House of Commons Hansard #22 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-2.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act First reading of Bill C-219. The bill, titled the Sergei Magnitsky international anti-corruption and human rights act, strengthens Canada's sanctions regime, amends acts to combat transnational repression, and revokes broadcasting licences from sanctioned regimes and those committing genocide. 600 words.

Charitable Organizations Members present petitions opposing finance committee recommendations to revoke charitable status for pro-life organizations and remove "advancement of religion" as a charitable purpose, citing concerns about free speech and religious freedom. 500 words.

Strong Borders Act Second reading of Bill C-2. The bill aims to strengthen border security, combat organized crime, fentanyl trafficking, and auto theft, and protect the immigration system. It proposes expanding law enforcement powers, including accessing private information and inspecting mail, and limiting cash transactions. Liberals defend these measures as necessary and Charter-compliant. Conservatives and NDP/Green members criticize the bill as government overreach, an attack on civil liberties, and for lacking essential bail reform. The Bloc cautiously supports it, emphasizing the need for more border staff and fair asylum seeker distribution. 56200 words, 7 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives criticize the government's doubled deficit and its impact on soaring food prices, which has led to a 400% increase in food bank use. They also question the $13-billion housing bureaucracy creating costly homes and the ballooning costs of the asylum system.
The Liberals focus on building the strongest economy in the G7 through generational investments. They address the cost of living by cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians, eliminating the consumer carbon tax, and lowering internet prices. They highlight efforts in affordable housing via "build Canada homes", reducing immigration targets, and supporting programs like dental care and the national school food program.
The Bloc criticizes the government's handling of US trade, citing the Prime Minister's disrespectful attitude towards the administration. They also condemn a partisan judicial appointment for a judge who opposes Quebec's laws despite lacking experience.
The NDP criticizes the government's use of Section 107 to end the Air Canada strike, calling it an attack on workers' rights and collective bargaining. They also raise concerns about parliamentary decorum and the removal of visitors protesting unpaid work from the gallery.
The Greens question a $24-billion federal contract to nuclear weapons partners, demanding a national security review.

Adjournment Debates

Youth unemployment rate Garnett Genuis highlights rising youth unemployment and blames Liberal policies, calling for a plan to reverse failures. Annie Koutrakis defends the Canada Summer Jobs program and other initiatives, arguing they equip youth with skills. Genuis argues that subsidies can't fix a bad economy.
Rising extortion in Canada Brad Vis raises the issue of rising extortion cases in Canada and accuses the Liberals of being soft on crime. Patricia Lattanzio acknowledges the growing problem, highlights existing penalties, and says the government is committed to tougher sentencing and investments in prevention and law enforcement.
Interprovincial trade barriers Philip Lawrence accuses the government of breaking its promise to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers by Canada Day, calling it a "bait-and-switch." Mike Kelloway defends the government's actions, citing the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and collaboration with provinces and territories.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois's status of women critic, I was obviously paying close attention to the part of my colleague's speech where she talked about violence against women.

We have been hearing about this since this morning. We are talking about it, but the reality is solving this issue will require multiple solutions, including shelters that can help women escape the cycle of violence. My colleague talked about how poverty traps women in a cycle of violence. Being able to offer them housing is essential and important for getting them out of this cycle.

This summer, we heard that the federal government was holding back funds for CMHC, which meant shelter projects were delayed. Would my colleague agree that we should ensure that funds earmarked for shelters are transferred so that these projects can be implemented?

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, a day does not go by in our communities when we are not faced with sad stories and difficult situations, and I agree that things need to change. The bill in particular is an attack on women who cannot escape homes without access to and sometimes hiding away large amounts of cash in order to escape. I will add here that it is a good time to mention the wonderful community organizations in Oshawa that support women and folks with intimate partner violence and who shelter them, including The Denise House. I thank them.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments from my colleague, because over and over again in my mind, I ask why Canadians are so apprehensive as to the intent of the government with the bill before us. The truth of the matter is that they are very concerned about their privacies, and rightly so.

The member mentioned already the abuse of Canadians' rights and freedoms when the warrantless surveillance by the government, along with its use of the banks as a third party, froze everyday Canadians' bank accounts, which put the element of mistrust in the government at a whole new level. I would like her comments on that and how in the world the government could expect that a bill of this size and magnitude, with so many good things mixed in with those that are not, could be something Canadians would give the government the opportunity to regain trust with.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do think the majority of Canadians struggle with trusting the current government with their life. From those to whom much is given, much shall be required. History has shown that the Liberal government will always take advantage of its powers and will take away the rights of law-abiding Canadians, and this is something that concerns us all greatly on this side of the House. It seems some of the NDP members have expressed some of the same concerns, and I am happy to hear that. I hope we will, on that point, stand together.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about lawful access in sharing information. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police actually supports it. Does she support the chiefs of police statement in support of that aspect of the legislation?

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of our police services and our police associations, and I support all of the things that they need. I can say that what they are talking about most is bail reform. That is their biggest concern today.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you again and to speak to Bill C-2, a large, complex bill that covers several aspects related to border security, the fight against organized crime, illegal financing and, above all, immigration and IRCC. I may elaborate on that later.

It is no secret. As my colleagues from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon and Lac-Saint-Jean indicated, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading, but it will do so cautiously, as always.

As members may recall, the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for better border control. My former colleague Kristina Michaud asked many questions on the matter, particularly about auto theft, fentanyl trafficking and money laundering. The Bloc Québécois did not wait until pressure started coming from the Trump administration before raising concerns here in the House that line up with the considerations in this bill.

In some ways, this bill represents major progress. However, it is a massive bill, and it includes new powers that could alarm civil rights advocates. I think that was mentioned quite a bit this morning. That is why the committee will have to be diligent and flesh out certain things. I trust my colleagues will do just that.

However, one major point still needs to be addressed: the understaffing at the Canada Border Services Agency and at the RCMP. The government seems to be in austerity mode, so I look forward to seeing what solutions will be proposed for this.

I would like to add some points regarding the issue of immigration and IRCC. Parts 6 to 9 of the bill include proposals that go hand in hand with questions that have been asked by the Bloc Québécois. I think that it is important to highlight this because partisan politics has often been used as an excuse in the House. Whenever members of the Bloc Québécois would raise immigration issues, both Conservatives and Liberals would say that the Bloc Québécois was using the immigration debate for partisan purposes. I will come back to this point because the past few weeks have shown what can happen when the immigration debate is used for partisan purposes.

I will not dwell at much length on the Leader of the Opposition's somewhat inappropriate outburst concerning temporary foreign workers. I can assure people that, where I come from, Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, his words created quite a stir because a lot of manufacturing companies depend primarily on temporary foreign workers for their survival. With so much talk about immigration at the moment, many members of society have come under its influence and have adopted a rather narrow outlook on the problems that affect us. We have to differentiate between essential temporary foreign workers in certain sectors, and others who may be less essential in other sectors. Realities in the regions may differ from the realities facing large urban centres.

We have to make a distinction there, but we also have to distinguish between the different types of immigration. Asylum seekers do not have the same status as temporary foreign workers. What has harmed Quebec in recent years is the considerable influx of asylum seekers. That has put pressure on public services, housing, health care services, education and so on. When the Bloc Québécois raised those issues in the last Parliament, I think the government was less attentive.

For that reason, I would like us to debate the issue of immigration a little more calmly in the coming months or weeks. From what I have seen since 2019, though, it seems unlikely.

What have we been talking about since 2019? I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois spoke out many times against what was happening at Roxham Road, against the Century Initiative and against an immigration system that, in my opinion, is broken and in crisis. Our constituency offices have practically become Service Canada offices. That is the reality for Bloc Québécois members, but I imagine the same is true for Conservative and Liberal members. We are making up for the shortcomings of the citizenship and immigration system.

I say that because I find that there are some potentially worthwhile solutions in Bill C‑2. Part 6, which seeks to share information with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, could address some of the problems we have experienced.

Just today, my colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères asked the Minister of Transport to launch an investigation into the notorious Driver Inc. issue. I am not exactly sure how these drivers are referred to, but they are temporary foreign workers who apply for a bulk transport licence without necessarily meeting all the conditions. As we saw in the media not too long ago, they have caused accidents that turned fatal. Perhaps it is because they do not follow all the road safety rules, they do not follow all the rules related to logbook entries and they do not have safe and healthy work equipment. Perhaps that is something that should be studied as part of this bill. I know that my colleague for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères already has documentation on that. Perhaps that is something that could be addressed in committee.

There is also all the work that will be done on reviewing asylum claims. I am thinking of part 7 in particular. I do not know whether my colleagues have seen this in their ridings, but, in mine, we have a serious problem with temporary foreign students. A whole host of temporary foreign students arrived in Quebec with fake acceptance letters, which enabled them to file asylum claims. What have been the consequences of that? I will talk about what we experienced in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean in particular. This has put an enormous amount of pressure on universities and colleges. In recent years, they have had to deal with many applications, some of which were quite far-fetched, without any support from the federal government.

I will just mention the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi. French foreign students fall under the memorandum of agreement, so they do not pose a problem. However, there have been disastrous cases where these students' applications were delayed because of the difficult situation involving foreign students who are arriving in the country to make asylum claims.

I welcome this element of Bill C‑2. It could help restore the reputation of our universities, which was damaged this summer. Universities jump through many hoops to recruit foreign students. It is a very competitive environment. In my riding of Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi had a strategy in place for the past 20 years to be a welcoming place for foreign students. Unfortunately for the university, the excellent reputation it had built up was ruined—and I mean that—due to an inadequate response from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I can say that this inadequate response is not unrelated to the fact that we did not have better legislation to regulate students who apply and come here on false pretenses.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I can appreciate is that members, particularly from the Bloc, understand that there are aspects of the legislation that would be good to see advanced, which is really encouraging to see, but before we can get to the committee stage, we have to finish the debate that is taking place here. We have to at least be aware of that.

Would the member not agree that there are many different stakeholders? I cited one in my last question, which is the chiefs of police. There are certain aspects of the legislation for which they are very supportive.

A good way to continue the debate and make those potential amendments would be by seeing it go to committee. Can the member provide his thoughts on the important role that standing committees also play at the House?

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is rare for me to agree with the member for Winnipeg North. The parliamentary session is off to a very good start.

I think we need to continue the work. However, the message I would have liked people to take away from my speech is that sometimes, politically, there needs to be an adult in the room. In the past, in the House, when we have talked about immigration, we have been accused left, right and centre of politicizing an issue for ideological reasons.

What makes me laugh a bit is that, when the Bloc Québécois members were talking today about what is in this bill, including parts 7 and 8 on illegal border crossers, that same member for Winnipeg North rose to say that we were fearmongering.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, especially the part where he talked about the services we need to provide to our constituents in relation to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, that is, gathering information about people who come to our offices looking for information about their immigration status, temporary foreign worker status or other status.

Does my colleague think that the government should assign even more people to work in our offices so that we can respond more quickly to our constituents? We have waiting lists that are sometimes extremely long.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like we agree. My colleague is absolutely right. The majority of MPs in the House, who want to do their job properly, are overwhelmed by highly complex IRCC-related requests.

The result is that everyone is frustrated. People come to our offices hoping to find solutions because, the truth is, the immigration system is broken. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get someone on the line. The people in our offices are having a hard time talking to anyone.

I agree with my colleague on this point. The responsibility lies entirely at the government's feet. Unfortunately, it does not seem to fully appreciate the scale of the immigration crisis that Canada and Quebec are currently facing.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Jonquière on his speech. I also thank him for referring to some of the issues I am currently working on.

I would like to ask him a question in relation to Bill C‑2.

My colleague referred to the immigration crisis. I think that he is absolutely right. It really is a crisis. Everyone is talking about it, and we see it in our offices. Can he tell us more about the impact this is having on our resources in Quebec and also talk to us about the unfair distribution of refugee claimants across the country? Is there anything in Bill C‑2 that would solve this crisis?

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Unfortunately, I do not think that Bill C‑2 does anything to address how unfairly Quebec has been treated.

Quebec had to foot the bill to take in more than its share of asylum seekers, which put pressure on the health and education systems and the housing supply, as we have said here many times. This whole crisis may have been caused by the previous government and its Century Initiative.

In my opinion, this bill seeks to fix problems that the Liberal government itself created. However, the problem that the bill does not fix is that of fairness to the Government of Quebec, which paid more than its fair share as a result of mistakes made by the federal government.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Dawson Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back. I want to welcome you and all our colleagues back for another session.

I am pleased to have spent the summer back home in my constituency, Miramichi—Grand Lake. I spent the past few months connecting with friends, neighbours and constituents and listening to their concerns. Just last week I attended a standing-room-only public meeting called by the downtown Newcastle Business District in response to a public safety crisis in the heart of our small town. The situation in downtown Newcastle is an emergency. Anyone who attended the meeting recognizes that. All one has to do is take a drive through our community to see it. However, the emergency in Newcastle is not one of a kind.

From speaking with and listening to my colleagues here in the House, I know nearly every community across this country faces the same serious challenges. There is a very real public safety crisis in our communities and across this nation: drug use and addiction, crime and vandalism, aggressive behaviour and harassment, and home invasions. A good many Canadians do not feel safe walking the streets, and they do not even feel safe at home with their doors locked.

I would hope that no member of this House thinks that this is a well-done job. I would hope that we can all agree that something needs to change. However, the Liberal government would like Canadians to rest easy. The government was re-elected on promises to axe the carbon tax and negotiate a trade deal with the Prime Minister's good friend Donald Trump, but it has done neither. From where I am standing, it does not look like the Liberals have a real plan to honour their promises to Canadians.

What is the Liberal Party's solution to the public safety crisis in this country? It wants to make it harder for people to get money from a bank machine and easier for the government to open people's mail.

Bill C-2 would do little to address the very real problems facing our nation, but it would get the government recognition with the World Economic Forum. Tone-deaf does not even begin to describe it. It is no wonder that the Liberal government has failed to get a trade deal with our largest and best trading partner, the United States. The Liberal government has not addressed the very legitimate concerns that the U.S. government has raised over crime in this country and its export across our border to the United States. It is in this bill, in black and white: The Liberal government's response to the flow of illegal drugs and weapons across our border is to make it easier, more streamlined, for asylum seekers to enter the United States and avoid the proper means of legitimate immigration. The bill would even provide asylum seekers with government support to navigate our system.

The bill would go on to allow government to keep a closer eye on our internet search history. For 10 years now, Conservatives have warned that Liberal soft-on-crime policies put Canadians in danger. We warned that fentanyl would rip through our towns; the Liberals did not listen. Now crime is up, drug deaths are up, and the Liberals are doubling down. This is one Canadian who is starting to think that when it comes to the complex challenges faced by our country, the Prime Minister does not even know whether to sit or wind his watch. I have to wonder whether the government does not know what it is doing or knows exactly what it is doing.

It is becoming more difficult to give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt. Are they making well-intentioned bad decisions? Could they make this many bad decisions in a row, or does the bill reveal the vile contempt that the urban elite have for hard-working rural Canadians? The same contempt, voiced by Ruth Marshall from the University of Toronto last week, blocked this House from observing a moment of silence for a young father murdered in Utah last week for believing in God and encouraging others to do the same.

In June, the Liberals rushed this bill into the House and dressed it up with a tough name, the “strong borders act”. The name is strong, but the bill is not. It is weak where it must be strong, and even worse, it is heavy-handed where it ought to respect the freedom of ordinary Canadians. Conservatives believe in real law and order, common-sense law and order, and that is why we oppose the bill. We will back any measure that truly stops drugs, guns and violence from infecting our communities, but I will not support legislation that would unnecessarily trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Where is bail reform? The bill would do nothing to stop the catch and release of criminals in our communities. I can say what my constituents think. In Renous, Doaktown, Nauwigewauk, Chipman or Minto, if someone sells poison to our kids, they belong behind bars or in the ground. If the government does not quickly address the crisis situation, things will only get worse.

There are no mandatory jail terms for fentanyl traffickers in this bill, no new mandatory sentences for criminals who use guns. The bill does not demonstrate strength; it embraces weakness. While it would fail to get tough on real criminals, it would reach too far into the lives of ordinary people. It would let government agencies open our mail. It would force Internet companies to hand over our Google search engine results without a warrant. It would even take aim at the cash in our pockets.

Canadians need to know that Conservatives believe in the free market. Cash means choice, and choice means freedom. It is not for Ottawa to decide how a grandmother in Red Bank buys her groceries, but this is how the Liberal government works. It is why I was elected by my constituents, so that I would speak about it in the House. The Liberal government ignores a problem until it explodes; then, instead of a simple fix directed at the problem, it uses legislative tricks to further a globalist agenda at the expense of Canadians' freedoms.

To my mind, the bill is just more of the downtown Toronto crowd telling rural Canadians how to live, without the faintest idea of life where a handshake is still a deal and a man is measured by his word. I, for one, will not support the bill. I will fight for a Canada that is safe and free, and it does appear that I have a fight on my hands. I believe that criminals should face real consequences and that law-abiding people should keep the freedoms that our grandfathers fought and died for on beaches.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the comments that my colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned around co-operation and making sure that we are listening to our constituents and the people who sent us to the House.

The hon. member mentioned earlier that we promised Canadians we were going to remove the carbon tax, and he said that we did not. That is misleading, and that is not co-operation. Canadian voters, including Conservative voters, want us to co-operate. They want the House to function for the business of Canadians.

Can the member comment on how he is going to commit to making sure that we move on the things that Canadians sent us to do in the House?

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Dawson Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB

Mr. Speaker, it is no small wonder that the crisis in our communities and across our nation is getting worse. I mentioned last week that there was an emergency meeting in my riding called by the downtown Newcastle Business District. In addition to myself were provincial members, the mayor and the chief of police.

No one in the crowd or on the stage suggested that if the government could just search our Internet history, the crisis would improve. No one suggested that if anyone had less cash in their pockets, there would be less drugs on the street. The government is so blind to its own ideology and agenda that it is punishing law-abiding Canadians and doing nothing that is actually required to fix the problems that have been broken for a decade of the Liberal agenda.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I have a question for him.

I was a bit taken aback during the spring parliamentary session. We were used to the Conservatives being hyper aggressive all the time, raring for a fight, when suddenly they became the muscle for the Liberal government in the context of Bill C‑5. Closure was imposed and we barely had any time to study the bill in committee. Today, all sorts of developments and consequences have come out of adopting Bill C‑5, which has become law.

Can my colleague tell me wether the Conservatives plan a repeat of what they did with Bill C‑5 or are they thinking of following the Bloc Québécois's lead and acting like responsible parliamentarians who properly study bills that fundamentally change our society, before working for the Liberals?

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Dawson Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have laid out real solutions. We do not need to hire a team of university professors to sort this out. All the Liberals need to do is listen and dig the dirt out of their ears; hire thousands more border agents and give CBSA power to patrol our entire border, not just official crossings; install high-powered scanners at every crossing and shipping port to catch drugs, guns and stolen cars before they ever reach the streets; track who leaves the country so deportees cannot simply disappear; end catch-and-release bail and house arrest for violent offenders and scrap the so-called multi-murder discount in sentencing; and do it all while protecting the privacy and freedoms of everyday Canadians.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to give a shout-out to someone who has given me a great deal of help, and that is George Marko. I thank George for everything.

To my hon. colleague, one thing I have been struck by is that the Liberals seem to be tripping over their own agenda. They say they want to strengthen our border, and then they put all of these superfluous things in the bill, things that do not seem to be constitutional or, at least, are marginal at best.

I wonder if my colleague would agree that if the Liberals really wanted to get something done quickly, they would look at what is reasonable, balancing law and order and balancing human rights, civil rights, as our charter guarantees.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Dawson Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB

Mr. Speaker, we will back any part of this bill that would truly protect our borders and help police officers do their jobs, but we will not sign a blank cheque for a government that confuses heavy-handed intrusion with real security. Safety without freedom is not safety at all.

Common sense says we can keep our borders tight and our streets safe without Ottawa dictating how to pay for our groceries and at the farmers' market. This is common sense. If the Liberals do not understand it, then they can hold my beer and let us get to work.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of misleading information. We listen to Conservatives, and they give us the impression that letter carriers could walk around and start opening up Canadians' mail; it is just not true through this legislation. This is not true. In fact, there would be a requirement to get a warrant.

It would deal with mailing fentanyl to communities. Is that not a good thing?

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Dawson Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB

Mr. Speaker, where is it in the legislation? It says “suspicious”; suspicious is an open-ended word, without a warrant. It makes no sense.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Mr. Speaker, when I look across Saskatoon West, past the shopfronts along 22nd Street, and the family homes and small businesses that built the west end of Saskatoon, I see the real cost of 10 years of Liberal failures on crime, drugs and immigration. The government broke these systems, and Bill C-2 is its frantic omnibus attempt to look tough at a podium while ducking accountability at home. It stuffed sweeping surveillance powers in a de facto war on cash into a border bill, then dares ordinary people to swallow the lot. That might work for Ottawa insiders, but it does not work for folks in Confederation Park, Meadowgreen, Mount Royal, Montgomery Place and every neighbourhood in Saskatoon West that wants safe streets and a fair shot.

Let us start where my constituents live today, with local safety. In our city, there were 13 homicides in 2023, 14 in 2024, and by Labour Day this year, only two-thirds of the way through the year, there were already six people slain. Those are not statistics. They are families reeling and a community on edge. Assaults are up this year. Sexual assaults and violations are up. Most alarming is that there have been 818 weapons charges brought forward in the first eight months of this year. These are not isolated spikes. They reflect a Saskatchewan trend line that has gone the wrong way under a Liberal government.

Since 2015, violent firearms offences in Saskatchewan are up 206%. Extortion is up over 600%. Even motor vehicle theft is higher than it was. These crimes, more often than not, are committed by repeat offenders out on bail or who have had their sentences severely reduced.

Saskatoon police chief McBride summed it up this way. He said, “all of the intervention work that police tried to accomplish through holding them accountable, utilizing legislation is for naught...it is a struggle every day for us with repeat offenders.”

That is what families in Saskatoon West feel every day, in their communities, in their driveways and outside their corner stores. They feel that, whatever happens, the revolving door of criminals will keep going due to the Liberals' soft-on-crime agenda.

While we fight to keep our streets safe, the opioid disaster continues to devastate our province. The Saskatchewan Coroners Service recorded eight deaths by fentanyl poisoning in 2016. That number peaked at 272 in 2021 and was still 252 in 2023. However, last year, it spiked again to 383 deaths, making it a record year, even outstripping the COVID years. What has it been over the first eight months of 2025? It is a whopping 330 deaths already, well on pace to have the most deaths in the history of our province. These numbers are not elsewhere or in theory. They are our neighbours, our coworkers and our kids. If members want a picture of what Ottawa's failed approach looks like on the ground, they can find Health Canada safe supply warnings taped outside a pharmacy on 22nd Street right in our riding. That is how close the crisis is.

There is hope. The solutions are obvious by now: repeal Bills C-5 and C-75 to ensure repeat offenders get jail and not bail and focus our care on a recovery model rather than on keeping people in a perpetual state of addiction. Is that what we are debating today? Sadly, it is not.

What exactly is Bill C-2? The bill has elements to improve border tools, such as compelling export-side co-operation with CBSA, authorizing security patrols and improving interdiction of contraband in the mail. Conservatives can work with that. We all want to stop guns, drugs and stolen cars, but the bill also veers into bundled surveillance powers, a cash crackdown and a political rewrite of asylum rules. Bill C-2 slaps on a blanket cap for cash transactions over $10,000 without offering evidence for why a federal ban, rather than record-keeping, is needed. In Saskatoon West, seniors, small contractors and family-run shops still use cash for perfectly legitimate reasons. Yes, there are abuses of cash transactions as well, but instead of banning cash, we need better tools to stop crimes with cash. Otherwise, the government's overreach will hit hardest on the little guy in places like Saskatoon.

Then there is the privacy hit. The bill would create new pathways for information demands and cross-border data grabs, lowering thresholds for access to subscriber and transmission data. The Supreme Court has recognized a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information and IP addresses, yet the government buries a workaround in a border bill and tells Saskatoon families to trust it. This legislation would create a warrantless runaround for the police to invade our fibre optic networks, something the Liberals hid deep in this 140-page omnibus bill.

Regarding immigration, the Liberals broke a system that used to work. Canada's system was the envy of the world. Countries would come to Canada to see our system so they might implement it in their own countries. In the last 10 years, the Liberal government has broken almost our entire immigration system to the point where those people are no longer coming to see how we do it, but rather how not to do it, so they do not wreck their own.

This, of course, is not the fault of immigrants. Immigrants just used the system that was given to them. This was purely the government's fault. The good news is that it can be fixed, and we know how to fix it.

The Liberals did not think that there should be limits on temporary residents, and guess what. The number of temporary residents exploded to over three million people, nearly 7.5% of our total population. This rapid uncontrolled population growth has led to obvious shortages in housing and jobs, and put enormous strains on our health care and education systems.

Employers turned the temporary foreign worker program into a wage suppression crutch. It was supposed to be for hard-to-fill agricultural jobs, but it ballooned into restaurants, hotels and just about everywhere else. We propose restoring it back to an ag-only policy because, in the first six months of this year alone, the Liberals issued 105,000 temporary foreign worker permits, despite promising a cap of 82,000, which flooded entry-level markets while Saskatoon students struggled to find summer jobs.

That is not compassion. It is a policy that leaves local youth and newcomers alike worse off. Folks in Saskatoon West feel this on both ends. Employers are begging for skilled trades and reliable workers, while at the same time, high school grads and polytechnic students in Saskatoon West tell me that they cannot get their first job, because Liberals allowed a temporary program to become a permanent substitute for Canadian labour. That is on this government.

Let me be clear about what Bill C-2 misses and what Saskatoon West needs.

The first issue is bail and sentencing. The Liberals' catch-and-release approach failed. They repealed mandatory prison time for serious gun crimes and drug trafficking, and instead expanded house arrest for offences such as sexual assault and kidnapping. Instead of jail for serious offences, criminals are told to stay at home. How often can police check up on criminals at home? We can bet that these thugs are coming and going as normal while they serve out their sentences. The results are obvious in the stats and on our streets. It is time to bring back jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders and restore mandatory prison times for the worst crimes.

The second big issue is fentanyl. Bill C-2 tweaks the current law around drug precursors, which is fine, but it does nothing about the cartel-level producers and traffickers who treat Canadian penalties as just the cost of doing business. Common-sense Conservatives will propose targeted constitutional life sentence provisions for those producing or trafficking fentanyl. That is what a real deterrent looks like, and that is what Saskatoon West deserves.

The third issue is border competence without civil liberties overreach. We must upgrade scanners at crossings and ports, extend CBSA powers along the entire border and track departures so that deportees do not disappear. These are real tools that would have real results, all while protecting the privacy rights of law-abiding Saskatoon families and small businesses.

Here are our common-sense solutions to deal with these issues. One is to fix the border and implement border and enforcement tools that actually help CBSA but stay away from the surveillance back doors and cash bans.

Two is to have jail and not bail to end the catch-and-release for repeat violent offenders, restore mandatory prison for serious gun and hard drug crimes and end house arrest for violent offences. Our community deserves nothing less.

Three is to hammer fentanyl kingpins with life sentences for organized crime production and trafficking with a clear 40 milligram trafficking threshold. We need to flood the zone with treatment and recovery, not failed safe supply experiments.

Last, we must secure fair immigration that puts Canadians first and ends the wage-suppressing temporary foreign worker scheme while keeping a narrowly focused agricultural stream. We need to clear the backlogs and put Saskatoon youth and Canadian workers first in line for Canadian jobs.

The government will say that Bill C-2 is about strong borders, but for people in Saskatoon West, strong borders mean less fentanyl on our streets, not more surveillance in their inbox; more CBSA capacity, not more Ottawa control over family finances; and an immigration system that works for Canada, not for corporate lobbyists and political theatre in Washington.

I like some elements of Bill C-2, which are basically the elements through which the Liberals are trying desperately to undo the ideas that they themselves implemented. However, the bill is a large omnibus bill that includes typical Liberal overreach that I cannot support. I want to see immediate help for the front lines, the CBSA officers, Saskatoon police and community safety partners, while I fight the government's overreach and demand real sentencing reform.

At the end of the day, my job is to deliver for families along 22nd Street, for the seniors in Montgomery, for the small shops, churches and little league teams all across Saskatoon, and that means a Conservative government that will strengthen our borders, protect civil liberties, destroy the scourge of fentanyl and keep our streets safe by keeping criminals in jail. We can make that happen.

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the member spent a good deal of his time talking about an issue that was part of the Liberal Party's platform. During the election, just five months ago, we got a new Prime Minister. We had more new Liberal MPs elected than MPs for any other political party in the House. At the end of the day, we have accomplished a great deal over the last five months, including tax breaks, building one Canadian economy, and so forth. Bail legislation was also part of our platform, and the Prime Minister has been very clear in that he will be introducing the legislation as early as this fall for at least a couple of parts of it.

Can we anticipate that the Conservative Party will co-operate in trying to get some of this legislation, whether it is on bail or today's bill, into a committee?

Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear that the Liberals are finally listening to what Canadians have been telling them for 10 years. However, we have seen over and over again a lot of talk and ideas, but the action is not there. Maybe they will introduce something, I do not know. We have not seen it. This is a pattern we have grown to become very used to on this side of the House over the last 10 years. I might note that most of the members on that side in positions of authority are the same. It is the same government with the same track record as before.

Conservatives are happy to work on anything that makes sense and that we can support, but I want to see some real action from the government.