Debates of Sept. 17th, 2025

Strong Borders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, when you are talking about the Canada Border Services Agency, a lot of this piece we have discussed already in the House. We are going to be adding 1,000 more border patrol officers and 1,000 more RCMP officers, so there is infrastructure that we are putting in place to help support the needs in even your local communities.

In terms of my local community being coastal, having the Coast Guard present and having ramped up enforcement is going to be huge when we start to look at tackling different drug trafficking operations that are off the coast of Nova Scotia.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Before we move on, I will remind the hon. member to address her comments through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Moncton—Dieppe.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank my colleague for sharing what she has been hearing in her community over the summer. I think as members of Parliament we all want to make sure that we are doing active listening in our community, and we want to ensure that the legislation we bring forward really reflects what we are hearing from our constituents.

I think one thing we can all agree on in the House is that we want to ensure that the Canadian Coast Guard has the authorities and tools it needs to do its job. During the member's speech today, she indicated that part 5 of Bill C-2 will ensure that the Canadian Coast Guard has the tools it needs. I am wondering if my colleague could elaborate a bit on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of some of those resources, for example, I live in a coastal community where the fisheries are one of our primary industries, and sometimes we have enforcement issues. I know this summer, for the first time in decades, we had to deploy the Coast Guard to take care of some of those local fisheries issues. Having the Coast Guard there and putting some members of authority, in this case the DFO, on that boat really helps ramp up enforcement practices. Presence is key, so the more people we have helping with those enforcement strategies, the more we are going to be able to curb some of the problems going on in my community, such as, in this case, drug trafficking.

[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.

My colleague gave a local example about how things are going. I am wondering, though, about firearms. Firearms are killing our people. There is nothing in here about them.

What does she say to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a wonderful question from my colleague across the aisle. In terms of firearms, we have to remember that I grew up in a very rural area. I grew up on a farm, so when we are looking at local firearms, in my case, I have been saying this all throughout, since I was named as a member of Parliament: We have to look at the purpose of having the gun. In my case, I say the wooden handle, not the metal handle. There is a purpose for guns in rural communities: to protect our animals, to protect our—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member's time has expired. We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton.

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

Mr. Speaker, finally! Finally, that is the word.

Ottawa has finally understood the need to look at border security. In recent years, Ottawa has consistently turned a deaf ear to calls from all sides, including our own. Now, Ottawa seems to be starting to wake up. How unfortunate that it took a barrage of hostile comments and tariff threats from the newly appointed President Donald Trump for Ottawa to realize that it had to appear like it was taking the border security issue seriously. I was in Washington last week with the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean. The Americans are still very concerned about border security.

However, we have long called for stronger measures to combat the export of stolen vehicles, reduce the number of asylum seekers, and tackle the flow of fentanyl and the issue of money laundering. We need to address all of these issues. We have been talking about them for a long time. It cannot be said that they were never discussed by anyone in government, and that the problem was unknown. Unfortunately, it took a radical shake-up in Canada‑U.S. relations before we saw anyone start to wake up.

However, it is unfortunate that this belated awakening has resulted in an extremely lengthy and highly technical bill with potentially serious consequences. The bill is 130 pages. It amends no fewer than 12 laws and cannot be examined hastily or treated lightly. Unfortunately, this same bill is potentially rife with infringements on privacy and rights and freedoms.

While the Bloc Québécois does support Bill C‑2 at this particular stage so it can be studied in committee, where members can hear from experts, groups and affected individuals, we need to be clear that we will not accept any expedited procedures, gag orders, short studies or any other such strategies intended to force it down our throats. The bill is 130 pages long, and it is complicated and technical. It contains many more questions than answers. We have to get this right.

Let me start with the immigration aspect of the bill. Bill C‑2 gives the minister more control over asylum claims, allowing him to further consider all asylum claims, even if they have been deemed admissible by officers. The minister must authorize all claims before they are sent to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The minister also has the power to determine if an asylum claim has been withdrawn. It is therefore up to the minister to set the requirements through regulations.

Additionally, the minister and the minister's staff will no longer be required to appear before the Refugee Protection Division. That is a major change.

Bill C‑2 also stipulates that claimants will have to be in Canada to have their case heard. While we understand why the bill gives the minister the power to suspend or refuse to consider permanent and temporary resident visas, work permits and study permits, and while we welcome the intention behind these expansions of power, it is imperative that an in-depth study be conducted to determine whether there will be any consequences on permanent residents selected by Quebec. Given Canada's tendency toward increasing centralization, we have every reason to be skeptical.

Furthermore, we are pleased that Ottawa has finally listened to reason on the infamous 14-day loophole. What is the 14-day loophole? It is the idea that people who have entered through a route other than an official border crossing can file a claim if they are not caught during the first 14 days after crossing the border. This exception obviously encourages people to cross the border illegally. It is being removed, ensuring that such individuals would instead be deported.

The section on enhancing border services powers is full of good intentions, but chances are that the understaffing will undermine Ottawa's efforts. Let us talk about intentions. Transporters and warehouse operators are required to provide access to their facilities to allow Canada Border Services Agency officers to inspect goods destined for export. That is a good idea.

The bill would also add security-related activities to the Coast Guard's mandate, allowing it to conduct patrols and share information. That is not such a bad idea either. They also want better sharing of information by the RCMP concerning sex offenders and to change the legal threshold for disclosing information gathered in the national sex offender registry. The problem is knowing how to apply all that. The bill is full of good ideas, but the mandates it seeks to expand are those of institutions that are having a hard time recruiting and also retaining their employees.

In its election platform, the Liberal Party promised to hire 1,000 more RCMP officers, as well as 1,000 more CBSA officers, no less. How is it going to do that? We do not know. According to the Customs and Immigration Union, the same union that is rarely consulted when Ottawa is preparing yet another costly fiasco at the border, in order to fulfill its mandate, the Canada Border Services Agency would require nearly 3,000 additional officers. Without these hires, any real strengthening of border security will remain wishful thinking. Ottawa also needs to allow CBSA officers to patrol between ports of entry, which does not require a legislative amendment, only a regulatory change. That alone could help, and it is also very easy to do.

The biggest problem has to do with privacy, rights and freedoms. We do not yet know if they will be respected. Ineffectiveness is one thing, but this could lead to people being unjustly deprived of their freedoms. For any society, the balance between security and freedom can sometimes be precarious. Fighting crime obviously means giving law enforcement the tools it needs to do its job. We have no issue with that principle.

However, we have reason to fear that the bill could lead to security overreach. Nowadays, surveillance of everything we do is steadily increasing. Simplifying procedures is one thing; implementing an extremely intrusive provision is another. Would this give law enforcement the right to open people's mail, as some have suggested? We know the bill would require electronic service providers to support the investigations of law enforcement agencies and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, by responding to their requests and intercepting information and communications. It also allows a bank, credit union or insurance company to collect and use an individual's personal information without their knowledge or consent under certain circumstances. These are just a few examples.

Are these provisions justified in some cases? Are groups and civil law experts right to be concerned? We have been hearing a lot of concerns and a lot of perspectives. I want to emphasize that. Is the balance between increased security and the protection of freedoms being upset in favour of the former and to the detriment of the latter? There is no way to be sure at this point, but there are, as they say, red flags. There is reason enough to worry, even though we agree with the principle of the bill, which addresses a need that should have been addressed a long time ago.

This massive bill raises more questions than it answers. One thing is certain: it warrants serious, in-depth study before we can determine whether the bill can and should be improved and, of course, whether it should be passed in the end. This circumstantial support should not be seen as a blank cheque. We will be keeping a close eye on things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member is saying in regard to the passage of the legislation. At the end of the day, we need to look at what the government committed to in the last election. The legislation we see before us today encompasses many of the things the Prime Minister campaigned on in the last election.

I can appreciate, in a minority situation, that we have to work with opposition. There is a very strong willingness to do so, but we also need to recognize that if the government does not try to encourage the legislation to go through, there is a very good chance that it will never get through. We need to encourage the legislation to go through. Much of the debate and questioning could be taking place at the committee stage.

Can the member provide his thoughts in terms of Canadians wanting us to co-operate?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, it was a government commitment. That said, I do not believe that the 130 pages of this bill, right down to the smallest detail, were actually specific Liberal commitments during the election campaign. The devil is often in the details.

We are quite willing to co-operate, but things need to unfold differently than they did last June, when there was a super closure motion, fast-track procedures and rushed studies. This bill is complicated. The Bloc Québécois has said that it will vote in favour of the bill so that it can be sent to committee, because we want to study it. If my colleague wants our co-operation, there will have to be a thorough study, increased scrutiny and a rigorous process involving experts, groups and individuals who are affected.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate a little more on his comments regarding simply removing the irritants the United States has asked us to remove. It does not feel like leadership. The public safety minister pretty much admitted that this was the purpose of the bill.

What took the Liberals so long? Why did they wait for the U.S. to chime in? I think our government is stronger than that, or it should be, and I would like to hear a couple of more comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I need to point out that it took a wake-up call, like so many other situations. The same thing happened with the previous American administration with regard to Roxham Road. It took the White House saying that the situation was no longer working and that enough was enough. All of a sudden, the government, which has rediscovered the concept of Canadian sovereignty—so despised in previous decades and supposedly a major concern now—is saying that border security is important. Perhaps stolen vehicles being shipped overseas is important. Perhaps fentanyl matters. Perhaps criminal gangs are important. Perhaps the weapons that enter our country have an impact here. It took an American administration to say those things to get the ball rolling after nine years with this government in power.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say more about this topic, because it is quite surprising. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons says this is a new government, but I do not believe this is the first time I have seen him. He has been rising in the House for some time, and, all of a sudden, he is saying that we need to tighten our borders and toughen up the asylum seeker program.

In June 2024, when he was in office, the former immigration minister announced to great fanfare that a committee would be set up to distribute asylum seekers across Canada. He said that some provinces were doing much more than their share based on their demographic weight, that is, their population. Where is this committee on the distribution of asylum seekers now?

That is my question for my colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is using a figure of speech known as a “rhetorical question”.

If such a committee existed, my colleague, who is the immigration critic, would probably know more about it than I do and know where it is now. I therefore take it that the answer was implied in the question.

Nonetheless, I will take this opportunity to say that it took a long time and a lot of turning in circles to finally get somewhere. We still do not know if it will measure up or whether it will have to be enhanced or improved, but if Ottawa is finally starting to wake up, so much the better.

Why did it take a reminder from the U.S. for Canada's representatives to realize that they have to monitor their borders? Why did King Charles not tell them that when they went to meet with him to talk about sovereignty?

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

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.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated receiving some further information from the members opposite with respect to this bill this afternoon.

With great respect to the government party, this bill feels rushed. There are aspects of it that would intrude upon the rights of individuals. I have yet to hear a justification for the intrusion on privacy rights without the benefit of a third party review. It is our judicial process currently that law enforcement agencies, whatever they may be, when they have a suspicion of crime, go before the courts to obtain a warrant prior to accessing the property of individuals. I have yet to hear a justification for why we should set that aside.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is talking about the ISPs and wiretaps on our phones. There are a number of different acts and laws that really combat this issue. From my understanding, there is no specific provision that says that, without a warrant, we can go and take somebody's data.

Again, as we go through the bill process, I am looking forward to seeing how all of this information and the details and the technicalities come out within the committee stage, as well as to hearing from experts, to see how we can improve this bill to make sure that everybody's rights are protected.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be back in the House, especially after a very busy summer as a new member. I think it is important to go back to basics and acknowledge my constituents in Repentigny, because I am here to work for them.

My question is this. We have seen Chinese drones being used in the past to patrol the border, among other things, which was problematic. The big issue with border surveillance is the number of officers on the ground. We have asked about this over and over, but we have not received a response. The Customs and Immigration Union has been very clear about the fact that nearly 3,000 more officers are needed.

How will these additional officers be paid, and when will they be hired? Can we get an answer to those questions?

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

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety have announced that there will be 1,000 more CBSA officers to help patrol. As the work starts and continues, we have to be nimble. We have to make sure that our border patrol has the resources it needs in order to be successful. As I said in my speech, it is a changing landscape where we have the digital aspect of it and we have the physical aspect of it. Organized criminals are oftentimes 10 steps ahead of where we are, and we need to make sure that we are catching up with that pace. I look forward to working with the member to make sure we have that support—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for London West.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague back into the House of Commons. I know that she had a lot more to say, and maybe she will get the opportunity to do so right now. I just wanted to comment on the fact that she said that this is not the final bill, and we want to take it to committee to discuss many of the issues that many people in the House have commented on.

Could the member maybe speak to how she can continue to convince the opposition to support sending this to committee, so that opposition members' suggestions can actually be discussed and further moved into the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I say often and as I say loudly, there is no government without a healthy and strong opposition. That is where good legislation comes from. In order for us to really think about the issues that we are discussing here today, in order for us to really work and collaborate together for the betterment of Canadians, the bill has to go to committee, so that not only do we hear about members' concerns, but most importantly, we hear from experts on specific aspects of the bill and propose amendments to make the bill stronger, so that both of our concerns are addressed. Those concerns are public safety and individual security.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have always stood for the principle of security and the principle of freedom, and we have managed to do so simultaneously. These are the two pillars of a safe and prosperous society. Sadly, though, after a decade of Liberal governance, Canadians are living with less of both: less freedom and less security. The Liberals would like to move past their disastrous record on these topics, but Canadians are still paying the price and therefore very much paying attention and have some significant concerns.

Today, with Bill C-2, the government is claiming yet again to secure Canada. The Liberals have said that this is the intent of the bill. I would like to explore that a bit, because there are two problems that I see with the bill. I would say that it would neither make our communities safer nor protect our freedoms, and it would actually deepen the failures of the current government from the past decade.

There are two things. The bill claims to enhance security, but it would actually leave glaring holes in our justice system untouched, therefore leaving a person feeling less secure than ever. I will expand on that. The second thing I would like to discuss is the fact that it would infringe on the fundamental freedoms of Canadians in ways that should alarm each and every one of us in this place.

With regard to security of person and the justice system, let us be clear: Bill C-2 is the Liberals' half-hearted attempt to patch over the chaos that many of their policies have actually created. Sadly, Canadians have been truly, not figuratively, paying for those mistakes with their lives. We are told the border is secure, yet the CBSA has lost track of nearly 30,000 people with deportation orders. That is not security; that is negligence. In Falkland, B.C., authorities uncovered the largest, most sophisticated drug superlab in Canadian history in just the last couple of years. In the same province, the RCMP arrested individuals tied to a transnational organized crime group connected to Mexican drug cartels. This is the state of our country.

These are not isolated incidents. They are the product of years of border mismanagement and reckless drug policy experiments that have been done, especially in the province of British Columbia, which the government not only stamped with approval but also funded. That same failed experiment actually resulted in the death of more people due to drug overdose than died during World War II. Let that sink in for a moment: More people died because of the government's failed drug experiment than the number of people who died in World War II. That is a big deal.

Meanwhile, we also have to look at catch-and-release policies and what they have done, because they have sown great chaos across the country. My own riding of Lethbridge has one of the highest property and violent crime rates in Canada, and we are certainly not alone. It is something being experienced in communities from coast to coast.

In Welland, Ontario, just a few weeks ago, a three-year-old girl was violently sexually assaulted in her own bed. A little girl should be able to go to sleep at night with confidence that she is going to be kept safe, that she is going to wake up in the morning without her sleep being disrupted in any way. Unfortunately, because of our weak policies in this country, that three-year-old woke up having been forever changed, and she now has to work through the scarring that has taken place, not only to her physical body but to that little three-year-old heart. That is because of the failed policies of this place.

Folks, more can and should be done in order to make sure that a person is secure. Yes, sure, put more border patrol in place, but at the end of the day, there is so much more. In Kelowna, B.C., Bailey McCourt, a 32-year-old mother of two, was beaten by her ex with a hammer after he got released on $500 bail. That did not have to happen. Folks, if our justice system were stronger, if it stood for victims and did not side with criminals, these things would be prevented.

These tragedies expose a massive weakness in our justice system, and it is one that desperately needs to be addressed. The government has not only the opportunity but, I would dare say, the responsibility.

There are solutions, and I want to outline two of them. We have dozens that we can offer, but these are two of them. One would be bail reform. There are cases like that of Bailey, who was the mother murdered by her ex. He should not have been allowed out on bail. It highlights a massive problem with our bail system, the fact that a criminal can be put in jail and then let out before the ink on the police report even dries. That is what happened here. This man, a very dangerous offender who was known to police, went out and took the life of his ex-wife, leaving two young children without a mom, and a family grieving.

We have put forward a bill called the jail not bail act, and it calls for the repeal of Bill C-75, which forces judges to release offenders at the earliest opportunity and under the lightest conditions. That should not be the case in this country. The bill we are proposing would instead require judges to consider an accused's full criminal history, deny bail to repeat major offenders and toughen risk assessments, which would do a lot of good for victims and innocent Canadians. It would certainly do a lot of good to put criminals where they belong.

The other reform that we could bring forward is sentence reform. We have to confront the fact that our sentencing laws in this country are very broken. In Canada today, the maximum penalty for a third robbery offence is higher than the penalty for a sexual offence. I am going to say that again. Right now in this country, the maximum penalty for a third robbery offence is actually more than for a sexual assault offence.

I want us to think about that for a moment. Physical property in this country is actually given more weight, more value, than a person's dignity. Most often, it is women who are sexually assaulted. It is women who are put in that vulnerable place, that place of having to pull themselves together and heal from what was robbed: their very dignity and their very being.

It is also worth noting that our system allows for violent offenders to actually receive house arrest rather than be put in prison where they belong. How does that protect society? How does that protect those who are just trying to go to work, take their kids to sports or a music lesson, and live life in a safe, law-abiding manner? Why are we not standing up for those folks?

Colleagues, we need tougher, more consistent sentencing that reflects the gravity of the crime committed. Canadians deserve this. When we talk about the security of a person, these are the things that must come to the table. Under Bill C-2, none of this is considered. In fact, in the six or seven months that the government has now been in place under the new Prime Minister, the topics I am bringing up today have not even been addressed. They have not even been acknowledged.

This summer, it felt like every other hour I was opening up my phone and reading an article with regard to a crime committed against another human being. There was another life lost or another person assaulted. It should not be that way. Those in this House have the power, we have the power, to make a difference. We have the power to change the laws of this country and to instruct our law enforcement agents and the courts to act differently. We have the ability to contend for victims, to protect those who are innocent, and to truly provide security of person. When we talk about Bill C-2, there is a whole lot missed there.

I said originally that I was going to talk about security of person, and I was going to talk about the violation of human liberty that is also exposed in this bill. Out of passion, I have run out of time, but I think I have hit my mark. Ultimately, it is the people who matter most. They are the ones who sent me here. They are the ones I am contending for, and I would ask that my colleagues do the same.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks go to the hon. member opposite for bringing attention, and her passion, to this very important and indeed deeply touching issue.

I wish to bring to the member's attention, in case she is not yet aware, a petition that has been moved by the loved ones of Bailey McCourt from Kelowna, whom the member referenced. This tragic story, which occurred this summer in British Columbia, my home province, touched many of us and has rippled out widely across our communities.

In that context, it is my great privilege to be the parliamentary sponsor for a petition that Bailey's loved ones have brought forward. It calls for a number of revisions to the Criminal Code to address some of the shortcomings and gaps that may have contributed to the tragic loss of her life at the hands of her former partner. Some of those proposed changes include requiring the disclosure of a criminal record to one's partner upon receiving a marriage licence, as well as a variety of other measures that I trust the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada will take up in this session.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I thank the hon. member for taking those steps. I think advocating for, in this case, his constituent's family, the loved ones who have been left behind, is really admirable. It is the right thing to do. Well done.

That said, I also believe that the member stands on the side of government and therefore has the ability to urge change. I hope he is doing that. I hope he is urging cabinet with all his might, and especially the Prime Minister, to look at this very seriously and to create changes around both bail and the way we do sentencing in this country. Those two things are very much needed in order to protect the innocent and make sure that future situations like what happened to Bailey do not happen again.