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

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague bringing up the issue of temporary residence in Canada because this is a major issue right now in our country. The data from the member's own party shows that well over 7% of the population right now is temporary. This has been totally caused by the government's lack of attention to this area and its encouragement for people to come to Canada, with absolutely no oversight, no controls and no limits. Of course people came. People will use the system that is given to them and now, all of a sudden, we have a problem that the government is finally waking up to.

This is entirely the fault of the Liberal government, something that should have been completely preventable and should have allowed Canadians who live here to have access to health care, housing and jobs. That is something that has to be corrected, and the government is fully at fault for that.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 5, the RCMP seized over 120 grams of fentanyl, nearly 50 grams of methamphetamine, over 150 grams of crack cocaine and a loaded prohibited handgun in a family neighbourhood in my home of Campbell River. Police executed the search and seizure after a lengthy drug trafficking investigation. Inspector Jeff Preston, the officer in charge, said, “Campbell River is experiencing one of the highest rates of overdose deaths in the province and we’re doing everything we can to remove these toxic drugs from our streets.”

It is true that the RCMP in my riding is doing everything they can to remove dangerous drugs from our streets, but 10 years of Liberal governance has made it harder for the RCMP to do their job. Instead, the government has made it easier for drugs and illegal guns to be trafficked across the Canada-U.S. border, and it has emboldened criminals by entrenching Liberal catch-and-release revolving-door policies throughout Canada's justice system.

Today, this House is considering Bill C-2, a piece of legislation whose purpose the Liberal minister responsible has said is to, among other things, combat organized crime and fentanyl. That is an admirable goal and one that we as parliamentarians could all get behind. Unfortunately, however, this bill does not address the many reasons we have had such massive increases in violent crime and overdose deaths under the Liberal government over the past 10 years.

First is the issue of crime. Forget major cities like Vancouver or Toronto. Just in my riding, whether it is Campbell River, Powell River or Courtenay, every week there is a new story about someone being shot or stabbed, having to fend off a home invasion or having their business broken into. Crime is getting worse, and here are the facts to back that up. Since 2015, violent crime has increased by 50% and homicides have increased by 27%, 34% of which, by the way, were committed by a criminal on some sort of a release like bail.

We have to be clear. The dramatic increase we have seen in crime and disorder is not the result of a bill like Bill C-2 not yet being passed. Rather, it is due directly to legislation passed by the Liberals and supported by the NDP over the past decade. Legislation like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have reduced jail time for serious offenders and granted near-automatic bail for career criminals.

We have all heard the stories as a result of these policies about violent random offenders who are released from custody only to commit more violence on our streets. It is part of a tragic miscarriage of justice happening right across this country, but it hits a little differently when it happens in our own backyard.

Lewis Park is a popular gathering place for residents of the Comox Valley. Kids play in the water park, seniors go to classes at the community centre and, apparently, repeat violent offenders prey on an unsuspecting public. At least, that is the story of Serge Melancon, who came to Lewis Park with his wife, a 64-year-old double amputee, to use a handicap shower in the middle of the day during their road trip vacation.

As Serge was about to leave the driveway, there was a knock on his window. It was an unknown man who proceeded to concoct a story about why he needed to borrow Serge's phone, before suddenly opening the door to Serge's vehicle and punching him repeatedly in the head. The assault was so vicious and so unexpected that Serge was hardly able to fight back, sustaining injuries to his face. As Serge was dragged out of the car and lay on the ground, the assailant fled with his phone, and a crowd began to gather. The police then arrived on the scene, later identifying the attacker as Melvin Teagai, a trained boxer. Unsurprisingly, Serge was then told by police that the attacker was already known to them. In other words, he was a repeat violent offender.

Unfortunately, the story of Serge is one that is all too common in both big cities and small towns right across Canada. In fact, I have noticed that the only people who seem to be punished under the Liberal government are those who actually work for a living and follow the law. There is no better example than the law-abiding firearms owners who have been demonized and targeted by their own government, while at the same time the Liberals have reduced prison sentences for those convicted of illegally smuggling firearms across the border from the United States. It is the very same border, I might add, that they now claim they want to desperately secure.

The Liberals also claim they want to get tough on fentanyl and other illegal drugs with this bill. Well, let us look at their record on that.

Since 2015, more than 50,000 Canadians have died from drug overdoses in Canada. That is more Canadians dead than died in all of World War II. These are mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, and sons and daughters who have all had their lives tragically cut short.

What has the Liberals' policy been when it has come to deadly opioids like fentanyl that have wreaked so much havoc and caused so much death? First, in my province of B.C., the Liberals decriminalized hard drugs, including crystal meth, crack cocaine and, yes, even fentanyl. It is a policy that remains in place to this day, which means that at the same time that they are claiming they want to take the fentanyl situation seriously, which we all do, their own policy, which recklessly decriminalized that very drug, remains in place. The Liberals then used taxpayer money to flood the streets with a highly addictive and deadly opioid called hydromorphone, or Dilaudid, while marketing it to our young people as safe supply, all as part of their plan known as harm reduction. This bill would leave all of those policies in place as well.

They say the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. It is a phrase that I unfortunately have to use all too often with the current government. If we want to actually solve the addictions crisis and want to combat the scourge of fentanyl and other hard drugs, how about instead of handing them out for free, we use that money to get people into treatment and recovery and return them to being healthy, productive members of our society once again? For those who are trafficking these drugs, who are trafficking fentanyl, it is time we treat them like the mass murderers they are, with mandatory life sentences for those profiting off the death and misery of so many of our fellow Canadians. However, instead of dealing with these substantive issues, the Liberals are scrambling with an omnibus bill that would not only fall short of protecting Canadians, but infringe on their unassailable individual freedoms.

The Conservatives have always advocated for a secure border with greater investments, resources and personnel for the CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, so it can prevent the flow of illegal drugs and guns coming across the border into Canada. That is just common sense. We know that securing the border means an increased number of border agents, patrol equipment and enhanced security measures and technology.

The major concerns that I have with this bill, aside from the failure to address the real issues and the root problems driving the violent crime and addictions crises in this country, are surrounding privacy infringements involving the warrantless search of the mail of Canadians and digital government overreach.

First, Bill C-2 would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to permit the search, seizure, detention or retention of any post items and would empower Canada Post to open all mail. This is directly against Canadians' right to privacy and would allow Canada Post to open mail without proper oversight, while also removing, which is actually hard to believe, any liability from those who abuse this newly granted authority. Here is the truth: Canadians do not want government looking into their private parcels and letters. To permit such action would be a gross violation of the individual freedoms that all Canadians have come to expect.

This same pattern of erosion of civil liberties is repeated in parts 14, 15 and 16 of this legislation. Bill C-2 would allow the government to create back doors for government bodies to access the private data of Canadians, again without warrants. In Part 16, the bill opens the door for the government to supply financial institutions with personal information, and banks would be authorized to collect and use that personal information without an individual's knowledge or consent, all based merely on government suspicion. This is essentially the same power the government granted to itself using the Emergencies Act during the COVID-19 protests back in 2022, which it then proceeded to immediately and dangerously abuse.

All told, as it stands, Bill C-2 would accomplish virtually nothing on the major issues of crime and fentanyl, which it purports to address. The failed Liberal policies of Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and drug decriminalization would all remain in place, while new infringements on the individual freedoms of Canadians would be thoughtlessly introduced. As of today, Bill C-2 is a poorly written bill, and without significant changes and revisions, it would accomplish little toward the safety and security of Canadians, while further eroding the freedoms and privacy that Canadians hold dear.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of comments I take exception to, especially ones dealing with the issue of fentanyl that is put into envelopes and mailed out and the legal obligation for Canada Post to deliver that mail. To deal with drugs like fentanyl and how Canada Post is being utilized, we have put responsible clauses in the legislation that will in fact make a difference.

I would ultimately argue that the legislation as a whole has the merit to go to committee, where members opposite could evaluate it, debate it and propose amendments. Does the member believe there are aspects of the legislation he would support so we can ultimately see it go to a committee?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, on the issue of fentanyl, I find it a bit rich that the government is claiming these new infringements on the individual freedoms of Canadians are all about combatting the scourge of fentanyl in society. This is a government that funds the handing out of fentanyl for free. This is a government that decriminalized fentanyl in my home province of British Columbia. This is a government that has overseen the largest increase of overdose deaths in the history of this country. As I said in my opening remarks, it is more than 50,000 Canadians, more than the number of Canadians who died in the Second World War.

If we want to get tough on fentanyl, if we want to get tough on hard drugs in this country, we do not have to do it by infringing on the freedoms of Canadians. There are lots of different options for doing that. It is a large bill. Of course, there are elements in it that are good, but there is so much that is cause for concern.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been an advocate for getting hard drugs off the streets. He has been to my riding, to Fort St. John, to talk specifically about this really challenging issue for our communities in B.C.

The Liberal government is in its 11th year of governing this country. It has attacked law-abiding firearms owners on a regular basis, as the member mentioned. It has also allowed drugs to flow onto the streets, which, as he mentioned, have killed thousands of Canadians as a result of overdoses. Is the member confident that the Liberal government, in its 11th year of governing Canada, is about to change its ways?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am definitely not confident that the government is going to change its ways. As the member pointed out, it seems that under the Liberals, previously supported by the NDP, the only ones who ever get punished are those who actually work for a living, pay their taxes and follow the law.

As the member pointed out, law-abiding firearm owners are the perfect example of that. The government is using taxpayer money to confiscate the private property of these Canadians, who have never committed a crime and who are statistically some of the least likely Canadians to ever commit a crime, and is at the same time reducing sentences for those who are illegally smuggling firearms across the border from the United States. This is the very same border the government now claims it is so desperate to secure.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my first opportunity to address the new member for North Island—Powell River.

The Conservatives, who backed the Liberal measures through May and June, seem to have decided that now is the time to draw the line. I am glad it is on Bill C-2, because Bill C-2 should be completely withdrawn and rethought. I would like to ask the hon. member if he thinks the Conservative Party would ever again back a programming motion such as the one used on Bill C-5, which denied us a chance to properly study the bill.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to future legislation. We are going to look at these issues one by one. Obviously, with Bill C-2, we see very serious concerns, as it involves the infringement of the individual freedoms of all Canadians.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I rise in the House after the summer recess. As always, I want to thank the constituents of Niagara West for sending me to Ottawa to be their voice in this incredible place. I am humbled that, after more than 21 years, I was once again granted the honour of their trust.

Today, we are discussing the government's bill, Bill C-2. For my constituents who may be watching, Bill C-2's formal name is an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures. The short title of this bill is the strong borders act. Does this bill really live up to its name? It sure has generated a lot of attention from many corners: academia, civil society groups and other stakeholders.

Let us delve into it a little and look at some recent history to understand what the Liberals are trying to do with it.

First and foremost, I believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree that Conservatives believe in law and order. We have always stood up for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. I do not think there is much debate from any party when it comes to this issue. It is simple. Conservatives care about Canadians and their safety. We would like to see legislation to that end, whether it is presented from our side or otherwise.

What is important here is to inform those watching us today that for the past decade, Conservatives have been urging the Liberal government to reverse their failed policies and restore safety to our communities. Most people who were paying attention to media coverage during the last campaign know that crime was a big topic. Countless examples were seen on TV and first-hand in our communities, which show us that things have gotten much worse over the last decade, so much so that many Canadians are afraid for their safety just walking in their neighbourhoods.

Whether Liberals admit it or not, with respect to crime, things have gotten out of control. Speaking of campaigns and crime, I think more than four million people saw my post on what happened in Grimsby during the last campaign. Armed robbers rammed a pickup truck through the doors of a jewellery store in the middle of the day in downtown Grimsby, a once-quiet, small community where things like this just do not happen. What is even more shocking is that this armed robbery was not the first. In fact, it was the third time in just three months the same jewellery store was targeted. Imagine that. This is Grimsby we are talking about.

The crime wave has shaken our small community to the core and has opened a lot of conversations about what has taken place under the Liberals for the last 10 long years. I can honestly say that this issue was a major factor in the high voter turnout in my riding just days later, on election day. People have had enough not just in Niagara West but also through all corners of this country.

The Liberals are attempting to respond with this bill, but it seems incomplete. They seem rushed to do something they have not really thought through. It seems like they are scrambling to introduce a bill, any bill, just to say they are doing something. The bill is too wide-ranging and, in the end, it falls short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other areas. Like other recent government legislation, we will support some parts of it, but it needs work. When something makes sense, we will acknowledge it and we will work collaboratively to fix the flaws and make it even better. We are willing to do that with all parties, not just the Liberals.

Allow me to mention the parts of the bill that concern me and many of my colleagues, as well.

First, the bill does not address bail reform. We have seen the consequences of the catch-and-release system, which causes havoc in many communities throughout our country. Criminals are arrested for what is usually not their first, second or even third crime, but they are right back on the street the same day. They reoffend shortly after and the cycle continues.

Let me tell members what happened in Welland recently. Welland is a small community just outside of my riding. As a matter of fact, my colleague here in the House, the member for Niagara South, represents this community. A horrific crime took place. It was something out of a nightmare. In fact, it is probably any parent's nightmare.

A few weeks ago, Daniel Senecal, a dangerous pedophile, was charged with the sexual assault of a three-year-old girl. He broke into the home after the family fell asleep and committed this horrendous crime against a three-year-old toddler. Senecal was charged with the aggravated sexual assault of a minor, choking, breaking and entering, and sexual interference. I will spare everyone the details of the injuries this monster inflicted upon this poor child. Daniel Senecal is a despicable pedophile who should never see freedom again. He destroyed the life of a little girl, her family and many others.

However, the story does not end there. This monster recently got out of a one-year stint in jail for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old boy just four years ago. He received 18 months for sexually assaulting a little boy but got out early.

When I read this for the first time, I could not believe it. I had to go to another news source to verify that the sentence was actually written correctly in the first article, and it was. I felt total shock, disappointment and outrage. The 12-year-old boy's mother was also outraged that the person charged in the attack on this three-year-old girl only served one year and now lives a short distance away.

Are we noticing a pattern of crime here, a pattern of lax criminal laws? Are we addressing this with Bill C-2? My colleague from Niagara South has started a petition, and I encourage members to reach out to him at his constituency office to get more details and maybe sign this petition, as well.

In addition to this idiotic leniency for monsters, we also still have a catch-and-release scheme that is alive and well for drug dealers and traffickers. It is alive and well for criminals who are trafficking fentanyl and firearms, and using our porous border to victimize Canadians. What most Canadians would be shocked to hear, and I hope that if they are watching they will remember this, is that there are still no mandatory times for fentanyl traffickers.

Fentanyl is an awful drug. We see devastating and frightening effects just a few blocks from this place. Just two milligrams, which is the size of a grain of salt, can kill a person. That is why our Conservative team wants to impose mandatory life sentences on anyone involved in the trafficking, production and distribution of over 40 milligrams of fentanyl. Forty milligrams could kill 20 people. That is called mass murder. If someone is willing to traffic and distribute this poison, they should never see freedom again. Bill C-2 does not address this issue, and it should. We need to fix it so that it does.

Bill C-2 also provides no new mandatory prison terms for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes. If we just turn on the news, we can see what is going on with home invasions and carjackings by criminals who use guns to commit crimes. It is happening daily and in the most brazen ways that one could even think of. Once again, Bill C-2 does not address this issue, and we need to fix it.

Bill C-2 also does not address sentencing for serious offences. House arrest is still permissible under the current system for some of the most serious offences. How can we, in good conscience, allow this to continue when we see the devastation it causes so many folks around the country? We need to fix it, and we need to fix it now.

On another theme, let us talk about the topic that is top of mind for many constituents: the consistent government attacks on our civil liberties. It was a frequent issue at the door during the campaign. I received emails and phone calls from folks worried about the bill's effect on our civil liberties. They are deeply concerned that it allows authorities to open mail without oversight. This is a major violation of privacy that my constituents consider unacceptable.

Bill C-2 also compels Internet companies to hand over private information and grants authorities warrantless searches, another violation of privacy. I cannot tell the House how many discussions I have had about this. People are worried.

People are also alarmed by the government's efforts to limit the use of cash. Cash remains a critical part of our economy. Many seniors in Niagara West and in rural communities like mine, as well as small businesses, rely on using cash. All I can say to folks who are emailing and phoning us, worried about this bill, is that it seems to fit the pattern of the Liberals' unquenchable thirst for more government control and further government overreach.

Now is a good time to bring up our Conservative record on this issue. We have consistently fought for practical, effective policies that secure our borders, protect communities and uphold Canadians' fundamental rights and freedoms. We have proposed adding thousands of border agents. We have proposed extending CBSA powers along the entire border, not just at crossings. We have proposed installing border surveillance towers, as well as a truck-mounted drone system to spot border incursions. We have forwarded a plan to install high-powered scanners at all major land crossings and shipping ports. By the way, for those who do not know, these scanners can see through the walls of vehicle containers to spot drugs, guns and stolen cars. We have also proposed a plan to track departures, so government officials know which deportees are in Canada illegally.

We have also put a plan forward to toughen penalties for repeat violent offenders, which the Liberals are resisting. I have no idea why they are resisting this. It is such a common-sense policy, yet here we are. Our plan also includes ending catch-and-release bail and house arrest for violent criminals, other common-sense policies the Liberals are against. We want to eliminate the multiple murder discount when sentencing offenders. We propose prioritizing treatment over government drug distribution to support battling addictions.

Last but not least, we have been champions of rights and freedoms, freedom of speech and fearlessly defending Canadians' civil liberties. Our plan is one of pragmatism. We will always put Canadians first by taking public safety issues seriously and protecting Canadians' rights. It is time for the Liberals to admit they have majorly screwed up in the last 10 years when it comes to protecting Canadians. As our leader has said, please copy our plan. We do not mind. We all care about Canadians and their safety. We want people to once again feel safe in their communities, so let us make it happen. Let us work on this together. Let us fix this bill. Let us make it better. Let us work towards a safer Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 does not deal with the issue of bail reform, a commitment that the Prime Minister made. If it dealt with bail reform, we would have criticisms from across the way saying that it should have been separate legislation. The good news is that we are going to see that separate legislation this fall. Members should know that by now.

The member also made the assertion that the Conservative Party always believed in strong borders. In reality, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table, he cut—

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

I am new to the chamber. I thought there was supposed to be a question, and the comment was to the member who gave the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I believe the parliamentary secretary was getting to his question.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives, when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government and sat at the cabinet table, literally cut money out of the budget for border control. Contrast that with this government, which has invested well over $1 billion, or close to $1.3 billion, to have hundreds of new border and RCMP officers. It seems to be an interesting contrast.

Does the member not see any hypocrisy in some of the statements that have been made?