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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would love for the Conservatives to take that energy and apply it to all of their policies with respect to criminal justice and bring a rights-based approach first. This legislation complies with the Charter of Rights. We will continue to comply with the Charter of Rights. I hope the Conservatives engage in the future with respect to all of their policies because it has been absent from their arguments since I have been here.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to rise on an issue as important as a bill that deals with Canada's border. I have been among those people sounding the alarm for years about the Liberal government's inaction on the border. When there has been action, it was action that aggravated and exacerbated the problems. These are long-standing challenges caused by a Liberal government that, despite its proclamations, is not a new government but a continuation of what we had over the last 10 years.

While I am heartened by the fact that the Liberals have acknowledged there is a border crisis, I have a great many concerns with the way they have chosen to tackle that. Let me be clear: One of the biggest issues, in my media career, I would frequently criticize the government's handling of was the lax approach to border security. One notable example of this was allowing Roxham Road to balloon into a full-blown illegal immigration scheme that the government turned a blind eye to. This was something that happened for years and years, and the government would not act.

Issues pertaining to smuggling of firearms, drugs and even people have been allowed to become the crisis they are today. While I am grateful that the Liberals have decided to come to the party late, I have to ask why it took so long. What prevented them from taking action on this?

Let me be perfectly clear that a lot of the issues we see with crime and drugs in our country, including gang violence using illegal firearms smuggled in across the border, are issues that cannot just be neatly siloed off into one particular portfolio. Conservatives have been asking the Liberals for the last couple of weeks why there is nothing in the bill that deals with sentencing for fentanyl kingpins. Why is there nothing that deals with bail issues that allow repeat offenders to continue to be out on the street after offending?

The Liberals have always come back to the same position, which is that it is just a border bill, not a crime bill, but that is a very narrow and naive way of looking at the legislation. They do not understand that these cross-border issues are integrally connected to the crime and justice issues that they are not acknowledging, that they are not acting on and that the bill has no solutions for.

On this, I will say that I am grateful the government has taken some suggestions that the Conservatives have made over the years and put them in the bill, but the problem is that it is an omnibus bill. It tries to do a great many things. Some of it is stuff that I would say the Conservatives have been leaders on. Others are things that, when I look at the legislation, I wonder where they came from or who was asking for them.

While there is a lack of addressing bail issues and a lack of addressing sentencing issues, there are things in the bill about which I cannot imagine why the Liberals thought they were relevant for a bill that, by their own admission, is supposed to be about the border. I want to focus on two of those right now because I have a long track record of advocating for civil liberties.

One of the provisions of the bill, part 4, would give Canada Post unilateral power to open not just parcels but also letters. This means that a letter one sends to anyone in the country could be intercepted, without a warrant or judicial oversight, by someone at Canada Post. Something we have heard in the course of debate this evening and this afternoon is some misinformation from the Liberal government. The Liberals say, “Oh, no, it would be subject to warrant.”

Well, I have combed through the legislation, the entire bill, but also part 4 specifically, and in part 4, which deals with changes to the Canada Post Corporation Act, the word “warrant” does not appear once. In the act that this section of the bill cites, there is no discussion of warrants whatsoever.

Therefore we are left, as Canadians, with the questions that the Liberal government is not answering: What are the constraints on this power? What would Canada Post be entitled to do or be authorized to do, not just with goods it may seize but also with information it may seize? The bill specifically talks about intercepting letters. That does not just mean opening an envelope and looking for fentanyl; that also means opening a piece of mail and being allowed to read it. Who would have access to correspondence? What could be done with it? Would it be tracked? Would it be registered? Would it be entered into a database?

These are questions that we do not have answers for because the Liberals are denying that the text of the bill is what it is.

Moreover, the bill would give Canada Post immunity. It would take away any liability for anything arising from demand, seizure, detention or retention, which means Canadians would have no rights to question or challenge what Canada Post is doing with their mail. To be clear, Canada Post has not asked for this power, that I have seen. This is something the Liberal government would voluntarily hand over without any regard for the civil liberties concerns.

We can look at part 11 of the bill, which would ban cash transactions over $10,000. It would not put in a reporting requirement. It would not restrict it. It would not add bureaucracy or red tape. It is a clear ban. I will read directly from the bill:

Every person or entity that is engaged in a business, a profession or the solicitation of charitable financial donations from the public commits an offence if the person or entity accepts a cash payment, donation or deposit of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or in a prescribed series of related transactions that total $10,000 or more.

After 10 years of economic mismanagement, $10,000 is a regular haul at the grocery store. This $10,000 may seem like an amount, as the Liberals like to say, that no one is dealing in. They say no one is going around and dealing in $10,000 transactions unless they have something to hide. I represent a lot of rural and smaller communities in my riding, and it is not uncommon for someone to buy a used vehicle, buy a farm truck or buy a new piece of equipment for $10,000 or $15,000. Some may ask, as the Liberals do, why anyone would need to do that. We live in a free society where we do not need to justify our decision to engage in transactions with legal tender to the government.

I am very aware of the fact that, as I speak, the Liberal government is actively fighting in court against a Federal Court decision that found its use of the Emergencies Act illegal in 2022. This is a government that unlawfully and unconstitutionally froze people's bank accounts without due process and without oversight. That sent a chill throughout the country as people realized that the government would use its power without regard for the law. I do not accept that the government is permitted to say to just trust it with putting a further restriction in place on how Canadians transact, and this is incredibly important. The Bank of Canada, which the Prime Minister used to run, has been advocating for central bank digital currency, something that would put the government more in control of and make it more able to monitor the transactions that Canadians choose to undertake.

There are many reasons that people would use cash. In fact, in most cases that I am aware of, it has nothing to do with law breaking. It is simply because of convenience, avoiding staggering credit card fees and having the ability to transact and ensure that the local farmers' market or the person selling a vehicle in a riding, neighbourhood, whatever it is, can be free of government interference.

While I am grateful the bill would deal with some issues at the border that we have long been calling for solutions for as Conservatives, it is taking a very broad brush and, in doing so, is treating ordinary law-abiding Canadians as though they are criminals, as though they have something to hide from the government or must be doing something wrong simply because they are using cash, as anyone who identifies as old school would do. What other legal things is the government planning to regulate or restrict?

When we are looking at this bill, with how many different sections and different parts it has, we have to look at the good and we have to look at the bad. I think the government has tried to do too much in the course of this legislation. We have to look at the civil liberties concerns. Anytime they have been raised in the course of debating the bill, the Liberals have fallen back on either making a false claim, such as that a warrant is required under the Canada Post section, which it is not, or just relying on the notion that we are to trust them because there is no way the Liberal government would abuse this power. I do not trust them, and my constituents do not trust them either.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the member opposite what he thinks about the mandate that Londoners sent him here with and whether he heard what I heard at the doors. What I heard at the doors is that Londoners want safer borders. They want an economy that works for everyone. They want more jobs for our communities.

I want to welcome him to the House, first of all, and hear what he thinks about the things we were hearing in London at the doors.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I am honoured to represent just shy of 20,000 Londoners, London is a part of a riding that also encompasses the County of Elgin and St. Thomas and Aylmer. The fact that the voters in my riding elected a Conservative member of Parliament is an important indication of what the constituents I represent believe.

They were saying they wanted the Liberals to get tough with respect to the border, but they were not. That is why the constituents were voting Conservative. They were saying they wanted a government that would get tough on crime and they were not getting that from the Liberals. I was elected because people did not want the current government to do it. Of the 26,000 doors that I knocked on, not one single person said, “I really think that government needs to crack down on people buying a truck with cash.”

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome my colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South to the House. I enjoyed his speech.

Can my colleague tell me how we have gotten to this point? In his opinion, why is the government introducing a bill that I would call too radical for the current situation, a bill that will amend about 15 acts and attack legislation affecting three different departments? Can he tell me what this government has done over the past 10 years to show that it takes border security and our refugee system seriously?

I would like to hear his answer.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's very insightful question. I cannot answer to what the government members were thinking by putting this forward, but I do know that there is a general trend that we have seen from the Liberal government, of trying to do omnibus legislation so they can advance things that are very unpopular or unconstitutional while hiding behind things that are popular and that all parties would agree with. I fear that is precisely what the Liberals are doing with this bill, by going after civil liberties while also offering things that are important that we could all agree on, such as the need to get tough on border security.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's very factual and evidence-based speech.

We have been hearing a lot of comments with respect to how the Liberals are trying to identify as a new government when, in fact, they are the same government that they have been for the last 10 years. I was wondering if the member could share his thoughts with the House regarding how the current Liberal government is, in fact, the same government that it has been here for the last 10 years.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as some members of this House may know, I used to have a career in media before I joined here. A few days ago, I saw a clip from question period that was a couple of years old, but I thought it was recent because the front bench was entirely the same. I do think that for a party that insists on saying that it is a new government, there is a heck of a lot of continuity, not just in the people but also the policies, attitudes and approaches, which is why I do not trust the current government to give itself or any other agencies tremendous powers of warrantless oversight on Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed that the member would make such comments. In fact, Canadians and Quebeckers voted for at least 170 new members here in the House. The Liberal Party has 70 new members. These are not just the same members, but are newly elected MPs for a new government.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to this chamber, but ultimately the direction that the party has taken is a continuation of Justin Trudeau. In fact, the Prime Minister's most recent résumé line item was as an adviser to Justin Trudeau. If there has been a break in the timeline, I am not exactly sure when it was.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-2. Recognizing the amount of time that I have, I will make my comments somewhat brief.

I do want to begin by saying that, throughout the last campaign, and since 2021, I have had the privilege of meeting thousands of my constituents. Over and over, I have heard one message. They want a forward-looking and ambitious government that delivers for them. They want that government to fight organized crime. They want that government to fight auto theft, and they want that government to tackle the fentanyl crisis.

Members of Parliament on both sides of the House will have heard, I suspect, from their constituents, that Canadians want to feel safe in their homes, they want to feel safe in their communities, and they want our government to ensure that we deliver that for them. This bill would do exactly that. It would deliver on bold and concrete actions. It would tackle the complex interconnected threats that Canadians are facing today.

Whether it is fentanyl, auto theft, or money laundering, Bill C-2 seeks to deal with all of those issues. It does so by delivering on three important measures: securing our borders, dismantling transnational organized crime and cracking down on illicit financing.

Securing our borders means fixing long-standing gaps in our immigration system, modernizing how we share information, strengthening visa protections to stop fraud, and improving the asylum application process to make it more efficient and fair. These reforms would preserve the integrity of our system while ensuring that those who actually need protection continue to receive it.

We can only have a strong and resilient country if our security agencies are empowered to protect Canadians while preserving their freedoms. Thanks to this bill, once passed, the RCMP and our international partners would be able to better track and apprehend child sex offenders. That is why, if this bill is passed, the Canadian Coast Guard would have a clear mandate to counter drug smuggling and enhance maritime protection and enforcement, something that has been long needed in provinces such as mine and British Columbia.

This is an opportunity for Conservatives to put their money where their mouths are. They talk about law and order. They talk about keeping Canadians safe. This is their chance to vote with us, to ensure that this bill gets passed.

This bill also directly addresses the devastating rise in organized crime and the fentanyl crisis. We intend to empower our law enforcement agencies who are at the forefront of this fight, with the ability to seize illegal drugs, such as fentanyl and its components. We are also making it easier and faster to classify illicit substances before they take root in our communities. These changes would not only stop the flow of illicit and dangerous substances into Canada, but also make it harder for criminal networks to produce and distribute them domestically.

Now, we know that supporting and protecting Canadians requires additional support mechanisms across Canada. That is why we will keep traffickers, smugglers and violent criminals accountable for their crimes by giving the authorities the legal tools that they need to act decisively.

On the point of auto theft, we know that auto theft has decreased, thanks to the work that the new government has already taken, but we also know that Canadians want us to do more. With this bill, border officials would have the authority to intercept those shipments, recover stolen property and hold those responsible accountable. For too long, money laundering and terrorist financing have allowed organized crime to profit and expand, but this bill would put forward stronger penalties for financial crimes, restrict anonymous large-cash deposits and prohibit third-party transactions that allow bad actors to hide behind others.

Finally, Bill C-2 builds upon the single largest investment in border security in Canadian history, $1.3 billion, and reflects a clear and targeted approach to the challenges that we are facing. It reflects our government's commitment to responsible, balanced governance to tackle everyday issues that Canadians are facing. These are not small changes.

Let me be clear. This bill is about fixing systems, closing loopholes and ensuring Canada keeps pace with a rapidly evolving global landscape of crime, exploitation of systems and digital threats. Our allies are watching and Canadians are calling on us to protect them. Canadians have told us what they need. They want us to balance freedom and security. They want a government that takes safety seriously, confronts difficult problems, and delivers results, while protecting our fundamental rights and freedoms.

I urge my colleagues in the House to join us in passing this bill, putting aside partisanship and putting the security and safety of Canadians first.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague was here earlier when my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord made his speech.

We are glad that something is finally happening, because it has been a long time coming. It took Donald Trump bringing out the big guns to get things moving. However, we are also concerned about the presumably disproportionate and freedom‑killing response contained in this bill.

I asked some of his colleagues earlier why it took so long. I did not receive a convincing answer. I would like to ask the member if he is not concerned about certain abuses of individual freedoms that exist and that could be implied in the bill. Consider the granting of the power to open mail, for example, which has generally been considered a crime.

In other words, is my colleague concerned about certain aspects of the bill? Is he open to having the bill receive greater scrutiny in committee, given that it could contain abuses?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was young, I was very concerned about Bill C‑51, a bill introduced by Prime Minister Harper's Conservative government.

In my opinion, Bill C‑2 is not perfect. No bill introduced by any government is. That is the reality. However, we have to protect the country, we have to protect Canadians, and we have to work together to keep improving the situation, including through regulations and processes. The reality is that we have to be careful. We are taking action today to protect Canadians and protect our border.

The House resumed from June 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know members were disappointed that I had to wrap up during the previous rubric, so they can hear another 10 minutes.

It is great to be back in the new Parliament. Parliament has not been the most active this year. We had prorogation then an election, and the government briefly came back for a spring session. Our position as Conservatives was that we should be prepared to work at least at the committee level over the summer, but Liberals loved not working and wanted to further extend that through the summer. Hopefully we will actually be able to get down to the nation's business in an effective way in the current Parliament.

Conservatives are eager to get to work. We are calling for action on the critical challenges that are confronting Canadians, which is why before Parliament even came back, our leader sent a letter to the Prime Minister, articulating four critical priorities for the current Parliament, things that we need to tackle. These are crises that were in many ways caused by policies of the Liberal government and that we hope to see change and reversal on.

We will certainly be doing everything we can to push for results in these areas. We will oppose the things that are wrong about the government's agenda. We will support legislation and policy change that reverse the failures of the last 10 years that have brought us to this point.

In particular, the four priorities we articulated were addressing, first, the Liberal job loss crisis, the catastrophic levels of unemployment, particularly affecting young people, which result from Liberal policy failures. Confronting that will be a critical priority for us in the current Parliament.

Second is addressing the cost of living crisis. There are so many Canadians who are struggling to afford homes and to afford basic essentials. The Prime Minister has said that he would be judged by the price of groceries, yet we continue to see escalation in costs at the grocery store, for those people buying homes, in transportation and in so many other areas.

There is the job loss crisis and the cost of living crisis. There is the immigration crisis, the failure of the government to align our immigration system with the economic interests of this country. This has led to all kinds of problems. I think there is a lot of concern from Canadians on that issue as well.

Fourth, speaking to the particulars of the bill before us, there are particulars I do not think are addressed fully by the bill, and it incorporates some other problems and distractions. However, the fourth issue we are tackling in the current Parliament in particular is the crime crisis. On the crime issue, it is more difficult for the Liberals to muddy the waters by blaming other factors.

When it comes to economic issues, they often say that there are all these other things going on around the world that are causing them. In many cases, we can demonstrate how that is not true in fact. It is hard to blame events outside the country for the fact that we are building fewer homes in Canada than we did in the past. It is hard to blame events outside the country for the fact that unemployment has actually been steadily going up for the last three years. We are reaching catastrophic levels, especially for youth unemployment, but this is a trend that has been escalating ever since we came out of the COVID period.

It is hard for the government, even on economic issues, to perpetuate the continuing charade of blaming external events, but in particular as it relates to crime. I would encourage people to look at the data, in particular for violent crime. We can see, if plotting on a graph the years and rates of violent crime in this country, that violent crime was going down, and then something happened in 2015.

A new government, a Liberal government, came in in 2015. We are now in the fourth term of that government. It had a different approach with respect to criminal justice. Violent crime rates were going down, and then violent crime rates started going up. Crime rates started going up in particular in response to policy changes that the government made around bail, sentencing and, I think, some changes in the way it approached the issue of crime more broadly.

There was a downward trend and then an upward trend. What we need to see is the reversal of those bad Liberal policies and the return to an approach that we took when crime was actually going down. I know we have put forward various constructive announcements and proposals around reversing the Liberal crime trajectory.

There is a bill before us today, Bill C-2, that purports to be about these kinds of issues. Unfortunately, the Liberals are sort of stepping on their own agenda in lots of ways, because they are weaving in, into some provisions that are supportable, some provisions that we are concerned about and I think that many Canadians are concerned about as well. The Liberals do this a lot; they want to have a nice-sounding announcement about a bill, but they do not actually do the things they say they are going to do, and they weave in other aspects of a different agenda.

Let me highlight some of the things that are in the bill that I think make a lot of Canadians wonder, “Why is that there, and what is the government trying to do with this here?” The bill includes a provision that would limit the use of cash. A lot of us probably use cash a lot less than our grandparents did, because of changes in technology, but on the other hand, cash use does remain a legitimate and vital part of our economy. I think it is something that tends to be relied on more by seniors and by people in rural areas. There are situations where the use of cash is more practical.

We have talked a bit, in the context of the unemployment problems, about what our first jobs were and about the importance of a first job. One of my first jobs was working at, believe it or not, the travelling fair. I worked at the Calgary Stampede and the Edmonton Fair.