Debates of Sept. 16th, 2025

Strong Borders Act

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a region that is often overlooked in national conversation, but is, in truth, central to the future of Ontario and Canada. The history of the Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk riding, one of the largest in Canada, is a story of resilience, hard work and vibrant cultural heritage forged by people who built not just industries but lives, families and futures in the north.

The riding is not simply a geographic expanse in northern Ontario. It is a living and working landscape that tells the story of Canada's development. It is its natural wealth, linguistic diversity, an enduring relationship with its resources. This is not a region on the margins. It is a region that has long delivered for the country and stands ready to lead again.

The riding of Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk is a land of endurance, pride, and solidarity. It has been shaped by generations of workers and families from the north, who have built not just industries, but also strong communities and a sustainable future for their children. It is a unique region where languages, traditions, and identities come together every day.

Here, French is not a secondary language, but rather a living language, a working language, and a language of the heart. Our bilingualism is an integral part of our daily lives, our economy, and our future. It must be protected and recognized as a strength for our region, for Ontario, and for Canada. Our riding has never been relegated to the background. For decades, it was central to the country's economy, and it will continue to play a vital role in the future.

Our modest population of approximately 95,000 people is diverse and multinational. For 125 years, our people have lived and worked, producing astounding economic outputs that I will outline shortly. First, it is important to appreciate some of the history of this great riding.

Visionaries defined corridors into our region, followed by the main building project we know today as the Canadian National Railway, joined by the Ontario Northland railway, with connections to the Canadian Pacific Railway via the Algoma Central Railway. In building this infrastructure, our forebears discovered the sheer vastness of the riding, stretching from the Atlantic to the Arctic watershed, blessed with healthy boreal forest. Soon it became clear that the riding's five major river basins could thunderously generate over four gigawatts of sustainable hydroelectric power. Approximately 850 megawatts of that power has supported forestry, mining, industry and local communities. Most importantly, these basins continue to provide renewable, pollution-free energy.

As the railroads advanced, farms and communities developed along the lines, supplying and servicing an industrious population. Prospectors followed, discovering an extraordinary wealth of minerals. Three major paper mills supplied U.S. markets, including The New York Times, with newsprint, and even America's first kleenex, which was produced in Kapuskasing.

A short time later, with the government's visionary support, the Trans-Canada Highway project extended this infrastructure across the riding. Although launched in the 1950s, this national construction project remains to be completed and modernized to allow a smoother and safer flow of traffic.

That said, the Trans-Canada Highway corridor, known back home as Highway 11, has already encouraged other innovations to develop along its path, whether in energy transportation, pipelines, communications or supply chain logistics.

These achievements were possible thanks to the guidance of the first nations, the vision of risk-taking entrepreneurs, the dedication of multinational Canadians and the support of responsive governments.

Over the years, our region has hosted more than 50 mines and two of the largest staking rushes in world history, helping to build the Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver stock exchanges. The wealth generated supported major national projects, such as the financing of the construction of the Maple Leaf Gardens, and produced NHL greats who became household names. Indeed, titans of the industry of the day, including the Thomson, Eaton, Bronfman, Massey and Brookfield empires, can trace their fortunes to our region, along with the capital that spurred oil exploration across Canada.

The mining sector alone has been extraordinary. Mines in our riding have produced over 110 million ounces of gold, 215 million ounces of silver, six million tonnes of zinc, four million tonnes of copper, 330,000 tonnes of lead, 50,000 tonnes of nickel and 200,000 tonnes of talc, with an economic value of $580 billion in today's money, and they will continue to produce.

Exploration continues to this day. Current projects have identified over five billion tonnes of nickel, precious metals and critical mineral ore reserves worth over $1 trillion, with a further 12 billion tonnes of reserves under review, positioning our region as a cornerstone for Canada's future manufacturing needs. These developments, with extraction using cutting-edge carbon capture techniques, will contribute to reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide well into the next century.

Our forests have long been properly and sustainably managed, with an average annual harvest of 4.5 million cubic metres from 12 operating sawmills. Modern practices and improved tree species could potentially double this harvest, aligning with Canada's climate goal and growing demand for recyclable products. For example, replacing plastic bags with paper could revive pulp production and put another line of pulp at Kap Paper in Kapuskasing.

Agriculture is also thriving, to the tune of $140 million per year, with grain, hay, livestock and cash crops well established in the great clay belt of northeastern Ontario, with access to transportation infrastructure, which provides enormous opportunities for agribusiness. Indeed, university scholars have said that the great clay belt will become Canada's next agricultural breadbasket.

I hope I have conveyed the scale of the economic treasure box our region represents. However, realizing its full potential requires collaboration with our 11 first nations, by working together on infrastructure, roads, energy and railroads. We can unlock jobs, attract skilled workers and revitalize the 46 communities of the riding.

Let us make Canada's north a beacon of opportunity for all by not forgetting that 95% of our greatest resource is us, Canadians. Our corner of Canada is one of the most linguistically and culturally distinct regions in the country. While the francophone identity runs deep, nearly half the population has knowledge of both official languages. This dual linguistic character is an asset for the future and should be supported by federal policy.

I am excited that these social and economic developments will benefit not only our riding but also every Canadian. I am committed to rising to this challenge for the benefit of my constituents and all of Canada.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I was thrilled to hear my colleague's summary. He told us how Canada was built through big projects like the railway and the Trans-Canada Highway.

I am curious to know my colleague's reaction to the new high-speed rail project between Toronto and Montreal, and the economic boom it will generate. This is exactly the kind of thing he was telling us about.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did indeed explain how Canada developed. That is the approach we must take in the future. No matter the project, the important thing is how we build our country. We did it once, but we need to build it again because right now, things are not going well.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I really like the part in his speech when he said that French is not a secondary language in Canada. Quebec's motto is Je me souviens, or I remember. I would like to remind my colleague that it was the Conservative Party, under Stephen Harper, that appointed a unilingual anglophone auditor general, unilingual anglophone Supreme Court justices and a unilingual anglophone foreign affairs minister. I will give my colleague the benefit of the doubt. I hope that he will share the following good news with his anglophone colleagues. French is not secondary language in this beautiful, bilingual Canada.

The question I want to ask my colleague is the following. When the Harper government was in power, it planned to cut staff at the Canada Border Services Agency. The Conservative Party is currently in the opposition and wants to ensure border security and it wants more border officers. That was not one of its priorities when it was in government, but it is a priority now that it is in the opposition. Why?

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I spoke about the situation in my riding, where French is a living language and 50% of the population works in both official languages.

Second, it is much more difficult to survive in our language outside of Quebec. What we have accomplished is extraordinary.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk.

In his wonderful speech, he spoke about agriculture in his region. This week, we have heard a lot about food inflation and the rising cost of housing.

When it comes to agriculture, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about improving our food sovereignty in Canada.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, agriculture all but disappeared in my region during colonization, in the 1920s and 1930s and in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, but it is now making a comeback. The wonderful thing about this is that we are feeding ourselves. We have everything we need in my region.

The most important thing is the great clay belt. Agricultural experts are saying that this will be the next big agricultural region in Canada. That is great news for people in my riding. Along with the rest of Canada, we are able to feed our people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the bill itself. If the Conservatives wanted to show goodwill in dealing with and improving border security, along with other issues related to it, they could actually allow the bill to go to a committee, where it could be further debated and talked about, with amendments proposed.

If they do not want it to go to a committee right away, would he not agree that it may be advisable to share some of the possible amendments that the Conservatives have?

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only answer I have is that the problem was created by the Liberals. The intent of my speech today was to give Canadians confidence that we have a great country, with all the resources we need to survive and to be independent. I am speaking to them.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as it is my first intervention with you being in the chair, I want to congratulate you and also the constituents of Perth—Wellington for electing you. I am very happy to have you in the chair.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-2, the strong borders act. This important bill would help keep Canadians safe by strengthening our borders, fighting organized crime and protecting the fairness of our immigration system. Our government is taking strong action to deal with serious challenges, such as drug smuggling, auto theft, money laundering, and abuse of our asylum and visa systems. We are also giving law enforcement and border officers more tools to stop these crimes.

Canada is a country that welcomes people from around the world. Immigrants and refugees have helped build our communities. As a proud immigrant myself, I know how important it is that our immigration system is fair, strong and trusted, but we also know that Canada's immigration system is under pressure. Global conflicts are bringing more people to our borders, and sometimes the system is being misused by those who are not truly in need of the protection that they claim. That is why Bill C-2 includes important changes to protect the integrity of our asylum system.

One of the key changes would be who can make a refugee claim in Canada. Going forward, international students and temporary foreign workers who have been in Canada for more than one year would not be able to claim asylum. Let me be clear. This is not a ban on asylum. People who truly need protection would still have access to a special review process before they were to be removed from Canada. If there were any risk of persecution or harm, Canada would not send them back. This change would stop people from staying in Canada for years as students or temporary workers and then trying to use the asylum system as a last option.

A refugee system must be used for those who need protection, not as a backup plan. These changes are fair, and they would help speed up the asylum process for individuals who need safety. They would also help us reduce backlogs and focus our resources on those who need it.

The bill would also improve how we share immigration information with provinces and territories so that all orders of government could better manage services and public safety. The strong borders act also targets immigration fraud and the abuse of our visa system. It would give our officers strong tools to catch fake documents and false claims. It would also help us go after criminals who take advantage of newcomers through fraud and exploitation. These actions are about fairness. They would protect the integrity of our system and the honest people who follow the rules.

Bill C-2 also includes new steps to fight crime, drugs and money laundering. We are investing $1.3 billion to help border officers stop stolen vehicles, seize illegal goods and improve inspections at rail yards and ports. This is the largest investment in border security in Canadian history. The bill would also give the Canadian Coast Guard a new role in keeping our coastlines secure in helping to stop smuggling at sea, protect our borders and work with police to fight organized crime.

We are also taking strong action to protect children by improving the way we share information about sex offenders with police in Canada and around the world. This would help stop child exploitation and trafficking.

We are cracking down on money laundering and terrorist financing. This would make it harder for criminals to hide their money and easier for police to get the financial information they need to stop crime. We are also limiting large cash deposits and banning third-party cash deposits to help prevent criminal activity.

One of the most serious threats facing Canada is the rise of lethal drugs such as fentanyl. This deadly drug is killing thousands of people across the country. That is why Bill C-2 would give new powers to law enforcement to stop the flow of chemicals used to make fentanyl. It would also allow officers to search suspicious packages in the mail, with a warrant, and shut down illegal drug operations more quickly. These actions would help save lives and make our communities safer.

As part of our effort to stop auto theft, the bill would allow border officers to access railways and shipping ports where many stolen cars are smuggled out of the country. This is a growing problem that affects many cities throughout Canada. These new powers would help us recover more stolen vehicles and break up international crime rings.

This bill is not only about stronger laws, but also about building a safer Canada, a Canada where people feel safe in their homes, in their workplaces and in their communities, a Canada where newcomers are welcomed but expected to follow the rules, a Canada where our immigration system is protected and our borders are secure. Canadians expect a strong, fair system that puts safety and honesty first.

We are keeping our doors open to people in need, but we are closing the doors to fraud, abuse and crime. Others may worry that this will hurt people who are vulnerable, but I want to be very clear. Canada's humanitarian efforts will remain strong. We will continue to protect those who are at risk, and our refugee system will continue to be fair and compassionate, but we must protect the system itself, so it can continue to serve those who truly need it.

The strong borders act is a smart, balanced and responsible plan. It would give our law enforcement and border officers the tools they need. It would protect our economy, our communities and our values. Most importantly, it would protect Canada's future.

I was talking to colleagues here in the House, and we heard support at a policing summit in B.C. in August for Bill C-2, because those are the people who are the first responders. We should be listening to the people who are there to save our lives and save our communities.

I urge all members across all political stripes in the House to join me in supporting Bill C-2. Let us stand together for safer communities, stronger borders and a fairer immigration system for all.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Surrey Newton for outlining some of the key provisions in Bill C-2.

One aspect of the bill he did not touch upon is access to online data, the impact this would have on privacy regulations in Canada and the fundamental right that our party believes all Canadians have access to, which is a fundamental right to privacy. I believe this bill would undermine that fundamental right.

Does the member opposite agree that this bill would go too far in giving powers to authorities in respect to access to information?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr Speaker, if we listen to the experts, even organizations such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, they are telling us that they need these tools and resources to protect Canadians. There is nothing in this bill that would take rights or liberties away, but it would make sure that criminals are punished.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about border security. That is all well and good, but things have gotten to this point thanks to 10 years of Liberal neglect. Now, the people protecting the border, the customs officers, are telling us, through their union, that we could need up to 3,000 more officers at the border. Meanwhile, the government has promised 1,000. This was not even mentioned in the throne speech, and so far, not a single officer has been hired.

My question is twofold. First, I would like to know how it is that the Prime Minister has had time to announce funding for defence, to travel around the world four times and purchase submarines, but has not had time to hire the 2,000 to 3,000 officers needed. Second, I would like to know why the bill does not include any provisions allowing customs officers to patrol between border crossings, as requested by the community, along the longest demilitarized border in the world.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that the hon. member for Mirabel was talking about the Conservative government. When it was in power, it took 1,000 officers away from the job. In fact, it is the Liberal government that brought in 1,000 new law enforcement and CBSA officers to make sure our borders are protected with utmost urgency.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a member in the House who does not have a story they can share from their community or who has not been touched by the issues of fentanyl, opioids and the flow of precursors. There is the Tablotney family in Richmond, who I had the opportunity to table a petition for, and they were asking for a sustainable, national ad campaign to raise awareness of this at all times. I have spoken to police officers who have shown us data of some of these chemicals they are finding on the street.

The member from Surrey Newton has been a strong advocate on public safety measures. Can he let us know what the pathway is to stop these precursors from coming into Canada?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Richmond East—Steveston for all the great work he does and the support he provides.

We need to make sure that British Columbians are safe when it comes to fentanyl. This is why we are bringing in Bill C-2, so that we are able to stop the flow of fentanyl across the border, and bringing in searching the mail and other options in this bill to stop it.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I had a different beginning to my speech, but after hearing all the long-serving Liberal MPs get up and talk about how great it is that they have finally discovered our border is an issue, that after 10 years in government they are taking some action with this piece of legislation and should be congratulated for it is a bit of an astounding proposition at the beginning of this fall session.

They waited so long to take any action that fentanyl and other drugs are rampant throughout the country, not just in the big urban spaces but in the smallest of the small communities across my riding in rural southwestern Manitoba and in every other riding across the country. I do not know that they are going to get as much sympathy and applause from Canadians as they expect based on their speeches today. They let this go on for 10 years without taking any recognizable action to stop the flow of illegal substances from other countries into this country. Now they think it is wonderful that they have finally come up with a half-decent, but very problematic in some instances, proposal to address this situation.

I will get back to my speech. I will have more to say on that as we proceed.

Brandon—Souris, in the context of the country, is a border riding. There are nine ports of entry in my constituency alone, a number of which have just had their hours reduced, which is impacting trade with our American counterparts. Plus Lake Metigoshe is in my riding. It sits right on the border. It is shared, half Canadian and half American, and is policed by both entities. It is one of the few lakes where people can get in their boats on the Canadian side and drive them across to the American side without having to go through a port of entry per se. It is one of very few examples where that exists in the country.

It is the part of the border that is all-accessible, unlike other parts of the country, like Alberta and British Columbia. There are 226 kilometres of border between Manitoba and North Dakota in my constituency, 302 kilometres if one takes the highway.

We also have the International Peace Garden at the second-largest border crossing in Manitoba, in Boissevain, or the peace garden border crossing if people come from the American side, which shares a monument to peace that both of our countries share and maintain. They also share a cross-border airport. People can actually land on the North Dakota side, the American side, taxi onto Canadian soil and then disembark. It is one of the few instances where that takes place in the country as well. Certainly, my riding shares the border. It is a border constituency, and our economic ties with our immediate partners to the south, North Dakota, and further south into the Midwest states are significant. They are close.

When I grew up, Minot, North Dakota, was just as close for me and my family in our hometown as Winnipeg, the major city in Manitoba. We would often spend family vacations, special birthdays or anniversaries travelling to Minot rather than Winnipeg to share in our collective relationship with the Americans. When we talk about border issues, we know that Manitobans, and certainly southwestern Manitobans, deal, work, live and play crossing that border on a regular basis.

My constituents believe in law and order and a strong border. They have made that very clear to me. During the election and over the course of the summer, I held a number of community barbecues along Highway 3, which is Manitoba's southernmost major highway that runs parallel to the American-Canadian border. I held community barbecues in Melita, Boissevain and Manitou, all border towns. In fact, the Boissevain local hockey team is called the Boissevain Border Kings. That is how close our relationship is in my constituency to the border and its impact on Manitoba's economy.

These are ongoing conversations that take place on a regular basis. People are living the challenges with the border and the relationship that is ongoing between our two countries. For the past decade, Conservatives have been urging the Liberal government to reverse its failed policies and restore safety to our communities.

My communities are at the forefront of the influx of weak border and weak criminal justice policy from the Liberal government. We have seen an influx of crime and drugs infesting small communities in southwestern Manitoba, further up into my colleague from Riding Mountain's constituency and further north into northern Manitoba. These are communities that are collectively calling for better action from the government and calling out its failure to deliver safety and a solution to the influx of drugs. Instead, the Liberals, as we know, have let the situation get out of control.

Now they are scrambling and have put forward this omnibus bill that falls well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other areas. While we are prepared to support some elements of the bill, we are very concerned with others. The bill fails to address bail reform, which is a topic that comes up often in this Parliament. Catch and release is alive and well for those who are trafficking fentanyl and firearms across our border, using our porous border to victimize Canadians. These are illegal firearms, not the legally held firearms that so many of my constituents have taken the courses for, have trained for and responsibly own and use.

There is no mention of sentencing provisions. There are still no mandatory prison times for fentanyl traffickers who are profiting from this weak, porous border the Liberals have created. There are still no new mandatory prison times for gangsters who use guns and commit crimes, despite the Liberals' campaign against legal firearms owners. House arrest is still permissible for some of the most serious offenders in these areas.

We are deeply concerned by the Liberals' further restrictions on Canadian civil liberties, including the ability to open mail without oversight and to compel Internet companies to hand over private information, and warrantless searches.

I would just like to pause here for a minute. I do not know that anybody in my riding, even the Canada Post workers I represent, think it is a great idea for them to just be able to open up mail at will. This is what the Liberals, despite what some of them have said today, are proposing in this piece of legislation. Nobody thinks that is a good idea, even the Canada Post workers I talked to in my constituency when we knew this bill would be coming up. It is way overboard. They have no reason for it to be done. RCMP officers think it is ridiculous.

There is no question that there needs to be a solution and a proposal put forward to deal with trafficking of illegal substances through Canada Post, but it makes perfect sense for these systems to be operated through the court system and with trained investigators and police officers opening up this mail, searching for illegal substances, because if they actually find some, they are the ones who are trained to handle it, not Canada Post workers.

Again, this is the Liberals making a mountain where they should have taken a scalpel in terms of how to deal with these serious, prolific traffickers who are utilizing Canada Post. It needs to be referred to the proper justice officials, not to our everyday postal workers and the folks working in the distribution centres.

While Conservatives have been ignored by the Liberal government and its failures, we have consistently fought for practical, effective policies that secure our borders, protect our communities and uphold Canadians' rights, including adding thousands of border agents; extending CBSA powers along the entire border, not just crossings; and installing border surveillance towers as well as truck-mounted drone systems to spot border incursions.

This is huge in my riding, which is all very accessible along a very rural area that does not have high levels of population. These scanners can also see through walls of containers or vehicles to spot drugs, guns and stolen cars. We have fought for tracking departures so government officials know which deportees are in Canada illegally, toughening penalties for repeat violent offenders, ending catch-and-release bail and house arrest for violent criminals, and the list goes on.

The Liberals, which I have heard already today, have gotten up and said the Conservatives have no solutions. We have been proposing these solutions for 10 years, and there has been no action from the Liberal government to implement a single one of them.

With some of these provisions, they have finally got it right after a decade of failing Canadians on protecting them and securing the border. Now they are saying to trust them. Well, gosh, they have had 10 years to fix the immigration system; that has been a disaster. They have had 10 years to fix the criminal justice system; that has been a disaster. Why should Canadians believe today that the Liberal government's record is going to be any different in fixing the problems it created on Canada's border?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, this summer I got the opportunity to attend the summit of the chiefs of police and was able to sit down with the president. He had rave reviews for Bill C-2. One of the provisions of lawful access in Bill C-2 changes the requirement from “reasonable grounds to believe” and instead makes it “reasonable grounds to suspect”. This is going to help the police in so many different child exploitation investigations.

I have a slew of different examples the police gave me where cases were not investigated and were thrown out. One example was of a father who caught his 12-year-old daughter speaking to someone who said they were a teenager but ended up being an adult. The father had an IP address and took it to the police. The police are not able to do anything about that IP address today, but with Bill C-2, they would be able to take one step forward and lay charges.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I heard a question from the parliamentary secretary. I too have met with chiefs of police in my home province. As I said in my speech, there are some provisions in this bill where the Liberals did get a few things right. Members know the whole thing where a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. They did get a few things right in this bill, but they also got lots wrong.

While we are going to propose constructive criticism and amendments to this piece of legislation, we are also going to call the Liberals out where they got it wrong. That was the premise of my speech today. We hope the Liberals are going to correct what they got wrong and actually do a better job of fixing a system that they broke, just like countless other systems across the federal government.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague and congratulate him on his speech. One interesting thing about Bill C‑2 is that border services officers will not even be allowed to patrol between certain sectors. That will make them less effective.

I just want my colleague's opinion. Does he agree that they should be more effective and that the officers, though too few in number, should be allowed to patrol between border crossings?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly the case. Obviously, we know that many areas of eastern Canada as well as farther west of me are very inaccessible along our border. Even in Manitoba, the area is so large that despite it being accessible, the RCMP is far too short-staffed to be able to patrol all of that area at any given time. Absolutely, we believe in expanding jurisdiction there. We think that would be an important solution to part of the issue with Canada's border.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brandon—Souris for his eloquent words. There is something missing, a lot missing, in Bill C-2, and I would like to know what he thinks of this.

I want to ask about the member for Surrey Newton, who spoke previously. A very important thing that is missing in this bill is what the Liberals are going to do about the decriminalization of drugs in B.C. There is no mention of it, and people are dying every day. They talk about finding fentanyl; they talk about finding drugs through mail. What about decriminalizing drugs in one province to see how many people die?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, along with other colleagues from British Columbia, has more first-hand experience with this than I do. From what I have read, it has been just devastating. The result of that policy by the NDP government, enabled by the federal Liberal team, has been devastating for families and for communities. It has been a total train wreck, in my opinion.

I did everything I could as a provincial politician to urge the NDP government in Manitoba to not follow suit with that disastrous policy. Thankfully, to date, it has not done so. I would strongly support any initiative that recriminalizes those types of substances. Hopefully, no province will ever try that disastrous experiment again.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, Justice; the hon. member for Northumberland—Clarke, Intergovernmental Affairs.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many MPs have spoken about different aspects of the very lengthy Bill C-2 today. This afternoon, I rise to focus on just four small words whose removal from the Canada Post Corporation Act would transform this bill from being an act that promises security into one that delivers surveillance. Those words are “other than a letter”.

Under the current Canada Post Corporation Act, Canada Post may open any mail other than a letter if it has reasonable grounds to suspect certain things about the parcel, including, for example, that it contains “non-mailable matter”. The Liberals will tell us that the removal of those four words is about stopping fentanyl. They will tell us it is about organized crime. They will tell us not to worry because police still need a warrant if they want to use the letter as evidence in a criminal trial. They may even tell us that we have nothing to worry about if we are not committing a crime. However, non-mailable matter, under the act, covers far more than just illicit drugs, and there would be no requirement in the legislation to get a warrant before going fishing through people's mail. All Canada Post would need is reasonable grounds to suspect that the item is non-mailable.

Non-mailable matter goes far beyond fentanyl and other illicit substances. It includes, for example, perishable goods. It includes things that do not meet Canada Post's physical or marking requirements. It is actually a very broad concept.

Canada Post defines a letter as much more than just a piece of paper in an envelope. A letter, under the act, includes any paper information weighing less than 500 grams, which is half a kilogram, delivered to a specific addressee that includes a message or information in any form, and it does not even have to be enclosed in an envelope. Bill C-2 could have made a distinction between what we think of as a letter and larger items that meet the technical definition of a letter in the act but are not actually a letter. Whether that reflects sloppy drafting or something else, the net effect of the deletion of these four little words would be far more than a technical amendment to postal operations. It would strike at the heart of our constitutional right to privacy and the trust that underpins our entire postal system.

A sealed letter is not just another object in the mail stream. It is a private conversation on paper, a direct, sometimes intimate exchange. Parcels contain goods. Letters carry thoughts, medical updates, legal documents and family news. Opening a letter is not like inspecting a box of merchandise. It is like eavesdropping on a private conversation in someone's home. That is why the Supreme Court of Canada has consistently held that mail attracts a high expectation of privacy under section 8 of the charter, which guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. It is also why section 187 of the Criminal Code prohibits intercepting private communications without judicial authorization, which is a warrant.

Privacy is essential to liberty. Our charter, our Criminal Code and repeated Supreme Court of Canada rulings all recognize that a sealed letter sent through a government postal service attracts a high expectation of privacy, yet Bill C-2 suggests that the government disagrees with that. The current framework is a deliberate balance. Canada Post can inspect parcels, when needed, to enforce customs rules or keep dangerous goods out of circulation, and then it can alert law enforcement to get a warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has occurred or will occur and that evidence of the offence will be found at the location to be searched. However, no one, and I mean no one, can pry open a sealed letter unless a judge has first issued a warrant based on reasonable grounds. This bill would change that, and it smacks of government overreach.

If the government had wanted to accomplish its goals with minimal impairment, if it had wanted to put small parcels that qualify as mail on the same footing as larger parcels, it could have made a distinction between letters as we know them and something thicker, or small packages that are under 500 grams that still fit through the letter slot at the post office. However, it did not. Even then, by the way, it would have had to reckon with the fact that at least one court in Canada has already held that the provision it is trying to change violates the charter's privacy rights.

This is a change we disagree with vehemently. This change is a litigation magnet, and I submit that the courts are going to spend millions of Canadians' taxpayer dollars litigating it, with little chance of success. Therefore, I rise today to ask the government to please abandon its effort to take those four little words out of the act.

During the long summer recess the government gave us, I spoke with and heard from many community members in my riding on this issue. They do not want to see this change. Allowing Canada Post to open letters would erode the public trust on which the postal service depends at a time when the postal service, quite frankly, cannot afford to lose more of the public trust. It is unnecessary. If there are genuine safety concerns with small packages under 500 grams that fit through a letter slot, modern, non-intrusive screening exists: X-ray imaging, chemical detection and targeted investigation under judicial oversight. These tools protect the public while respecting constitutional rights. Blanket powers, on the other hand, worry the public and invite abuse.

That is why the four little words “other than a letter” are so powerful. Do we as a free and democratic society accept that others may open and perhaps read our private letters without a judge's authorization or before a judge's authorization? If yes, we normalize warrantless intrusion into one of our most intimate forms of communication. If no, we reaffirm that privacy is not a privilege but a right that is central to our values and fundamental to the relationship between citizen and state.

The government has no business rifling through the private letters of Canadians. Our Constitution, our statutes and our shared values say the same thing: A sealed letter is sacred. It deserves the same constitutional respect as the home from which it came and the home to which it is bound.

I urge all members of this House to reject any proposal that weakens that protection. Let us preserve the trust that has carried Canadians' words, hopes and memories across this country for generations. To borrow a phrase familiar to every household, when it comes to our letters, the only thing that should be opened is the mailbox.