Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet today to talk about Bill C-2 because I strongly feel there is a balance to be struck between public safety and the safety of our collective community in Canada and of our country, and the safety of individual rights.
I think everybody in this House wants to go after child sex offenders transnationally. We want to make sure that law enforcement is modernized and has the tools it needs to go after bad guys. All of us want to crack down on money laundering, stop the cash flow of organized crime and deprive organized criminals of their illegal profits. We want to stop auto theft and ensure that our vehicles remain within our country and are not exported abroad and sold. We want to make sure that drug production comes to a halt. We want to make sure that fentanyl is not going between borders and, most importantly, is not ending up in the hands of the vulnerable communities all across Canada that suffer for it. At the same time, though, we want to make sure the majority of Canadians do not suffer for our collective safety.
That balance is what this debate is all about, and that balance is what I am hoping the discussion at committee will be about. I am willing to support this bill to ensure that collective Canadian safety is paramount to where we are going with it, but at the same time, providing safeguards to individual Canadians is just as important. We want to make sure that we are not only collectively safe, but individually safe.
A number of concerns have been raised about this bill, but I want to talk about some of the positive things that have been brought about. For example, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has said:
Canada lags behind its international law enforcement partners in the ability to lawfully access electronic evidence associated to criminal activity. Transnational organised crime groups are exploiting this gap to victimize our communities across the country through serious crimes such as human, drug and firearm trafficking, auto theft, and violent profit-driven crime.
These are serious things, and we need to equip our law enforcement, as they are dealing with and protecting our borders and our communities.
The association goes on to say:
The proposed Bill demonstrates a commitment to modernizing legislation and equipping law enforcement with necessary tools to combat transnational organized crime in an increasingly complex threat environment. In particular, the Bill sets out several important law amendments which will address systemic vulnerabilities within the justice system, providing critical tools for law enforcement, border services and intelligence agencies.
I think those are very important pieces to this legislation.
A number of issues have also been raised by civil society. However, I will first address some of the items this bill would and would not do that have been sensationalized and perhaps used to misinform the public.
There have been talks about a ban on cash transactions over $10,000. However, if we read the bill, specifically part 11, line 136, and the exemptions for section 5 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, we see that there are exemptions for financial institutions, credit unions, etc., that would allow legitimate activity to happen. The intention of this bill is to go after the clandestine or nefarious nature of a money transfer.
There is another claim, which I have heard members talk about in the House today, about our mail being opened. Under our current law, that is already allowed. However, the bill would remove the section on exempting our letters so that it not just about our parcels.
When we talk about reasonable suspicion as a ground to open mail, I have some concerns about that, but ultimately, when we are talking about giving discretion to our law enforcement officers, the people we trust to hold office, that discretion needs to be honoured and valued. It also needs to ensure there is no systemic bias within that process. Somebody from a specific country should not be targeted, nor should they raise the reasonable suspicion of a mail officer or border officer. There are many other ways to do that.
One major concern that has been raised is with respect to privacy, an issue of our time. It is not just about the privacy that we have regarding our phones and data tracking at the border. It goes across all ways. It goes across how we use our social media, how our Internet use is sold to third parties, how it is used to advertise and how it is used to basically figure out a pattern of who we are as people.
There needs to be a deeper dive not just at the border, but all across the digital world we live in here in Canada. Where is our information stored? Who is it shared with? Where Bill C-2 addresses a part of that, I think we need to go a little further and expand it, perhaps in different legislation, to look at how we are protecting Canadians' data and their privacy, regardless of where they are within the country. That is a very important aspect of providing safety to Canadians.
One part that does trouble me a bit is about sharing the data of Canadians with international partners. I think that, yes, we absolutely have obligations to our allies and partners, whether it is the Five Eyes, NATO or other partners, but first and foremost, we need to decide how we are going to protect Canadians and what our international obligations are with respect to privacy and human rights, and make sure that Bill C-2 conforms to that as well. We have a very robust judicial system that will eke out exactly how we need to ensure this is regulated.
I realize that I only have two minutes left. I have a lot more to say, but I want to reinforce that this whole debate is not about the technicalities of the bill per se. I think it is a broader conversation about how we balance our need for public safety and security against our individual rights as Canadians.
The majority of Canadians are strong, law-abiding, friendly, amazing people, and they should not have their rights stepped on because of a few nefarious actors. Having said that, we need to explore a little further what the balance could be between the very legitimate and well-founded concerns that civil society organizations have raised and the needs of our country and law enforcement with regard to safety and security.
I find it to be an amazing step forward for our Prime Minister to say that we will have over 1,000 new CBSA officers providing resources on the ground for border safety and security, trying to combat drug trafficking, sex trafficking and money laundering, and trying to clamp down on organized crime. However, I also want to make sure that our laws are fit for purpose and that individual Canadians are well respected per their rights in our charter and Constitution.