Debates of Oct. 20th, 2025

Criminal Code

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me first just say that it is an honour and a privilege to formally second this bill, which has been presented by my friend, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

We all come to this place to leave our mark and make a difference. I think this piece of legislation is one of the ways there could be a measurable outcome. This bill would certainly do all of that. I strongly support it, as all members in the House should, because it would take meaningful and concrete action to protect people from the growing scourge of intimate partner violence, which has even been called an epidemic in Canada.

It seems like everybody has stories of their own experiences with intimate partner violence. We hear about it from a close friend or family member. We read about it online or on social media. In some cases, we have heard in the House that members have experienced it themselves.

I will never forget something that happened in my first month of being a member of Parliament, when I was so ill-equipped for this job, not knowing what was ahead. A woman sat across from me, veiled behind a brave smile. Her long sleeves were covering bruising, and her face was masked with heavy makeup in some places. She claimed, with a quiet confidence, that when she told me she had tripped, she knew I would understand what she was saying without my ever asking for any more details.

The story she eventually told made me realize that, in that moment, behind closed doors, every single word in her old life had been a weapon, and every single apology had been a trap. It all started with control, not fists. Then came the fear. Then came the silence, and for her, then came the isolation. The story she told me ended long after it first began. She ended up packing a small bag. It took all the courage she had. Her first step out of her door was her first step to freedom.

These are the stories of survivors, the ones we have to believe, the ones who have to be protected. We blur out the details of these stories not for effect, but to protect those who are still silently struggling, long after they have walked out the door. I just want to say to those who may be watching today, that if this is them, they should please talk to a police office, please talk to somebody they trust.

This does not always look like that textbook experience that happened to me in my first month on the job. Keira Kagan’s story was different. It was a story from right within my own community, a story that happened among my own peer group. Keira was a bright, beautiful four-year-old girl. She had a smile that would light up a room and a sense of curiosity that made everyone around her know that someday she would go places, but tragically, she never got there. She will never graduate from school, start a career, start a family or have kids of her own.

Keira was killed five years ago by her father in a horrific act of domestic violence. Her life was stolen from her before it had hardly begun. The warning signs were all there. At least 22 different risk factors were identified in a report released after Keira’s death. Her father was in a custody battle with her mother, Jen. He had a history of mental illness and domestic violence against Keira’s mother and against other partners. He displayed misogynistic attitudes, threatened others and even committed acts of violence against pets. However, despite all of that, despite all the red flags, the warning signs and the cries for help, Keira was still released into her father’s custody in what can only be described as a colossal failure of the system. She was killed just a few days later.

In the last Parliament, the House unanimously passed a bill called Keira’s law, which expanded training for judges to include domestic violence and coercive control. The bill introduced by my hon. friend picks up where that bill left off by modernizing the detention of seized evidence, forcing those convicted of domestic violence to be released only by a judge and treating the murder of an intimate partner as first-degree murder.

Creating specific offences matters, such as the specific offences of the assault of an intimate partner and criminal harassment of an intimate partner, and these could have helped in the tragic story of Keira. The legislation would allow the courts to detain the accused of intimate partner violence at any time for a risk assessment, the kind of assessment that would be done before, not after, things go wrong. That kind of assessment could have saved Keira's life. We cannot and should not be complacent in fighting this scourge in the House.

In just 10 years, intimate partner physical assault has increased by 14%, harassment is up 38% and intimate partner sexual assault is up a whopping 163%. We could talk all day about the reasons this is happening, but nobody can deny that the lack of accountability in our justice system is a major reason intimate partner violence and crimes of all types are running rampant and are out of control in this country.

Let us take another case of somebody we have talked about in the House. Her name was Bailey McCourt. Bailey's partner, James Plover, was convicted of three counts of uttering threats and one count of assault by strangling in the case of intimate partner violence. He was released on bail, and he killed Bailey that very same day. She died in a parking lot, after being beaten with a hammer. If our bail laws had been fixed, James Plover would not have been allowed out on bail and Bailey would be alive today, to be the mother to her children.

Her family is watching right now. I spoke to her aunt in the lobby just a few minutes ago, and she is absolutely disgusted that this bill will not be supported by the other side. She is disgusted at the comments coming from the other side. The same could be said for the over 120,000 victims of intimate partner violence in 2023 alone.

Every case of this is not just a statistic that we talk about in Parliament as a number. It is not an excuse for the government to tell Canadians, when they ask serious questions about the government doing something on bail, that it is coming tomorrow, next week, next month or someday. Even one case of intimate partner violence should be enough to make this place act.

Every preventable act should be a wake-up call to get people in the chairs in this place to do something about it. Instead, the changes Conservatives propose in this place on the bail system or on sentencing requirements to the Criminal Code are voted down time and time again, only to again be told that it is coming tomorrow. However, for Bailey, Keira and countless others, tomorrow never comes. Every day that we delay is another day for serial abusers to harass their victims without consequences, for more men and women to suffer physical and emotional trauma and for innocent lives to be put in danger.

Taking action someday, frankly, just is not enough. Someday will not put the bad guys in jail. The message now to anyone watching and everyone on the other side is this: They should act now before more preventable tragedies happen, because the only thing worse than a case of intimate partner violence is a case that we had the ability to stop.

This piece of legislation would save lives. It would prevent escalation of intimate partner violence. It would stop the warning signs when they first occur, and it would keep those with a track record of violence behind bars. Police unions have told us we need this. Advocacy groups, frontline workers, women and victim survivors have all told us they need this. They all told us to strengthen the penalties of intimate partner violence, to automatically make murder of an intimate partner first-degree murder, regardless of why or how it happened. They told us, most importantly, to put victims first, and that is exactly what my colleague's bill would do.

I can only hope that everybody in this place reconsiders, stands up, does the right thing, remembers exactly why we came here and supports this piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, let me start off by recognizing that I do not believe that there is a member of Parliament in the House who does not appreciate our need, as parliamentarians, to look at what happens to victims of intimate partner violence. It is a very serious issue. I believe that every member of Parliament, and it does not matter which political entity they are a part of, wants to do what they can to minimize the intimate partner violence that takes place in our nation.

To the families that have been affected over the years, as victims, families and friends of those victims, I would extend my personal condolences, thoughts and prayers. I can understand and appreciate the destruction it causes within a family unit. When I talk about the family unit, I am talking about extended families. It has a profoundly negative impact, and that is why I say, without any hesitation, that all members of the House of Commons, I would like to think, are very sensitive to this very important public issue.

Thinking of the victims, I would like to turn it around a little here and emphasize that there are many instances of intimate partner violence that go unreported. Unfortunately, and sadly, we have individuals in society who are constantly abused, whether physically or mentally, for years, as has been pointed out. I know that the person proposing the legislation is aware of this.

We can imagine, if we will, being a young woman who has been subjected to all sorts of mental and physical abuse in a relationship but who, out of fear, does not necessarily report it. There are reasons why that happens. If the legislation were to pass, that victim I just described could become a victim of the legislation. Ultimately, for the individual who I have described, if there is something that takes place that triggers the death of her or his partner, the legislation would automatically say that it should be first-degree murder. This is the impact that this would also have. We know for a fact that there are endless victims of domestic violence in our communities who do not report.

I know this first-hand. I have dealt with victims who are coming to talk to me, to share their experiences. We try, as much as possible, to encourage, to look for support groups, such as women's shelters, and to look at ways in which society and our system could support that victim in receiving some sort of justice. Often, it is not just the one victim. A lot of those victims of domestic abuse also have young children. They too, in essence, become victims.

That is why I say that, at the end of the day, I would like to think that there is not a member of the House of Commons who is not sympathetic and who does not want to see actions taken in domestic abuse. The member brought forward the legislation and said that there are two things that come to mind. One is to pass the legislation and to pass it immediately. I have often articulated the importance of passing government legislation. This legislation is actually programmed.

Could members imagine if I were to put on limits, saying that for every government bill, there would be only two hours of debate at second reading and then it would go to committee? This particular individual says this legislation should be going to committee, virtually without debate. It is just like how the Conservatives attempted to bring through an opposition day motion on the issue. I wish we could get that sort of sympathy toward government legislation dealing with the victims of crime, such as the bail legislation that will be coming out very soon, but I suspect we will not see it.

The member was critical of me many months ago because of some so-called reaction I had when he brought in legislation. That was absolutely bogus. He tried to bring forward an issue that had nothing to do with the content of the legislation and had everything to do with the behaviour of the member—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things at issue. Number one is that the member cannot call another member—

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Debate.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Waterloo does not seem to want to give me the chance to speak today.

The member spoke about my conduct and what I said as “bogus”. Indirectly or directly, he cannot impugn another's character like that—

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

That would be a pretty tough debate, which we are not going to have right now.

We are going to finish with the hon. member's intervention, and I am going to ask him to try to avoid using discriminatory adjectives to describe other members.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the point is that the member is trying to raise this as an important issue, and let there be no doubt that intimate partner violence is an important issue—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Hon. members will come to order.

We have to let the hon. parliamentary secretary finish his intervention.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the second part of what the member was asking for was to depoliticize it. This government has taken apolitical action, and we have seen nothing but political reaction coming from the Conservatives, day in and day out. In fact, in the example I was providing, the member used a false pretense on social media in order to generate negative feelings toward the legislation or toward me personally.

At the end of the day, we recognize that the issue is important. That is why we have taken many steps, whether they are legislative initiatives or budgetary measures, to support women. The parliamentary secretary for the department made it very clear that we, as a government, have invested tens of millions of dollars in fighting domestic violence and supporting women in our communities, yet time and time again, we get Conservative after Conservative standing up and voting against our initiatives. That is the reality. When a Conservative member stands up and says, “I have a bill”, I will emphasize time and time again how important it is that we, as parliamentarians, do whatever we can to support the victims of intimate partner violence. I will stand up all the time and advocate for doing what we can.

I asked the member if he could tell us what sort of consultation he has done, and his response was that he was a Crown attorney. I was a critic for justice when I was an MLA. That does not necessarily mean that we do not have to do the proper consultation, whether it is with the provinces or the many different stakeholders, like women's organizations, shelters and abuse centres.

It is important that we look at that legislation. I hope to be able to continue my remarks—

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

The hon. member will have a minute to conclude his remarks when we next debate this bill.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved that Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. Bill C-12 is important legislation that would keep Canadians safe by strengthening immigration and border security.

Security risks and the danger they pose to our national and economic security are constantly evolving.

This is true when it comes to transnational organized crime groups that seek to facilitate illegal border crossings and smuggle fentanyl, precursor chemicals, other harmful drugs and illegal firearms into our communities.

Our government is committed to ensuring that law enforcement agencies have the right tools to keep our borders safe.

We have listened to the concerns raised by stakeholders and by my colleagues during debate here in the House. This new bill, Bill C-12, would strike the right balance between the need to protect our borders and the concerns about Canadians' privacy.

Bill C-12 draws on the elements of Bill C-2 that were designed to combat transnational organized crime and those who seek to exploit our immigration system. These include stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl, cracking down on money laundering, bolstering our response to increasingly sophisticated criminal networks and enhancing the integrity and fairness of our immigration system.

It is essential that we take urgent action on this issue.

That is why Bill C-12 was introduced. It would enable Parliament to quickly advance legislative priorities where we see the most agreement, while taking the time necessary to debate the provisions remaining in Bill C-2 that we have raised concerns about.

Responding to these changes and cracking down on transnational organized crime groups and their illegal activities are essential to maintaining the safety and security of our country. Border security is a priority that we share with our neighbours to the south. Addressing it will further strengthen our relationship with the United States.

We can always do more, and we are doing more, but I want to assure members that the border is secure. Our law enforcement and border agencies identify, neutralize and mitigate threats on a daily basis, and we are building on those operational outcomes.

Last December, Canada launched several key measures as part of a comprehensive border plan. This plan is bringing meaningful operational and policy changes, but we need legislative change to advance the plan and further strengthen border security to keep our communities safe. The amendments contained in Bill C-12 would help law enforcement by giving them the tools to respond more effectively to the evolving security challenges.

There are two main themes to Bill C-12. The first is securing the border. The second is combatting transnational organized crime, illegal fentanyl and illicit financing.

Under the first theme, securing the border, we are proposing to amend the Customs Act to secure our borders against illicit drug trafficking, weapons smuggling and auto theft. We would obligate owners and operators of certain ports of exit and entry to “provide, equip and maintain” facilities for “any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of” the Canada Border Services Agency's mandate.

This includes examining and seizing goods destined for export.

This change would allow the CBSA to access premises under the control of transporters and warehouse operators to perform examinations in places where goods destined for export are reported, loaded, unloaded or stored.

Second, Bill C-12 would amend the Oceans Act to add security-related activities to the Coast Guard's services. This would allow the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze and dismantle information and intelligence for security purposes.

Third, we are proposing amendments that would enhance the ability of the RCMP to share information collected on registered sex offenders with domestic and international law enforcement partners.

Fourth, related to immigration, the bill introduces measures to protect the asylum system against sudden increases in claims by introducing new ineligibility rules, as well as to improve how asylum claims are received, processed and decided. The bill also proposes to strengthen authorities to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents and to cancel, suspend or stop accepting new applications. This would give us the ability to respond to potential crises in the event that a large number of immigration documents are affected by the same issue.

Finally, the proposed measures would improve how client information is shared within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, and with federal, provincial and territorial partners.

The components related to the second theme include, first, amending the accelerated scheduling pathway to allow precursor chemicals that can be used to produce illicit drugs to be rapidly controlled by the Minister of Health. This would allow law and border enforcement agencies to take swift action to prevent the illegal importation and use of precursor chemicals, and it would ensure strict federal oversight over any legitimate use of these chemicals.

Second, the proposed measures would strengthen Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, including through stronger anti-money laundering penalties.

Third, the measures contained in the bill would enhance supervisory collaboration and support high standards of regulatory compliance by adding the director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, to the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee. FINTRAC would also be enabled to exchange supervisory information on federally regulated financial institutions with FISC.

I am happy to say that these proposed measures would complement ongoing efforts to secure our border from coast to coast to coast, including the $1.3-billion investment made in December last year to increase resources dedicated to border security.

Meanwhile, Bill C-2 will continue, with further study, to advance the elements that would facilitate law enforcement’s access to basic and subscriber information, introduce the supporting authorized access to information act, expand the inspection authority of Canada Post, introduce new restrictions on third party deposits and large cash transfers, and clarify public-to-private information-sharing provisions to help better detect and deter money laundering. We heard the concern that it is important that we get this right.

As a result of our strong partnership with the United States, last year, nearly $3.6 billion in trade and about 400,000 people crossed the Canada-U.S. border every single day. We want to make sure that this continues. Following both the former prime minister's and current Prime Minister's discussions with President Trump, Canada committed to a set of measures that would further strengthen security at the border and expand on our $1.3-billion border plan.

In support of the plan, in February, a new intelligence directive on organized crime and illegal fentanyl was signed, and it will be backed by a $200-million investment. This includes the creation of the joint operational intelligence cell, which builds on existing co-operation mechanisms between law enforcement partners and security agencies to better leverage information sharing to target transnational organized crime, money laundering and drug trafficking and improve border security.

The integrated money laundering intelligence partnership was established with Canada's largest banks. It is enhancing our capacity to develop and use financial intelligence to combat fentanyl trafficking and other organized crime.

Canada has also appointed its first fentanyl czar, who serves as the primary liaison between the Canadian and U.S. governments to strengthen our collaboration in the fight against fentanyl.

Additionally, we have listed seven transnational organized crime groups as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code and are constantly monitoring whether more should be added. Listing is an important tool that supports criminal investigations and strengthens the RCMP’s ability to prevent and disrupt criminal activities.

Canada has also committed to providing surveillance at the border 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are working on our border. As we announced just last week, we will be hiring 1,000 new RCMP personnel and 1,000 CBSA officers to bolster these protection efforts. We will mobilize law enforcement officers with new and modernized equipment to make them even more effective for our communities.

This equipment includes state-of-the-art technology, drones, surveillance equipment, canine teams and helicopters.

All of this important work takes place every single day at border crossings right across this great country.

I would like to note that, while illegal crossings from Canada to the U.S. are already down by 99% since the peak in June 2024, we have also deployed new drones and helicopters to the border.

These tools are enabling us to stop more illegal cross-border activity.

The border plan makes investments in both agencies, allowing them to procure tools for better detection and to build even stronger collaborative relationships between the CBSA and the RCMP, and between law enforcement across the country and in the United States. Through our border plan, we are building our information and intelligence-sharing capacity among federal, provincial and territorial authorities as well as with the United States and other international partners, including our Five Eyes partners. Enhanced information sharing allows authorities to identify, monitor and collaborate with partners to intercept high-risk individuals and goods attempting to travel between countries.

Meanwhile, as too many families know, illegal fentanyl has a devastating impact on both sides of our border. While less than 1% of illegal fentanyl seized in the United States is linked to Canada, we are working to ensure fewer drugs and their precursor chemicals cross our shared border. To increase our fentanyl-detection abilities, we have trained and are deploying border detector dog teams that specialize in fentanyl detection.

With respect to immigration, under the border plan, we have already strengthened our visa screening and integrity to keep those who seek to remain in Canada illegally, or to cross into the United States illegally, out of Canada. We have increased our ability to remove bad actors from Canada. As well, the CBSA removed over 18,000 inadmissible people in 2024-25, the highest in a decade and an increase from approximately 16,000 the year before. The border plan provides $55.5 million to support immigration and asylum processing and to increase CBSA’s capacity to reach 20,000 removals over the next two years, including this year.

With our current focus on the border and our plans to introduce further measures to strengthen the criminal justice system in the future, Canadians can be confident that Canada has a strong border and that we continue to build an even stronger one. We will always ensure that the actions we take will have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure due process for all.

We will continue to work with our U.S. partners to ensure that our border remains secure while we also continue to manage the fast and efficient movement of people and goods between our respective countries. These additional measures we are taking to further strengthen Canada’s border will help sustain this partnership and friendship for many years to come.

As a final point, I would like to thank the RCMP and CBSA officers who work so hard every day to keep us safe.

I was able to visit several Canadian ports of entry this summer, and I saw first-hand the crucial work that our frontline men and women of the RCMP and CBSA do each and every day.

This is integral legislation. I hope that my hon. colleagues will support Bill C-12 today and ensure that we can provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to keep Canadians and our communities safe.

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

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

I listened with great interest to the minister's speech. Bill C-12 is obviously a reiteration of some portions of Bill C-2. Conservatives have been very vocal on problematic aspects of Bill C-2. The minister framed it as “we have listened to Canadians”, as in the Liberals have listened.

Will the minister admit that the Liberals simply got it wrong with Bill C-2, based on Conservative pressure and otherwise from Canadians, and that this is their attempt to salvage a very flawed piece of legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-12 is being introduced with three major elements that were left out of Bill C-2, which are lawful access, postal services and the $10,000 amount as part of money laundering. These elements are quite important to law enforcement. I have heard from law enforcement across Canada as to the need to ensure that there is a lawful-access regime. Canada remains the only country where lawful access is not entrenched in law.

I had a meeting with Grand Chief Fiddler this morning. He talked about the need for inspection of mail coming into first nations communities. In some cases, we know that fentanyl and other illicit drugs go through.

Quite to the contrary, what we are trying to do here is ensure that Bill C-12 passes, with the expectation that we can work together on passing the elements of Bill C-2 that were left behind.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his speech.

The Bloc Québécois has long called for better border control, whether to combat the export of stolen vehicles, reduce the number of asylum seekers in Quebec, or fight fentanyl and money laundering.

We are pleased that Bill C‑12 is doing away with the most problematic elements of Bill C‑2 with regard to privacy violations. However, there is one major issue on which we are still looking for clarification.

The minister said he would add 1,000 RCMP officers and 1,000 border officers. The 1,000 RCMP officers were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but the 1,000 CBSA officers were not. The unions tell us that it would take at least 2,000 or 3,000 more CBSA officers for the agency to be able to truly fulfill its mandate.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and his work.

I want to acknowledge the work my colleague has done for many years on a number of issues, including medical assistance in dying. I thank him for that.

I want to talk about the 1,000 new CBSA officers announced last Friday in Niagara Falls with my good colleague from St. Catharines, and the hiring, training and deploying of the new officers. We were delighted to be able to do that. It is a promise we made during the campaign, and it is a promise that we intend to execute.

I want to note that, as part of the work we have done, there is a retention component at CBSA that includes enabling CBSA officers to retire with as little as 25 years of service, along with increasing their stipend from $125 a week to $525 a week. These are substantial elements to ensure that we have proper retention and training of CBSA officers, and we look forward to the new men and women joining the CBSA over the coming years.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to talk about the minister's role with regard to the RCMP.

The RCMP is recognized worldwide as a first-class law enforcement security agency. Let there be absolutely no doubt about the degree to which it is apolitical. The leader of the official opposition is calling into question the leadership of the RCMP. That has to cause concern among Canadians in terms of confidence in the RCMP.

I am wondering if the minister would take this opportunity to reinforce the important role the institution of the RCMP has played in the past and will continue to play in the future, as well as talk about the irresponsible comments from the leader of the official opposition.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question.

The RCMP is an organization that is sacrosanct in Canada. It has defended Canadians for over 150 years. It is an internationally recognized leader in policing. In Canada, we have separation of the executive branch from police functions and judicial functions. The RCMP is an independent body that is accountable within its system. It is not accountable to a minister or prime minister, and it is not biased in any way.

For anyone in the House to suggest that the RCMP is acting in a partial way is outrageous and shameful. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to retract those statements and ensure the public's trust is restored in the RCMP.

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

Madam Speaker, I have gone through Bill C-12. I appreciate the fact that the minister took the Conservatives' advice, listened to Canadians and took out the sections of Bill C-2 that were egregious and violated the charter rights and civil liberties of Canadians right across this country.

The government is talking about moving the Coast Guard to the Department of National Defence. However, part 4 does not name the Department of National Defence or the Minister of National Defence. It is rather open-ended on the Coast Guard still being under the control of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Fisheries since its creation under the Oceans Act.

Will the Liberals formally announce or put in place the legislative powers to make sure the Canadian Coast Guard is part of the Department of National Defence and under the control of the Minister of National Defence, not make some ambiguous statement within the clause itself?

Will they also ensure that, since the Coast Guard is going to be asked to take on the role of security, its members will be given the tools to defend themselves when they are doing interdictions, along with the ability to encounter ships at sea when they are doing border security? That is very important since, right now, they are unarmed. When doing surveillance, all they can be are eyes and ears. Even the Canadian Rangers are allowed to carry guns, whereas the Canadian Coast Guard cannot.

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

Madam Speaker, let me confirm that the Coast Guard plays an integral role in protecting Canadians. The measures we are taking will enhance its role with respect to surveillance, making sure, particularly in northern Canada, that information is shared with law enforcement agencies as well as the Department of National Defence.

As members are aware, we are investing 2% of our GDP in defence starting this year, something previous governments have been unable to do. I am very proud to say that the Coast Guard will play an integral role in that work.

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

Madam Speaker, I echo some of the questions the minister has heard from members on the opposite benches about similarities with Bill C-2 and whether Bill C-2 remains as it does on the order of precedence.

My question is about RCMP training. It is really critical. I want to know if the Minister of Public Safety has read the report of the Mass Casualty Commission that was compelled after the deaths of 22 Nova Scotians. These were preventable deaths largely due to RCMP incompetence. The commission recommended that we expand training for the RCMP to a three-year required course instead of the current 26 weeks.

In hiring 1,000 new RCMP officers, is the government looking at improving the training, and is it looking at the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission?

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

Madam Speaker, concerning the new RCMP officers who would be onboarded, the commitment we have is that those RCMP officers would be mandated to do federal policing. They would receive training that is consistent and that is customized for federalized policing; it is something that Commissioner Duheme and his senior team have been working on with the depot to ensure that the officers have the right training to do their work more effectively.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to acknowledge a few people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I want to acknowledge the life of Dana Evans. I was very saddened to read about Dana's passing. She was mother to one of my friends in high school, Derek Luce, and his brother, Louie Luce. I did not know this, but she was born in Yakima, Washington, a place where I spent a great deal of time, and attended school in Ellensburg. I have a good friend from Ellensburg.

However, what stuck out to me most was that Dana Evans graduated from Thorp High School. I have a couple of friends from Thorp. It is basically a postage stamp in Washington; I always used to make fun of, to my friends, how small it is. Lo and behold, my friend's mom was born there. I have distinct memories of sleeping over at the house and of Ms. Evans being up early to make us pancakes and send us on our way, making sure that her sons and their friends did not get into too much trouble.

I would like to express my deepest condolences to the Evans family, Louie Luce and Derek Luce, and all others who are impacted by her passing. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I also want to acknowledge Les Consenheim, a resident of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, for his outstanding contributions to democracy. He has been a huge help to me, and I am so grateful that people like him are so involved. He recently sponsored an event that I was at this weekend, where people bid on art based on volunteer hours. If somebody liked an art piece, they could volunteer, say 100 hours, to an organization. Among those organizations was the Canucks Autism Network, an organization that is very close to my heart, for those who know me. I thank Mr. Consenheim for all he has done for the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Let us start at the beginning. Bill C-2 was tabled as what I would call a panacea. It was meant to be a cure-all, a reaction piece and something to contain a number of Liberal promises or not so many promises, requests, bureaucratic lingo and things like that. I can still remember, even though I was not here, how the Liberals spoke about omnibus bills and how bad they were. They spoke about the big, bad Conservatives' passing big, bad omnibus bills, and they said that the Liberals would never, ever pass omnibus bills, yet here we are: One of many omnibus bills comes to us in the form of Bill C-2, with a number of problems.

Bill C-2, if memory serves, would enact or alter 15 pieces of legislation. It is about 120 pages long, if memory serves, and the Liberals told us to just pass it, just trust them. Given some of the rhetoric in the House today, it is somewhat comical that the Liberals would use this type of language: Just pass this, just trust them.

As members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, our job is to listen to Canadians and to closely scrutinize government legislation. In a 120-page bill, there are problems. I am going to highlight one of those problems, and I really hope that the member for Winnipeg North is listening closely to this one: the warrantless search.

The member has spoken to the House ad nauseam, no fewer than five or six times, about the fact that Canada Post could not open up mail without a warrant. They have a number of lawyers on the Liberal side. We have a number of lawyers here. However, the legislation actually speaks really clearly, so I am going to read the legislation into the record just so that we are really clear on this, and then I will speak about what we have been through with a number of bureaucrats.

Bill C-2, in part 4, proposes to replace subsection 41(1) of the act with the following:

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

The reasonable suspicion part relates to regulation, so if any regulation is suspected to be breached, Canada Post could open our mail.

If I am understanding it clearly, the intent of the legislation is to cover up a gap, in that mail cannot not be opened with a warrant. In other words, we want to make it so that anybody shipping something that is 499 grams or less could be subject to a warranted search, a search that is authorized by a judge.

I admire the member's zeal for sticking with this position, which is a position I thought was untenable, so let us go through that again. Bill C-2 states that the corporation may open any mail, so that includes letters, parcels or anything. I think we are all on solid ground and know what “any mail” means. It states that it “may” open it, so it would not be compulsory. The government would not have to open mail, but the legislation would be permissive; the government could open any mail if it had reasonable grounds to suspect.

The bill refers to the “Corporation”, which is very interesting. The corporation legally has personhood, but the corporation is made up of people. Those people, generally, are not going to be peace officers. In fact, I do not know whether Canada Post has any peace officers in its employ. The legislation would not even require a peace officer, so theoretically it could be somebody in the mail room who has no training. We hear all about RCMP training and things like that. Somebody with no training could open up mail; they may, not shall, do so if they have reasonable grounds to suspect.

The member for Winnipeg North has told us so many times that a warrant would be needed. I went to a briefing with top officials from the government, and they told me that based on the provisions, a warrant would not be needed. Imagine that. The words are so clear that a warrant would not be needed, so let us just go through it one more time for clarity.

Bill C-2 states:

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

It does not state that the corporation may apply for a warrant. It does not state that the corporation shall apply for a warrant. It says that it “may open any mail”.

Here is the real kicker: reasonable grounds. I have not practised law for about four years, but my recollection is that a search warrant is issued by a judge when there are reasonable grounds to believe, based on oath or affirmation, than an offence has been committed, that there is evidence of that offence and that the place to be searched will yield evidence of the offence. Those three characteristics are needed with reasonable grounds to believe.

Let us go back to the plain language:

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

Wait a minute. That is not reasonable grounds to believe, as is needed for a warrant, yet the Liberals have repeatedly stood up in this place and said that Conservatives are full of conspiracy theories and that a warrant would be needed, when it says right in the bill that a warrant would not be needed.

The member for Winnipeg North is very active in questions and comments, and God forbid that any member of the House would misspeak, so I really look forward to his addressing the issue in questions and comments. In fact, perhaps a page can run the document over to him, because it says it right in it, and the member can tell us whether he still believes this, or acknowledges perhaps that Conservatives were correct on the issue.

This leads me to Bill C-2 generally. Bill C-2 was a mess. The government went very far. We can all acknowledge that border security is an issue, but the legislation went very far, and we heard about it from Canadians. The Liberals have said that we need the legislation and need it done, and they have asked how we dare stand in the way of border security and things like that. However, as Conservatives, we played our role as opposition, and we did so very clearly.

We took issue, and people will notice that the matters with which we took issue are not matters in Bill C-12. I take great pride in what we have done, because that is what an opposition does. An opposition scrutinizes, considers and opposes, when and where it is appropriate to oppose.

Lo and behold, part 4, which speaks about the inspection of mail, is no longer in Bill C-12; it remains languishing in Bill C-2. It is by no coincidence that occurred, because we as Conservatives consistently raised the plain language in Bill C-2, which I think I will quote again:

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

Then it goes on to the regulations.

What other things are missing? Conservatives raised substantial questions about privacy concerns, parts 14 and 15, what is colloquially called lawful access. People have said I should know about the R v. Bykovets decision. I do know about the Bykovets decision very well. I think I was still practising law when it came out. That decision said there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in an IP address. As parliamentarians, we have to remedy the problem.

We have actually seen that when the Liberals want to remedy an untenable decision for the House, they have no problem doing it quickly. I will note that they have failed to do that on the issue of bail. There were three or four decisions on bail that they actually codified. That means they took the language from the decision and put it into legislation. They did not push back on it. Section 33.1, the defence of extreme intoxication, was struck out. There was legislation before the House within weeks of that happening.

The Liberals did not want a law on the books. They did not want a lack of law that said that extreme intoxication is an excuse for a general intent offence, that is, when someone does not legally have the ability to commit the offence. I believe it goes to the actus reus defence, but it has been a while. In any event, the Liberals responded with legislation very quickly.

The Liberals did not really care so much about bail, but now they say they are tough on crime. This is after former ministers of justice Virani and Lametti stood just across the aisle in the House to tell us there is no problem with bail. The Liberals have no problem responding when it is consistent with their agenda.

In Bill C-12, what the Liberals will not acknowledge is that it was robust opposition that led to elements that should be debated in Bill C-2's forming Bill C-12, as well as other very questionable issues in Bill C-2's remaining in Bill C-2. It also begs this question: What is going to happen in Bill C-2?

Perhaps we can have another debate on Bill C-2, and the member for Winnipeg North can stand up and speak about warrantless searches of mail. The Liberals could also discuss cash transactions, how much money should be permitted, and whether we should actually be telling Canadians how much cash they can or cannot use.

I just want to pause to acknowledge somebody who has done tremendous work when it comes to democracy and participating in democracy. That person is named Dawson McKay. He is a Crown prosecutor in British Columbia. I admire his passion for the rule of law and what is right, and I want to thank him for his contributions to democracy. He is somebody with a deep conscience, a deep desire to do what is right. I thank him for his work.

I would also like to thank somebody else, another prosecutor, Alex Wheele. He works out of the Kamloops Crown counsel office in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. He is somebody I had the pleasure of meeting when he was in law school and was just thinking about becoming a prosecutor, and we spoke. I taught his now wife in the faculty of business back then. I am very proud to call Alex a friend. I am so grateful for his work in contributing to democracy. I am also proud of his work in contributing to public safety. I want to recognize that formally in the House of Commons.

We have spoken about the mail provisions, and we have spoken about Bill C-2 generally and how we got here. Now let us focus on Bill C-12, what is in it and what is not.

I know that my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman will be giving a speech today. I am sure he will give it with his characteristic zeal and great detail, as he is so often known for in the House.

What is not in Bill C-12? There is no mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers. I believe we heard from the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime that the Liberals are “tough on crime”. That was actually said in the House. Really? Apparently, now the Liberals are going to come out with legislation. We have not even seen the legislation yet, but we are being told that we should support it. I would think the House would support a bill on intimate-partner violence, but that remains to be seen.

I am told the legislation has good stuff in it and speaks about sex offences and people who committee sex offences no longer getting house arrest. I have probably raised this issue 15 times in the House, and the Liberals have openly mocked our views when it comes to justice. I actually raised this issue with the minister of justice at one time, and I heard, “Do not worry. When somebody commits a serious crime, they will get serious time.” What happened to the mentality of trusting judges? The Liberals told us we should trust judges; they are appointed. Now they say, “Wait a minute. There is no more house arrest for sex offences.” They do not trust judges any more; they are tough on crime. It is something they mocked us for. I am worried that I am going to wake up with a stiff neck tomorrow based on the whiplash I am getting from the government, which is now tough on crime.

What else do we not have in the bill? There is no mandatory prison time for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes. A person can get house arrest for a drive-by shooting. What is worse is that this was not the court's doing; it was the Liberals' doing. For Bill C-5, Mr. Lametti, then a minister, said he did not think that somebody had to go to jail for popping off a couple of shots into a bar after having a couple of pops.

Intending to discharge a gun, if done in a car, is called a drive-by shooting. If it is done otherwise, it is a called a shooting with intent. There used to be a four-year mandatory minimum, which was constitutionally upheld in a case called Oud, I might add, for the Liberals who say that everything was always struck down under the Conservatives. However, it went from a four-year sentence to potentially house arrest. Now the Liberals are tough on crime, but not tough enough to put this into an omnibus bill to keep us all safe.

The Liberals have created what I would call a porous border, and that porous border is allowing firearms to get in like never before. What should we be doing? People will say to me that denunciation and deterrence do not work. They have been our sentencing principles in the Criminal Code from time immemorial, but they will say they do not work. I am starting to have serious questions about the fact that people can repeatedly commit crimes and believe they are untouchable. I saw this happen on so many occasions in my employment before I was blessed to be present in the House. When we let somebody operate with impunity when it comes to the criminal law, we will invariably have an outcome that they repeat the behaviour, because they have learned that there will be no consequences from it. Bill C-12 is silent on that.

I hope the Liberals will give credit where credit is due as to how Bill C-12 came here. We will scrutinize this legislation and we will go from there.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives try to give the impression that whether someone is a letter carrier or a mail organizer for Canada Post, they are going to start opening the letters of Canadians. I find that amazing.

I am going to sidestep that particular issue because we see a more serious issue from over the last number of days. The leader of the Conservative Party made very serious statements against the RCMP at the highest level. I think the member would agree with me that the RCMP is recognized around the world as a first-class institution. When his leader starts providing the types of comments he has put on the record, false comments, at the end of the day he is displaying a great deal of disrespect for the RCMP.

I am wondering if the shadow minister would agree that the leader of the Conservative Party crossed the line when he said that the RCMP is “despicable”. I think Canadians need to hear what the member has to say about the comments his leader made. Does he support those comments?