Bill C-2

Strong Borders Act

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

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

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Safety

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

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

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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