Mr. Speaker, today, the House is debating Bill C-12, a reincarnation of Bill C-2. Bill C‑2 sparked a great deal of criticism regarding privacy rights, so the government was forced to go back and make revisions. It has returned with a new version of Bill C‑2, now called Bill C‑12.
The main difference we see is the removal of the controversial elements of Bill C‑2 involving invasion of privacy, most of which were found in part 4 of the bill. They would have allowed Canada Post and customs officers to open people's mail. These provisions drew heavy criticism.
Generally speaking, we in the Bloc Québécois were already open to working on Bill C‑2, sending it to committee, and working collaboratively on moving it forward. With Bill C‑12, we have even more reason to want to see this bill advance. We are keeping an open mind and are willing to work with all members of the House and with the witnesses who will testify in committee. I will not have the opportunity to sit on that committee, but I wish I could.
Without going into a comprehensive analysis of the bill, I will nonetheless raise a number of points that merit our attention. The first is part 1, which makes amendments to the Customs Act to expand customs officers' law enforcement powers, including access to facilities. It is that access to facilities that I wish to discuss.
Often, when CBSA officers inspect goods, they are goods coming into the country. Goods leaving the country, however, are usually not inspected, and this causes all sorts of problems, as the media recently reported. These include auto theft, a crime that is plaguing Ontario, Quebec and, presumably, the rest of Canada as well. Resources are an issue, of course, but there is also the matter of facilities for doing the work, especially in rail yards. If they want to pull a rail car out for examination, for example, they need a place to put it. There will now be an obligation to provide facilities so customs officers can do their job. Without facilities, without dedicated areas for the inspection of goods, this was becoming problematic.
One of the problems raised by customs officers was that they needed to get a warrant every time they wanted to open a container. The process was becoming difficult, complicated and time-consuming. The bill includes measures that would make it easier for them to open containers as needed and inspect the goods inside without the many authorizations required in the past. We see that as something positive.
However, this provision raises the challenge of resources. We can provide customs officers with all the extra authority, infrastructure and facilities we like, but if there are not enough officers to do the work, we have a problem. The Liberals, incidentally, made that promise during the last election campaign. They promised 1,000 more customs officers and 1,000 more RCMP officers. Although one of these two promises—the one concerning the RCMP—made its way into the Speech from the Throne, we are still waiting to see whether it had any tangible impact on RCMP staffing.
As for the CBSA, the wait continues.
Also, will the 1,000 additional employees mentioned in the government's election promise be enough? The answer is no. The Customs and Immigration Union says that 2,000 to 3,000 people are needed. The election promise covers one-third, and we do not even know whether the government is really going to try to keep the promise, because we have no indication that it is really going to give the CBSA what it needs to do a reasonable job.
We know that it takes resources to secure the borders and deal with illegal immigration, arms trafficking, drug trafficking and auto theft. Unfortunately, that is not in the bill, because bills do not prescribe the hiring of staff. If it could be done, however, perhaps it should be, to ensure that this government hires the necessary staff to do the work that needs to be done at our borders.
Another point that we would like to address with respect to this bill is part 4, which amends the Oceans Act to allow a minister other than the Minister of Fisheries to be responsible for the Coast Guard. Essentially, this would transfer the Coast Guard from the Department of Fisheries to the Department of National Defence. We completely agree with that. Transferring the Coast Guard to the Department of National Defence was actually in the Bloc Québécois's election platform.
From an accounting standpoint, it would make it possible to increase defence spending, enabling Canada to fulfill some of its commitments in that area and enhancing coordination between the two services. We know that the Coast Guard is not armed, and this occasionally limits its scope of intervention. Placing it under the Department of Defence would, at a minimum, enhance coordination and information sharing with the Department of Defence, particularly when it comes to interventions that require the presence of National Defence or individuals who are better equipped to face a possible threat. For that reason, we think part 4 is very positive.
I will now turn to part 7. Obviously, I will not go through all the sections. Part 7 of the bill grants more powers to immigration officers to suspend, vary or cancel a visa or document under conditions to be prescribed in regulations. Immigration officers will be given more powers to suspend or vary visas, but the details will be prescribed in regulations. That is all interesting, but we would have preferred to see more details. Bills always provide more certainty than regulations do. Governments always want to have more flexibility, but we do not necessarily agree. We will see how this goes.
The bill also adds an interesting provision that would allow the minister to personally suspend, refuse to process or cancel permanent or temporary resident visas, work permits, electronic travel authorizations or study permits.
We think that is quite interesting, because we know that there have been many allegations of fraud in relation to permits and visas. The problem is that if people obtained documents, visas or resident status fraudulently, we should not simply allow them to run loose without taking any action. We should not just say that now that they have a visa, there is nothing we can do. That is more or less what is happening now. With these kinds of powers, the minister will be able to share information with Public Safety and cancel these fraudulent visas and permits so that the government can take the kind of action that is long overdue. We applaud this step, though we wonder why it was not taken sooner.
We now turn to part 8, which is the most substantial part of the bill and the one that has got the most people talking. I think this is the part that will probably have the greatest impact. Part 8 addresses the Bloc Québécois's concerns regarding the safe third country agreement.
Under this agreement, a person wishing to claim asylum must do so in the first safe country they reach after leaving the country where they were in danger. However, we know that what often happened at Roxham Road was that people were leaving the United States and coming to Canada to file a claim for refugee protection because they believed that they had a better chance of being allowed to enter Canada or that they would receive better treatment in Canada. That led to a large influx of asylum seekers that Quebec had to take in, since Roxham Road is in Quebec.
We found that problematic because we felt that if someone were really in a life-threatening situation, they would not cherry-pick the country they want to settle in. They would go to the first country they could move to to be safe, and this is perfectly legitimate. We felt that this was a problem, but part 8 closes some loopholes. With the safe third country agreement, if a person could come to Canada and hide here for 14 days, they would not have to go back to the United States or another country and could file their claim in Canada.
The new measure in the bill means that people will be sent back to their country after the 14 days. That means it is in their best interest to turn themselves in to the authorities quickly rather than go into hiding. We see that as a fairly positive thing. For the first 14 days, a person caught during that period would simply be sent back to the United States. Obviously, Canada does not have extradition agreements with all countries. This would not apply in those cases. Furthermore, people whose lives are in danger could still report that.
Will this bill fix all the problems? No. Will it help solve some of them? Yes, absolutely. We wish the government had listened to us much sooner, because we know that Quebec—