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

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Unfortunately, I have some concerns about what she considers to be the strengths and virtues of this bill. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill so that it can be considered in committee, but I am not sure the Bloc Québécois will support it when it comes back to the House for third reading. We will see what happens in committee, but as of right now, I have quite a few concerns about the bill.

Does keeping our streets and borders safe always mean waiving our rights and freedoms? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I do not think so. There must be other ways to make our streets and our borders safer. Once Bill C‑2 is passed, if it passes in its current form, what hopes will we have left for privacy? Our personal information could be accessed, captured or even shared with various organizations, both in Canada and abroad. Mail, something we once saw as almost sacred, was untouchable. It was a Criminal Code offence to open mail. Now the government wants to open it, inspect it and use it against us.

New powers are being granted to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to suspend, vary or cancel visas and documents. The conditions for doing so will be set in regulations that we know nothing about. What will these conditions be? How will this new power be defined? Will people who have applied and incurred expenses for their application be reimbursed? Will this bill jeopardize the status of people who were selected by Quebec, for example? In what circumstances can someone be told that their visa application will not be processed? In our view, these are important questions. They are matters that need to be clarified. Unfortunately, we do not have many details for the moment, aside from the fact that it will all be determined in regulations. I look forward to finding out in committee what kind of regulations we can expect.

Cash transactions over $10,000 will now be prohibited. I must admit that it is rather rare for me to walk around with $10,000 or $15,000 in cash in my pocket. I do not remember ever having to pay a bill $10,000 in cash in my life. However, the fact remains that this new ban will require the use of currently available banking tools, such as cheques, Interac cards and credit cards. All of this leads to interest charges and user fees for both the payee and the payer. How will that be done? How is that going to be structured? Are we comfortable with the idea of giving financial institutions, lending institutions an advantage? I have to wonder. It also leaves a trail. As I said, I am not in the habit of paying bills for $10,000 in cash, but I would like to hear from experts on this. Are there situations where this could become problematic? I admit that I do not see any. I have looked, but I could not find any, but I still think that this is an issue that should be addressed before we say that we are making a law about it.

I found the next part a bit extreme: "use an individual's personal information without the individual's knowledge or consent". Should not the authorities at least be required to obtain a warrant before doing that? This is about fighting organized crime, border breaches and terrorism. The Bloc Québécois has made that something of a calling card. I have introduced three bills to establish a list of criminal entities and to prohibit people from wearing symbols and doing anything else to promote criminal organizations, such as wearing the "support 81" shirts that caused such an uproar at the time. I believe the Bloc Québécois has been fighting this fight since the party's inception, and we will continue to do so.

Do we really want to adopt provisions that would make us live in a society where individual freedoms would no longer be protected and none of our information would be kept confidential?

I would like to talk about another serious danger. Normally, a lawyer who is seeking a search warrant must first argue before a judge that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence will be committed, and they must convince the judge of that. This bill changes that. Law enforcement is saying that the evidentiary threshold is a bit hard to meet, so they are asking instead for reasonable grounds to suspect. Reasonable grounds to suspect is nonsense.

For example, if I argue before a judge that I have grounds to suspect that my colleague from Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle might think, say or do this or that, but ultimately, she does not do it, I could simply say that I had suspicions about her but that I was wrong. My suspicions did not materialize, but there are no consequences. However, if someone tells me that I need to have valid reasons to believe that something is the case, then my own belief, my own credibility is at stake. That is completely different. I am really concerned about lowering the evidentiary threshold for getting a warrant. I think it merits further discussion. I would like to hear from experts on this issue.

As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois has become somewhat of a champion in the fight against organized crime in a number of ways. We are calling for stronger borders. Not so long ago, my colleague who was in charge of the public safety file and I were outraged that the Government of Quebec had to spend $6 million to send boats to patrol the Quebec-U.S. border along the St. Lawrence River. We were indignant. It is not up to the Government of Quebec to pay for border protection. That is the federal government's responsibility. We demand that it uphold it. I still believe that this is a federal responsibility and something that the federal government needs to do.

Is the current form of Bill C‑2 the solution for controlling our border more effectively? I am not so sure. The same goes for organized crime. We are also demanding that Quebec's requests regarding entry into our borders be respected. The number of individuals who can enter Quebec each year must be limited. Not only have we reached the acceptability thresholds for integrating these people, but we have been exceeding them for quite some time now. Even if they enter without any grounds, if they manage to hide in the woods for 14 days before approaching the authorities, we have to take them in, send them to school, provide them with health care, clothe them and find them housing, even though we are unable to do so for the current population. This raises some serious issues. We are therefore calling on the government to abide by this threshold.

Does Bill C-2 respond to this request? I am not sure. Once again, it is all well and good to cancel or suspend visas, but there must be grounds for doing so, and the mechanism and the procedure for that must be set out. However, all of this is a bit vague at the moment. We are being told that it will appear in future regulations. That does not reassure me.

This is all happening right when the government is asking us to pass Bill C‑5. Now, this is something we do not see every day. Under this bill, a project will be decreed to be in the national interest if the Prime Minister decides it is. Projects can be exempt from pretty much any rule whenever he sees fit. All this is happening under a closure motion. I have always believed that mixing alcohol and drugs is dangerous. Now, this mix of Bill C‑2, Bill C‑5 and the closure motion has me extremely concerned.

Are we witnessing something like a shift toward authoritarianism? I do not want to be melodramatic, but I think we need to be on our guard. We need to pay attention and be cautious, because none of this is reassuring for the society we live in, a society that values its hard-won privacy protections and other protections.

I urge everyone here to be cautious. I urge us all to be champions of the kind of society our constituents want.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, Quebeckers and Canadians made it clear that they expect all parties to take action against cross-border crime, fentanyl, gun smuggling and auto theft.

Can my colleague confirm that he and his caucus colleagues support those goals and will vote in favour of the bill?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, and I can confirm that to be the case.

We have said this many times, and I do not want to repeat myself, but we also want to fight organized crime, drug trafficking and fentanyl, which is a terrible scourge. What we are saying is that the government cannot do it any which way.

Just because I am against criminals does not mean I agree with going around and hanging them in the streets without due process.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to give a shout-out to someone who helped a lot in my campaign, and that is my sister, Rosie Caputo. I am very thankful to her for all of her help.

I have worked with my colleague extensively. I have a great deal of time for him. When we talk about these things, there is this balance between law and order, we have some court decisions that need to be addressed in terms of IP addresses, and also the balancing of civil liberties.

Does the member have any ideas how we can strike that proper balance in legislation like Bill C-2?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Rosie, because I really enjoy working with her brother, who is a serious and hard-working member of Parliament. I am pleased to recognize that today.

That being said, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I think he is right to point out that we need to strike a balance between protecting our borders, protecting our streets, keeping people safe and respecting individual rights and freedoms.

My colleague is also right to say that the courts have provided us with guidelines in the past. It will be important to read them carefully. That is why I believe this bill needs to be studied in committee, so we can hear from experts and make sure that, in trying to fix one problem, we do not create an even more complex and dangerous one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague, who is much more legally-minded than I am, will appreciate the parallel I am about to draw. He will have to let me know. I find this bill strangely reminiscent of the use of the Emergencies Act, which we voted on here.

After letting a situation deteriorate, after doing nothing, the government is going to the other extreme. The government's reaction is disproportionate and oppressive, when it could have taken a proactive stance from the start, which would have prevented things from reaching this other extreme.

Does that parallel make sense to my colleague?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also a man who works hard for his riding and his constituents. I am very proud to work with him as a member of the same party.

That said, parallels can indeed be drawn between the problems we are seeing now with Bill C-2 and Bill C-5, the gag order and what is looming over our heads without us knowing it. We have been sitting for three weeks, not even four. We shall see.

There are parallels that can be drawn with all that and the proclamation of emergency measures. At the time, I was co-chair of the committee that had to examine the issue. We simply could not believe it. Nothing was done after the emergency measures were invoked that could not have been done before. We asked companies to tow trucks, which they did. The situation was resolved in less than 24 hours.

Why did the government invoke those emergency measures, extreme measures that should only be used in extreme circumstances? We wondered about that and we found it troubling.

I have similar concerns now. I am not even sure that the Supreme Court would uphold bills C‑2 and C‑5. It remains to be seen. Whatever we pass will be swiftly challenged. Unfortunately, we are opening ourselves up to rulings that will put us back to square one. I do not think that we can ignore the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution, infringe on everyone's powers and trample on rights and freedoms without being sanctioned by the courts at some point.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to congratulate you on your new appointment. As someone who did his master's thesis on a very specific thing, which I believe was the Thursday question, you have a love of this place. It is good to see you in that chair.

This is an important bill. I think all of us have heard from Canadians during the election that public safety is fundamentally important to them. It is disappointing to hear from some MPs who suggest that other MPs do not care about public safety. One of our fundamental priorities is to ensure the safety and security of our constituents. We may come at it in different ways, but we all fundamentally believe that we need to stand up and protect our constituents. I hope that is the debate we are having and will continue throughout this. It is not what we hear in question period, but oftentimes question period is a little different from what we hear at other times in this place and at committee, where I hope this bill will go very soon.

Fundamentally, I believe this bill will keep Canadians safe by ensuring law enforcement will have the right tools to keep our borders secure, to combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crack down on money laundering. It will bolster our response to increasingly sophisticated criminal networks and enhance the integrity and fairness of our immigration system, all while protecting the privacy and charter rights of Canadians.

Following the introduction of the bill, we heard from the Canadian Police Association, the largest law enforcement advocacy organization in Canada, and the national voice for over 60,000 frontline law enforcement personnel serving across every province and territory. I would like to take a moment and read what it said.

It states:

...this proposed legislation would provide critical new tools for law enforcement, border services, and intelligence agencies to address transnational organized crime, auto theft, firearms and drug trafficking, and money laundering. It’s important to emphasize that these are not abstract issues, our members see first-hand that they have real impacts in communities across the country and require a coordinated and modern legislative response.

The Bill includes important updates that would strengthen information sharing between federal and local agencies, which is essential to the success of multi-jurisdictional investigations and recognizes the reality that border security is increasingly not the sole responsibility of the RCMP. In many communities located near border crossings, local police services are called upon to play a central role in enforcing our border-related laws. Giving these agencies access to better intelligence and more timely information will significantly improve public safety outcomes.

We are also encouraged by measures that would support the work of the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Coast Guard by closing long-standing gaps in inspection and enforcement capacity. These steps, combined with new authorities for front-line law enforcement across the country, would help disrupt criminal operations at key points of entry and within domestic supply and distribution chains.

The proposed steps to disrupt the importation of illegal fentanyl and precursor chemicals are also crucial. A faster scheduling process will [also] allow for a more agile response to substances that fuel the opioid crisis and continue to cause immeasurable harm in communities across...[the country].

Bill C-2 would also strengthen the ability of police to investigate and disrupt...criminal networks by enhancing anti-money laundering enforcement, expanding data-sharing with trusted domestic and international partners...[while] improving access to information across jurisdictions. New provisions allowing Canadian law enforcement to share information collected under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act would...[provide] more effective cooperation in cross-border investigations. Additionally, the proposed mechanism to access data held by service providers in other countries acknowledges the reality that modern criminal investigations rarely stop at the border. These updates would help ensure that Canadian police have the tools and intelligence they need to hold offenders accountable, regardless of where they operate.

If passed, Bill C-2 would give police services the legal tools needed to respond more effectively to evolving threats.

This is the organization advocating for 60,000 frontline police officers.

I heard during the campaign, and I hear it a lot during question period, that we need to stand up and give police officers the tools they need. At the same time, I am hearing doubts from the opposition members, who are trying to pour cold water on this. On the one hand, they say that we need to do something, but at the same time they do not want this, even though police support it and it will make communities safer. I do not really understand the rhetoric versus the action, the rhetoric during question period versus the rhetoric we are hearing now. I appreciate the concerns being raised by some members of the opposition, but again, it does not match their rhetoric to get things done in those 30-second sound bites they like during question period.

I would also like to add a quote from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, another great organization:

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.

Canada’s legislation related to lawful access is significantly outdated and urgently needs to be revised to align with modern technology. 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. The provisions contained within the Strong Borders Act are an important step in advancing Canadian law enforcement’s ability to effectively combat the ever-evolving nature of transnational organized criminal groups.

The chiefs of police have spoken. Frontline officers have spoken. Where is the outcry from the Conservative Party to get this passed as quickly as possible? I hear crickets, which is disappointing.

I would like to address a point that just came up, I believe from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, with respect to IP addresses. I appreciate the concern when we are dealing with issues like this, but I would like to quote a colleague of his, the member for Parkland, when he was asking questions of the RCMP in regard to this particular issue. He said:

Imagine a phone book that has phone numbers listed, but no names. The only names that are listed are the ISPs and the telecom companies that service those phone numbers: the Teluses, the Rogers and the Bells.

Police are being told now that they can't even look in the phone book of those IP addresses. They can't even know who the service providers are unless they have a warrant. The effect of this in the past month since this decision came in, according to frontline RCMP officers who are working in the integrated child exploitation units across this country, is that telecommunications companies, in compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, are now denying this critical information that police are using to track down and prosecute child sex offenders and child predators.

The member for Parkland says we need to take action, and I agree with him, but I guess this is the member for Parkland from last Parliament. Where are the members now? Again, I hear it in question period, time after time, day after day.

Let us expedite this. Let us move this forward and get it to committee. I can appreciate that there are concerns. I have never seen a government bill in my 10 years that has made it through unamended to the end, but let us ensure that we move this legislation forward so that perhaps the Conservatives' actions will match their rhetoric during question period. I hope we can achieve that.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to mention the celebration of LiUNA Local 837. They are celebrating 75 years today. I would like to say congratulations to Victoria Mancinelli, Joe Mancinelli, their family patriarch Enrico Mancinelli, may he rest in peace, and all the hard-working members of that union for building much of southern Ontario.

My question for my colleague is this. People from my constituency are having a hard time understanding the restriction on cash, because we have a lot of small businesses and a very vibrant Italian community that has a lot of weddings, and couples get a lot of cash during their wedding. I would like to give them the opportunity to have some clarity on that, because people in my riding are very concerned about that, and eastern Europeans as well.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this item that is out there. I have seen it, that we cannot pay cash anymore. I cannot pay $10,000 in cash for an item at a local business. I do not know what local businesses Conservative members are going to. These things are solved.

As a member of the Law Society of Ontario, we were told years ago to never accept that amount of cash, as we then may be complicit in something we do not want to be complicit in. We can go and get a cheque or a money order. These are easy ways around it to ensure that people are in compliance and they can still engage in gift-giving. We can still buy things.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Money order, as the hon. member said on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, these are things we can get. A bank draft is typically the most common. I do not know how these members pay for things at their local stores. If it is about $10,000 in cash, that is a different world than I operate in.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what we heard on the campaign trail. Canadians want safer communities. Canadians want safer borders. Canadians also want to stop being aggressed by our south-of-the-border neighbour because of the terrors that have ravaged our communities and our workers.

Can the member expand on the mandate that he has been given to respond to all of the questions that Canadians had during the campaign on safety, on secure communities and the one Canadian economy?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I will have enough time to get to all of that, but I will sum it up.

Being a member from the Niagara region, my house is only about a 10-minute drive from the border. I think everyone in my community understands that safe borders lead to safe communities. It is fundamentally important that we take action as a government to ensure that CBSA has the tools it needs, and that the RCMP and local police have the tools that they need: the tools that they have been asking for, and the tools that frontline officers have said are in Bill C-2, and they are urging Parliament to get this passed as quickly as possible.

We heard it from our constituents. We were elected as Canada's new government and we are getting to work. This is fundamentally important. I hope to see this get passed as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. It is nice to see one of my colleagues recognizing people the way I do. I love that.

I just want to clarify something that my colleague mentioned. I think he was talking about the Bykovets decision, a decision that said judicial oversight or a judicial authorization, a warrant production order, is required for IP addresses. I believe many people in the law enforcement community would support the provisions he was referring to. I think where we, as Conservatives, take issue is that one step further when we are talking about getting data from Meta and things like that.

Does the member see the distinction between those two things?