Bill C-2

Strong Borders Act

An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures

Part 1 amends the Customs Act to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with facilities free of charge for carrying out any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of that Act and other Acts of Parliament and to provide officers of that Agency with access at certain locations to goods destined for export. It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 2 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a new temporary accelerated scheduling pathway that allows the Minister of Health to add precursor chemicals to Schedule V to that Act. It also makes related amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulations and the Precursor Control Regulations .
Part 3 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to confirm that the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, make regulations exempting members of law enforcement from the application of any provision of the Criminal Code that creates drug-related inchoate offences when they are undertaking lawful investigations.
Part 4 amends the Canada Post Corporation Act to permit the demand, seizure, detention or retention of anything in the course of post only in accordance with an Act of Parliament. It also amends that Act to expand the Canada Post Corporation’s authority to open mail in certain circumstances to include the authority to open letters.
Part 5 amends the Oceans Act to provide that coast guard services include activities related to security and to authorize the responsible minister to collect, analyze and disclose information and intelligence.
Part 6 amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to disclose, for certain purposes and subject to any regulations, personal information under the control of the Department within the Department and to certain other federal and provincial government entities.
It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the making of regulations relating to the disclosure of information collected for the purposes of that Act to federal departments and agencies.
Part 7 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) eliminate the designated countries of origin regime;
(b) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to specify the information and documents that are required in support of a claim for refugee protection;
(c) authorize the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been abandoned in certain circumstances;
(d) provide the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with the power to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been withdrawn in certain circumstances;
(e) require the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division to suspend certain proceedings respecting a claim for refugee protection if the claimant is not present in Canada;
(f) clarify that decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board must be rendered, and reasons for those decisions must be given, in the manner specified by its Chairperson; and
(g) authorize regulations to be made setting out the circumstances in which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must designate, in relation to certain proceedings or applications, a representative for persons who are under 18 years of age or who are unable to appreciate the nature of the proceeding or application.
It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 8 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order specifying that certain applications made under that Act are not to be accepted for processing, or that the processing of those applications is to be suspended or terminated, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order to cancel, suspend or vary certain documents issued under that Act, or to impose or vary conditions, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
(c) for the application of an order referred to in paragraph (b), require a person to appear for an examination, answer questions truthfully and produce all relevant documents or evidence that an officer requires; and
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing circumstances in which a document issued under that Act can be cancelled, suspended or varied, and in which officers may terminate the processing of certain applications made under that Act.
Part 9 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to add two new grounds of ineligibility for claims for refugee protection as well as powers to make regulations respecting exceptions to those new grounds. It also includes a transitional provision respecting the retroactive application of those new grounds.
Part 10 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum administrative monetary penalties that may be imposed for certain violations and the maximum punishments that may be imposed for certain criminal offences under that Act;
(b) replace the existing optional compliance agreement regime with a new mandatory compliance agreement regime that, among other things,
(i) requires every person or entity that receives an administrative monetary penalty for a prescribed violation to enter into a compliance agreement with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (the Centre),
(ii) requires the Director of the Centre to make a compliance order if the person or entity refuses to enter into a compliance agreement or fails to comply with such an agreement, and
(iii) designates the contravention of a compliance order as a new violation under that Act;
(c) require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act, other than those already required to register, to enroll with the Centre; and
(d) authorize the Centre to disclose certain information to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, subject to certain conditions.
It also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations and includes transitional provisions.
Part 11 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to prohibit certain entities from accepting cash deposits from third parties and certain persons or entities from accepting cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more. It also makes a related amendment to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations .
Part 12 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to make the Director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada a member of the committee established under subsection 18(1) of that Act. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to enable the Director to exchange information with the other members of that committee.
Part 13 amends the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to, among other things,
(a) make certain changes to a sex offender’s reporting obligations, including the circumstances in which they are required to report, the information that must be provided and the time within which it is to be provided;
(b) provide that any of a sex offender’s physical characteristics that may assist in their identification may be recorded when they report to a registration centre;
(c) clarify what may constitute a reasonable excuse for a sex offender’s non-compliance with the requirement to give at least 14 days’ notice prior to a departure from their residence for seven or more consecutive days;
(d) authorize the Canada Border Services Agency to disclose certain information relating to a sex offender’s arrival in and departure from Canada to law enforcement agencies for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of that Act;
(e) authorize, in certain circumstances, the disclosure of information collected under that Act if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will assist in the prevention or investigation of a crime of a sexual nature; and
(f) clarify that a person who discloses information under section 16 of that Act with the belief that they are acting in accordance with that section is not guilty of an offence under section 17 of that Act.
It also makes a related amendment to the Customs Act .
Part 14 amends various Acts to modernize certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation. It, among other things,
(a) amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(i) facilitate access to basic information that will assist in the investigation of federal offences through an information demand or a judicial production order to persons who provide services to the public,
(ii) clarify the response time for production orders and the ability of peace officers and public officers to receive and act on certain information that is voluntarily provided to them and on certain information that is publicly available,
(iii) specify certain circumstances in which peace officers and public officers may obtain evidence, including subscriber information, in exigent circumstances,
(iv) allow a justice or judge to authorize, in a warrant, a peace officer or public officer to obtain tracking data or transmission data that relates to any thing that is similar to a thing in relation to which data is authorized to be obtained under the warrant and that is unknown at the time the warrant is issued,
(v) provide and clarify authorities by which computer data may be examined, and
(vi) allow a justice or judge to authorize a peace officer or public officer to make a request to a foreign entity that provides telecommunications services to the public to produce transmission data or subscriber information that is in its possession or control;
(b) makes a consequential amendment to the Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act ;
(c) amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to allow the Minister of Justice to authorize a competent authority to make arrangements for the enforcement of a decision made by an authority of a state or entity that is empowered to compel the production of transmission data or subscriber information that is in the possession or control of a person in Canada;
(d) amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to, among other things,
(i) facilitate access to basic information that will assist the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the performance of its duties and functions under section 12 or 16 of that Act through information demands given to persons or entities that provide services to the public and judicial information orders against such persons and entities, and
(ii) clarify the response time for production orders; and
(e) amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to provide and clarify authorities by which computer data may be examined.
Part 15 enacts the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act . That Act establishes a framework for ensuring that electronic service providers can facilitate the exercise, by authorized persons, of authorities to access information conferred under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act .
Part 16 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to permit a person or entity referred to in section 5 of that Act to collect and use an individual’s personal information without that individual’s knowledge or consent if
(a) the information is disclosed to the person or entity by a government department, institution or agency or law enforcement agency; and
(b) the collection and use are for the purposes of detecting or deterring money laundering, terrorist activity financing or sanctions evasion or for a consistent purpose.
It also makes related amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act .

Strong Borders Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Does he want bail in it?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just asked if we want bail in it. Heck yes, I want bail in it. We really want to deal with bail. We, as Conservatives, want to deal with bail. In fact, I had two private members' bills that dealt with bail during the last Parliament. One of the bills was in response to the killing of Constable Pierzchala, a police officer. He was in his mid-twenties.

I believe I could say that Constable Pierzchala was killed, as the person is no longer accused, as they went to trial. He was killed by somebody who was out on bail. It was the constable's first shift alone. He had just passed his probation period. That person also had a firearms prohibition, and those prohibitions are now being treated like they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Therefore, to my colleague from Winnipeg, who heckled me and asked if I want bail in the bill, yes, we want bail in the bill. I will gladly take him up on that. I will gladly meet with the Minister of Public Safety.

In fact, in questions and comments, I want the member for Winnipeg North to stand up. It does not take much to cajole him to stand up, even if there are 30 people behind him. The Liberals are laughing because they know it is true. I want the member to stand up to tell me whether the Liberals will pass Bill C-313 from the last Parliament, which would make the hill much harder to climb for people who were previously convicted of gun charges and placed on firearms prohibitions. This is a small, discreet group of people.

In the member's prelude, I challenge him to say that the Liberals will support Bill C-313 or my other private member's bill on bail, which targeted a very small, discreet group of people who were being accused of three indictable offences at one time, as in those files had not been resolved, with 10 years or more. Those are offences such as robbery, manslaughter, assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, by indictment. The member has been here for a long time, and he speaks on behalf of the government. Does he have the guts to stand up to say that the Liberals will incorporate the principles of those bills in this bill? I would love to work with the government to address bail.

What about fentanyl sentencing? I wonder if the member for Winnipeg North is onside with his party's views on sentencing. We are getting this tough-on-crime stuff from the Liberals. Do members know what we heard? In fact, now that I come to think of it, it was from the member from Winnipeg. I introduced a bill about sexual offences, and the whole point of the bill on sexual offences was to raise the sentences. A lot of people do not know this, but sexual offences are treated less seriously than property offences in some regards. For instance, if someone breaks into a house, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. If they rob somebody, which is theft with an element of violence, they can go to jail for life. However, if someone takes a person's dignity and consent, which is a crime of violence just like robbery, the maximum sentence is 10 years, so I brought this up. The member for Winnipeg heckled, “Tough on crime.” The Liberals are telling us how tough on crime they are now, when they mocked us the last time. They will not only tell us how tough they are on crime but also do little about it.

In this omnibus bill, it says that offenders can serve their sentence for trafficking in fentanyl from their couch. There is going to be 10 minutes for questions and comments, and I challenge any Liberal who rises to say to me, through the Speaker, “I agree with that. I agree that, for people who traffic in one of the deadliest drugs, if not the deadliest drug that we know of, who are literally peddling poison, it is okay that they sit at home playing their video game system, listening to their favourite music and sleeping in their bed, when they are literally peddling poison.” I am speaking right to the Liberals here, those who are prepared to look me in the eye to say that.

Let us go to another one, which is firearms offences. One of the offences in a case called R. v. Oud, out of British Columbia, and it was upheld by the B.C. Court of Appeal as being a constitutional mandatory minimum. Discharge with intent is a drive-by shooting and those types of things. The Liberals legislated that offenders could serve that sentence at home. Previously, it was a four-year mandatory minimum. They kept the five-year minimum if it was a handgun or a restricted firearm, but oftentimes the guns are not ever recovered. Nobody says, “I just did a drive-by. Police, here is the gun.” This does not happen.

The Liberals are telling us that they are tough on crime. They say, “Look at our borders act.” It is 130 pages. “Look at this, we are so tough on crime.” I challenge any member of the Liberals to stand up to say, through the Speaker, “I am okay with people who do drive-by shootings to serve their sentence at home.” People will say, “Oh, you are just tough on crime indiscriminately.”

To the contrary, I think most people deserve a second chance. In fact, a lot of people do. Some people deserve a second chance because they have done something stupid. They have made decisions. They got into an addiction. A lot of people I saw were in a car accident and were then prescribed opiates. The next thing they knew, they had an opiates addiction.

We are not talking about locking the door and throwing away the key for the majority of offenders. We are talking about a small, discreet group of offenders. Nowhere in this bill does it talk about those things. We are prepared to talk about everything but. We are prepared to talk about Internet service providers and whether they have to turn over their materials without a warrant. That is in response to a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision. For those who do not know, an ISP address is easily discoverable. As I recall, and I have not read or looked at the case in some time, the court said a warrant is needed. There is an expectation of privacy there.

I could go on and on about what is not in this bill. Again, I will challenge my Liberal colleagues. Will they have the guts to stand up to say, “I am okay with those things.” If they are not okay with those things, then why are they not petitioning the government to amend the bill to be tough on the crimes they say they are tough on.

This bill has a number of elements to it. It has 16 parts. Obviously, the first part we are dealing with looks at CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, and its ability to do searches. This is interesting, as the Leader of the Opposition, in the last Parliament, would say people were literally tracking their cars to our ports and seeing them go into containers. They were told they could not trespass on that port. People wanted to get their cars back, but they could not do it. We got laughed at, as Conservatives, for this, for our supposed tough-on-crime approach, yet the Liberals are saying that Conservatives need to pass this omnibus bill.

We have a lot of questions about the bill, and I think Canadians deserve to have those questions answered.

The Canada Post Corporation Act would be amended, through part 4 of the bill “to permit the demand, seizure, detention or retention of anything in the course of post only in accordance with an Act of Parliament.” As I understand that, this is a judicial authorization commonly known as a warrant. Typically, it is a warrant that is embedded there. This is really interesting, and I would love for the government to expand on this, because this is something I know I am going to get mail about, if I have not gotten it already.

Part 4 would allow Canada Post Corporation to open mail in certain circumstances. As I understand it, and I am not an expert in this regard, the nature of mail has been that it has been regarded as private since Confederation. In other words, Canada Post has not been able to open somebody's mail. This is the reason we are now talking about the language in the Charter and what is referred to as an expectation of privacy.

The highest expectation is on our bodies. Then we have things like our phones and letters, but there is still an expectation of privacy there, so I would really like for the government to explain what that threshold would be and why it is that Canada Post would be doing this. Those are questions that we really need to have answered.

Similarly, there are the Canadian Coast Guard provisions. How are they going to look in practice? This is a really significant bill that I think we need a bit more information on. I am mindful of the fact that we always will have rights of the individual, and I noticed that many of my Liberal colleagues stood up and clapped when they spoke about being the party of the Charter of Rights. As my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill noted, there is no charter statement here.

The government was able to give us a 130-page bill with 16 parts, and when we ask where the charter statement is, there is a bit of the proverbial shoulder shrug, with the statement, “It just came out two days ago.” If the Liberals can put out a 130-page bill, certainly they can put out a four- or five-page charter statement. It would amaze me if nobody in the government went through this document and asked if it was charter compliant. Certainly somebody did.

We have a government that is saying, “We are all about the charter; we believe in this,” but it will not tell Canadians what its experts have said about whether this legislation is charter compliant. As a critic, how am I to respond to people who have very good faith inquiries about this type of legislation?

The next part of the bill gets into citizenship and immigration. I am not going to touch on that, because I know that my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill will be dealing with that.

The last thing I want to do is reflect on the life of a good friend. His name was Mark Evevard. He was not Canadian, but he touched the lives of many Canadians. Mark passed away unexpectedly of a heart attack just before the election. I cannot understate the profound influence that this man had on my life. He leaves behind his children, Stephen, Lauren and Patrick. I got to spend time with Mark and Patrick right around the pandemic and just before it. Mark touched so many lives, and I wanted to recognize him here, through his work in youth ministry for the church and as a servant. May perpetual light shine upon him. It was my honour to know him.

With that, I will conclude my speech and take questions.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the opposition member for his speech and his challenge to us on this matter. I listened to him carefully. We agree on a number of points. What we want is for all Canadians to feel safe and secure.

That being said, we must not mislead Canadians. We are talking about a bill that will be discussed and debated. There are a number of elements that I hope will lead to co-operation from the members opposite. When we present a working document, we hope to have their co-operation. That is a good discussion that we could have.

That being said, in his speech, I think my colleague tried to see what is not really in the bill and what should be added, but he seems to have forgotten to talk about the initial work that is already there. I do not really understand where the opposition is going with this. We are trying to give our police forces the tools they need to do their job. We know that criminal groups are adapting their way of doing things and accelerating their use of technology for cybercrime, among other things. We want to give police forces the tools they need.

We want to fight crime, but we see that, unfortunately, the members opposite are not following suit. In his speech, my colleague talked a lot about police work, but I see that what is missing from the opposition's discourse is prevention—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I must interrupt the hon. member because the question has far exceeded the allotted time.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague. He may not know, and I did not talk about it because people are tired of hearing about it, but I was a prosecutor in my prior life, where I focused mostly on prosecuting Internet offences against kids. I am very well aware of judicial authorizations, of the hurdles those types of things can present, and of the fact that the bill is a direct response to some of the decisions. I am very clear on that.

My colleague did mention that he was rising to the challenge, but we did not actually hear him say whether he supports house arrest for fentanyl traffickers and for people who do drive-by shootings. I would invite him to get up again, very briefly, and say, “Yes, I support this.”

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I will have the honour of serving on the public safety committee, which will hopefully be convened soon.

He talked a lot about privacy. I agree with him. There will be a lot of discussion in committee on this issue, because there is a thin line between protecting security and protecting personal and confidential information.

I would like to take him in another direction. The bill would give additional powers to border services officers to inspect rail cars in marshalling yards, for example. Rail cars are currently inspected at the time of import, but not at the time of export.

Does he agree with the part of the bill that calls for rail cars to be inspected by border services officers? As a result, is he not concerned that there are not enough officers right now to meet the demand? How does he think the government is going to manage to add more powers when resources are limited?

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

Madam Speaker, it will be an honour for me as well to sit with my colleague around the committee table as the public safety critic. We have not had a chance to work together before, but I do look forward to working with her and perhaps practising my French. Her question was what I would call a fairly loaded one because it had elements of generalities with respect to our not having enough agents to do this, but also the specificity about the rail cars.

What I can say right now is that she is right; we do not have the agents to do this. The minister actually spoke about, and I think $300 million is what was was referred to earlier, how we are going to start having scanners and things like that. Why are they not there already? It is just a colossal failure by the government to not have them there.

My colleague is right that there is a labour shortage in this regard. This actually highlights one of the biggest issues I have with many of the government's interventions: It is always “we are going to” and is never “we are going do this, and this is how we are going get there.” The government cannot build homes. The government cannot even plant trees. How is the government going to secure the border?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the intervention by my friend and colleague was great, and I want to thank him for the expertise he brings to the chamber on the issues of public safety and criminal justice.

One of the reasons I got involved in politics in 2003 and was elected in 2004 was that I opposed the Liberals' long-gun registry. Over the past 10 years, the Liberals have continued to vilify law-abiding long-gun owners, licensed firearms owners, and to give a pass to criminals who are actually committing crimes.

I want to just ask my colleague, our shadow minister for public safety, whether he sees anything in Bill C-2 that would actually restore the property rights of law-abiding firearms owners and take guns away from criminals who are committing crimes on our streets.

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

Madam Speaker, I have learned a lot from my colleague. We first met a number of years ago, and it has been really great just to walk with him in my parliamentary journey.

I see nothing in the bill that deals with firearms.

Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, like so much of Canada, is a rural area. I believe there are 27 first nations in my riding, and hunting is integral to those first nations. We have heard the Liberals speaking out of both sides of their mouth on the issue; they say that we need to really crack down on guns and illegal guns used in shootings, yet they are burying us in more bureaucracy without going after people who repeatedly breach firearms prohibitions and things like that. I see nothing in Bill C-2 on this.

I see that the member for Winnipeg North is going to ask a question. I challenge him to stand up and say whether he is in favour of my proposed bill, Bill C-313, on bail, and whether he still supports house arrest for people who do drive-by shootings and who traffic fentanyl.

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

Madam Speaker, a little bit more relevant to the issue is whether the Conservative Party actually supports Bill C-2.

We have the Canadian Police Association, which represents tens of thousands of frontline law enforcement officers, and the Conservatives are playing this whole cat-and-mouse game, trying to put out a little bait here and there. The bottom line is that, whether this is about President Trump's concerns, Canadian concerns, or law enforcement concerns, the bill should go to committee, ideally soon.

Does the Conservative Party, and does the member opposite, who represents the Conservative Party, support the legislation? Would they not agree that time is of the essence?

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

Madam Speaker, that was the most cat-and-mouse response I have ever heard. I challenged him. He speaks more than all other Liberal members combined, so I think he could address the challenge. Does he support house arrest for people who traffic fentanyl? I challenged him, but he would not even answer; he just heckled me. He should give me an answer.

We do not even have a charter statement yet. The bill is a 130-page document. The Liberals say they want to move in an expeditious manner, but they took 10 years to get here. They have been talking out of both sides of their mouth in that regard.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, since this is the first round of speeches on the bill, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the official Bloc Québécois public safety and emergency preparedness critic, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-2.

I would remind the House that, today, we are beginning the speeches and debate on a bill and related measures aimed at securing the border between Canada and the United States. As my Conservative colleague mentioned, this 130-page bill amends some 10 laws. The session has just begun, and, as the new critic in this area, I find the study of this bill very challenging. This is a massive and complex bill with three main objectives: securing the border, fighting transnational organized crime and fentanyl, and cracking down on illicit financing. The bill is divided into 16 parts

It is no secret that the Bloc Québécois has long been demanding stricter border controls, including stronger measures against the exportation of stolen vehicles, a reduction in the number of asylum seekers in Quebec and a crackdown on fentanyl and money laundering. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois agrees in principle to allow the bill to go to committee for a more in-depth study. I cannot find a better word than "in-depth", which implies thoroughness and, especially, the time needed to hear from all the experts in the matter. This is not the type of bill that can be studied at breakneck speed. It will have to be studied in depth because it grants ministers, the police, the Canadian Coast Guard and Canada Post more powers. It also allows various authorities to exchange personal and confidential information. As legislators, we will need to hear from a large number of witnesses given the many laws that will be amended.

We hope that parliamentarians will work together to better understand the bill and, especially, to enhance it based on the testimony of the experts we will hear from at meetings of the public safety and national security committee. As our reputation would suggest, the Bloc Québécois is committed to studying Bill C-2 in depth and collaborating with all parliamentarians to make it better. In fact, that is, in a sense, our trademark. Our members take their work as legislators seriously. This bill is important, and it is complex. Let us take all the time we need to study it in depth.

As I was saying, several acts will be amended, including the Customs Act. Essentially, Bill C-2 proposes forcing carriers and warehouse operators to provide access to their facilities to allow Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, officers to inspect goods destined for export. Currently, the act does not allow officers to inspect U.S.-bound rail cars in classification yards, for example. It is surprising that operators are not currently required to allow CBSA officers to inspect rail cars in their own classification yards. However, the bill proposes that operators now be obliged to establish infrastructure to receive border services officers.

This raises a number of questions, however. How will railway companies manage to set up such infrastructure to receive border services officers and allow them to conduct inspections? Anyone who has ever visited a classification yard knows that the railway companies will have to make major changes. How long will they be given to comply? How will the CBSA carry out its inspections in the classification yards?

Will they have mobile scanners?

Will the CBSA have the funds it needs to procure the tools and advanced technologies needed to carry out its inspections?

What instructions will the CBSA give its officers? It is estimated that the CBSA already has a shortage of between 2,000 and 3,000 border services officers for current duties. If they are given new responsibilities, however necessary, there will be an even greater shortage of border officers. We know that we can train approximately 600 border officers per year. I am not great at math, but it is easy enough to see that, if we train 600 border officers a year, we will not have the resources we need to inspect everything that we are supposed to inspect under Bill C-2.

There is also the fact that the promise to hire 1,000 additional border officers was not included in the throne speech. The throne speech does not mention that. We hope that we will have the opportunity to discuss that when we look at the business of supply this evening. Given the number of border services officers, granting them additional powers will be a colossal challenge.

We assume that border officers will be assigned to priority sectors. What are the priorities, and which sectors will have fewer resources to carry out their duties? Railway companies, for example, might resist establishing the infrastructure needed for inspection in the classification yards. If that were to happen, how would we send officers to inspect the yards? These are some of the many questions that we have and that we will have an opportunity to discuss in committee.

We are also wondering whether the government assessed the amount of work that will be required of railway companies. Were discussions held with them? I represent a riding that is crisscrossed by railway tracks and that is home to several railway companies. I can tell you that the railway lobby is very strong in Canada. How will companies react to this new requirement?

There are many questions to be answered. That is why it is important that we conduct an exhaustive study of this bill in committee.

With respect to giving border officers more powers, the government could pass regulations allowing border officers to patrol beyond their crossing point. This is not currently allowed. This is something the Bloc Québécois proposed as a way to improve co-operation, in particular between RCMP officers and border officers, in order to make the border more secure. As the member for a border riding, I can say that this would be extremely appreciated and very important. That way, patrolling officers who see a migrant or someone trying to cross the border illegally 50 metres off could intervene. They could intercept the person and contact the RCMP.

As I was saying earlier, this would not require any legislative amendments. It could be done through regulations easily enough. If the government commits to doing that, it will certainly have our support.

I have much more to say, but my time is running out. We know that this important law is very intrusive when it comes to privacy. I trust that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord will outline his concerns and ask questions. My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean will be speaking next, so he will be able to ask questions and talk about his doubts concerning the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He will also mention aspects of the bill with which he disagrees.

In conclusion, I would like the government to know that, if it respects our willingness to work hard in a professional way, and if it gives us the time we need to study the entire bill, we will work with it in committee to enhance and improve Bill C-2.