Debates of Sept. 17th, 2025

Strong Borders Act

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting question from across the aisle. I did have many quotes in mind of what I have been hearing back in my community. It is chaos back home.

He wants to talk about conspiracy theories. These are not conspiracy theories; these are facts. Total violent crime is up 49.84%; total homicides are up 27.75%; total sexual assaults are up 74.83%; total violent firearms offences are up 116.4%; extortion is up 357%; auto theft is up 45%; total sexual violations against children are up 118%; forcible confinement and kidnapping is up 10%, indecent harassing communications are up 86%; and trafficking in persons is up 83%.

This is from 2015 to 2023. I can keep going on with this list. Maybe they will ask me another question and I can continue with my list.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate our colleague on his first speech and his very first election. I welcome him to the House.

We have come to expect magic formulas from the Liberal government, even if the magic amounts to nothing more than window dressing and smokescreens instead of real results. I am curious, I truly wonder how the border can be strengthened and how new means and capacities can be provided in a context where there is a shortfall of 3,000 officers and no sign of hiring any time soon.

What are we actually talking about here?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was at the public safety committee the last time, we discussed this issue in great detail. I would like to go over some of the issues or some of the concerns that Conservatives had. We have been consistent in trying to make our borders stronger. We have been calling for this for years. It was only when the President of the United States called on us to take action that we actually did. When Conservatives called for action, there was no action.

Conservatives have called for the addition of thousands of border agents; the extension of CBSA powers along the entire border, not just crossings; the installation of border surveillance towers as well as truck-mounted drone systems to spot border incursions; the installation of high-powered scanners at all major land crossings and shipping ports; the tracking of departures so that government officials will know which deportees are in Canada illegally; the toughening of penalties for repeat violent offenders; the ending of catch-and-release bail and of house arrest for violent criminals; and the elimination of multiple murder discounting in sentencing.

Those were just a few. I will wait for my next question.

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

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

I have a question for my colleague, but I would be remiss if I did not respond to a previous question by a Liberal member about conspiracy theories.

When Conservatives actually put forward a bill that tried to respond to many of the issues that this bill responds to, we were mocked by the Liberals. Back then, it was okay for us to try to do this and for the Liberals to say it was not okay. They have gone, in my view, much further, and are they now saying that we are putting forward conspiracy theories? It just does not equate. We cannot make this stuff up. This is the type of thing that makes me think the Liberals are tripping over their own agenda.

My colleague talked about an emergency order by the mayor of his city. How does it feel to live in a city that is under such an order?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I saw happening last summer in Barrie was remarkable. The downtown area was becoming unlivable. Businesses were closing up. The good mayor there took the drastic step of declaring a state of emergency and doing something about it. We are actually starting to clean up our downtown area and starting to move the tents and get people the help they need.

It is a big issue, but at least the mayor there is dealing with it.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join the debate today.

I listened with great sympathy to every word said by my new colleague across the way. I understand the issue very well and sympathize with the challenge that is facing him, and many of us, which is exactly why Bill C-2 is so important in enabling us to make the kinds of changes necessary to give the tools that are required and necessary for the various policing organizations and other organizations that deal with the many issues that Bill C-2 covers. I am happy to be able to speak to it, as well as to welcome my hon. colleague here.

I want to focus my remarks on the provisions of the bill that deal with lawful access, which is an issue that many of us have heard about and talked about.

When the police want to investigate something, they often have many roadblocks in being able to do that. How law enforcement obtains evidence in investigations is a real challenge. These provisions, though, have sparked much public comment, and I would like to try to dispel some of the myths about them.

Before I do that, I want to provide some of the context that informs the bill that we are debating today. A key challenge facing the criminal justice system right now is that digital evidence is required in almost all criminal and national security investigations. The Internet has fundamentally transformed how many serious offences, such as extortion, fraud and money laundering, are committed. The online world also allows criminals to operate across borders much more easily. As a result, many types of crimes are easier to commit and harder to detect, investigate and prosecute.

The transnational nature of many types of crime and the storage of data in the cloud, beyond the reach of local law enforcement, makes international co-operation a necessity in many of these investigations. The evolving case law in this context also highlights the challenges that law enforcement faces in accessing key information required to investigate many of these serious crimes. I am referring especially to two decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, in Spencer and in Bykovets, which address child sexual exploitation and abuse material and online fraud.

In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Spencer, held that Internet users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their identity when linked to anonymous online activity. Accordingly, the court held that the police need some type of lawful authority to obtain subscriber information in this context. The Spencer decision has had a significant impact on law enforcement investigations across the country. Since that decision, service providers, in the context of routine investigations, do not provide the police with any information relating to their subscribers without a court order.

In the absence of a specific tool to seek lawful authority to obtain subscriber information, law enforcement has been using what is called a general production order. However, this tool was designed for other purposes, and police are often unable to meet its threshold requirements, namely, to demonstrate that they reasonably believe that an offence has been or will be committed and that the subscriber information sought will provide evidence of the offence. If they do not meet those conditions, they cannot obtain a general production order.

That is just one example of the difficulties that our law enforcement officers and other authorities have when it comes to securing evidence that is required. These conditions are particularly challenging at the very early stages of investigations.

Bill C-2 proposes to address that challenge, post-Spencer, by establishing a new production order. It is designed specifically to allow the police to seek judicial authorization to compel the production of subscriber information. This would be done on a standard that is calibrated to balance the expectation of privacy with the needs of the state to pursue criminal investigations when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the information will assist in the investigation of an offence, making it something that should be much easier to obtain.

One of the key safeguards embedded in these amendments is requiring judicial authorization prior to the release of any subscriber information. Previous attempts by Parliament to address this issue proposed allowing the police to access subscriber information without prior judicial authorization, but in 2024, in R v. Bykovets, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to an IP address that has been assigned to them. An IP address, of course, as we all know, is a unique set of numbers that identifies a device connected to the Internet or a private network.

The decision has created uncertainty as to how police can act when an IP address has been provided to them voluntarily. For example, when the victim of an online crime such as fraud identifies an IP address when filing a police report or when law enforcement receives tips regarding child sexual exploitation and abuse from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the bill clarifies that law enforcement can receive and act on information, including an IP address, that is provided to them unsolicited and information that is publicly available. This clarification would enable more timely investigations and reduce pressures on the criminal justice system, including police and judicial resources.

Bill C-2 would also modernize existing tools like the main research and seizure power in the Criminal Code. It has been in place for decades and was originally designed for the search of physical places and the seizure of tangible things. The proposed amendments address the examination of data stored on an accessible device by adding terms and conditions relating to the examination of the data. The proposed amendments seek to codify the Supreme Court of Canada's direction on computer searches set out in the 2013 decision R v. Vu. Related to this amendment is clarification that the Criminal Code's existing regime governing the detention of seized property does not apply to data obtained during an investigation.

As I previously mentioned, digital evidence is now required in almost all serious criminal and national security investigations. Often this digital evidence may be held outside of Canada; for instance, it may be held by social media companies. Existing mutual legal assistance mechanisms are often too slow for investigations that require digital evidence, especially in light of the volatile nature of data and the ease with which it can be moved or destroyed. Bill C-2 would establish a new mechanism, called an “international production request”, that would allow law enforcement to seek authority from a court in Canada to request subscriber information or transmission data.

Bill C-2 is important and is necessary for us to move forward in this new time in our world.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat a question I asked a Liberal colleague on the same subject and for which I do not believe I received a suitable response.

It is a simple question. Many groups that we met for Bill C‑2 shared their apprehensions over some clauses in the bill that, according to them, might be unconstitutional. I doubt that we the only ones they shared that with. They must have shared that with colleagues in the party currently in power.

Do members of the Liberal Party, within the government, the executive, realize that there are constitutionality issues with certain clauses as the bill is currently written?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. The bill has been reviewed and will continue to be reviewed. We all know that if it does not meet the calls in the Constitution, then those changes would have to be made. However, the folks who wrote up Bill C-2 clearly believe that it is within the framework that needs to be there to protect all Canadians and to respect our Constitution.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what are the important things that this bill covers, why is Bill C-2 necessary in terms of our border security, and how are we going to work with our partners as we go through the bill's stages?

Right now, it is at second reading and it will go into committee. How do we manage our relationships and collaborate to make sure that this bill is the perfect bill that would help Canadians in ensuring border safety and security?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know how concerned my colleague is, as all of us are.

Bill C-2 is necessary today to deal with 2025 and the future years. The current legislation that our police officers and other officials have to deal with is outdated and needed corrections much earlier, had I had my way about it.

I look forward to Bill C-2's protecting my constituents and all Canadians as we move forward, and hopefully we will be able to work together to do that. I believe that, at the end of the day, we all want to make sure that Canada is safe and that we have the proper safeguards that are required.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Essex is basically right next door to the busiest international border crossing in North America, and soon we are going to have a brand new bridge, called the Gordie Howe International Bridge.

My question is this: How much collaboration was done with the CBSA officers? I have heard a lot about police departments, but the CBSA officers are ultimately the front line. The second part to that question is this: I believe that the hon. member referred to the people who wrote the bill, and I am wondering about the follow-ups to make sure that the bill would actually do what it is intended to do.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my hon. colleague, whom I have worked with for several years, on the floor of the House.

Of course, CBSA is a big part of all of this. Securing the border, we all know, no matter where we live, is something that is extremely important. I continue to be very concerned about the number of guns that flow across the borders, by way of our lakes, our rivers and so on. I would like to see additional resources put into that effort, which is exactly what Bill C-2 would do.

It is not only about personnel being there and manning the border; it is also about making sure they have the legislation and the laws in place to be able to carry out what is required to protect all of us, whether it is from the guns crossing the border or from fentanyl, or by tightening up our immigration system. All of these are areas, with my colleague's support, that would strengthen the laws of Canada.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be back in the House of Commons. Just like with our back to school week, we call it “getting back into routine”.

I want to take this opportunity, this being my first chance to be on my feet here on the floor, to speak on more of a sad note, which is to report and acknowledge in the House the passing of my predecessor, who served as the member of Parliament for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry for 15 years, Mr. Guy Lauzon.

Guy passed away on June 22, at the age of 81. I was very lucky to not only have had Guy as my member of Parliament before I came into the role, but also to have had the honour of working for him for a number of years here on Parliament Hill and in our Cornwall constituency office.

Guy was hard-working. He was full of integrity. His loyalty was second to none. He really cared about SD and G, Cornwall, and the entire country, frankly. We could not have found a more proud Canadian than Guy.

In the House, he served as the national Conservative caucus chair. At one point he was the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of agriculture and agri-food. He loved being in here, and he loved the honour of commuting back and forth and representing our part of eastern Ontario.

Guy was not just a boss to me; he was also a friend and a mentor. I am going to miss the regular calls I had with him, where he gave me advice. It is very unique serving in this job as a member of Parliament. Not too many people are fortunate to be in this job. I am going to miss him dearly for many reasons. He attended events with me even after he retired, and he was out and about in the community. His legacy and reputation for hard work and delivering for the people of Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry is something I want to acknowledge.

My thoughts are with Jeff, Lonna-Lea and the entire Lauzon family as they continue to mourn a wonderful man and a wonderful Canadian.

I rise tonight to speak to the government's Bill C-2, the strong borders act. It is a very important piece of legislation for our part of eastern Ontario. Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, the united counties, the city of Cornwall and our community of Akwesasne in the riding of SD and G all share a border with the United States. We also have a port of entry that crosses from Cornwall onto Cornwall Island and over to Messina, New York. It is an important throughway for commercial and regular traffic to go through.

To be honest and frank as well, our community, sadly for too many years, has been a haven for drug, gun, human and sex trafficking. It has been a very disturbing trend we have seen over the course of the last couple of years, frankly decades. It is a reputation, one we are not proud to have. However, we are very proud of the men and women on the front lines who are working to combat the problem each and every day. Therefore when we see a piece of legislation entitled “strong borders”, I certainly have some contributions to add to the debate.

I will again give my gratitude to the frontline law enforcement officers who are doing the best they can with the resources and legislation they are given. The RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency, the OPP, the Cornwall Police Service and the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service work through the border integrity unit to address it. I just want to give members an idea of where we have not had strong borders and why we need some improvements, something for which I have been advocating for years.

The border integrity unit team, which specializes in combatting trafficking and criminal activities, up until recently was not even funded for a 24-7 service. Usually, every night at midnight is when the shifts would end for the people in the border integrity unit. Very often they would not be back until the next morning. I was astounded when I learned this in some of the briefings and ride-along tours I had with local law enforcement. There was frustration or exasperation that this was even a fact. When do we think most of the notorious activity happens? It is not at two o'clock in the afternoon along the St. Lawrence River, but at dark, throughout the night, in an attempt to achieve as quiet a circumstance as possible, and the unit is not being funded 24-7.

The government made an announcement recently, after years and years of knowing this, and I am following it anxiously to make sure the commitment actually turns into a reality, that in our part of the St. Lawrence River and eastern Ontario we will truly, finally, get a 24-7 stronger border by having the necessary resources and officials on the front line, not only the people but also the tools and equipment that are needed as well.

There are some good parts to the bill, as there would be in most pieces of legislation, that members will not find us having too much of an issue with. When I go through it and see the details of the legislation, there are some things that have been changed with respect to the sex offender registry and modernizing that. Members will find agreement from Conservatives on this side of the House. I think, frankly, all members of the House would support modernizing it, tightening it up and making those conditions more strict, as there are several loopholes that have been identified.

There are some modernizations as well that would allow CBSA to better have locations and facilities and to co-locate them when it comes to the import and export of products and goods in this country. On modernization, the government is not going to get an argument from us on this side of the House.

However, there are many concerning parts. The government has put an omnibus piece of legislation forward with many different parts. I believe there are 16 different parts to the legislation, several of which are concerning when it comes to civil liberties and the protection of Canadians' privacy.

I want to raise part 4, which deals with mail and some of the challenges that go along with that. What do we mean by that? Part 4 would give Canada Post unilateral power not just to open parcels but also to open letters without a warrant. The Liberals have tried to refute that, but when we go through the legislation, we see that it does not specify that a warrant would be needed. We have combed through the legislation.

Also, part 4 specifically deals with changes to the Canada Post Corporation Act, and because “warrant” does not appear there once, it leads to many questions about why the government is choosing to do this. Canada Post, to my knowledge, did not ask for this power specifically.

At the end of the day, I think Canadians would be very concerned to know that if they had mail going through an international crossing, leaving Canada or coming in, that their letter mail could be opened without a warrant. I believe, and the Conservatives believe, that is a complete invasion of privacy.

There is a process that law enforcement can follow if there is suspicion of parcels or, frankly, even of letters. We are left asking why the constraint on power is being changed, and we are wondering what is going on. Why would Canada Post want the authority to open mail? This creates a lot more questions than answers. We are going to continue to ask for those answers, because opening an envelope and looking for fentanyl also means opening a piece of mail and being allowed to read it. Who is going to have access to correspondence? What is the process going to be? There are certainly many questions when it comes to part 4.

The second part I want to raise in the debate here tonight is part 11 of the bill, which would ban cash transactions over $10,000. It would not put in a reporting requirement at all. It would not restrict it. It would not add bureaucracy or red tape, which the government is very good at doing, but would actually be a clear ban. When reading directly from the bill, we see that it would do all that.

I represent a rural community. In our part of Eastern Ontario, there are a lot of people who still deal in cash. It would not be anything to buy a small piece of farm equipment for $10,000 or $15,000, or to buy a used farm truck or a used vehicle. This would be jeopardized by what is being proposed:

Every person or entity that is engaged in a business, a profession or the solicitation of charitable financial donations from the public would commit an offence if the person or entity accepts a cash payment, donation or deposit of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or in a prescribed series of related transactions that total $10,000 or more.

There are a lot of those interactions that happen across the border between Eastern Ontario and northern New York. It continues to be a problem.

An additional challenge is what is not in the legislation. The Liberals are not addressing the desperate and urgent need for bail reform now. Our criminal justice system is a revolving door of catch and release. We need to address that. The Liberals have failed to do so.

When it comes to sentencing fentanyl kingpins, we need to clamp down and get more serious. Violent crime is up 50%, homicide is up 28%, sexual assaults are up 75%, extortion is up 357% and auto theft is up 46%. The list goes on and on. The bill does not go far enough to tackle the urgent need we have for public safety in this country.

I look forward to the questions and comments from my colleagues and how we will work to strengthen parts of it to actually get Canadians some relief from criminals ravaging our streets.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to clearly indicate to the member that the Prime Minister has been very clear that we are going to be bringing forward significant bail legislation. At the end of the day, with Bill C-2, there is an opportunity for the Conservatives to actually do some positive work at the committee stage if they are concerned about some amendments.

They bring up the issue of mail. We are talking about a typical letter, being used today to send fentanyl throughout different regions of our country. This is a very serious issue. The change would enable law enforcement agents to ultimately look inside an envelope if they have a warrant. I do not understand why the Conservatives would not support at least what I am saying in principle. If they do not read it within the legislation, why—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary to give a chance to the member for Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry to respond.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we go through the whole of part 4, which I was alluding to, under no clause does it make reference to a warrant. That is part of the issue we have with this piece of legislation.

This is where we are going again. There have been so many times in my nearly six years here in the House when the Liberals have said, “ Just trust us.” This is what we mean. I do not trust them and Canadians do not either. It is simple that it should be put in there. The fact that it is not leaves more questions than it does answers.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. One part of his speech really caught my attention, and that was when he referred to part 11 of the bill. If the bill were applied as it is currently written, it would prohibit cash transactions of more than $10,000. The hon. member referred to his riding, which is rural. I have also heard indigenous community leaders express their concerns about this part, specifically because cash transactions are more common in a number of indigenous communities, for example.

Is my colleague also aware of this reality? In his opinion, should there not be an amendment to that part of the bill?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from the Bloc raising that because our part of eastern Ontario has the Cornwall port of entry. We have one of the most complex borders and complex logistics to go with that. We have the community of Akwesasne in Ontario and Quebec, and in both Canada and the United States. The member is absolutely correct to highlight the challenge and the frustration with part 11 and that ban on transactions over $10,000.

There will be many people who reside and do business in Akwesasne, either in Ontario or Quebec, or on the Canada or U.S. side, who would be jeopardized. This issue and the complexities of it have been raised locally as well. There are not only farmers in my riding, and the member is correct to say that many people in the first nation community of Akwesasne would be severely impacted by this. It would impact them very negatively when it comes to their businesses and the transactions they choose to do.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech tonight. Being a border MP, he knows what he is speaking about. He brought up the Canada Post Corporation Act. We actually had the head of Canada Post at the government operations committee, the mighty OGGO. He went on the record and said that the government has not even consulted Canada Post about the changes it is proposing in Bill C-2.

Can my colleague comment on the fact that the government is trying to make changes without even consulting Canada Post?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would not be surprised by the lack of coordination the government would have in consulting Canada Post about this. I asked in my comments if Canada Post is even asking for this. This confirms that it did not. Again, there is a simple opportunity or resolution: If fentanyl is found in an envelope, or if there is suspicion of it, it can be set aside. They can then get a warrant to open it.

Whenever the Liberals say to give them a piece of legislation unamended, as is, they come back and say, “Just trust us, and we will deal with it later.” Trust continues to be a fundamental issue. That is why Conservatives are standing up for privacy rights and for charter rights in protecting people's right to send mail back and forth. There is a simple way of resolving this. Again, instead of the Liberals' “do not worry about it” approach, I think it needs a lot more scrutiny. I am glad my colleague is on OGGO in addition to the other committee work he does and the interventions he gives in the House.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and humility that I rise in the House as the member of Parliament for South Shore—St. Margarets. To stand here representing the voices, the stories and the concerns of my community is both an honour and a responsibility that I do not take lightly. My riding is a place where the ocean is not simply scenery. It is livelihood, heritage and the foundation of our communities.

For generations, families in South Shore—St. Margarets have built their lives around the water. Our fishers head out before dawn. Our families depend on the marine industries for their income, and our coastal towns thrive because of the opportunities and the challenges that the sea provides.

The Canadian Coast Guard, too, is woven into our community's fabric. For many in my riding, the Coast Guard is not just a federal institution. It is a neighbour, a rescuer and a partner. We see the red and white vessels in our harbours. We know the crews that are on call at all hours, and when there is a storm, a vessel in distress or an oil spill threatening our shorelines, it is often the Canadian Coast Guard that answers first.

That is why it feels fitting that my first speech here as we sit again should be about Bill C-2, and in particular, part 5 of this legislation, which would amend the Oceans Act. This is not just about legal language or technical updates. It is also about the safety, the well-being and the resilience of our coastal communities, those like mine and like so many across Canada.

South Shore—St. Margarets is defined not only by its relationship with the ocean but also by the strength of its communities and the compassion of its people. This past summer, I had the privilege of meeting with a remarkable local non-profit group called Thriving Twogether. This organization works tirelessly with families and individuals who are struggling with addiction. What they shared with me was very sobering.

They described parents living in constant fear that their children might be exposed to drugs at school or throughout their community. They spoke of individuals desperate for treatment but unable to find a bed, a program or timely support. They told me about families who have been torn apart by addiction and the invisible weight that so many of us carry each day.

Those were not statistics or headlines. Those were the stories of real people. They are the mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and neighbours, the people in my community who I have met at local events, at the grocery stores, at the church halls or at community fundraisers. Their struggles are real, and they remind us that the issues debated in the House are not abstract. They are about human lives, dignity and hope.

Their concerns are also echoed through another message I received this summer, which was an open letter from a municipal warden in my riding. The letter urged the federal government to act swiftly and decisively to address the flow of drugs into our communities. It spoke of the strain on local resources, of the heartbreak felt by too many families and of the urgent need for federal leadership.

When a community leader, a frontline organization and everyday families all converge on the same message, we must listen. Their voices remind us that government action must be grounded in the realities that the people face on the ground. It is against this backdrop that we must view part 5 of Bill C-2.

This legislation proposes an amendment to the Fisheries Act to explicitly state that Canadian Coast Guard services include activities related to security. It would authorize the responsible minister to collect, analyze and disclose information and intelligence. It also clarifies that these new authorities would strengthen Canada's capacity to work with our international partners, including our closest ally, the United States, to address pressing challenges such as cross-border drug trafficking.

Let me be clear that the Canadian Coast Guard is and will remain non-military, a civilian organization. Its core mandate will not change, and the vital services it provides, such as search and rescue, environmental response, marine navigation and support for our fishers and mariners will continue uninterrupted and undiminished. However, what this amendment would also do is provide the Coast Guard with these additional tools. It would ensure that in the face of modern security challenges, the Coast Guard can contribute effectively to the efforts to keep our communities safe. For communities like mine in South Shore—St. Margarets, this matters.

We know that the same waters that sustain us and our livelihoods can also be exploited by those who seek to move illicit substances across our borders. We know that trafficking networks are sophisticated. They adapt very quickly, and no single agency can respond alone. The Coast Guard's unique presence, its vessels, its infrastructure and its crews, stationed from coast to coast to coast, make it a critical partner for this work. By strengthening its ability to collect and share intelligence and to work seamlessly with law enforcement and international allies, we make it harder for traffickers to exploit our waters. We also make meaningful steps toward protecting families and communities from the ripple effects of drug trafficking.

Supporting this legislation is about more than policy. It is about people. It is about responding to the voices that I have heard in my riding, the voices that all members have heard in their ridings, the families supported by Thriving Twogether in my community, the municipal leaders sounding alarms and the neighbours who quietly share their fears about what drugs are doing to our youth and communities. It is also about acknowledging that addiction and trafficking are not challenges that one level of government, one organization or one community can solve alone. It requires a coordinated response. They require tools at every level: prevention, treatment, enforcement and community supports. Bill C-2 would not solve every aspect of this crisis, but it would strengthen one piece of the puzzle.

I have seen first-hand the resilience of my community. I have seen how people come together in times of crisis, whether it is after a storm, during a fire or in response to tragedy, but I have also seen the strain. I have seen how families can only carry so much on their own, how municipalities struggle with limited resources and how community organizations such as Thriving Twogether do this historic work, but cannot fill the gaps left by a lack of coordinated support. This legislation gives us a chance to ease some of that burden in our communities.

By enhancing the Coast Guard's capacity to play a role in security, we would disrupt trafficking networks before their products reach our shores, strengthen the hand of law enforcement and reduce the pressure on families and communities already stretched thin. I also believe this amendment reflects a broader principle here, one that I continue to carry with me in the House. That principle is that national policy must always be connected to the local realities we see every day in our ridings. When we debate legislation here in Ottawa, it must be with an eye to the impact that it will have on places like Liverpool, Bridgewater, Tantallon, Mahone Bay, Shelburne, Caledonia and the many other towns and villages along South Shore—St. Margarets—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to interrupt the hon. member. Her time has expired.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our colleague on her maiden speech.

She mentioned the Coast Guard, and I want to ask what measures the government must take to maintain all the services she outlined in her speech but be sufficiently protected when it comes into contact with a fully armed adversary? The People's Liberation Army Navy is not going to respect our civilian versus military designations.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the most important pieces here is to realize that the Coast Guard is now going to be part of the Department of National Defence. Being part of the Department of National Defence comes with those extra measures, that extra authority and those extra bodies. It is why we are putting so much money into our Department of National Defence. Those different services and resources are all part of the package our Minister of National Defence has outlined throughout the summer.

Yes, the resources the Coast Guard needs to do the enforcement on the water are all part of the package.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a bill that seeks to expand the powers of the authorities in place, including border services. However, there are not enough officers. There are not enough officers. There are not enough officers. According to the customs union, they are not short 200 officers, but 3,000.

What do we do about that?