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

Sponsor

Status

Second reading (House), as of Sept. 17, 2025

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-2.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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 .

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-2s:

C-2 (2021) Law An Act to provide further support in response to COVID-19
C-2 (2020) COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act
C-2 (2019) Law Appropriation Act No. 3, 2019-20
C-2 (2015) Law An Act to amend the Income Tax Act

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, aims to enhance border security, combat transnational crime and fentanyl, and disrupt illicit financing through amendments to various acts. It proposes measures related to export inspections, information sharing, and asylum claims.

Liberal

  • Enhance national security and community safety: The Liberal party supports Bill C-2 to provide law enforcement with updated tools to secure borders, combat transnational organized crime, stop illegal fentanyl flow, and crack down on money laundering, while protecting Charter rights.
  • Strengthen border and immigration systems: The bill equips law enforcement with tools for export container searches to stop auto theft, updates the Coast Guard's security mandate, and introduces measures to improve the asylum system and combat immigration fraud.
  • Disrupt organized crime and illicit financing: Bill C-2 allows rapid control of fentanyl precursor chemicals, enables warranted searches of mail for contraband, and imposes tougher penalties and restrictions on cash transactions to combat money laundering and illicit profits.

Conservative

  • Opposes civil liberties infringements: The party opposes provisions allowing warrantless access to personal information from online service providers, the opening of mail without a warrant, and blanket restrictions on cash transactions, viewing them as government overreach that compromises privacy.
  • Criticizes soft-on-crime policies: Conservatives condemn the bill for failing to address the root causes of rising crime, such as the lack of bail reform for repeat violent offenders and the absence of mandatory minimum sentences for fentanyl traffickers and gun criminals.
  • Bill is an inadequate response: The party views the bill as an omnibus approach that is a delayed and insufficient response to border security and crime crises, lacking concrete action and resources after a decade of Liberal inaction.

NDP

  • Opposes sweeping surveillance powers: The NDP opposes the bill's expansion of warrantless surveillance, allowing government agencies to demand personal information from various service providers without judicial oversight, threatening privacy and Charter rights.
  • Condemns criminalization of migrants: The party condemns the bill for criminalizing migration, denying hearings to refugees from the United States, blocking applications, and ignoring risks of persecution, echoing Trump's asylum policies.
  • Rejects omnibus power grab: The NDP rejects Bill C-2 as a 140-page omnibus power grab that makes sweeping changes across multiple acts, undermines due process, and bypasses parliamentary debate, comparing it to Bill C-51.

Bloc

  • Supports bill in principle for committee study: The Bloc Québécois supports sending Bill C-2 to committee for an in-depth, exhaustive study, but emphasizes this is not a blank cheque and demands sufficient time and expert testimony.
  • Prioritizes border security and crime: The party agrees with the bill's core objectives of securing the border, fighting transnational organized crime, and addressing issues like fentanyl, stolen vehicles, and illicit financing.
  • Concerns about resources and individual rights: The Bloc raises significant concerns about chronic understaffing at CBSA and RCMP, and potential infringements on privacy, rights, and freedoms, including intrusive powers and lower evidentiary thresholds.
  • Protects Quebec's jurisdiction and limits power: The party demands respect for Quebec's immigration jurisdiction, fair distribution of asylum seekers, compensation for Quebec's disproportionate burden, and limits on the Minister of Immigration's expanded discretionary powers.

Green

  • Opposes omnibus format: The Green Party opposes the bill as an illegitimate omnibus, encompassing multiple unrelated legislative purposes, and calls for its withdrawal to focus on its alleged purpose.
  • Harms refugee protection: The bill makes it harder for individuals to claim refugee status, potentially violating international obligations by expediting deportations without due process.
  • Undermines privacy rights: The legislation raises significant Charter concerns by allowing greater access to Canadians' private information for U.S. agencies and permitting government access to mail and internet data with a low threshold.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Steeve Lavoie Liberal Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague talk about cash transactions. As we know, cash facilitates money laundering and anonymity.

Canadian banks abide by the Basel accords, which is why Canada's banking system is one of the best in the world. Does my colleague want us to continue letting people use cash, which increases the number of crimes committed by the very criminals we want to lock up by strengthening our laws, while the current government seeks to prevent rather than cure?

What is her stance? Does she think Canada should allow money laundering to continue, or does she think it should abide by the Basel accords and ask Canadian banks to do their job?

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, cash is legal tender in Canada. The way we can strengthen security in transactions is not through taking away cash. It is by FINTRAC taking the information that it gathers, all the forms people fill out every time they make deposits or transfer $10,000 or more, and actually acting upon it, not just collecting the paper.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:25 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising the alarming civil liberties violations that the Liberal government is trying to sneak in under the auspices of this border bill. Much of the response we get from the government effectively boils down to “just trust us”.

Do Canadians have any reason to trust the government that it will not abuse the broad latitude it is trying to give itself with Bill C-2?

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, Canadians have lost trust in the government. They did so during COVID when the Liberals refused to allow parliamentarians to see the contracts for the vaccines. They lost trust when different scandals came up. Canadians no longer trust the government. We certainly do not want to see the types of riots occurring across Europe and parts of the Middle East come to Canada. The Liberals have to be respectful and have a budget and then ensure that they are completely—

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:30 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:30 a.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, Bill C-2, the strong borders act, was introduced in June by the public safety minister. Framed as legislation to strengthen border security, fight fentanyl trafficking and address U.S. irritants, the 140-page omnibus bill would make sweeping changes across more than 11 existing acts, and it proposes a new framework for digital surveillance of Canadians.

Many aspects of the bill have little or nothing to do with border security. The government is seeking unrelated powers it has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain in the past that present significant threats to human rights and civil liberties. Bill C-2 is not about safety; it is about normalizing surveillance, criminalizing migration, bypassing Parliament and public debate, and attacking Canadians' privacy and charter rights. It would undermine due process, and it is a power grab.

The Liberal government's new strong borders act is one of the most serious threats to Canadians' civil liberties we have seen in years. It makes Stephen Harper's infamous Bill C-51 look tame by comparison. Framed as a national security measure, the legislation would give sweeping new powers to police and intelligence agencies, powers that would override long-standing privacy protections and skirt judicial oversight.

At the heart of Bill C-2 is a deeply troubling expansion of warrantless surveillance. Under the proposed law, the RCMP, CSIS and even undefined “public officers” would be able to demand personal information from a wide range of service providers without ever going before a judge. This includes doctors, banks, landlords, schools and even psychiatrists, and the list can go on.

Let that sink in for one minute. Government agencies could make information demands for when and how long someone has accessed service from a provider or an associate provider related to that service. This of course means that government agencies would know where the provider is located and the timeline, how often and for how long someone has sought service from the provider. Under the bill, the government would be able to access online activity that someone is engaged in, without having to justify it to a court.

These kinds of unchecked powers are ripe for abuse, and historically, we know who pays the highest price. When governments start cutting corners on civil liberties, it is often racialized, low-income, marginalized communities that bear the brunt, but they will not be the only ones. We all would be under this kind of scrutiny.

Even more alarming, Bill C-2 would open the door to increased information sharing with foreign governments, including the United States. Ottawa is currently in talks to join the U.S.' CLOUD Act, the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, which would allow U.S. law enforcement to access Canadian data stored on servers abroad. That could include deeply personal records, such as whether someone accessed abortion services.

In a post-Roe America, where abortion is criminalized in several states and reproductive health is under surveillance, this is profoundly dangerous. In the Trump era, where the LGBTQ2IA+ community is under attack, this is extremely dangerous. Canadians should never have to worry that their personal medical decisions might be exposed to another country's government, yet the bill makes that possibility very real.

Matt Hatfield of OpenMedia critiqued Bill C-2 for having an “astonishing scope of who can receive data demands without a warrant that is unprecedented in Canada.” He is right; we have never seen anything quite like this in Canada being pushed through. It is alarming. It is American-style surveillance creeping north of the border. Canadians were warned about this during the last election. Did the Prime Minister, during the election, tell any Canadians that this is what he was going to do? No, and all of this is to appease Trump.

Groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group are sounding the alarm. They are rightly pointing out that Bill C-2 threatens charter-protected rights to privacy and to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. These are not abstract concerns; these are rights that go to the heart of a free and democratic society.

If the Prime Minister and the public safety minister are serious about protecting those rights, they must scrap the bill and send it back to the drawing board. It should not be brought forward as an omnibus bill. If they want to address border safety, they should bring forward a bill that addresses border safety. If they want to address fentanyl trafficking, they should bring forward a bill that addresses fentanyl trafficking. They should not lump them in with a 140-page bill and sneak in provisions that would turn Canada into a surveillance state.

Of course we all want safety. Communities want safety, and we want secure borders. However, we already have existing legal tools, like warrants and court orders, that respect civil liberties and let law enforcement do its job while still protecting civil liberties. Stripping away judicial oversight is not the answer, and that is not how we do things in a democracy.

The public safety minister, in an op-ed about refugee asylum seekers, in 2016, wrote the following:

Our country will never be the same again, and collectively our doors should always be open, not just to those who come to our shores, but those taking extraordinary risks to cross other shores in search of refuge. We must understand that people in normal circumstances do not risk their lives—and the lives of their families—to [flee] for reasons such as economic stability. They do so out of desperation and as a last resort.

Now, as minister, he is putting up walls and barriers through the legislation. Yes, refugees and those who need safety are under attack under the bill. Bill C-2 would deny hearings entirely to refugees from the United States, block applications from those who have been in Canada over a year, and ignore risks of persecution, torture or even death. It echoes Trump's asylum policies, and if I might add, there are over 150 Canadians in ICE detention right now. What is the government doing? Nothing. We have heard nothing about what the government is doing with Canadians who are held in ICE detention in the United States.

Bill C-2 is not about border security; it is about expanding government surveillance. It threatens to chill freedom of expression, erode trust in doctors and service providers, and normalize the sharing of personal information with foreign powers. Canadians deserve better. We cannot allow democratic norms in Canada to become roadkill under pressure from an increasingly authoritarian and unhinged American president.

This is not the Canada I know. This is not the Canada I think Canadians voted for. I call on every member of the House to vote against the bill and send the government back to the drawing board.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:40 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt: It is easy to tell where the member stands on the legislation. I do want clarification on one specific issue. She makes reference to the issue of being able to claim refugee status.

In Canada, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people today who are on some form of a temporary visa. Does the member believe that, if people have been in Canada for a lengthy period of time on a temporary visa, every one of them should be able to claim refugee status, even if they have been in Canada for over a year?

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:40 a.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, not all people with a visa who are here in Canada want to claim refugee status. Some of them are actually seeking permanent resident status. Some of them are having their permits extended.

What has happened with our immigration system is the mismanagement of the system by the Liberal government. In fact, I remember that both the Liberals and Conservatives called for an expansion of temporary foreign workers. The NDP members were the only ones who said, “No, wait a minute; we should not be doing that.” The NDP members were the only ones who actually said that if we need more workers here in Canada, we should make sure we go through the proper process, which includes allowing them to get permanent resident status on arrival.

Let us meet our labour demands for the full range of workers, the low-skilled, medium-skilled and high-skilled, and not just what the government has right now, targeting the high-skilled workers and then pushing the rest of them through the temporary foreign workers process.

This needs to be looked at in a serious way, and it should be dealt with in a fair way so that all workers are valued here in Canada and are not subject to exploitation.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC

Madam Speaker, in the last Parliament, there was considerable debate on the fundamental right to privacy. The legislation never did see the end of the day, and the New Democratic Party did work with the Conservatives to push forward our concerns about the usage of data and about the provisions being put forward by the Liberal government under the former prime minister.

Will the member agree with the Conservatives that some of the provisions in the legislation would constitute government overreach without the proper constraints put in place to protect a Canadian's fundamental right to privacy?

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:40 a.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, the NDP's view of the bill is that it should actually be scrapped entirely. The government is trying to shove through a whole variety of different things in an omnibus bill, a 140-page bill, stripping Canadians of their basic charter rights and stripping due process, all in the name of border security.

If the government wants to tackle safer borders, it should bring forward a bill that specifically talks about that. We could examine it, study it and then debate it and determine whether it should be amended and passed. If the government wants to address criminality, it should bring forward a bill on trafficking, on criminality specifically, not shove it all under a bill that is 140 pages long, with provisions that have nothing to do with border security, that have nothing to do with criminality and that have everything to do with tackling and violating Canadians' basic civil liberties and expanding the government's surveillance capabilities on Canadians. That is wrong.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:40 a.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague opposite, and I beg to disagree with some of the points she raised. Though I am far from a proponent of Bill C-2, an analysis shows that the bill could ultimately be beneficial. That said, some significant changes may be needed.

My colleague says that a 150-page bill is an omnibus bill, which surprises me a little. I think that comment may be a little over the top. However, the substance of what she is saying sort of makes sense. For example, she mentioned concerns that this bill would be passed without any substantial amendments.

Is she also concerned that the Conservatives might repeat what they did last spring, when they did the Liberals' dirty work for them by preventing us from taking the time to properly study bills introduced in the House? Some aspects of Bill C‑2 deserve to be studied and explored in more detail.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:45 a.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, the NDP believes that the bill should be scrapped. We do not support the bill, because it is not what it purports to be. There might be some provisions in it that are good, but they should not be in a giant bill with more than 11 acts all shoved into one bill—

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:45 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the remarks of the NDP member for Vancouver East, whom I served with on the opposite side in the B.C. legislature and now serve with here, and I must admit that a lot of what she had to say resonated with how we feel on the Conservative side, although we are not totally aligned.

I want to begin by thanking the residents of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and Mission for electing me for a third term. This is the first term I will be representing part of Mission. I share that responsibility with my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. It is a privilege.

There were 13,000 more votes this election compared to the last election, and I attribute that to different things. Obviously, our leader is a very powerful spokesperson, but people are struggling economically in my communities, many people, and across Canada. A big concern is the rampant drugs and lawlessness sweeping our nation, which do not need to be taking place and were not prior to the Liberals being in power.

When I went door to door, I often asked people if they thought things had gotten better since the Liberals came to power in terms of the economy, prosperity, crime or in general. I would tell them that if they really felt that way, they should vote Liberal. However, I did not hear anybody tell me that things have gotten better. They have not gotten better at all. Things have gotten a lot worse.

With Bill C-2, the Liberals are trying to make it look like they are doing something about crime and the borders, but it is full of half measures, things they are overlooking and things they are getting wrong. Canadians are deeply concerned about the alarming upswing in violence that is shaking our communities. It weighs heavily on us, and there is such a dichotomy. My riding is in the Vancouver area. It is such a magnificent, beautiful area in the nation and the world to live in, yet what we are seeing happening in our streets at night throughout the land is totally out of sync. It should not be this way.

There have been horrific acts of violence that remind us of the urgent need to restore safety and security in our country. Think of the tragic Lapu-Lapu Day event in Vancouver, where 11 innocent lives were taken. It stands as one of the most devastating mass killings in our nation's history.

There have been senseless killings and violent crime in communities across the nation. They are not isolated incidents. They reflect a disturbing trend of violence that Canadians everywhere are feeling. Violent crime is up 50% since the Liberals have been in power, gang-related homicides are up 78%, sexual violations against children are up 118%, human trafficking is up 83% and sexual assaults are up 74%. In B.C., extortions are up 500%.

For generations, since the opening of the west, there was a real contrast between Canada and the U.S. in our minds in how we viewed Canada and how the world viewed Canada. Canada was known for peace, order and good government, with the RCMP going out on horseback to clean up places like Fort Whoop-Up in Alberta before it was formed as a province, which was filled with bandits and liquor smugglers.

When we compare what was in Canada then to the lawlessness in the States, that is no longer the case, which is terrible. People feel it. They tell me they are worried about walking in their neighbourhoods, about crime creeping closer to home and about whether or not their loved ones are truly safe. It is not the Canada we know and should accept.

Unfortunately, under the Liberal government, violent crime has gone up significantly. The facts speak for themselves. After nearly a decade in office, the Liberals have failed to prioritize public safety. Their soft-on-crime policies include reduced sentences for serious offenders and the erosion of accountability in our justice system, which have left communities vulnerable. Criminals are emboldened while victims and families are left behind.

The Conservatives take a different view. We believe that Canadians deserve to feel safe in their homes, their streets and their communities. That means ending catch-and-release bail policies that put dangerous repeat offenders back on the street. It means restoring tougher penalties for violent criminals and giving law enforcement the tools they need to do their jobs effectively. It means supporting families and communities as they heal from tragedies. We owe it to the victims in every community shaken by violence. The government needs to stand up for the innocent, hold violent offenders accountable and make public safety a true priority once again.

For over a decade, we have urged the Liberal government to reverse dangerous policies that have let violent criminals walk free. The Liberals have allowed our borders to become increasingly porous and have left our justice system in disarray. I know the Liberal member opposite said the Liberals put an extra $1 billion into border security, but the number of illegal immigrants going from Canada to the States is up 600% since they have been in power. We really do not keep good track of those coming from the States to Canada. Everybody is pretty much welcome. Look at Roxham Road.

Now, after years of ignoring the warning signals, after tens of thousands of Canadians have become victims of repeat violent offenders, the Liberals are scrambling. They have dropped Bill C-2, a bloated omnibus bill that tries to do too much and achieves too little where it matters most.

Let me be clear. The Conservatives are ready to support elements of this bill, but we are deeply concerned about several provisions that do not go far enough or go in the wrong direction.

What is the biggest failure of this bill? It is the failure to fix our broken bail system, the catch-and-release system. It is not just a phrase, but a dangerous reality that Canadians are facing in their cities. Criminals, including those charged with trafficking fentanyl, smuggling firearms or committing violent assaults, are being routinely released on bail, often within hours. In Vancouver, we saw the same 40 criminals arrested 5,000 times in one year. It is frustrating for police. They ask what the use of arresting people is.

The bill also fails to introduce mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers. It still allows house arrest for a shocking number of serious crimes, including some forms of sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking. It is too weak on crime and far too strong when it comes to government overreach.

We are extremely alarmed by the provisions in this legislation that threaten Canadians' civil liberties, provisions that could allow the government to open their mail without proper oversight. There are measures that allow authorities to compel Internet companies to hand over private data without a warrant. There is also concerning language about limiting the use of cash, which is vital to our seniors, small businesses and rural communities.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:55 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, we have a new Prime Minister. We have more new members of Parliament than any other political entity in the House of Commons. Since the end of April, we have seen tax breaks for 20-plus million Canadians. We have built a stronger one Canadian economy than we have ever seen, which the Conservatives supported. The member talked about the need for bail reform. We have a Prime Minister with a new cabinet that is committed to bringing in several pieces of bail legislation, some of which we are going to see this fall. All of this is in a very short period of time.

After listening to the Conservatives, including the member, I think the issue of misleading Canadians through debate is a concern. They try to give the impression that any letter carrier can open up a letter anytime he or she wants. They try to give the impression there will not be a need for a warrant to open up a letter. Both of those things are not true.

Can the member provide his thoughts on misleading information?