow the bill to go to committee for a more in-depth study. I cannot find a better word than "in-depth", which implies thoroughness and, especially, the time needed to hear from all the experts in the matter. This is not the type of bill that can be studied at breakneck speed. It will have to be studied in depth because it grants ministers, the police, the Canadian Coast Guard and Canada Post more powers. It also allows various authorities to exchange personal and confidential information. As legislators, we will need to hear from a large number of witnesses given the many laws that will be amended.

We hope that parliamentarians will work together to better understand the bill and, especially, to enhance it based on the testimony of the experts we will hear from at meetings of the public safety and national security committee. As our reputation would suggest, the Bloc Québécois is committed to studying Bill C-2 in depth and collaborating with all parliamentarians to make it better. In fact, that is, in a sense, our trademark. Our members take their work as legislators seriously. This bill is important, and it is complex. Let us take all the time we need to study it in depth.

As I was saying, several acts will be amended, including the Customs Act. Essentially, Bill C-2 proposes forcing carriers and warehouse operators to provide access to their facilities to allow Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, officers to inspect goods destined for export. Currently, the act does not allow officers to inspect U.S.-bound rail cars in classification yards, for example. It is surprising that operators are not currently required to allow CBSA officers to inspect rail cars in their own classification yards. However, the bill proposes that operators now be obliged to establish infrastructure to receive border services officers.

This raises a number of questions, however. How will railway companies manage to set up such infrastructure to receive border services officers and allow them to conduct inspections? Anyone who has ever visited a classification yard knows that the railway companies will have to make major changes. How long will they be given to comply? How will the CBSA carry out its inspections in the classification yards?

Will they have mobile scanners?

Will the CBSA have the funds it needs to procure the tools and advanced technologies needed to carry out its inspections?

What instructions will the CBSA give its officers? It is estimated that the CBSA already has a shortage of between 2,000 and 3,000 border services officers for current duties. If they are given new responsibilities, however necessary, there will be an even greater shortage of border officers. We know that we can train approximately 600 border officers per year. I am not great at math, but it is easy enough to see that, if we train 600 border officers a year, we will not have the resources we need to inspect everything that we are supposed to inspect under Bill C-2.

There is also the fact that the promise to hire 1,000 additional border officers was not included in the throne speech. The throne speech does not mention that. We hope that we will have the opportunity to discuss that when we look at the business of supply this evening. Given the number of border services officers, granting them additional powers will be a colossal challenge.

We assume that border officers will be assigned to priority sectors. What are the priorities, and which sectors will have fewer resources to carry out their duties? Railway companies, for example, might resist establishing the infrastructure needed for inspection in the classification yards. If that were to happen, how would we send officers to inspect the yards? These are some of the many questions that we have and that we will have an opportunity to discuss in committee.

We are also wondering whether the government assessed the amount of work that will be required of railway companies. Were discussions held with them? I represent a riding that is crisscrossed by railway tracks and that is home to several railway companies. I can tell you that the railway lobby is very strong in Canada. How will companies react to this new requirement?

There are many questions to be answered. That is why it is important that we conduct an exhaustive study of this bill in committee.

With respect to giving border officers more powers, the government could pass regulations allowing border officers to patrol beyond their crossing point. This is not currently allowed. This is something the Bloc Québécois proposed as a way to improve co-operation, in particular between RCMP officers and border officers, in order to make the border more secure. As the member for a border riding, I can say that this would be extremely appreciated and very important. That way, patrolling officers who see a migrant or someone trying to cross the border illegally 50 metres off could intervene. They could intercept the person and contact the RCMP.

As I was saying earlier, this would not require any legislative amendments. It could be done through regulations easily enough. If the government commits to doing that, it will certainly have our support.

I have much more to say, but my time is running out. We know that this important law is very intrusive when it comes to privacy. I trust that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord will outline his concerns and ask questions. My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean will be speaking next, so he will be able to ask questions and talk about his doubts concerning the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He will also mention aspects of the bill with which he disagrees.

In conclusion, I would like the government to know that, if it respects our willingness to work hard in a professional way, and if it gives us the time we need to study the entire bill, we will work with it in committee to enhance and improve Bill C-2.

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

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague for her support and the Bloc's recommendations over time that have helped inform this bill. I appreciate that she is going to allow this bill to go to committee.

I too hope the ports and the various operators involved will give their full support. The CBSA has seen at times in the past that there has not been full co-operation, which has hindered the ability of law enforcement to catch outgoing automobiles, which has become a big issue in the area I live in. I hope we will see that co-operation.

Since the member is saying that many of those stakeholders reside within her riding, I want to know whether the member would be willing to work with those stakeholders to make sure this bill is not impeded and that we have support across party lines to carry this work forward and reduce the harm coming to Canadians with automobiles that are going outside of our country.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me reassure my colleague. As the member for a riding that borders the U.S., I have many contacts at the RCMP and the CBSA, among both the employers and the unions. For that reason, I can say that some of the decisions being made now are not at all consistent with the principle of Bill C-2.

Let me give an example. Two border crossings in my riding have had their hours of service cut. Border crossings used to be monitored 24/7. The CBSA cut 12 hours of monitoring. That means that, in the middle of the countryside, in the middle of a rural area, there are two border crossings, Herdman and Trout River, where there is no monitoring. Municipal officials in both Quebec and the United States disagree with the decision, since it does nothing to protect our borders.

My colleague should urge the Minister of Public Safety to review the decision to reduce the number of hours of monitoring at the Trout River and Herdman border crossings, as well as at Rouses Point, which is in the riding of my colleague from Saint-Jean.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her words on Bill C-2 today. I just wanted to bring up that back in December, under the 44th Parliament, there was an opposition day motion brought forward by the Conservative Party that listed many of the same factors we are debating here today. Some of them, as my colleague has mentioned, obviously are important to her because she is in a border riding. We had talked about getting more scanners and putting more boots on the ground. At that point in time, the Bloc, the Liberals and the NDP all voted against our opposition day motion.

I am wondering now if the member regrets that. It sounds like she is changing her mind and realizing it is important. What has been the change of heart?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that I have one topic of conversation that might interest my colleague.

I am very interested in the issue of gun trafficking. A lot of guns are being smuggled into my riding from the U.S. by water. Bill C-2 would give the Canadian Coast Guard an additional patrolling mandate. What troubles me a bit about this bill is that the government seems to be planning to assign the Coast Guard this new responsibility in the Arctic, but not in areas where gun trafficking is a documented issue.

I sincerely believe that we need to do more to curb gun trafficking. The Coast Guard's new responsibilities could help with that, if it is deployed to patrol sectors where gun trafficking is happening.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is someone who is really in touch with her constituents. I think that everyone in the House and everyone in her riding knows that.

I would like her to tell us how important border security is for the people in her riding. I would also like her to talk about how border security has been neglected over the past 10 years.

What would a bill that secures the border mean for the people in her riding? How can we achieve that?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I represent a southern Quebec riding where smugglers and criminal organizations exploit and abuse migrants hoping to cross the border illegally. It cannot be said that the previous government did much to limit, control or reduce this activity.

As a member of Parliament, I have worked extensively with the RCMP to document and support residents dealing with this issue. I can also say that we helped the RCMP develop a tool that tells residents what number to call when they see something or experience—

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

I must interrupt the member. She is well over her time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

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

Madam Speaker, this is my first speech in the House, and I am truly pleased to see you sitting in the Speaker's chair because, as you know, you are my favourite.

As this is indeed my first speech in the House in this 45th Parliament, I would like to thank the citizens of Lac‑Saint‑Jean from the bottom of my heart for placing their trust in me for a third time. It is an honour to represent them in the House. That said, this would not have been possible without all the supporters, volunteers and election workers who made sure my team came out on top in this election, and I want to thank them as well. Of course, none of this would have been possible without my partner, Mylène; my son, Émile; and my daughters, Simone and Jeanne. I really want to thank them. Thanks to them, I am once again able to represent the people of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, this time in the 45th Parliament.

Let us get to the matter before us. Obviously, I will focus more on the immigration issues in this bill. It is important to note that this 130-page document, which was introduced as 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, is a complete 180. I say this because, as I am sure members will recall, over the past few years, the Liberal government has failed to manage a large number of border crises. Consider the wave of irregular immigration at Roxham Road, thriving human smuggling rings at the border that took advantage of migrants and vulnerable people, Mexican cartels setting up operations at the border, the wave of car thefts at the port of Montreal, gun trafficking and so on.

While the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑2 in principle, we will have to wait and see how all the clauses are unpacked in committee. One thing is certain, this study will be a long-term, exhaustive effort. As every observer of federal politics knows, that is precisely how the Bloc Québécois has always worked. Our method is to be thorough and meticulous, especially when dealing with bills like this one, which affects a dozen or so laws and at least three departments. Bills like this one have to be treated very seriously.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration and refugees, I will focus on the items that concern immigration. Incidentally, this bill was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety, but it contains a whole section on immigration. As I was saying, we support the bill in principle, but there are still a lot of unanswered question that we need to ask.

On its surface, the proposed legislation reflects a stricter stance on delays, irregular entries and inefficiencies in the system, but we will wait and see if anything actually changes, since the Liberal Party does not have a very good track record in that regard. The bill uses a number of rather vague expressions like “in certain circumstances”, “reasonable grounds” and “in the public interest”. That is rather broad and could mean anything. Certain provisions even raise questions about protecting the public. I am thinking in particular of the provision that states that the Refugee Protection Division cannot compel the minister or any member of his staff or person working in his office to appear for a hearing. I am very interested to hear why this was included in the bill.

As for examinations, the minister will have more power over decisions on asylum seekers. Someone will have to explain to me how, but under Bill C-2, the minister gives himself the power to further consider all asylum claims made in Canada even if officers have already made determinations on those claims. From now on, a claim will not be sent to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada until the minister has authorized it. I can hardly wait to see how all of that works out. In addition to giving himself this broad power, the minister is also giving himself the authority to prescribe by regulation the requirements for further consideration, such as the time limits for submitting documentation, control measures or the designation of a representative for minors.

On reading parts 7, 8 and 9 regarding immigration, we quickly see that the federal government wants to change its immigration laws so it can easily cancel the resident permits of certain migrants and suspend the possibility of making certain claims for staying in Canada.

Furthermore, if the bill is passed, asylum claims filed more than a year after a potential refugee sets foot in Canada will be deemed inadmissible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which is normally responsible for assessing claims. The same would be true for asylum claims made after 14 days by someone in hiding within our borders. There are concerns there as well.

The Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement, who is also the member for Louis-Hébert, said that this measure aims to close what was seen as a loophole in the safe third country agreement. Obviously, I remain concerned on a number of levels. In practical terms, Bill C-2 would close the loophole in the safe third country agreement, which allows a person who has illegally entered Canada to circumvent the agreement by staying in Canada for more than 14 days, but that remains to be seen. We were the ones who raised the problem related to this loophole in the safe third country agreement because of the 14‑day period. What I understand today is that it will not necessarily be what we are asking for, but that there may be a way to agree on other terms. We will see what happens next.

All of the Bloc Québécois members are acting in good faith. That means that, overall, as I said, we are satisfied with the principle of the bill. We applaud the government's intention. The bill aims to address several issues that people have been raising for months, if not years. We are relieved that Bill C‑2 provides for the possibility of applying for a pre-removal risk assessment for those who are ineligible to apply for asylum. At the very least, this guarantees that those individuals are protected. As a result, we will fulfill our obligations under the Geneva Convention, which I believe is very important.

Like all Quebeckers, the Bloc Québécois remains firmly committed to welcoming people fleeing persecution and misery. The primary purpose of the bill is to ensure that the system for taking in migrants is fairer and more efficient. Nevertheless, there seems to be one thing missing from the government's approach. In June or July 2024, the then immigration minister announced with great fanfare that he would form a committee to ensure the fair distribution of asylum seekers throughout Canada. It was announced with great fanfare during a press conference. Since then, there has been radio silence.

The distribution of asylum seekers is one of the main concerns when it comes to Quebec's intake capacity. It is not right that half of all asylum seekers should end up in Quebec. It is not that we do not want to help them, but we have finite capacity. In the meantime, other provinces and territories are not taking on their share of the responsibility. Quebec and Ontario are doing all the work. Some provinces outright refuse to welcome asylum seekers. The government promised better distribution of asylum seekers throughout Canada.

In short, I think this is an important bill. It is a step in the right direction, but hard work and collaboration will be needed. I would like to remind my colleagues from all recognized parties in the House that the Bloc Québécois is well placed in committee to have good discussions with everyone, given that this is a minority government. Make no mistake: We will have to make some deals.

Above all, we will need to listen to the expert witnesses who will tell us what is feasible and what is not. They will tell us which clauses of the bill would stand up in court and which would not. When we examine the bill clause by clause—which we had two days to do—it raises concerns about passing the bill in its current form. The Bloc Québécois already believes there will be legal challenges. We will all need to talk to each other to ensure the bill achieves its main objective of securing the border and welcoming asylum seekers in a humane and compassionate way. We will also need to ensure that the other provinces do their part when it comes to the distribution of asylum seekers and that the minister is not granted excessive powers. At this time, the extent of the powers the minister would be granted is not very clear.

I will say it again: The Bloc Québécois is going to work very hard. We have extraordinary members. I am now ready to answer my colleague's questions.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑2 includes a number of measures to combat auto theft. I know that is an important issue for the Bloc Québécois. In fact, I believe that, during the last Parliament, it was the Bloc Québécois's public safety critic who got a motion adopted to have that issue taken up by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Can my colleague talk about the positive impact Bill C‑2 will have on the auto theft problem we are facing across the country?

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

Madam Speaker, I am clearly more focused on immigration-related issues, covered in parts 7, 8 and 9 of the bill. My colleague can correct me if I am wrong, but the bill appears useful on the issue of car theft in that it will make it easier for authorities to inspect the contents of certain containers in ports and certain shipments on trains. I think I am correct in saying that.

That is already a positive point. This is very positive, in the Bloc's opinion. That is why I am saying that we support the principle of the bill. However, we also have a number of questions, which is normal with an omnibus bill like this one. As we said, it is a 130-page bill that impacts several laws and several departments and contains a huge number of clauses. There is work to be done, but to answer my colleague's question, we are already seeing some positive points.

[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. As always, I thank all members for their interventions, including this hon. member.

The Liberals are talking a strong game about crime and things like that. I am wondering if my hon. colleague from the Bloc agrees with me that while the Liberals are talking a strong game, they have failed to take action on the issue of crime, and a lot of it has actually manifested itself in Quebec.

I am wondering if the member agrees with me that this is a little hypocritical of the Liberals and that we should not necessarily take them at their word. They had ample opportunity to do this but have done absolutely nothing over the last 10 years.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have indeed been lax on many issues.

It is abundantly clear that border security and the immigration department have been mismanaged for the past 10 years. I believe, and I am sure everyone will agree, that the most dysfunctional department in the federal government is the immigration department. Today, we will look at what the Liberals are proposing in Bill C‑2 in terms of immigration.

With regard to border security, as my colleague said earlier, the government could go ahead and take administrative steps without having to make any legislative changes. For example, the government could allow border services officers to patrol outside border services and work more closely with the RCMP.

I would also like to mention the fact that this government essentially cut in half the hours of certain border crossings that are in extremely high-risk locations in terms of gun, human and drug trafficking. Meanwhile, border officers are being prevented from doing their jobs when legislation is not even required. The government could give these officers more power tomorrow morning if it wanted to. The Liberal government has indeed been lax on these issues.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Migrant Rights Network said that this bill is anti-refugee and anti-immigrant. Does my colleague agree?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that this bill is anti-refugee and anti-immigrant.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his enlightening speech.

Does my colleague think that Bill C‑2 will improve refugee claim processing times?

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

Madam Speaker, do I have 30 minutes to answer that?

I hope that the answer to my colleague's question is yes; sadly, however, I do not know exactly how that will happen. Is improving processing times really a government objective? I am not convinced that it is.

The fact remains that it is not right for a G7 country to take four, five, six or seven years to process a refugee claim filed in-country. One of them took 12 years to process, which is crazy.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to see you in the chair, and I just want to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

It is with deep gratitude that I rise today on behalf of the people of Kitchener—Conestoga and give my first speech in the 45th Parliament. Standing and speaking in the chamber reinforces the responsibility that I carry as a parliamentarian and as a steward of the trust constituents have placed in me.

I want to begin by thanking everyone who helped me get here today, particularly my family. My wife Brenda, my son Satchel and my daughter Brooklyn have been supportive every step of the way.

This is the third time I have been elected to serve, and it remains an honour. I will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of all the constituents of Kitchener—Conestoga.

We are at a pivotal moment. Our communities are facing challenges in affordability, housing, climate change and global instability, but I believe, as I know my constituents do, that Canada is ready to meet this moment with courage, with compassion and with clarity of purpose.

Kitchener—Conestoga is a riding that reflects the diversity and dynamism of Canada itself. The geography of this riding includes the west end of the vibrant city of Kitchener and the three beautiful townships of Wellesley, Wilmot and Woolwich.

The urban-rural blend brings both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, it fosters innovation, entrepreneurship and a sense of strong community. On the other, it requires thoughtful policy that bridges the needs of urban centres, such as transit and housing, with the priorities of rural communities, such as agriculture, infrastructure and access to services.

Representing such a diverse riding means listening closely, building consensus and ensuring that no voice is left behind. The people of Kitchener—Conestoga know the power of working together. Whether it is in farmers innovating to feed our country, small businesses adapting in a changing economy or newcomers building new lives and enriching our communities, we see every day that progress is possible when we support one another. Whether we are looking forward with innovation or reflecting on the values passed down to us that shaped us, one thing remains constant: the strength of our communities.

In Kitchener—Conestoga, that strength is rooted in a barn-raising mentality inspired by our Mennonite heritage, a spirit of co-operation, selflessness and shared purpose. I experienced that as recently as this past weekend when I attended the New Hamburg Mennonite Relief Sale. This event is a shining example of the spirit of collaboration, where over 2,000 volunteers come together in a remarkable display of generosity and teamwork, raising funds to support relief, development and peace efforts both locally and around the world, through the Mennonite Central Committee.

It is a reminder that when we come together, we can build more than structures. We build trust, resilience and a future that reflects the best of who we are. I am encouraged by the government's commitment to building a stronger, fairer economy, one that works for everyone. Cutting taxes for the middle class, expanding dental care and protecting child care and pharmacare are not just policies. These are lifelines for families working to get ahead.

On the issue of housing, we need bold action. The creation of the “build Canada homes” program and the goal of doubling home construction are steps in the right direction, but we must work together to ensure that these homes are truly affordable and accessible to those who need them the most. That means working together with provinces, municipalities and the private sector, including skilled trades, to get shovels in the ground and roofs over heads.

I welcome the renewed focus on internal trade and labour mobility. Breaking down barriers between provinces will unlock opportunity and help us build one Canadian economy that is stronger together.

We cannot talk about strength without addressing security, because true strength means that our communities feel safe and feel supported. That is why I stand behind measures that enhance public safety, uphold the rule of law and ensure that every resident can live without fear. A strong Canada begins with secure borders. That is why our government has introduced the strong borders act, Bill C-2, legislation designed to give law enforcement the tools they need to keep Canadians safe.

This includes cracking down on transnational organized crime, stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl and strengthening our ability to combat money laundering and human trafficking. The act would enhance the powers of the Canada Border Service Agency, the RCMP and the Canadian Coast Guard to better detect and disrupt criminal activity. It would also improve the integrity of our immigration and asylum systems, ensuring that they remain fair, responsive and resilient in the face of rising global pressures.

This legislation is a key part of our broader plan to build a safer, more secure Canada, one where our communities are protected, our borders are respected and our laws keep pace with evolving threats. At the same time, we must also invest in prevention, mental health supports, youth programs and community initiatives that build trust.

Looking beyond our nation's borders, Canada must lead with the values that define us: equity, compassion, inclusion and co-operation. Hosting the G7 summit this month is a chance to show the world that Canada does not just talk about leadership; we live it. Whether it is providing good governance, addressing climate change or building fair trade relationships, we must lead with integrity.

I am encouraged by our government's renewed dedication to protecting our environment, our parks, waters, wildlife and farmland. It is not just about conservation; it is about identity. It is about ensuring that our children and grandchildren inherit a country as beautiful and bountiful as the one we were blessed with. We have a vision before us, but it is up to us, every member of this House, to turn that vision into reality, to listen to our constituents, to work in a non-partisan way and to never lose sight of why we are here: to serve.

Canadians have entrusted this new government with a clear and urgent mandate to build a strong economy and meet the challenges of our time with purpose and resolve. We are facing a generational moment. Rising global instability, economic uncertainty and the rapid pace of technological change demand a new approach, one that is focused, collaborative and bold.

In the short term, we must act decisively to bring down costs for Canadians, including making housing more affordable. At the same time, we must lay the foundations for long-term prosperity. That means building transformative infrastructure, modernizing our economy and ensuring Canadians have the skills and training to thrive in a rapidly changing world. It means strengthening our partnerships across provinces, with indigenous peoples and with our allies abroad.

We must proactively address global disruption caused by rising protectionism, including the recent waves of U.S. tariffs. These measures threaten Canadian businesses, workers and the very trade relationships that have underpinned our prosperity for decades. We must respond with resilience and strategy by diversifying our trade, investing in domestic capacity and standing firm in defence of fair and open markets.

In every challenge lies an opportunity. As the world navigates uncertainty, Canada has a chance to lead, not just by example but by action. We can be a beacon of stability, innovation and co-operation. Canada has the talent and the vision to shape a better world, not only for us but for everyone.

I am committed to continue being the strong voice for Kitchener—Conestoga, to serving my community with integrity and to standing up for Canada not just in words but through meaningful action every day. With humility, determination and optimism, I will continue to serve the people of Kitchener—Conestoga and work with all members of this House to build a Canada that is more just, more inclusive and more united for the future we all share.

I look forward to questions.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair.

As this is my first time rising in this chamber, I thank the constituents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington for allowing me this opportunity.

As someone of Mennonite faith and heritage, I want to thank the member across the way for his references to the New Hamburg sale, the community and the community spirit. In fact, if someone in my community wanted a ride, I would be more than happy to give them a ride, but I, my immediate family and my extended family have joined the legions of Canadians who have experienced auto theft. In fact, we have had three vehicles stolen in the last eight months from our immediate family. My charitable spirit, I will admit, does not go quite that far.

The member referenced bold action in his speech. It has been 10 years of the Liberal government. There are promises of border enhancement and security. From where do we get the faith for that? We brought an opposition motion last fall for enhanced scanners and enhanced personnel, as was referenced in a Bloc Québécois speech. From where should Canadians get the comfort that these promises are actually serious and going to be carried out?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Chatham–Kent—Leamington. We have worked well together on the agriculture committee for years. He is just down the road from me. I appreciate the question and that he cares about the security of Canadians.

A secure Canada starts with secure borders. As far as moving fast on this bill, Bill C-2, other than the ways and means committee motion, which is Bill C-1, this is as fast as we can move. We heard a clear mandate from Canadians to make sure that we are secure and safe, and Bill C-2 is doing that.

As far as auto theft, this is going to give CBSA more of the tools it needs to combat auto theft, specifically at our ports, so I look forward to that conversation.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑2 gives CBSA officers more power to deal with fentanyl and, notably, vehicle theft. However, without additional staff, this will only solve part of the problem. On April 10, the Prime Minister promised to hire 1,000 additional officers.

When will he finally keep his promise and follow through?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his questions, but I am not yet able to respond in French.

On the legislation, we need to work together to have that passed. We do know we need to support, both in legislation and in funding, our security, like the CBSA and RCMP. That will be in the legislation. I look forward to having that conversation. The short answer is as soon as possible, I hope.

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

Madam Speaker, this is my first opportunity to get in on this debate.

While Canadians, obviously, are looking to the government for a policy that addresses borders, there are a lot of details in this bill. It is an omnibus bill and changes 14 different laws. I am particularly concerned about the sections that would make it impossible for people who might have had refugee status to apply for it now if they have been in Canada sometime for other, legitimate purposes. This bill would need amendments before I can vote for it.

My friend from Kitchener—Conestoga may not know the answer, but given that it is an omnibus bill, is the government prepared to split this bill so that the relevant sections are studied by committees with expertise in immigration and refugee law, and other committees that look at it from the Oceans Act perspective and so on?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. I would also thank her for all her service in the House.

In addressing the idea about splitting the bill, I would have to talk with the House leaders and have that conversation. I am not sure.

The bill is extensive because we need to protect Canadians. We need to make sure we are doing it in a way that gives law enforcement the tools it needs and, at the same time, protects Canadians' privacy. In the early days, we are going to have more discussions about this and more readings, and I look forward to the discussion.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have heard from many police services, police associations and chiefs of police. The number one thing that Canada needs is bail reform. This bill is talking about trying to make Canada safer, but there is nothing in here about bail reform.

Can the member comment on why we are not giving the police associations and the police chiefs what they are really asking for?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to say the bill is too big and not big enough at the same time. The Liberals are trying to strike that balance. I believe we need to work on legislation that addresses what we said we would do, which is sentence reform as well as bail reform.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is with deep humility, great hope and unwavering dedication that I rise today as the voice of the residents of Mississauga East—Cooksville. I wish to begin by offering my sincere congratulations to you, Madam Speaker; it is great to see you in the chair again.

I congratulate all members in the House on their election and re-election. Each of us brings a distinct voice and unique experiences here. While we may sit on different sides of the aisle, we are united by a shared commitment to serve the people who entrusted us to be here and to do all we can to make their lives that much better.

Above all, I want to express my heartfelt thanks to the people of Mississauga East—Cooksville for placing their trust in me to be their representative here in the House. I thank them for opening their doors, sharing their stories and touching me deeply. It is their ideas, their concerns, their dreams for a better future that shape everything I do in this chamber.

I thank my family, my loving wife Christina and our twin boys Sebastien and Alexander, for their unconditional support and love. I thank the volunteers who gave their time, energy and hearts to our campaign. They made this possible, and this moment belongs to them as much as it does to me. I am thankful to my office team for providing the constituents of Mississauga East—Cooksville with great care, respect and service that is second to none.

The world we live in today feels more uncertain than ever. It is fast-moving, more fragile and at times deeply unsettling. Families are feeling the weight of rising prices, struggling to keep up with the cost of living, while at the same time worrying about the safety of their neighbourhoods and the stability of our country. From unpredictable global conflicts and inflationary pressures to U.S. tariffs and threats on our national security, these challenges are not abstract. They are real. They touch the lives of everyday Canadians.

In moments like this, people need to know their leaders are listening, that we understand their fears, that we are working every day to protect their future. With every challenge comes an opportunity, an opportunity to lead with clarity, to act with compassion, to build a future where no one is left behind. Mississauga East—Cooksville, like many communities across Canada, is feeling the weight of these challenges.

A safe Canada is a strong Canada, and that strength starts with ensuring that those who would do harm are stopped in their tracks. From cracking down on organized crime and money laundering to protecting our borders and modernizing our law enforcement tools, we are defending the integrity of our communities and our economy alike, because national security and economic security go hand in hand. When Canadians feel safe, businesses thrive, investments grow and opportunity flourishes. That is why our plan to build a more prosperous Canada begins with a clear-eyed commitment to the safety and security of our communities.

Earlier this week we had the opportunity to witness a moment that reminded me why I believe so deeply in our great country. This week in Saskatchewan, the Prime Minister and premiers from across Canada came together to focus on building and protecting our nation together. They gathered not just to talk but to act, to move forward on nation-building projects that will use the best of what Canada has to offer.

From the steel forged in Hamilton to clean energy solutions from Alberta and advanced manufacturing right in my community of Mississauga East—Cooksville, Ontario, this is a plan that harnesses our full potential as a country. It is about connecting regions, strengthening our economy and creating good jobs in every province and territory. It is about making sure that when Canada builds, we build together.

Even as this important work took place, Saskatchewan was battling devastating wildfires. Families were displaced, communities were under threat, and what we saw was solidarity among our country. We saw our first responders there to help, putting themselves on the line, protecting the lives and livelihoods of so many.

What I saw in Saskatchewan was the very best of our federation: leaders setting aside differences to serve Canadians, a commitment to co-operation that transcends partisanship and a belief that a stronger Canada is not built in isolation but by bringing people and provinces together. When we look out for one another, when we invest in each other, when we build not just for today but for generations to come, Canada is at its strongest.

We will eliminate internal trade barriers that stifle innovation and cost our economy billions each year. In doing so, we will create one strong Canadian economy from 13, driving prosperity in every corner of this great nation.

For this economic prosperity to take root, people must not only feel safe in their local communities, but also feel confident that their country is secure from external threats. Local safety encourages investment, job creation and community development, while national security protects our borders, critical infrastructure and trade routes. When both internal and external threats are effectively addressed, it creates a stable environment where businesses can thrive and families can plan for the future.

In this way, safety and security at home and across our borders are essential pillars of a strong and resilient economy. Security begins at home, and today, Canadians are feeling a growing unease. In our neighbourhoods, families are increasingly concerned about rising crime, particularly auto thefts, home invasions, drug trafficking and repeat violent offences.

In Mississauga East—Cooksville and across the country, we have heard these concerns loud and clear. This is not just about numbers in a report; it is about really investing in our communities and making sure we can provide peace of mind to our citizens.

That is why our new government is taking bold, concrete action to strengthen community safety from every angle.

We will hire 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional Canada Border Services Agency officers. We are going to reform the Criminal Code to make it more difficult for repeat violent offenders to be released on bail, ensuring that dangerous individuals are not returned to our streets prematurely.

At our ports and borders, we are expanding the tools available to the Canada Border Services Agency to intercept illegal goods before they reach our communities, especially the deadly flow of fentanyl precursors and the increasing number of stolen vehicles linked to crime and smuggling rings.

We are going further. Through the strong borders act, we are targeting transnational crime and money laundering, modernizing our immigration system to prevent fraud, and empowering our Coast Guard to protect Canadian sovereignty and disrupt criminal activity at sea.

Before I speak about the importance of safety and security, I must first speak from the heart about something that shook me and those around me to the core: the arson attack on my constituency office. This was not just an attack on a building; it was an attack on the very spirit of democracy, on the belief that we settle our differences through dialogue, not violence and destruction.

I want to sincerely thank our first responders for their quick and courageous actions. I am also deeply grateful to the people of Mississauga East—Cooksville, who reached out with compassion, stood in solidarity and reminded me of the strength and kindness that define our community.

I want to thank my staff, who experienced this trauma first-hand, for their unwavering commitment to public service, their grace and their strength, even in the face of this senseless and malicious act.

Safety and security in our communities and for our country are paramount. Let us be clear: Safety is not a partisan issue. Safety is about ensuring that all of us are able to live safe and secure at home, in the workplace, on the streets and in our democratic institutions. We are all stronger for it. We are Canada strong.

[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.

First, I wish to denounce what happened at my colleague's office, which he referred to. That is unacceptable for anyone in Canada to experience.

Where I take issue with my colleague's speech is that it is straight out of the Liberal playbook of saying, “We're going to, we're going to, we're going to.” Like me, my colleague was here for that, and he may have even been here before I got here. The Liberals say they are going to do all these things on crime. They mocked us for all of these proposals and now are flip-flopping.

How can we have any faith whatsoever that the Liberals are going to take action when they have said that they will not and in fact had ideological opposition? It is largely the same group of Liberals over there.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague and all those in the House, because just earlier today, we saw every member united in the vote on the ways and means motion. I cannot recall the last time that happened, but the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens, everybody, got up, and that is how we have to approach this.

This transcends all political stripes. It is about keeping our communities safe. The member brings up different points, but I hope the member will be supporting this legislation. He should know, and I believe does know and understand, how important it is to law enforcement and how important it is to his citizens and my citizens to make sure they feel safe in their communities and homes and that we have a safer country.

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

Madam Speaker, the bill gives new powers to border services officers, but those already on the ground are overwhelmed. The union even says that they are short 2,000 to 3,000 officers.

Let us start with the Prime Minister's promise. On April 10 during the election campaign, he promised 1,000.

Can my colleague tell me how many new officers have been hired since then? If the answer is zero, when will they start hiring to secure our borders?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to thank our Canada Border Services Agency and all of the officers. They do a commendable job. That is why our government has committed to 1,000 more Canada Border Services Agency agents, even though we already added 1,000 to our border prior to this. This is a historic investment of $1.3 billion, which has never been done before in Canada. We already have a strong border, but this will strengthen and reinforce it. It is the right thing to do.

I hope the member will vote in favour of this legislation, because it will do exactly what he is asking for.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pass on my compliments for your appointment as Assistant Deputy Speaker. It is wonderful to see you in the chair.

I cannot speak without referencing the departmental plans. If I look back as far as 2019, when Ralph Goodale was in this place, and the plans from 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, every single one of them mentions cracking down on fentanyl. One of them, from about four years ago, actually talks about bringing in legislation to ban precursors.

Since the 2019 departmental plan came out, 41,000 Canadians have died from the fentanyl scourge, yet every year we hear the same thing: “We're going to do something, we're going to do something, we're going to do something.” However, nothing has been done.

Why would Canadians believe the government is actually going to do something when its own plans and papers for five or six years have been saying it is going to do something but it has done nothing?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. colleague across the aisle, but he would know that when his party was in government, it was cutting services at our borders. It was looking at trimming everywhere, taking away those opportunities. The precursors change regularly. That is why we need to stay on top of them.

I know my colleague will look for what is in the best interest of his residents and his constituents. What is in their best interest is to vote in favour of this legislation to make sure that it passes through this House so we can bring in more measures to keep our communities safe and secure.

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

Madam Speaker, I echo the comments that have been made welcoming you back to the chair.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to this important piece of legislation, 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. Finally, after a decade of inaction and repeated failures, the Liberals have tabled a so-called strong borders act, which gives the appearance of taking border security more seriously. However, the fact is that this legislation is packed with measures that Canadians did not ask for. It is a travesty that the government has allowed so many problems to fester for so long and cause so much damage to Canadians.

This sweeping piece of legislation, which the government claims will strengthen our border, protect Canada's sovereignty and keep Canadians safe, amends the following acts: the Customs Act; the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, to add fentanyl to schedule V; the Canada Post Corporation Act; the Oceans Act; the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act; the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act; the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act; and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. It also introduces the supporting authorized access to information act, which is one to pay attention to.

For years, the Liberals, knowing we had severe problems at our border with the United States, dragged their feet on addressing any of the issues. In fact, they even lashed out at law-abiding Canadians when they raised concerns about the rise in gun crimes under the Liberal government in the hopes that the Liberals would crack down on criminals and illegal firearms. Instead, the government started targeting law-abiding firearms owners and treated them as if they were dangerous criminals who needed to be dealt with. We all knew that illegal firearms being smuggled across the border to be used by street gangs were what needed to be dealt with. The government needed to stop illegal firearms from crossing the border so they could not be used to rob, injure or kill Canadians.

What did the Liberals do instead? Old habits die hard. The government doubled down on hunters and sport shooters. Sport shooters are now often turned around at the border, and even if they go through the exhaustive paperwork, jumping through all the hoops, they often have equipment wrongfully seized, which takes them months to get back. In the meantime, illegal firearms stream across the border, where CBSA agents, already understaffed, are stretched thin trying to slow the flow.

After a decade of Liberal governance, gun-related crime is up 116%, and 85% of gun offences are committed using illegal firearms from the United States. Canadian security services have also identified 350 organized crime rings operating within our borders, 63 of which have international connections to China, Mexico and other nations.

The Conservatives would like to see the Liberals scrap their failed gun buyback program, which, over four years and $67 million later, has failed to get a single gun off the streets, and redirect this money into stopping illegal firearms from entering the country. That way, the government can target criminals rather than law-abiding Canadians.

After years of the CBSA and Conservatives calling for more resources at the border to combat the multitude of trafficking that occurs, the government had another bright idea: It purchased two Black Hawk helicopters to patrol the border and stop smugglers. On the surface, the purchase of new equipment seems good, but in practical terms, it was another Liberal nothingburger. Our border with the United States is just under 8,900 kilometres. Having two helicopters to cover that large of a distance, even if they are both working at the same time, is a ludicrous proposition. Instead of hiring more CBSA agents to help staunch the flow of illegal firearms and drugs, the Liberals have spent millions of dollars to lease these helicopter for a few months.

The work of our border agents has been continually hampered by the Liberal government, as it has refused to recognize where and what the problems are. The government has been asked repeatedly by border agents, their unions and other Canadians with common sense to give more resources to the CBSA so it can properly staff border crossings and deal with the crime at the border.

While the Liberals would have us believe that there is finally some movement on addressing the serious issues at the border, we must remember that most of the issues were created or exacerbated by 10 years of Liberal incompetence and inaction. The reality is that the Liberals, with the help of their NDP partner, lost control of the border and scrambled to act only when warnings from another country came calling for them to fix their disastrous broken border policy.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill is sweeping legislation. I note that the Liberals have adopted some of the Conservative stance to strengthen border security and crack down on criminals. The government has promised that it will invest $300 million in border investigation and scanners; this is welcome news. Conservatives have been calling, for years, for more resources for our agents at the border to stem the flow of illegal firearms and drugs.

Only 1% of shipping containers are inspected coming into our country, allowing drugs and guns to sneak through in the other 99%. However, true to form, the government has offered no timeline for when the investment would be made and the resources would reach the border. The Liberal track record of making funding announcements and then sitting back and assuming someone else is going to do the job has shown a lack of transparency and trustworthiness. This brings into question the government’s ability to execute on this promise.

Additionally, the past 10 years have shown that the Liberals always find a way to make funding commitments work best for their friends and Liberal insiders. We only need to look back at what happened during COVID, when the Liberal government handed a $237-million contract to its former MP, colleague, and future leadership candidate, Frank Baylis. While that was an obvious conflict of interest, the Liberals pressed on with the contract for ventilators, claiming they were necessary. Then, just a few years later, it quietly came to light that the government had sold the ventilators for pennies on the dollar for scrap. However, it did not matter, because yet another Liberal insider got to pad his pockets.

Another example is the arrive scam scandal. The Liberals seized the opportunity of a crisis to spend at least $60 million on a simple app. After a study at committee and reviews by the procurement ombudsman and the Auditor General, it was clear that the government had funnelled money to fraudulent consultants with no care as to how much it was spending. Last, I want to point to the example of McKinsey, a company that got special access to government contracts because its managing partner at the time, Dominic Barton, was personal friends with Justin Trudeau. McKinsey made $100 million from that relationship, which, again, was found by the Auditor General to be improper. This is why it is so difficult to take the government at its word.

Each one of these procurements was justified as necessary by the government at the time, and each one was plagued by corruption and incompetence.

If we fast-forward to today, the government is promising to spend $300 million on a large procurement project in the midst of a crisis, and I have huge reservations about trusting its judgment when it comes to who those millions of dollars will go to. Will it be another former Liberal MP? Will it be another friend of the prime minister? We have seen the reports that Brookfield firms reached out to the Prime Minister just days after he took office. Will one of these firms receive contracts for the new border initiative?

Another issue with large procurements is that we know that the Prime Minister has financial holdings in companies that he has failed to disclose to Canadians, so it is possible that when these initiatives cross his desk, there may be certain companies that will be looked upon more favourably. Without knowing which companies the Prime Minister has a financial interest in, it is difficult to scrutinize the government spending that he approves. That is why I hope the Prime Minister will disclose his assets sooner rather than later so Canadians can hold his government to account for any favouritism that may be shown in the procurement process.

Along with the bill, we need to see movement on bail and sentencing reform. Many of the issues at the border originate in our cities. Over the past 10 years, there has been a drastic increase in crime across the country. The fentanyl crisis has found a home here in Canada under the Liberal government. Fentanyl superlabs are being set up to ship the deadly drug across Canada and abroad. These superlabs have flourished under the Liberals' watch.

Over the past nine years, over 49,000 Canadians have died from opioid overdose. Despite this number, the Prime Minister has claimed that it is not a crisis but just a challenge. This crisis needs to be addressed, both at the border and in our cities, to combat the flow of fentanyl and its ingredients, which are coming primarily from China and Mexico. By stemming the flow of the ingredients at the border, we can alleviate some of the pressure on our police forces across the country, which are dealing with this crisis.

While measures for the border are needed to crack down on the smuggling of illegal firearms and drugs, we also need to address the issue that is stretching our police forces thin: easy-to-get-bail laws. In 2022, 256 people were killed by someone out on bail. This constitutes 29% of all homicides committed that year. Liberal catch-and-release policies have devastated communities across Canada. We are in desperate need of bail reform, which Conservatives have been calling for for years.

Recently, the Liberals finally admitted their mistake and have agreed that the Conservative push for bail reform is the only way forward. In the throne speech, the Liberals stated, “The Government will bring a renewed focus on car theft and home invasions by toughening the Criminal Code to make bail harder to get for repeat offenders charged with committing these crimes, along with human trafficking and drug smuggling.”

While we have numerous examples of the Liberals' plagiarizing the Conservative platform, one measure that we would encourage them to undertake is adopting our position on bail reform. The past 10 years of soft-on-crime policies and easy bail for violent repeat offenders has caused untold misery across Canada. While it cannot undo the past 10 years of tragedies, the government can alleviate some of the pressure on our police forces by making bail more difficult to get for repeat violent offenders. By keeping these criminals in jail rather than letting them back out onto the street within hours of their arrest, our police would be able to better serve their communities since they would not keep getting calls to deal with the same offenders.

Repeat violent offenders deserve jail, not bail. It is time the Liberals put victims first instead of the criminals who victimized them. I look forward to the day when the government adopts and implements more Conservative policies regarding crime so Canadians can once again live on safe streets and in safe communities.

There are already concerns around privacy being raised regarding the bill. It is always a concern for Canadians when the government asks for sweeping new powers in a large omnibus bill, particularly powers that deal with their privacy and appear to infringe on it. One area that has raised concerns is the section of the bill which would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

By planning to broaden the ability of the government to open mail, outside the current restrictions held within the Canada Post Corporation Act, the Customs Act, and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the government is causing deep concern and anxiety among Canadians about their privacy. The government must ensure that strict rules remain in place and must provide a more comprehensive response as to when this would be justifiable. As my colleague asked earlier today, is this charter-compliant?

Additionally, part 14 of the bill, which would amend the Criminal Code to allow access to basic information from public service providers, would permit peace officers to access certain data without a warrant, and it would relax warrant requirements and streamline data collection. This has come under serious scrutiny as experts have raised concerns about the impact on the privacy of Canadians that it would have. The government must continue its consultations on privacy issues that are being raised with the bill to ensure that innocent Canadians do not have their privacy breached.

I look forward to more robust debate on the bill and to the committee study that will follow. We all know that Canadians are counting on us in this place to make the changes needed to secure our border. After 10 years of mismanagement and a porous border, it is time for the government to reverse its disastrous policies. It is time for it to take border security seriously. Conservatives ran on a promise to secure the border, and we are prepared to support tougher measures, especially those that address the myriad issues created by the past decade of Liberal failures.

As I said, I do look forward to the rest of the debate on the bill, and I look forward to when the bill is referred to committee and the committee undertakes a comprehensive review of the study to see what amendments may come forward in order to address the gaps that often accompany a bill introduced by the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I know that the member cares deeply about this issue. I hope she will support the piece of legislation, as it has been endorsed by many of our policing agencies as being important legislation.

One organization I would like to mention in particular is the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. It has stated that the “proposed changes by the federal government...would reduce barriers Canadian police face when investigating the growing number of online crimes against children”. We have the full support of that organization, which has stated, and as we know today, that cybercrimes have evolved at a pace that government has not been able to keep up with.

I wonder whether the member would agree with that, whether she finds that subscriber information and data privacy issues are really important, and whether it is really important to make these changes so we can keep up with the criminals.

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

Madam Speaker, while I do not live in a border community, I know that the issues that stem from not having a secure border are far-reaching across our country. There are myriad issues that need to be addressed. As I stated in my speech, the bill would amend nine acts and introduce a new one. It is a large omnibus bill with many different aspects that would have knock-on effects. As always, the devil is in the details.

It is important that we have a robust debate and study the bill intensely at the proper committee. Concerns have been raised about the bill, and I am sure will continue to be raised as more people are consulted and review the legislation. I look forward to hearing what the results of those consultations are.

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

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague and congratulate her on her re-election.

Under the Harper government, there were plans to cut the number of officers at the border. That is what it says in CBSA's 2015 report on plans and priorities. Now that the Conservative Party is in opposition, it seems to have taken the opposite position. They agree that we need more staff to have more security at the borders.

I would like my colleague to simply explain to me why it was a priority to reduce staff when the Conservative Party was in government, but now that they are in opposition, they agree with increasing staff.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the premise of that question. Conservatives have always been concerned with security at our border. We have long been calling for decisive action to protect Canada's borders, and we continue to do so.

The government has been in government for 10 years, and it took 10 years for it to introduce this piece of legislation. We know that it is coming at the eleventh hour and that time is of the essence in order to get the legislation through the House and potentially passed.

I do understand that the Liberals would like this to happen quickly, but we are not going to rush this. We are going to take the time to look at the legislation to make sure that it addresses all the issues that need to be addressed. It will get the scrutiny it deserves.

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

Madam Speaker, the election was on April 28. We have a new Prime Minister and a new government. This is bill number two, the very first piece of legislation.

Now, if the member wants to reflect on past governments, I remember that it was Stephen Harper who actually cut hundreds of millions of dollars for border control, not to mention the border control officers who were cut from the system. She was a part of that government. The bill before us would do the absolute opposite of what Stephen Harper did, and she knows that.

My question is very simple: Will the member join with the Canadian Police Association, which represents thousands of law enforcement officers on the street today who are in support of the legislation? Will the Conservative Party support the legislation today and see it go to committee sooner as opposed to later?

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

Madam Speaker, there it is: exactly what I said in response to the previous question.

The Liberals want us to believe that they are new, a new Prime Minister and new government, but they are not. They have been in power for 10 years and did nothing to address the issues regarding border security. They keep hearkening back to a decade ago. They have had a decade to do what needed to be done, to do what Canadians have been calling on them to do.

As I have stated, I know the Liberals want to ram the legislation through. As in many cases in the past, the imperative is created, and we have to get it done because they did not get it done over the last 10 years.

[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.

Before I begin, I want to recognize a young man named Jasper Phillips, who recently received the Chief Scout's Award for fundraising for robotics kits of over $1,000. We thank him for his service.

I always really enjoy speaking with my hon. colleague. I was just looking at a report from Staff Sergeant Josh Roda of the Merritt RCMP, a community of 7,000. Staff Sergeant Roda reported that the Merritt RCMP have already seized 69 firearms this year, two just this last month, with one being a sawed-off shotgun. This is what we need to address, in my view. The bill would do none of that. Would my hon. colleague agree?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has been very instrumental in reviewing this piece of legislation, and I absolutely agree with his observations. We have heard more stories like the one he just cited for us in this place. The government needs to ensure that the legislation is going to be robust, and, as opposition, we are going to do the same in addressing the concerns that he just cited.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is really troubling to me that the Liberal government is trying to push through an omnibus bill of over 120 pages. I am wondering if the member agrees with me that perhaps we need to push the government to ensure that we can look at the legislation separately and get it out of an omnibus bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I do agree with my colleague.

Despite the title of the bill, as I mentioned in my speech, it would go beyond its stated aim to secure our borders. It is a sweeping piece of legislation that stretches far beyond immigration, national security and securing our borders, and I do think it is an attempt to use the guise of border security to push through other unrelated measures and that the Liberals are hoping Canadians are not paying attention.

I would suggest that, as consultations are undertaken when the bill is referred to committee, each member of that committee, and certainly the opposition, should be calling for time to review this piece of legislation, every piece of it, in order to make sure that it addresses the concerns for which it is intended.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I give my question, I want to put something to rest, I hope once and for all.

We have heard the member for Winnipeg North and others repeat the same false narrative about everything being okay that they have not done in the last 10 years because of Harper's cuts. I would like him, the Liberals and everyone in this House to take a look at the public accounts. These are non-partisan numbers put forward by the government. These are real numbers on spending.

Adjusted for Liberal inflation, the Liberals are actually spending $200 million less on CBSA than when they took over, so the government should actually end that false narrative, stop misinforming Canadians and actually start spouting the truth about what is going on at the border.

I wonder if my colleague could answer this: Why does she think the government is pushing a false narrative instead of answering important questions today on this debate about the border bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the attention that the member pays to the financial reports. I know that numbers do not lie, and I agree with him that it is time the Liberals came clean and admitted to their failures of the last 10 years.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

During the election campaign, Canadians across the country asked us to take concrete measures to build a safer Canada. We have heard them, and we take the issues of protecting our borders and cracking down on crime very seriously. That is why, at the beginning of this new Parliament, we introduced Bill C‑2, the strong borders act.

I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, who sponsored this bill, as well as all my other ministerial colleagues who contributed to it, for the quality of their work on this important issue for Canadians. Over the next few minutes, I will explain why I support this essential bill, which will enable us to advance our government's priorities of keeping Canadians safe by strengthening Canada's border, fighting transnational organized crime and improving the integrity of Canada's immigration system.

The first objective of this bill is to make our border more secure. This is an especially important issue for me as the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, a riding with five border crossings. I want to point out that Canada's borders are already strong and secure and that CBSA staff do remarkable work. I want to commend them for the work they do every day to protect our borders. During the election campaign, I had the opportunity to meet many of these border services officers at various community activities in my riding and discuss their important work with them. Through Bill C‑2, we will make our borders even stronger. We will do that by making it easier for border officers to examine goods destined for export that are crossing the border and to intercept more drugs, guns and stolen vehicles as they leave Canada. For example, border officers will have more power to inspect containers destined for export and prevent car theft rings from smuggling stolen vehicles out of the country. During the election campaign, I heard many stories about stolen vehicles, like that of a young entrepreneurial couple from my riding, who work hard to earn a living and who, upon returning from vacation, found that their truck had disappeared from their hotel's long-term parking lot. We need to increase the responsible authorities' capacity to fight this type of crime. It is also important to understand that the strong borders act complements our other measures to strengthen our borders. Once passed, this legislation will strengthen Canada's border plan, which involves funding of $1.3 billion, the largest investment in border security in Canadian history. When we talk about strengthening our country's security, it is not just talk. We are taking real action.

We are also taking important steps to preserve the integrity of our immigration system while honouring our humanitarian commitments. Canadians expect us to maintain a strong, effective immigration system well suited to present conditions. That is why we made changes to create two ineligibility measures in the asylum system. The goal is to reduce pressure on the system and deter those who may seek to abuse it. Let me reiterate, however, that we will do this while upholding our humanitarian traditions and ensuring that refugees who genuinely need protection can get it.

The second objective of Bill C‑2 is to combat transnational organized crime and fentanyl. We understand that a strong Canada requires strong crime prevention measures. That is why we are taking steps to prevent crime, give police the tools they need to fight it, and hold criminals accountable for their actions. Opioids are wreaking havoc across the country. Thousands of lives are being lost; not a day goes by without hearing heartbreaking stories of lives cut short. We cannot remain indifferent to this situation, and we must act. That is why we will continue our efforts to stop the flow of fentanyl. In particular, we will further empower law enforcement agencies in the fight against the production and trafficking of illicit drugs. We will allow law enforcement agencies to search goods crossing the border. We will facilitate the listing of precursor chemicals in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to prevent their importation and illegal use. We will also allow the police to search for, intercept and seize drugs and other prohibited items that are being shipped through the postal system. To that end, we will amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

This bill will also strengthen our ability to prosecute transnational child sex offenders. To do this, we are amending the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to improve the RCMP's ability to share information with its national and international partners.

The third pillar of our bill is to stop illicit financing by strengthening our ability to fight money laundering and stop the flow of financial proceeds from organized crime to deprive it of its illegal profits.

Our government was elected on a platform of protecting and defending Canadians from foreign threats, which includes protecting our financial system. We will therefore impose tougher penalties for financial crimes. We will also facilitate the exchange of information between Canada's largest banks and law enforcement agencies responsible for combatting money laundering, so that banks can receive and use the information sent to them by the RCMP.

As such, Bill C-2 is an important step forward in implementing our plan to build a safer Canada. This bill strengthens law enforcement's ability to detect and investigate serious crimes, while respecting the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the rule of law. It is important to stress that the amendments we are proposing have been carefully crafted to balance privacy interests with the tools law enforcement needs to fulfill their mandate.

By implementing these rigorous measures, the Government of Canada will strengthen security at our borders while increasing safety in our communities. These measures will also show our international partners that Canada takes seriously our shared responsibility to combat fentanyl, car theft, human trafficking and transnational organized crime.

In conclusion, protecting our borders and fighting crime and illicit financing are issues that transcend party lines. Canadians have high expectations of us. They expect us to work together with the seriousness that the issues we are addressing demand.

Like all my colleagues on the government side, I will support this important bill. I hope that all other members of the House will work with us constructively to pass this bill, which is essential to making Canada stronger, safer and more secure.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think I have had a chance to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean said earlier, I am happy to see you again. You are my favourite too, so it is good to see you again.

I was also pleased to hear our new colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche say that he will support Bill C‑2. I am glad to hear that. However, I would add that, since this is a government bill, I would imagine that he does not really have a choice in the matter.

That said, I appreciated his passion, and I congratulate him on his speech, but there is something in the bill that concerns me.

I am talking about respect for privacy and people's information. The bill proposes allowing Canada Post, among other entities, to inspect mail and packages sent to citizens. I understand the objective and I agree with it.

However, how does my colleague intend to respond to the concerns of citizens who will be surprised by the fact that the government wants to open their mail and monitor their parcels? I get the feeling that there will be an outcry at some point.

I would like to know whether the Liberals are anticipating such an outcry. How are they going to respond to it, and how are they going to reassure people in that regard?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this bill. It will implement strict measures to strengthen security at our borders while making our communities safer.

To be clear, these amendments have been carefully crafted to strike a balance between privacy concerns and the tools that law enforcement needs to carry out its mandate.

The bill strengthens law enforcement's ability to detect and investigate serious crimes, while upholding the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We can strengthen our border security and fight crime while respecting the fundamental rights of our citizens.

As a government, we are committed to building a safer and more secure Canada. That is what we are doing.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things I am concerned about is this. It is great to know that we are hiring more law enforcement officials, but has the government read the Mass Casualty Commission report on the Portapique shootings and the quite substantial recommendations that RCMP officers need more extensive and better training that lasts years?

Are we going to see the implementation of the Mass Casualty Commission report recommendations before hiring more RCMP officers, who will, according to the Mass Casualty Commission, lack the training to save lives?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important question.

In the recent election campaign, Canadians asked us to bring in measures to strengthen security in Canada and fight crime. That is what we are doing. To demonstrate how seriously we are taking this matter, in the first weeks of this Parliament, we introduced Bill C-2, which includes several strong measures to strengthen our border and fight crime here at home. This is a first step.

Our election platform and the Speech from the Throne both include a number of other measures to fight crime and keep Canadians safe.

This is a first step, and I would say that it is a big step forward in our plan to make Canada an even safer and more secure country.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy that someone brought up the issue of the casualty report. One of the items, specifically, was a lack of heavy body armour. We had an Order Paper question come back just recently, about a year ago, which was 10 years after the mass casualty issue, where the government has still not provided heavy body armour to the RCMP.

The government is repeatedly saying that it is going to add 1,000 RCMP officers, but there is no commitment to provide the heavy body armour, even for the existing ones. The government has not provided the heavy body armour to existing, much less additional, ones. In fact, it does not even know how much heavy body armour is available, because it has to put out an RFP, apparently, to hire a consultant to count how many items it has for the heavy body armour.

I wonder if my colleague across the way would commit, to the House, to talk to the minister to ensure that the RCMP officers are provided with the heavy body armour they require.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, as I said, Bill C‑2 is an ambitious bill containing several crime-fighting measures. We want to give our law enforcement agencies more flexible tools so they can take effective action to combat crime in our communities and make Canada safer and more secure.

That means we will introduce more concrete measures. For example, the Liberal platform includes more resources for the RCMP. It is a commitment to make Canada stronger and safer.

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

Madam Speaker, now that I am not as crunched for time as I am in question period or at other opportunities, I would like to congratulate you on your reappointment as Assistant Deputy Speaker.

I also want to thank the constituents of Brampton North—Caledon for electing me for a fourth mandate. I am committed to making sure that their voices are heard and that the issues they brought up to me during the election and in years prior are worked on effectively and efficiently. I want to thank my campaign team and my family at home, who have always supported me completely.

I will now start my remarks on Bill C-2, the bill we are talking about today. This is a wonderful opportunity, and it allows me to fulfill some of the commitments I have made to my constituents. As the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, I am really proud to play a role in supporting this government's initiative to keep Canada and our communities safe and secure.

In April, Canadians gave this House a mandate to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. Our country has professional, highly trained and hard-working security personnel. However, it is clear that the current tools and policies are insufficient to effectively counter the modern and emerging threats and challenges we face today.

Now is the time for action. We must do more to equip our law enforcement and intelligence agencies with the latest tools and technologies, do more to stop transnational organized crime from damaging communities and destroying lives with illegal guns and weapons, and do more to enable collaboration and information sharing among our security agencies, law enforcement partners and international allies.

Bill C-2 is a crucial legislative step we must take to secure our border, support law enforcement and improve community safety. This government's top priority is to keep our communities safe and our economy thriving. Both of these objectives depend upon decisive measures to combat crime and keep our border safe and secure. The effects of improving our border security will be felt in cities and towns across Canada. By giving border officers the authority to search goods for export, we are ensuring they have additional tools to recover stolen vehicles and seize illegal firearms and drugs.

This legislation is building on the Government of Canada's $1.3-billion investment in border security through our Canada border plan. This spending is helping our law enforcement and intelligence agencies investigate and prosecute transnational organized crime groups, which have become increasingly more sophisticated in their use of new technologies like drones, 3-D printers and encrypted communications to carry out cross-border crimes.

We cannot have a strong border without good intelligence. The border plan has built up our information and intelligence-sharing capacity among federal, provincial and territorial authorities, as well as with our international partners. Investment in drones, helicopters, sensors and other detection technologies ensures that we are effectively monitoring our whole border.

We will continue to work with Canada's fentanyl czar to coordinate all levels of government and law enforcement to dismantle these networks. To support that aim, we have taken a major step in the fight against organized crime by listing seven transnational criminal cartels as terrorist entities under our Criminal Code. Listing is an important tool that helps support criminal investigations and strengthens the RCMP's ability to prevent, disrupt and prosecute criminal activities.

It is now time to take our efforts further through legislation. Bill C-2 would improve the tools and authorities that Canadian law enforcement needs to fight crime. For instance, communities across Canada have been shocked by the increase in deaths caused by illegal fentanyl. Fentanyl's devastating effect can be felt on individuals, families and communities. Every member of this House knows someone who has been affected by this public health crisis. Through this proposed act, our work to secure the border, we are tackling the fentanyl crisis and its precursors head-on. To increase our detection capabilities, we are training and deploying new border detector dogs that specialize in uncovering smuggled drugs.

Amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act would allow police to search and seize contraband such as fentanyl from Canada Post mail with a general warrant. This charge would help indigenous communities and rural municipalities in their efforts to intercept dangerous illegal drugs that are clandestinely shipped through the mail.

Canada recently demonstrated it can move quickly to ban precursor chemicals used in the production of fentanyl via the temporary accelerated scheduling pathway under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Bill C-2 proposes amendments that would allow chemicals in this pathway to quickly be regulated under the precursor control regulations.

It is clear that we must strengthen our laws to disrupt the supply of illegal drugs both within Canada and around the world. This important step would give the government and law enforcement the ability to stay ahead of those who would profit from fentanyl production and distribution.

Furthermore, we are creating a new Canadian drug analysis centre that would allow for a more specialized analysis of synthetic drug samples. This centre would be able to go beyond simply identifying the components of a sample and would instead look at markets to determine how and where the substances were manufactured. Knowing that transnational organized crime groups depend on illicit money to keep their operations going—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. secretary of state will have three and a half minutes left after question period.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the strong borders act would choke off organized crime groups from profits stemming from drug and firearms, trafficking and human smuggling. We will continue to make the safety and security of Canadians and our country a priority.

Canadians know the true value of the rule of law. We would be protecting that with the bill before us. We are proposing the legislation to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence at all levels would have the tools, authority and resources they need to do their job and to keep pace with new and sophisticated methods used by criminal organizations.

By strengthening our border, we would stamp out the traffic in illegal firearms and fentanyl. New provisions concerning lawful access and intelligence sharing would empower our law enforcement agencies and security agencies to intercept stolen vehicles and dismantle organized crime networks involved in things like extortion and child exploitation. I can assure members that we will never stop putting the safety of our communities first.

Canadians are calling out for decisive action, and we are here to deliver. Already, law enforcement agencies and security organizations are coming out in support of the legislation. For instance, the Canadian Police Association has described Bill C-2's provisions as “crucial” and concluded that, “If passed, this proposed legislation would provide critical new tools for law enforcement, border services, and intelligence agencies to address transnational organized crime, auto theft, firearms, drug trafficking, and money laundering.”

The updates would help ensure that Canadian police officers have the tools and intelligence they need to hold offenders accountable regardless of where they operate. The bill is an important first step in the current Parliament's efforts to combat crime. Canadians expect us to act; let us not let them down.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly we all want to cut down on crime and resolve the issues at the border.

As the shadow minister for civil liberties, I have one question for the member. There is a measure in the bill that talks about Canada Post and the employees having the ability to open mail and potentially seize it. In light of our charter right to ensure no unwarranted search and seizure, I wonder what criteria would be applied. What would be the threshold to allow Canada Post workers to do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, if I say it here today, I do not think members and most Canadians would believe it: Even with a warrant, our authorities are unable to search Canada Post mail. The bill would allow the authorities to access a general warrant from a court so they could capture fentanyl or parts being imported to modify guns for people to make their own assault rifles here in Canada.

These are very important measures we need to give law enforcement in order to keep our streets safe. I think Canadians expect us to have these provisions in place.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's question.

If this bill moves forward, what criteria would allow Canada Post employees to open mail: suspicion? Reasonable grounds?

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

Mr. Speaker, the police authorities would have to access a warrant from the court. It would not be the case that Canada Post employees would randomly open up pieces of mail. This would give our policing authorities, the CBSA, and the RCMP in particular, the ability to get a warrant in order to open the mail. It is currently being done with FedEx, Purolator and all other types of mail. The only restriction was with Canada Post, so this would be in line with all the other methods we have in place.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation was introduced just this week, and constituents in the riding of Waterloo have already become very engaged, which speaks to its importance and the need for it. They also hear a lot of the commentary being shared in regard to the charter.

What was exciting today, listening to the debate, was that the opposition, the Conservative Party, on two occasions now, has asked for a charter statement. I remember when our government started with charter statements. They labelled them in many different ways, but today are recognizing the need for us to protect our rights and freedoms, and with rights and freedoms come responsibilities.

My question is one that a constituent in the riding of Waterloo asked, which is whether the secretary of state can just clearly and understandably explain what the legislation would do for Canadians and what it would not do for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, that question is excellent. We have been talking about the crime that is prevalent in our communities, like auto theft, as well as criminal organizations trafficking guns, human trafficking, all these different types of things.

This bill would give law enforcement the ability to modernize and keep up with the new techniques that criminal organizations are using, especially those that are exploiting our children. It has been a long time since we have modernized our acts and the authorities that we give law enforcement. I think that is very important.

There are safeguards in place. There are safeguards to each measure. We have to have reasonable suspicion in some cases, and in other cases we have to have court oversight. Courts will oversee this whole process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have read Bill C-2. I am going to address gun crime again. Let us get to the facts here. The guns are here and crimes are being committed. People are getting shot. There were records set in my city. I do not read anything in this bill that would curb that.

Will the Liberals repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75? Catching criminals was never the problem; it is keeping them in jail.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in question period today, the provinces have a very important role to play when it comes to the administration of justice. If somebody is a public threat to society, at risk of reoffending or at risk of flight, the law currently states that they should not receive bail. I believe the provinces should also do their part. We are going to do ours.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise in debate for the first time in this 45th Parliament, I would like to present colleagues with some statistics about what a rare and unique privilege it is to serve in this place, if they will give me the floor.

Of the millions upon millions of people who have lived in Canada throughout its entire history, fewer than 5,000 individual Canadians have served as members of Parliament. Of that number, fewer than 450 have been women, and of that number, by my count anyway, fewer than 40 Canadian women in the history of our country have been chosen to serve as a member of Parliament for five or more terms.

On April 28, 2025, I was honoured to be re-elected by my constituents and joined the ranks of some of those giants, women like Agnes Mcphail, Flora MacDonald, Ellen Fairclough, Rona Ambrose, Sheila Copps and Alexa McDonough. The gravity and honour of standing here, once again, is hitting a little harder this time around.

I am here on behalf of, and thanks to, another special and unique group of people, the people of Calgary Nose Hill, who are unique and special in this particular area of Canadian history too. The people I represent, in a riding that has existed for decades, have only ever elected a woman into federal office. Prior to me, my predecessor, Diane Ablonczy, served as a member of Parliament in an even more select group: women who have served as members of Parliament for seven or more terms.

Getting here has meant that I have had to learn a lot of lessons: how to win primaries, the value of having my dogma challenged, how to earn the trust of my community and my colleagues, how to survive being in a government after an election loss and how to thrive in opposition, how to navigate leadership changes, which battles to pick and which ones to walk away from, but most importantly, how to be humble while refusing to let my voice be silenced.

With that, I would like to acknowledge the six other women in the 45th Parliament who are now part of the “been around for a hot minute and have seen some things” five terms or more club: the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, the member for Vancouver Centre, the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, the member for Humber River—Black Creek and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I thank my husband Jeff, my family, my staff, my volunteers and the good people of Calgary Nose Hill, with a special and deeply profound thanks to Sean Schnell, his wife Leeta and their children Charlize and Easton for bringing me to this place today.

Colleagues, I pledge the true pledge of being a member of Parliament: to do my job, which is to hold the government to account to the best of my ability. Let us begin.

I rise today in debate on Bill C-2, a 160-page omnibus bill from the Liberal government that raises serious concerns about the capacity of the government to address several crises of its own making. These were not problems prior to the Liberal government taking office in 2015: a rapid influx of migrants that Canada's social and economic infrastructure could not sustain; an open and porous border; and an illegal drug production, trafficking and addiction crisis.

I would like to start with the issue of Canada's fentanyl crisis, because it is important context for new colleagues to understand how we got here. A decade of ultra-progressive policies juiced a deadly problem that really came into prevalence in late 2015. At that time, precisely the same time that the Canadian political landscape changed, Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau had a farther left platform, to put it mildly, than his predecessor government. In 2017, an ultra-left version of the NDP, led by the late premier John Horgan, formed government at the subnational level in the province of British Columbia, the region hardest hit by the drug.

Prior to 2015, right-of-centre governments favoured a crackdown on criminal activity related to the emerging problem of fentanyl, coupled with enhanced recovery programs for addicts. However, Trudeau's incoming government, as well as Horgan's in British Columbia, all had long-held beliefs that so-called harm reduction, taxpayer-funded hard drugs and the effective legalization of hard drug possession were superior public policy alternatives on hard drug crime to those of their predecessors on the political right. Between 2015 and 2023, these governments went on to usher in a dramatic shift away from government policy that focused on criminalizing hard drug production and trafficking.

At the federal level, the Liberal government expanded access to hard drug injection sites, ended mandatory minimum penalties for major hard drug offences and softened bail criteria for all crimes, including those related to the production and trafficking of hard drugs. A currently sitting Liberal member of Parliament even went as far as to table a bill that aimed to fully legalize all hard street drugs across the country.

Then, in 2021, British Columbia's NDP government formally applied for a subsection 56(1) exemption under Canada's Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, requesting permission to effectively legalize possession of hard drugs, including fentanyl. In early 2022, Trudeau's federal Liberal government approved the request and allowed for a three-year pilot program. The program was expansive. The government even went as far as to set guidelines that would have allowed recreational fentanyl to be legally provided to children. The results were deadly.

There are people across the aisle who will get their backs up on this situation, but it is the reason we have zombie-like people walking across the streets of urban Canada and rural Canada. Our mothers, our daughters, our husbands, everybody from every demographic has been touched by the crisis that was caused by these extremely failed, ill-sighted policies that literally everybody was telling the Liberals were wrong, but they persisted.

Today, we have this omnibus bill in front of us. As the Liberals did in the former Parliament with Bill C-63, the so-called online harms bill, this bill is trying to suggest to Canadians a false dichotomy: that Canadians have to choose between their civil liberties and fixing epic messes with deadly consequences that the Liberal government set up. That is a false dichotomy and something that this place should reject.

I am going to briefly talk about two components of the bill. I am going to talk about some of the border issues and immigration, and then I want to talk about the civil liberties component very briefly.

This bill is a missed opportunity, on the fentanyl and addiction crisis, to address the real problems of how we got here: the Liberals' catch-and-release bail policies. They could have tabled a bill on that, but they did not, so we are now forced to review this omnibus legislation without understanding whether or not the Liberals are going to address the true cause of this problem: the fact that they do not penalize people who produce these drugs.

The Liberals could have increased penalties for people who produce these drugs. As the leader of the Conservative Party said during the election, these are mass murderers, and they should be treated as such. The Liberals also failed to put in place compassionate measures that would allow for life-saving intervention for people who have lost agency due to addiction.

These are the measures that we need to actually stop the drug production crisis in Canada. Are there other things? Sure there are. Are there things in this bill that Parliament could look at? Sure, but again, the Liberals have purposely structured a bill where Canadians have to choose between their civil liberties and trying to fix a deadly mess that the Liberals made.

On immigration, here is a little history for colleagues who are new to this place. The Canadian consensus on immigration can be boiled down to this: Do not bring more people into the country than our social and economic infrastructure can handle. By that I mean our health care system, our education system, and our capacity to provide language acquisition and provide jobs and housing as well. That is the basic consensus that our pluralism is based on, because if people are housed, if they have access to work, if they have access to health care and if they can speak one of Canada's official languages, then pluralism can be maintained, but the Liberals broke that promise.

I remember that in 2016, first of all, the Liberal government essentially implied that I was racist for suggesting that the Liberals should not lift the visa requirement on Mexico, because there would be false asylum claims made. Guess what: It was like I was Cassandra, doomed to know the future and have the Liberals call me racist. Honestly, what did the Liberals have to do last year? They had to reverse the visa imposition on Mexico. Then there was the next Cassandra moment. I said that maybe we should not let people who have reached the safety of upstate New York illegally cross the border into Canada and then claim benefits here while their asylum claims, which will likely be rejected, linger for years in Canada's broken asylum system, which the Liberals broke.

I said that maybe we should close the loophole in the safe third country agreement. Once again, the implication was that Canada was anti-immigrant if we were to suggest that we restore order, balance and fairness. There are people who apply legally to come into Canada, who do everything right, are waiting for years and never get the chance to come here, or they want their children to come here. The government essentially rolled out the red carpet at Roxham. There was literally a red carpet with the RCMP pulling the luggage across the border and “#WelcomeToCanada”.

What do members think happened when the Liberals sent the message “#WelcomeToCanada” to people who were already in upstate New York? They enabled an industry of people. There were human traffickers telling people how to make their way into Canada. What happened was that our asylum system was broken. It was abused.

Now, the Liberals have this bill, which has a few minor provisions that would do a couple of things that I am concerned about. It would delegate more authority to the minister in vague ways, and it would delegate more responsibility into regulation. If there are problems with the system, why are they not just laying it out in this legislation to make it clear so that we will not have endless judicial appeals, which is also part of the problem here? People could appeal and appeal because too much authority would be put onto the minister, and there is vagueness and an endlessly changing regulatory structure. That is part of the problem here too. I need to look at this bill in more detail on those provisions to understand what is happening here.

There was the minister's performance in question period. She should get someone to practise with her. This is not going to get easier for her. Seriously, this is too big of an issue. She needs to be able to understand and explain why Canadians should vest more power in a minister who does not even know the numbers that are on her own website.

The bigger problem that I have with the immigration provisions in the bill is that they do not address the bigger problem that is facing Canada's immigration system right now, which is that the government does not track exits. Did members know that the government does not coordinate information to track when people leave the country? It does not publicly disclose when people who are on expired visas, or who have deportation orders, actually leave. There is no way for parliamentarians to look into the data to see whether the government has enabled people to leave the country when they have no legal right to be here.

What happens in that situation? First of all, it sends a message to the world that they can have all of the processing on the front end, but there is no consequence on the back end if they do not have a legal right to be in the country. It incentivizes people to come here because they know the system can be abused.

The second thing that happens is that it pushes people underground. It creates an underground economy. We have to have empathy for people who come to Canada because there is a promise of Canada. We cannot blame the housing crisis, the health care crisis and the jobs crisis on people who are drawn to our country and our pluralism by every promise that makes it good. We have to blame the Liberal government for failing the system so badly that people feel their only option is to go underground, into an underground economy where they live in slave-like working conditions.

That happens here in Canada. It happens because the Liberal government has failed so profoundly on this file with minister after minister for a decade. The fact that in this bill the Liberals did not have any sort of plan to departure-track, to coordinate information across departments that already gather this information, and to express to Canadians and people who are here on expired visas how they will enable them to leave the country is only going to exacerbate the problem, particularly with the vagueness in some of these provisions. That is a huge problem. Again, I do not understand why the Liberals would have put in this border component, and all of these missed opportunities and the immigration component with the following.

There are some pretty big poison pills when it comes to civil liberties that every Canadian should be concerned about. If passed, Bill C-2 would allow CSIS, police and peace officers to demand personal information from online service providers without a warrant, based only on vague suspicions of potential crimes or legal breaches based on any act of Parliament.

The Liberals today said that it is not personal information and we should not worry about it, but guess what. Whether or not I use an online service, or where I use an online service, if I depart from an online service, start an online service or use an online service for an amount of time, everything that Bill C-2 says it would do involves my personal information. That is none of the government's business, certainly not without a warrant. There has to be a line drawn here.

The government has severely under resourced our information-gathering departments. Sure, it takes time to get a warrant, but most police departments, after the “defund the police” movement, are so underfunded that they do not have cybercrime units. Now the government is trying to shortcut this by taking away the civil liberties of law-abiding Canadians, and that is not right. At the end of the day, like anything else the government does when it comes to removing civil liberties, it is law-abiding Canadians who get punished, not the criminals.

When I read this bill, I see a road map of ways for criminals to avoid being tracked on where they could legally do this snooping stuff. What is going to happen? Hardened criminals who understand how to get around the system are going to get around the system, and then a government, which unlawfully used the Emergencies Act, froze Canadians' bank accounts, introduced censorship bills Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and introduced Bill C-63, wants to insert itself. Can members imagine if the Liberals were to retable Bill C-63, with all of their suspicion of hate crime stuff? That bill would couple with this bill to form a mega Voltron of censorship and oppression. I am not being hyperbolic. The government has, over and over again, at every opportunity, taken away Canadians' freedom of speech. Every bill that it has passed has been designed to control speech. My constituents should not have to make that choice.

I am going to bet I know what happened with this bill. Some of these departments have had this policy sitting on the shelf for literally years and more savvy ministers have said, “Not today.” More savvy PMOs have said no, but there is a green minister, a green Prime Minister and a perfect cover, which is the fentanyl crisis. Some bureaucrats said that this is harmonizing with other things and that it is not going to have a big implication on Canadian civil liberties, and these guys fell for it. They did not politically question this. They did not think about what was in the best interests of their constituents.

How do I know that? The Liberals did not put a charter statement in for this. I cannot wait to see that charter statement. It is going to be dance, dance, kitty, dance, I am sure of it. I am positive, because the information that I talked about is personal information. Even if this bill passes, I guarantee it will be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court.

It is not just that. My colleagues have talked about Canada Post opening mail. Was Canada Post consulted on this provision? I heard it was not. My colleagues heard that Canada Post found out about this after the bill was tabled. How are Canada Post employees going to deal with opening up fentanyl envelopes? That is new. What about the telco companies that this provision would affect? There are things in the bill that give the government unfettered access into telecommunications companies. I am no fan of Canada's telcos' oligopoly, but where we can agree to agree is that I do not want the Liberal government further inserting itself into the management of Canada's telecommunications companies.

There is another concerning component as well, which I saw this morning. The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group is sounding the alarm about provisions in Bill C-2 with respect to powers to allow the government to request information from foreign entities. This raises an important question: Will the government allow for reciprocal requests from foreign governments? Let us say Bill C-63 were to pass, too. Even if it does not, Bill C-2 can have these snooping provisions and would let foreign governments reciprocate on snooping provisions with all the foreign influence stuff that we have had without a foreign agent registry under this geopolitical situation. The fact that there is nothing in the bill that says what this means is crazy.

Also, the government has not shown Canadians any specific situation, evidence or circumstance in granular detail about why we should be giving up our civil liberties to a government that unlawfully used the Emergencies Act and imposed draconian censorship bills, which resulted in news bans in this country. I will not do it. I think the one thing that all of my colleagues from all opposition parties can agree on is this: There are elements in this bill that are worthy of further study that might help fix the mess that the Liberals have made, but we should not have to choose between civil liberties and keeping our country safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody in the House listens carefully to what my colleague has to say because she has a lot of experience with a lot of legislation and everything that she said is right on the money.

I want to follow up on some of the civil liberties issues she was pointing out and ask her about not only some of the things that are in the bill that impact people's privacy rights but also some of the language in the bill that talks about, if the government suspects money laundering, it could potentially get someone's financial information. This, of course, gives shades of the issue of freezing bank accounts.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government put this bill out and did not explain to Canadians specific instances or why Canadians should be giving up these liberties. I do not think we should be giving them up. It is completely unreasonable for the government to say “just trust us” when there is an entire burden of proof that we should not ignore.

I remember the former finance minister, during her description of why the government unlawfully used the Emergencies Act, and she essentially said it was to suspend the rights for financial transactions for Canadians. The whole promise of Canada is freedom, and we do not have—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing that the member stands up with a speech that is literally riddled with conspiracy theories from all extremes. She gives the impression that we are going to have Canada Post workers opening up every envelope. She is saying, “Canadians, be aware that this is going to happen,” as though she is giving a warning to every Canadian. She needs to get a grip on real life.

Even the Canadian Police Association has come out saying this is good legislation, and it is looking forward to seeing it pass. The member criticizes and attacks the Minister of Immigration, but she was there when Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney cancelled the parents sponsorship program, not to mention their deleting hundreds of thousands of files that were under process. They had a broken system, too. At least we are trying to balance it. When will the member get real?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if 2025 me travelled back in time to 2015 and said, “The government is going to use the Emergencies Act to freeze Canadians' bank accounts and then introduce a bill to criminalize thought crimes and cause news bans,” in 2015, I would have said, “What?” However, that is exactly what happened.

Call me skeptical, but I am saying no to any bill that has provisions that give the government more power to take away my right to free speech and my constituents' right to free speech.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleague shares my concern about the government's current lax approach to controlling gun trafficking. We know that guns are being smuggled illegally from the United States into our country, mainly in my riding, by waterway.

Does my colleague agree that the Coast Guard should be given greater authority to monitor, document and report to authorities on certain crossings where illegal firearms are smuggled? Would she agree to having this added to the bill?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are elements of this bill that are worthy of study that could make things safer. The problem is that the Liberals have, once again, forced all of us, including my colleague, into a situation where we are supposed to choose between civil liberties and protecting our constituents.

I am hoping there can be some sort of resolution here that does not involve that choice. I hope the government would be open to looking for ways to do that so some of the components of the bill that could be deemed acceptable could be studied and perhaps passed. For some of this other stuff that is clearly going to cause contention among everybody, perhaps the Liberals should not have put that in the bill.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. She highlighted that there are many concerns in this bill and that it will trample on people's civil liberties, privacy, due process and procedural fairness. The powers that are granted in this bill to different authorities include cabinet. They are sweeping, and few details are provided. In addition, it is effectively an omnibus bill.

Does my colleague believe that parts of this bill should be separated out? Clearly, this is a bill the Liberals have thrown everything in. I would like her thoughts on that.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are getting somewhere. I am sure my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois have concerns about some of the deep incursions into provincial jurisdiction as well.

Again, we are getting some consensus in debate, and as with Bill C-63, which had provisions about increased reporting requirements for child pornography, there might be a few things in this bill we can agree to agree on, or at least agree to study. However, there are some that are out of scope and designed to make us choose a false dichotomy.

Hopefully, there can be something that resembles work here and that the government understands it has put a dog's breakfast forward and can somehow work something out to try again.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today during the debate, my Conservative colleague cited crime statistics from 2022, a year when rates were at their peak. However, I find this disingenuous, as crime rates have dropped, especially auto thefts, which dropped in 2024 by 20% nationwide and, per the Toronto Police Service, dropped by 39% in 2025, with a 19% decline in Oakville in 2025.

My constituents know I have been actively advocating on the issue of crime. It is a matter of concern for the residents of Oakville West, and for me as well. During the election I spoke to many constituents, and some were victims of auto theft. Stolen cars are transported across the border, which is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am sorry, but I need to give time to the member to respond.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in Oakville West would think that going from absolutely crazy, insane levels of car theft to mucho, extra crazy levels of car theft is acceptable. The problem is that the Liberals are saying there was a drop, but it is still out of control. There are people in Oakville who have to buy bollards to put in front of their cars because their cars get stolen.

The member talked about the detection of cars. The Liberal government cannot detect cars going out of a port. There is drone warfare happening, and we cannot even detect stolen cars in the port of Montreal.

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

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

I was going to raise a point of order, but I know my colleague is more than capable of dealing with this. The member for Winnipeg North said something that I think was deeply offensive to this House and was completely unparliamentary. He was essentially telling my colleague to get real when all she was doing was citing facts. This is at a time when we were told by a cabinet member that Canada Post would need a warrant to open up mail. I am going to read directly from the bill:

The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that

It is “reasonable grounds to suspect”, not even to “believe.” He should be apologizing. Shame on him.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I doubt the hon. member my colleague is referring to who made the comment actually read the bill, because he has not. This is what the bill says. As my colleague across the way mentioned, there are some provisions, although not that one, that could ostensibly, maybe, help fix the mess that the Liberals created themselves. However, there are some things in there so egregious that I think the Liberals put them in there specifically as a poison pill. That means they are not serious about solving these issues and want them to continue. If the Liberals were serious about addressing these issues, they would not have put, as they did in Bill C-63, poison pill civil liberties issues in there to bottleneck Parliament.

I encourage all colleagues in this place to go to the minister and say that this is a dog's breakfast. Let us figure this out.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bourassa.

I am pleased to rise today to talk about the strong borders act. The legislation before the House would strengthen border protection and border security and ensure integrity in the immigration system, with new authorities to improve how client information is shared with provincial and territorial partners; enforce our laws more effectively; and support a sustainable system that restores balance and trust in immigration for Canadians and those seeking to come to our country.

Overall, Bill C-2 would improve the flexibility and responsiveness of the asylum system by creating new ineligibility rules, removing incomplete or abandoned claims in the system and focusing resources on those who need protection the most.

Let me talk about information sharing.

As a former provincial minister of immigration, I know how important it is for the federal government to work with the provinces and territories to develop policies and programs.

When I was minister of immigration in Nova Scotia, I understood how critical partnerships and co-operation between governments were to meeting the needs of employers and communities and supporting diverse groups of people. The information provided by the federal government helps provinces and territories effectively manage their programs and services.

Let me be clear. This information sharing would, of course, continue to protect the personal information of applicants with strong safeguards. This would include a clear prohibition against provincial or territorial government partners further sharing any information with foreign entities except with the written consent of IRCC, where this would happen in a way that complies with Canada's international obligations.

With respect to the new asylum ineligibilities, to protect our system against surges in claims, we are introducing new ineligibility rules for asylum. Let me be clear once again. Claiming asylum is not a shortcut to immigration. The ineligibilities would reduce pressures on the system so that we can provide protection for those in need efficiently. Under the proposed legislation, the federal government would no longer refer claims to the Immigration and Refugee Board for a decision if claims are made more than one year after someone's first arrival after June 24, 2020, or if claims are made 14 or more days after someone enters Canada irregularly between border crossings.

The one-year limit discourages those wanting to use the asylum system as a way to extend their stay in Canada if other pathways fail. We are a generous country that values fairness, but Canadians expect us not to tolerate those who attempt to use the asylum system to bypass our laws and systems. With respect to the date that was selected, June 24, 2020, let me be clear that it was selected because that was the date the regulations were created to track the exit data.

We are applying the same principle to those who cross the border irregularly. We know that some continue to cross the Canada-U.S. border irregularly despite our warnings and laws. By waiting 14 or more days before filing an asylum claim, they effectively avoid return to the U.S. under the safe third country agreement.

Entering Canada between our points of entry is neither authorized nor safe. We have all seen the tragic loss of life or serious injuries to people who insisted on entering Canada through snow-covered fields, waterways or forests in the middle of winter. Not only are these crossings dangerous, but they are often linked to migrant trafficking and organized crime. They put people, including children, at even greater risk.

I recommend that everyone who wants to come to Canada use our migration channels and programs.

For these reasons, claims filed more than a year after a person first arrives, beginning on June 24, 2020, and those filed 14 days or more after they cross the border illegally will not be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for a decision.

These measures would allow our decision-making body, the Immigration and Refugee Board, to focus on making final decisions on genuine claims. These ineligibility rules would protect against potential surges in claims, relieve the pressure on the asylum system and help the IRB work through its existing inventory of pending claims, including from those who genuinely need our protection and support.

We recognize that our system needs to adapt to changing patterns and global migration. We need the system to be adaptable, flexible and responsive to changes so that we can safely manage the flow of people entering our country. In support of Canada's plan to strengthen border security in our immigration system, this legislation would introduce new authorities for Canada to respond to global events quickly and effectively.

When the global pandemic hit in 2020, the federal government was forced to make the difficult decision to close our borders to protect the health and safety of Canadians. While our vetting and review processes are thorough, documented and empowered under the law, we do not have the power to suspend or cancel documents.

Currently, officers have the authority to cancel a visa or electronic travel authorization on a case-by-case basis following a change in the status of the holder or because the holder is no longer entitled to hold the document.

For example, if it is discovered that an application contains false statements or the applicant has a criminal record or is deceased, the agent would have the power to cancel this document. Right now, that power does not exist.

This power does not apply to groups of immigration documents. This legislation would help Canada better respond to global events like the pandemic by allowing Canadian authorities to suspend, amend or cancel a number of immigration documents at once.

These authorities would help us protect the public interest, protecting against safety and security threats, health risks and abuse of publicly funded programs. To be clear, there is no plan to cancel the documents of any particular groups. These measures are intended to strengthen the integrity of our immigration system for the future.

The use of any of these authorities would require a separate process. Decisions would have to be driven by evidence and facts and would rest with the Governor in Council, not the minister alone. There are checks and balances in the process to ensure these measures would be used in the public interest of Canadians.

Through this legislation, the government would improve and streamline our asylum system, strengthen how we work with provinces and territories, support Canada's asylum system, and focus our decisions and resources. We would empower government to respond to changing times quickly.

These processes will be simpler, faster and more targeted. The proposed changes will improve public safety as well as the integrity of our government programs and services.

There would be fast, fair and final decisions so that our system meets our economic, social and humanitarian objectives.

I encourage all members to support this legislation to move these critical changes forward. I also encourage Canadians to look at the language of the legislation. If members help us put in these changes, we can have a system that we are proud of.

With these words, I am happy to take a few questions.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, millions of people in Canada are here on expired visas or visas that are about to expire. In order to fix the immigration system, the Canadian public should have publicly disclosed information on how many people exit.

Why did the minister not include a departure-tracking mechanism in this bill? Is it because she does not want one?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe we all agree that immigration is key to our economy in Canada and to our communities. As I said in my remarks, the date that was selected for that one-year rule, June 24, 2020, was picked specifically because that is the date that regulations came into effect to track exit data.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. With regard to asylum claims, I understand that the problem related to the 14-day period has been resolved and that the period from which a claim for asylum can no longer be made has also been limited.

Now we see, at first reading at least, that a new discretionary power has been given to the minister. When an asylum claim is deemed eligible by the officers, the minister has the power to authorize it or reject it before it is referred to the board. That is a new discretionary power for the minister.

I would like to know where that idea came from.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the challenges facing asylum seekers. That is why we included in the legislation the one-year rule effective June 25, 2020, to make our systems comprehensive and effective. We work very well with the Province of Quebec in these situations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to help my Conservative friends across the way, and frankly I hope they are listening.

At the end of the day, this is what a real, tangible change means. Let us say we want to take a throne speech document and put it into a yellow envelope. If the member opposite was to do that, he could mail it, and no one has the right to actually open up that envelope today. We could put fentanyl in that envelope, and no one has the right to open it up. The police would have to wait until it hits the home.

This legislation would allow for the police to go and get a warrant that would enable them to open up the envelope. Most Canadians would see that as a positive thing, just like the police do. I am wondering if my colleague would agree that this is a good piece of legislation, and the Conservatives—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. Can we have a little order here?

The hon. minister has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank the member for Winnipeg North for not only his passion but also his accuracy in the information that he always presents to us in the House. I definitely do agree with him that this is an excellent piece of legislation, and I urge all colleagues in the House to please support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have destroyed the immigration system in our country, and that has caused the complete destruction of our housing industry across the country as well.

Will the member apologize for the last 10 years of Liberal failure?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this new government is here to work with Canadians, and the reduction in the permanent and temporary numbers that has been forecasted was forecasted with the understanding that we do need to reduce our numbers to ensure that our infrastructure meets the challenges of today.

I would like to remind members that COVID put a lot of strain and stress on all the provinces in our country and all our people, so with that in mind, let us all work together and let us all unify Canadians, unify Canada and stay strong.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to share some really good news. Two athletes from my riding, Bennedict Mathurin and Luguentz Dort, have made it to the NBA finals. We are bursting with pride in these young Quebeckers from Montreal North. They are of Haitian descent, were born and trained here, on our streets, in our schools and in our parks. This is a great response to people who, like the president of our neighbour to the south, have denigrated communities with Haitian roots. This time, greatness is a 100% Canada-Quebec production made in Bourassa. In addition to these two athletes, I would also like to mention Chris Boucher, past winner of the NBA finals.

This news illustrates the strength of our community's talent, perseverance and pride. These three young people shine and, today, their light is illuminating the world's largest basketball stage. Their journey is an inspiration that drives us to keep investing in our young people, celebrating our local talent and showcasing the riding of Bourassa at home and abroad. Now more than ever, a sports centre is an important and essential asset sorely lacking in Bourassa. The borough is organizing a public screening of the finals at Pilon Park in Bourassa so that we can all share this historic moment. Everyone is welcome to join in this collective outpouring of pride. Fortunately, these young men did not turn to crime as some unfortunately do.

We are talking about crime today, and I want to acknowledge that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety have done careful, concrete work on this. The bill before us is ambitious, pragmatic and, above all, necessary in the current context. It is based on clear and focused SMART principles. It is a clear and effective response to very real threats: drug trafficking, organized crime, money laundering and weaknesses in our intelligence system. This is about more than legislative principles; it is about human lives. In Montreal and other big cities, people want to live in safe, peaceful neighbourhoods free from violence and crime. This bill is not just a legislative exercise; it is a commitment to people's peace of mind.

I will give a few examples. The situation is alarming in our major cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary. In the greater Montreal area, we are seeing a resurgence of violence and clandestine synthetic drug labs. The chemicals arrive through indirect channels, often by mail or international packages. This bill will allow for better monitoring of these products and rapid intervention by the Minister of Health.

In Toronto, criminal networks are exploiting gaps in data access to operate large-scale fraud and money laundering schemes. Amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, as well as cross-border information-sharing mechanisms, will give our police officers the tools they need to take action. In Vancouver, customs officers are facing an influx of suspicious goods arriving by sea. Amendments to the Customs Act and the Oceans Act will allow for upstream interventions, which I will discuss later. There is a lot of talk about being proactive. In Laval, Ottawa and Halifax, police are struggling to intercept packages containing prohibited substances because of restrictive postal laws. By amending the Canada Post Corporation Act, this bill will finally give them the means to do something about it. We also want to modernize legislation and strengthen operations.

I would like to highlight some aspects of this bill. Bill C-2 aims to clarify exemptions from drug and cannabis laws to better regulate investigative tools. It seeks to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, giving the Minister of Health targeted powers over precursor chemicals. Once again, this is about being proactive. It is essential to take action upstream to stop these precursor chemicals, as they enable clandestine labs to operate. These precursor chemicals are used in the manufacture of fentanyl, for example. The bill seeks to enact the supporting authorized access to information act to ensure that electronic service providers can legally co‑operate with investigations.

Access to cross-border data has to be improved, with respect for fundamental freedoms, and the Canada Post Corporation Act has to be amended to allow suspicious mail to be opened within a strict legal framework. Of course, there are a number of concrete measures against money laundering, including restrictions on cash payments and third-party deposits.

As former vice-chair of Montreal's Commission de la sécurité publique, I saw first-hand the challenges that our police services are facing: legal limitations, administrative delays and a lack of coordination between the agencies. The bill addresses many of those gaps. It is not just a technical adjustment but a real strategic shift toward more proactive—as I have pointed out—more coordinated and better equipped public safety. That is why we need to ensure that new powers are balanced with mechanisms for transparency, accountability, and parliamentary oversight.

In conclusion, the bill is a direct response to the everyday problems experienced by our constituents and especially by our police services. Passing the bill will send a clear message that Canada is protecting its borders, its children and its families. In other words, our sovereignty is being exercised in our neighbourhoods, on our streets, in our ports, in our digital networks and in our democratic institutions.

I therefore support this bill with determination, but also with vigilance, to protect our communities, strengthen our security and uphold the values of justice and freedom that make our country, Canada, strong. This is a comprehensive bill that does not include any proposals from the opposition parties, which always come from a silo perspective. It really prioritizes prevention and proactive measures to ensure that Canada is truly safe and secure.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously this bill is intended to address some of the crime and fentanyl issues that are happening in the country, but my question really relates to the fact that right now we are not even enforcing our existing laws. We have repeat offenders out on the street, committing gun crimes and committing car thefts, and we are not addressing those. Adding additional laws, if they are not going to be enforced, is not going to really help the situation.

Why did the government not put measures in this bill to address its catch-and-release policies?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am simply inviting my colleague to read the document carefully, because the goal is to give our police forces more resources and to facilitate their work and operations. I would also invite her to look at how this bill can be managed in a much more integrated way, rather than seeing it from a silo perspective or from the point of view of a single framework.

That is the problem with the opposition. When work is done, when we take action or table bills, the opposition says that it is not enough. When we put forward a more comprehensive and integrated plan, it says that we are going too far. At some point, we really have to take a stand.

I think that this bill will give our police forces all the resources they need. We will truly be adopting a more proactive and preventive approach, and I think that our streets will be much safer as a result.

I sincerely invite our colleagues to collaborate and to start by reading the bill.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new member.

He made a comment earlier that really got my attention about how opposition members do nothing but oppose and never propose anything. It is the complete opposite. The Bloc Québécois is known here for being hard-working and thorough, for proposing solutions, for improving things and for co-operating. Perhaps no one informed him of this when he arrived for his orientation. I would simply like to tell him that he can count on us to improve things and make suggestions. Now it is up to the government to listen and implement the opposition's common-sense solutions.

I have a more specific question. My colleague is from a Montreal riding where there are a lot of newcomers and a lot of problems with the immigration department. Can he tell us whether, in his opinion, Bill C-2 will help reduce processing times for refugee claims?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her welcoming message.

She was correct in saying that we need to listen, but this has to go both ways. That is really important. The Bloc Québécois is known for its proposals on prevention. As I said, this is a much more integrated approach to public safety. It is an approach that includes not only police response, but also a social and humanitarian response regarding our young people. The point is to take preventive action.

With regard to my colleague's question, it is integrated as I said. The immigration process really needs to be streamlined to make it simpler and faster. This is desirable because when we welcome these people, we have to do it properly. It is really important to ensure that the process is not slow, because that also has an impact on their mental health, which hinders their integration.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that this is Bill C-2, in the sense of it being a priority. It demonstrates very clearly how the Prime Minister and this government recognize our borders as an important issue. They are secure today, but this will make them even that much stronger. As we always continue to espouse, we want a stronger, healthier Canadian border.

I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts. This is an important piece of legislation, and that is why it is Bill C-2.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing to remember is that this is not something the government is doing in isolation. It is not just a single initiative, but rather an integrated approach. This will obviously include more border measures. I hope that the work will be done upstream not just with respect to the borders, but also to drugs.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your appointment.

This is my first substantive opportunity to speak in the 45th Parliament. Before I speak on Bill C-2 today, allow me to begin with a few words of thanks. I thank my election campaign team for their commitment, their long hours and their belief in what we stand for. Every door they knocked and every conversation they had helped bring us here.

I thank my family, my spouse Angela and my twin daughters Jennie and Emma, for their love and patience. This job is demanding; it takes me away from home, from holidays and from dinners, but their support never wavers, and I am forever grateful for it.

I thank the great people of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations for trusting me to be their voice in Parliament. I carry their hopes, frustrations and priorities into everything I do in this place. They have given me a mandate to be their voice, their advocate and their defender. I carry that duty into this chamber with great responsibility and deep humility.

Now, let us get to the heart of this bill, but more importantly, let us get to what is missing from it. While the government may be eager to pat itself on the back, Canadians deserve to know that this bill stops short of promises made in the Speech from the Throne and doing what is actually needed to protect them.

In the throne speech, the government said it would bring a renewed focus on car theft and home invasions by toughening the Criminal Code to make bail harder to get for repeat offenders charged with committing these crimes, along with human trafficking and drug smuggling. However, none of this is to be found anywhere in all 172 pages of this bill. It is as if the Liberals have been tone-deaf to the pleas of premiers, law enforcement and victims who have been demanding bail reform for well over three years. While there are pieces that may be helpful, these are small steps in a system that is already broken at its foundation after a decade of soft-on-crime laws.

This bill may tighten a few screws around the edges, but it ignores the structural damage done by the Liberals' own justice reforms. It does not touch bail, not once. There is not a word about repealing or reforming the principle of restraint that is allowing repeat violent offenders back out on the street before the ink is even dry on their charge sheets. There is not a word about empowering Crown attorneys to actually keep dangerous individuals behind bars. There is not a word about protecting victims from seeing their attacker back in their neighbourhood hours after an arrest.

That revolving door opened by Bill C-75 is still spinning, and this bill does nothing to stop it. It does not touch sentencing either. The Liberals talk a big game about cracking down on traffickers, smugglers and organized crime, but they have kept in place their signature legislation, Bill C-5, which stripped away mandatory minimum sentences for the very criminals they now claim to be targeting.

The bill does not bring back any of those minimums. It does not impose serious time for serious crimes. It does not deliver justice for the victims who have been left behind, even in the middle of a national fentanyl crisis that is taking thousands of Canadian lives every single year. Those traffickers are pumping lethal drugs into our communities. Often, those with links to organized crime and foreign cartels are still eligible for a light sentence or, in some cases, conditional releases that are a form of house arrest. It certainly does not send a message to the organized criminals who are exploiting our legal system, flooding our streets with fentanyl and laundering their dirty money across borders that their time is up. This is a missed opportunity, a chance to clean up the mess the Liberals created.

Here is the reality right now in Canada: Violent crime is up 50% in this country; homicides, up 28%; sexual assaults, up 74%; auto theft, up 46%; extortion, up a whopping 357%; gang-related homicides, up 78%; violent crimes with guns, up 116%; terrorism charges, up 488%; and hate crimes have more than tripled. Those are the tragic stats that show the disheartening reality right now in this country.

While the crime crisis sweeps across our country, what this bill would really do, beneath all the legal jargon and bureaucratic language, is keep the worst parts of the Liberals' justice record firmly intact. It would keep Bill C-75, the law that tied the hands of police and prosecutors and told judges to favour release over detention, even when dealing with repeat violent offenders. It would keep the so-called principle of restraint that has allowed known gang members, gun criminals and repeat abusers to walk free even before officers finish their paperwork. It told Canadians that violent history does not matter and that past behaviour should not prejudice future bail decisions. What has been the result? Repeat offenders are back on our streets, and arrests made in the morning have criminals out before the officer even finishes their shift. However, the bill does not touch that law. It would keep it in place, and by doing so, it keeps that revolving door spinning.

The bill keeps Bill C-5, the Liberals' flagship soft-on-crime legislation that wiped out mandatory minimum sentences for some of the most serious offences in the Criminal Code. We are talking about drug trafficking, gun smuggling, armed robbery and repeat violent offences. Instead of sending a message that these crimes carry consequences, Bill C-5 said they might be eligible for house arrest, which is the message fentanyl dealers and gang leaders heard loud and clear. Now, even in the middle of the worst drug crisis our country has ever seen, the government refuses to put those minimums back in place. The very offenders we should be locking away are still being given second, third and fourth chances, and the government calls that justice.

While the bill claims to be a response to growing threats at the border from organized crime and transnational drug trafficking, it does not say a single word about reversing the same Liberal policies that got us here in the first place. We can tighten customs inspections, but if the trafficker is still released on bail within 24 hours, if the fentanyl producer still walks away with time served, if the gun smuggler knows there is no minimum sentence waiting at the end of the line, then what exactly are we doing as legislators? Without serious bail reform, mandatory minimums and real consequences for serious crimes, the system is still broken. These are the same policies that let fentanyl traffickers off.

Fentanyl is a public health crisis. It is a criminal epidemic being driven by organized crime, enabled by weak laws and made worse by a justice system that fails to deliver real consequences. We are losing more than 20 Canadians every single day to opiate overdoses, and fentanyl is at the centre of it. It is cheap, it is lethal, it is everywhere, and behind almost every fatal dose is a trafficker, a producer or a cartel that profits from death and misery. Despite the crisis, the bill says nothing, would do nothing and would fix nothing when it comes to holding fentanyl traffickers truly accountable.

Let me remind the House of what happened last year in Falkland, British Columbia, where the RCMP dismantled the largest and most sophisticated illegal drug lab ever uncovered in Canadian history. What they found was shocking: 54 kilograms of finished fentanyl, 390 kilograms of methamphetamine, 89 illegal firearms and half a million dollars in cash, all inside a rural compound operating under the radar. To put that seizure into perspective, those 54 kilograms of fentanyl were enough to create over 95 million lethal doses. That is enough to kill every Canadian in this country twice over.

This was not a low-level street dealer. This was not some desperate individual struggling with addiction. This was a high-level, professional drug-production operation. It had all the markings of transactional organized crime, and the RCMP confirmed direct links to Mexican cartels, the same cartels responsible for mass killings, political assassinations and destabilizing entire countries. Now they are operating here on Canadian soil, building superlabs and churning out poison every day. Still, there is no mention in this bill of mandatory life sentences for those who operate fentanyl labs capable of killing millions.

The message is clear here. Prior to the passage of Bill C-5, there was a mandatory minimum penalty for those producers, those manufacturers, those importers, those exporters and those traffickers. However, according to the soft-on-crime Liberal government, that was too draconian a law; it had to be repealed.

There has been no effort to bring back mandatory minimum sentences for large-scale drug production or trafficking. There is no recognition in this bill that Canada's criminal justice system needs to change to meet the scale and violence of this threat. What message does that send? To the cartels watching us from across the border, it says that Canada is easy money. The low- and mid-level traffickers in this country have a big smile on their face now that the weak, soft-on-crime government is back in Ottawa. To the fentanyl traffickers, it says that they will get a deal, maybe even a conditional sentence. To the victims, to the thousands of parents burying their children, to the first responders administering naloxone day after day, to the communities being hollowed out by addiction and death, it says that their pain is not enough to warrant serious change by the weak government. That is not acceptable.

When a criminal operation can manufacture enough fentanyl to wipe out the entire country and still not face life in prison, something is deeply broken. Criminals have taken note. The RCMP says there are now more than 2,000 organized crime groups operating in this country. What good is controlling fentanyl precursors if we are not throwing the book at the criminals making it? What good is data sharing if repeat offenders are out on bail before the paperwork is even processed? What good is fighting crime on paper if the sentences handed down in court do not match the seriousness and the moral culpability of the offender?

This bill is a good starting point, but it is simply not enough. For all the government's talk and for all the legal language and administrative tweaks buried in all 127 pages, the bill still fails to deal with the single most urgent problem we face in this country: violent, repeat offenders who face no real consequences under the government's so-called justice reforms. This is the crisis Canadians live with every single day on their streets, on their transit systems, in their neighbourhoods and in their homes. Canadians are seeing criminals cycle in and out of jail like it is a revolving door, and we are being told that is progress.

Canadians do not want more promises with headlines; they want results. They want their kids to walk to school without fear. They want fentanyl dealers to face real prison time, not house arrest and a slap on the wrist. They want to see gang members and gunrunners behind bars, not out on bail within hours. They want a justice system that puts their safety first, not a system that prioritizes the release of repeat offenders.

The bill does not deliver. Instead, it leaves untouched the broken laws that started this crisis and refuses to bring back protections that Canadians and law enforcement have been demanding for years. Canadians have a right to ask, why have the Liberals not brought back mandatory minimums for fentanyl traffickers? After the largest fentanyl bust in Canadian history, with enough poison to kill the entire population, why are life sentences still off the table? Why is the principle of restraint, which prioritizes releasing offenders over protecting communities, still baked into our bail system? How many more innocent Canadians need to be attacked, robbed or killed before the government admits that its soft-on-crime approach has significantly failed Canadians? Why are we tiptoeing around the rights of traffickers, gang members and repeat violent offenders while law-abiding citizens pay the price in blood, trauma and fear?

The bill focuses on border security and public safety, but it completely fails to deliver on core fundamentals.

Conservatives have long called for decisive action to protect Canada's borders. For years, we have urged the Liberals to fix the border crisis that they created, yet they have ignored the warnings and failed to act. The fundamentals are clear. If we want safer communities, we need tougher sentences for serious crimes. If we want to stop organized crime, we need real punishment for drug traffickers, not plea deals. If we want to stop repeat violence, we need to end the revolving door of bail. Most importantly, if we want to restore trust in our justice system, we need to stop coddling criminals and start standing up for victims.

The bill, unfortunately, does none of those things. It fixes the optics but leaves the core problem untouched. It offers minor changes when what we need is structural reform. It fails to reverse the damage done by Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. It fails to recognize that organized crime is not a future threat; it is here now and has been for many years. It fails to respond to the fentanyl crisis with the seriousness it demands. It fails to protect Canadians while crime surges in every category.

Canadians are demanding real change, and they are right to. Mandatory minimums must be restored for serious gun and drug offences. Fentanyl traffickers and cartel-connected criminals should face mandatory life in prison, no exceptions, full stop. The so-called principle of restraint has to be repealed so repeat violent offenders stay behind bars, where they belong. What this country needs is a justice system that protects victims, enforces accountability and puts public safety first, before political ideology, because keeping Canadians safe is not negotiable. It is the prime responsibility of a government.

Conservatives are committed to real, results-driven public safety measures. That means securing our borders, closing loopholes in our immigration system and shutting down the financial lifelines of terrorism and organized crime. Let us not forget why we are here in the first place. The bill only exists because of 10 years of Liberal inaction. The bill only exists because they have problems dealing with the American administration to the south. For a decade, they have watched crime rise and courts weaken.

Since the Liberals took office, illegal border activity has not just risen; it has exploded. There has been a 632% increase in U.S. border patrol encounters with people crossing illegally from Canada. That is not just a stat; it is a failure of national security. It is what happens when the government refuses to enforce its own borders and lets crisis become the norm, the status quo. The Liberals say they are investing $300 million in border security, but where is it? There is no rollout plan, no timeline and no public accountability, just more vague promises. Canadians are tired of the talk. Opposition members are tired of this talk. They want action. They want to see trust.

We cannot protect Canadians by turning law-abiding citizens into suspects. The expanded surveillance powers in this bill raise very serious privacy concerns. Conservatives will ensure that in the name of security we are not trampling on the rights of innocent Canadians. We can be tough on crime without being reckless at the same time with civil liberties. Our job does not end at opposing what is wrong. It is about pushing for what is right.

Conservatives will keep fighting for real protection at our borders, stronger enforcement at our ports, and sentencing that reflects the seriousness of the crimes Canadians face. The goal is not just to punish crime; it is to prevent it and to restore trust in a system that too often lets people down. Justice in this country should not be optional. Public safety should never be negotiable, and the rights of law-abiding Canadians must always come before the rights of repeat offenders.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member hardly spoke about anything that is in this bill. I think he is awaiting the forthcoming justice bill that we will introduce. I believe he could use this speech at that time, because the justice bill will include many of these measures.

I do want to talk about some things that we can constructively work on. One thing is that this bill exists because there were gaps. These gaps also existed under previous Conservative governments. Under previous Conservative governments, there was no limit on how much cash could be spent on goods in this country. There were not these provisions. There were the same immigration rules. This bill exists because this new Liberal government is getting tough on crime and recognizes that we need to fill the gaps in order to keep Canadians safe.

Would the member agree?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely laughable whenever my colleagues and I hear about this brand new Liberal government. The member who just asked me the question has been here since 2015. She is not new, and 90% of that bench is all old. It is being controlled by the same Liberal operation that has been in existence since 2015. When are they finally going to start to reflect, look at themselves in the mirror and say, “We have failed Canadians. We have let them down. We failed to protect our borders. We have let repeat violent offenders in and out of the criminal justice system,” and blame themselves?

Shame on them for blaming Stephen Harper and the past Conservative government, which actually cared about victims over the rights of criminals.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who is very critical of the bill.

One of the things he talks about is the importance of cracking down on fentanyl trafficking. What we see in the bill is that the Canada Post Corporation Act will now allow people who work for Canada Post to open not only parcels, but also letters, when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that something is not right.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. Does he see this as a potentially useful way to more effectively crack down on trafficking, particularly fentanyl trafficking?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know some members on the Liberal bench are tired of hearing this, but it is important to frame the response—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Waterloo loves to chime in, and maybe she will get the opportunity to ask me a question, but perhaps she can show me the courtesy of actually letting me respond to the question without being chirped and interrupted.

In my previous capacity, not only was I a prosecutor, but I was a defence counsel. I will fight with every last breath for the charter rights and freedoms of every Canadian. What I find very concerning is that there ought not to be a choice, as the government has framed in Bill C-2, between the protection of civil liberties and law enforcement.

I am sure I am going to hear a question about how all the police associations are in favour of Bill C-2. Of course they are. They have been pleading and begging for some legislative relief from the government for 10 years, so it is one small step—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments.

The honourable member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his excellent work on this.

One of the things I noticed while talking to people in my riding and in other places during the election was how frustrating it is for people who work in law enforcement when they see the failures on crime of the Liberal government. There are people who go out and work hard every day, risking their lives to try to keep the rest of us safe. When they catch someone involved in crime, very often they are released on bail, even if it is a repeat violent offender.

I wonder if the member can share a little about how the approach the Liberals have taken is impacting law enforcement and what the response has been to the actions of the government by those who work on the front lines.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the shadow critic for justice and the Attorney General, which is a position that I have had for almost a year now, I have had the opportunity to travel right across this great country. I have spoken with local law enforcement. I have spoken with presidents of police associations. I have spoken with chiefs. I have spoken with provincial and territorial attorneys general. They are all unanimous in their frustration with the Liberal government. The Liberal government promised them real, substantive bail reform and was so proud when Bill C-48 was passed into law, which was nothing more than a band-aid on a serious issue. People are frustrated. They are demoralized. They want more relief, which the government refuses to give.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the member feels that he is being chirped. I was actually just participating in the comments that were being shared.

Where I am coming from is that the legislation, at least in the riding of Waterloo, is not a monolith of voices. People are interested in the legislation.

Today we heard speeches from colleagues from the Conservative Party, as well as from the Bloc, suggesting that the legislation did have some validity. Amendments could be considered, but there was value to the legislation; it just is not exactly in the way that some members would like to see it. I recognize that there is more work to do, but I would like to ask whether the member thinks there is merit to the legislation. If police associations are asking for it and we are providing it, is there merit to the legislation? Should we try to make it better?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, now you see the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations has the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my response to the last question, law enforcement has long asked for a number of legislative reforms. What Bill C-2 would do is move the needle ever so slightly by expanding the search powers that police officers have when they are investigating sophisticated, transnational, organized crime entities like the fentanyl traffickers I talked about, but still at the expense of civil liberties.

The government still has not produced a charter statement, which is astonishing. Defence lawyers are laughing; they are going to be smiling all the way to the bank as they launch charter challenge after—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The member for Courtenay—Alberni has time for a 30-second question.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard that the government has announced a fentanyl czar, and it has had an auto theft summit. I am not saying those are not important, but the Liberals still have not named a czar to help support people living with addiction. They still have not announced a plan on how they are going to create treatment-on-demand. They still have not had a summit on the toxic drug crisis, despite the loss of over 50,000 Canadians.

Does my colleague agree that those also need to be a priority when it comes to this discussion?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, where is the minister for addictions? We had one in the 44th Parliament, but it is clearly not a priority for the Prime Minister and his so-called new government.

As I indicated in my speech, there is a national fentanyl crisis. People are dying every day. There is blood on the hands of all Liberal members for showing such disrespect to the people struggling with these addiction matters. There needs to be adequate representation at a national level.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is deeply concerned about the issue of firearms.

Bill C-2 talks about giving more power to the Coast Guard to document and observe situations and share that information with the authorities. Does my colleague think this is a good tool for combatting illegal gun trafficking?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do believe that there is value in arming our Coast Guard with additional powers. I toured the port of Vancouver recently, and I was appalled to learn of the clever ways that criminals and organized crime are smuggling drugs and weapons across our border with basically zero ability for the Coast Guard and law enforcement—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg West.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Richmond East—Steveston.

As I rise in the House today to deliver my maiden speech, I do so with deep humility and heartfelt gratitude. On April 28, the people of Winnipeg West honoured me by placing their trust in me once again and electing me to be their voice in this esteemed chamber. Having served from 2015 to 2019, returning to the chamber is more than just a homecoming; it is a renewed call to service. I am profoundly thankful to the constituents of Winnipeg West for entrusting me with the privilege of representing them, and for allowing me to champion their causes, advocate for them and bring attention to the pressing issues facing our community.

I would like to give special thanks to my wife, Sowmya. From my very first campaign in 2015 to my return in 2025, she has been my constant source of encouragement, strength and support, and, yes, I have already apologized for, once again, leaving her with the unfortunate duty of dealing with our cats' litter box.

As I reflect on the journey that brought me here, I must take a moment to recognize the extraordinary volunteers of Winnipeg West. Their dedication, passion and tireless efforts were the heartbeat of the campaign. As I juggled emergency department shifts alongside the campaign, it was our incredible volunteers who carried the torch and kept us moving forward. From door knocking with me in snowstorms to making countless phone calls, organizing events and spreading our message, they showed up day after day with purpose and resolve. The campaign simply would not have been possible without them, and I am endlessly grateful for their steadfast belief in our shared values and vision for a stronger, more inclusive Canada.

Having practised emergency medicine in Winnipeg for over 25 years, I have always believed that a fundamental duty of a society is for us to look out for one another. I had a personal experience that tells me what that means. In 2022, while visiting Vancouver, I suffered a sudden cardiac arrest while running in Stanley Park. I survived because complete strangers stepped in, performed CPR on me for 25 minutes and administered two shocks with a defibrillator before paramedics rushed me to St. Paul's Hospital, where I underwent emergency coronary bypass surgery. I was discharged a week later, and the total medical bill to me was zero dollars.

That experience reaffirmed something deeply meaningful: This is what Canada is all about, a country where people step up for each other and a place where our public institutions are there to care for those in need without asking whether they can pay. This is the Canada I believe in and the Canada I am committed to helping preserve.

Winnipeg West is a unique riding, a place where diversity, resilience and unity come together. What sets the community apart is its blend of urban vibrancy and rural character. While rooted in the west end of Winnipeg, our riding also stretches across municipalities like Headingley and Rosser, each with its own identity, history and contribution to the fabric of Manitoba.

From thriving suburban neighbourhoods to family-run farms and tight-knit rural communities, Winnipeg West represents a microcosm of the province itself: diverse, connected and grounded in shared values. Our riding of Winnipeg West is a true reflection of prairie pragmatism, a place where politics are not measured by headlines but by results. In my riding, people are less concerned with partisan politics and are more focused on real, tangible solutions that improve everyday life. Whether it is advocating for affordability measures, improved infrastructure in our municipalities or support for small businesses and the local agriculture sector, residents want action that makes a difference.

Our riding has long been a political battleground, not because it is divided but because its people are engaged, thoughtful and principled. There, people do not hesitate to ask the hard questions, challenge assumptions and expect their elected representatives to earn their trust every single day. This spirit of democratic engagement is not only a cornerstone of Winnipeg West; it is also a strength of our democracy, and it is a responsibility I carry with great humility and purpose.

In last week's Speech from the Throne, our government laid out a bold and unifying vision: to build one strong Canadian economy out of 13, and to position Canada as the strongest economy in the G7. At a time when we are facing significant generational challenges, including mounting economic pressures from our closest ally, the United States, our government remains focused on delivering real, tangible results for Canadians.

This means making life more affordable for Canadians by implementing targeted measures like the middle-class tax cut that puts more money back into the pockets of people in communities like Winnipeg West, tackling the housing crisis head-on by accelerating home construction at a pace this country has never seen before, and investing in critical infrastructure and nation-building projects that will drive long-term economic growth and unlock new opportunities for every generation of Canadians.

One of the key pillars of the plan is securing our borders, as to be truly strong, Canada must be secure. Border security is critical, not only to ensuring public safety but also to safeguarding our economic prosperity and national sovereignty. That is why, earlier this week, the Minister of Public Safety introduced Bill C-2, the strong borders act, a comprehensive piece of legislation aimed at strengthening Canada's border integrity and enhancing our capacity to respond to evolving security threats.

The strong borders act would build upon Canada's $1.3-billion border plan, the largest single investment in border security in Canadian history. Bill C-2 proposes important measures to modernize our border infrastructure, improve information sharing among Canadian agencies, preserve the integrity of our immigration and asylum systems, and prevent the unlawful movement of goods and people across our borders. It also addresses growing concerns about the illegal fentanyl trade, transnational organized crime, money laundering and terrorist financing, all of which pose serious risks to both our public health and national security. With the legislation, we would be reaffirming our commitment to a secure, resilient and sovereign Canada.

In my riding of Winnipeg West, home to the Winnipeg Richardson International Airport, the proposed changes would have a direct and positive impact. The bill would help strengthen frontline operations and would ensure law enforcement agents are equipped with the right tools to secure our borders and carry out their duties more effectively, while ensuring accountability and transparency.

As I conclude my remarks today, I would be remiss not to acknowledge the devastating wildfires currently sweeping across Manitoba. This year's wildfire season has escalated with unprecedented speed and intensity, displacing thousands of families and putting many first nations communities at serious risk. With a provincial state of emergency now in effect, countless Manitobans have been forced from their home and are facing profound uncertainty and loss. My thoughts are with everyone affected by the crisis.

In response to urgent requests from the province, the federal government acted swiftly by deploying the Canadian Armed Forces to support evacuation efforts and ensure the safe relocation of residents. Multiple agencies and organizations are working around the clock in close coordination, to deliver critical aid and assistance on the ground. To support recovery efforts, the Government of Canada has also committed to matching donations to the Canadian Red Cross campaigns, offering Canadians a way to stand in solidarity with those who have lost so much.

Finally, I am thankful to all the brave heroes on the front lines: first responders, firefighters, volunteers, humanitarian workers and the local community leaders. Their courage, compassion and unwavering dedication are a source of strength for the entire community. In the face of hardship, they remind us what it means to be truly united.

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

Madam Speaker, one has only to look at the member's Twitter feed to understand that he is a big fan of the most unpopular prime minister in recent memory, Justin Trudeau, and his policies on an unsecured border, a lack of safety on the streets, the carbon tax, etc.

How does the member for Winnipeg West feel, knowing that the Liberal Party had to walk away from his record as a former member of Parliament and from that of his mentor, Justin Trudeau, just to get re-elected in Parliament?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was very supportive of many of the policies that were undertaken by former prime minister Justin Trudeau. I am certain he saved countless lives in Canada through the pandemic and brought us through one of the fastest economic recoveries in the G7. I make no apologies for that. However, it is a new time and new challenges, and I am here to continue working on these challenges.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I congratulate the member on his election.

Canada prides itself on being a country that respects people's civil liberties, but the bill proposes sweeping powers for authorities. Can the member share with us how the bill will protect people's civil liberties while ensuring that arbitrary decision-making is not being done by the authorities through the bill?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Madam Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern for the protection of civil liberties. These powers for increased surveillance are all under judicial oversight. Postal workers would not be opening mail. This would be done by the police with warrants. The changes to the immigration system would still be subject to review to make sure that people's fundamental civil liberties are protected.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg West on his maiden speech and his election to the House of Commons.

You spoke earlier about health care and how important it was for you in Canada to have access to the health care that we have—

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

I would say to the hon. member, before she starts in that vein, never to direct a comment directly to the other member, but to speak through the Chair.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

I would like to ask my colleague from Winnipeg West the following question.

The member made comments on the health care system and how he was very thankful that it exists in Canada the way it is today. What would he say about the measures this government has put in place to help support Canadian families with respect to health care?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was proud to have been part of some of the improvements made by this government in the 2015 mandate, including the report that was the building block of our pharmacare program.

We have also gone forward with the co-operation and valuable help of our NDP colleagues with the Canada dental care plan.

We also had the Canada child benefit, which decreased poverty across Canada. Poverty, as we know, is one of the prime drivers of ill health.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite just mentioned he was very supportive of a great many of Justin Trudeau's policies. I wonder if one of those was the consumer carbon tax, knowing that it was in full force when he was nominated as a Liberal candidate last October.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax, in its time, was something I supported. It did what it was supposed to have done. It was a victim of misinformation, and we know—

[An hon. member]

It is not at all misinformation.

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

Order.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I said, and I stand by it.

We knew that this policy could not recover, given the misinformation surrounding it.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise here today recognizing that we stand on the traditional territories of the Algonquin nation. I want to congratulate you for your role again here as Assistant Deputy Speaker.

We are debating Bill C-2, which would enact several legislative amendments, including important measures to help detect, deter and disrupt cross-border money laundering and terrorist financing networks. These are matters of utmost importance to our country, particularly British Columbia and my hometown, Richmond, a gateway city that is integral to our economy.

I want to take a quick moment before I speak to the bill; this is my first intervention, although I did have an opportunity to give a statement. I want to take a moment to thank everyone from Richmond East—Steveston for putting their trust in me and supporting me once again: my campaign team and the hundreds of volunteers and supporters who worked tirelessly because they believed in me and the very important work our new government set out to do—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is also the work I did with the member across, but I did not catch what he said. We spent some time on the mighty OGGO committee, and I know he probably wants to see me there again.

Everyone in this House knows the sacrifices families make for us to be here, and their strength helps us do the important work we all do. I remember my wedding day 23 years ago. In my reception toast to my wife, Gurpreet, I said that she makes me a better person. Without her support, I would not be here.

My kids, Hasina and Daya, stepped up and they pounded the pavement. My sister, Nav, knocked on thousands of doors once again. She is the best sister in the world, always ready to stand up for her little brother. Of course, I can never forget the sacrifices my parents made. My dad, like so many Canadians, left his homeland at a young age to make a good life here. He worked as a steelworker in England and then in Canada, and he was a dump truck owner-operator. He worked hard. My mom worked tirelessly as a seniors care aide. We had a very modest upbringing with endless opportunities before us, so I thank them and I love them.

Going back to the bill, it is a huge honour to represent the city that raised me and, most importantly, to be their voice in this House to talk on this today, Bill C-2, with respect to the strong and effective anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing measures included in it. They are integral components of a secure Canada-United States border. These measures not only protect our financial system but also safeguard our communities from the devastating impacts of crime and terrorism.

Money laundering supports and perpetuates crimes by allowing criminals, such as fentanyl traffickers, to benefit from their illicit activities. Terrorist financing enables terrorist activities in Canada, the United States and abroad, posing a significant threat to global security. To combat these threats, Canada has established a robust anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, underpinned by federal statutes, including the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Banks and other businesses and professionals with obligations under this act are on the front lines of the fight against financial crime. The bill would require that these businesses and professionals report certain financial transactions to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, as well as implement compliance programs to identify clients, monitor business relationships and keep records.

Over the last few years, the centre has identified an alarming trend regarding the difficulties reporting entities are having in maintaining effective anti-money laundering controls, as have our partners in markets where Canadian institutions operate. This led the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to issue its largest-ever administrative monetary penalties in 2023 and 2024.

The government takes financial crimes seriously. If left unchecked, these kinds of deficiencies risk undermining the effectiveness of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act in the fight against financial crimes.

The bill proposes a comprehensive set of amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and its regulations to ensure reporting entities maintain strong controls that are effective in detecting and deterring money laundering and other financial crimes. The first part of these measures includes strengthening the administrative monetary penalty framework, enhancing the compliance of reporting entities, more effectively punishing serious criminal non-compliance and strengthening supervision and the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework in general.

These changes are needed to ensure strong anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing controls, as well as that non-compliance is not treated as the cost of doing business. Recent trends also highlight the importance of close coordination between the financial sector regulators. In December 2024, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada signed a memorandum of understanding with regulators in the U.S. to ensure strong money laundering controls of cross-border banks.

In Canada, the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee facilitates consultation and the exchange of information on matters relating to the supervision of federal financial institutions. Making the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada a member of this committee would enable better coordination across agencies in Canada in fighting financial crimes.

Ensuring strong controls of reporting agencies is necessary but not sufficient in our fight against financial crime. We must also take decisive action to directly target the evolving means and methods used by criminals to launder their illicit proceeds. British Columbians know the harms money laundering can cause. Five years ago in Richmond, the operator of an underground bank was shot and killed in broad daylight. In response to this and other concerns about money laundering in B.C., the provincial government established the Cullen commission. The measures proposed in the bill would complement the commission's recommendations to the province.

Of course, British Columbians are concerned about another matter addressed by Bill C-2, fentanyl trafficking and other profit-driven crimes. These criminal activities generate large cash proceeds, and cash remains a preferred method of payment for criminals as it is autonomous and easily transferable. Organized crime networks and drug traffickers exploit money mules to make small deposits in cash in multiple accounts at numerous financial institutions to avoid detection and mandatory reporting.

Criminals also launder their illicit cash proceeds through the purchase and resale of luxury and high-value goods, as well as through large cash payments to service providers who are controlled or influenced by a criminal organization. Large cash payments for goods or services may also be used to evade taxation. For these reasons, many countries, including the United States and other G7 partners, maintain restrictions on large cash transactions.

The second part of the financial crime amendments in the bill addresses the use of cash for money laundering by prohibiting the acceptance by businesses and other professionals of cash payments, deposits or donations over $10,000, except by regulated deposit-taking institutions; and prohibiting deposits by individuals who are not the owner of the account, i.e., third party deposits.

In 2025 and 2026, Canada will undergo an international peer review by the Financial Action Task Force, the international anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing standard-setting body. The proposed measures would help address issues identified by the Financial Action Task Force and support a positive review.

The bill is a key part of the government's agenda, and I urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting its quick passage. I am happy to take any questions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is an important public safety bill before the House.

I do want to ask a question about money laundering and foreign interference. The fact is that a lot has been written about foreign interference in the member's riding in particular. Kenny Chiu, a Conservative member of Parliament in the 43rd Parliament, championed the adoption of a foreign influence registry. Much has been written and revealed about how Kenny Chiu was targeted by the United Front of the CCP because of his advocacy on a foreign influence registry. Although there has been broader adoption and recognition of the importance of that concept, he really was a pioneer on that.

Does the member agree that there were issues of foreign interference targeting Kenny Chiu in the 2021 federal election, and what would he recommend to the government in terms of combatting foreign interference in situations like that?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I shared some time on committee, and he will know that I worked quite hard in the 44th Parliament to address the issue of foreign interference. That is why we brought in Bill C-70, which includes the registry and other measures like security of information. Through it, enforcement can take place on issues of foreign interference when it has to do with things like the passage of misinformation on social media or through other channels, such as when Mr. Chiu felt he was targeted. All members in this House have been targets of misinformation and disinformation.

I am happy to continue that hard work on Bill C-70 to make sure that the security of information and shared information and where it is coming from are top of mind.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill obviously introduces some interesting improvements. However, there is a major problem when it comes to the staffing shortage at the Canada Border Services Agency and within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or the RCMP.

In its election platform, the Liberal Party promised to hire 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, officers. The Speech from the Throne mentioned the 1,000 additional RCMP officers. However, neither the Speech from the Throne nor the government have said anything about additional CBSA officers.

The customs union is saying that there is a shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 CBSA officers, so I would like to know what the government plans to do, in relation to this bill, to increase staffing at the CBSA.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Madam Speaker, under the previous Harper government the number of CBSA officers was reduced. We have made a commitment to increase the number of CBSA and RCMP officers by 1,000. I think it is an integral part of what will take place beyond the introduction of Bill C-2.

We will make those announcements in the coming days.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to listen to and follow a debate that has been, I think, kind of thoughtful for the most part today. All parties agree that there is some merit to this legislation and that perhaps amendments need to be offered. It needs to be scrutinized and studied.

I know there are constituents in Waterloo who also have a lot of questions. Constituents are concerned with regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and wondering if this legislation will protect their rights and freedoms. We do want to take that seriously.

I would like to hear from the member what some of the comments and concerns are that he has been hearing from constituents. Is there value in getting this legislation to committee sooner rather than later, so that perhaps more witnesses and experts can be called and this legislation can be scrutinized to ensure we are getting this piece of the stuff that we need to do right?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Waterloo is one of our hardest-working members. I want to congratulate her on being re-elected for a fourth term in this House.

I have heard this question a lot from constituents. Many of them are happy to hear we are working expeditiously and very quickly on these amendments.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am standing here tonight in the House of Commons, the House of the common people, with great pleasure. It is the first time I will be delivering a substantive speech since re-election.

I would first like to acknowledge my family. My family has been profound in getting me exactly where I am. There is so much work to be done, and without the family support that so many of us in this place have to get us where we are, we would not be here. I thank our families.

I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the impeccable campaign team and my electoral district association of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, which went above and beyond every single day. We ran a seamless campaign. It was impressive, and I am so grateful for all of them. I would also like to acknowledge the importance of serving with humility, grace, grit and sometimes an attitude. Respectfully, we have a tremendous responsibility to do what is right for all Canadians, and I give my word to the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga that I will do exactly that.

It is wonderful to rise on behalf of all Canadians. I would also like to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, along with a lot of the new faces and the older faces here in this place. I would also like to thank those who are not returning to the House of Commons after a hard-fought election for their dedication to their constituents in the last Parliament. The last Parliament was a historic, unprecedented Parliament, and I am extremely glad that I was able to share a lot of that with them.

To the topic at hand, as I know everyone is anxiously waiting for me to turn the page, Bill C-2 proposes a whole list of changes to various acts of Parliament, and there is a lot to unpack. According to the government-issued backgrounder, it is a catch-all crime bill claiming to stem the flow of fentanyl, cracking down on immigration fraud and fighting organized crime, among other things.

The first immediate red flag that comes up is that this is already asking our underfunded and understaffed security organizations to do more with meagre resources than they already have. In my previous role, I learned a lot about defence and military concepts, and a parallel can be drawn between what we are seeing proposed and an unfortunate constant in our armed forces, an ever-increasing commitment capability gap. We do not have the resources to do the things we need to do. In the Canadian Armed Forces, that manifests itself in a lack of manpower, kit, weapons systems, supports, housing and pay. We may very well need our police organizations to have the authority to do more, but that is completely irrelevant if they are not given the tools to do their current job and what we are asking them to do in addition.

The bill, as it stands, would only increase that gap, which, in turn, would result in more inefficient capabilities across the board as organizations take resources from already struggling sectors to plug into the newly created areas of operation. It may seem as though I am getting technical here, but we really need to dig into this. There are a few parts in the proposed legislation where this is a concern, but there is one in particular that I would like to touch on today, as I have some familiarly, I mean familiarity, with it through my previous work.

I would like to acknowledge that when I was younger, I had a speech impediment, and I have come a long way. I was actually learning sign language when I was younger, in anticipation of not knowing how far my speech would develop, and now I am speaking as capably as I can in English. I am also vigorously learning French, and I am pretty comfortable in Spanish as well, so I have come a long way, but I say to those who have speech impediments or struggle to get up in front of a group, sometimes words from the past or different syllables might catch them, but they just need to keep going. To those who struggle at home, keep going.

Getting back to the legislation, for those listening who may not be familiar with this particular legislation, out of deference to the government, lest I be accused of misleading Canadians as to the content of the bill, I will reference the government's backgrounder, which it produced to ensure that we are getting this particular piece of legislation as clearly as possible so that people can understand it. It reads:

Expand the Canadian Coast Guard’s services to include security activities that will strengthen sovereignty and maritime domain awareness, particularly in remote Arctic waters;

This will enable the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze and share information and intelligence for security purposes.

How exactly does the government plan to enable the Coast Guard to carry out these increased activities? Where are the additional ships, helicopters and personnel coming from? The legislation is silent on this. We cannot legislate sailors into existence. A bill does not create helicopters. Bill C-2, or any piece of legislation, does not create capability; it creates only verbal commitment, and that is a very serious problem.

This is not the first time that this government's legislation has widened a capability gap. In the last Parliament, the government introduced Bill C-40. The legislation was essentially created to address miscarriages of justice. While we do enjoy a relatively stable justice system, perhaps its single greatest flaw is the staggering slow pace at which it moves. The reason I wanted to speak about Bill C-40 today is the additional burden it put on the judiciary, a burden that has very real consequences.

During the last Parliament, I had the opportunity to speak with Kate, who made it one of her life goals to ensure that women do not have to go through what she did. I am not going to stand before you and repeat all of the terrible details, but, in short, she was the victim of severe intimate partner violence. Her partner tried to kill her. There was a video and photo evidence of her bloodied body as she tried to leave him. He gloated about this abuse to his neighbours. One would think it was an open and shut case. After all, this is Canada, a developed western nation, where justice is king, but after being rescheduled twice, the charges were stayed. She was granted a restraining order and told to be on her way. She had to literally flee the country just to feel safe.

Why did this happen? It happened because the courts could not handle the volume of cases. Hers was among many that were decided to be tossed out, not because of individual innocence but because of bureaucratic burdens. This is a perfect example of that capability gap that I spoke of earlier. The government needs to be able to ensure that our systems, and the people working to keep them going, can function at all times, and the same goes for our borders.

Moving on, I would like to talk about the practical nature of some of these changes that are proposed, changes that I think are more easily committed to than actually achieved. The document reads:

Enhance the ability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to share information collected under the Act on registered sex offenders with domestic and international partners, including those located in the United States.

The document continues:

Authorize Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to share client information, such as identity, status and immigration documentation with federal, provincial and territorial partners through signed information-sharing agreements;

Make it easier for IRCC to share client information between different IRCC programs (e.g. using permanent residence application data to process citizenship applications);

Allow for regulations to be developed to share client information across federal departments for the purpose of cooperation.

These four proposals are very interesting because, again, they sound great, but exactly how are they to be facilitated? Is a new database being created? Will security clearances need to be harmonized across all departments? How do we know the provinces and territories will agree to these suggestions? Will this necessitate individual processes for each signatory? What if someone moves between provinces? These are all questions that need to be answered and actioned on by an already very slow-moving public service.

I need only point to the Phoenix pay fiasco. Regardless of where blame lies, the government had a very real issue with doing something as basic as paying its employees. The procurement system in the Canadian Armed Forces is piecemeal. Passports were taking months to be issued. ATIPs take months if not years. These are all existing systems that the government has been actively working on to fix, and we are expecting the government to reform IRCC's information-sharing system and incorporate all 13 independent provinces and territories. The Liberals might as well legislate away the national debt, toothaches and bad dreams while they are at it.

The questions keep coming. Bill C-2 proposes to do the following:

Ensure that electronic services providers (ESPs) have the capabilities in place to support law enforcement agencies and CSIS in criminal and intelligence investigations by requiring them to fulfil lawfully authorized requests to access or intercept information and communications.

This is an interesting one. I am not entirely sure how legally requiring an electronic service provider to hand over information to the government when asked means they will have the capability to access, recover and transmit that information to the government, but apparently this legislation would make that happen. It would be quite impressive if it works.

This last point segues into another area of concern: the consultative process. This is an extremely sweeping piece of legislation. We are already hearing concerns about the IRCC reforms from digital security experts and personal rights organizations. I am concerned that the government did not do the due diligence that we normally see in drafting this legislation. I am not sure how much conversation was held with stakeholders, the public or, I suspect, even with its own caucus.

This brings me to another point: Why introduce this legislation so early? The answer lies behind the motive. The legislation was not introduced out of a desire for increased security or a concern with the ongoing fentanyl crisis. No, it was introduced because of one word: tariffs.

Bill C-2 is the government's attempt to assuage the concerns, legitimate or not, of the Trump administration. I would like to be clear: The Trump administration's tariffs are unprompted, unfair and unjust, and I know the House is united in our feelings about this, but the reality remains that they are here. The only way we get rid of them is by sitting down with our American counterparts, listening, and coming to an understanding that these tariffs hurt not just our economy and our people, but those in the United States as well.

Doing that will take much more than speaking out in the House to an audience that is united in their desire to restore and reinforce our trading relationship with our closest trading neighbour; it will take action. It will mean having those very difficult conversations together. This is why I am personally reaching out to industry associations, stakeholders and policy-makers on both sides of the border at the state, provincial and federal levels to open that dialogue. I intend to work collaboratively with the Canadian and American governments in an attempt to come to a mutual understanding and get these unjust tariffs on Canada's businesses and goods removed.

This morning, I had the privilege of meeting with His Excellency Carlos Manuel Joaquín González, Mexico's ambassador to Canada. We had a really good conversation about the importance of building and maintaining the relationships between our two nations.

Not two hours ago, I sat down with American officials, and we had a very productive meeting. In addition, I am in talks with Canadian embassy officials in Washington to facilitate meetings on the ground in D.C., as well as Canadian trade delegates located throughout the U.S.

I recognize the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade has just ended a visit there, and I would like to thank and applaud him for his efforts, but as the government likes to say, this requires a team approach. I will take this opportunity to invite the minister to join me in D.C. so we can have a real collaborative conversation, the government and opposition together, as we tackle these unfair and unjust tariffs with our American counterparts.

It is not always about Liberals and Conservatives. There are times when it needs to be about Canada and the United States, Canadians and Americans. Neither party nor nation can afford to lose sight of that.

Going back to the big picture and bottom line of Bill C-2, in closing, the Conservatives are committed to implementing the tougher and smarter measures that are needed to keep Canada safe. They include securing our borders, strengthening our immigration system and cracking down on terrorist financing. The safety and security of Canadians are non-negotiable.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the member went through an election experience, as all of us did, during which the issue she referenced on why we have Bill C-2 in front of us today was hotly discussed. We have a very clear mandate from Canadians, who anticipate that as a collective House of Commons, we pass legislation of this nature.

Does the member feel any sense of obligation to see the legislation pass before the House rises for the summer?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, knocking on doors and talking to a tremendous number of constituents throughout the campaign was intense, but there are a tremendous number of concerns and fears on the streets and in our neighbourhoods. It does not matter whether people are in rural Ontario or downtown Toronto. The numbers are a direct result of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, Liberal laws that made it easier for violent offenders to get bail and avoid serious jail time. Bill C-2 fails to completely fix the damage of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It moves the needle, but it does not completely fix things.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. The bill contains a slight ambiguity regarding the minister's ability to suspend visas or refuse to consider applications. Of course this bill will be studied in committee, but as my colleague surely knows, immigration is an area of shared jurisdiction with Quebec. Denying visas when people have received a Quebec acceptance certificate might be questionable.

I am wondering whether, in committee, the Conservative Party will be willing to respect Quebec's immigration powers and take a closer look at this issue.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line, hard stop, is that regardless of what community, what province or what territory we live in in Canada, parliamentarians on all sides of the House need to be strong voices, advocates and defenders of our democracy. We cannot tiptoe around the rights of criminals, and we really need to protect our victims. We need serious sentences for serious crimes. Victims need to see consequences.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on coming back here.

During her speech, the member mentioned that the Canadian Coast Guard is going to be tasked with more border security. We know the previous Liberal government dilly-dallied on purchasing and obtaining icebreakers with Arctic capabilities; it has taken years to do that. The Liberals could not even get body armour to staff in Nova Scotia to deal with illegal lobster and elver fisheries out there. It has been reported that they had to recruit enforcement officers all the way from British Columbia to go across the country to Nova Scotia to help with enforcement.

Does the member think the government is even close to being capable of enacting some of the things this bill proposes to do?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could talk for an hour or so on this particular question, but I will not.

Very briefly, let us look back at the last 10 years of the Liberal record. It is 10 years of devastation, 10 years of inaction and 10 years of non-answers. Shall go on? The bottom line is that since the Liberals took office, there has been a 632% increase in U.S. border patrol encounters with people illegally attempting to enter the United States from Canada, a direct result of the government's failure to enforce effective border security. Canadians are at risk.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for sharing the story of her speech impediment as a child. I think that shows leadership and she should be congratulated for it.

The member referenced, particularly in maritime waters, helicopters, vessels and, of course, sailors. I wonder if she would agree with me that although maritime waters are incredibly important, the same amount of investment needs to go to our Great Lakes waters, obviously at our borders.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that Canadians deserve to be safe. Safety is priority number one. Our water access is number one. Many of us are in border communities and have border ridings, me being one of them. Safety is paramount, always.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the question I have for the member is in regard to the willingness of the member to see the legislation ultimately pass. Does she feel, given the very nature of what is happening in the environment around us with President Trump, tariffs and trade, that there is an obligation for us to see this thing at least go to committee?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Absolutely, Madam Speaker, scrutinizing and rigorously going through legislation is why we are here. As legislators, it is our responsibility to vigorously debate. If we can push the needle forward and find some goodness, that is up for consideration. We, as legislators, always want to do our best to be prudent and go through each piece of legislation with a fine-tooth comb as much as possible where it is permitted.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I would like her to comment on something she did not really say too much about. I think we can all agree that the Liberal government really is managing the entire border, including traffic and border security.

Does my colleague truly believe that border officers' powers can really be increased when we know perfectly well that recruiting and training new officers is a massive challenge, one that is actually almost impossible to meet?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, as it stands right now, there are very few consequences for criminals. The bail system is a revolving door. Canadians are living with the consequences of soft-on-crime-type policies.

In my comments, I spoke about Kate, who is one of hundreds of women who have endured terrible crimes. The numbers are raw and real and disturbing. Violent crime is up 50%; sexual assaults are up 74%; gang-related homicides are up 78%, and extortion is up 357% in 10 years of the Liberal government. Policies need to change. Criminals cannot have a free run. It is not okay.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to correct the previous speaker, the member for Richmond East—Steveston. If we look at the public accounts and the Treasury Board's own numbers, they show that in 2016, 2017 and 2018, the Liberal government slashed the amount of full-time equivalents at the CBSA. It was not until 2019 that the numbers actually came back to the Harper-era level.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on how the Liberals, instead of actioning all these issues that are in front of the country right now, just want to stand in the House and gaslight and mislead Canadians.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have to acknowledge that we are in the 45th Parliament. It is a minority Parliament. It is not a majority, and the Liberals are acting like it is. We will hold them to account.

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

Madam Speaker, I can assure members that the Prime Minister, or any member of the Liberal caucus, recognizes the fact that this is a minority government. We also recognize many of the discussions we had at the door and what was on the minds of Canadians from every region of our nation.

There was consensus on a couple of those issues. One of those issues was something we actually had a vote on earlier today, the ways and means motion recognizing that, on the issue of affordability, we would deliver a tax cut. It was quite encouraging that as we pushed forward on the ways and means motion, when it came time to vote, every member of the House voted in favour of it, all political entities in the House: Greens, New Democrats, Conservatives and, obviously, the Liberals, who were the ones who brought it in.

We received that sort of support because the motion is a reflection of what we heard at the door. Bill C-2 is of a very similar nature. It is on an issue that was being brought up at the door. All of us are aware of the issues.

It is interesting. The very last question was on the Liberals “misleading”, which is just not true. I have been listening throughout the day to members of the Conservative Party speak. Let me give an example of misleading. We had not one but two Conservative members of Parliament stand in their places and try to give Canadians, people who are following the debate, a false impression. The Conservatives were trying to say this legislation would enable people working in the post office to open up whatever letters they want. The impression the Conservatives were trying to give is that it would be as easy as a letter sorter going through the mail and saying, “This one looks interesting; I will open it up.”

[An hon. member]

That is exactly what it says.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That is not exactly what it says, as I get heckled. That is what I mean. The Conservatives either do not understand it, or they are unintentionally misleading Canadians. The reality is that if we take the legislation—

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

The hon. member for Edmonton Southeast is rising on a point of order.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that it is not a lie. The bill would “allow Canada Post—

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

Nobody said it was a lie. That is not a term that is used in the House of Commons, and that is debate.

I will let the hon. member for Winnipeg—

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

Point of order.

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

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, during the last Parliament, Speaker Rota drew a distinct line. In fact, I asked a question, and I believe it was Mr. Mendicino, who was Minister Mendicino at the time, who used the term “intentionally misleading”. If one is deliberately trying to obfuscate, is deliberately trying to do something, that is akin to lying. It is unparliamentary language. It has been said by the Chair. It should be repeated again, with all due respect to the Chair.

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

What are we talking about? Honestly, I do not understand.

[An hon. member]

He is calling him a liar.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I said they don't understand or they are unintentionally believing a lie. It is a choice.

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

Okay. We are not going to debate. Nobody said anything was a lie, and that was the term that was used when the point of order was raised.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong is rising on the same point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I was one of the people to whom the member was alluding who asked a question about what the criteria for Canada Post would be for it to be able to open something. The member said that I was intentionally misleading Canadians, and that is not a fact.

You could consult the Hansard, Madam Speaker, and you would be convinced of that yourself, I am sure.

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

I will ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North to be more prudent in the expressions he uses to describe what colleagues say or do not say. Let us proceed with his speech for the five minutes he has left.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will have to reread what was actually said. My understanding of what I said was that the members are either completely unaware of what they are saying, or they are unintentionally misleading the House. There is an option. I am not accusing them of intentionally misleading the House. Now—

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

That is exactly what leads to the debate on this issue, the reusing of the same expressions.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have gone through this before in the House. In a previous debate I had with the member opposite, I stated the exact same thing: It is either that the numbers are lying in the public accounts, or the member is purposely misleading the House. I was told by the Chair that I could not say that because it implied the member was lying. He is using the exact same excuse to infer that we are lying. We ask that he withdraw—

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

That is precisely what I just said. We all know that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. I would ask the hon. member to be prudent.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will let you be the judge.

We had members on the Conservative benches stand in their place and say that if we allow this legislation to pass, we are allowing Canada Post personnel, like the sorters, to pick through the mail and open it up, which was just not true. What the legislation would do is enable law enforcement officers or agents to go out and get a warrant that would enable them to open an envelope.

[An hon. member]

That's not true.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, that is true.

Madam Speaker, that is why I said I really do not think the Conservatives understand it. Today, if I put into a yellow envelope something that might be good or might be bad, and I put it into the mail, the police, even if they can get a warrant, cannot open that envelope unless they wait until it arrives at the destination and then they get the envelope at the destination. That is the law today. Members across the way are challenging me on that fact. They are challenging me on that fact because they believe Canada Post staff would just be able to rifle through all the correspondence, and therefore it is a threat to Canadian liberties. There would be checks in place.

I really want to see the Conservative Party get behind the legislation. It is good legislation. Let us back it up a bit. When we were knocking on doors, people were genuinely concerned about President Trump, the tariffs and trade. The previous speaker commented on why we have the legislation we have today. Yes, there is an expectation that we are going to deal with our borders and give strength to our border control officers. It is in response, at least in part, to what we have been witnessing over the last eight weeks.

Much like today, when we unanimously supported the ways and means motion, I suggest we should be looking, at the very least, at seeing this legislation go to committee stage so that all members can get a better understanding of it. If there are ways we can improve the bill, by all means make suggestions at the standing committee. We have an opportunity to deliver to Canadians what Canadians wanted us to do just weeks ago when we were knocking on doors. This is an issue that does need to be dealt with, and that is why it is Bill C-2—

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

I am going to interrupt the hon. member, who will have 15 minutes and 20 seconds to complete his speech the next time this bill returns to the House.

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 27, the House will now resolve itself into a committee of the whole to study all votes in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026.

I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak again about the importance of Bill C-2. This is a continuation of sorts.

I think it is really important for us to recognize that Bill C-2 is a very important piece of legislation. We have had discussions not necessarily on Bill C-2, but on the issues. The primary purpose of Bill C-2 is to address many of the concerns that were raised in the last election.

I think it is important that we take a more holistic approach in dealing with what has been the number one issue for the Prime Minister and, in fact, the entire Liberal caucus. I have had an opportunity to expand upon that at great length in the last few days by taking a look at Bill C-2, Bill C-5 and what the Prime Minister has been doing virtually since April 28. To give that kind of perspective allows members to get a better understanding as to why this legislation is so important for all Canadians.

It is interesting. The Canadian Police Association has come onside, indicating that it strongly supports the legislation. That says something in itself. The other thing I would emphasize and amplify at the beginning is that Liberals are very much concerned about individual rights. In fact, it was a Liberal government that brought in the Charter of Rights. The issue of privacy is something we take very seriously, but we also want to deal with the issues that Canadians asked us to deal with specifically during the last election. Bill C-2 does that.

Let us reverse this a bit. We have the Prime Minister talking about building one Canadian economy. Where that comes from is that during the election, Canadians were concerned about Donald Trump, the tariffs and trade. Members will recall that the criticism being levelled by the President of the United States toward Canada was about the issue of fentanyl, of our borders not being secure. I remember late last year talking about how Canada has a strong healthy border. At the end of the day, the Conservatives constantly criticized the border and the efforts of the government to try to explain that we had strength within our borders.

Contrast that with Pierre Poilievre when he sat in cabinet. I have made reference to this in the past. When we talk about the border, this is the first thing that comes to mind for anyone who knows any parliamentary history over the last 20 years. When he sat in cabinet, Pierre Poilievre was part of a government that cut support to Canada's border security, hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of personnel.

Contrast that with the previous Justin Trudeau administration, when we saw an enhancement of border control. At the end of the day, we needed to at least deal with the issues—

[An hon. member]

An enhancement of food bank use.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

—by ultimately, to use one of the words the member is saying, enhancing our border security to make it even stronger. That is what Bill C-2 does. It addresses an issue that was an irritant, if I can put it that way, to Donald Trump.

A number of measures were put into place. Under the new Prime Minister and the new administration, we have seen a tangible investment of $1.3 billion, a commitment of 1,000 new CBSA personnel and 1,000 additional RCMP officers. This is a tangible commitment from a budgetary measure, and it will make a difference. It addresses many concerns, providing the types of supports that are necessary, the physical supports of personnel. Extend that to what we have today: substantial legislation to complement the budgetary allotment of $1.3 billion as an investment in providing safe and secure borders.

When I say we have to take a look at it from a bigger picture, it is all part of addressing concerns that Stephen Harper failed to deal with completely when Pierre Poilievre was around the cabinet table and the Conservative caucus, and improving upon the previous administration of Justin Trudeau. What we have now before us through this legislation is yet another aspect of building a stronger and healthier country.

The Prime Minister often talks about having the strongest country economically in the G7. This is part of that. One just needs to take a look at the highly successful G7 conference we just had, which I believe the Prime Minister handled exceptionally well. At the end of the day, we were able to talk about some of the measures that we have taken to address some of the shortcomings from the past. Support for our borders is one of them, and the military investment is another one. For how many years were we being challenged to provide military support?

All of this is important because when we are sitting at the table, it is from the point of view of strength. We can say that we have beefed up our borders by investing $1.3 billion, introduced substantial legislation and met the United Nations's 2% GDP requirement. Issues have been raised in the past that reflect what Canada has: our natural resources and commodities and the people of Canada. We are coming from a very strong background going to the table.

That is why I believe Bill C-2 is very important. It is not just about national security. It builds upon the bigger picture of having a stronger, healthier economy in general.

We can take a look at some of the specifics. I made reference to the fact that the National Police Association supports the legislation, and there is a very good reason it is doing that. It is because these actions demonstrate to our local, domestic and international partners that we take our borders seriously and want to start dealing in a more tangible way with things such as fentanyl, auto theft, human trafficking, irregular migration and transnational organized crime. These are very important issues.

We have an administration that is very focused on and putting a great deal of energy into dealing with those issues. I look forward to this legislation passing and going to committee. I know there are people who have concerns. At the end of the day, some of that concern comes from, I would suggest, misinformation from the Conservative Party.

The best example I could give of that is something that was referenced when the bill was first brought in. I was listening to comments by members of the Conservative Party, who were saying that this legislation would allow the police and letter carriers to open up people's mail, to open any letter they want to. Most Canadians would be very surprised to find out that law enforcement agencies do not have the authority to even get a warrant to open a letter in transit. For the very first time, through this legislation, a law enforcement officer, through a general warrant that has been justified, would be able to open a letter, when it is warranted. I do not see that as an invasion of privacy, because it has to go through checks and balances and a process to protect the individual's privacy, yet it would make a substantial difference.

Imagine if anyone could put fentanyl into an envelope and mail it anywhere in the country. Under the current system, the police or a law enforcement officer could do nothing about it. Once it arrives, yes, they could, but not while it is in transit between destinations. I think most Canadians would be very surprised to hear that. Contrary to the misinformation we witnessed the other day when the Conservatives were talking about the legislation, it is not a free-for-all. Letters are still going to be confidential. It would not be a violation of privacy, but we need to protect people. There are communities in Canada that are very concerned about mail going to their communities, the illegal things that are put into envelopes. It is a legitimate concern.

We hear a lot about extortion. Last Saturday evening, I was sitting in a house on Sanderson Avenue and individuals were sharing with me stories of serious extortion. That has been raised in the House. Again, this legislation would enable additional tools for law enforcement agencies to do more in combatting extortion, child abuse or child pornography. It would allow more work to be done on the money-laundering file and other types of illegal money transactions. The legislation would allow for more communications with immigration and refugees. It would enable provinces, territories and Ottawa to do more in terms of sharing information. Canada, thinking internationally, is one of the Five Eyes countries, which allows us to share more information through different agencies. I see this as a very healthy positive.

For the individuals who really want to see a stronger and healthier border where Canadians will be protected more and where we can protect the integrity of our immigration system even more, dealing with asylum and things of that nature, this is good legislation. I look forward to the Conservatives recognizing that and allowing the legislation to go to committee at some point.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to give a shout-out to somebody who helped me tremendously on my re-election campaign. I am grateful for Jesus Bondo's help.

I have to say this. I said this a couple of days ago and nothing changes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

You say that all the time, Frank.

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

Now the member from Winnipeg is heckling me.

Mr. Speaker, the member is here doing a 20-minute speech. For those watching at home, we often divide our time into 10-minute speeches. He is doing a 20-minute speech while Liberals are either watching him or looking down. There are other Liberals who I am sure are all very capable. I have heard some of them speak, and yet today, crickets. I almost invite them to put up their hand and say, “Yes, I would love to speak”, and I would seek unanimous consent to have them speak.

Why is it that on such an important bill, the member gets up, gives the speeches and asks all the questions? What is with the Liberal Party today that only he gets to talk on behalf of it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite heckling me for the first five to 10 minutes of my comments. I think the member, more than anyone else, does not necessarily like to hear the truth. When it comes to truth and transparency, I am always happy to talk about the many things this government has been doing. There are many members of the Liberal caucus who have stood up and added value to the discussions and the debate. For some reason, the member seems to be offended if I decide to stand up on behalf of my caucus or my constituents to share some thoughts. He has the option: He does not have to stay in the chamber if he does not want to hear what we have to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am very pleased to see you in the Speaker's chair. However, I must also say that I would have liked to see you take part in today's debate in your former role as immigration critic. I would have liked to see someone as thorough as you participate in the debate on a bill of this nature.

The Liberals are concerned about borders. Finally. After 10 years, they are finally realizing that the refugee system is not working. They would not have introduced such a bill otherwise. This is obviously a step in the right direction. However, it will take time. This bill is 130 pages long, amends some 15 laws and affects at least three departments. It is going to take work, and the government will not be invoking closure.

However, there are things that can be done now, at the administrative level, as requested by the union representing border service officers. We could allow officers to patrol outside border crossings, as they are requesting. Is this a solution that could be considered?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, within the legislation, we will see border control agents being able to go to a warehouse and have access to it so they can inspect. There are some very progressive measures within this legislation that border control officers are no doubt very pleased about.

I think it is a holistic approach to dealing with a number of very serious issues. That is the reason why I am anticipating that, at some point, it will go to committee and we will get all sorts of presentations. If history has anything to do with it, we will see a government that is very open to ideas and thoughts in terms of how the legislation might be improved.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 would give unprecedented powers, without judicial review or a warrant, to the RCMP or CSIS to access information or demand information from any service provider in the country. It does not matter if it is someone's doctor, dentist, landlord, bank or psychiatrist. It does not matter who it is. They can demand information about when someone went to see them and for how long they have seen them. This has nothing to do with border security.

How could the member possibly defend this violation of Canadians' privacy?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that within the legislation we will find that the need to share and have access to information between departments and between agencies is something that is in fact necessary. To imply that there is no sense of accountability, or that individuals' rights and privacy would be violated, is premature at best. I think the member should read the legislation more thoroughly and not necessarily buy into everything that the members of her caucus might be espousing at this point in time.

Give the legislation a chance. We look forward to the presentations that might be made.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. His explanations were truly comprehensive and he presented some very interesting ideas. It is a very interesting and different angle from what can be gleaned from the cursory reading that the opposition obviously did.

I have a very clear question for my colleague. We know that there is a major fentanyl crisis going on. Public safety and any other organizations tasked with dealing with this crisis really need to target precursor chemicals, including the components of fentanyl.

Can he elaborate on this or tell us where to find this information? How can we target the precursors that can be used to make fentanyl?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that within the legislation, there is a serious attempt to clamp down on clandestine drug production by stopping the flow of precursor chemicals that are used to make fentanyl. That is why I try to amplify the fact that we need to take a holistic approach, and if we do that, there are all sorts of things within the legislation that are there to protect Canadians. A lot of the fentanyl is being imported into the country in different forms, and the legislation would deal with that.

[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. Before I begin, I want to give a shout-out to someone who helped with my campaign: Zach Brubacher. I thank him very much for everything.

The member said last time during debate, one of the many times he spoke, or perhaps it was in a heckle, I am not sure, that Canada Post could not open our mail under this legislation without a warrant, so I am going to read him the provision, and perhaps he wants to retract that. This is at page 12 of the bill, proposed subsection 41(1): “The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that”.

Members will note that this would not be judicially authorized; there would be no production order and there would be no warrant, so perhaps the member would like to clarify the record here, because he has been telling people that Canada Post would need a warrant. It is not even the RCMP or a peace officer. Would he like to clarify the record on this important point, please?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let us flash back to the day the member is referring to. We had Conservative member after Conservative member giving the false impression that mail would be easily violated by a letter carrier or someone sorting at the mail office and so forth.

It is all part of that fear factor that the Conservatives like to do. The reality is that it is not as simple as the Conservative Party tries to portray it. There are checks that are put into place to ensure that the privacy of the individual is there. The legislation would enable a law enforcement officer to get a general warrant so they can actually open a letter while it is between destinations.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have time for a brief question and a brief answer.

The member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be quick.

I asked the member for Winnipeg North a question earlier. It is not that complicated. The CBSA union wants this, the officers want this and the Bloc Québécois supports this demand: the ability to patrol between border crossings. It would not require new legislation. It could be done through regulations.

My question is, why does the government not do this right now?

There is no justification for taking so much time. It could act now, immediately. Why not do this right away?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect the CBSA has, if the member is correct, approached the minister, and no doubt there would be discussions in regard to that. I would not necessarily give up hope. We have a government that is very proactive at protecting the interests of Canadians and building stronger and healthier borders.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise in this place, thanks to the support of the great people of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, many of whom I have been hearing from on Bill C-2.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach.

Conservatives have always supported toughening up our borders, and making sure that we are not just securing our borders, but protecting communities and upholding the rights of Canadians. In the last election campaign, we fought very hard, laying out a message on how to make sure we secure our borders, and that would include adding more border agents. We need at least a couple of thousand more border agents to properly police the border, and not just at ports of entry, which is all Bill C-2 would do. We want to make sure that they have the power to police the entire border, whether we are looking at illegal immigration, people who are trying to run fentanyl and other illicit drugs into our country or human trafficking. We often see illegal guns coming across the border. Of course, the bill before us does not address this in its entirety, and that is why I have some concerns.

We need to make sure that our borders are secure. In the campaign, our leader, Pierre Poilievre, talked about installing greater border surveillance, including the use of drones and towers, and more high-powered scanners at land crossings and seaports to ensure that everything that is coming into this country is looked at. This way, we would know whether there is contraband being smuggled into this country, especially the ingredients to make fentanyl and other opioids, which are creating so much tragedy in our communities and on our streets. This is really a sad part that is impacting so many families. We also need to make sure that we are scanning things leaving this country as well, but nothing in the bill addresses that. The illegal export of stolen vehicles has to stop, which means containers need to be scanned, both coming in and going out, but, again, there is nothing on that in the bill.

We are concerned that Bill C-2 does not address the issue of tracking the departures of those who are in Canada and need to leave. If they fail to meet their dates, then we are going to see that they are staying Canada illegally, and they need to be deported immediately.

The bill would do nothing to toughen up penalties for repeat violent offenders. We are talking about stopping human trafficking, gun smuggling and fentanyl as the main reasons to thicken up our borders and secure them. However, the Liberals continue to support soft-on-crime policies, like making sure that repeat violent offenders have access to catch-and-release bail policies. We believe in jail, not bail, and the Liberals continue to have their multiple murder discounts on sentencing.

This is a big bill, over 130 pages, and that in itself makes it an omnibus bill. We know that Liberals have been scrambling since the election to finally take some Conservative policies and put them in their own policies. We will continue to support things that make Canada safer and more secure, but we do have a lot of concerns about how the Liberals continue to have catch-and-release bills, like Bill C-75, and in the last Parliament, Bill C-5. We want to go after gun smugglers, but the Liberals still erroneously vilify law-abiding firearms owners in this country instead of going after the criminals who are smuggling guns and increasing the penalties for gun smugglers, which they actually reduced in Bill C-5. We want to make sure that we are actually addressing that issue.

Another issue with the bill that I am hearing about is the concern we just heard in the previous question, which is that Canada Post would be given the ability to open mail without the proper charter-protected rights that would happen with judicial oversight and warrants. This is clear in the bill, as we were just talking about, in section 41 on page 12, “The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that...”, and then it lists those reasons, which include drug smuggling. That should be done under the authority of a warrant; Canada Post cannot just start opening up mail.

I am hearing from my constituents that they are concerned about part 11, which would limit the amount of cash deposits to $10,000. That impacts those in the agriculture community who want to use cash because they have curbside sales or farmers markets where maybe they are selling livestock or processed meats, vegetables or other types of horticultural crops out of their yards and collecting cash from that. A strawberry U-pick will collect over $10,000 cash easily in a day. Cash is still legal tender. There are ways we can still enforce the money laundering and terrorist financing rules in this country without going after people legitimately collecting cash in their day-to-day business activities. That was about part 4 on Canada Post and part 11 on farm gate sales.

I want to spend a little bit of time on other parts of this bill. In part 14 and part 16, the bill talks about the erosion of privacy rights and civil liberties of Canadians, which I have been hearing about from my constituents. They have been emailing and messaging me on social media. We need to address that.

In my last four minutes, I want to talk about part 5. Part 5 would amend the Oceans Act to provide coast guard services. It would include activities related to security and authorize the responsible minister to collect, analyze and disclose information and intelligence. It provides the power for “The Minister, or any other member of the King’s Privy Council for Canada designated by the Governor in Council for the purposes of this section”. This is where we are hearing about the transfer of the Canadian Coast Guard from Fisheries and Oceans Canada to the administrative powers of the Minister of National Defence. That was announced by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence has talked about it. We have heard from the chief of the defence staff and the vice chief of the defence staff on what that is going to look like.

We know that the Canadian Coast Guard does not have interdiction capabilities. It is not a paramilitary organization; it is a civilian organization. It does not have guns on board. The ships have no defensive purposes at all. We must remember that the Coast Guard does search and rescue. It has a lot of scientific vessels that spend time studying our oceans. That is important and has to happen. It provides transit and transportation assistance by icebreaking in places like the St. Lawrence Seaway. That is all important work that the Coast Guard does. However, it is hard to make the argument that that is in the interest of national security or national defence.

This is just another exercise by the Liberals in creative accounting to move government spending from one department into National Defence without actually increasing the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces. They are not talking about changing the Coast Guard fleet to have them armed up. They are not talking about having the sailors and crew of the Canadian Coast Guard actually be trained up to use sidearms.

We know right now that if the Coast Guard comes across somebody smuggling contraband, such as illegal drugs, they have to call the RCMP to come on board to then do the interdiction of those vessels. It is the same thing if the Coast Guard were to see somebody illegally fishing. They would have to call conservation officers with Fisheries and Oceans to come on board to do the interdiction. They would also, if they come across somebody who entered our waters illegally, either because they are smuggling humans or they got lost, call Canada Border Services to come in to process those individuals and do the interdiction.

The Coast Guard has absolutely no policing powers or ability to do those interdictions on their own, and it is erroneous to think that the Coast Guard provides any type of security purposes underneath the NATO construct. I would just caution the government that if it is going to try to count all of the Coast Guard's budget under National Defence, then it has to change the organization so that it can provide those broader services that have been talked about. The bill talks about how the Coast Guard is going to “support departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada through the provision of ships, aircraft and other services; and" “security, including security patrols and the collection, analysis and disclosure of information or intelligence”.

The Coast Guard does not have that skill set right now. It does not have that ability. The government needs to come clean with Canadians. It needs to come clean with NATO and our allies to explain how it can take a civilian organization and decide this is something that really will improve our national security and our national defence, and will actually increase the lethality and kinetic power of the Canadian Armed Forces, which we know right now, after the last Liberal decade, have been broken by the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the member's comments in regard to the military and in regard to law enforcement versus the Coast Guard. I know he was the parliamentary secretary to the Conservative minister of defence a number of years back.

Is this an issue that was ever raised within the Conservative government? If so, could he maybe share with the House whether it is the Conservative position or his own personal position in regard to what direction he would take the Coast Guard?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I am commenting on is that the government plans on moving the Coast Guard under the direction of the Minister of National Defence without actually talking about how they are going to make it a security agency, which it is not; it is a civilian organization.

This is something that needs to be clearly identified. It needs to describe how this would count towards the NATO 2%, when the Coast Guard currently has no capabilities to provide that security apparatus. If they are going to now start putting either RCMP and/or National Defence personnel on board and arm up those ships, then we are talking about something completely different and we need to understand what that is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague.

In his opinion, why did it take the government so long to even lift a finger? As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean said earlier, this could have been done through an order or a decision by the government, rather than through the long process of passing a bill. All it needed to do was take immediate action at the border.

Why did it take President Trump bringing out the big guns for the government to decide to do this? Why did it wait so long? People inside and outside the House were sounding the alarm.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to the national defence committee with me. We are both serving as vice-chairs on the national defence committee.

I know there has been much debate about how the Liberals have failed on the border, how they ignored illegal migration, like we saw at Roxham Road and Emerson, Manitoba. They welcomed everybody with open arms rather than actually trying to fix the third party agreement. It took them seven years before they finally fixed the third party agreement with the United States so that this type of illegal migration would stop.

We are back in a similar situation. They waited until Donald Trump started yelling at Canada, especially under Justin Trudeau, to do something about the border to act. They have had a decade here, and have completely ignored it. Either they ran out of ideas or they are just completely incompetent.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing to the House's attention the issue around merely transferring the ministry under which the Coast Guard operates from one department to defence without actually increasing or enhancing the defence capabilities of Canada.

Taking a civilian force that undertakes civilian activity and bringing it under the authority of the Minister of National Defence does not make it a defence organization. We know the vital importance of the Coast Guard, but in order to make it a military force that increases Canada's defence capability, it needs to change.

I would like the member to comment further on that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coast Guard does play an important role. If the Liberals were going to move it over to National Defence and start transitioning it to be a paramilitary organization to actually be able to do interdictions and border security, I would be very supportive of that.

However, right now, I just want to know if this is anything that means anything in National Defence, or is this just more creative accounting by the Liberals, taking expenditures out of other departments, ramming them under National Defence like they have for the last seven years, and trying to say that is how we are going to reach 2%?

This does not increase the capabilities and operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces in any way, shape or form. We actually need to see investment in the kinetic equipment that is so desperately needed, like new planes, tanks, LAVs and ships. The Liberals are dragging their feet every time they step up; they fail to make a difference.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to give my first full speech here in this hallowed hall. It is amazing to be back. Some will likely remember that I was a Conservative member of Parliament from 2015 to 2021. With this being my first full speech since coming back, I would like to quickly thank a few people who directly helped me, especially the people of Edmonton Griesbach.

Politics truly is a team sport, and I am humbled and grateful to each and every person who helped on this amazing journey to defeat the NDP and turn Edmonton Griesbach Tory blue once again. I have always hated the colour orange, anyway. I do not think I have any of it in my wardrobe.

There were hundreds who played a part in the win. That included 1,200 people who bought Conservative Party memberships from me and my team. The nomination campaign itself took a ton of work and dedication. My team and I knocked on thousands of doors and made thousands of calls, weekdays and weekends, for a year and a half. I thank my team members for that. I am also grateful for my Conservative MP colleagues, some of whom are in this very room, who helped out on this campaign and helped us win the main campaign.

Of course, thanks goes to my wife Clare Denman, who has always worked right at my side on all campaigns. Most of all, I am grateful to all the voters of Edmonton Griesbach, who once again chose me to represent them in Ottawa. I can promise that I will always represent them to the best of my ability, regardless of who they voted for. They can reach out to me and my office anytime they need assistance. We are at their service.

There is nothing I like better than knocking on doors in politics. That gives a person the very best feedback possible about what issues are most important to people, and sometimes we get it in very colourful language. In this latest campaign, I heard loud and clear that people were eager for change. They were worried about this country. The biggest fear I heard at the doors is about the rapid rise in crime over the last Liberal decade. This crime threatens all Canadians, but let us talk about the crime facing just the city of Edmonton.

Here are a few of the headlines from a search I did on Google in just the last two months. I searched for “crime in Edmonton” and got these troubling headlines from news stories: “Killing of woman, 27, the latest in cluster of Edmonton homicide files”; “Police investigate homicide of woman fatally stabbed in central Edmonton”; “Police looking for information about shooting in southeast Edmonton”; “Two males- a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old were injured”; “Edmonton man guilty of torching homes in Alberta Avenue area; court heard fires were set at behest of notorious slain landlord”.

I found more headlines: “Death of man found unconscious in northeast Edmonton considered homicide”; “Four men charged in connection to 2020 homicide in south Edmonton”; “Edmonton youth, 15, arrested for terrorism-related offence for alleged ties to 764 online network”. I found even more headlines: “Suspect wanted in connection to 2022 nightclub killing also charged in fatal 2020 shooting”; “Second-degree murder conviction in shooting that left victim dying outside Edmonton homeless shelter for 27 hours”; “Woman facing murder charges after two others stabbed in central Edmonton”; “Two men charged with first-degree murder after fatal Edmonton shooting”.

That is quite a lot of shocking headlines. The concern about crime is something I heard time and time again at the doors during the last election campaign. I asked folks, “Don't you think the primary responsibly of a government is to make sure its citizens are safe, that they can walk around in their communities day and night safely?” Folks heartily agreed with that, but the Liberals across the floor have done nothing to truly protect us. Their soft-on-crime, turn-the-other-cheek attitude is a hopeless failure. They continue to defend Trudeau's Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, despite the fact that those bills have unleashed a crime wave. That is evident from the headlines I just read. If people want to see the result, they just need to go to downtown Edmonton and look around, or check out the challenges we are seeing in Edmonton's Chinatown.

Rampant, open drug use and social disorder are literally killing mom-and-pop businesses. People can ride the city's light rail transit at night, if they dare. I was at a community event in our riding of Edmonton Griesbach just the other weekend. I asked people to raise their hand if they feel safe walking in their community alone at night and to raise their hand if they feel safe riding transit alone. In the whole audience, nobody put up their hand, that I could see, except two Edmonton city councillors and a lone NDP MLA. People deserve better. They deserve to be safe in their communities.

We Conservatives will continue to push Liberals to stop coddling criminals and to push for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders, as well as stand up for the rights of victims, not criminals. Despite all of this evidence of the crime wave facing Canadians, the Liberal government is still avoiding the key causes of it. The catch-and-release bail system is a big problem. Instead of addressing that, the Liberal government is going after people's civil liberties.

Bill C-2 would give the government the power to search people's mail, on a whim. This does not help catch criminals. This bill is referred to as the strong borders act, but there is poison aplenty in it. It would make a host of changes the government did not run on in the last election campaign, such as those dealing with immigration. There are so many problems that I do not even have time to address them all. The Liberals will probably respond to my speech claiming that Conservatives do not care about strong border protection because we dare to criticize their beloved bill, but it is their government that oversaw a 632% increase in U.S. Border Patrol encounters of people illegally attempting to enter the United States from Canada. This bill would not make Canadians safer. Breaching our civil liberties by searching our mail for fentanyl is not the solution. If the Liberals really wanted fentanyl off the streets, why would they not punish the criminals supplying it? If they really cared about safety, why would then not bring in mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers?

We are once again in a crisis created by the Liberal government, which seems clueless on how to fix its own mistakes. Voters nationwide wanted change from the 10 years of Liberal failures led by Justin Trudeau. Eight million people voted for our Conservative candidates, but in the end, the Liberals won a minority government. Voters were told that this election really was not a fourth term for Justin Trudeau's Liberals, but just because they say that something is not true, does not make it so. My dad used to always warn me about people who over-promise and under-deliver. He would say, “Son, mark my words, be careful of carnies who make big promises.” He was talking about circus carnies. He always warned me not to get fooled by hucksters at carnivals.

The Liberals need to deliver on their election promises. I promise that Conservatives will keep pushing them to do so.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we go to questions and comments, just as a reminder to members, especially veteran, returning members, we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly, including making references to the Prime Minister's last name in a different occupation that may or may not be happening in certain environments.

The member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member from Edmonton raised the issue of his observations of crime in his community: gun crime, violent crime and numerous other troubling incidents along with public safety issues.

I was just in Edmonton about a month ago and, to be honest, it reminded me a lot of Hamilton with very similar issues. Certainly the federal government has a role to play, as do municipalities. I know the member opposite was a former municipal mayor as well. Both Alberta and Ontario are Conservative-run provinces. What role does the member see provinces having in combatting crime in partnership with the federal government and municipalities?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that promotion. I was actually a city councillor, but I did run for mayor at one time.

We all have to play a part in it, but certainly the federal government has a great deal of power to do something about crime. One of the things that really galls a lot of people in my riding is that they see violent people being released on bail only to reoffend. That is one thing that the federal government has a direct role in doing something about, and we need it to do something about it. People are constantly telling me this.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 has several parts and amends a number of laws. Among other things, it allows for the inspection of goods destined for export. This is a welcome measure, in our opinion, because we remember that it was one of the reasons for the lack of action in fighting auto theft, particularly at the port of Montreal.

However, there is not a single word about increasing the number of customs officers. The customs officers' union told us there is a shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 officers, and there is every indication the government will not be able to adequately inspect all exports in order to fight auto theft.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, again, it is one thing to try to go after fentanyl coming in through the mail, but the real problem is that it is coming in through containers and so forth, and so are the precursor chemicals. This whole thing of finding fentanyl in the mail is a tiny fraction of what is inflicting this country. We really need to look at the container vessels and start inspecting. They just need to do a job inspecting.

[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 give a shout-out to somebody who helped my campaign a tremendous amount, and that was Mr. Spencer Paul. I thank Spencer.

To my hon. colleague, I wonder if he would agree with my sentiment, which is that the Liberals have allowed a porous border and, at the same time, have not dealt with guns, trafficking or bail, yet none of these things are in the bill. It is like they have created a mess and put an omnibus bill here before us. Does he not see it as a bit rich that the Liberals are also not dealing with the things they have created and made a mess of?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly concur. When the Liberals talk about guns, it is always the law-abiding gun owner who takes the brunt of their interference. Those are not the people who are causing the crime. My colleague is quite right. We need to go after the real criminals and stop coddling them, which the Liberals seem to love to do.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we go to resuming debate, I have a reminder for members that the length of speeches will now be adjusted, pursuant to Standing Order 43 and Standing Order 74. There will be 10-minute speeches with five minutes of questions and comments, which means members do not need to say they are sharing their time.

Resuming debate, the member for Pickering—Brooklin.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House for the first time in debate. I am filled with a profound sense of gratitude and humility to represent the constituents of Pickering—Brooklin, a diverse and thriving community encompassing the entirety of the city of Pickering, as well as the northern region of Ajax and Whitby, including the vibrant community of Brooklin. I am deeply honoured by the trust the people have placed in me. This is not merely a privilege but also a solemn obligation.

I pledge to discharge my duties with integrity and diligence and to bring the voices, aspirations and concerns of my constituents to the chamber with the same commitment that guided my many years of service as a school board trustee and as a city councillor. As I take my place in the chamber, I do so with deep awareness of the challenges and the responsibilities that lie ahead, not only for me personally but for all of us entrusted with public office.

The people of Pickering—Brooklin, like so many Canadians, are proud of their communities, hopeful for their future and clear-eyed about the realities that we may confront. Among these, few issues are as urgent or as foundational to our national well-being as the safety and security of our borders and our neighbourhoods. These matters strike at the core of public trust, community confidence and national sovereignty. It is with this sense of purpose that I will address the critical importance of strengthening border security and enhancing public safety for the families and communities I am honoured to represent.

Pickering—Brooklin is a tapestry of natural beauty, growth and resilience. From the shores of Frenchman's Bay, Pickering's crown jewel, to the legacy of the Whitby sports park in Brooklin, our riding is a place where families build lives, businesses thrive and communities unite, but with growth comes responsibility. For decades I have fought at the local level to ensure that schools, neighbourhoods and services meet the needs of the people I serve. Today I bring that same tenacity to Ottawa.

Let me begin with Frenchman's Bay, a treasure that defines Pickering's identity. This is a once-a-generation opportunity, and the federal government must partner with our community to secure its future. By supporting the purchase and preservation of the bay, we can protect its ecological integrity, expand public access and ensure that it remains a sanctuary for generations to come. This is not just a local priority; it is a national imperative. Healthy waterways and rich third places are the lifeblood of our environment, our economy and our collective heritage.

Equally urgent is the fate of the federal lands, the Pickering airport lands. These lands must not sit idle. I will advocate fiercely for their transfer to the Rouge urban national alliance, ensuring that they become part of a protected green corridor that combats urban sprawl, mitigates climate change and guarantees sustainable growth. Let me be clear that this is not about halting progress; it is about redefining it: progress that respects our ecosystems, honours our commitment to future generations and prioritizes people over pavement.

Progress also means security. Every single day, police and border service agents across the country put their life on the line to keep us safe. Day in and day out, law enforcement identifies, mitigates and neutralizes threats to our communities. On behalf of Canadians, I would like to thank law enforcement personnel for their service and for keeping us and our country safe.

However, it is not enough to thank them for their work; we must give them the tools and resources they need to effectively do their job. Just looking at the data from Durham region alone, we see that the need for such measures is very clear. From 2021 to 2023, vehicle theft in the region increased by 100%, with over 1,500 vehicles reported stolen in 2023 alone. In response, Durham Regional Police Service launched Project Attire, a dedicated unit focusing on auto theft investigations. In its first year, the project conducted 865 investigations, laid 341 charges and recovered over 50% of stolen vehicles. Despite these efforts, the region continues to face challenges, including a 13% increase in carjacking in 2024 alone.

This is exactly what we are doing through the stronger borders act: The bill would keep Canadians safe by ensuring law enforcement has the right tools to keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crackdown on money laundering. It would bolster our response to increasingly sophisticated criminal networks and enhance the integrity and fairness of our immigration system, all while protecting Canadian privacy and charter rights.

I strongly believe that Bill C-2 is exactly what Pickering—Brooklin needs, a step forward that reflects our values, meets the moment and secures a better future for our country.

The Canadian Police Association, the largest law enforcement advocacy organization in Canada, has expressed support for the bill. It has stated, “this proposed legislation would provide critical new tools for law enforcement, border services, and intelligence agencies to address transnational organized crime, auto theft, firearms and drug trafficking, and money laundering.” The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association supports the strong borders act for giving CBSA and law enforcement stronger tools to fight auto theft and stop stolen vehicles from being exported.

Similarly, the Future Borders Coalition calls the bill a vital step towards modernizing border security, especially through improved data-sharing and offender travel notifications that enhance public safety. Finally, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, a national charity dedicated to the personal safety of all children, has stated that the changes proposed in the strong borders act “would reduce barriers Canadian police face when investigating the growing number of online crimes against children”.

When developing the legislation that is now before the House, the government had three major objectives: secure the border, combat transnational organized crime and fentanyl, and disrupt illicit financing. To secure the border, we propose to amend the Customs Act to compel transporters and warehouse operators to provide access to their premises to allow for export inspection by CBSA officers, and require owners and operators of certain ports of entry and exit to provide facilities for export inspections, just as they currently do for imports.

We are proposing to amend the Oceans Act to add security-related activities, such as countering criminal activity and drug trafficking, and enable the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and share information with security, defence and intelligence partners. We will also amend the sex offenders act regulations to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to share information collected under the act with domestic and international partners.

Amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act would secure and extend legislative authorities to cancel, suspend or vary immigration documents and cancel or suspend processes of new applicants en masse for reasons determined to be in the public interest. Amendments would also allow IRCC to disclose immigration information for the purpose of co-operation with federal partners and to uphold the integrity and fairness of the asylum system, including by streamlining the intake, processing and adjudication of claims.

I could go on. The proposed bill has documentation and comments about modernizing legislation and equipping law enforcement with necessary tools to combat transnational organized crime in an increasingly complex threat environment.

As all members of the chamber can see, the strong borders act is a key and comprehensive component of our new government's plan to build a safe and more secure Canada. I am asking all parties to support this important legislation.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are contacting me. They are extremely worried about the bill's allowing their mail to be opened. Some of the other speakers said there are checklists to prevent that.

Could the member explain who is going to decide who can or cannot open my mail?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Canada Post Corporation Act, the bill would remove barriers that prevent police from searching the mail where authorized to do so. Where authorized to do so, it would be with a warrant. I would like the member to let her constituents know to rest assured that a warrant would still be needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the same question that I asked another member earlier.

Why did it take Donald Trump pulling out the big guns for the government to finally start doing something? People had been sounding the alarm in the House and elsewhere. Why is the government taking action now, especially when it could be done much faster than with this bill, as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean said earlier?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing here. Canadians sent us here to deliver meaningful legislation that protects our families, our communities and our future. In Pickering—Brooklin, residents are deeply concerned about rising crimes, car thefts and the exploitation of young children through human trafficking.

That is why the Liberals are supporting the bill, and we are hoping the opposition will support the bill as well. That is why we are here for hours debating the bill, so it can pass soon. I hope my hon. colleague will support the bill.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for her fine presentation in support of Bill C-2. I would like to ask my colleague the following question: How does she think that this bill will protect Canadians?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like I said, the bill is here to protect us in three different ways. It is here to secure our borders so any trafficking, car theft and border security issues can be combatted; to combat transnational organized crimes and fentanyl coming in and out of the country; and to disrupt illicit financing. This is what we have heard about at the doors, and our government is acting swiftly. I am really hoping the opposition will support the bill.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite on her win in my region, the Durham region, and I echo her kudos and the good things she had to say about Durham Regional Police Service officers, who work hard in our community and always have our back.

I would say that I feel like what is missing in the bill are the items needed to have the officers' back. They have our back every day. With respect to the bail reforms and the things that are necessary that are missing from the bill, does the member have a comment on those so we can make sure people are not out on bail before the police are done writing their reports?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, bail reform is very important, and it is one of our election commitments as well. When we sit again in the fall, I would assure my colleague, they will see the bail reform come through.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, Finance; the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Firearms; the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar, Public Services and Procurement.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be here speaking on behalf of the people of Markham—Unionville.

Today, we are discussing a bill framed around creating strong borders, yet somehow, it does so much more and so much less than its stated goal. We have a 140-page border bill that somehow also pushes for warrantless access to information about Internet subscribers. If this is the case, the Liberals are pushing for an expansive definition of strong borders. However, in earlier questions about the bill, when we, the official opposition, critiqued elements that could be added to it, our efforts were denied because the Liberals cited a narrow definition of this being merely a borders bill. Which is it? A borders bill that has extensive unlawful access provisions is clearly a bill that can include more real community safety elements, so let us touch on that.

To Conservatives, strong borders mean being tough on drugs across the entire supply chain. This includes drug production, not just drug trafficking. This includes drug producers, not just drug traffickers. In short, it is not just about the substances, but about the actors who are involved.

When we are talking about actors, we need real consequences for the perpetrators of these acts of social destruction. We need mandatory minimum sentences, not bail, when the issue is about fentanyl. How can a borders bill request warrantless access to Internet subscriber information and not also have strong measures against the fentanyl problem? An expansive definition of a strong border requires a holistic tackling of the fentanyl supply chain.

Unfortunately, even if Bill C-2 passes, Canadians will still be left with the unsafe society that the Liberals legislated into being. We live in a society where fentanyl traffickers have no mandatory minimums and can receive bail and where house arrest is considered a worthy punishment for the monsters who are killing our community.

Conservatives will keep repeating this one simple fact until the Liberals hear us: It takes only two milligrams of fentanyl to kill a fellow Canadian. If members understand this simple fact, anyone trafficking over 40 milligrams of fentanyl should be considered no different than a mass murderer who guns down 20 people. However, the Liberals want these people to walk free on bail and have a comfortable time under house arrest. They will not punish people on the same level as mass murders, yet they have the audacity to want warrantless access to our Internet information in their borders bill.

Are we truly talking about a borders bill? To Conservatives, a strong border means being tough on crime in order to secure the safety of our hard-working communities. From 2015 through 2023, total violent crime was up 50%, total homicides were up 28%, gang-related homicides were up about 78% and total violent firearms offences were up about 116%, which has increased for nine consecutive years.

Just as with fentanyl traffickers, we want to see a similar approach for firearms traffickers and the gun-wielding gangsters they serve. We want mandatory minimums, we want an end to bail for these particular offences and we want an end to house arrest. However, we live in a world where the Liberals have legislated an easy time for repeat offenders while launching a crusade against legal gun owners.

I have established what the bill does not have but should. Let me now outline what is has but probably should not.

The strong borders bill apparently finds the need to encroach upon norms we hold dear for our civil liberties. We are deeply concerned that the bill would grant people the ability to open our mail without our consent. We are deeply concerned that the bill would compel Internet companies to hand over our private data without our consent. We are further concerned that the bill even attempts to interfere in how Canadians use cash. Do the Liberals wish for a 100% digital economy?

A world where the Liberals can encroach upon cash transactions and, further, have the ability to access our private digital information leads to a world where they will eventually have complete oversight over our transactions. Is this necessary for a strong borders bill? Does this make us true north strong and free? No, it never can. The bill would curtail the freedoms of hard-working Canadians while letting repeat criminals walk free on bail. This is madness made legal.

If Bill C-2 is going to be a narrowly defined borders bill that has no room to address our drug and gun issues, it is definitely a bill that has no room for warrantless access to our mail and Internet data while limiting our capacity to use cash. However, because it is clearly a bill with an expansive definition of what constitutes a strong border, we Conservatives have some recommendations that require inclusion.

We have four points that merit consideration. One, a strong border means toughening penalties for repeat violent offenders. Two, a strong border means ending catch-and-release bail and house arrest for fentanyl traffickers and gun gangsters. Three, a strong border means eliminating the multiple murder discount in sentencing. Four, a strong border means tackling drug issues holistically, prioritizing treatment over drug distribution to support those battling addiction.

What we need is a strong borders bill that will take public safety seriously while also protecting Canadian freedoms. What we have instead is a bill that does not address the core problems on the drug and crime files while completely disrespecting the freedoms that Canadians hold dear. Bill C-2 is an omnibus bill that falls well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching on our civil liberties.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made reference to the warrantless opening of mail. I have to ask, what part of the police obtaining warrants to open mail, the same way that now happens with services such as FedEx and Purolator, did the member not understand?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point the member made is not in the bill. The bill would allow the Canada Post Corporation to access mail without going through a standard police warrant process, and that in itself is a problem for Canadians overall.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the question that I asked our hon. colleague, because I unfortunately did not get an answer.

The Customs and Immigration Union says that there is a shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 officers and that the government will clearly not be able to properly inspect all exports to combat auto theft.

I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, the borders bill needs to address both the resources and the legislation.

As the member points out, many cases of auto theft go unnoticed. Cars get loaded on trailers and ships, and they exit the country without being noticed. A strong borders bill needs to build in factors that will enable and enhance our police capabilities and our border security to protect against theft outside of the country and protect us from the improper import of guns and drugs, especially fentanyl, into the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague have any examples from his riding where constituents may have a problem with being banned from using $10,000 in cash?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are examples. I heard during our campaigning this year that there are concerns about transactions. The point being made is that cash is very much part of our society, and there are companies that work on the basis of not wanting to pay credit card fees and so forth. To legislate and force all transactions to go through credit cards and electronic means is just not practical for small and medium enterprises.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is purported to be a measure to address border security, fentanyl, car theft and so on, yet the Conservatives, of course, cancelled the port police, which caused part of the problem. The Liberals have been in government for 10 years, and they have not restored the port police.

In my riding of Vancouver East, we see the drugs coming in and see the crime, which are impacting our country, so my question to the member is this: Would he support the call to bring back the port police for border security?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we need to look at is the whole border bill, what it entails and, as I mentioned earlier, the expanded definition in the bill. Would it just address certain portions of the border or would it address more? I ask because previously I have questioned the hon. minister, and while it seems the bill is very restrictive, some of the definitions have become very expansive. That is why in my question earlier, I said the bill goes everywhere but addressing its actual needs.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, the strong borders act.

I want to begin by thanking our dedicated officers from the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and our frontline men and women who serve within our local police forces, as well as those who serve within our national security apparatus. I thank all of them for their service and their commitment to keeping us all safe.

Our border is maintained through rigorous enforcement, advanced technology and strong domestic and international partnerships. Although there is more to be done, this new government was elected in part to take concrete action in order to keep Canadians safe. This is why the bill in front of us, the strong borders act, is so important.

The bill would ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools to keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crack down on illicit financing and money laundering more broadly. These measures would bolster our response to increasingly sophisticated criminal networks while ensuring that we protect Canadians' privacy and charter rights.

One of the key goals of this bill is to strengthen the government's effort against illicit financing and money laundering. We know that money laundering supports and perpetuates criminal activity by allowing criminals, such as fentanyl traffickers, to profit from their illicit activities and then reinvest in their criminal enterprises.

This makes strong and effective anti-money laundering controls a critical component of keeping Canadians safe. Bill C-2 would strengthen Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime through stronger penalties for financial crimes and by addressing the most prevalent forms of money laundering.

It would enhance public-to-private information sharing and strengthen the supervision and compliance of financial institutions and other businesses and professionals with anti-money laundering obligations.

The strong borders act proposes a comprehensive set of amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to ensure that businesses and professionals regulated by the act are effective in detecting and deterring money laundering. This means strengthening the administrative monetary penalty framework through increased civil and criminal penalties while establishing safeguards for small businesses so they are not disproportionately penalized.

The strong borders act would enhance compliance program requirements and enforcement. It also means punishing serious criminal non-compliance by increasing the limits for all criminal fines 10 times. The stronger penalties proposed for non-compliance would better align Canada with other countries, including the United States and the European Union.

The strong borders act would also introduce a new offence for the provision of false information to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, more commonly known as FINTRAC.

We will strengthen the anti-money laundering framework and support the fight against financial crime more broadly—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member. I have a point of order from the official opposition deputy whip.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies for the interruption, but the hon. member has referred to a “new government”. The government has been in power for the last decade. I am wondering if he might correct that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

That is a matter of debate.

I will let the parliamentary secretary continue.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will strengthen the anti-money laundering framework and support the fight against financial crime more broadly.

We will require reporting entities or business professionals who have obligations under the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act to enrol with FINTRAC if they have not already done so. Enrolment would provide FINTRAC with accurate and up-to-date information on the businesses it regulates, supporting risk management efforts and improved communication. It would also enable FINTRAC disclosures to Elections Canada to detect and deter illicit financing and foreign interference in Canadian elections.

The strong borders act addresses common and dangerous types of money laundering, including through new restrictions on large cash transactions and third party deposits where someone deposits money into an account that is not their own. We will make the rules clearer for how the public sector and private sector can share information with each other to help spot and stop money laundering.

Finally, the bill introduces amendments to the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to foster a more integrated approach and strengthen coordination among federal financial oversight agencies, reinforcing Canada's high compliance standards. These amendments would improve inter-agency coordination and communication. Specifically, bringing FINTRAC's knowledge and expertise to assist our government's financial intelligence by sharing and receiving information. We will strengthen the oversight of our financial institutions in the fight against illicit financing and money laundering.

These measures are in addition to and in support of the government's establishment of the integrated money laundering intelligence partnership with Canada's largest banks. This partnership will enhance our capacity to use financial intelligence tools to combat fentanyl trafficking and other forms of organized crime. Frankly, it will allow us to cut off the flow of illicit financing and go after the bad guys.

With these significant anti-money laundering provisions, the government is addressing the long-standing concerns stakeholders have raised in recent years. Some of these stakeholders are loud supporters of the bill. They include the National Police Federation, which stated it was “encouraged by provisions that strengthen lawful access to digital evidence, [and] improve collaboration with FINTRAC and financial institutions”. It also said that it is clear “that public safety is a top priority for this new government.”

Even the Canadian Police Association, the voice of over 60,000 frontline officers, has said that the legislation would “strengthen the ability of police to investigate and disrupt complex criminal networks by enhancing anti-money laundering enforcement,” and that “Bill C-2 would give police services the legal tools needed to respond more effectively to evolving threats.”

Transnational organized crime groups are consistently adapting to new technology and adapting new methods of criminality, and we must ensure our law enforcement and national security agencies can adapt as well. That is why the new government is being thoughtful in its approach to legislation. For example, we are proposing closing a loophole that has allowed law enforcement to open mail from FedEx and UPS, but not from Canada Post. Currently, drug traffickers can exploit this gap by shipping fentanyl in small quantities through Canada Post, beyond the reach of interception. The proposed strong borders act would change that by authorizing Canada Post to open mail with a warrant.

Previous governments have focused on the root causes of crime, and as Liberals, it is the new government that will continue that responsibility and that work. Our government, this new government, is both tough on the underlying causes of crime and tough on crime itself. By cracking down on illicit financing and money laundering, we will be tough on crime by making it more difficult for groups to fund their criminal enterprises, including the trade in illegal fentanyl, drugs, firearms and other forms of smuggling and trafficking.

It is just one of the many ways that the new government is taking the fight to the bad guys to keep our communities safe. I think we can all agree that there is no more important priority for us as—

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite mentioned “the new government” again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. This is the second member, within a 10-minute speech, who has stood up on a ridiculous point of order, disrupting a member's speech. Members do all sorts of things with their speeches. I think it is very disturbing to hear that, and it can work both ways. I would ask members to not interrupt when a member is delivering a speech.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention. I thank the member for London—Fanshawe. Those are all matters of debate.

I will let the parliamentary secretary to the secretary of state for combatting crime finish his speech.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that there is no more important priority for us as lawmakers than to keep Canadian communities and everyone who lives in them as safe as possible from crime. Every Canadian deserves to live on a safe street and with a strong and secure border. That is why I call on my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House to join me in supporting the strong borders act and getting it passed as quickly as possible. I look forward to their support.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary made, in a throwaway comment, the claim that Canada Post's powers under the bill to open mail unilaterally would be subject to a warrant. I have studied the bill, and I even looked at it just after the member said that. The word “warrant” does not appear once in part 4 of the act, which deals with the powers of Canada Post. It says very clearly “the corporation”, referring to Canada Post. There is no reference to police, no reference to courts and no reference to warrants.

Will the member please point to precisely where a warrant would be required for this authority?

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessarily just in that particular section. I am actually a little surprised, because the hon. member wrote a great book about a politician who got blown out in his seat, and he is quite smart. I have a lot of respect for you. I am a little surprised that you would allow and be okay with a loophole with UPS and FedEx—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am happy to chat with the member. He is speaking to me directly by using the word “you”, and in doing so, not answering the question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the member for that point of order. Yes, it is a reminder that members speak through the Chair to keep it neutral.

I will let the parliamentary secretary finish.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member. The fact is, I know there is no world in which he would want there to be a loophole between collecting data from UPS and FedEx and collecting it from Canada Post.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Eglinton—Lawrence on his election. He seems like a serious parliamentarian who wants to work constructively. That is exactly how the Bloc Québécois operates. We work constructively on bills.

This bill is going to take time. It will require thorough and rigorous study. In the meantime, we have proposals that could help us now at the border.

There is something I want to ask. The Bloc Québécois has made a proposal that responds to the request of the union representing border services officers. Our proposal is to give officers the power to patrol outside border crossings, as the union is calling for. It could be done through regulations right away.

Would my colleague agree that the government could take immediate action by making regulations to allow this? There would be no need to make new legislation. In any case, we will study the bill thoroughly. Does my colleague agree that the government could take action now through regulations giving border services officers more powers?

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question was very thoughtful. The fact of the matter is, we are taking action now. The piece of legislation before us has the support of all the largest law enforcement organizations in the country. When the Canadian Police Association, which is the voice of 60,000 frontline officers, and our national security agencies all commend the tools that are in the bill, we know we are on the right path. We are taking action, and I am very proud of the tools it would give our law enforcement agencies and our national security agencies to go after the bad guys.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's impressive speech. I just want to hear his thoughts on Canada's new government and the vision that we have moving forward as I can—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to put it on the record that the member is misleading the House by saying that this is a new Liberal government, when it in fact is the same—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have now heard several points of order on this matter.

These are not points of order. These are points of debate. I invite the members to participate in questions and comments. It is a great opportunity to raise the matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Can we stop wasting time?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

That is not a point of order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Waterloo.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's speech and the comments in regard to Canada's new government and the vision that our new Prime Minister has. On April 28, Canadians sent us here with a strong mandate, and I hope members in this House can all work together to advance the vision of Canada's new government.

As the member of Parliament for the riding of Waterloo, I am hearing from constituents who are concerned in regard to this legislation. They are wanting to understand the process and how we can assure them that their rights and freedoms will not be infringed upon. I would love to hear the member's comments, just to provide some relief and reassurance to constituents within the riding of Waterloo and across Canada.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, I do want to go back to a quote from the National Police Federation, which says it is clear that “public safety is a top priority for this new government.” Therefore, I want to thank the organization for its support and all the other police organizations that are supporting us.

In terms of protecting civil liberties, we are doing a lot of work in committee, and this legislation continues to uphold the utmost standards to ensure that our charter rights and Canadian charter rights are being protected.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I once again rise on behalf of the good people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, a riding that has six border crossings, to speak to the legislation before us, Bill C-2.

We know that the bill is much more than a border bill. My riding and province have very much been on the front lines of an addiction crisis that has persisted for far too long. In fact, drug overdose is now the leading cause of death among B.C. youth aged 10 to 18. Too many families in our communities have lost their children to drug addiction. Too many drug kingpins, who fuel this crisis, have not been put behind bars. Even before my time here in the House, my Conservative colleagues highlighted the threat to our communities that is the drug running happening across the U.S.-Canada border, which had little to no response from the government during the lost Liberal decade.

We have long called for concrete actions to strengthen our borders while the Trudeau Liberal government chose to look the other way. Since they were first elected, there has been a 632% increase in U.S. border patrol encounters with people illegally attempting to enter the United States from Canada. This directly results from the government's failure to enforce effective border security. The Liberals have allowed this crisis to fester and grow, and it is putting Canadians at risk. Many of those crossings were to traffic illegal firearms into Canada for use by criminal gangs.

Canadian security services have identified 350 organized crime rings operating within our borders. For years, the Liberals, knowing we had severe problems at our border with the United States, dragged their feet on addressing any of these issues related to illegal firearms. Instead, they started targeting law-abiding firearms owners and treated them as if they were a source of rising firearms violence that needed to be dealt with. Hunters and sport shooters, who are vital to our tourism, are now often turned around at the border. Even if they go through extensive paperwork, checking every box, they often have their property wrongfully seized, and it takes them weeks, if not months, to get it back.

Even in my riding, we have seen the Liberal government go after my local sport shooters and archers. The Penticton Shooting Sports Association, situated on federally managed land for more than 40 years, recently saw its lease cancelled by the government without explanation. That is 40 years that they have been there. This is happening despite their facilities offering vital training resources to the RCMP, border guards, cadets and the public.

The club's services include hunter education, firearms safety instruction, youth and cadet firearms training, and a family-friendly environment for competitive shooting sports. I cannot emphasize enough that this is a vital training facility and club that needs to stay open.

In the meantime, illegal firearms stream across the border, where CBSA agents, already understaffed, are stretched thin, trying to slow the flow. Gun-related crime is up 116%, with 85% of gun offences committed using illegal firearms originating from the United States.

In terms of Bill C-2, Liberal MPs have spent the last several weeks proclaiming that the new Government of Canada will set new priorities, calling it the stronger borders act. However, upon closer examination, Bill C-2 goes well beyond the issue of borders. Conservatives, in the election, were very clear that we would strengthen the border.

The Liberals have packaged a range of measures into the legislation that were not discussed, let alone mentioned anywhere in the Liberal platform. Measures irrelevant to the management of the border or the combatting of illegal drug trafficking are rife in the stronger borders act.

There is no question that the legislation contains some measures the members of this House would probably support. However, it is such a sweeping piece of legislation that it leaves us hard pressed as members to see what the ultimate consequences of some of these changes might be, whether the measures included will actually address the problems the Liberals seek to solve or, worse, whether these measures are in direct conflict with our civil liberties.

A clear example is that the Liberals have promised to invest more money into border investigations and scanners, after years of calls to do so from my Conservative colleagues. Official statistics show that only 1% of shipping containers are inspected when coming into our country. This represents a wide-open opportunity for criminals to push drugs and guns through the other 99%. This is nothing new. More money for container scanning is welcome, but once again, the details are completely lacking. Canadians cannot be protected by a press release.

The Liberals are offering no timeline for when the investment in upgrading and expanding our scanning tools will be made or even when these resources might reach the border. It is a broken record in Canada of Liberal funding announcements being made and then the minister sitting back and assuming that changes, even positive changes, will magically appear before us all. A decade of a Liberal government has shown an addiction to taking credit for announcing measures instead of enacting or even considering them.

Canadians were not impressed by the last-minute election commitment to purchase two Black Hawk helicopters to patrol the entire Canada-U.S. border. Our border with the United States is just under 8,900 kilometres. It is unlikely that two helicopters could cover it in a month, let alone doing daily monitoring operations to look for smugglers. Even for the hundreds of kilometres of border that my riding encompasses, having two helicopters cover that large distance, even if both are in operation, stretches credibility. It is a joke.

Last, I wish to touch on an issue many Canadians have raised with the legislation regarding civil liberties, specifically the section of the bill that would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. Bill C-2 broadens the government's ability to open our mail. Canadians expect that personal, private correspondence would be beyond government intervention. The Liberals must provide a more comprehensive response as to what circumstances would justify this. As my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola asked earlier this month, is it even charter compliant?

Canadians expect Parliament to make strong laws to protect them, but they also expect that their basic liberties and privacy will be respected. Several sections of the legislation have raised concerns among privacy experts and civil liberty organizations. Their concerns must be respected. The balance of security and liberty is also at the heart of western democracy. Therefore, any government seeking to grant further powers to intervene in the everyday lives of Canadians deserves the greatest level of scrutiny. Conservatives will continue to scrutinize the legislation ahead of the next vote while continuing to argue for the proper enforcement of our border and ports, with appropriate punishments for criminals.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we have another Conservative member who continues to want to give misinformation.

Today, the reality is that Canada Post inspectors can actually go through any parcel over 500 grams. With anything under 500 grams, such as a simple letter, someone could put in fentanyl and mail it. There is no one opening up those letters. Under this legislation, we are enabling them, under a general warrant, to be able to open those letters.

It is a simple, straightforward process, yet Conservatives are trying to give the impression that we have people working in the post office, who are not Canada Post inspectors, going through the mail and opening up letters as they want to. That is just not the case.

This legislation gives us more opportunity to deal with fentanyl. Would the member not support that?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the bill is being pushed through at such a rapid rate that Canadians do not trust what is happening. They do not trust the Liberals. So many times in the last 10 years, the Liberals have promised something and nothing has happened or something else has come through.

The bill has not been explained properly to the Canadian people. I am not making up that what I am hearing from my constituents, which we are all hearing from our constituents, is that they do not trust the Liberals with the bill. They are afraid they are going to lose their civil liberties if it is passed.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to mention that Quebec just got some amazing news.

The three-year-old girl who has been missing for three days after being abandoned by her mother has just been found in St. Albert, Ontario. I wanted to share my happiness with everyone in the House of Commons. I want to thank the police officers and everyone else who actively helped find little Claire Bell. She is alive and doing well. Soon we will find out the whole story. Many thanks to the police and to everyone who chipped in, including the members of the public who provided tips that led to the little girl being found in St. Albert.

That said, here is my question for my colleague. To reach his objectives, the Minister of Public Safety set a target of recruiting 1,000 customs officers. Right now, Canada has the capacity to train 600 customs officers per year. Does my colleague not find it odd that, at this time, we have no idea what the minister's plan is for reaching his target of recruiting 1,000 officers?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the police on their good job.

I believe there are many problems with the bill, and one of them is that nothing is explained. The Liberals talk about hiring more border guards, but where are they going to get these people? They also talk about hiring 1,000 more RCMP members. If we talk to municipalities across the country, they are waiting for RCMP officers, but there is a lack of people applying for the job. Nobody is applying at Depot. There is a lack of RCMP officers, and they are expensive for communities. I wonder where the Liberal government plans to get 1,000 RCMP officers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to put some facts on the record, contrary to the member for Winnipeg North, who talks about misinformation. The only misinformation here is from him. A government that he is pretending is different is exactly the same as it has been for the last 10 years and the last 20 years that he has been here.

He questions the credibility of a long-serving municipal official from British Columbia about what she is hearing from her constituents. I would like to give her another chance to put the facts on the record about what she is hearing from her constituents with regard to the failures of the same Liberal government on border security and public safety as a whole.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that I am hearing this. We are hearing across the country that people are afraid. Canadians are afraid of what might happen if we allow the government to have too much power.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated that the top seven priorities for the government include “Attracting the best talent in the world to help build our economy, while returning our overall immigration rates to sustainable levels.” Bill C-2 proposes important changes to address gaps in immigration authorities, provide a more adaptive system to the rapidly changing global migration patterns and empower better decision-making and information sharing.

We must get these important steps right. Immigration is an essential part of Canada's past, present and future. As the Prime Minister noted, this is an essential channel for new workers.

This bill would also improve security along the Canada-U.S. border and help address current and future potential challenges for individuals crossing the border in either direction.

This legislation would make changes to respond to a more complex global movement of people, increasingly sophisticated fraud, the need to update information-sharing mechanisms and authority over immigration documents.

First, the bill includes certain long-awaited measures to address current and future challenges. They will resolve issues that undermined the asylum system in the past and ensure the immigration system is better prepared for the future. Streamlining processing to make it more efficient will ensure certain long-standing challenges can be overcome.

The bill proposes intelligence and information sharing and ensuring that applications are ready for processing before they are sent to the final decision-making body, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

The legislation would do this in part by clearing the way to create a single application system and intake for all asylum claims. This would make it easier for individuals filing a claim, with clear requirements for information and documents at the outset. However, just as important, the legislation means that departments and agencies across the federal government would work from shared information. Instead of multiple departments and agencies asking for the same information, these departments would work more co-operatively with the same shared information.

In order to create a more efficient system, the bill proposes amendments so that only applications that are ready to be heard are referred to the IRB for decision. Right now, the IRB is scheduling hearings for some cases before the departments or agencies have completed certain aspects of their review. These may include important measures that take time, such as security screening or confirming the identity of a person from an area affected by conflict. If only applications that are ready to be heard are referred to the IRB, decisions can be made without delay, which may reduce the number of cases.

Bill C-2 would empower the IRCC to determine if an application has been abandoned even before the application has been reviewed for decision, and to remove it from processing under certain circumstances. As simple as that sounds, applicants may not always acknowledge or advise the federal government when they are not seeking asylum anymore. For example, the board could determine that applications are abandoned when applicants are unresponsive to required documents or information. Those applications would be removed through the abandonment process, allowing officials to focus efforts on those who need protection and continue to seek asylum.

There is also an important change to the claim resolution process. People who file an application from within Canada, including those at ports of entry such as airports, must be physically present in the country for their hearing. One would generally assume that a person who fled to Canada to seek protection would remain here in order to get that protection. However, there have been cases where applicants were outside the country when a decision was being made regarding their case.

People who enter Canada irregularly, between border crossings, violate our agreement on shared border responsibilities. This regime, which was put in place in 2012, created different asylum rules for citizens from certain designated countries. Some provisions of the regime were struck down by the Federal Court of Canada. The bill would repeal the provisions relating to this regime and transfer the power to establish lists for refugee hearings to IRB to allow for more strategic case management.

To address more recent challenges and issues that might arise again in the future, we are modernizing the asylum system with important reforms to strengthen migration integrity. To protect the system against surges in claims, we are introducing new ineligibility rules for asylum. These changes confirm that asylum is not a shortcut to immigration and would reduce pressures on the system so that we are focused on those who do need protection.

We have also seen the tragic consequences of this, including the deaths of families in our freezing cold winters. Irregular crossings are often an act of desperation and may be facilitated by human traffickers and organized crime groups. We know that some people continue to cross the Canada-U.S. border despite our warnings and laws.

By waiting 14 days or more before making an asylum claim, they are trying to sidestep the safe third country agreement, which would require them to return to the U.S. to file their claim. This delay appears, at first glance, to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent our existing immigration laws and systems. Claims made by these individuals will not be referred to the board.

We are also making changes that make claims inadmissible if they are made more than one year after someone enters Canada, if they arrived after June 24, 2020. The vast majority of asylum claims are made within one year of arrival. A one-year limit will deter people from using the asylum system to extend their stay in Canada if other mechanisms fail.

These important reforms would better align our systems and resources to serve their purpose. They would align our efforts to those who need our protection, limit attempts by others to avoid and bypass our system, and streamline the process so that we can do more with existing resources.

The many aspects of this bill will not allow me to go into detail today, but let me touch on the impacts of a few measures.

These changes would streamline the work of the federal government, reduce the burden on our provincial and territorial partners, and improve communications to keep our communities safe. Sharing information with law enforcement and national security agencies can help us detect and prevent fraud.

There is concern that people are using multiple identities to access government benefits or avoid detection. With robust identity verification processes, we can ensure that all levels of government are working with accurate, consistent data.

We would also prohibit further sharing by provincial or territorial government partners to foreign entities unless there is written consent and compliance with our obligations related to mistreatment, as defined in the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act. These authorities were reviewed by the Department of Justice and reflect input from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. They are fully compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and uphold our commitment to transparency and accountability.

To conclude, Bill C-2 would streamline and improve the asylum process against issues we know about now and potential risks in the future.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the elimination of large cash deposits over $10,000. I represent a riding that is very rural. There are several small business owners in rural communities who are still dealing with cash. Oftentimes, financial institutions are hundreds of kilometres away. There might be long periods of time before they can get to the bank to deposit those cash amounts, which is driving up their costs.

I am just wondering if the Liberals will consider these small, responsible rural business owners when implementing this cash transaction limit in their legislation.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government takes very seriously and emphasizes that small businesses are the backbone of our country's economy. It is very important that we keep those businesses in mind. However, when illicit financing occurs, this limit can help crack down on money laundering and terrorist financing.

It is essential that we keep track of reporting, present stronger penalties, prohibit crimes and third party cash deposits, and add FINTRAC to financial institutions' supervisory committees.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that, currently, border officers have the ability and authority to inspect rail cars carrying imported goods. Bill C-2 now includes an additional power, the power to inspect rail cars carrying goods destined for export.

How will officers do that, though? Currently, even though they are empowered to inspect rail cars containing imported goods, they do it rarely, if at all, because they are short-staffed. How can they be given additional powers when they are unable to fully assume their role of examining and inspecting rail cars carrying exports and imports?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for mentioning that little Claire Bell was found. We are so glad. We thank the police for working tirelessly for this outcome. Fortunately, all is well.

I also thank my colleague for her question. Fighting transnational organized crime and preventing fentanyl imports are extremely important. Inspections must be done. As we mentioned, we are going to hire an additional 1,000 border officers and more RCMP officers to help address those issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that, like me, the member is very much concerned about the issue of extortion. Within the legislation and in listening to the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, we understand and have an appreciation that there is at least a step toward providing additional tools to allow law enforcement agencies to move more on that issue.

I just thought I would provide the member the opportunity to give her personal thoughts on the issue of extortion and just how serious it is. It is nice to see whatever measures we can get that would enable us to take further action on that issue.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an incredible moment for me to answer my colleague's questions. He is often in the House.

To answer his question, extortion has become a plague in Canada. It is very disconcerting to see the amount of extortion that is occurring and these strong measures would help in combatting that. Right now, we see the increase of such situations and so we are going to fight against this and other transnational crime.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Unfortunately, I have some concerns about what she considers to be the strengths and virtues of this bill. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill so that it can be considered in committee, but I am not sure the Bloc Québécois will support it when it comes back to the House for third reading. We will see what happens in committee, but as of right now, I have quite a few concerns about the bill.

Does keeping our streets and borders safe always mean waiving our rights and freedoms? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I do not think so. There must be other ways to make our streets and our borders safer. Once Bill C‑2 is passed, if it passes in its current form, what hopes will we have left for privacy? Our personal information could be accessed, captured or even shared with various organizations, both in Canada and abroad. Mail, something we once saw as almost sacred, was untouchable. It was a Criminal Code offence to open mail. Now the government wants to open it, inspect it and use it against us.

New powers are being granted to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to suspend, vary or cancel visas and documents. The conditions for doing so will be set in regulations that we know nothing about. What will these conditions be? How will this new power be defined? Will people who have applied and incurred expenses for their application be reimbursed? Will this bill jeopardize the status of people who were selected by Quebec, for example? In what circumstances can someone be told that their visa application will not be processed? In our view, these are important questions. They are matters that need to be clarified. Unfortunately, we do not have many details for the moment, aside from the fact that it will all be determined in regulations. I look forward to finding out in committee what kind of regulations we can expect.

Cash transactions over $10,000 will now be prohibited. I must admit that it is rather rare for me to walk around with $10,000 or $15,000 in cash in my pocket. I do not remember ever having to pay a bill $10,000 in cash in my life. However, the fact remains that this new ban will require the use of currently available banking tools, such as cheques, Interac cards and credit cards. All of this leads to interest charges and user fees for both the payee and the payer. How will that be done? How is that going to be structured? Are we comfortable with the idea of giving financial institutions, lending institutions an advantage? I have to wonder. It also leaves a trail. As I said, I am not in the habit of paying bills for $10,000 in cash, but I would like to hear from experts on this. Are there situations where this could become problematic? I admit that I do not see any. I have looked, but I could not find any, but I still think that this is an issue that should be addressed before we say that we are making a law about it.

I found the next part a bit extreme: "use an individual's personal information without the individual's knowledge or consent". Should not the authorities at least be required to obtain a warrant before doing that? This is about fighting organized crime, border breaches and terrorism. The Bloc Québécois has made that something of a calling card. I have introduced three bills to establish a list of criminal entities and to prohibit people from wearing symbols and doing anything else to promote criminal organizations, such as wearing the "support 81" shirts that caused such an uproar at the time. I believe the Bloc Québécois has been fighting this fight since the party's inception, and we will continue to do so.

Do we really want to adopt provisions that would make us live in a society where individual freedoms would no longer be protected and none of our information would be kept confidential?

I would like to talk about another serious danger. Normally, a lawyer who is seeking a search warrant must first argue before a judge that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence will be committed, and they must convince the judge of that. This bill changes that. Law enforcement is saying that the evidentiary threshold is a bit hard to meet, so they are asking instead for reasonable grounds to suspect. Reasonable grounds to suspect is nonsense.

For example, if I argue before a judge that I have grounds to suspect that my colleague from Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle might think, say or do this or that, but ultimately, she does not do it, I could simply say that I had suspicions about her but that I was wrong. My suspicions did not materialize, but there are no consequences. However, if someone tells me that I need to have valid reasons to believe that something is the case, then my own belief, my own credibility is at stake. That is completely different. I am really concerned about lowering the evidentiary threshold for getting a warrant. I think it merits further discussion. I would like to hear from experts on this issue.

As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois has become somewhat of a champion in the fight against organized crime in a number of ways. We are calling for stronger borders. Not so long ago, my colleague who was in charge of the public safety file and I were outraged that the Government of Quebec had to spend $6 million to send boats to patrol the Quebec-U.S. border along the St. Lawrence River. We were indignant. It is not up to the Government of Quebec to pay for border protection. That is the federal government's responsibility. We demand that it uphold it. I still believe that this is a federal responsibility and something that the federal government needs to do.

Is the current form of Bill C‑2 the solution for controlling our border more effectively? I am not so sure. The same goes for organized crime. We are also demanding that Quebec's requests regarding entry into our borders be respected. The number of individuals who can enter Quebec each year must be limited. Not only have we reached the acceptability thresholds for integrating these people, but we have been exceeding them for quite some time now. Even if they enter without any grounds, if they manage to hide in the woods for 14 days before approaching the authorities, we have to take them in, send them to school, provide them with health care, clothe them and find them housing, even though we are unable to do so for the current population. This raises some serious issues. We are therefore calling on the government to abide by this threshold.

Does Bill C-2 respond to this request? I am not sure. Once again, it is all well and good to cancel or suspend visas, but there must be grounds for doing so, and the mechanism and the procedure for that must be set out. However, all of this is a bit vague at the moment. We are being told that it will appear in future regulations. That does not reassure me.

This is all happening right when the government is asking us to pass Bill C‑5. Now, this is something we do not see every day. Under this bill, a project will be decreed to be in the national interest if the Prime Minister decides it is. Projects can be exempt from pretty much any rule whenever he sees fit. All this is happening under a closure motion. I have always believed that mixing alcohol and drugs is dangerous. Now, this mix of Bill C‑2, Bill C‑5 and the closure motion has me extremely concerned.

Are we witnessing something like a shift toward authoritarianism? I do not want to be melodramatic, but I think we need to be on our guard. We need to pay attention and be cautious, because none of this is reassuring for the society we live in, a society that values its hard-won privacy protections and other protections.

I urge everyone here to be cautious. I urge us all to be champions of the kind of society our constituents want.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, Quebeckers and Canadians made it clear that they expect all parties to take action against cross-border crime, fentanyl, gun smuggling and auto theft.

Can my colleague confirm that he and his caucus colleagues support those goals and will vote in favour of the bill?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, and I can confirm that to be the case.

We have said this many times, and I do not want to repeat myself, but we also want to fight organized crime, drug trafficking and fentanyl, which is a terrible scourge. What we are saying is that the government cannot do it any which way.

Just because I am against criminals does not mean I agree with going around and hanging them in the streets without due process.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to give a shout-out to someone who helped a lot in my campaign, and that is my sister, Rosie Caputo. I am very thankful to her for all of her help.

I have worked with my colleague extensively. I have a great deal of time for him. When we talk about these things, there is this balance between law and order, we have some court decisions that need to be addressed in terms of IP addresses, and also the balancing of civil liberties.

Does the member have any ideas how we can strike that proper balance in legislation like Bill C-2?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Rosie, because I really enjoy working with her brother, who is a serious and hard-working member of Parliament. I am pleased to recognize that today.

That being said, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I think he is right to point out that we need to strike a balance between protecting our borders, protecting our streets, keeping people safe and respecting individual rights and freedoms.

My colleague is also right to say that the courts have provided us with guidelines in the past. It will be important to read them carefully. That is why I believe this bill needs to be studied in committee, so we can hear from experts and make sure that, in trying to fix one problem, we do not create an even more complex and dangerous one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague, who is much more legally-minded than I am, will appreciate the parallel I am about to draw. He will have to let me know. I find this bill strangely reminiscent of the use of the Emergencies Act, which we voted on here.

After letting a situation deteriorate, after doing nothing, the government is going to the other extreme. The government's reaction is disproportionate and oppressive, when it could have taken a proactive stance from the start, which would have prevented things from reaching this other extreme.

Does that parallel make sense to my colleague?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also a man who works hard for his riding and his constituents. I am very proud to work with him as a member of the same party.

That said, parallels can indeed be drawn between the problems we are seeing now with Bill C-2 and Bill C-5, the gag order and what is looming over our heads without us knowing it. We have been sitting for three weeks, not even four. We shall see.

There are parallels that can be drawn with all that and the proclamation of emergency measures. At the time, I was co-chair of the committee that had to examine the issue. We simply could not believe it. Nothing was done after the emergency measures were invoked that could not have been done before. We asked companies to tow trucks, which they did. The situation was resolved in less than 24 hours.

Why did the government invoke those emergency measures, extreme measures that should only be used in extreme circumstances? We wondered about that and we found it troubling.

I have similar concerns now. I am not even sure that the Supreme Court would uphold bills C‑2 and C‑5. It remains to be seen. Whatever we pass will be swiftly challenged. Unfortunately, we are opening ourselves up to rulings that will put us back to square one. I do not think that we can ignore the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution, infringe on everyone's powers and trample on rights and freedoms without being sanctioned by the courts at some point.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to congratulate you on your new appointment. As someone who did his master's thesis on a very specific thing, which I believe was the Thursday question, you have a love of this place. It is good to see you in that chair.

This is an important bill. I think all of us have heard from Canadians during the election that public safety is fundamentally important to them. It is disappointing to hear from some MPs who suggest that other MPs do not care about public safety. One of our fundamental priorities is to ensure the safety and security of our constituents. We may come at it in different ways, but we all fundamentally believe that we need to stand up and protect our constituents. I hope that is the debate we are having and will continue throughout this. It is not what we hear in question period, but oftentimes question period is a little different from what we hear at other times in this place and at committee, where I hope this bill will go very soon.

Fundamentally, I believe this bill will keep Canadians safe by ensuring law enforcement will have the right tools to keep our borders secure, to 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, all while protecting the privacy and charter rights of Canadians.

Following the introduction of the bill, we heard from the Canadian Police Association, the largest law enforcement advocacy organization in Canada, and the national voice for over 60,000 frontline law enforcement personnel serving across every province and territory. I would like to take a moment and read what it said.

It states:

...this proposed legislation would provide critical new tools for law enforcement, border services, and intelligence agencies to address transnational organized crime, auto theft, firearms and drug trafficking, and money laundering. It’s important to emphasize that these are not abstract issues, our members see first-hand that they have real impacts in communities across the country and require a coordinated and modern legislative response.

The Bill includes important updates that would strengthen information sharing between federal and local agencies, which is essential to the success of multi-jurisdictional investigations and recognizes the reality that border security is increasingly not the sole responsibility of the RCMP. In many communities located near border crossings, local police services are called upon to play a central role in enforcing our border-related laws. Giving these agencies access to better intelligence and more timely information will significantly improve public safety outcomes.

We are also encouraged by measures that would support the work of the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Coast Guard by closing long-standing gaps in inspection and enforcement capacity. These steps, combined with new authorities for front-line law enforcement across the country, would help disrupt criminal operations at key points of entry and within domestic supply and distribution chains.

The proposed steps to disrupt the importation of illegal fentanyl and precursor chemicals are also crucial. A faster scheduling process will [also] allow for a more agile response to substances that fuel the opioid crisis and continue to cause immeasurable harm in communities across...[the country].

Bill C-2 would also strengthen the ability of police to investigate and disrupt...criminal networks by enhancing anti-money laundering enforcement, expanding data-sharing with trusted domestic and international partners...[while] improving access to information across jurisdictions. New provisions allowing Canadian law enforcement to share information collected under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act would...[provide] more effective cooperation in cross-border investigations. Additionally, the proposed mechanism to access data held by service providers in other countries acknowledges the reality that modern criminal investigations rarely stop at the border. These updates would help ensure that Canadian police have the tools and intelligence they need to hold offenders accountable, regardless of where they operate.

If passed, Bill C-2 would give police services the legal tools needed to respond more effectively to evolving threats.

This is the organization advocating for 60,000 frontline police officers.

I heard during the campaign, and I hear it a lot during question period, that we need to stand up and give police officers the tools they need. At the same time, I am hearing doubts from the opposition members, who are trying to pour cold water on this. On the one hand, they say that we need to do something, but at the same time they do not want this, even though police support it and it will make communities safer. I do not really understand the rhetoric versus the action, the rhetoric during question period versus the rhetoric we are hearing now. I appreciate the concerns being raised by some members of the opposition, but again, it does not match their rhetoric to get things done in those 30-second sound bites they like during question period.

I would also like to add a quote from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, another great organization:

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

Canada’s legislation related to lawful access is significantly outdated and urgently needs to be revised to align with modern technology. Canada lags behind its international law enforcement partners in the ability to lawfully access electronic evidence associated to criminal activity. Transnational organised crime groups are exploiting this gap to victimize our communities across the country through serious crimes such as human, drug and firearm trafficking, auto theft, and violent profit-driven crime. The provisions contained within the Strong Borders Act are an important step in advancing Canadian law enforcement’s ability to effectively combat the ever-evolving nature of transnational organized criminal groups.

The chiefs of police have spoken. Frontline officers have spoken. Where is the outcry from the Conservative Party to get this passed as quickly as possible? I hear crickets, which is disappointing.

I would like to address a point that just came up, I believe from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, with respect to IP addresses. I appreciate the concern when we are dealing with issues like this, but I would like to quote a colleague of his, the member for Parkland, when he was asking questions of the RCMP in regard to this particular issue. He said:

Imagine a phone book that has phone numbers listed, but no names. The only names that are listed are the ISPs and the telecom companies that service those phone numbers: the Teluses, the Rogers and the Bells.

Police are being told now that they can't even look in the phone book of those IP addresses. They can't even know who the service providers are unless they have a warrant. The effect of this in the past month since this decision came in, according to frontline RCMP officers who are working in the integrated child exploitation units across this country, is that telecommunications companies, in compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, are now denying this critical information that police are using to track down and prosecute child sex offenders and child predators.

The member for Parkland says we need to take action, and I agree with him, but I guess this is the member for Parkland from last Parliament. Where are the members now? Again, I hear it in question period, time after time, day after day.

Let us expedite this. Let us move this forward and get it to committee. I can appreciate that there are concerns. I have never seen a government bill in my 10 years that has made it through unamended to the end, but let us ensure that we move this legislation forward so that perhaps the Conservatives' actions will match their rhetoric during question period. I hope we can achieve that.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to mention the celebration of LiUNA Local 837. They are celebrating 75 years today. I would like to say congratulations to Victoria Mancinelli, Joe Mancinelli, their family patriarch Enrico Mancinelli, may he rest in peace, and all the hard-working members of that union for building much of southern Ontario.

My question for my colleague is this. People from my constituency are having a hard time understanding the restriction on cash, because we have a lot of small businesses and a very vibrant Italian community that has a lot of weddings, and couples get a lot of cash during their wedding. I would like to give them the opportunity to have some clarity on that, because people in my riding are very concerned about that, and eastern Europeans as well.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this item that is out there. I have seen it, that we cannot pay cash anymore. I cannot pay $10,000 in cash for an item at a local business. I do not know what local businesses Conservative members are going to. These things are solved.

As a member of the Law Society of Ontario, we were told years ago to never accept that amount of cash, as we then may be complicit in something we do not want to be complicit in. We can go and get a cheque or a money order. These are easy ways around it to ensure that people are in compliance and they can still engage in gift-giving. We can still buy things.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Money order, as the hon. member said on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, these are things we can get. A bank draft is typically the most common. I do not know how these members pay for things at their local stores. If it is about $10,000 in cash, that is a different world than I operate in.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what we heard on the campaign trail. Canadians want safer communities. Canadians want safer borders. Canadians also want to stop being aggressed by our south-of-the-border neighbour because of the terrors that have ravaged our communities and our workers.

Can the member expand on the mandate that he has been given to respond to all of the questions that Canadians had during the campaign on safety, on secure communities and the one Canadian economy?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I will have enough time to get to all of that, but I will sum it up.

Being a member from the Niagara region, my house is only about a 10-minute drive from the border. I think everyone in my community understands that safe borders lead to safe communities. It is fundamentally important that we take action as a government to ensure that CBSA has the tools it needs, and that the RCMP and local police have the tools that they need: the tools that they have been asking for, and the tools that frontline officers have said are in Bill C-2, and they are urging Parliament to get this passed as quickly as possible.

We heard it from our constituents. We were elected as Canada's new government and we are getting to work. This is fundamentally important. I hope to see this get passed as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. It is nice to see one of my colleagues recognizing people the way I do. I love that.

I just want to clarify something that my colleague mentioned. I think he was talking about the Bykovets decision, a decision that said judicial oversight or a judicial authorization, a warrant production order, is required for IP addresses. I believe many people in the law enforcement community would support the provisions he was referring to. I think where we, as Conservatives, take issue is that one step further when we are talking about getting data from Meta and things like that.

Does the member see the distinction between those two things?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would love for the Conservatives to take that energy and apply it to all of their policies with respect to criminal justice and bring a rights-based approach first. This legislation complies with the Charter of Rights. We will continue to comply with the Charter of Rights. I hope the Conservatives engage in the future with respect to all of their policies because it has been absent from their arguments since I have been here.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to rise on an issue as important as a bill that deals with Canada's border. I have been among those people sounding the alarm for years about the Liberal government's inaction on the border. When there has been action, it was action that aggravated and exacerbated the problems. These are long-standing challenges caused by a Liberal government that, despite its proclamations, is not a new government but a continuation of what we had over the last 10 years.

While I am heartened by the fact that the Liberals have acknowledged there is a border crisis, I have a great many concerns with the way they have chosen to tackle that. Let me be clear: One of the biggest issues, in my media career, I would frequently criticize the government's handling of was the lax approach to border security. One notable example of this was allowing Roxham Road to balloon into a full-blown illegal immigration scheme that the government turned a blind eye to. This was something that happened for years and years, and the government would not act.

Issues pertaining to smuggling of firearms, drugs and even people have been allowed to become the crisis they are today. While I am grateful that the Liberals have decided to come to the party late, I have to ask why it took so long. What prevented them from taking action on this?

Let me be perfectly clear that a lot of the issues we see with crime and drugs in our country, including gang violence using illegal firearms smuggled in across the border, are issues that cannot just be neatly siloed off into one particular portfolio. Conservatives have been asking the Liberals for the last couple of weeks why there is nothing in the bill that deals with sentencing for fentanyl kingpins. Why is there nothing that deals with bail issues that allow repeat offenders to continue to be out on the street after offending?

The Liberals have always come back to the same position, which is that it is just a border bill, not a crime bill, but that is a very narrow and naive way of looking at the legislation. They do not understand that these cross-border issues are integrally connected to the crime and justice issues that they are not acknowledging, that they are not acting on and that the bill has no solutions for.

On this, I will say that I am grateful the government has taken some suggestions that the Conservatives have made over the years and put them in the bill, but the problem is that it is an omnibus bill. It tries to do a great many things. Some of it is stuff that I would say the Conservatives have been leaders on. Others are things that, when I look at the legislation, I wonder where they came from or who was asking for them.

While there is a lack of addressing bail issues and a lack of addressing sentencing issues, there are things in the bill about which I cannot imagine why the Liberals thought they were relevant for a bill that, by their own admission, is supposed to be about the border. I want to focus on two of those right now because I have a long track record of advocating for civil liberties.

One of the provisions of the bill, part 4, would give Canada Post unilateral power to open not just parcels but also letters. This means that a letter one sends to anyone in the country could be intercepted, without a warrant or judicial oversight, by someone at Canada Post. Something we have heard in the course of debate this evening and this afternoon is some misinformation from the Liberal government. The Liberals say, “Oh, no, it would be subject to warrant.”

Well, I have combed through the legislation, the entire bill, but also part 4 specifically, and in part 4, which deals with changes to the Canada Post Corporation Act, the word “warrant” does not appear once. In the act that this section of the bill cites, there is no discussion of warrants whatsoever.

Therefore we are left, as Canadians, with the questions that the Liberal government is not answering: What are the constraints on this power? What would Canada Post be entitled to do or be authorized to do, not just with goods it may seize but also with information it may seize? The bill specifically talks about intercepting letters. That does not just mean opening an envelope and looking for fentanyl; that also means opening a piece of mail and being allowed to read it. Who would have access to correspondence? What could be done with it? Would it be tracked? Would it be registered? Would it be entered into a database?

These are questions that we do not have answers for because the Liberals are denying that the text of the bill is what it is.

Moreover, the bill would give Canada Post immunity. It would take away any liability for anything arising from demand, seizure, detention or retention, which means Canadians would have no rights to question or challenge what Canada Post is doing with their mail. To be clear, Canada Post has not asked for this power, that I have seen. This is something the Liberal government would voluntarily hand over without any regard for the civil liberties concerns.

We can look at part 11 of the bill, which would ban cash transactions over $10,000. It would not put in a reporting requirement. It would not restrict it. It would not add bureaucracy or red tape. It is a clear ban. I will read directly from the bill:

Every person or entity that is engaged in a business, a profession or the solicitation of charitable financial donations from the public commits an offence if the person or entity accepts a cash payment, donation or deposit of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or in a prescribed series of related transactions that total $10,000 or more.

After 10 years of economic mismanagement, $10,000 is a regular haul at the grocery store. This $10,000 may seem like an amount, as the Liberals like to say, that no one is dealing in. They say no one is going around and dealing in $10,000 transactions unless they have something to hide. I represent a lot of rural and smaller communities in my riding, and it is not uncommon for someone to buy a used vehicle, buy a farm truck or buy a new piece of equipment for $10,000 or $15,000. Some may ask, as the Liberals do, why anyone would need to do that. We live in a free society where we do not need to justify our decision to engage in transactions with legal tender to the government.

I am very aware of the fact that, as I speak, the Liberal government is actively fighting in court against a Federal Court decision that found its use of the Emergencies Act illegal in 2022. This is a government that unlawfully and unconstitutionally froze people's bank accounts without due process and without oversight. That sent a chill throughout the country as people realized that the government would use its power without regard for the law. I do not accept that the government is permitted to say to just trust it with putting a further restriction in place on how Canadians transact, and this is incredibly important. The Bank of Canada, which the Prime Minister used to run, has been advocating for central bank digital currency, something that would put the government more in control of and make it more able to monitor the transactions that Canadians choose to undertake.

There are many reasons that people would use cash. In fact, in most cases that I am aware of, it has nothing to do with law breaking. It is simply because of convenience, avoiding staggering credit card fees and having the ability to transact and ensure that the local farmers' market or the person selling a vehicle in a riding, neighbourhood, whatever it is, can be free of government interference.

While I am grateful the bill would deal with some issues at the border that we have long been calling for solutions for as Conservatives, it is taking a very broad brush and, in doing so, is treating ordinary law-abiding Canadians as though they are criminals, as though they have something to hide from the government or must be doing something wrong simply because they are using cash, as anyone who identifies as old school would do. What other legal things is the government planning to regulate or restrict?

When we are looking at this bill, with how many different sections and different parts it has, we have to look at the good and we have to look at the bad. I think the government has tried to do too much in the course of this legislation. We have to look at the civil liberties concerns. Anytime they have been raised in the course of debating the bill, the Liberals have fallen back on either making a false claim, such as that a warrant is required under the Canada Post section, which it is not, or just relying on the notion that we are to trust them because there is no way the Liberal government would abuse this power. I do not trust them, and my constituents do not trust them either.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the member opposite what he thinks about the mandate that Londoners sent him here with and whether he heard what I heard at the doors. What I heard at the doors is that Londoners want safer borders. They want an economy that works for everyone. They want more jobs for our communities.

I want to welcome him to the House, first of all, and hear what he thinks about the things we were hearing in London at the doors.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I am honoured to represent just shy of 20,000 Londoners, London is a part of a riding that also encompasses the County of Elgin and St. Thomas and Aylmer. The fact that the voters in my riding elected a Conservative member of Parliament is an important indication of what the constituents I represent believe.

They were saying they wanted the Liberals to get tough with respect to the border, but they were not. That is why the constituents were voting Conservative. They were saying they wanted a government that would get tough on crime and they were not getting that from the Liberals. I was elected because people did not want the current government to do it. Of the 26,000 doors that I knocked on, not one single person said, “I really think that government needs to crack down on people buying a truck with cash.”

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome my colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South to the House. I enjoyed his speech.

Can my colleague tell me how we have gotten to this point? In his opinion, why is the government introducing a bill that I would call too radical for the current situation, a bill that will amend about 15 acts and attack legislation affecting three different departments? Can he tell me what this government has done over the past 10 years to show that it takes border security and our refugee system seriously?

I would like to hear his answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's very insightful question. I cannot answer to what the government members were thinking by putting this forward, but I do know that there is a general trend that we have seen from the Liberal government, of trying to do omnibus legislation so they can advance things that are very unpopular or unconstitutional while hiding behind things that are popular and that all parties would agree with. I fear that is precisely what the Liberals are doing with this bill, by going after civil liberties while also offering things that are important that we could all agree on, such as the need to get tough on border security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's very factual and evidence-based speech.

We have been hearing a lot of comments with respect to how the Liberals are trying to identify as a new government when, in fact, they are the same government that they have been for the last 10 years. I was wondering if the member could share his thoughts with the House regarding how the current Liberal government is, in fact, the same government that it has been here for the last 10 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, as some members of this House may know, I used to have a career in media before I joined here. A few days ago, I saw a clip from question period that was a couple of years old, but I thought it was recent because the front bench was entirely the same. I do think that for a party that insists on saying that it is a new government, there is a heck of a lot of continuity, not just in the people but also the policies, attitudes and approaches, which is why I do not trust the current government to give itself or any other agencies tremendous powers of warrantless oversight on Canadians.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed that the member would make such comments. In fact, Canadians and Quebeckers voted for at least 170 new members here in the House. The Liberal Party has 70 new members. These are not just the same members, but are newly elected MPs for a new government.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to this chamber, but ultimately the direction that the party has taken is a continuation of Justin Trudeau. In fact, the Prime Minister's most recent résumé line item was as an adviser to Justin Trudeau. If there has been a break in the timeline, I am not exactly sure when it was.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-2. Recognizing the amount of time that I have, I will make my comments somewhat brief.

I do want to begin by saying that, throughout the last campaign, and since 2021, I have had the privilege of meeting thousands of my constituents. Over and over, I have heard one message. They want a forward-looking and ambitious government that delivers for them. They want that government to fight organized crime. They want that government to fight auto theft, and they want that government to tackle the fentanyl crisis.

Members of Parliament on both sides of the House will have heard, I suspect, from their constituents, that Canadians want to feel safe in their homes, they want to feel safe in their communities, and they want our government to ensure that we deliver that for them. This bill would do exactly that. It would deliver on bold and concrete actions. It would tackle the complex interconnected threats that Canadians are facing today.

Whether it is fentanyl, auto theft, or money laundering, Bill C-2 seeks to deal with all of those issues. It does so by delivering on three important measures: securing our borders, dismantling transnational organized crime and cracking down on illicit financing.

Securing our borders means fixing long-standing gaps in our immigration system, modernizing how we share information, strengthening visa protections to stop fraud, and improving the asylum application process to make it more efficient and fair. These reforms would preserve the integrity of our system while ensuring that those who actually need protection continue to receive it.

We can only have a strong and resilient country if our security agencies are empowered to protect Canadians while preserving their freedoms. Thanks to this bill, once passed, the RCMP and our international partners would be able to better track and apprehend child sex offenders. That is why, if this bill is passed, the Canadian Coast Guard would have a clear mandate to counter drug smuggling and enhance maritime protection and enforcement, something that has been long needed in provinces such as mine and British Columbia.

This is an opportunity for Conservatives to put their money where their mouths are. They talk about law and order. They talk about keeping Canadians safe. This is their chance to vote with us, to ensure that this bill gets passed.

This bill also directly addresses the devastating rise in organized crime and the fentanyl crisis. We intend to empower our law enforcement agencies who are at the forefront of this fight, with the ability to seize illegal drugs, such as fentanyl and its components. We are also making it easier and faster to classify illicit substances before they take root in our communities. These changes would not only stop the flow of illicit and dangerous substances into Canada, but also make it harder for criminal networks to produce and distribute them domestically.

Now, we know that supporting and protecting Canadians requires additional support mechanisms across Canada. That is why we will keep traffickers, smugglers and violent criminals accountable for their crimes by giving the authorities the legal tools that they need to act decisively.

On the point of auto theft, we know that auto theft has decreased, thanks to the work that the new government has already taken, but we also know that Canadians want us to do more. With this bill, border officials would have the authority to intercept those shipments, recover stolen property and hold those responsible accountable. For too long, money laundering and terrorist financing have allowed organized crime to profit and expand, but this bill would put forward stronger penalties for financial crimes, restrict anonymous large-cash deposits and prohibit third-party transactions that allow bad actors to hide behind others.

Finally, Bill C-2 builds upon the single largest investment in border security in Canadian history, $1.3 billion, and reflects a clear and targeted approach to the challenges that we are facing. It reflects our government's commitment to responsible, balanced governance to tackle everyday issues that Canadians are facing. These are not small changes.

Let me be clear. This bill is about fixing systems, closing loopholes and ensuring Canada keeps pace with a rapidly evolving global landscape of crime, exploitation of systems and digital threats. Our allies are watching and Canadians are calling on us to protect them. Canadians have told us what they need. They want us to balance freedom and security. They want a government that takes safety seriously, confronts difficult problems, and delivers results, while protecting our fundamental rights and freedoms.

I urge my colleagues in the House to join us in passing this bill, putting aside partisanship and putting the security and safety of Canadians first.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague was here earlier when my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord made his speech.

We are glad that something is finally happening, because it has been a long time coming. It took Donald Trump bringing out the big guns to get things moving. However, we are also concerned about the presumably disproportionate and freedom‑killing response contained in this bill.

I asked some of his colleagues earlier why it took so long. I did not receive a convincing answer. I would like to ask the member if he is not concerned about certain abuses of individual freedoms that exist and that could be implied in the bill. Consider the granting of the power to open mail, for example, which has generally been considered a crime.

In other words, is my colleague concerned about certain aspects of the bill? Is he open to having the bill receive greater scrutiny in committee, given that it could contain abuses?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was young, I was very concerned about Bill C‑51, a bill introduced by Prime Minister Harper's Conservative government.

In my opinion, Bill C‑2 is not perfect. No bill introduced by any government is. That is the reality. However, we have to protect the country, we have to protect Canadians, and we have to work together to keep improving the situation, including through regulations and processes. The reality is that we have to be careful. We are taking action today to protect Canadians and protect our border.

The House resumed from June 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know members were disappointed that I had to wrap up during the previous rubric, so they can hear another 10 minutes.

It is great to be back in the new Parliament. Parliament has not been the most active this year. We had prorogation then an election, and the government briefly came back for a spring session. Our position as Conservatives was that we should be prepared to work at least at the committee level over the summer, but Liberals loved not working and wanted to further extend that through the summer. Hopefully we will actually be able to get down to the nation's business in an effective way in the current Parliament.

Conservatives are eager to get to work. We are calling for action on the critical challenges that are confronting Canadians, which is why before Parliament even came back, our leader sent a letter to the Prime Minister, articulating four critical priorities for the current Parliament, things that we need to tackle. These are crises that were in many ways caused by policies of the Liberal government and that we hope to see change and reversal on.

We will certainly be doing everything we can to push for results in these areas. We will oppose the things that are wrong about the government's agenda. We will support legislation and policy change that reverse the failures of the last 10 years that have brought us to this point.

In particular, the four priorities we articulated were addressing, first, the Liberal job loss crisis, the catastrophic levels of unemployment, particularly affecting young people, which result from Liberal policy failures. Confronting that will be a critical priority for us in the current Parliament.

Second is addressing the cost of living crisis. There are so many Canadians who are struggling to afford homes and to afford basic essentials. The Prime Minister has said that he would be judged by the price of groceries, yet we continue to see escalation in costs at the grocery store, for those people buying homes, in transportation and in so many other areas.

There is the job loss crisis and the cost of living crisis. There is the immigration crisis, the failure of the government to align our immigration system with the economic interests of this country. This has led to all kinds of problems. I think there is a lot of concern from Canadians on that issue as well.

Fourth, speaking to the particulars of the bill before us, there are particulars I do not think are addressed fully by the bill, and it incorporates some other problems and distractions. However, the fourth issue we are tackling in the current Parliament in particular is the crime crisis. On the crime issue, it is more difficult for the Liberals to muddy the waters by blaming other factors.

When it comes to economic issues, they often say that there are all these other things going on around the world that are causing them. In many cases, we can demonstrate how that is not true in fact. It is hard to blame events outside the country for the fact that we are building fewer homes in Canada than we did in the past. It is hard to blame events outside the country for the fact that unemployment has actually been steadily going up for the last three years. We are reaching catastrophic levels, especially for youth unemployment, but this is a trend that has been escalating ever since we came out of the COVID period.

It is hard for the government, even on economic issues, to perpetuate the continuing charade of blaming external events, but in particular as it relates to crime. I would encourage people to look at the data, in particular for violent crime. We can see, if plotting on a graph the years and rates of violent crime in this country, that violent crime was going down, and then something happened in 2015.

A new government, a Liberal government, came in in 2015. We are now in the fourth term of that government. It had a different approach with respect to criminal justice. Violent crime rates were going down, and then violent crime rates started going up. Crime rates started going up in particular in response to policy changes that the government made around bail, sentencing and, I think, some changes in the way it approached the issue of crime more broadly.

There was a downward trend and then an upward trend. What we need to see is the reversal of those bad Liberal policies and the return to an approach that we took when crime was actually going down. I know we have put forward various constructive announcements and proposals around reversing the Liberal crime trajectory.

There is a bill before us today, Bill C-2, that purports to be about these kinds of issues. Unfortunately, the Liberals are sort of stepping on their own agenda in lots of ways, because they are weaving in, into some provisions that are supportable, some provisions that we are concerned about and I think that many Canadians are concerned about as well. The Liberals do this a lot; they want to have a nice-sounding announcement about a bill, but they do not actually do the things they say they are going to do, and they weave in other aspects of a different agenda.

Let me highlight some of the things that are in the bill that I think make a lot of Canadians wonder, “Why is that there, and what is the government trying to do with this here?” The bill includes a provision that would limit the use of cash. A lot of us probably use cash a lot less than our grandparents did, because of changes in technology, but on the other hand, cash use does remain a legitimate and vital part of our economy. I think it is something that tends to be relied on more by seniors and by people in rural areas. There are situations where the use of cash is more practical.

We have talked a bit, in the context of the unemployment problems, about what our first jobs were and about the importance of a first job. One of my first jobs was working at, believe it or not, the travelling fair. I worked at the Calgary Stampede and the Edmonton Fair.

[Sukhman Gill]

You were a roadie.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I was not a roadie; I was a carny. I think that is the technical term, to correct the member for Abbotsford—South Langley.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That explains a lot.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I even went to the Red River Ex a few times and had a lot of fun there. The point is, if someone is running a small business, say a carnival game, they are going to have a lot of people paying individually in cash, and that is going to add up to a lot of cash by the end of the day. With the government putting constraints around the use of cash, we can note the impact it may have on small businesses, on different kinds of retail businesses, the challenges it may create and its impact on seniors, on rural communities and these sorts of things. Therefore we have concerns about the changes the government would be making with regard to the use of cash.

More fundamentally, the Liberals are obstructing and stepping on their own agenda by weaving into the bill provisions that make a lot of Canadians wonder why they are there. There are some additional concerns the bill raises around civil liberties. The Liberals have woven in provisions that involve, for instance, the abilities to open mail without oversight and to compel Internet companies to hand over private information. There are additional provisions around warrantless searches.

The Liberal government does not have a great track record when it comes to protecting Canadians' data. It does not have a great track record when it comes to understanding and respecting the privacy, the rights or the civil liberties of Canadians. However, a government that has done so badly in these areas is asking for more powers in the area of opening mail without oversight and compelling the transfer of private information, and also in the area of warrantless searches. These and the issues around cash that I raised address other concerns about what the government is really driving at with the bill.

What we really need to see is fundamental reforms to our criminal justice system that get us back to a time when crime was going down. Crime was going down before the Liberals took office; it has gone up since they took office. We need to ask why that has happened, and we need a reversal of approach.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very confused as to what the member opposite was trying to convey, because it sounds like, in theory, for the last four years I have been here, he has been talking about having a bill like the one that is before us. What exactly is he suggesting we can work on in committee to move it forward collaboratively? Canadian voters want us to have a bill for borders, as well as to work in co-operation with the whole House to make sure we can pass good and sensible bills.

What exactly is the member trying to shift and change in the bill? He spent four years talking about it. Now we have a bill, and he is complaining. What is he complaining about?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to repeat what I just said. We have concerns about the provisions in the bill around use of cash and the limiting of that. We have concerns about the restrictions on civil liberties. We have actually been asking for changes to sentencing, to parole and to bail. Those changes are not in the bill. The changes we have said are critically needed when it comes to criminal justice are not in the bill.

The Liberals have instead put forward a bill that has some supportable provisions but that weaves in some areas, some concepts, that are clearly of concern. I am sorry if it was necessary to repeat that, but hopefully it is clear to the member now the provisions we are talking about that are issues, like use of cash, as well as restrictions on civil liberties.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, welcome back to the House.

I listened to my colleague talk about Bill C‑2, but there is an elephant in the room when it comes to this bill. People are reluctant to talk about it, but it is one of the reasons why we in the Bloc Québécois are inclined to be in favour of this bill.

The number of asylum seekers at the border is skyrocketing. While much of this explosion in asylum claims is attributable to international events, some of it is due to irregular crossings. We believe that treating these people properly is important, but so is ensuring a fair distribution of asylum seekers across the country.

We know that, unfortunately, Quebec is still receiving the greatest share. In fact, Quebec takes in nearly 50% of the asylum seekers who come to Canada. Figures for the other provinces indicate that they are not doing their part. Not long ago, an ad in Le Journal de Montréal condemned this situation, and I was surprised to see that it caused something of a scandal. After all, the real scandal is that the other provinces are not pulling their weight.

Why must Quebec bear such a heavy burden? What are my colleague's thoughts on the unequal distribution of asylum seekers? Why are the other provinces not taking in more of them?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I think it is important to discuss the issues plaguing the asylum seeker system.

We need to recognize that the overall immigration system been broken by the Liberals. Asylum seekers now have to wait a long time for their applications to be assessed. The solution is to implement an efficient system where asylum claims are assessed very quickly and fairly. It would be good for both Canada and asylum seekers to have clarity on each case and to put an end to the wait for a decision.

[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 just want to reflect on a question my colleague from the Liberals just asked about the fact that Conservatives have been asking for this type of thing for four years. The reality is, in my view, that Conservatives have been asking for changes to bail, changes to sentencing, changes to how we deal with fentanyl and changes to how we deal with firearms.

Is there anything here the member can point to as to why it took so long and what is really missing here?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is the shadow minister for our party on this issue and is doing excellent work advocating for public safety.

There are some weird things, unrelated to the objective, woven into the bill, but also many of the things we have been asking for that are needed are missing. The government should take its cue from what we have put forward, like bail reform legislation and other proposals that would actually confront the problems in an effective way.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be back in the House representing the good people of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. After a long summer away, I confess that I have mixed feelings about that. I am happy to be back, but at the same time, this is the 22nd day this year that we are sitting in the House. I think that Canadians would have expected us to work through the summer rather than be home. Even though it is always a pleasure to engage with our constituents, we are elected to do a job for Canadians. It would have been so much better had we been here in the House, or at least in committees, working through the summer. The Liberals, of course, felt otherwise.

While I enjoyed my time in my riding this summer, I was disheartened to constantly hear from so many people in our community that they feel unsafe. After 10 years of the very tired Liberal government, people do not feel comfortable walking to school. They are unsafe taking public transit. They do not feel safe in their own homes. This is due to a wave of violent crime that has swept through communities throughout our country, particularly in urban areas, such as the one I represent in Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

Due to the Liberal government's catch-and-release policies, repeat offenders continue to be released back into communities, where they can terrorize the communities again and perpetrate even more crimes, which are in many cases crimes similar to, or the same as, the ones they had been arrested for. Since the Liberals took office, soft-on-crime policies have caused crime rates to skyrocket. Violent crime is up 50%. Homicides are up 28%. Extortion is up a staggering 350%. Auto thefts are up 46%. Human trafficking is up 84%. Worst of all, total sexual violations against children are up 119%.

We cannot forget that behind each of these statistics are real people who have suffered and who are continuing to suffer, who are frightened and who continue to be frightened. Two people, including an 11-year-old girl, lost their lives, killed, as a result of an arson, a deliberate arson, in the place they should have felt safest, their own home. This was in my community, where I live, in Richmond Hill.

A man in Vaughan, as we heard yesterday in the House, from my very learned and exceptional colleague from King—Vaughan, was killed during a home invasion. A criminal walked in. This thug put a gun to his daughter's head. Naturally, a father would react. Upon his reaction to protect his little girl, he was shot dead in front of his family, leaving the children to grow up without their father.

In Niagara, and this is very sickening, Daniel Senecal was charged with breaking and entering, aggravated assault and sexual interference of a three-year-old girl. The child suffered serious injuries and had to be rushed to an out-of-region hospital for advanced care. Senecal also requested to be transferred to a women's prison.

The justice minister tweeted, just a few weeks ago, “This isn’t the Wild West.” My constituents have told me that they feel it is far worse than the Wild West. It certainly feels like it is because these criminals are free to reoffend at will. They get caught one day, and police services across the country are telling us that they are frustrated because they are then released the next day. The minister, like the Liberal government, is once again out of touch with the everyday struggles facing my constituents and, indeed, all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Bill C-2 fails to bring bail reform that would end catch-and-release policies. It fails to implement mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers, who kill thousands. In fact, more people have died from opioid and fentanyl overdoses in this country than were killed in the Second World War, which is a staggering statistic. The bill fails to bring in new mandatory prison time for gangsters who commit crimes with guns and wreak havoc on our streets, which are rampant and everywhere. It would fail to eliminate house arrest for some of the most serious offences, allowing those who brutalize our communities to serve their sentences from the comfort of their own homes. I am deeply concerned that this bill does not go far enough to fight crime and bring safety back to our communities.

The bill would allow for new powers, such as opening mail, without oversight, based just on suspicion. It would compel Internet companies to hand over private information, allow for warrantless searches and eliminate the use of cash. That does not make sense. Cash has been legal tender in Canada since the inception of cash in this country. As we heard from the previous speaker, many communities, such as people in the north, seniors and so forth, do not have a credit card system. Some of them do not have Internet to transact their business online. Cash is very important. This bill would limit the use of cash.

The bill raises serious concerns about privacy, surveillance and civil liberties. I would argue, as would many Canadians, that judicial and parliamentary oversight are fundamental principles of our democracy. They need to be there. We cannot give arbitrary powers without having the proper oversight to ensure that there is fairness in the system. The bill would expand lawful access powers, allowing police, security agencies and others to demand information from various service providers, including hotels, banks, doctors and more, to release private information without judicial authorization. That is a direct infringement on the privacy of Canadians.

The bill has a low threshold to compel providers to provide subscriber information, account details and, in many instances, the time-stamp, location of service and other information that is normally considered private. Bill C-2 would give the minister and/or cabinet new powers to act unilaterally, without parliamentary or judicial oversight, based just on suspicion. Nebulous criteria and vagueness leave room for interpretation. They leave room for arbitrary decisions and possible discriminatory decision-making.

We have checks and balances in our democracy. This bill would take away a lot of those checks and balances. Conservatives have always fought for practical policies that would secure our borders and bring back safety to our communities while upholding Canadian rights.

It is not surprising that this tired Liberal government is bringing in a bill called the strong borders act. What is surprising is that the Liberals have been in power for 10 years and they have now decided, 10 years later, that we should have stronger borders and to put it in a bill. We would think that this would have been a priority from day one, but now, somehow, they want us to believe that the sweeping powers in this new bill are going to fix the problem and that we should listen to them because they know what needs to be done. In fact, a lot of the things in the bill that are supportable are things that we, as Conservatives, have been talking about in the House every day over the past 10 years, to ears on the other side of the House that have not been listening, in the tired Liberal government.

Conservatives support adding thousands of border agents, extending CBSA powers along the entire border, and installing border surveillance towers. We also support installing high-powered scanners at land crossings and shipping ports to spot drugs, guns and stolen cars. Most importantly, we will always support the hard-working men and women on the front lines. They are doing their very best with the limited resources they are given. They play a critical role in keeping Canadians safe by working to stop the flow of drugs and guns into our country, and for that, we should sincerely be very gracious and thankful.

Conservatives also support the government tracking departures, so government officials would know which deportees are in Canada illegally. Over the last 10 years, the Liberal government has broken our once proud immigration system and turned it into something very hollow. Thousands of immigrants entering into an already overburdened system has resulted in the worsening of housing, jobs and so forth.

As I wind down, though I have lots more I could say, I will say this: Only Conservatives will protect Canadians' freedoms and fight for a tough-on-crime approach, so they can live in their homes, feel safe, walk in their communities, take their children to school, go to a theatre and enjoy a peaceful, safe life.

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

Madam Speaker, there are some contradictions within the member's statements. On the one hand, he wants the government to take action on fentanyl, yet a drug dealer can put fentanyl into a normal envelope and bring it to Canada Post. This legislation would then allow, through a warrant, for that envelope to be opened. I would think that is a positive thing and that the member would support something of that nature, given that he wants more action done on the issue of fentanyl.

The good news is that the member spent the first part of his speech talking about the issue of bail. The Prime Minister has made a commitment, a platform commitment during the election, which is the most democratic aspect that takes place between our sittings. We made a commitment to bring in bail reform. The good news is that we are going to see that bail reform this fall. I wonder if he would be inclined to support that in a co-operative way, as the Conservative voters want more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, I am inclined to believe the Liberals are not going to do anything they said they would do because the Prime Minister has been there for the last six months. In that six months, he has made a bunch of promises, none of which have been fulfilled. It was the Prime Minister and the Liberals who decided to prorogue Parliament, to not come back for the summer and to not allow committees to work. In many cases, the committees are not even working this week, the first week back. I do not trust what they say.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a brief comment and then ask a question.

My colleague spoke about border security. I would like to remind everyone that a little over 10 years ago, when I was an assistant, the Conservatives made cuts to border posts. That had an impact on border security.

I, too, did a lot of work on the ground this summer. While people are indeed concerned about security, they are also worried about the cost of living. The vision at the federal level, from both the Liberals and the Conservatives, is focused on centralization. There is a tendency to implement programs, particularly in the areas of homelessness and housing, that are unsuitable for rural communities like the ones in my riding of Shefford, though it does include one major city, Granby. The money is not reaching our communities.

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

Madam Speaker, I was here 10 years ago. I was part of the Conservative government. We had an immigration system that was the envy of the world. We had an immigration system that worked. It responded to newcomers coming to the country. It provided the best possibility for positive outcomes for them and their families, while at the same time contributing to the Canadian economy.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government decided to forego a lot of the strategies, policies and controls we had in place, such as the vetting of new people coming to the country. It relaxed them. That has created the tremendous amount of problems we are seeing with crime in our communities, including the crime in the community the hon. member who asked the question is from.

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

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

I want to build on the intervention by my colleague from Winnipeg North. He talked about a warrant being required. I am going to read this section, which is a proposed amendment to section 41 of the Canada Post Corporation Act. It states, “The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that”. I do not see a warrant requirement there. I have read the charter statement, which says a warrant is required, but I do not see a warrant requirement there. Perhaps that provision is in the proposed amendments to section 40.1, but I do not read it there.

Does the member agree that it does not seem to be present there? If anybody is watching and knows this, I would ask that they contact me. I would love to see why it does not say that a warrant is required, but the government is saying that a warrant would be required. Perhaps I am missing something.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question and the point my learned colleague has made. Certainly, it is not part of the legislation. The warrant requirement is not there. I happen to believe, as many Canadians believe, that we should not leave the opening of our mail to the discretion of the mailman who has the piece before him.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start my speech with this: Jesus is Lord.

There has been an outpouring of condolences to the family of Charlie Kirk, and I would like to give the family of Charlie Kirk my condolences as well. He was a big advocate for the Christian faith and for declaring that Jesus is Lord, and here I do that as well.

The bill we are discussing today, Bill C-2, has a whole section dedicated to how law enforcement deals with the sex offender registry and the sex offender list, and I would like to dedicate most of my time today to discussing that.

I will start by reading what it says on the inside of every Canadian's passport, right on the front page:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada requests, in the name of His Majesty the King, all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely, without delay or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.

This passport is the property of the Government of Canada. It must not be altered. You must take every precaution to safeguard it.

In the front of our passport is an endorsement of the individual bearer of the passport, which is basically saying that Canada is hoping that the countries Canadian people use their passport to travel to will give security and allow their passage, so to speak. We are asking people to welcome Canadians to their country when we offer them a passport.

There are some good things in Bill C-2, particularly in part 13. Under this government, convicted sex offenders or child predators have had more freedom to travel than Canadians who chose not to get vaccinated. Under the Liberal government in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, massive restrictions were placed on people's ability to travel, yet the government continued to issue passports to folks who were on the registered sex offender list.

This is not required or necessary, because in 2015 the Conservative government amended the passport act to give the Minister of Foreign Affairs tools to refuse or cancel passports in order to prevent the commission of sexual offences against a child in Canada or abroad. Basically, it was to stop Canadian sexual predators from travelling and exploiting youth in other parts of the world, especially in underdeveloped countries. However, I recognize part 13 would allow law enforcement and border security agents to communicate better, and I am hopeful that this would help a lot.

We have also talked in this place about managing passports and marking passports to show that somebody is a registered sex offender. When I talked to those in the passport office, they said they were unable to get that information from the RCMP, because the RCMP is not allowed to share that information with them, and so I am hopeful that the bill before us will pass. I have not heard anything from the Liberal government saying one way or the other whether this would fix that problem, as it has not been part of the- stated messaging around the bill.

I would note that section 13 is a large section of the bill, yet we hear very little about it. Nonetheless, this is something that I have worked on for many years. Every year or so I do an Order Paper question to the government asking how many passports it has revoked, how many passports it has cancelled and how many refusals of passports it has offered. From 2015 to 2018, over the first two years of the Liberal government, only 13 cancellations or revocations took place, and only five refusals, to prevent the sexual abuse of children abroad. Many of these were initiated under a Conservative government. Initially there were a number of them, but then it kind of just fell off, and by the time 2018 rolled around, there was none.

Canada has nearly 60,000 registered sex offenders; 72% are child sex predators, so that is over 42,000 convicted child sex offenders. The Liberal government has only cancelled 13 passports, zero passports in the last three years, and has only refused eight.

Based on the work of organizations that I work with, we are aware that Canadian child sex offenders who have been convicted of horrific crimes against children receive passports from the government and, in the past few years, have been travelling abroad. For example, horrendous child abuser Donald Bakker, one of Canada's most notorious, served jail time for travelling to Southeast Asia to abuse children as young as seven years old. Under the Liberal government, he got his passport back and was travelling abroad to impoverished countries over the past number of years. I find this to be unconscionable.

Of 42,500 convicted child sex offenders, over the first seven years of the Liberal government only 13 passports were cancelled or refused. Every year, I submit Order Paper questions to the government, asking what it is doing about this. Interestingly enough, I received one of these Order Paper questions back just yesterday. I asked the RCMP, for example, how many sex offenders leave the country. It wrote back to me saying the RCMP is unable to track the number of sex offenders who leave the country.

What is the point of having a national sex offender registry if we cannot track where these people are going? I thought that was kind of the entire point of it. Particularly, if the RCMP is responsible for this registry, certainly it should be able to track this kind of thing, but it says it is unable to track this. How is this possible? That is my question to the government. Do we not have a moral obligation to prevent the abuse of children outside of our jurisdiction?

There is a requirement for sex offenders to register when they leave the country, and it is an offence to fail to do this. I asked the RCMP how many sex offenders fail to report their absence, and of course, because it does not know how many people are leaving, the RCMP came back to me and said it is unable to confirm how many registered sex offenders fail to report their absence. The RCMP may become aware of it after the fact and then be able to investigate, but it is unknown how many failures happen.

Now, this is where section 13 may be on the right track. I have yet to hear much from the government about this. Would section 13 fix this problem? Section 13 talks a lot about inter-agency communication to try to prevent this kind of thing. I am hopeful that this would be the case. However, the law has been in place since 2015 for all of these things to happen, and under the Liberal government's watch, it has not been enforcing it. It has not been using the law. It has not been using the official registry at all.

Our reporting system seems to be, basically, voluntary and without any accountability. If it were not for the work of civil society groups calling attention to this, there may be no action whatsoever. The only thing the government could share with us was how many notifications the RCMP has received from sex offenders who are on the national sex registry and who had indicated their intention to travel internationally, broken down by year. In 2022, it had 1,773 registered sex offenders register to travel outside of Canada; in 2023, 2,204; in 2024, 3,320. As of May this year, we had nearly 1,000 registered sex offenders notify that they are leaving the country.

I am pleased to see that the government is addressing the barriers that exist in the area of communications back and forth. I think it is doing this entirely because the American government has been complaining about this. The Americans have noted that every time a registered sex offender comes to Canada, nearly 1,000 times a year, they at least inform the Canadian authorities that a registered sex offender is approaching the border, and we have refused many of these people. The Americans have asked that we do the same thing back, and I think that that is why it is being done.

What is not clear from this is, will it work inside Canada? Will the CBSA be able to speak to the passport office? Will the CBSA be able to speak to the RCMP about the sex offender registry? That is not clear at all from the particular communications that the government has come out with.

In Canada, sex offenders are required to report, within seven days before leaving the country, their dates of departure and return, and every address or location at which they expect to stay while outside of the country. As I stated before, we do not really know whether they are reporting or not. The RCMP, because of the lack of information sharing, is unable to even pursue these cases.

I am hopeful Bill C-2 would fix this problem, and I hope the government can assure me this would indeed be the case.

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

Madam Speaker, the legislation would do many things. One of the issues the member raised and spent a great deal of time on is sex offenders. Within the sex offender registry, there is a considerable amount of information, and this act would enable the RCMP to share a lot of that information, both domestically and internationally. This is a very strong, positive thing in terms of what the member is talking about.

When we go 30,000 feet in the air and ask what kind of things we are looking at, we can think of the $1.3 billion to invest in things like hundreds of RCMP border control officers, and then the enabling of sharing of information. These are tangible things that are going to make a difference, yet we continue to see Conservatives not wanting to pass legislation.

Does the member feel any obligation to encourage his colleagues to see legislation go to committee stage, at the very least, so we can hear what Canadians and others have to say and have more debate on the issue?

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

Madam Chair, I think my entire speech outlined the fact that I have zero confidence in the particular Liberal government across the way to actually implement any of these things. I gave a speech about all the great things in section 13 of this bill and my hopefulness about what they are.

However, the government has had 10 years to implement all of these things. These are complaints and issues that have been raised from the day I got elected, back in 2015, so I am not hopeful. There has been zero communication about section 13 in light of passport revocation and any of these kinds of things I have raised around this. I think this bill deserves all the scrutiny we can give it.

[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.

The Liberals often talk about the Harper years, and they talk about where we legislated, especially with respect to minimums: drugs, guns, sex offences. The Liberals have legislated on guns; they actually weakened sentences on guns in Bill C-5. They have legislated on drugs. They have not touched sex offences once. They have not touched sex offences.

They have refused to legislate on sex offences, the most pernicious and often the most insidious type of offence, with victims serving psychological life sentences, and now they are going to tell us about how they are dealing with sex offences here and that this bill is a panacea? Give me a break.

What does my hon. colleague think?

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola could not be more right. We have worked together a lot on trying to fix a lot of these problems.

I would note, again, the Harper government put in place the ability to mark sex offenders' passports, to revoke sex offenders' passports and to prevent them from getting passports on the front end. Again, we are talking about fewer than 20 actions taken by the government to deal with sex offenders going abroad to perpetrate their crimes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is incredible that the members opposite would make reference to Stephen Harper. More importantly, when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat in cabinet, the Conservatives actually cut border control services. That was a cut. We have increased it by over $1 billion; that is with a “b”. We have invested in more RCMP, more border control. We have brought in substantive legislation. The word that comes to my mind is hypocrisy.

Will the Conservative Party members not recognize a good thing when they see it and allow legislation to pass so we can better serve Canadians, get off the political side of things and start doing work for Canadians? Even Conservative voters want them to do better on the floor of the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the antics of the member opposite, which kind of prove our point. The point is that under a Conservative government, we did not have border issues like we do today. We did not have to spend billions of dollars on border security.

The Liberals say we did not spend as much money as them, but the goal is not how much money we spend; the goal is how secure our border is. If we had to spend zero dollars to have a secure border, I would be in favour of that. We do not have a secure border anymore. The Roxham Road situation totally proves that point, and it is a significant problem that appeared under the Liberal government.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the freedom-loving residents of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-2, the Liberals' so-called strong borders act.

Conservatives will always support secure borders, the rule of law and the protection of Canadian sovereignty, but we must ensure those who enter our country do so legally, safely and with respect for our values. We support measures that protect Canadians from illegal drug trafficking, human smuggling and organized crime. We support reforms that streamline immigration processes and ensure fairness in our asylum system.

What we will not support are the measures that target law-abiding Canadians. We do not support criminalizing the use of cash. We do not support the warrantless surveillance of Canadians' Internet activity. We do not support giving law enforcement the power to search Canadians' mail without judicial oversight. These are not border issues; these are surveillance measures. These are control measures, and they have no place in a free and democratic society.

In many ways, this bill is an admission of failure by the Liberal government. It has allowed crime and chaos to run rampant. The government claims this bill is about going after international gangs that push fentanyl on Canadians, yet it includes no mandatory prison time for traffickers. There are no new mandatory prison times for gangsters who use guns. This bill proves that the Liberals can swap out their leaders but keep the ideology.

Thanks in part to the Liberals' new censorship law, many Canadians have no idea that the Prime Minister is seeking to ban cash transactions. The Liberals want to make it a criminal offence for businesses, professionals and charities to accept cash payments of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or a series of related transactions. This is not a targeted measure against money laundering. It is a blanket restriction that affects law-abiding citizens. It treats legitimate transactions as suspicious simply because they involve physical currency. It forces Canadians into digital payment systems that are traceable, surveilled, controlled and hackable.

Using cash is not a crime. It is a legal form of payment. It is a tool for privacy, autonomy and financial freedom. Criminalizing its use sets a dangerous precedent. Today it is $10,000. Tomorrow it could be $5,000, then $1,000 and eventually nothing. This is a slippery slope toward a cashless society where every transaction is monitored and every citizen is tracked.

We must ask who benefits from this. It is not ordinary Canadians, not small businesses and not charities. The beneficiaries are governments, banks and corporations that profit from data collection and digital control.

Conservatives believe in financial freedom. We believe Canadians should have the right to use cash for legal transactions without fear of prosecution. We oppose this provision and call for its removal from the bill.

I know that many government members were first elected in 2015. They have never sat in opposition. As we all learned from the Liberals' caucus turmoil last year, this is very much a top-down party. I raise this because this bill resurrects the so-called lawful access measures, which grant the government access to Canadians' Internet data without a warrant. This is not the first time the “securitycrats” have tried to bring this into law. They tried to get us to pass it in 2012, when we were a majority government. Fortunately, we had a prime minister who respected and listened to his caucus colleagues. That is why we withdrew the bill.

It is no surprise that fresh off an election, while the Liberal ministers are still trying to find the bathrooms and staff up their offices, the “securitycrats” would slip this in. They want law enforcement to have the power to demand data such as IP addresses, usernames, device identifiers and service usage history based on a mere suspicion standard. This is not on reasonable grounds or probable cause, but just suspicion.

While many actors across the aisle were not here during the last debate on so-called lawful access, my biggest fan, the member for Winnipeg North, was. Here is a great question he raised during that debate:

...the vast majority of the public, and individuals who are watching, are very curious as to the degree that law enforcement officers, or any others who might be designated through the minister, might have to access their history on websites and the content of emails. The minister makes reference that this does not change what is in place today.

Could the minister assure those who are listening to the debate that the government does not, in any fashion whatsoever, allow for any sort of invasion of privacy without some form of a judicial court warrant to enable police to do so?

I am sorry. I am not a great mimic. Even if the Liberal ministers cannot speak honestly about their opposition to these parts of the bill here in the House, I hope they find the courage to do so in caucus.

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. That clear wording is why police require reasonable grounds to obtain a warrant. Anything short of that will invite abuse. The problem is in defining “reasonable”. It is why people who are trying to defend their homes are being thrown into jail instead of the armed intruders.

This is not about border security. This is about giving the state unchecked power to monitor Canadians' digital lives. This is the natural precursor for the Internet censorship bill that the Prime Minister has pledged to reintroduce. Warrantless access to Internet data, combined with the vast digital safety bureaucracy the Liberals envision, would make the communists who control China blush.

The only thing that could make this worse is if the government had access to technology that could sift through vast amounts of data quickly and tease out surprising connections. Wait. It does. The Liberals brag about it all the time. That is why they have contracts with U.S. company Palantir. In 2012, when we last debated so-called lawful access, that kind of technology was science fiction. Now it is scientific fact. Canadians do not want Liberal AI spying on them. These snooping sections of the bill must be deleted when it reaches committee.

The Internet is an integral part of 21st-century society. We can see in China that despite vast state surveillance, citizens tolerate the lack of privacy for the convenience of using the Internet for shopping, school or socializing. However, that is not the case with the mail and Canada Post. The Liberals plan to allow police to search the mail without a warrant. That fact would be a decapitating blow to the zombie corporation we refer to as Canada Post.

Not only would this obviously violate section 8 of the charter, but it would also infringe on section 3, the right to vote. Nothing would undermine the confidence of mail-in ballots faster than Liberals giving themselves the power to open mail. For Canadians living overseas, there are no alternatives to voting by mail. If the state can inspect someone's ballot, then their right to vote has been infringed. The mere threat of ballot inspections would be enough for unsavoury actors to pressure overseas voters. Those unsavoury actors would not just be rogue partisans, but foreign agents seeking to undermine our democracy.

Meanwhile, the fentanyl dealers will switch to FedEx, UPS or drones. Two years ago, correctional officials in B.C. intercepted a pigeon with a tiny backpack filled with drugs. Drug dealers are using Canada Post because it is cheap and easy. Allowing warrantless searches might stop the dealers from using the mail, but it would not stop the dealing and the distribution of drugs. What it would do is stop regular Canadians from trusting the mail, and given the decline in trust and confidence we have seen across democratic countries, this bill would do too little to help and too much to hurt.

Canadians want to have confidence in their government. They want to know that it is tackling security. They want criminals in jail and our border under control, but we cannot have trust in a government that gives itself the power to spy on its citizens without a warrant based on reasonable grounds. It is checks and balances on state power that instill trust. It is still the competent execution of those powers that builds confidence. Conservatives call on this government to remove the sections where trust is undermined.

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

Madam Speaker, I took great exception when the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke said the Liberal Party has a top-down approach. As a matter of fact, the headlines we heard about the Conservative Party were that the Leader of the Opposition maintains tight control over what Conservative MPs say and do.

However, my question hits much closer to home for the member. The word on the street right now, the rumour that has been flying around, is that the newly elected member for Battle River—Crowfoot plans to run in her riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke in the next general election and might even be trying to push her out in order to do that.

Can she assure us that she will be the candidate—

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

I would remind hon. members that such questions are not really about government business.

The hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was wondering who started that rumour, but let us get back to the bill.

Bill C-2 is a Trojan Horse. It promises security but delivers surveillance. It promises order but delivers control. It is not the kind of legislation that Canadians expect from a government that claims to respect the charter. Let us work together to craft legislation that truly strengthens our borders without weakening our freedoms.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about confidence. She referred to foreign interference and confidence in the democratic system. Many articles have been published on the issue of how to restore public confidence.

The government is currently a minority government. This is what the voters have chosen. The government members should act accordingly. They should try to listen to the opposition parties and have a discussion. As for the members of the official opposition, they should use a constructive tone in their discussions.

In terms of confidence in the electoral system, there is the issue of foreign interference but also how we behave here in the House. What does my colleague think about that?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am having trouble getting that out too.

In the House, government members should be respecting, listening to and answering questions according to what speakers actually say. A small modicum of respect for opposition parties will build confidence not only in Parliament but among the people who watch us from home.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague talk about cash transactions. As we know, cash facilitates money laundering and anonymity.

Canadian banks abide by the Basel accords, which is why Canada's banking system is one of the best in the world. Does my colleague want us to continue letting people use cash, which increases the number of crimes committed by the very criminals we want to lock up by strengthening our laws, while the current government seeks to prevent rather than cure?

What is her stance? Does she think Canada should allow money laundering to continue, or does she think it should abide by the Basel accords and ask Canadian banks to do their job?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, cash is legal tender in Canada. The way we can strengthen security in transactions is not through taking away cash. It is by FINTRAC taking the information that it gathers, all the forms people fill out every time they make deposits or transfer $10,000 or more, and actually acting upon it, not just collecting the paper.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising the alarming civil liberties violations that the Liberal government is trying to sneak in under the auspices of this border bill. Much of the response we get from the government effectively boils down to “just trust us”.

Do Canadians have any reason to trust the government that it will not abuse the broad latitude it is trying to give itself with Bill C-2?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians have lost trust in the government. They did so during COVID when the Liberals refused to allow parliamentarians to see the contracts for the vaccines. They lost trust when different scandals came up. Canadians no longer trust the government. We certainly do not want to see the types of riots occurring across Europe and parts of the Middle East come to Canada. The Liberals have to be respectful and have a budget and then ensure that they are completely—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-2, the strong borders act, was introduced in June by the public safety minister. Framed as legislation to strengthen border security, fight fentanyl trafficking and address U.S. irritants, the 140-page omnibus bill would make sweeping changes across more than 11 existing acts, and it proposes a new framework for digital surveillance of Canadians.

Many aspects of the bill have little or nothing to do with border security. The government is seeking unrelated powers it has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain in the past that present significant threats to human rights and civil liberties. Bill C-2 is not about safety; it is about normalizing surveillance, criminalizing migration, bypassing Parliament and public debate, and attacking Canadians' privacy and charter rights. It would undermine due process, and it is a power grab.

The Liberal government's new strong borders act is one of the most serious threats to Canadians' civil liberties we have seen in years. It makes Stephen Harper's infamous Bill C-51 look tame by comparison. Framed as a national security measure, the legislation would give sweeping new powers to police and intelligence agencies, powers that would override long-standing privacy protections and skirt judicial oversight.

At the heart of Bill C-2 is a deeply troubling expansion of warrantless surveillance. Under the proposed law, the RCMP, CSIS and even undefined “public officers” would be able to demand personal information from a wide range of service providers without ever going before a judge. This includes doctors, banks, landlords, schools and even psychiatrists, and the list can go on.

Let that sink in for one minute. Government agencies could make information demands for when and how long someone has accessed service from a provider or an associate provider related to that service. This of course means that government agencies would know where the provider is located and the timeline, how often and for how long someone has sought service from the provider. Under the bill, the government would be able to access online activity that someone is engaged in, without having to justify it to a court.

These kinds of unchecked powers are ripe for abuse, and historically, we know who pays the highest price. When governments start cutting corners on civil liberties, it is often racialized, low-income, marginalized communities that bear the brunt, but they will not be the only ones. We all would be under this kind of scrutiny.

Even more alarming, Bill C-2 would open the door to increased information sharing with foreign governments, including the United States. Ottawa is currently in talks to join the U.S.' CLOUD Act, the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, which would allow U.S. law enforcement to access Canadian data stored on servers abroad. That could include deeply personal records, such as whether someone accessed abortion services.

In a post-Roe America, where abortion is criminalized in several states and reproductive health is under surveillance, this is profoundly dangerous. In the Trump era, where the LGBTQ2IA+ community is under attack, this is extremely dangerous. Canadians should never have to worry that their personal medical decisions might be exposed to another country's government, yet the bill makes that possibility very real.

Matt Hatfield of OpenMedia critiqued Bill C-2 for having an “astonishing scope of who can receive data demands without a warrant that is unprecedented in Canada.” He is right; we have never seen anything quite like this in Canada being pushed through. It is alarming. It is American-style surveillance creeping north of the border. Canadians were warned about this during the last election. Did the Prime Minister, during the election, tell any Canadians that this is what he was going to do? No, and all of this is to appease Trump.

Groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group are sounding the alarm. They are rightly pointing out that Bill C-2 threatens charter-protected rights to privacy and to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. These are not abstract concerns; these are rights that go to the heart of a free and democratic society.

If the Prime Minister and the public safety minister are serious about protecting those rights, they must scrap the bill and send it back to the drawing board. It should not be brought forward as an omnibus bill. If they want to address border safety, they should bring forward a bill that addresses border safety. If they want to address fentanyl trafficking, they should bring forward a bill that addresses fentanyl trafficking. They should not lump them in with a 140-page bill and sneak in provisions that would turn Canada into a surveillance state.

Of course we all want safety. Communities want safety, and we want secure borders. However, we already have existing legal tools, like warrants and court orders, that respect civil liberties and let law enforcement do its job while still protecting civil liberties. Stripping away judicial oversight is not the answer, and that is not how we do things in a democracy.

The public safety minister, in an op-ed about refugee asylum seekers, in 2016, wrote the following:

Our country will never be the same again, and collectively our doors should always be open, not just to those who come to our shores, but those taking extraordinary risks to cross other shores in search of refuge. We must understand that people in normal circumstances do not risk their lives—and the lives of their families—to [flee] for reasons such as economic stability. They do so out of desperation and as a last resort.

Now, as minister, he is putting up walls and barriers through the legislation. Yes, refugees and those who need safety are under attack under the bill. Bill C-2 would deny hearings entirely to refugees from the United States, block applications from those who have been in Canada over a year, and ignore risks of persecution, torture or even death. It echoes Trump's asylum policies, and if I might add, there are over 150 Canadians in ICE detention right now. What is the government doing? Nothing. We have heard nothing about what the government is doing with Canadians who are held in ICE detention in the United States.

Bill C-2 is not about border security; it is about expanding government surveillance. It threatens to chill freedom of expression, erode trust in doctors and service providers, and normalize the sharing of personal information with foreign powers. Canadians deserve better. We cannot allow democratic norms in Canada to become roadkill under pressure from an increasingly authoritarian and unhinged American president.

This is not the Canada I know. This is not the Canada I think Canadians voted for. I call on every member of the House to vote against the bill and send the government back to the drawing board.

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

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt: It is easy to tell where the member stands on the legislation. I do want clarification on one specific issue. She makes reference to the issue of being able to claim refugee status.

In Canada, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people today who are on some form of a temporary visa. Does the member believe that, if people have been in Canada for a lengthy period of time on a temporary visa, every one of them should be able to claim refugee status, even if they have been in Canada for over a year?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, not all people with a visa who are here in Canada want to claim refugee status. Some of them are actually seeking permanent resident status. Some of them are having their permits extended.

What has happened with our immigration system is the mismanagement of the system by the Liberal government. In fact, I remember that both the Liberals and Conservatives called for an expansion of temporary foreign workers. The NDP members were the only ones who said, “No, wait a minute; we should not be doing that.” The NDP members were the only ones who actually said that if we need more workers here in Canada, we should make sure we go through the proper process, which includes allowing them to get permanent resident status on arrival.

Let us meet our labour demands for the full range of workers, the low-skilled, medium-skilled and high-skilled, and not just what the government has right now, targeting the high-skilled workers and then pushing the rest of them through the temporary foreign workers process.

This needs to be looked at in a serious way, and it should be dealt with in a fair way so that all workers are valued here in Canada and are not subject to exploitation.

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

Madam Speaker, in the last Parliament, there was considerable debate on the fundamental right to privacy. The legislation never did see the end of the day, and the New Democratic Party did work with the Conservatives to push forward our concerns about the usage of data and about the provisions being put forward by the Liberal government under the former prime minister.

Will the member agree with the Conservatives that some of the provisions in the legislation would constitute government overreach without the proper constraints put in place to protect a Canadian's fundamental right to privacy?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP's view of the bill is that it should actually be scrapped entirely. The government is trying to shove through a whole variety of different things in an omnibus bill, a 140-page bill, stripping Canadians of their basic charter rights and stripping due process, all in the name of border security.

If the government wants to tackle safer borders, it should bring forward a bill that specifically talks about that. We could examine it, study it and then debate it and determine whether it should be amended and passed. If the government wants to address criminality, it should bring forward a bill on trafficking, on criminality specifically, not shove it all under a bill that is 140 pages long, with provisions that have nothing to do with border security, that have nothing to do with criminality and that have everything to do with tackling and violating Canadians' basic civil liberties and expanding the government's surveillance capabilities on Canadians. That is wrong.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague opposite, and I beg to disagree with some of the points she raised. Though I am far from a proponent of Bill C-2, an analysis shows that the bill could ultimately be beneficial. That said, some significant changes may be needed.

My colleague says that a 150-page bill is an omnibus bill, which surprises me a little. I think that comment may be a little over the top. However, the substance of what she is saying sort of makes sense. For example, she mentioned concerns that this bill would be passed without any substantial amendments.

Is she also concerned that the Conservatives might repeat what they did last spring, when they did the Liberals' dirty work for them by preventing us from taking the time to properly study bills introduced in the House? Some aspects of Bill C‑2 deserve to be studied and explored in more detail.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP believes that the bill should be scrapped. We do not support the bill, because it is not what it purports to be. There might be some provisions in it that are good, but they should not be in a giant bill with more than 11 acts all shoved into one bill—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the remarks of the NDP member for Vancouver East, whom I served with on the opposite side in the B.C. legislature and now serve with here, and I must admit that a lot of what she had to say resonated with how we feel on the Conservative side, although we are not totally aligned.

I want to begin by thanking the residents of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and Mission for electing me for a third term. This is the first term I will be representing part of Mission. I share that responsibility with my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. It is a privilege.

There were 13,000 more votes this election compared to the last election, and I attribute that to different things. Obviously, our leader is a very powerful spokesperson, but people are struggling economically in my communities, many people, and across Canada. A big concern is the rampant drugs and lawlessness sweeping our nation, which do not need to be taking place and were not prior to the Liberals being in power.

When I went door to door, I often asked people if they thought things had gotten better since the Liberals came to power in terms of the economy, prosperity, crime or in general. I would tell them that if they really felt that way, they should vote Liberal. However, I did not hear anybody tell me that things have gotten better. They have not gotten better at all. Things have gotten a lot worse.

With Bill C-2, the Liberals are trying to make it look like they are doing something about crime and the borders, but it is full of half measures, things they are overlooking and things they are getting wrong. Canadians are deeply concerned about the alarming upswing in violence that is shaking our communities. It weighs heavily on us, and there is such a dichotomy. My riding is in the Vancouver area. It is such a magnificent, beautiful area in the nation and the world to live in, yet what we are seeing happening in our streets at night throughout the land is totally out of sync. It should not be this way.

There have been horrific acts of violence that remind us of the urgent need to restore safety and security in our country. Think of the tragic Lapu-Lapu Day event in Vancouver, where 11 innocent lives were taken. It stands as one of the most devastating mass killings in our nation's history.

There have been senseless killings and violent crime in communities across the nation. They are not isolated incidents. They reflect a disturbing trend of violence that Canadians everywhere are feeling. Violent crime is up 50% since the Liberals have been in power, gang-related homicides are up 78%, sexual violations against children are up 118%, human trafficking is up 83% and sexual assaults are up 74%. In B.C., extortions are up 500%.

For generations, since the opening of the west, there was a real contrast between Canada and the U.S. in our minds in how we viewed Canada and how the world viewed Canada. Canada was known for peace, order and good government, with the RCMP going out on horseback to clean up places like Fort Whoop-Up in Alberta before it was formed as a province, which was filled with bandits and liquor smugglers.

When we compare what was in Canada then to the lawlessness in the States, that is no longer the case, which is terrible. People feel it. They tell me they are worried about walking in their neighbourhoods, about crime creeping closer to home and about whether or not their loved ones are truly safe. It is not the Canada we know and should accept.

Unfortunately, under the Liberal government, violent crime has gone up significantly. The facts speak for themselves. After nearly a decade in office, the Liberals have failed to prioritize public safety. Their soft-on-crime policies include reduced sentences for serious offenders and the erosion of accountability in our justice system, which have left communities vulnerable. Criminals are emboldened while victims and families are left behind.

The Conservatives take a different view. We believe that Canadians deserve to feel safe in their homes, their streets and their communities. That means ending catch-and-release bail policies that put dangerous repeat offenders back on the street. It means restoring tougher penalties for violent criminals and giving law enforcement the tools they need to do their jobs effectively. It means supporting families and communities as they heal from tragedies. We owe it to the victims in every community shaken by violence. The government needs to stand up for the innocent, hold violent offenders accountable and make public safety a true priority once again.

For over a decade, we have urged the Liberal government to reverse dangerous policies that have let violent criminals walk free. The Liberals have allowed our borders to become increasingly porous and have left our justice system in disarray. I know the Liberal member opposite said the Liberals put an extra $1 billion into border security, but the number of illegal immigrants going from Canada to the States is up 600% since they have been in power. We really do not keep good track of those coming from the States to Canada. Everybody is pretty much welcome. Look at Roxham Road.

Now, after years of ignoring the warning signals, after tens of thousands of Canadians have become victims of repeat violent offenders, the Liberals are scrambling. They have dropped Bill C-2, a bloated omnibus bill that tries to do too much and achieves too little where it matters most.

Let me be clear. The Conservatives are ready to support elements of this bill, but we are deeply concerned about several provisions that do not go far enough or go in the wrong direction.

What is the biggest failure of this bill? It is the failure to fix our broken bail system, the catch-and-release system. It is not just a phrase, but a dangerous reality that Canadians are facing in their cities. Criminals, including those charged with trafficking fentanyl, smuggling firearms or committing violent assaults, are being routinely released on bail, often within hours. In Vancouver, we saw the same 40 criminals arrested 5,000 times in one year. It is frustrating for police. They ask what the use of arresting people is.

The bill also fails to introduce mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers. It still allows house arrest for a shocking number of serious crimes, including some forms of sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking. It is too weak on crime and far too strong when it comes to government overreach.

We are extremely alarmed by the provisions in this legislation that threaten Canadians' civil liberties, provisions that could allow the government to open their mail without proper oversight. There are measures that allow authorities to compel Internet companies to hand over private data without a warrant. There is also concerning language about limiting the use of cash, which is vital to our seniors, small businesses and rural communities.

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

Madam Speaker, we have a new Prime Minister. We have more new members of Parliament than any other political entity in the House of Commons. Since the end of April, we have seen tax breaks for 20-plus million Canadians. We have built a stronger one Canadian economy than we have ever seen, which the Conservatives supported. The member talked about the need for bail reform. We have a Prime Minister with a new cabinet that is committed to bringing in several pieces of bail legislation, some of which we are going to see this fall. All of this is in a very short period of time.

After listening to the Conservatives, including the member, I think the issue of misleading Canadians through debate is a concern. They try to give the impression that any letter carrier can open up a letter anytime he or she wants. They try to give the impression there will not be a need for a warrant to open up a letter. Both of those things are not true.

Can the member provide his thoughts on misleading information?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, there might be a new Prime Minister and some new Liberal members, but it is the same old policy. As a matter of fact, we are seeing things getting worse. The deficit, when they eventually put the budget forward, looks like it is going to be double what was originally intended.

We are seeing a lot of talk, and I am hearing that on the doorsteps and as I am talking with businesses. They are saying it sounds really good, but they are not seeing the evidence. Bill C-2 seems to be more of that: a lot of talk and not much evidence.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague touched on border security. I live in an area not far from the border with the United States, and I have had the opportunity to look into the issue of border crossings.

The major issue is that there were job cuts at the border crossings under the Conservatives. The Liberal government boasts about being a new government and having a fresh vision. It is now proposing improvements to border crossings, but without hiring additional staff for the Canada Border Services Agency.

Quebec is calling for this, and so are we. Additional staff is essential to really address this security issue.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, the situation at the border is getting much worse. Roxham Road is not far from Montreal. We, the Conservatives, support the idea of hiring thousands more officers in order to end drug trafficking and human smuggling.

We would also like to see officers stationed not only at official border crossings, but also along the entire length of the border. People can cross illegally by other routes. Investments must also be made in acquiring scanners for ports and in many other areas.

We need to take our borders seriously.

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

Madam Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, total sexual assaults have risen 74.83%, 90% of which are against women. Why has the Liberal Party enacted policies that have done so much to hurt and damage women? Do the Liberals not respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right of women to live free of the fear of being hurt in our society?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is stunning, because the Liberals have brought in laws that essentially force judges to release criminals on the least onerous terms and as quickly as possible. It is not just chaos; it is dangerous, and women are feeling it.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour for me to rise in the House for the first time after the summer to speak to Bill C-2, the strong borders act. I am speaking on behalf of the residents of my constituency of Davenport, whom I am so honoured to represent for the fourth time.

The need for the legislation is as great today as it was when it was introduced in June, and I look forward to helping make the case for the bill. When we talk about strong borders, on this side of the House, we are not talking about building walls; we are talking about providing tools that would protect everyone in Canada from the kinds of threats we could not have imagined not that long ago.

Let us think of Bill C-2 as offering a tool kit. The tools in the bill are designed to protect us from organized crime, hostile state actors, human traffickers, money launderers and drug cartels. These are the people who are flooding our streets with fentanyl, sexually exploiting children online, smuggling people to our borders or trying to make dirty money clean. These are criminals, plain and simple, who are using every tool of modern technology to commit crimes.

Law enforcement is playing catch-up as criminals find new ways to exploit gaps in our system as quickly as we close the ones they were just using. Some call it playing whack-a-mole. We can argue over the finer points of what we should be doing, but there can be no argument at all over the need for immediate and urgent action. We on this side of the House believe that Bill C-2 is the action we must take to properly protect our borders and to move on multiple fronts. This explains why the bill touches on so many areas.

For example, we might not have the Oceans Act at the very top of our list for amending when thinking of the strong borders act, but by making adjustments and including it in the proposed legislation, if passed, the bill would allow the Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze and share information and intelligence for security purposes. This would help protect our maritime borders, especially in the Arctic.

Fentanyl traffickers both inside and outside Canada use Canada Post to move their lethal product. A tiny amount of fentanyl, mere milligrams, can kill someone. It also fits neatly into an envelope. Under the current Canada Post Corporation Act, it is illegal for that envelope to be opened. However, if Bill C-2 passes, it would change that. With the bill, law enforcement could go to a judge, obtain a warrant, and search and seize drugs such as fentanyl from Canada Post mail. With this change, Canada Post would be on exactly the same footing as the big courier companies, and criminals would lose an easy way to ship drugs.

This is a much-needed policy change. For criminals, borders are something to be ignored. Borders are an inconvenience. They add to the cost of doing business. Our job is to make borders real and to make sure criminals cannot hide behind our modern communication tools to conduct their business. For Canada, this means ensuring law enforcement can properly investigate those who would do us harm by creating a proper lawful access regime to allow law enforcement to respond to the challenges it faces from criminals.

The changes proposed in Bill C-2 would help bring our laws and policies in line with those of our allies, particularly in the Five Eyes alliance; they have had their own versions of some of the same tools for many years. It is important to remember that the Canadian version will be in keeping with Canadian values, consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There has been considerable public discussion about this issue since Bill C-2 was tabled, and I look forward to the debate in this venerable House over the coming hours and days.

There is one important element I want to highlight about our proposal. Some have argued that the lawful access regime being proposed is a major attack on privacy rights. I would argue that it is not. Rather, it is carefully structured to calibrate law enforcement's access to information with the nature of information being sought. For the vast majority of information requests, a judicial warrant is required. There are a couple of exceptions to that, but they are ones that I believe all sides of the House can support.

I will give a couple of examples. First, Bill C-2 clarifies the ability of law enforcement to use specific powers and seize specific information without a warrant in urgent, time-sensitive circumstances. One such circumstance would be the live and active abuse of a child. I am sure we can all agree that stopping the abuse of a child is an appropriate exercise of police authority.

The second and other instance is when police are trying to find basic information about someone as part of an investigation. This typically happens in the early stages of a police investigation. What we are talking about here is basic information, essentially something that responds to simple yes-or-no kinds of questions. What police would glean from the answer would allow them to go to a judge, seek a warrant and obtain more information. Again, the object of the exercise is to allow law enforcement to move at the same speed as the criminals they are pursuing. Due process is maintained, but speed is also critical for police when pursuing those who use digital tools to communicate.

The bill has many more elements, and we will be discussing them over the course of the debate today. Amendments to the proceeds of crime, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, among others, all add up to a complete and compelling package of reforms that modernize our laws and protect us from those who would do us harm.

Bill C-2 builds on the work we began last December when we announced a $1.3-billion investment in border security. These additional investments are helping our law enforcement and intelligence agencies keep pace with transnational organized crime groups, which have become more sophisticated in their use of new technologies, such as drones, 3-D printers and encrypted communications, to carry out cross-border crimes.

Under our border plan, we are hiring more personnel and delivering more tools and resources, such as advanced technology, drones, surveillance equipment, canine teams, helicopters and more. We have also listed seven transnational organized crime groups as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code and are constantly monitoring to determine if more should be added. These listings allow us to take direct action against organized crime groups, such as by freezing their assets in Canada.

Canadians expect us to do everything we can to combat crime and keep people safe. It is our essential duty as a government. The bill is necessary, but we make no claims of perfection. The Minister of Public Safety has made it clear that the government is open to constructive amendments. I look forward to an equally constructive debate today.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many elements of this speech by the member opposite that I could address, including why Canadians should trust the same old Liberal government to fix the crisis when it created the crisis. The member even referenced that it was the same government in part of her speech.

However, the part that I am most interested in is what she said about Canada Post opening mail. She said that law enforcement can go to a judge and get a warrant. I wonder if the member opposite could read the portion of the bill that describes clearly that the judge and the warrant would be required.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the strong borders act would make critical amendments to legislation that would advance our government's priorities to keep Canadians safe and secure through strengthening our border and making some additional changes, including the changes that she has referenced to the Canada Post Corporation Act. The way crime is conducted these days has absolutely changed, so the government has to modernize its legislation to be able to go after the perpetrators.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech addressing the issue of criminal gangs and border security.

I would like to point out that the Bloc Québécois has already raised this issue, particularly through the bill introduced by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, which sought to cut off funding to criminal organizations. I should point out that one of the purposes of the bill was to make it easier to seize property belonging to anyone convicted of an offence involving criminal gangs. To help fight organized crime, the bill also provided for the creation of a list of criminal organizations. As a matter of principle, we would be happy to go back to committee to study Bill C‑2, in particular by taking a constructive approach to improving it.

Has my colleague had a chance to look at the bill my colleague introduced last fall? Does she think that might be an avenue to explore going forward?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member and the other members of the Bloc Québécois for being very passionate about this issue. There should be no doubt about it: Bill C-2 is about taking more decisive action to crack down on crime. That absolutely means that we will be cracking down on money laundering and terrorist financing. I want to assure the member that any ideas they have should be brought to committee, which is where the bill would go. We will take all the best ideas to make sure that this is the strongest bill possible moving forward.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome my colleague back to the House of Commons and thank her for the very reflective thoughts that she shared. We have listened, in the House of Commons today, to many comments that our colleagues have made about the bill. We know that Canadians sent us here with a mandate to collaborate. Canadian voters, including Conservative voters, want us to take action on the borders.

Can the member talk about ways that we can co-operate, collaborate and even take the bill to committee, make sure that many amendments are considered and bring the bill to pass?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I think it is non-partisan. It is absolutely important for us to ensure that we continue to have updated legislation that allows our government to take strong action to prevent crime, to ensure that our law enforcement officers at all levels have the tools they need to disrupt any type of crime and to hold people to account for criminal activity. I will tell everyone that we will take the best suggestions. We will work with all members of every party in the House to ensure that we have the strongest law both now and moving forward.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member misrepresented what the bill really does. What the bill really does is expand surveillance and data collection from individuals without requiring a judicial warrant. She said it would require one.

That is not what the bill says. Could she clarify her comments?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I will say to the member that I think we have spent quite a bit of time addressing issues of privacy here in the House. If there are any concerns around privacy on his part and, for some reason, we need to make adjustments around the privacy concerns he might have, I would ask him to bring them to committee.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the hard-working residents of Oshawa. When I return from my city to the chamber, I always carry the voices of our workers in Oshawa who build our economy, of families who keep our neighbourhood strong and of young people who deserve the chance to build a future in the city they call home. They are the strength of Oshawa, and they deserve a government as strong as they are and as hard-working as they are.

Every family in Oshawa deserves and wants the same thing: safe streets where children can walk without fear, secure borders that stop drugs and guns from entering our neighbourhoods, and a government that protects their rights while holding criminals accountable. Bill C-2 claims to deliver these things, but a closer look shows it offers more rhetoric than results. It mixes a few measures worth supporting with many that leave Canadians feeling less free, less safe and less confident in their government.

The fentanyl crisis has devastated many Canadian communities, including my own in Oshawa and our downtown core. Too many lives have been cut short. Too many parents have stood in sorrow at vigils for their sons and their daughters. First responders race from call to call, fighting to save lives from overdose after overdose, reflecting the depth of a crisis, including the human cost, that continues to grip our city.

Liberals create a crisis and somehow expect Canadians to trust that they are the ones to fix it. It is not enough to ban chemicals; traffickers must face justice, yet the bill would allow many dealers to serve sentences from home. Families in Oshawa do not believe that a fentanyl dealer should be sitting on the couch; they believe the dealer should be behind bars. These dealers are not small-time offenders; they are people whose actions have ended lives, destroyed families and terrorized our communities.

For 10 years, the Liberal government has failed to secure Canada's borders. Our officers do their best with the tools they have, but the tools are not enough. Illegal drugs, stolen vehicles and firearms flow in while Canadians pay the price. Throughout that time, Conservatives have consistently called for stronger border security, more CBSA agents, high-powered scanners at land crossings and ports, and systems to track departures of deportees. These are practical steps that would stop threats before they hit our streets.

Cracking down on money laundering is essential of course. Oshawa families work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules. Criminal gangs should not be able to wash their profits through loopholes, yet part 11 of Bill C-2 takes a wrong turn. It would impose a blanket ban on cash transactions over $10,000. While gangsters have used cash to launder money, this sweeping ban would punish law-abiding citizens, such as seniors who rely on cash, tradespeople and small businesses, without evidence that it would stop organized crime at all.

What I find even more troubling is that access to cash can be crucial for women and individuals trying to escape abusive relationships, because financial independence can be a lifeline. I cannot tell members how many times I have encountered victims of intimate partner violence who feel stuck and trapped. Without control over their money, it becomes much easier for an abuser to maintain power and control, trapping the person in a cycle of dependence and making it harder to safely escape. Taking away cash as a safe option leaves some of the most vulnerable Canadians with fewer tools to protect themselves.

Perhaps the most concerning factors of Bill C-2 are the sections that would undermine civil liberties. The Supreme Court has affirmed that Canadians have a right to privacy in their Internet records. Bill C-2 seeks to undo that, allowing officials to obtain subscriber information without a warrant in so-called urgent circumstances.

Shockingly, the bill would even give Canada Post new powers to open and inspect personal mail. Canadians should be confident that what they send through the mail will remain private and confidential. Allowing the government to rifle through letters and packages is a dangerous intrusion into everyday life. It is exactly the kind of invasion of privacy I came to expect as normal when I lived in Communist China as a young teacher.

Part 15 goes further; it would compel companies to build back doors into their systems. Once built, those back doors could be accessed without judicial oversight. In a bid to win trade concessions from the U.S., the Prime Minister has put our rights and values on the bargaining table. Bill C-2's lawful access provisions would erode a last line of defence to ensure that people can have safe experiences online and off-line.

International human rights bodies have recognized the importance of encryption to protecting the safety and privacy of people. Encryption ensures that people have safe lines of communication online when they need them most. For survivors of intimate partner violence, encryption is a lifeline that secures confidential communication about escape plans and protects victims, including children, from abusers.

Many families in Oshawa include newcomers who fled regimes that spied on their citizens, and they came to Canada for freedom. They should not see those same shadows falling over their lives here.

Canadians remember 2022, when the government froze bank accounts of individuals it disagreed with politically. Under Bill C-2, banks could collect and use personal information without consent, and accounts could be frozen on suspicion alone. Ordinary Canadians should never face this risk. We learn from experience. When Liberals are given too much power, we can be certain they will abuse it.

Bill C-2 is over 100 pages long and would amend 14 acts, yet it omits reforms Canadians have been crying out for. Bail reform is absent. Catch and release would remain in place. There would be no mandatory prison terms for fentanyl traffickers or violent gangsters.

Families in Oshawa are now afraid to let their kids walk downtown. Shopkeepers are exhausted from repeat thefts. Police officers see the same criminals return to the streets. Canadians do not want gestures; it is time for action. Canadians wonder how our streets reached this point. Some claim we need bail reform, but in fact we already have it, and it is making things worse.

The Liberals' Bill C-75 rewrote the rule so that judges are instructed to let offenders out at the first chance and under the weakest conditions possible. That was not an accident; it was a deliberate policy. The results are plain to see in Vancouver. We know, and it has been said today, the same 40 habitual offenders have been cycled through our system over 6,000 times. That is about 150 arrests each in a single year, which is a shocking figure that tells the story of a system that has collapsed. Arrest, release and repeat is the reality across Canada.

Conservatives have been warning for years that this is a revolving door that endangers our neighbourhoods. What has the Prime Minister done? Instead of fixing the law, he closed Parliament, spent his summer globe-trotting and left Canadians to deal with the consequences. Imagine if instead of chasing headlines abroad he had repealed Bill C-75 months ago. How many break-ins, assaults or violent crimes could have been avoided?

Conservatives have offered practical solutions for many years. The Minister of Public Safety has already admitted the true purpose of the bill: removing irritants for the United States. Canadian security, for the minister, has become secondary. With Bill C-2, the government risks surrendering Canadians' privacy, financial freedoms and safety, all for political convenience. This is not leadership; this is appeasement.

Conservatives do not oppose all of Bill C-2. Some measures deserve to be studied and improved. However, we will not give the government a blank cheque to erode the freedoms of Canadians. Individuals should never be asked to choose between safety and liberty. They deserve both.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether my colleague is open to taking this to committee. We have heard a lot of comments that, obviously, Conservatives want to discuss the bill further, and it will be going to committee. Will the member support the bill's going to committee so we can look at it further and make sure it represents the desires and thoughts of Canadians who voted for us, and to co-operate and make sure we are working together in bringing legislation that makes sense for Canada?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think most Conservative members of the House have said that there are elements of the bill that are good and that are strong; however, there are so many elements that are concerning that we have to look a lot closer. There are so many things, like bail reform and sentencing provisions, that are simply not addressed. I do not know if that is something that can be changed by amendments in committee, but we will have to see.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois's status of women critic, I was obviously paying close attention to the part of my colleague's speech where she talked about violence against women.

We have been hearing about this since this morning. We are talking about it, but the reality is solving this issue will require multiple solutions, including shelters that can help women escape the cycle of violence. My colleague talked about how poverty traps women in a cycle of violence. Being able to offer them housing is essential and important for getting them out of this cycle.

This summer, we heard that the federal government was holding back funds for CMHC, which meant shelter projects were delayed. Would my colleague agree that we should ensure that funds earmarked for shelters are transferred so that these projects can be implemented?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a day does not go by in our communities when we are not faced with sad stories and difficult situations, and I agree that things need to change. The bill in particular is an attack on women who cannot escape homes without access to and sometimes hiding away large amounts of cash in order to escape. I will add here that it is a good time to mention the wonderful community organizations in Oshawa that support women and folks with intimate partner violence and who shelter them, including The Denise House. I thank them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments from my colleague, because over and over again in my mind, I ask why Canadians are so apprehensive as to the intent of the government with the bill before us. The truth of the matter is that they are very concerned about their privacies, and rightly so.

The member mentioned already the abuse of Canadians' rights and freedoms when the warrantless surveillance by the government, along with its use of the banks as a third party, froze everyday Canadians' bank accounts, which put the element of mistrust in the government at a whole new level. I would like her comments on that and how in the world the government could expect that a bill of this size and magnitude, with so many good things mixed in with those that are not, could be something Canadians would give the government the opportunity to regain trust with.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do think the majority of Canadians struggle with trusting the current government with their life. From those to whom much is given, much shall be required. History has shown that the Liberal government will always take advantage of its powers and will take away the rights of law-abiding Canadians, and this is something that concerns us all greatly on this side of the House. It seems some of the NDP members have expressed some of the same concerns, and I am happy to hear that. I hope we will, on that point, stand together.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about lawful access in sharing information. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police actually supports it. Does she support the chiefs of police statement in support of that aspect of the legislation?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of our police services and our police associations, and I support all of the things that they need. I can say that what they are talking about most is bail reform. That is their biggest concern today.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you again and to speak to Bill C-2, a large, complex bill that covers several aspects related to border security, the fight against organized crime, illegal financing and, above all, immigration and IRCC. I may elaborate on that later.

It is no secret. As my colleagues from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon and Lac-Saint-Jean indicated, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading, but it will do so cautiously, as always.

As members may recall, the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for better border control. My former colleague Kristina Michaud asked many questions on the matter, particularly about auto theft, fentanyl trafficking and money laundering. The Bloc Québécois did not wait until pressure started coming from the Trump administration before raising concerns here in the House that line up with the considerations in this bill.

In some ways, this bill represents major progress. However, it is a massive bill, and it includes new powers that could alarm civil rights advocates. I think that was mentioned quite a bit this morning. That is why the committee will have to be diligent and flesh out certain things. I trust my colleagues will do just that.

However, one major point still needs to be addressed: the understaffing at the Canada Border Services Agency and at the RCMP. The government seems to be in austerity mode, so I look forward to seeing what solutions will be proposed for this.

I would like to add some points regarding the issue of immigration and IRCC. Parts 6 to 9 of the bill include proposals that go hand in hand with questions that have been asked by the Bloc Québécois. I think that it is important to highlight this because partisan politics has often been used as an excuse in the House. Whenever members of the Bloc Québécois would raise immigration issues, both Conservatives and Liberals would say that the Bloc Québécois was using the immigration debate for partisan purposes. I will come back to this point because the past few weeks have shown what can happen when the immigration debate is used for partisan purposes.

I will not dwell at much length on the Leader of the Opposition's somewhat inappropriate outburst concerning temporary foreign workers. I can assure people that, where I come from, Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, his words created quite a stir because a lot of manufacturing companies depend primarily on temporary foreign workers for their survival. With so much talk about immigration at the moment, many members of society have come under its influence and have adopted a rather narrow outlook on the problems that affect us. We have to differentiate between essential temporary foreign workers in certain sectors, and others who may be less essential in other sectors. Realities in the regions may differ from the realities facing large urban centres.

We have to make a distinction there, but we also have to distinguish between the different types of immigration. Asylum seekers do not have the same status as temporary foreign workers. What has harmed Quebec in recent years is the considerable influx of asylum seekers. That has put pressure on public services, housing, health care services, education and so on. When the Bloc Québécois raised those issues in the last Parliament, I think the government was less attentive.

For that reason, I would like us to debate the issue of immigration a little more calmly in the coming months or weeks. From what I have seen since 2019, though, it seems unlikely.

What have we been talking about since 2019? I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois spoke out many times against what was happening at Roxham Road, against the Century Initiative and against an immigration system that, in my opinion, is broken and in crisis. Our constituency offices have practically become Service Canada offices. That is the reality for Bloc Québécois members, but I imagine the same is true for Conservative and Liberal members. We are making up for the shortcomings of the citizenship and immigration system.

I say that because I find that there are some potentially worthwhile solutions in Bill C‑2. Part 6, which seeks to share information with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, could address some of the problems we have experienced.

Just today, my colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères asked the Minister of Transport to launch an investigation into the notorious Driver Inc. issue. I am not exactly sure how these drivers are referred to, but they are temporary foreign workers who apply for a bulk transport licence without necessarily meeting all the conditions. As we saw in the media not too long ago, they have caused accidents that turned fatal. Perhaps it is because they do not follow all the road safety rules, they do not follow all the rules related to logbook entries and they do not have safe and healthy work equipment. Perhaps that is something that should be studied as part of this bill. I know that my colleague for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères already has documentation on that. Perhaps that is something that could be addressed in committee.

There is also all the work that will be done on reviewing asylum claims. I am thinking of part 7 in particular. I do not know whether my colleagues have seen this in their ridings, but, in mine, we have a serious problem with temporary foreign students. A whole host of temporary foreign students arrived in Quebec with fake acceptance letters, which enabled them to file asylum claims. What have been the consequences of that? I will talk about what we experienced in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean in particular. This has put an enormous amount of pressure on universities and colleges. In recent years, they have had to deal with many applications, some of which were quite far-fetched, without any support from the federal government.

I will just mention the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi. French foreign students fall under the memorandum of agreement, so they do not pose a problem. However, there have been disastrous cases where these students' applications were delayed because of the difficult situation involving foreign students who are arriving in the country to make asylum claims.

I welcome this element of Bill C‑2. It could help restore the reputation of our universities, which was damaged this summer. Universities jump through many hoops to recruit foreign students. It is a very competitive environment. In my riding of Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi had a strategy in place for the past 20 years to be a welcoming place for foreign students. Unfortunately for the university, the excellent reputation it had built up was ruined—and I mean that—due to an inadequate response from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I can say that this inadequate response is not unrelated to the fact that we did not have better legislation to regulate students who apply and come here on false pretenses.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I can appreciate is that members, particularly from the Bloc, understand that there are aspects of the legislation that would be good to see advanced, which is really encouraging to see, but before we can get to the committee stage, we have to finish the debate that is taking place here. We have to at least be aware of that.

Would the member not agree that there are many different stakeholders? I cited one in my last question, which is the chiefs of police. There are certain aspects of the legislation for which they are very supportive.

A good way to continue the debate and make those potential amendments would be by seeing it go to committee. Can the member provide his thoughts on the important role that standing committees also play at the House?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rare for me to agree with the member for Winnipeg North. The parliamentary session is off to a very good start.

I think we need to continue the work. However, the message I would have liked people to take away from my speech is that sometimes, politically, there needs to be an adult in the room. In the past, in the House, when we have talked about immigration, we have been accused left, right and centre of politicizing an issue for ideological reasons.

What makes me laugh a bit is that, when the Bloc Québécois members were talking today about what is in this bill, including parts 7 and 8 on illegal border crossers, that same member for Winnipeg North rose to say that we were fearmongering.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, especially the part where he talked about the services we need to provide to our constituents in relation to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, that is, gathering information about people who come to our offices looking for information about their immigration status, temporary foreign worker status or other status.

Does my colleague think that the government should assign even more people to work in our offices so that we can respond more quickly to our constituents? We have waiting lists that are sometimes extremely long.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like we agree. My colleague is absolutely right. The majority of MPs in the House, who want to do their job properly, are overwhelmed by highly complex IRCC-related requests.

The result is that everyone is frustrated. People come to our offices hoping to find solutions because, the truth is, the immigration system is broken. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get someone on the line. The people in our offices are having a hard time talking to anyone.

I agree with my colleague on this point. The responsibility lies entirely at the government's feet. Unfortunately, it does not seem to fully appreciate the scale of the immigration crisis that Canada and Quebec are currently facing.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Jonquière on his speech. I also thank him for referring to some of the issues I am currently working on.

I would like to ask him a question in relation to Bill C‑2.

My colleague referred to the immigration crisis. I think that he is absolutely right. It really is a crisis. Everyone is talking about it, and we see it in our offices. Can he tell us more about the impact this is having on our resources in Quebec and also talk to us about the unfair distribution of refugee claimants across the country? Is there anything in Bill C‑2 that would solve this crisis?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Unfortunately, I do not think that Bill C‑2 does anything to address how unfairly Quebec has been treated.

Quebec had to foot the bill to take in more than its share of asylum seekers, which put pressure on the health and education systems and the housing supply, as we have said here many times. This whole crisis may have been caused by the previous government and its Century Initiative.

In my opinion, this bill seeks to fix problems that the Liberal government itself created. However, the problem that the bill does not fix is that of fairness to the Government of Quebec, which paid more than its fair share as a result of mistakes made by the federal government.

[Mike Dawson, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back. I want to welcome you and all our colleagues back for another session.

I am pleased to have spent the summer back home in my constituency, Miramichi—Grand Lake. I spent the past few months connecting with friends, neighbours and constituents and listening to their concerns. Just last week I attended a standing-room-only public meeting called by the downtown Newcastle Business District in response to a public safety crisis in the heart of our small town. The situation in downtown Newcastle is an emergency. Anyone who attended the meeting recognizes that. All one has to do is take a drive through our community to see it. However, the emergency in Newcastle is not one of a kind.

From speaking with and listening to my colleagues here in the House, I know nearly every community across this country faces the same serious challenges. There is a very real public safety crisis in our communities and across this nation: drug use and addiction, crime and vandalism, aggressive behaviour and harassment, and home invasions. A good many Canadians do not feel safe walking the streets, and they do not even feel safe at home with their doors locked.

I would hope that no member of this House thinks that this is a well-done job. I would hope that we can all agree that something needs to change. However, the Liberal government would like Canadians to rest easy. The government was re-elected on promises to axe the carbon tax and negotiate a trade deal with the Prime Minister's good friend Donald Trump, but it has done neither. From where I am standing, it does not look like the Liberals have a real plan to honour their promises to Canadians.

What is the Liberal Party's solution to the public safety crisis in this country? It wants to make it harder for people to get money from a bank machine and easier for the government to open people's mail.

Bill C-2 would do little to address the very real problems facing our nation, but it would get the government recognition with the World Economic Forum. Tone-deaf does not even begin to describe it. It is no wonder that the Liberal government has failed to get a trade deal with our largest and best trading partner, the United States. The Liberal government has not addressed the very legitimate concerns that the U.S. government has raised over crime in this country and its export across our border to the United States. It is in this bill, in black and white: The Liberal government's response to the flow of illegal drugs and weapons across our border is to make it easier, more streamlined, for asylum seekers to enter the United States and avoid the proper means of legitimate immigration. The bill would even provide asylum seekers with government support to navigate our system.

The bill would go on to allow government to keep a closer eye on our internet search history. For 10 years now, Conservatives have warned that Liberal soft-on-crime policies put Canadians in danger. We warned that fentanyl would rip through our towns; the Liberals did not listen. Now crime is up, drug deaths are up, and the Liberals are doubling down. This is one Canadian who is starting to think that when it comes to the complex challenges faced by our country, the Prime Minister does not even know whether to sit or wind his watch. I have to wonder whether the government does not know what it is doing or knows exactly what it is doing.

It is becoming more difficult to give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt. Are they making well-intentioned bad decisions? Could they make this many bad decisions in a row, or does the bill reveal the vile contempt that the urban elite have for hard-working rural Canadians? The same contempt, voiced by Ruth Marshall from the University of Toronto last week, blocked this House from observing a moment of silence for a young father murdered in Utah last week for believing in God and encouraging others to do the same.

In June, the Liberals rushed this bill into the House and dressed it up with a tough name, the “strong borders act”. The name is strong, but the bill is not. It is weak where it must be strong, and even worse, it is heavy-handed where it ought to respect the freedom of ordinary Canadians. Conservatives believe in real law and order, common-sense law and order, and that is why we oppose the bill. We will back any measure that truly stops drugs, guns and violence from infecting our communities, but I will not support legislation that would unnecessarily trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Where is bail reform? The bill would do nothing to stop the catch and release of criminals in our communities. I can say what my constituents think. In Renous, Doaktown, Nauwigewauk, Chipman or Minto, if someone sells poison to our kids, they belong behind bars or in the ground. If the government does not quickly address the crisis situation, things will only get worse.

There are no mandatory jail terms for fentanyl traffickers in this bill, no new mandatory sentences for criminals who use guns. The bill does not demonstrate strength; it embraces weakness. While it would fail to get tough on real criminals, it would reach too far into the lives of ordinary people. It would let government agencies open our mail. It would force Internet companies to hand over our Google search engine results without a warrant. It would even take aim at the cash in our pockets.

Canadians need to know that Conservatives believe in the free market. Cash means choice, and choice means freedom. It is not for Ottawa to decide how a grandmother in Red Bank buys her groceries, but this is how the Liberal government works. It is why I was elected by my constituents, so that I would speak about it in the House. The Liberal government ignores a problem until it explodes; then, instead of a simple fix directed at the problem, it uses legislative tricks to further a globalist agenda at the expense of Canadians' freedoms.

To my mind, the bill is just more of the downtown Toronto crowd telling rural Canadians how to live, without the faintest idea of life where a handshake is still a deal and a man is measured by his word. I, for one, will not support the bill. I will fight for a Canada that is safe and free, and it does appear that I have a fight on my hands. I believe that criminals should face real consequences and that law-abiding people should keep the freedoms that our grandfathers fought and died for on beaches.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the comments that my colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned around co-operation and making sure that we are listening to our constituents and the people who sent us to the House.

The hon. member mentioned earlier that we promised Canadians we were going to remove the carbon tax, and he said that we did not. That is misleading, and that is not co-operation. Canadian voters, including Conservative voters, want us to co-operate. They want the House to function for the business of Canadians.

Can the member comment on how he is going to commit to making sure that we move on the things that Canadians sent us to do in the House?

[Mike Dawson, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is no small wonder that the crisis in our communities and across our nation is getting worse. I mentioned last week that there was an emergency meeting in my riding called by the downtown Newcastle Business District. In addition to myself were provincial members, the mayor and the chief of police.

No one in the crowd or on the stage suggested that if the government could just search our Internet history, the crisis would improve. No one suggested that if anyone had less cash in their pockets, there would be less drugs on the street. The government is so blind to its own ideology and agenda that it is punishing law-abiding Canadians and doing nothing that is actually required to fix the problems that have been broken for a decade of the Liberal agenda.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I have a question for him.

I was a bit taken aback during the spring parliamentary session. We were used to the Conservatives being hyper aggressive all the time, raring for a fight, when suddenly they became the muscle for the Liberal government in the context of Bill C‑5. Closure was imposed and we barely had any time to study the bill in committee. Today, all sorts of developments and consequences have come out of adopting Bill C‑5, which has become law.

Can my colleague tell me wether the Conservatives plan a repeat of what they did with Bill C‑5 or are they thinking of following the Bloc Québécois's lead and acting like responsible parliamentarians who properly study bills that fundamentally change our society, before working for the Liberals?

[Mike Dawson, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have laid out real solutions. We do not need to hire a team of university professors to sort this out. All the Liberals need to do is listen and dig the dirt out of their ears; hire thousands more border agents and give CBSA power to patrol our entire border, not just official crossings; install high-powered scanners at every crossing and shipping port to catch drugs, guns and stolen cars before they ever reach the streets; track who leaves the country so deportees cannot simply disappear; end catch-and-release bail and house arrest for violent offenders and scrap the so-called multi-murder discount in sentencing; and do it all while protecting the privacy and freedoms of everyday Canadians.

[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. Before I begin, I want to give a shout-out to someone who has given me a great deal of help, and that is George Marko. I thank George for everything.

To my hon. colleague, one thing I have been struck by is that the Liberals seem to be tripping over their own agenda. They say they want to strengthen our border, and then they put all of these superfluous things in the bill, things that do not seem to be constitutional or, at least, are marginal at best.

I wonder if my colleague would agree that if the Liberals really wanted to get something done quickly, they would look at what is reasonable, balancing law and order and balancing human rights, civil rights, as our charter guarantees.

[Mike Dawson, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we will back any part of this bill that would truly protect our borders and help police officers do their jobs, but we will not sign a blank cheque for a government that confuses heavy-handed intrusion with real security. Safety without freedom is not safety at all.

Common sense says we can keep our borders tight and our streets safe without Ottawa dictating how to pay for our groceries and at the farmers' market. This is common sense. If the Liberals do not understand it, then they can hold my beer and let us get to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of misleading information. We listen to Conservatives, and they give us the impression that letter carriers could walk around and start opening up Canadians' mail; it is just not true through this legislation. This is not true. In fact, there would be a requirement to get a warrant.

It would deal with mailing fentanyl to communities. Is that not a good thing?

[Mike Dawson, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, where is it in the legislation? It says “suspicious”; suspicious is an open-ended word, without a warrant. It makes no sense.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when I look across Saskatoon West, past the shopfronts along 22nd Street, and the family homes and small businesses that built the west end of Saskatoon, I see the real cost of 10 years of Liberal failures on crime, drugs and immigration. The government broke these systems, and Bill C-2 is its frantic omnibus attempt to look tough at a podium while ducking accountability at home. It stuffed sweeping surveillance powers in a de facto war on cash into a border bill, then dares ordinary people to swallow the lot. That might work for Ottawa insiders, but it does not work for folks in Confederation Park, Meadowgreen, Mount Royal, Montgomery Place and every neighbourhood in Saskatoon West that wants safe streets and a fair shot.

Let us start where my constituents live today, with local safety. In our city, there were 13 homicides in 2023, 14 in 2024, and by Labour Day this year, only two-thirds of the way through the year, there were already six people slain. Those are not statistics. They are families reeling and a community on edge. Assaults are up this year. Sexual assaults and violations are up. Most alarming is that there have been 818 weapons charges brought forward in the first eight months of this year. These are not isolated spikes. They reflect a Saskatchewan trend line that has gone the wrong way under a Liberal government.

Since 2015, violent firearms offences in Saskatchewan are up 206%. Extortion is up over 600%. Even motor vehicle theft is higher than it was. These crimes, more often than not, are committed by repeat offenders out on bail or who have had their sentences severely reduced.

Saskatoon police chief McBride summed it up this way. He said, “all of the intervention work that police tried to accomplish through holding them accountable, utilizing legislation is for naught...it is a struggle every day for us with repeat offenders.”

That is what families in Saskatoon West feel every day, in their communities, in their driveways and outside their corner stores. They feel that, whatever happens, the revolving door of criminals will keep going due to the Liberals' soft-on-crime agenda.

While we fight to keep our streets safe, the opioid disaster continues to devastate our province. The Saskatchewan Coroners Service recorded eight deaths by fentanyl poisoning in 2016. That number peaked at 272 in 2021 and was still 252 in 2023. However, last year, it spiked again to 383 deaths, making it a record year, even outstripping the COVID years. What has it been over the first eight months of 2025? It is a whopping 330 deaths already, well on pace to have the most deaths in the history of our province. These numbers are not elsewhere or in theory. They are our neighbours, our coworkers and our kids. If members want a picture of what Ottawa's failed approach looks like on the ground, they can find Health Canada safe supply warnings taped outside a pharmacy on 22nd Street right in our riding. That is how close the crisis is.

There is hope. The solutions are obvious by now: repeal Bills C-5 and C-75 to ensure repeat offenders get jail and not bail and focus our care on a recovery model rather than on keeping people in a perpetual state of addiction. Is that what we are debating today? Sadly, it is not.

What exactly is Bill C-2? The bill has elements to improve border tools, such as compelling export-side co-operation with CBSA, authorizing security patrols and improving interdiction of contraband in the mail. Conservatives can work with that. We all want to stop guns, drugs and stolen cars, but the bill also veers into bundled surveillance powers, a cash crackdown and a political rewrite of asylum rules. Bill C-2 slaps on a blanket cap for cash transactions over $10,000 without offering evidence for why a federal ban, rather than record-keeping, is needed. In Saskatoon West, seniors, small contractors and family-run shops still use cash for perfectly legitimate reasons. Yes, there are abuses of cash transactions as well, but instead of banning cash, we need better tools to stop crimes with cash. Otherwise, the government's overreach will hit hardest on the little guy in places like Saskatoon.

Then there is the privacy hit. The bill would create new pathways for information demands and cross-border data grabs, lowering thresholds for access to subscriber and transmission data. The Supreme Court has recognized a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information and IP addresses, yet the government buries a workaround in a border bill and tells Saskatoon families to trust it. This legislation would create a warrantless runaround for the police to invade our fibre optic networks, something the Liberals hid deep in this 140-page omnibus bill.

Regarding immigration, the Liberals broke a system that used to work. Canada's system was the envy of the world. Countries would come to Canada to see our system so they might implement it in their own countries. In the last 10 years, the Liberal government has broken almost our entire immigration system to the point where those people are no longer coming to see how we do it, but rather how not to do it, so they do not wreck their own.

This, of course, is not the fault of immigrants. Immigrants just used the system that was given to them. This was purely the government's fault. The good news is that it can be fixed, and we know how to fix it.

The Liberals did not think that there should be limits on temporary residents, and guess what. The number of temporary residents exploded to over three million people, nearly 7.5% of our total population. This rapid uncontrolled population growth has led to obvious shortages in housing and jobs, and put enormous strains on our health care and education systems.

Employers turned the temporary foreign worker program into a wage suppression crutch. It was supposed to be for hard-to-fill agricultural jobs, but it ballooned into restaurants, hotels and just about everywhere else. We propose restoring it back to an ag-only policy because, in the first six months of this year alone, the Liberals issued 105,000 temporary foreign worker permits, despite promising a cap of 82,000, which flooded entry-level markets while Saskatoon students struggled to find summer jobs.

That is not compassion. It is a policy that leaves local youth and newcomers alike worse off. Folks in Saskatoon West feel this on both ends. Employers are begging for skilled trades and reliable workers, while at the same time, high school grads and polytechnic students in Saskatoon West tell me that they cannot get their first job, because Liberals allowed a temporary program to become a permanent substitute for Canadian labour. That is on this government.

Let me be clear about what Bill C-2 misses and what Saskatoon West needs.

The first issue is bail and sentencing. The Liberals' catch-and-release approach failed. They repealed mandatory prison time for serious gun crimes and drug trafficking, and instead expanded house arrest for offences such as sexual assault and kidnapping. Instead of jail for serious offences, criminals are told to stay at home. How often can police check up on criminals at home? We can bet that these thugs are coming and going as normal while they serve out their sentences. The results are obvious in the stats and on our streets. It is time to bring back jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders and restore mandatory prison times for the worst crimes.

The second big issue is fentanyl. Bill C-2 tweaks the current law around drug precursors, which is fine, but it does nothing about the cartel-level producers and traffickers who treat Canadian penalties as just the cost of doing business. Common-sense Conservatives will propose targeted constitutional life sentence provisions for those producing or trafficking fentanyl. That is what a real deterrent looks like, and that is what Saskatoon West deserves.

The third issue is border competence without civil liberties overreach. We must upgrade scanners at crossings and ports, extend CBSA powers along the entire border and track departures so that deportees do not disappear. These are real tools that would have real results, all while protecting the privacy rights of law-abiding Saskatoon families and small businesses.

Here are our common-sense solutions to deal with these issues. One is to fix the border and implement border and enforcement tools that actually help CBSA but stay away from the surveillance back doors and cash bans.

Two is to have jail and not bail to end the catch-and-release for repeat violent offenders, restore mandatory prison for serious gun and hard drug crimes and end house arrest for violent offences. Our community deserves nothing less.

Three is to hammer fentanyl kingpins with life sentences for organized crime production and trafficking with a clear 40 milligram trafficking threshold. We need to flood the zone with treatment and recovery, not failed safe supply experiments.

Last, we must secure fair immigration that puts Canadians first and ends the wage-suppressing temporary foreign worker scheme while keeping a narrowly focused agricultural stream. We need to clear the backlogs and put Saskatoon youth and Canadian workers first in line for Canadian jobs.

The government will say that Bill C-2 is about strong borders, but for people in Saskatoon West, strong borders mean less fentanyl on our streets, not more surveillance in their inbox; more CBSA capacity, not more Ottawa control over family finances; and an immigration system that works for Canada, not for corporate lobbyists and political theatre in Washington.

I like some elements of Bill C-2, which are basically the elements through which the Liberals are trying desperately to undo the ideas that they themselves implemented. However, the bill is a large omnibus bill that includes typical Liberal overreach that I cannot support. I want to see immediate help for the front lines, the CBSA officers, Saskatoon police and community safety partners, while I fight the government's overreach and demand real sentencing reform.

At the end of the day, my job is to deliver for families along 22nd Street, for the seniors in Montgomery, for the small shops, churches and little league teams all across Saskatoon, and that means a Conservative government that will strengthen our borders, protect civil liberties, destroy the scourge of fentanyl and keep our streets safe by keeping criminals in jail. We can make that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spent a good deal of his time talking about an issue that was part of the Liberal Party's platform. During the election, just five months ago, we got a new Prime Minister. We had more new Liberal MPs elected than MPs for any other political party in the House. At the end of the day, we have accomplished a great deal over the last five months, including tax breaks, building one Canadian economy, and so forth. Bail legislation was also part of our platform, and the Prime Minister has been very clear in that he will be introducing the legislation as early as this fall for at least a couple of parts of it.

Can we anticipate that the Conservative Party will co-operate in trying to get some of this legislation, whether it is on bail or today's bill, into a committee?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear that the Liberals are finally listening to what Canadians have been telling them for 10 years. However, we have seen over and over again a lot of talk and ideas, but the action is not there. Maybe they will introduce something, I do not know. We have not seen it. This is a pattern we have grown to become very used to on this side of the House over the last 10 years. I might note that most of the members on that side in positions of authority are the same. It is the same government with the same track record as before.

Conservatives are happy to work on anything that makes sense and that we can support, but I want to see some real action from the government.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to put my question to one of my colleague's colleagues who spoke earlier. I did not get an answer, so I will repeat my question.

As I have said several times today, a disproportionate number of asylum seekers make their claims in Quebec, which puts a lot of pressure on our resources. We already have an immigration crisis and a housing crisis, but we also have a resource crisis. Unfortunately, the government has not yet taken meaningful action to ensure the fair distribution of asylum seekers.

I would like the Conservative Party's opinion. Should asylum seekers be distributed fairly among the provinces, or should Quebec alone take on these challenges and this burden?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. The most important thing we need to do as a country is to make sure that we have the best controls we can on asylum seekers so that we are not attracting people. Former prime minister Trudeau famously said that Canada was open and invited people to come to Canada. Guess what. People came. Of course they did.

It is really important that we make sure we have systems in place that can quickly process people and do not do things that unnecessarily draw people to Canada who should not be coming here because they have perfectly good places to live. Yes, we can handle real asylum seekers. We have a system that can absorb them, and they should be absorbed right across the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on another front, dealing with the issue of individuals in Canada, let us say, for an extended period of time on temporary visas, does the member have any thoughts of his own as to whether someone, for example, who has been here for over a year, would be able to claim refugee status if they were here visiting a student or whatever else it might be?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague bringing up the issue of temporary residence in Canada because this is a major issue right now in our country. The data from the member's own party shows that well over 7% of the population right now is temporary. This has been totally caused by the government's lack of attention to this area and its encouragement for people to come to Canada, with absolutely no oversight, no controls and no limits. Of course people came. People will use the system that is given to them and now, all of a sudden, we have a problem that the government is finally waking up to.

This is entirely the fault of the Liberal government, something that should have been completely preventable and should have allowed Canadians who live here to have access to health care, housing and jobs. That is something that has to be corrected, and the government is fully at fault for that.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 5, the RCMP seized over 120 grams of fentanyl, nearly 50 grams of methamphetamine, over 150 grams of crack cocaine and a loaded prohibited handgun in a family neighbourhood in my home of Campbell River. Police executed the search and seizure after a lengthy drug trafficking investigation. Inspector Jeff Preston, the officer in charge, said, “Campbell River is experiencing one of the highest rates of overdose deaths in the province and we’re doing everything we can to remove these toxic drugs from our streets.”

It is true that the RCMP in my riding is doing everything they can to remove dangerous drugs from our streets, but 10 years of Liberal governance has made it harder for the RCMP to do their job. Instead, the government has made it easier for drugs and illegal guns to be trafficked across the Canada-U.S. border, and it has emboldened criminals by entrenching Liberal catch-and-release revolving-door policies throughout Canada's justice system.

Today, this House is considering Bill C-2, a piece of legislation whose purpose the Liberal minister responsible has said is to, among other things, combat organized crime and fentanyl. That is an admirable goal and one that we as parliamentarians could all get behind. Unfortunately, however, this bill does not address the many reasons we have had such massive increases in violent crime and overdose deaths under the Liberal government over the past 10 years.

First is the issue of crime. Forget major cities like Vancouver or Toronto. Just in my riding, whether it is Campbell River, Powell River or Courtenay, every week there is a new story about someone being shot or stabbed, having to fend off a home invasion or having their business broken into. Crime is getting worse, and here are the facts to back that up. Since 2015, violent crime has increased by 50% and homicides have increased by 27%, 34% of which, by the way, were committed by a criminal on some sort of a release like bail.

We have to be clear. The dramatic increase we have seen in crime and disorder is not the result of a bill like Bill C-2 not yet being passed. Rather, it is due directly to legislation passed by the Liberals and supported by the NDP over the past decade. Legislation like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have reduced jail time for serious offenders and granted near-automatic bail for career criminals.

We have all heard the stories as a result of these policies about violent random offenders who are released from custody only to commit more violence on our streets. It is part of a tragic miscarriage of justice happening right across this country, but it hits a little differently when it happens in our own backyard.

Lewis Park is a popular gathering place for residents of the Comox Valley. Kids play in the water park, seniors go to classes at the community centre and, apparently, repeat violent offenders prey on an unsuspecting public. At least, that is the story of Serge Melancon, who came to Lewis Park with his wife, a 64-year-old double amputee, to use a handicap shower in the middle of the day during their road trip vacation.

As Serge was about to leave the driveway, there was a knock on his window. It was an unknown man who proceeded to concoct a story about why he needed to borrow Serge's phone, before suddenly opening the door to Serge's vehicle and punching him repeatedly in the head. The assault was so vicious and so unexpected that Serge was hardly able to fight back, sustaining injuries to his face. As Serge was dragged out of the car and lay on the ground, the assailant fled with his phone, and a crowd began to gather. The police then arrived on the scene, later identifying the attacker as Melvin Teagai, a trained boxer. Unsurprisingly, Serge was then told by police that the attacker was already known to them. In other words, he was a repeat violent offender.

Unfortunately, the story of Serge is one that is all too common in both big cities and small towns right across Canada. In fact, I have noticed that the only people who seem to be punished under the Liberal government are those who actually work for a living and follow the law. There is no better example than the law-abiding firearms owners who have been demonized and targeted by their own government, while at the same time the Liberals have reduced prison sentences for those convicted of illegally smuggling firearms across the border from the United States. It is the very same border, I might add, that they now claim they want to desperately secure.

The Liberals also claim they want to get tough on fentanyl and other illegal drugs with this bill. Well, let us look at their record on that.

Since 2015, more than 50,000 Canadians have died from drug overdoses in Canada. That is more Canadians dead than died in all of World War II. These are mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, and sons and daughters who have all had their lives tragically cut short.

What has the Liberals' policy been when it has come to deadly opioids like fentanyl that have wreaked so much havoc and caused so much death? First, in my province of B.C., the Liberals decriminalized hard drugs, including crystal meth, crack cocaine and, yes, even fentanyl. It is a policy that remains in place to this day, which means that at the same time that they are claiming they want to take the fentanyl situation seriously, which we all do, their own policy, which recklessly decriminalized that very drug, remains in place. The Liberals then used taxpayer money to flood the streets with a highly addictive and deadly opioid called hydromorphone, or Dilaudid, while marketing it to our young people as safe supply, all as part of their plan known as harm reduction. This bill would leave all of those policies in place as well.

They say the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. It is a phrase that I unfortunately have to use all too often with the current government. If we want to actually solve the addictions crisis and want to combat the scourge of fentanyl and other hard drugs, how about instead of handing them out for free, we use that money to get people into treatment and recovery and return them to being healthy, productive members of our society once again? For those who are trafficking these drugs, who are trafficking fentanyl, it is time we treat them like the mass murderers they are, with mandatory life sentences for those profiting off the death and misery of so many of our fellow Canadians. However, instead of dealing with these substantive issues, the Liberals are scrambling with an omnibus bill that would not only fall short of protecting Canadians, but infringe on their unassailable individual freedoms.

The Conservatives have always advocated for a secure border with greater investments, resources and personnel for the CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, so it can prevent the flow of illegal drugs and guns coming across the border into Canada. That is just common sense. We know that securing the border means an increased number of border agents, patrol equipment and enhanced security measures and technology.

The major concerns that I have with this bill, aside from the failure to address the real issues and the root problems driving the violent crime and addictions crises in this country, are surrounding privacy infringements involving the warrantless search of the mail of Canadians and digital government overreach.

First, Bill C-2 would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to permit the search, seizure, detention or retention of any post items and would empower Canada Post to open all mail. This is directly against Canadians' right to privacy and would allow Canada Post to open mail without proper oversight, while also removing, which is actually hard to believe, any liability from those who abuse this newly granted authority. Here is the truth: Canadians do not want government looking into their private parcels and letters. To permit such action would be a gross violation of the individual freedoms that all Canadians have come to expect.

This same pattern of erosion of civil liberties is repeated in parts 14, 15 and 16 of this legislation. Bill C-2 would allow the government to create back doors for government bodies to access the private data of Canadians, again without warrants. In Part 16, the bill opens the door for the government to supply financial institutions with personal information, and banks would be authorized to collect and use that personal information without an individual's knowledge or consent, all based merely on government suspicion. This is essentially the same power the government granted to itself using the Emergencies Act during the COVID-19 protests back in 2022, which it then proceeded to immediately and dangerously abuse.

All told, as it stands, Bill C-2 would accomplish virtually nothing on the major issues of crime and fentanyl, which it purports to address. The failed Liberal policies of Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and drug decriminalization would all remain in place, while new infringements on the individual freedoms of Canadians would be thoughtlessly introduced. As of today, Bill C-2 is a poorly written bill, and without significant changes and revisions, it would accomplish little toward the safety and security of Canadians, while further eroding the freedoms and privacy that Canadians hold dear.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of comments I take exception to, especially ones dealing with the issue of fentanyl that is put into envelopes and mailed out and the legal obligation for Canada Post to deliver that mail. To deal with drugs like fentanyl and how Canada Post is being utilized, we have put responsible clauses in the legislation that will in fact make a difference.

I would ultimately argue that the legislation as a whole has the merit to go to committee, where members opposite could evaluate it, debate it and propose amendments. Does the member believe there are aspects of the legislation he would support so we can ultimately see it go to a committee?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, on the issue of fentanyl, I find it a bit rich that the government is claiming these new infringements on the individual freedoms of Canadians are all about combatting the scourge of fentanyl in society. This is a government that funds the handing out of fentanyl for free. This is a government that decriminalized fentanyl in my home province of British Columbia. This is a government that has overseen the largest increase of overdose deaths in the history of this country. As I said in my opening remarks, it is more than 50,000 Canadians, more than the number of Canadians who died in the Second World War.

If we want to get tough on fentanyl, if we want to get tough on hard drugs in this country, we do not have to do it by infringing on the freedoms of Canadians. There are lots of different options for doing that. It is a large bill. Of course, there are elements in it that are good, but there is so much that is cause for concern.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been an advocate for getting hard drugs off the streets. He has been to my riding, to Fort St. John, to talk specifically about this really challenging issue for our communities in B.C.

The Liberal government is in its 11th year of governing this country. It has attacked law-abiding firearms owners on a regular basis, as the member mentioned. It has also allowed drugs to flow onto the streets, which, as he mentioned, have killed thousands of Canadians as a result of overdoses. Is the member confident that the Liberal government, in its 11th year of governing Canada, is about to change its ways?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am definitely not confident that the government is going to change its ways. As the member pointed out, it seems that under the Liberals, previously supported by the NDP, the only ones who ever get punished are those who actually work for a living, pay their taxes and follow the law.

As the member pointed out, law-abiding firearm owners are the perfect example of that. The government is using taxpayer money to confiscate the private property of these Canadians, who have never committed a crime and who are statistically some of the least likely Canadians to ever commit a crime, and is at the same time reducing sentences for those who are illegally smuggling firearms across the border from the United States. This is the very same border the government now claims it is so desperate to secure.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my first opportunity to address the new member for North Island—Powell River.

The Conservatives, who backed the Liberal measures through May and June, seem to have decided that now is the time to draw the line. I am glad it is on Bill C-2, because Bill C-2 should be completely withdrawn and rethought. I would like to ask the hon. member if he thinks the Conservative Party would ever again back a programming motion such as the one used on Bill C-5, which denied us a chance to properly study the bill.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to future legislation. We are going to look at these issues one by one. Obviously, with Bill C-2, we see very serious concerns, as it involves the infringement of the individual freedoms of all Canadians.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I rise in the House after the summer recess. As always, I want to thank the constituents of Niagara West for sending me to Ottawa to be their voice in this incredible place. I am humbled that, after more than 21 years, I was once again granted the honour of their trust.

Today, we are discussing the government's bill, Bill C-2. For my constituents who may be watching, Bill C-2's formal name is an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures. The short title of this bill is the strong borders act. Does this bill really live up to its name? It sure has generated a lot of attention from many corners: academia, civil society groups and other stakeholders.

Let us delve into it a little and look at some recent history to understand what the Liberals are trying to do with it.

First and foremost, I believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree that Conservatives believe in law and order. We have always stood up for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. I do not think there is much debate from any party when it comes to this issue. It is simple. Conservatives care about Canadians and their safety. We would like to see legislation to that end, whether it is presented from our side or otherwise.

What is important here is to inform those watching us today that for the past decade, Conservatives have been urging the Liberal government to reverse their failed policies and restore safety to our communities. Most people who were paying attention to media coverage during the last campaign know that crime was a big topic. Countless examples were seen on TV and first-hand in our communities, which show us that things have gotten much worse over the last decade, so much so that many Canadians are afraid for their safety just walking in their neighbourhoods.

Whether Liberals admit it or not, with respect to crime, things have gotten out of control. Speaking of campaigns and crime, I think more than four million people saw my post on what happened in Grimsby during the last campaign. Armed robbers rammed a pickup truck through the doors of a jewellery store in the middle of the day in downtown Grimsby, a once-quiet, small community where things like this just do not happen. What is even more shocking is that this armed robbery was not the first. In fact, it was the third time in just three months the same jewellery store was targeted. Imagine that. This is Grimsby we are talking about.

The crime wave has shaken our small community to the core and has opened a lot of conversations about what has taken place under the Liberals for the last 10 long years. I can honestly say that this issue was a major factor in the high voter turnout in my riding just days later, on election day. People have had enough not just in Niagara West but also through all corners of this country.

The Liberals are attempting to respond with this bill, but it seems incomplete. They seem rushed to do something they have not really thought through. It seems like they are scrambling to introduce a bill, any bill, just to say they are doing something. The bill is too wide-ranging and, in the end, it falls short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other areas. Like other recent government legislation, we will support some parts of it, but it needs work. When something makes sense, we will acknowledge it and we will work collaboratively to fix the flaws and make it even better. We are willing to do that with all parties, not just the Liberals.

Allow me to mention the parts of the bill that concern me and many of my colleagues, as well.

First, the bill does not address bail reform. We have seen the consequences of the catch-and-release system, which causes havoc in many communities throughout our country. Criminals are arrested for what is usually not their first, second or even third crime, but they are right back on the street the same day. They reoffend shortly after and the cycle continues.

Let me tell members what happened in Welland recently. Welland is a small community just outside of my riding. As a matter of fact, my colleague here in the House, the member for Niagara South, represents this community. A horrific crime took place. It was something out of a nightmare. In fact, it is probably any parent's nightmare.

A few weeks ago, Daniel Senecal, a dangerous pedophile, was charged with the sexual assault of a three-year-old girl. He broke into the home after the family fell asleep and committed this horrendous crime against a three-year-old toddler. Senecal was charged with the aggravated sexual assault of a minor, choking, breaking and entering, and sexual interference. I will spare everyone the details of the injuries this monster inflicted upon this poor child. Daniel Senecal is a despicable pedophile who should never see freedom again. He destroyed the life of a little girl, her family and many others.

However, the story does not end there. This monster recently got out of a one-year stint in jail for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old boy just four years ago. He received 18 months for sexually assaulting a little boy but got out early.

When I read this for the first time, I could not believe it. I had to go to another news source to verify that the sentence was actually written correctly in the first article, and it was. I felt total shock, disappointment and outrage. The 12-year-old boy's mother was also outraged that the person charged in the attack on this three-year-old girl only served one year and now lives a short distance away.

Are we noticing a pattern of crime here, a pattern of lax criminal laws? Are we addressing this with Bill C-2? My colleague from Niagara South has started a petition, and I encourage members to reach out to him at his constituency office to get more details and maybe sign this petition, as well.

In addition to this idiotic leniency for monsters, we also still have a catch-and-release scheme that is alive and well for drug dealers and traffickers. It is alive and well for criminals who are trafficking fentanyl and firearms, and using our porous border to victimize Canadians. What most Canadians would be shocked to hear, and I hope that if they are watching they will remember this, is that there are still no mandatory times for fentanyl traffickers.

Fentanyl is an awful drug. We see devastating and frightening effects just a few blocks from this place. Just two milligrams, which is the size of a grain of salt, can kill a person. That is why our Conservative team wants to impose mandatory life sentences on anyone involved in the trafficking, production and distribution of over 40 milligrams of fentanyl. Forty milligrams could kill 20 people. That is called mass murder. If someone is willing to traffic and distribute this poison, they should never see freedom again. Bill C-2 does not address this issue, and it should. We need to fix it so that it does.

Bill C-2 also provides no new mandatory prison terms for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes. If we just turn on the news, we can see what is going on with home invasions and carjackings by criminals who use guns to commit crimes. It is happening daily and in the most brazen ways that one could even think of. Once again, Bill C-2 does not address this issue, and we need to fix it.

Bill C-2 also does not address sentencing for serious offences. House arrest is still permissible under the current system for some of the most serious offences. How can we, in good conscience, allow this to continue when we see the devastation it causes so many folks around the country? We need to fix it, and we need to fix it now.

On another theme, let us talk about the topic that is top of mind for many constituents: the consistent government attacks on our civil liberties. It was a frequent issue at the door during the campaign. I received emails and phone calls from folks worried about the bill's effect on our civil liberties. They are deeply concerned that it allows authorities to open mail without oversight. This is a major violation of privacy that my constituents consider unacceptable.

Bill C-2 also compels Internet companies to hand over private information and grants authorities warrantless searches, another violation of privacy. I cannot tell the House how many discussions I have had about this. People are worried.

People are also alarmed by the government's efforts to limit the use of cash. Cash remains a critical part of our economy. Many seniors in Niagara West and in rural communities like mine, as well as small businesses, rely on using cash. All I can say to folks who are emailing and phoning us, worried about this bill, is that it seems to fit the pattern of the Liberals' unquenchable thirst for more government control and further government overreach.

Now is a good time to bring up our Conservative record on this issue. We have consistently fought for practical, effective policies that secure our borders, protect communities and uphold Canadians' fundamental rights and freedoms. We have proposed adding thousands of border agents. We have proposed extending CBSA powers along the entire border, not just at crossings. We have proposed installing border surveillance towers, as well as a truck-mounted drone system to spot border incursions. We have forwarded a plan to install high-powered scanners at all major land crossings and shipping ports. By the way, for those who do not know, these scanners can see through the walls of vehicle containers to spot drugs, guns and stolen cars. We have also proposed a plan to track departures, so government officials know which deportees are in Canada illegally.

We have also put a plan forward to toughen penalties for repeat violent offenders, which the Liberals are resisting. I have no idea why they are resisting this. It is such a common-sense policy, yet here we are. Our plan also includes ending catch-and-release bail and house arrest for violent criminals, other common-sense policies the Liberals are against. We want to eliminate the multiple murder discount when sentencing offenders. We propose prioritizing treatment over government drug distribution to support battling addictions.

Last but not least, we have been champions of rights and freedoms, freedom of speech and fearlessly defending Canadians' civil liberties. Our plan is one of pragmatism. We will always put Canadians first by taking public safety issues seriously and protecting Canadians' rights. It is time for the Liberals to admit they have majorly screwed up in the last 10 years when it comes to protecting Canadians. As our leader has said, please copy our plan. We do not mind. We all care about Canadians and their safety. We want people to once again feel safe in their communities, so let us make it happen. Let us work on this together. Let us fix this bill. Let us make it better. Let us work towards a safer Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 does not deal with the issue of bail reform, a commitment that the Prime Minister made. If it dealt with bail reform, we would have criticisms from across the way saying that it should have been separate legislation. The good news is that we are going to see that separate legislation this fall. Members should know that by now.

The member also made the assertion that the Conservative Party always believed in strong borders. In reality, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table, he cut—

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

I am new to the chamber. I thought there was supposed to be a question, and the comment was to the member who gave the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I believe the parliamentary secretary was getting to his question.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives, when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government and sat at the cabinet table, literally cut money out of the budget for border control. Contrast that with this government, which has invested well over $1 billion, or close to $1.3 billion, to have hundreds of new border and RCMP officers. It seems to be an interesting contrast.

Does the member not see any hypocrisy in some of the statements that have been made?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we seem to notice over and over again, and that my colleague just mentioned in the last speech, is that there seems to be this whole issue of not being tough on crime, which is also not being tough on borders and making sure it is porous. We hear over and over again about how illegal guns flow from the border, yet the government spends most of its time going after law-abiding gun owners, hunters and fishermen. My good colleague right in front of me here has been a champion for the sports shooting community, something our party has always been. We realize that it is violent repeat offenders who cause the majority of issues in this country. This is just indicative that all these things are the same: bail and borders.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a 130-page bill to strengthen border security, but the government is still refusing to act on something that the Canada Border Services Agency union is demanding, namely the right to act between ports of entry. The customs union has been clear about this demand, which does not even require a legislative change. A simple regulatory change is all it would take.

Why is the government refusing to give officers this flexibility when doing so could bolster efforts to fight fentanyl, contraband and vehicle smuggling?

All they are asking for is a regulatory change.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to providing resources for our border security, this is something that is very important. It was the Conservative government under Harper that provided firearms for a majority of the border services people. Any chance that we have to give them more ability to do their job is always something our Conservative Party will do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed a trend with the Liberal government, where they identify a legitimate problem, but its solution only targets the people who are not perpetuating that problem.

An example is money laundering. There is no argument from us that this is the real issue, but banning law-abiding citizens from transacting in cash is not the answer. Gun crime is a huge issue, in fact even bigger after 10 years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies, but going after law-abiding gun owners is the Liberal's resolution.

I would like my hon. colleague to expand on why only the law-abiding seem to be in the crosshairs of the Liberal government on firearms, cash and many other things.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although my hon. colleague is new here, he is catching on very quickly. He has a very good question.

I think that one of the challenges is right in the premise of the question. “Law-abiding” says it all. I think the government feels it is an easy target and goes after people who actually follow the law, take the time to do the safety courses and register their guns to make sure they are doing all the things they need to do within their power. The funny thing is that criminals do not register their guns. It is a crazy thing. It seems that the Liberals can make a whole lot of noise about going after law-abiding citizens because it takes absolutely zero effort. All the law-abiding citizens have already given them the information they need, taken the courses, done what is required from them, joined the clubs, participated in safety and all those types of things. I have not yet seen one criminal who registers their gun.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is asking Parliament to grant Canada Post permission to open letters, mail that Canadians send one another, without a warrant, to protect us from a drug crisis of its own making. Bill C-2 would exempt Canada Post, a Crown agency, from judicial oversight.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees our right to be secured against unreasonable search and seizure. In 1993, in the case R v. Plant, the Supreme Court held that such protections are required for the very functioning of our democracy, that the values underlying section 8 are integrity, dignity and autonomy, values that are most precious to humanity. The court held that section 8 protects individual autonomy, where people have the right “to be let alone”, a right “on which the state cannot intrude without permission”.

This is not some Conservative MP saying that; this is what the Supreme Court of Canada said, three blocks away. When the Supreme Court speaks, Parliament must listen.

To conduct a search, the search must be reasonable. In R v. Collins, the Supreme Court of Canada, God bless its heart, held that a search is reasonable when it is authorized by law. Unless there are exigent circumstances, section 8 requires authorization for a search. Warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable. There may be exigent circumstances where there can be a search without a warrant. For instance, if there is an emergency and it is impractical to obtain a warrant, to preserve evidence when it may disappear or when a police officer's safety is at risk.

The need to open and inspect the inside of envelopes sent by Canada Post does not amount to exigent circumstances. Losing custody of the envelope is of no concern; Canada Post holds on to an envelope. Urgency is of no concern because the damn thing is in the mail. I get mail that was sent to me a month earlier, without a labour disruption.

If Canada Post wants to open my mail, it can go ahead, but it should, please, get permission. It is the custody of the envelope and the lack of urgency that precludes the Crown from proving exigent circumstances. Opening the envelope without judicial oversight cannot be constitutional. Is there a charter violation when a Crown corporation or a peace officer is invited by the Crown corporation to open the envelope? Yes, 100%.

Let us move on to section 1. Can the violation survive? Can the Crown prove on a balance of probabilities that the constitutional infringement is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society? The verdict is no, of course it cannot. Canada Post can hold on to the envelope, swear an affidavit and see a justice of the peace. If the justice of the peace says yes, then it can open the envelope, but until then, it should stay out of the business of Canadians.

For years, I have been urging Canadians to realize that the Liberal government is engaged in an assault on our civil rights. It is a new bus just like the old bus, but maybe this one is even worse. An assault on our legal rights guaranteed by the charter is an assault on democracy. It is an assault on the House. It is an assault on the courts. Opening mail without judicial oversight is an assault on all Canadians.

I do not understand what is happening to our country. I do not understand how it is that in the last few years, “freedom” has become a dirty word. The Liberals are chipping away at values that our country was founded on.

The state broadcaster, the communications arm of the Liberal Party, gets $1.5 billion of our money from the Liberals. First it mocks anyone who defends basic civil rights, and then it calls them crazy, fringe or right-wing. When that does not work, it calls them dangerous. I was born in the former Soviet Union. This is precisely what the Soviet Communists did for almost 70 years: mock the opposition, call it crazy and then demonize it.

Do members know how it ends? It ends with labour camps, re-education camps or prison. Ronald Reagan once said that the loss of freedom is only one generation away. He was wrong; the loss of freedom is only one government away. Just when we think it cannot get any worse, along comes the same Liberal government, just with a new Liberal Prime Minister. It wants Parliament to pass a law that a Crown corporation can open people's letters, Christmas cards and bills without a warrant.

The drug crisis is a national tragedy the Liberals created. When I was 20 years old, I lost a friend to heroin overdose. Simon Woods came back from rehab and relapsed. I am going to send a shout-out to my boys. We were his pallbearers. I met countless people throughout my career, lawyers and politicians, who struggled with addiction. I wish I could bring Simon back. I wish I could bring all of them back, but the legislation would not bring any of them back, and the legislation would not change anything but amount to an assault on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We can put the envelope aside and go see a justice of the peace. There is no rush. We would still be able to save Simon's life while preserving the integrity of our democracy and respecting hundreds of years of common law. If there is no urgency, no exigent circumstances, we should obtain a warrant. I ask that we please remove warrantless searches from the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, if someone puts some fentanyl in a size 10 envelope and mails it at a post office, Canada Post has a legal obligation to deliver that letter. The legislation would enable a law enforcement officer, not a letter carrier, as long as they have been given the warrant to do so, to open the letter.

Will the member not agree that the principle of what I have stated is a good thing, whether he believes it is in the bill or not? Would he believe that the principle of what I said is a good thing and in the best interests of Canadians?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not here to debate the fact that there is a lot of trafficking and distribution going through the mail. We will agree to that. The principle of search and seizure must still conform to the charter, and that means that unless there are exigent circumstances, unless there is urgency, unless the evidence can disappear or unless a police officer can get hurt, we have to seek judicial authorization.

That is what the member fails to understand. We agree on the need. We disagree on the fact that we need to abridge constitutional rights to accomplish that need.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the member heard the question. I would ask him to listen very carefully. In principle, if there is a warrant issued so a law enforcement officer can open a letter, would the member not support that? Based on what he is saying, I would assume the answer would be yes. It is kind of like a yes or no question. If the warrant is actually issued so that the police or the law enforcement agency can open the letter, would he not agree that it would be a good thing? If he is serious about fentanyl and trafficking up north and in other areas, and the use of Canada Post as a means to get fentanyl to homes, why would he not agree to that?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what is happening in the bill. Again, I do not understand why the member fails to comprehend that this side of the House is in agreement with the fact that there is a national crisis, one that the Liberals in fact created. They can go ahead and open my mail if a justice of the peace says so. That is the only difference. There would be no warrant requirement under the legislation, and that is what we fundamentally object to.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. We are getting into the details, which is why the Bloc Québécois supports further study of this bill in committee.

We are talking about security, and the concept of security includes the notion of theft.

If it is not feasible to search every container, how can we be sure that these new measures will actually tackle the root causes of theft and will not just be window dressing?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we on this side of the House want to be reasonable with the government. There are some elements of the bill we sincerely agree with, but we will not sit idly by when we believe that the Liberal government would be abridging constitutional rights without cause.

We do not need to rush, seize and search when we can hold onto the evidence, secure the evidence, not worry about the evidence being lost or damaged, put it aside, maintain the chain of custody, and go ask for judicial oversight. This is something I believe every member of the House who is sworn to preserve our democracy should agree on.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about how the government is moving forward very heavy-handedly. This is something I think we have seen as a pattern with the Liberal government, trampling on liberties and freedoms of Canadians in a number of instances.

I would like to know whether the member would like to speak about that more, as well as further about how we see a pattern of the government being soft on crime, whether it is with respect to the legislation before us or the bail system. I would like to know if the member has any other further comments.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning in the City of Toronto, the city I come from and in which I am blessed to represent one of its riding in the House, a gentleman was running away from another gentleman and was eventually shot. This is a daily occurrence.

As I like to say, the Liberals turned the streets of Toronto into Grand Theft Auto, real-life edition. This is more of the same. This is disregard for the rule of law. It is not just by way of abridgement of constitutional rights; it is also failure to defend the rights of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member. His time has come to an end.

Before we resume debate, I have to remind the member. At the beginning of his speech, he used a word that a veteran member reminded me would be considered unparliamentary. I just caution members. It is the second day back. Sometimes we get impassioned, or we write down things that can be written but cannot be said. This is just a friendly reminder to members.

Resuming debate, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has about six minutes, and then she will be interrupted for question period and Standing Order 31 statements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise here as we resume Parliament to talk to a bill tabled June 3; it is the first time I have had an opportunity to address it in this place. I will not forget this, as I used to practise law myself and practised law on behalf of refugees. I was reading a bill that I understood to be called “the strong borders act” and wondered what all these sections were about changes to the Immigration Act. Why are we making it harder for people to claim refugee status? Will this, in fact, violate our international obligations under the treaties to protect the rights of refugees?

I will back up. Given that I have roughly six minutes at this time and will be able to return to this after a number of other routine events in this place, none of which are routine anymore, I want to say that this is offensive on a number of levels for viewers and fellow parliamentarians. It has been a long time. We get tired of keeping track of Liberal election promises. Maybe the promise from 2015 never meant anything anyway; it has been abused so much. However, I find it offensive to face omnibus bills. Legitimate omnibus bills, by definition, should focus on the same legislative purpose, not multiple legislative purposes.

The bill, in short form, deals with the following separate pieces of legislation: the Customs Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act, the Oceans Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and a number of information-sharing pieces of legislation that appear to be aimed toward preparing Canadian law to allow U.S. security and U.S. law enforcement agencies greater access to Canadians' private information.

As I read it at the time, on June 3, I was alarmed and I began to dig into it. Since then, over 300 civil society organizations dealing with civil liberties and refugee protection, as well as basic privacy protection groups such as OpenMedia and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, have raised questions and deep concerns, calling on the government to withdraw the legislation. It is not that I think our government is anything like Donald Trump's government, but the legislation is Trumpian. Therefore, we need to stop, think, reflect and withdraw the legislation so that we can focus on its title, its alleged purpose, which is the strong borders act.

I think a lot of Canadians want strong borders dealing with the United States. We know that illegal guns come across the U.S. border into Canada. We know that illegal drugs come into Canada from the U.S. Fentanyl is not flooding into the U.S. from Canada, as the President of the United States would like at least his own citizens to believe. That is a complete fiction, at the level of being a fraud. Canada Border Services agents need their resources amplified so that they can ensure that illegal guns and dangerous drugs are not coming across the Canada-U.S. border, flowing from the U.S. into Canada.

Refugees, people who legitimately need to have a place to claim refugee status, must not be barred before they get any chance to even put forward their claim. I am someone who used to work in this area of law; claiming refugee status is a very steep hill to climb. We do not have a system within this country that tends to support refugees just because they say they are refugees; they have to prove it. They need to have substantial evidence that they have a legitimate fear of being sent back to their country of origin. The bill, if passed as is, would expedite the deportation of people without them having a chance to make their case, which they have the right to do under Canadian law, as to why they have legitimate fears of being killed if they are sent back to their country of origin.

There is a great deal that needs to be said about this. The more we can deal with it without partisanship, the better. It is an odd experience to hear the Conservatives decry that the Liberals are soft on crime. When I look at the legislation, I wonder what happened to our respect for the charter.

The Minister of Justice has released the analysis from the Department of Justice recognizing that Bill C-2 would raise many concerns about whether it is charter-compliant, and I have read it. I will address this more fully when we resume this debate after we have question period and members' statements. I do not want to risk impeding and encroaching on that time, and I know that I will get cut off anyway. The reality is that this charter statement from the Department of Justice does not assuage my concerns.

It says that the government would be able to access this information but would not be using it in ways that could result in a prosecution. The government would be taking private information for benign purposes, so we should not worry about it opening mail, with a very low threshold for when it is allowed to open mail, or accessing information about an Internet supplier or the information it may have about a citizen. We should not worry about that; the charter statement says the government will not be taking this information in ways that could hurt citizens in the course of protecting their charter rights.

I do not buy it. I do not think many MPs—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member will have four minutes and four seconds when the House resumes after question period.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, Bill C-2 is an omnibus bill that would change multiple pieces of legislation, and it really would not address the issue of strong borders. When we are addressing as many different bills as this bill does, to repeat what I mentioned earlier, we attract the attention of 300 different non-governmental organizations across Canada in a coalition. Groups with very different interests are looking at our positions on the civil society protection of charter rights.

I have looked at the government's tabling, through the Minister of Justice, of the charter statement to see whether this bill is charter-compliant, and it really comes down to a series of statements of analysis saying that, while this bill could attract challenges under section 8 of the charter and involves intrusions of privacy, it is all going to be okay because “trust us”.

At this point, we are looking at intrusions of our civil liberties, which other members of Parliament have mentioned, with a very low threshold for opening our mail. It is true, as I know a parliamentary secretary said, that a small envelope with a small amount of fentanyl can kill many people, but this bill does not try to categorize in any way or create any kind of threshold for reasonable suspicion that mail is conveying drugs. This is a very different way of approaching the protection of Canadians. What it is really about when we look at it in the current political context is what we can do to convince Donald Trump that we are going to sacrifice the civil liberties of Canadians to meet the talking points of a deranged U.S. President. It is just not acceptable.

I urge all members of Parliament in this place, all parties, to take the time it takes. This bill will get to second reading. I think it is unlikely we can stop it, although that would be great. The Liberals do not have a majority in this place. Maybe we can stop it from going to second reading. In the meantime, it is likely to go to second reading, and it needs thorough study at committee, particularly from experts, on the charter compliance questions. There is no point in passing a law that would be very soon struck down by the courts as violating our charter rights.

I know I have very little time left, but I hope I will have time in questions and comments to expand on some of these points. Bill C-2 should be rejected. It would be much easier to start over and have a bill that starts from the premise that it is about borders, not about trying to appease the White House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the overall assessment coming from the leader of the Green Party. This bill is indeed a reflection of what came out of the last election. That is the reason it was introduced back in June. It reflects what Canadians wanted to see with regard to building one stronger economy and dealing with specific border issues. It complements the hundreds of millions of dollars in investments for beefing up our borders. This is something Canadians were told about in the last election.

I would question the privacy-related issues. This is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. We are very much aware of civil rights.

I agree with the member. Let us at least get the bill to committee and see what happens with amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I was not clear, I do not want to get the bill to committee. Let it die here at the end of first reading and fail at second reading.

The bill attracts a number of concerns, and there was never any campaign discussion that it was important to deny people the rights that they would ordinarily have to ask for refugee protection in this country. They would be denied those rights without a hearing, and that is unprecedented.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on that particular point, does the member not see the difference between that and individuals who come to Canada on a temporary visa and are in Canada for over a year? She is talking about many people, whether it is back in 2010 or today. The issue is about ensuring the refugee process is not being abused.

There is a political responsibility here. We saw that today in question period. Why will the leader of the Green Party not recognize there is value to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is because I have represented refugees in the past in my work in the private practice of law that I know the laws around the international status of refugee protection. Someone in Canada could have a reasonable expectation that they can stay in this country but then find out they have to leave. Until Bill C-2 passes, the door is open for them to make a claim if they have legitimate grounds to do so. We are shutting that door when they do not have a chance. It is a catch-22 being imposed on people who are potentially legitimate refugees. That means we are violating our international treaty obligations to protect refugee rights.

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

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

I know that my hon. colleague has a legal background. There is a critical point that I would love her point of view on, both as a former lawyer and as a parliamentarian.

In part 4 of the act, under “Inspection of mail”, it says, “The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that”. Then it goes on and the legislation is the exact same. A warrant is obtained generally on reasonable grounds to believe. This is on reasonable grounds to suspect, which is a lower legal threshold. I do not see any requirement for a warrant here. I wonder if the member would agree. Perhaps I am missing something.

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

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that it is unprecedented to take away a Canadian's right to the privacy of mail delivery. The amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act, which the member mentioned are in part 4, are warrantless, and the threshold is lower. It should be a source of concern to all Canadians that we are creating a law that says we can open mail if we have reason to suspect. On top of that, the sharing of information could mean that more open Canadian privacy information could go to U.S. authorities.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I move to the matter at hand, I want to say what a privilege it is to be back in Ottawa to fight for the people of Cambridge and North Dumfries.

It has been nearly three months since members of Parliament have been in this place to debate issues of importance and hold the government accountable for its actions. It is almost like the government did not want anybody to hold it accountable, or maybe it wanted a long, lazy summer vacation. Whatever it was, it certainly was no vacation for me and my team. Every day, we were out in the community attending events, helping constituents with casework and listening to all the things on our neighbours' minds.

What did they have to say? They told me, overwhelmingly, that a decade of Liberal government has made life harder, that finding a good-paying job or any kind of job is harder, that affording a home or even an apartment is harder and that affording the necessities of life, just basics like groceries, is harder. I am always going to stand up for these fundamental issues and be a champion for common sense and the for Canadian dream that hard work can pay off.

Life is also harder for the most vulnerable in our community. The exploding number of homeless encampments and of people experiencing homelessness is an incredibly visible and heart-wrenching concern for all of us. It is hard to take a walk through downtown Cambridge without seeing one of our neighbours in distress and people who do not have a warm place to sleep, a warm meal to eat or a chance of getting back on their feet. What used to be a peaceful area has now been transformed into ground zero of a tent city disaster unfolding right before our eyes. The Liberal-manufactured housing crisis, which has caused home prices to double in less than a decade, is a big part of why there are so many people sleeping on our streets.

However, another huge reason is the wave of addiction and the opioid epidemic that has flooded our communities, big and small. The Liberal government fanned the flames of that program, offering free drugs and a quick high instead of hope and recovery for the people who needed it most, and it left our borders vulnerable and open to international gangs and smugglers to use our country as a dumping ground for drugs like fentanyl. Those drugs end up on the street in cities like mine, and even a tiny amount can literally kill people.

Now the Liberals have put forward a new bill, Bill C-2, that is supposed to address the problem of fentanyl on our streets and narcotics being smuggled across our border. In all seriousness, that is like the person who set a house on fire showing up with a bucket to put out the flames. It just does not make sense. The same people who broke it cannot and should not be trusted to fix it.

Fentanyl is not just another drug; it is a lethal poison that is tearing apart families in Cambridge, North Dumfries and every community across Canada. A few grains can end a life. Paramedics in my riding respond to overdose calls daily, and our hospitals are overwhelmed with patients fighting for their life. Parents tell me they are terrified their child will be the next obituary. That is the human cost: not statistics, but loved ones lost.

Drug smugglers do not operate alone; they are tied to organized crime, violent gangs and international cartels that see Canada as an easy target. When border controls are weak, those criminals walk right through the cracks. Bill C-2 talks about tightening enforcement, but without tougher bail conditions and mandatory jail time, the same gang members will be back on our streets within days. Canadians deserve laws that protect victims, not revolving doors for offenders.

The government can pat itself on the back for introducing Bill C-2, but here is the truth: There are many parts of the legislation that fall far too short. There are no new tools for prosecutors to keep traffickers behind bars. There are no real investments in treatment and recovery that offer people hope instead of despair, and there are no guarantees that the flow of precursor chemicals, the ingredients for fentanyl, will actually be stopped at the border. For all the government's talk, there is no guarantee that the bill would end the opioid epidemic, far from it.

Conservatives believe in strong borders, serious sentences for smugglers and a pathway to recovery for the people trapped in addiction. That is what real leadership looks like.

Let me be clear that I am ready to work with anybody from any party who wants to help fix our borders, stop the drugs and get people in my community the help they need, but we simply cannot afford more of the same things from the same Liberal government: more talk and more empty platitudes with devastating consequences for Canadians, and that is what the bill is all about. It would not implement bail reform for violent gang members and smugglers who make drugs, transport drugs, sell drugs and destroy the lives of people who live in my riding and of hundreds of thousands of people across this country.

That means that the people who are driving the crisis get to keep walking through the Liberal revolving door of no consequences, free to keep flooding our streets with narcotics. If someone does happen to be put behind bars, the bill would not implement stricter sentencing provisions. We would still have no mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers and no mandatory prison time for gangsters who commit violent crimes with guns. We need to stop the smugglers, put the bad guys in jail and end the Liberal regime of endless free drugs for everyone.

Instead of cracking down on the drug traffickers and gangs that fuel the crisis, the Liberals are trying to hide the problem by shuffling people into senior housing without safeguards. Individuals dealing with drugs and creating disorder are being placed in the same apartment buildings as vulnerable seniors. The result is theft, fear and seniors who feel like a prisoner in their own home. I hear this every week from seniors in my community. They worked hard all their life, and they should feel safe in their home, but many of them no longer do. Bill C-2 would do nothing to change that. It goes after paperwork, not the predators. It leaves the real criminals free while vulnerable Canadians live in fear.

When the Liberals are not using the bill to keep letting criminals roam free on our streets, they are taking massive new steps to give themselves more power to control the everyday lives of Canadians. For instance, they want to impose a massive new restriction on the use of cash in private transactions, limiting cash payments of $10,000 or more. Our multinational banker and economist Prime Minister should realize that seniors, farmers and small businesses often rely on cash for larger purchases or sales. Restricting those transactions would not stop organized crime; it would just make life harder for people who follow the rules.

Let us talk about what the bill would do. Bill C-2 would give the government the power to open mail without oversight, force Internet companies to hand over their data and give itself more opportunities to perform warrantless searches. Canadians need to know that Bill C-2 would goes well beyond border measures; it would also introduce new surveillance powers that deserve a full and separate debate. If the government believes these powers are necessary, they should be studied carefully in their own bill with the proper scrutiny of Parliament.

To me this looks like the Liberal government is focusing on giving itself more powers at the cost of law-abiding Canadians' civil liberties, instead of actually going after the dangerous criminals who threaten the safety not just of the people of Cambridge but of all Canadians.

These measures are wrong and must be fixed, because we know that when Ottawa gets more powers, it never, ever gives them up. We would not have even needed to introduce a bill like this in the first place if the Liberal government had not broken what it inherited from Stephen Harper: a strong border, a functioning criminal justice system and a safe and secure immigration process that was the envy of the world.

Instead, after 10 years of an incompetent and out-of-touch government, drugs and guns, criminals and contraband flow across our borders with impunity. The criminals often get more rights than their victims, while getting a slap on their wrist and paying no price whatsoever, and that is not to mention an immigration system that nobody, not even immigrants themselves, trusts to work in the best interest of this country.

There is good news and bad news. The good news is that we can fix all these problems. I still believe that Canada is the best country in the world and a place we are so blessed to call home. I remain honoured to be Cambridge's voice in this place through the good and bad times. However, the bad news is that we cannot trust the Liberal government, an overbearing, incompetent and careless government, to clean up the mess it created itself.

Bill C-2 is called the strong borders act, but there is nothing strong about weak sentencing, revolving-door justice and half measures that punish honest Canadians more than criminals. If the Liberals were serious about strong borders, they would listen to the Conservative proposals, secure the border, end catch and release for traffickers and give people struggling with addiction a real chance at recovery.

We are calling for better. Police are calling for better. Victims and their families are calling for better. Is the government going to listen? Only time will tell.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Conservative Party spoke about the importance of border security and even mentioned the Harper government's record in that area.

I would like to remind her that during their last term in power, the Conservatives made significant cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency, which led to the elimination of more than 1,000 jobs. Their words today do not reflect their past actions.

For our part, we are taking meaningful steps to strengthen border security with Bill C‑2. Are the Conservatives willing to work with us to make our borders safer and stronger?

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, I am here to debate the safety of all Canadians, not engage in political games. My constituents are suffering more than I have ever seen in my life and need the government to focus on the criminals causing this, not crack down on the civil liberties of all Canadians. Bail reform is the biggest priority for keeping Canadians safe, so why is the Liberal government avoiding the topic and instead focusing on collecting Canadians' mail without a warrant?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get my colleague's opinion. Earlier the member for Winnipeg North said that we should just take the Liberals' word for it that they believe in protecting the charter rights of Canadians for privacy, because in the 1980s they were the party that brought the charter in.

Do we have to take the Liberals for granted on everything they campaigned on in the 1980s? They were against free trade then; is that also why we are not getting a deal with Trump on free trade today, because they are secretly still back in the 1980s and everything they were committed to then?

Perhaps my colleague from Cambridge can respond to the question about whether we can take the Liberals' campaign platform at its word or whether we should be looking back in time to see where the Liberals really stand on these issues.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a good point. A lot of people no longer trust the government after a decade of decay. It is truly depressing to see our seniors not even feeling safe in their own home because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime agenda. With drugs having been let run so rampant in our communities, we are seeing drug addicts housed in seniors homes rather than getting them rehab or help. We see them getting drugs from either the government or their dealers while out on bail. Seeing drug dealers and violent gang members run free while our most vulnerable, our seniors, cower in their own home is truly depressing.

Just a few weeks ago, an elderly lady in Guelph was beaten, and died of her injuries, in broad daylight. This is not the Canada I grew up in. If we wonder about trust, we should look at the last 10 years.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member, and I appreciate her concern.

We know that there has been a loophole in the code for decades, and the bad guys have been exploiting this within Canada Post. They have been shipping fentanyl and other illicit materials through Canada Post. With regard to the rules that our national security apparatus and police force have in terms of pulling packages off UPS and FedEx, they have not been able to do the same with Canada Post. We have to close that loophole.

What would you like us to do?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Please direct questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Cambridge has the floor.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is the purpose of a warrant, and I think that is what Canadians are looking for, which is to keep their privacy in hand as well as look after the criminals.

If the government is serious about helping Canadians, it needs to separate the omnibus bill so we can come together to pass the few measures in it that would actually help, and leave the power grab portions to be debated separately. It would also add the bail reform Canadians have been begging for to keep drug traffickers off our streets.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Cambridge is a strong female member of Parliament, and I am excited to be serving with her.

I would like to talk a little bit about intimate partner violence. The member mentioned the effect that limiting cash under $10,000 would have on seniors. I wonder whether she could comment on what that could mean for women trying to escape abuse.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate working alongside our colleague.

As we know, just recently there was a death in B.C. that was horrendous. A woman dies every six days from murder. It is a huge issue and concern, and should be for all parties. To escape, there could be major costs and transactions involved. We have to keep all of these issues and debate this separately.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C‑2, the strong borders act. The government's number one responsibility is to keep families, children and our communities safe. We must bear this in mind as we analyze Bill C‑2, an ambitious but necessary piece of legislation to correct a number of shortcomings observed over the years. This bill will help us address some of today's most pressing public safety risks.

The first thing everyone needs to understand is that this bill is part of and consistent with Canada's border plan. We appointed a fentanyl czar and added several cartels to the list of terrorist entities in the Criminal Code. In addition, we recruited 1,000 new customs officers and 1,000 new police officers. We have adopted advanced artificial intelligence technology, deployed drones and helicopters and brought in fentanyl-detecting dogs. More generally, we now have better coordination with our partners. Other measures to protect our communities will follow. These include the removal of assault weapons and making bail more difficult for repeat offenders convicted of violent crimes and certain other types of particularly repugnant crimes, such as breaking and entering into a home while people are present.

Law enforcement officers are doing their job, but until recently, they have been hampered by certain provisions of the law that have unduly complicated their work. In recent years, it has become clear that, in many circumstances, the law has hindered customs officers and RCMP investigators, preventing them from stopping crime and conducting investigations to punish those who break the law. Meanwhile, criminals have increasingly sophisticated equipment at their disposal and are constantly innovating with new tactics. In short, it is important to modernize the framework within which law enforcement operates to effectively combat the ever-evolving tactics of criminals, particularly transnational gangs.

Canadians care deeply about the rights and protections afforded to them by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government heard that message loud and clear, which is why each section of the bill has been carefully considered. At the same time, Canadians expect the government to act effectively and send a clear message that it will never tolerate any form of crime, particularly crimes such as human trafficking. Making laws is one thing, but we must also provide the means by which to enforce them. This government is committed to enforcing these laws. It is a matter of fairness. In this country, the notion that crime pays will not be tolerated. It is therefore important to give law enforcement officers the means to do the job we expect them to do.

In order to accomplish that, first, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, peace officers must be able to better plan their investigations. More specifically, they must be able to communicate with public service providers without the need for prior judicial authorization. No actual personal information will be shared. Rather, peace officers will be able to find out whether the service provider provided services to the subscriber and, if so, whether the service provider has information regarding that person. If the peace officer wants to take things further, they must then go through the proper channels to get a warrant to get that information. The intention here is to enable law enforcement officers to fight crime effectively while ensuring that legal safeguards remain in place to protect access to personal information. As a result, I would like to reassure Canadians that the legislation complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as applied in the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Bykovets and the ruling rendered by Justice Boone of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The act also aims to stem the international flow of proceeds of crime and terrorist financing activities. Bill C‑2 authorizes banks to collect and use personal information when they have reason to believe that certain transactions are a front for money laundering activities. The act also prevents third parties from depositing cash in amounts exceeding $10,000. By making it harder to move money, it becomes harder for transnational organized crime to operate. This government is determined to take action on money laundering.

Similarly, Bill C‑2 aims to get tough on the same international criminal organizations in a number of other ways. One of its major aims is to limit the flow of fentanyl to and from Canada. The bill allows the deployment of additional officers and provides tools to stop drugs from being imported and exported by mail. This will be especially useful in northern territories and rural municipalities where trafficking often occurs by regular mail, as my colleague, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, explained so well. As things stand, letters cannot be inspected, even with a proper warrant. In cases where reasonable doubt exists, the bill proposes that mail now be opened.

Finally, the bill allows fentanyl precursor chemicals to be listed in the schedule of illicit substances to prevent them from entering Canada. To that end, there will be a new accelerated scheduling pathway that will enable the Department of Health to quickly list new products. New fentanyl precursors are appearing every month. If we want to intercept them at the border and ensure strict federal oversight, we need to have an up-to-date registry. With a new Canadian drug analysis centre, we will also be able to determine not only the content of these drugs, but also their origin, because of the chemical markers.

The overdose crisis continues to have a significant impact on Canadian families and communities across the country. The ravages of fentanyl are visible in all of our downtown urban cores. We need action. Even when illicit fentanyl use does not result in death, it causes serious and often permanent harm, especially among the most vulnerable members of society. Bill C‑2 tackles the fentanyl problem head-on. As a physician, I know all too well that addiction is a complex problem, and there is no single or easy answer. However, reducing the availability of illicit drugs in our cities remains a key measure that no one should be questioning.

The bill also takes action in other areas, such as the illegal export of automobiles. Until now, customs efforts have focused on goods entering Canada. Going forward, the government wants to take even more drastic action by effectively cutting off the main market for car dealers, namely, the market outside Canada.

The bill also gives the Canadian Coast Guard a new role. Its current mandate is to ensure the safety of all mariners in Canadian waters. We are adding new responsibilities related to national security. From now on, the Coast Guard will be able to continuously monitor suspicious movements, patrol, and facilitate the interception of illegal shipments.

Finally, the bill facilitates the fight against sex offenders and child pornography on the Internet by enabling Canada to work better with its international partners.

The government is convinced that these measures are necessary to combat transnational crime in the 21st century, and it is not alone. Several organizations are saying the same thing, including the National Police Federation, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which states that “[p]roposed changes by the federal government that would reduce barriers Canadian police face when investigating the growing number of online crimes…have the full support of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection”.

Bill C‑2 reinforces Canadians' security by making major changes. It will prevent irregular migration and mass movements of people. Basically, it aims to protect the Canadian immigration process.

Our government's absolute priorities are protecting our communities and the prosperity of our economy. These priorities go hand in hand. A strong economy requires safe and secure borders. Our economy cannot prosper unless we introduce tough measures to fight crime. That is why I urge all members to support Bill C‑2.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that our borders must be strong, protected and secure. I am glad we agree on that because it is a topic that comes up a lot in the news. Canadians expect it, and our neighbours to the south have said so as well. They expect borders to be well protected.

Why has it come to this after 10 years? Is the government taking action today because people on both sides of the border now expect it to fulfill its responsibilities?

Why did it take 10 years of Liberal work to get to this point?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent question.

In fact, what we need to understand is that crime evolves, criminals' methods change, and organizations have become much more powerful; they are now transnational. There are actions that need to be taken that go beyond what used to be done. The courts are there to keep an eye on the government and tell it when it is going too far. That is why this bill addresses certain shortcomings that had been recognized by the courts.

I hope the members on the other side of the House will support us.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech made it clear that the government's priority is border security and the safety of Canadians. I would remind the House of the Prime Minister's promise in April, during an election campaign, to add 1,000 new border officers and new RCMP officers.

I have a simple question for my colleague. What concrete measures have been taken since those announcements? How many new officers have been hired at both the Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of hiring people. I do not have the exact figures, but I would be happy to share them.

Anyway, we are on track to fill these gaps, and we will be hiring people as they graduate. I will actually be attending a graduation ceremony next month on October 26. New graduates are on the way. We look forward to hiring them and putting them to work to better protect Canadians.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech on Bill C‑2.

I am very happy to be working with him as part of a team that is committed to making our borders safer and cracking down on fentanyl trafficking and auto theft.

Why is Bill C‑2 important to the beautiful riding he represents, La Prairie—Atateken?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, La Prairie—Atateken is indeed a very beautiful riding.

Our riding is no different from the rest of Canada. It has problems, too. Economic growth will go hand in hand with keeping people safe and healthy. In today's world, people face all kinds of challenges around mental health, physical health and safety.

I am pleased to be contributing to this noble objective and to be making life even better for the people of La Prairie—Atateken.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety seems to admit that there is a serious fentanyl crisis. However, in his own department's 2025-26 plan, the word fentanyl does not even appear once. I am sure he has had conversations with the minister on this. Can he explain why?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the measures at the border are working. We have reduced smuggling. This month, barely half a kilogram was seized at Canada's borders. The hard work is paying off. We will win our fight against fentanyl.

It is also important that we continue our work across the country to keep people safe. As I said, substance abuse is a complex issue. There is no easy solution, but we are continuing to invest in the health and safety of Canadians.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a region that is often overlooked in national conversation, but is, in truth, central to the future of Ontario and Canada. The history of the Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk riding, one of the largest in Canada, is a story of resilience, hard work and vibrant cultural heritage forged by people who built not just industries but lives, families and futures in the north.

The riding is not simply a geographic expanse in northern Ontario. It is a living and working landscape that tells the story of Canada's development. It is its natural wealth, linguistic diversity, an enduring relationship with its resources. This is not a region on the margins. It is a region that has long delivered for the country and stands ready to lead again.

The riding of Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk is a land of endurance, pride, and solidarity. It has been shaped by generations of workers and families from the north, who have built not just industries, but also strong communities and a sustainable future for their children. It is a unique region where languages, traditions, and identities come together every day.

Here, French is not a secondary language, but rather a living language, a working language, and a language of the heart. Our bilingualism is an integral part of our daily lives, our economy, and our future. It must be protected and recognized as a strength for our region, for Ontario, and for Canada. Our riding has never been relegated to the background. For decades, it was central to the country's economy, and it will continue to play a vital role in the future.

Our modest population of approximately 95,000 people is diverse and multinational. For 125 years, our people have lived and worked, producing astounding economic outputs that I will outline shortly. First, it is important to appreciate some of the history of this great riding.

Visionaries defined corridors into our region, followed by the main building project we know today as the Canadian National Railway, joined by the Ontario Northland railway, with connections to the Canadian Pacific Railway via the Algoma Central Railway. In building this infrastructure, our forebears discovered the sheer vastness of the riding, stretching from the Atlantic to the Arctic watershed, blessed with healthy boreal forest. Soon it became clear that the riding's five major river basins could thunderously generate over four gigawatts of sustainable hydroelectric power. Approximately 850 megawatts of that power has supported forestry, mining, industry and local communities. Most importantly, these basins continue to provide renewable, pollution-free energy.

As the railroads advanced, farms and communities developed along the lines, supplying and servicing an industrious population. Prospectors followed, discovering an extraordinary wealth of minerals. Three major paper mills supplied U.S. markets, including The New York Times, with newsprint, and even America's first kleenex, which was produced in Kapuskasing.

A short time later, with the government's visionary support, the Trans-Canada Highway project extended this infrastructure across the riding. Although launched in the 1950s, this national construction project remains to be completed and modernized to allow a smoother and safer flow of traffic.

That said, the Trans-Canada Highway corridor, known back home as Highway 11, has already encouraged other innovations to develop along its path, whether in energy transportation, pipelines, communications or supply chain logistics.

These achievements were possible thanks to the guidance of the first nations, the vision of risk-taking entrepreneurs, the dedication of multinational Canadians and the support of responsive governments.

Over the years, our region has hosted more than 50 mines and two of the largest staking rushes in world history, helping to build the Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver stock exchanges. The wealth generated supported major national projects, such as the financing of the construction of the Maple Leaf Gardens, and produced NHL greats who became household names. Indeed, titans of the industry of the day, including the Thomson, Eaton, Bronfman, Massey and Brookfield empires, can trace their fortunes to our region, along with the capital that spurred oil exploration across Canada.

The mining sector alone has been extraordinary. Mines in our riding have produced over 110 million ounces of gold, 215 million ounces of silver, six million tonnes of zinc, four million tonnes of copper, 330,000 tonnes of lead, 50,000 tonnes of nickel and 200,000 tonnes of talc, with an economic value of $580 billion in today's money, and they will continue to produce.

Exploration continues to this day. Current projects have identified over five billion tonnes of nickel, precious metals and critical mineral ore reserves worth over $1 trillion, with a further 12 billion tonnes of reserves under review, positioning our region as a cornerstone for Canada's future manufacturing needs. These developments, with extraction using cutting-edge carbon capture techniques, will contribute to reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide well into the next century.

Our forests have long been properly and sustainably managed, with an average annual harvest of 4.5 million cubic metres from 12 operating sawmills. Modern practices and improved tree species could potentially double this harvest, aligning with Canada's climate goal and growing demand for recyclable products. For example, replacing plastic bags with paper could revive pulp production and put another line of pulp at Kap Paper in Kapuskasing.

Agriculture is also thriving, to the tune of $140 million per year, with grain, hay, livestock and cash crops well established in the great clay belt of northeastern Ontario, with access to transportation infrastructure, which provides enormous opportunities for agribusiness. Indeed, university scholars have said that the great clay belt will become Canada's next agricultural breadbasket.

I hope I have conveyed the scale of the economic treasure box our region represents. However, realizing its full potential requires collaboration with our 11 first nations, by working together on infrastructure, roads, energy and railroads. We can unlock jobs, attract skilled workers and revitalize the 46 communities of the riding.

Let us make Canada's north a beacon of opportunity for all by not forgetting that 95% of our greatest resource is us, Canadians. Our corner of Canada is one of the most linguistically and culturally distinct regions in the country. While the francophone identity runs deep, nearly half the population has knowledge of both official languages. This dual linguistic character is an asset for the future and should be supported by federal policy.

I am excited that these social and economic developments will benefit not only our riding but also every Canadian. I am committed to rising to this challenge for the benefit of my constituents and all of Canada.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I was thrilled to hear my colleague's summary. He told us how Canada was built through big projects like the railway and the Trans-Canada Highway.

I am curious to know my colleague's reaction to the new high-speed rail project between Toronto and Montreal, and the economic boom it will generate. This is exactly the kind of thing he was telling us about.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did indeed explain how Canada developed. That is the approach we must take in the future. No matter the project, the important thing is how we build our country. We did it once, but we need to build it again because right now, things are not going well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I really like the part in his speech when he said that French is not a secondary language in Canada. Quebec's motto is Je me souviens, or I remember. I would like to remind my colleague that it was the Conservative Party, under Stephen Harper, that appointed a unilingual anglophone auditor general, unilingual anglophone Supreme Court justices and a unilingual anglophone foreign affairs minister. I will give my colleague the benefit of the doubt. I hope that he will share the following good news with his anglophone colleagues. French is not secondary language in this beautiful, bilingual Canada.

The question I want to ask my colleague is the following. When the Harper government was in power, it planned to cut staff at the Canada Border Services Agency. The Conservative Party is currently in the opposition and wants to ensure border security and it wants more border officers. That was not one of its priorities when it was in government, but it is a priority now that it is in the opposition. Why?

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I spoke about the situation in my riding, where French is a living language and 50% of the population works in both official languages.

Second, it is much more difficult to survive in our language outside of Quebec. What we have accomplished is extraordinary.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk.

In his wonderful speech, he spoke about agriculture in his region. This week, we have heard a lot about food inflation and the rising cost of housing.

When it comes to agriculture, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about improving our food sovereignty in Canada.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, agriculture all but disappeared in my region during colonization, in the 1920s and 1930s and in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, but it is now making a comeback. The wonderful thing about this is that we are feeding ourselves. We have everything we need in my region.

The most important thing is the great clay belt. Agricultural experts are saying that this will be the next big agricultural region in Canada. That is great news for people in my riding. Along with the rest of Canada, we are able to feed our people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the bill itself. If the Conservatives wanted to show goodwill in dealing with and improving border security, along with other issues related to it, they could actually allow the bill to go to a committee, where it could be further debated and talked about, with amendments proposed.

If they do not want it to go to a committee right away, would he not agree that it may be advisable to share some of the possible amendments that the Conservatives have?

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only answer I have is that the problem was created by the Liberals. The intent of my speech today was to give Canadians confidence that we have a great country, with all the resources we need to survive and to be independent. I am speaking to them.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as it is my first intervention with you being in the chair, I want to congratulate you and also the constituents of Perth—Wellington for electing you. I am very happy to have you in the chair.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-2, the strong borders act. This important bill would help keep Canadians safe by strengthening our borders, fighting organized crime and protecting the fairness of our immigration system. Our government is taking strong action to deal with serious challenges, such as drug smuggling, auto theft, money laundering, and abuse of our asylum and visa systems. We are also giving law enforcement and border officers more tools to stop these crimes.

Canada is a country that welcomes people from around the world. Immigrants and refugees have helped build our communities. As a proud immigrant myself, I know how important it is that our immigration system is fair, strong and trusted, but we also know that Canada's immigration system is under pressure. Global conflicts are bringing more people to our borders, and sometimes the system is being misused by those who are not truly in need of the protection that they claim. That is why Bill C-2 includes important changes to protect the integrity of our asylum system.

One of the key changes would be who can make a refugee claim in Canada. Going forward, international students and temporary foreign workers who have been in Canada for more than one year would not be able to claim asylum. Let me be clear. This is not a ban on asylum. People who truly need protection would still have access to a special review process before they were to be removed from Canada. If there were any risk of persecution or harm, Canada would not send them back. This change would stop people from staying in Canada for years as students or temporary workers and then trying to use the asylum system as a last option.

A refugee system must be used for those who need protection, not as a backup plan. These changes are fair, and they would help speed up the asylum process for individuals who need safety. They would also help us reduce backlogs and focus our resources on those who need it.

The bill would also improve how we share immigration information with provinces and territories so that all orders of government could better manage services and public safety. The strong borders act also targets immigration fraud and the abuse of our visa system. It would give our officers strong tools to catch fake documents and false claims. It would also help us go after criminals who take advantage of newcomers through fraud and exploitation. These actions are about fairness. They would protect the integrity of our system and the honest people who follow the rules.

Bill C-2 also includes new steps to fight crime, drugs and money laundering. We are investing $1.3 billion to help border officers stop stolen vehicles, seize illegal goods and improve inspections at rail yards and ports. This is the largest investment in border security in Canadian history. The bill would also give the Canadian Coast Guard a new role in keeping our coastlines secure in helping to stop smuggling at sea, protect our borders and work with police to fight organized crime.

We are also taking strong action to protect children by improving the way we share information about sex offenders with police in Canada and around the world. This would help stop child exploitation and trafficking.

We are cracking down on money laundering and terrorist financing. This would make it harder for criminals to hide their money and easier for police to get the financial information they need to stop crime. We are also limiting large cash deposits and banning third-party cash deposits to help prevent criminal activity.

One of the most serious threats facing Canada is the rise of lethal drugs such as fentanyl. This deadly drug is killing thousands of people across the country. That is why Bill C-2 would give new powers to law enforcement to stop the flow of chemicals used to make fentanyl. It would also allow officers to search suspicious packages in the mail, with a warrant, and shut down illegal drug operations more quickly. These actions would help save lives and make our communities safer.

As part of our effort to stop auto theft, the bill would allow border officers to access railways and shipping ports where many stolen cars are smuggled out of the country. This is a growing problem that affects many cities throughout Canada. These new powers would help us recover more stolen vehicles and break up international crime rings.

This bill is not only about stronger laws, but also about building a safer Canada, a Canada where people feel safe in their homes, in their workplaces and in their communities, a Canada where newcomers are welcomed but expected to follow the rules, a Canada where our immigration system is protected and our borders are secure. Canadians expect a strong, fair system that puts safety and honesty first.

We are keeping our doors open to people in need, but we are closing the doors to fraud, abuse and crime. Others may worry that this will hurt people who are vulnerable, but I want to be very clear. Canada's humanitarian efforts will remain strong. We will continue to protect those who are at risk, and our refugee system will continue to be fair and compassionate, but we must protect the system itself, so it can continue to serve those who truly need it.

The strong borders act is a smart, balanced and responsible plan. It would give our law enforcement and border officers the tools they need. It would protect our economy, our communities and our values. Most importantly, it would protect Canada's future.

I was talking to colleagues here in the House, and we heard support at a policing summit in B.C. in August for Bill C-2, because those are the people who are the first responders. We should be listening to the people who are there to save our lives and save our communities.

I urge all members across all political stripes in the House to join me in supporting Bill C-2. Let us stand together for safer communities, stronger borders and a fairer immigration system for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Surrey Newton for outlining some of the key provisions in Bill C-2.

One aspect of the bill he did not touch upon is access to online data, the impact this would have on privacy regulations in Canada and the fundamental right that our party believes all Canadians have access to, which is a fundamental right to privacy. I believe this bill would undermine that fundamental right.

Does the member opposite agree that this bill would go too far in giving powers to authorities in respect to access to information?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr Speaker, if we listen to the experts, even organizations such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, they are telling us that they need these tools and resources to protect Canadians. There is nothing in this bill that would take rights or liberties away, but it would make sure that criminals are punished.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about border security. That is all well and good, but things have gotten to this point thanks to 10 years of Liberal neglect. Now, the people protecting the border, the customs officers, are telling us, through their union, that we could need up to 3,000 more officers at the border. Meanwhile, the government has promised 1,000. This was not even mentioned in the throne speech, and so far, not a single officer has been hired.

My question is twofold. First, I would like to know how it is that the Prime Minister has had time to announce funding for defence, to travel around the world four times and purchase submarines, but has not had time to hire the 2,000 to 3,000 officers needed. Second, I would like to know why the bill does not include any provisions allowing customs officers to patrol between border crossings, as requested by the community, along the longest demilitarized border in the world.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that the hon. member for Mirabel was talking about the Conservative government. When it was in power, it took 1,000 officers away from the job. In fact, it is the Liberal government that brought in 1,000 new law enforcement and CBSA officers to make sure our borders are protected with utmost urgency.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a member in the House who does not have a story they can share from their community or who has not been touched by the issues of fentanyl, opioids and the flow of precursors. There is the Tablotney family in Richmond, who I had the opportunity to table a petition for, and they were asking for a sustainable, national ad campaign to raise awareness of this at all times. I have spoken to police officers who have shown us data of some of these chemicals they are finding on the street.

The member from Surrey Newton has been a strong advocate on public safety measures. Can he let us know what the pathway is to stop these precursors from coming into Canada?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Richmond East—Steveston for all the great work he does and the support he provides.

We need to make sure that British Columbians are safe when it comes to fentanyl. This is why we are bringing in Bill C-2, so that we are able to stop the flow of fentanyl across the border, and bringing in searching the mail and other options in this bill to stop it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had a different beginning to my speech, but after hearing all the long-serving Liberal MPs get up and talk about how great it is that they have finally discovered our border is an issue, that after 10 years in government they are taking some action with this piece of legislation and should be congratulated for it is a bit of an astounding proposition at the beginning of this fall session.

They waited so long to take any action that fentanyl and other drugs are rampant throughout the country, not just in the big urban spaces but in the smallest of the small communities across my riding in rural southwestern Manitoba and in every other riding across the country. I do not know that they are going to get as much sympathy and applause from Canadians as they expect based on their speeches today. They let this go on for 10 years without taking any recognizable action to stop the flow of illegal substances from other countries into this country. Now they think it is wonderful that they have finally come up with a half-decent, but very problematic in some instances, proposal to address this situation.

I will get back to my speech. I will have more to say on that as we proceed.

Brandon—Souris, in the context of the country, is a border riding. There are nine ports of entry in my constituency alone, a number of which have just had their hours reduced, which is impacting trade with our American counterparts. Plus Lake Metigoshe is in my riding. It sits right on the border. It is shared, half Canadian and half American, and is policed by both entities. It is one of the few lakes where people can get in their boats on the Canadian side and drive them across to the American side without having to go through a port of entry per se. It is one of very few examples where that exists in the country.

It is the part of the border that is all-accessible, unlike other parts of the country, like Alberta and British Columbia. There are 226 kilometres of border between Manitoba and North Dakota in my constituency, 302 kilometres if one takes the highway.

We also have the International Peace Garden at the second-largest border crossing in Manitoba, in Boissevain, or the peace garden border crossing if people come from the American side, which shares a monument to peace that both of our countries share and maintain. They also share a cross-border airport. People can actually land on the North Dakota side, the American side, taxi onto Canadian soil and then disembark. It is one of the few instances where that takes place in the country as well. Certainly, my riding shares the border. It is a border constituency, and our economic ties with our immediate partners to the south, North Dakota, and further south into the Midwest states are significant. They are close.

When I grew up, Minot, North Dakota, was just as close for me and my family in our hometown as Winnipeg, the major city in Manitoba. We would often spend family vacations, special birthdays or anniversaries travelling to Minot rather than Winnipeg to share in our collective relationship with the Americans. When we talk about border issues, we know that Manitobans, and certainly southwestern Manitobans, deal, work, live and play crossing that border on a regular basis.

My constituents believe in law and order and a strong border. They have made that very clear to me. During the election and over the course of the summer, I held a number of community barbecues along Highway 3, which is Manitoba's southernmost major highway that runs parallel to the American-Canadian border. I held community barbecues in Melita, Boissevain and Manitou, all border towns. In fact, the Boissevain local hockey team is called the Boissevain Border Kings. That is how close our relationship is in my constituency to the border and its impact on Manitoba's economy.

These are ongoing conversations that take place on a regular basis. People are living the challenges with the border and the relationship that is ongoing between our two countries. For the past decade, Conservatives have been urging the Liberal government to reverse its failed policies and restore safety to our communities.

My communities are at the forefront of the influx of weak border and weak criminal justice policy from the Liberal government. We have seen an influx of crime and drugs infesting small communities in southwestern Manitoba, further up into my colleague from Riding Mountain's constituency and further north into northern Manitoba. These are communities that are collectively calling for better action from the government and calling out its failure to deliver safety and a solution to the influx of drugs. Instead, the Liberals, as we know, have let the situation get out of control.

Now they are scrambling and have put forward this omnibus bill that falls well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other areas. While we are prepared to support some elements of the bill, we are very concerned with others. The bill fails to address bail reform, which is a topic that comes up often in this Parliament. Catch and release is alive and well for those who are trafficking fentanyl and firearms across our border, using our porous border to victimize Canadians. These are illegal firearms, not the legally held firearms that so many of my constituents have taken the courses for, have trained for and responsibly own and use.

There is no mention of sentencing provisions. There are still no mandatory prison times for fentanyl traffickers who are profiting from this weak, porous border the Liberals have created. There are still no new mandatory prison times for gangsters who use guns and commit crimes, despite the Liberals' campaign against legal firearms owners. House arrest is still permissible for some of the most serious offenders in these areas.

We are deeply concerned by the Liberals' further restrictions on Canadian civil liberties, including the ability to open mail without oversight and to compel Internet companies to hand over private information, and warrantless searches.

I would just like to pause here for a minute. I do not know that anybody in my riding, even the Canada Post workers I represent, think it is a great idea for them to just be able to open up mail at will. This is what the Liberals, despite what some of them have said today, are proposing in this piece of legislation. Nobody thinks that is a good idea, even the Canada Post workers I talked to in my constituency when we knew this bill would be coming up. It is way overboard. They have no reason for it to be done. RCMP officers think it is ridiculous.

There is no question that there needs to be a solution and a proposal put forward to deal with trafficking of illegal substances through Canada Post, but it makes perfect sense for these systems to be operated through the court system and with trained investigators and police officers opening up this mail, searching for illegal substances, because if they actually find some, they are the ones who are trained to handle it, not Canada Post workers.

Again, this is the Liberals making a mountain where they should have taken a scalpel in terms of how to deal with these serious, prolific traffickers who are utilizing Canada Post. It needs to be referred to the proper justice officials, not to our everyday postal workers and the folks working in the distribution centres.

While Conservatives have been ignored by the Liberal government and its failures, we have consistently fought for practical, effective policies that secure our borders, protect our communities and uphold Canadians' rights, including adding thousands of border agents; extending CBSA powers along the entire border, not just crossings; and installing border surveillance towers as well as truck-mounted drone systems to spot border incursions.

This is huge in my riding, which is all very accessible along a very rural area that does not have high levels of population. These scanners can also see through walls of containers or vehicles to spot drugs, guns and stolen cars. We have fought for tracking departures so government officials know which deportees are in Canada illegally, toughening penalties for repeat violent offenders, ending catch-and-release bail and house arrest for violent criminals, and the list goes on.

The Liberals, which I have heard already today, have gotten up and said the Conservatives have no solutions. We have been proposing these solutions for 10 years, and there has been no action from the Liberal government to implement a single one of them.

With some of these provisions, they have finally got it right after a decade of failing Canadians on protecting them and securing the border. Now they are saying to trust them. Well, gosh, they have had 10 years to fix the immigration system; that has been a disaster. They have had 10 years to fix the criminal justice system; that has been a disaster. Why should Canadians believe today that the Liberal government's record is going to be any different in fixing the problems it created on Canada's border?

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

Mr. Speaker, this summer I got the opportunity to attend the summit of the chiefs of police and was able to sit down with the president. He had rave reviews for Bill C-2. One of the provisions of lawful access in Bill C-2 changes the requirement from “reasonable grounds to believe” and instead makes it “reasonable grounds to suspect”. This is going to help the police in so many different child exploitation investigations.

I have a slew of different examples the police gave me where cases were not investigated and were thrown out. One example was of a father who caught his 12-year-old daughter speaking to someone who said they were a teenager but ended up being an adult. The father had an IP address and took it to the police. The police are not able to do anything about that IP address today, but with Bill C-2, they would be able to take one step forward and lay charges.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I heard a question from the parliamentary secretary. I too have met with chiefs of police in my home province. As I said in my speech, there are some provisions in this bill where the Liberals did get a few things right. Members know the whole thing where a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. They did get a few things right in this bill, but they also got lots wrong.

While we are going to propose constructive criticism and amendments to this piece of legislation, we are also going to call the Liberals out where they got it wrong. That was the premise of my speech today. We hope the Liberals are going to correct what they got wrong and actually do a better job of fixing a system that they broke, just like countless other systems across the federal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague and congratulate him on his speech. One interesting thing about Bill C‑2 is that border services officers will not even be allowed to patrol between certain sectors. That will make them less effective.

I just want my colleague's opinion. Does he agree that they should be more effective and that the officers, though too few in number, should be allowed to patrol between border crossings?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly the case. Obviously, we know that many areas of eastern Canada as well as farther west of me are very inaccessible along our border. Even in Manitoba, the area is so large that despite it being accessible, the RCMP is far too short-staffed to be able to patrol all of that area at any given time. Absolutely, we believe in expanding jurisdiction there. We think that would be an important solution to part of the issue with Canada's border.