Debates of Sept. 16th, 2025

Strong Borders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to put my question to one of my colleague's colleagues who spoke earlier. I did not get an answer, so I will repeat my question.

As I have said several times today, a disproportionate number of asylum seekers make their claims in Quebec, which puts a lot of pressure on our resources. We already have an immigration crisis and a housing crisis, but we also have a resource crisis. Unfortunately, the government has not yet taken meaningful action to ensure the fair distribution of asylum seekers.

I would like the Conservative Party's opinion. Should asylum seekers be distributed fairly among the provinces, or should Quebec alone take on these challenges and this burden?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. The most important thing we need to do as a country is to make sure that we have the best controls we can on asylum seekers so that we are not attracting people. Former prime minister Trudeau famously said that Canada was open and invited people to come to Canada. Guess what. People came. Of course they did.

It is really important that we make sure we have systems in place that can quickly process people and do not do things that unnecessarily draw people to Canada who should not be coming here because they have perfectly good places to live. Yes, we can handle real asylum seekers. We have a system that can absorb them, and they should be absorbed right across the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on another front, dealing with the issue of individuals in Canada, let us say, for an extended period of time on temporary visas, does the member have any thoughts of his own as to whether someone, for example, who has been here for over a year, would be able to claim refugee status if they were here visiting a student or whatever else it might be?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague bringing up the issue of temporary residence in Canada because this is a major issue right now in our country. The data from the member's own party shows that well over 7% of the population right now is temporary. This has been totally caused by the government's lack of attention to this area and its encouragement for people to come to Canada, with absolutely no oversight, no controls and no limits. Of course people came. People will use the system that is given to them and now, all of a sudden, we have a problem that the government is finally waking up to.

This is entirely the fault of the Liberal government, something that should have been completely preventable and should have allowed Canadians who live here to have access to health care, housing and jobs. That is something that has to be corrected, and the government is fully at fault for that.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 5, the RCMP seized over 120 grams of fentanyl, nearly 50 grams of methamphetamine, over 150 grams of crack cocaine and a loaded prohibited handgun in a family neighbourhood in my home of Campbell River. Police executed the search and seizure after a lengthy drug trafficking investigation. Inspector Jeff Preston, the officer in charge, said, “Campbell River is experiencing one of the highest rates of overdose deaths in the province and we’re doing everything we can to remove these toxic drugs from our streets.”

It is true that the RCMP in my riding is doing everything they can to remove dangerous drugs from our streets, but 10 years of Liberal governance has made it harder for the RCMP to do their job. Instead, the government has made it easier for drugs and illegal guns to be trafficked across the Canada-U.S. border, and it has emboldened criminals by entrenching Liberal catch-and-release revolving-door policies throughout Canada's justice system.

Today, this House is considering Bill C-2, a piece of legislation whose purpose the Liberal minister responsible has said is to, among other things, combat organized crime and fentanyl. That is an admirable goal and one that we as parliamentarians could all get behind. Unfortunately, however, this bill does not address the many reasons we have had such massive increases in violent crime and overdose deaths under the Liberal government over the past 10 years.

First is the issue of crime. Forget major cities like Vancouver or Toronto. Just in my riding, whether it is Campbell River, Powell River or Courtenay, every week there is a new story about someone being shot or stabbed, having to fend off a home invasion or having their business broken into. Crime is getting worse, and here are the facts to back that up. Since 2015, violent crime has increased by 50% and homicides have increased by 27%, 34% of which, by the way, were committed by a criminal on some sort of a release like bail.

We have to be clear. The dramatic increase we have seen in crime and disorder is not the result of a bill like Bill C-2 not yet being passed. Rather, it is due directly to legislation passed by the Liberals and supported by the NDP over the past decade. Legislation like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have reduced jail time for serious offenders and granted near-automatic bail for career criminals.

We have all heard the stories as a result of these policies about violent random offenders who are released from custody only to commit more violence on our streets. It is part of a tragic miscarriage of justice happening right across this country, but it hits a little differently when it happens in our own backyard.

Lewis Park is a popular gathering place for residents of the Comox Valley. Kids play in the water park, seniors go to classes at the community centre and, apparently, repeat violent offenders prey on an unsuspecting public. At least, that is the story of Serge Melancon, who came to Lewis Park with his wife, a 64-year-old double amputee, to use a handicap shower in the middle of the day during their road trip vacation.

As Serge was about to leave the driveway, there was a knock on his window. It was an unknown man who proceeded to concoct a story about why he needed to borrow Serge's phone, before suddenly opening the door to Serge's vehicle and punching him repeatedly in the head. The assault was so vicious and so unexpected that Serge was hardly able to fight back, sustaining injuries to his face. As Serge was dragged out of the car and lay on the ground, the assailant fled with his phone, and a crowd began to gather. The police then arrived on the scene, later identifying the attacker as Melvin Teagai, a trained boxer. Unsurprisingly, Serge was then told by police that the attacker was already known to them. In other words, he was a repeat violent offender.

Unfortunately, the story of Serge is one that is all too common in both big cities and small towns right across Canada. In fact, I have noticed that the only people who seem to be punished under the Liberal government are those who actually work for a living and follow the law. There is no better example than the law-abiding firearms owners who have been demonized and targeted by their own government, while at the same time the Liberals have reduced prison sentences for those convicted of illegally smuggling firearms across the border from the United States. It is the very same border, I might add, that they now claim they want to desperately secure.

The Liberals also claim they want to get tough on fentanyl and other illegal drugs with this bill. Well, let us look at their record on that.

Since 2015, more than 50,000 Canadians have died from drug overdoses in Canada. That is more Canadians dead than died in all of World War II. These are mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, and sons and daughters who have all had their lives tragically cut short.

What has the Liberals' policy been when it has come to deadly opioids like fentanyl that have wreaked so much havoc and caused so much death? First, in my province of B.C., the Liberals decriminalized hard drugs, including crystal meth, crack cocaine and, yes, even fentanyl. It is a policy that remains in place to this day, which means that at the same time that they are claiming they want to take the fentanyl situation seriously, which we all do, their own policy, which recklessly decriminalized that very drug, remains in place. The Liberals then used taxpayer money to flood the streets with a highly addictive and deadly opioid called hydromorphone, or Dilaudid, while marketing it to our young people as safe supply, all as part of their plan known as harm reduction. This bill would leave all of those policies in place as well.

They say the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. It is a phrase that I unfortunately have to use all too often with the current government. If we want to actually solve the addictions crisis and want to combat the scourge of fentanyl and other hard drugs, how about instead of handing them out for free, we use that money to get people into treatment and recovery and return them to being healthy, productive members of our society once again? For those who are trafficking these drugs, who are trafficking fentanyl, it is time we treat them like the mass murderers they are, with mandatory life sentences for those profiting off the death and misery of so many of our fellow Canadians. However, instead of dealing with these substantive issues, the Liberals are scrambling with an omnibus bill that would not only fall short of protecting Canadians, but infringe on their unassailable individual freedoms.

The Conservatives have always advocated for a secure border with greater investments, resources and personnel for the CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, so it can prevent the flow of illegal drugs and guns coming across the border into Canada. That is just common sense. We know that securing the border means an increased number of border agents, patrol equipment and enhanced security measures and technology.

The major concerns that I have with this bill, aside from the failure to address the real issues and the root problems driving the violent crime and addictions crises in this country, are surrounding privacy infringements involving the warrantless search of the mail of Canadians and digital government overreach.

First, Bill C-2 would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to permit the search, seizure, detention or retention of any post items and would empower Canada Post to open all mail. This is directly against Canadians' right to privacy and would allow Canada Post to open mail without proper oversight, while also removing, which is actually hard to believe, any liability from those who abuse this newly granted authority. Here is the truth: Canadians do not want government looking into their private parcels and letters. To permit such action would be a gross violation of the individual freedoms that all Canadians have come to expect.

This same pattern of erosion of civil liberties is repeated in parts 14, 15 and 16 of this legislation. Bill C-2 would allow the government to create back doors for government bodies to access the private data of Canadians, again without warrants. In Part 16, the bill opens the door for the government to supply financial institutions with personal information, and banks would be authorized to collect and use that personal information without an individual's knowledge or consent, all based merely on government suspicion. This is essentially the same power the government granted to itself using the Emergencies Act during the COVID-19 protests back in 2022, which it then proceeded to immediately and dangerously abuse.

All told, as it stands, Bill C-2 would accomplish virtually nothing on the major issues of crime and fentanyl, which it purports to address. The failed Liberal policies of Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and drug decriminalization would all remain in place, while new infringements on the individual freedoms of Canadians would be thoughtlessly introduced. As of today, Bill C-2 is a poorly written bill, and without significant changes and revisions, it would accomplish little toward the safety and security of Canadians, while further eroding the freedoms and privacy that Canadians hold dear.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of comments I take exception to, especially ones dealing with the issue of fentanyl that is put into envelopes and mailed out and the legal obligation for Canada Post to deliver that mail. To deal with drugs like fentanyl and how Canada Post is being utilized, we have put responsible clauses in the legislation that will in fact make a difference.

I would ultimately argue that the legislation as a whole has the merit to go to committee, where members opposite could evaluate it, debate it and propose amendments. Does the member believe there are aspects of the legislation he would support so we can ultimately see it go to a committee?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, on the issue of fentanyl, I find it a bit rich that the government is claiming these new infringements on the individual freedoms of Canadians are all about combatting the scourge of fentanyl in society. This is a government that funds the handing out of fentanyl for free. This is a government that decriminalized fentanyl in my home province of British Columbia. This is a government that has overseen the largest increase of overdose deaths in the history of this country. As I said in my opening remarks, it is more than 50,000 Canadians, more than the number of Canadians who died in the Second World War.

If we want to get tough on fentanyl, if we want to get tough on hard drugs in this country, we do not have to do it by infringing on the freedoms of Canadians. There are lots of different options for doing that. It is a large bill. Of course, there are elements in it that are good, but there is so much that is cause for concern.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been an advocate for getting hard drugs off the streets. He has been to my riding, to Fort St. John, to talk specifically about this really challenging issue for our communities in B.C.

The Liberal government is in its 11th year of governing this country. It has attacked law-abiding firearms owners on a regular basis, as the member mentioned. It has also allowed drugs to flow onto the streets, which, as he mentioned, have killed thousands of Canadians as a result of overdoses. Is the member confident that the Liberal government, in its 11th year of governing Canada, is about to change its ways?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am definitely not confident that the government is going to change its ways. As the member pointed out, it seems that under the Liberals, previously supported by the NDP, the only ones who ever get punished are those who actually work for a living, pay their taxes and follow the law.

As the member pointed out, law-abiding firearm owners are the perfect example of that. The government is using taxpayer money to confiscate the private property of these Canadians, who have never committed a crime and who are statistically some of the least likely Canadians to ever commit a crime, and is at the same time reducing sentences for those who are illegally smuggling firearms across the border from the United States. This is the very same border the government now claims it is so desperate to secure.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my first opportunity to address the new member for North Island—Powell River.

The Conservatives, who backed the Liberal measures through May and June, seem to have decided that now is the time to draw the line. I am glad it is on Bill C-2, because Bill C-2 should be completely withdrawn and rethought. I would like to ask the hon. member if he thinks the Conservative Party would ever again back a programming motion such as the one used on Bill C-5, which denied us a chance to properly study the bill.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to future legislation. We are going to look at these issues one by one. Obviously, with Bill C-2, we see very serious concerns, as it involves the infringement of the individual freedoms of all Canadians.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I rise in the House after the summer recess. As always, I want to thank the constituents of Niagara West for sending me to Ottawa to be their voice in this incredible place. I am humbled that, after more than 21 years, I was once again granted the honour of their trust.

Today, we are discussing the government's bill, Bill C-2. For my constituents who may be watching, Bill C-2's formal name is an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures. The short title of this bill is the strong borders act. Does this bill really live up to its name? It sure has generated a lot of attention from many corners: academia, civil society groups and other stakeholders.

Let us delve into it a little and look at some recent history to understand what the Liberals are trying to do with it.

First and foremost, I believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree that Conservatives believe in law and order. We have always stood up for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. I do not think there is much debate from any party when it comes to this issue. It is simple. Conservatives care about Canadians and their safety. We would like to see legislation to that end, whether it is presented from our side or otherwise.

What is important here is to inform those watching us today that for the past decade, Conservatives have been urging the Liberal government to reverse their failed policies and restore safety to our communities. Most people who were paying attention to media coverage during the last campaign know that crime was a big topic. Countless examples were seen on TV and first-hand in our communities, which show us that things have gotten much worse over the last decade, so much so that many Canadians are afraid for their safety just walking in their neighbourhoods.

Whether Liberals admit it or not, with respect to crime, things have gotten out of control. Speaking of campaigns and crime, I think more than four million people saw my post on what happened in Grimsby during the last campaign. Armed robbers rammed a pickup truck through the doors of a jewellery store in the middle of the day in downtown Grimsby, a once-quiet, small community where things like this just do not happen. What is even more shocking is that this armed robbery was not the first. In fact, it was the third time in just three months the same jewellery store was targeted. Imagine that. This is Grimsby we are talking about.

The crime wave has shaken our small community to the core and has opened a lot of conversations about what has taken place under the Liberals for the last 10 long years. I can honestly say that this issue was a major factor in the high voter turnout in my riding just days later, on election day. People have had enough not just in Niagara West but also through all corners of this country.

The Liberals are attempting to respond with this bill, but it seems incomplete. They seem rushed to do something they have not really thought through. It seems like they are scrambling to introduce a bill, any bill, just to say they are doing something. The bill is too wide-ranging and, in the end, it falls short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other areas. Like other recent government legislation, we will support some parts of it, but it needs work. When something makes sense, we will acknowledge it and we will work collaboratively to fix the flaws and make it even better. We are willing to do that with all parties, not just the Liberals.

Allow me to mention the parts of the bill that concern me and many of my colleagues, as well.

First, the bill does not address bail reform. We have seen the consequences of the catch-and-release system, which causes havoc in many communities throughout our country. Criminals are arrested for what is usually not their first, second or even third crime, but they are right back on the street the same day. They reoffend shortly after and the cycle continues.

Let me tell members what happened in Welland recently. Welland is a small community just outside of my riding. As a matter of fact, my colleague here in the House, the member for Niagara South, represents this community. A horrific crime took place. It was something out of a nightmare. In fact, it is probably any parent's nightmare.

A few weeks ago, Daniel Senecal, a dangerous pedophile, was charged with the sexual assault of a three-year-old girl. He broke into the home after the family fell asleep and committed this horrendous crime against a three-year-old toddler. Senecal was charged with the aggravated sexual assault of a minor, choking, breaking and entering, and sexual interference. I will spare everyone the details of the injuries this monster inflicted upon this poor child. Daniel Senecal is a despicable pedophile who should never see freedom again. He destroyed the life of a little girl, her family and many others.

However, the story does not end there. This monster recently got out of a one-year stint in jail for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old boy just four years ago. He received 18 months for sexually assaulting a little boy but got out early.

When I read this for the first time, I could not believe it. I had to go to another news source to verify that the sentence was actually written correctly in the first article, and it was. I felt total shock, disappointment and outrage. The 12-year-old boy's mother was also outraged that the person charged in the attack on this three-year-old girl only served one year and now lives a short distance away.

Are we noticing a pattern of crime here, a pattern of lax criminal laws? Are we addressing this with Bill C-2? My colleague from Niagara South has started a petition, and I encourage members to reach out to him at his constituency office to get more details and maybe sign this petition, as well.

In addition to this idiotic leniency for monsters, we also still have a catch-and-release scheme that is alive and well for drug dealers and traffickers. It is alive and well for criminals who are trafficking fentanyl and firearms, and using our porous border to victimize Canadians. What most Canadians would be shocked to hear, and I hope that if they are watching they will remember this, is that there are still no mandatory times for fentanyl traffickers.

Fentanyl is an awful drug. We see devastating and frightening effects just a few blocks from this place. Just two milligrams, which is the size of a grain of salt, can kill a person. That is why our Conservative team wants to impose mandatory life sentences on anyone involved in the trafficking, production and distribution of over 40 milligrams of fentanyl. Forty milligrams could kill 20 people. That is called mass murder. If someone is willing to traffic and distribute this poison, they should never see freedom again. Bill C-2 does not address this issue, and it should. We need to fix it so that it does.

Bill C-2 also provides no new mandatory prison terms for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes. If we just turn on the news, we can see what is going on with home invasions and carjackings by criminals who use guns to commit crimes. It is happening daily and in the most brazen ways that one could even think of. Once again, Bill C-2 does not address this issue, and we need to fix it.

Bill C-2 also does not address sentencing for serious offences. House arrest is still permissible under the current system for some of the most serious offences. How can we, in good conscience, allow this to continue when we see the devastation it causes so many folks around the country? We need to fix it, and we need to fix it now.

On another theme, let us talk about the topic that is top of mind for many constituents: the consistent government attacks on our civil liberties. It was a frequent issue at the door during the campaign. I received emails and phone calls from folks worried about the bill's effect on our civil liberties. They are deeply concerned that it allows authorities to open mail without oversight. This is a major violation of privacy that my constituents consider unacceptable.

Bill C-2 also compels Internet companies to hand over private information and grants authorities warrantless searches, another violation of privacy. I cannot tell the House how many discussions I have had about this. People are worried.

People are also alarmed by the government's efforts to limit the use of cash. Cash remains a critical part of our economy. Many seniors in Niagara West and in rural communities like mine, as well as small businesses, rely on using cash. All I can say to folks who are emailing and phoning us, worried about this bill, is that it seems to fit the pattern of the Liberals' unquenchable thirst for more government control and further government overreach.

Now is a good time to bring up our Conservative record on this issue. We have consistently fought for practical, effective policies that secure our borders, protect communities and uphold Canadians' fundamental rights and freedoms. We have proposed adding thousands of border agents. We have proposed extending CBSA powers along the entire border, not just at crossings. We have proposed installing border surveillance towers, as well as a truck-mounted drone system to spot border incursions. We have forwarded a plan to install high-powered scanners at all major land crossings and shipping ports. By the way, for those who do not know, these scanners can see through the walls of vehicle containers to spot drugs, guns and stolen cars. We have also proposed a plan to track departures, so government officials know which deportees are in Canada illegally.

We have also put a plan forward to toughen penalties for repeat violent offenders, which the Liberals are resisting. I have no idea why they are resisting this. It is such a common-sense policy, yet here we are. Our plan also includes ending catch-and-release bail and house arrest for violent criminals, other common-sense policies the Liberals are against. We want to eliminate the multiple murder discount when sentencing offenders. We propose prioritizing treatment over government drug distribution to support battling addictions.

Last but not least, we have been champions of rights and freedoms, freedom of speech and fearlessly defending Canadians' civil liberties. Our plan is one of pragmatism. We will always put Canadians first by taking public safety issues seriously and protecting Canadians' rights. It is time for the Liberals to admit they have majorly screwed up in the last 10 years when it comes to protecting Canadians. As our leader has said, please copy our plan. We do not mind. We all care about Canadians and their safety. We want people to once again feel safe in their communities, so let us make it happen. Let us work on this together. Let us fix this bill. Let us make it better. Let us work towards a safer Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 does not deal with the issue of bail reform, a commitment that the Prime Minister made. If it dealt with bail reform, we would have criticisms from across the way saying that it should have been separate legislation. The good news is that we are going to see that separate legislation this fall. Members should know that by now.

The member also made the assertion that the Conservative Party always believed in strong borders. In reality, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table, he cut—

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

I am new to the chamber. I thought there was supposed to be a question, and the comment was to the member who gave the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I believe the parliamentary secretary was getting to his question.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives, when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government and sat at the cabinet table, literally cut money out of the budget for border control. Contrast that with this government, which has invested well over $1 billion, or close to $1.3 billion, to have hundreds of new border and RCMP officers. It seems to be an interesting contrast.

Does the member not see any hypocrisy in some of the statements that have been made?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we seem to notice over and over again, and that my colleague just mentioned in the last speech, is that there seems to be this whole issue of not being tough on crime, which is also not being tough on borders and making sure it is porous. We hear over and over again about how illegal guns flow from the border, yet the government spends most of its time going after law-abiding gun owners, hunters and fishermen. My good colleague right in front of me here has been a champion for the sports shooting community, something our party has always been. We realize that it is violent repeat offenders who cause the majority of issues in this country. This is just indicative that all these things are the same: bail and borders.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a 130-page bill to strengthen border security, but the government is still refusing to act on something that the Canada Border Services Agency union is demanding, namely the right to act between ports of entry. The customs union has been clear about this demand, which does not even require a legislative change. A simple regulatory change is all it would take.

Why is the government refusing to give officers this flexibility when doing so could bolster efforts to fight fentanyl, contraband and vehicle smuggling?

All they are asking for is a regulatory change.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to providing resources for our border security, this is something that is very important. It was the Conservative government under Harper that provided firearms for a majority of the border services people. Any chance that we have to give them more ability to do their job is always something our Conservative Party will do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed a trend with the Liberal government, where they identify a legitimate problem, but its solution only targets the people who are not perpetuating that problem.

An example is money laundering. There is no argument from us that this is the real issue, but banning law-abiding citizens from transacting in cash is not the answer. Gun crime is a huge issue, in fact even bigger after 10 years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies, but going after law-abiding gun owners is the Liberal's resolution.

I would like my hon. colleague to expand on why only the law-abiding seem to be in the crosshairs of the Liberal government on firearms, cash and many other things.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although my hon. colleague is new here, he is catching on very quickly. He has a very good question.

I think that one of the challenges is right in the premise of the question. “Law-abiding” says it all. I think the government feels it is an easy target and goes after people who actually follow the law, take the time to do the safety courses and register their guns to make sure they are doing all the things they need to do within their power. The funny thing is that criminals do not register their guns. It is a crazy thing. It seems that the Liberals can make a whole lot of noise about going after law-abiding citizens because it takes absolutely zero effort. All the law-abiding citizens have already given them the information they need, taken the courses, done what is required from them, joined the clubs, participated in safety and all those types of things. I have not yet seen one criminal who registers their gun.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is asking Parliament to grant Canada Post permission to open letters, mail that Canadians send one another, without a warrant, to protect us from a drug crisis of its own making. Bill C-2 would exempt Canada Post, a Crown agency, from judicial oversight.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees our right to be secured against unreasonable search and seizure. In 1993, in the case R v. Plant, the Supreme Court held that such protections are required for the very functioning of our democracy, that the values underlying section 8 are integrity, dignity and autonomy, values that are most precious to humanity. The court held that section 8 protects individual autonomy, where people have the right “to be let alone”, a right “on which the state cannot intrude without permission”.

This is not some Conservative MP saying that; this is what the Supreme Court of Canada said, three blocks away. When the Supreme Court speaks, Parliament must listen.

To conduct a search, the search must be reasonable. In R v. Collins, the Supreme Court of Canada, God bless its heart, held that a search is reasonable when it is authorized by law. Unless there are exigent circumstances, section 8 requires authorization for a search. Warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable. There may be exigent circumstances where there can be a search without a warrant. For instance, if there is an emergency and it is impractical to obtain a warrant, to preserve evidence when it may disappear or when a police officer's safety is at risk.

The need to open and inspect the inside of envelopes sent by Canada Post does not amount to exigent circumstances. Losing custody of the envelope is of no concern; Canada Post holds on to an envelope. Urgency is of no concern because the damn thing is in the mail. I get mail that was sent to me a month earlier, without a labour disruption.

If Canada Post wants to open my mail, it can go ahead, but it should, please, get permission. It is the custody of the envelope and the lack of urgency that precludes the Crown from proving exigent circumstances. Opening the envelope without judicial oversight cannot be constitutional. Is there a charter violation when a Crown corporation or a peace officer is invited by the Crown corporation to open the envelope? Yes, 100%.

Let us move on to section 1. Can the violation survive? Can the Crown prove on a balance of probabilities that the constitutional infringement is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society? The verdict is no, of course it cannot. Canada Post can hold on to the envelope, swear an affidavit and see a justice of the peace. If the justice of the peace says yes, then it can open the envelope, but until then, it should stay out of the business of Canadians.

For years, I have been urging Canadians to realize that the Liberal government is engaged in an assault on our civil rights. It is a new bus just like the old bus, but maybe this one is even worse. An assault on our legal rights guaranteed by the charter is an assault on democracy. It is an assault on the House. It is an assault on the courts. Opening mail without judicial oversight is an assault on all Canadians.

I do not understand what is happening to our country. I do not understand how it is that in the last few years, “freedom” has become a dirty word. The Liberals are chipping away at values that our country was founded on.

The state broadcaster, the communications arm of the Liberal Party, gets $1.5 billion of our money from the Liberals. First it mocks anyone who defends basic civil rights, and then it calls them crazy, fringe or right-wing. When that does not work, it calls them dangerous. I was born in the former Soviet Union. This is precisely what the Soviet Communists did for almost 70 years: mock the opposition, call it crazy and then demonize it.

Do members know how it ends? It ends with labour camps, re-education camps or prison. Ronald Reagan once said that the loss of freedom is only one generation away. He was wrong; the loss of freedom is only one government away. Just when we think it cannot get any worse, along comes the same Liberal government, just with a new Liberal Prime Minister. It wants Parliament to pass a law that a Crown corporation can open people's letters, Christmas cards and bills without a warrant.

The drug crisis is a national tragedy the Liberals created. When I was 20 years old, I lost a friend to heroin overdose. Simon Woods came back from rehab and relapsed. I am going to send a shout-out to my boys. We were his pallbearers. I met countless people throughout my career, lawyers and politicians, who struggled with addiction. I wish I could bring Simon back. I wish I could bring all of them back, but the legislation would not bring any of them back, and the legislation would not change anything but amount to an assault on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We can put the envelope aside and go see a justice of the peace. There is no rush. We would still be able to save Simon's life while preserving the integrity of our democracy and respecting hundreds of years of common law. If there is no urgency, no exigent circumstances, we should obtain a warrant. I ask that we please remove warrantless searches from the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, if someone puts some fentanyl in a size 10 envelope and mails it at a post office, Canada Post has a legal obligation to deliver that letter. The legislation would enable a law enforcement officer, not a letter carrier, as long as they have been given the warrant to do so, to open the letter.

Will the member not agree that the principle of what I have stated is a good thing, whether he believes it is in the bill or not? Would he believe that the principle of what I said is a good thing and in the best interests of Canadians?