Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are ready to support provisions in the bill that are in our national interest and secure our borders while proposing amendments by which the bill can be improved and opposing measures that go against the best interest of Canadians.
Before I get into the specifics of the bill, it is very important to note that much of the urgency surrounding the legislation is the direct result of 10 years of Liberal inaction on border and immigration enforcement. Let us not forget it was the new Trump administration that actually forced this issue, causing the Liberals to finally take these concerns seriously. It was about time.
Through the introduction of the bill, the Liberals are trying to address problems they not only created but also allowed to reach a crisis level. Conservatives have been calling for a stronger response to public safety, border security and immigration for years. I am pleased to see that some aspects of Bill C-2 take meaningful steps in helping to streamline investigations, fight money laundering and ensure sex offenders are dealt with properly under the Sex Offender Information Registry Act.
Having the appropriate tools is critical in keeping our borders secure, disrupting illegal financing and fighting transnational organized crime and fentanyl.
Part 2 attempts to begin to address the fentanyl crisis by proposing to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to fill a loophole in the act. It proposes to do this by banning precursor chemicals for fentanyl, which is critically important.
However, Bill C-2 fails to address the serious matter of appropriate sentencing for fentanyl dealers, for example, given the Liberals' failure to repeal their soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5, and their catch-and-release legislation in Bill C-75.
Part 4 of Bill C-2 would expand the powers of Canada Post, allowing it to open anything during post. While I agree that the Canada Post Act requires some amendments, the searching and opening of mail should be limited to law enforcement agencies with judicial authorization.
I remain concerned that some of the sweeping changes embedded in this omnibus bill could undermine privacy protections across Canada.
Having a secure border means having a strong, robust immigration system that serves the needs of Canadians and aligns with our national interests. Parts 6 to 9 of Bill C-2 attempt to address some of the challenges our immigration system faces after 10 years of Liberal mismanagement.
I strongly believe that the role of government is to protect our national security. We must ensure that our national security apparatus and law enforcement agencies have the legislative tools necessary to do their jobs and do them well.
Part 6 of the bill introduces amendments to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow information sharing between various government departments and agencies, but only if a written agreement exists.
I applaud the opening of communication between federal agencies, but the bill would permit these activities through regulation rather than simply legislating that requirement. The absence of legislating it and having enforcement mechanisms casts doubt on whether meaningful action would follow or whether this would be yet another empty promise.
Parts 7, 8 and 9 of Bill C-2 include proposed substantial changes to the in-Canada asylum claim eligibility. It would expand the minister's authority to suspend or cancel immigration documents for reasons determined to be in the national interest and proposes changes to the safe third country agreement so that anyone who crosses the border between official ports of entry would be ineligible to apply for asylum immediately after arrival and could be returned to the United States during that period if they do not qualify for an exception.
All of these proposed changes are significant and have potential, but they require in-depth study to ensure they address the problems appropriately.
Beyond immigration, Bill C-2, in part 10 and part 11, contains provisions to crack down on money laundering, terrorist financing and organized crime. Part 10 proposes to increase penalties and replace optional FINTRAC compliance agreements with a mandatory regime. It would expand FINTRAC's registration to include more entities and would authorize FINTRAC to share information with Elections Canada.
These are all sound proposals. However, in part 11 of the bill, the Liberals are proposing to ban certain entities from accepting third party cash deposits, any cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more. While I appreciate that the government says its intent here is to prevent money laundering by criminals, who predominantly use cash, without further legislative clarity, this has raised concerns from charities, community groups, rural communities and many individuals who rely on cash for their daily business activities.
The provision would risk limiting Canadians' freedom to use legal tender, including cash, as they may choose. Conservatives oppose any move to ban cash or require mandatory digital transactions, and believe that these changes must undergo rigorous scrutiny at committee.
Parts 14 and 15 of Bill C-2 have introduced measures which would curtail individual freedoms and have raised concerns that innocent individuals, not just criminals, may be caught by the provisions of the bill. The bill would introduce provisions to provide greater authority for police, CSIS and authorized persons to access online subscriber information from electronic service providers without the need for a warrant. I understand that this is important in some circumstances, but I believe that digital privacy is a fundamental right of Canadians, and we must ensure that the legislation would not lead to law-abiding citizens' being treated like criminals.
While action on our borders and the need for increased national security enforcement is desperately needed, I want to be clear that I do not support granting excessive, unchecked powers to government or law enforcement, in most circumstances, without due process, proper oversight and respect for Canadians' rights. Conservatives are concerned about Bill C-2's potential impact on Canadians' privacy and freedoms, and we will ensure that they are respected. As I have mentioned, Bill C-2 is sweeping in its scope, and I do not believe that Canadians should have to choose between having a secure border and having their civil liberties protected.
Given the scope and complexity, Conservatives are proposing that Bill C-2 be split into two separate pieces of legislation: one confined to border security and immigration, and the other to everything else. My hope is that the Liberals will receive that as intended. Like most Canadians, we all want secure communities and borders, and immigration that works, and the safety and security of Canadians is not negotiable.
Bill C-2 is a step in the right direction, like cracking down on terrorist financing, but we have concerns, and we oppose other provisions in the bill. The bill needs to be scrutinized. My hope is that the Liberals are open to non-partisan co-operation in ensuring that the bill achieves the stated goal of meaningful improvement to Canada's public safety and national security while safeguarding Canadians' rights and freedoms so that law-abiding Canadians are not treated like criminals.
