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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise here as we resume Parliament to talk to a bill tabled June 3; it is the first time I have had an opportunity to address it in this place. I will not forget this, as I used to practise law myself and practised law on behalf of refugees. I was reading a bill that I understood to be called “the strong borders act” and wondered what all these sections were about changes to the Immigration Act. Why are we making it harder for people to claim refugee status? Will this, in fact, violate our international obligations under the treaties to protect the rights of refugees?

I will back up. Given that I have roughly six minutes at this time and will be able to return to this after a number of other routine events in this place, none of which are routine anymore, I want to say that this is offensive on a number of levels for viewers and fellow parliamentarians. It has been a long time. We get tired of keeping track of Liberal election promises. Maybe the promise from 2015 never meant anything anyway; it has been abused so much. However, I find it offensive to face omnibus bills. Legitimate omnibus bills, by definition, should focus on the same legislative purpose, not multiple legislative purposes.

The bill, in short form, deals with the following separate pieces of legislation: the Customs Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act, the Oceans Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and a number of information-sharing pieces of legislation that appear to be aimed toward preparing Canadian law to allow U.S. security and U.S. law enforcement agencies greater access to Canadians' private information.

As I read it at the time, on June 3, I was alarmed and I began to dig into it. Since then, over 300 civil society organizations dealing with civil liberties and refugee protection, as well as basic privacy protection groups such as OpenMedia and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, have raised questions and deep concerns, calling on the government to withdraw the legislation. It is not that I think our government is anything like Donald Trump's government, but the legislation is Trumpian. Therefore, we need to stop, think, reflect and withdraw the legislation so that we can focus on its title, its alleged purpose, which is the strong borders act.

I think a lot of Canadians want strong borders dealing with the United States. We know that illegal guns come across the U.S. border into Canada. We know that illegal drugs come into Canada from the U.S. Fentanyl is not flooding into the U.S. from Canada, as the President of the United States would like at least his own citizens to believe. That is a complete fiction, at the level of being a fraud. Canada Border Services agents need their resources amplified so that they can ensure that illegal guns and dangerous drugs are not coming across the Canada-U.S. border, flowing from the U.S. into Canada.

Refugees, people who legitimately need to have a place to claim refugee status, must not be barred before they get any chance to even put forward their claim. I am someone who used to work in this area of law; claiming refugee status is a very steep hill to climb. We do not have a system within this country that tends to support refugees just because they say they are refugees; they have to prove it. They need to have substantial evidence that they have a legitimate fear of being sent back to their country of origin. The bill, if passed as is, would expedite the deportation of people without them having a chance to make their case, which they have the right to do under Canadian law, as to why they have legitimate fears of being killed if they are sent back to their country of origin.

There is a great deal that needs to be said about this. The more we can deal with it without partisanship, the better. It is an odd experience to hear the Conservatives decry that the Liberals are soft on crime. When I look at the legislation, I wonder what happened to our respect for the charter.

The Minister of Justice has released the analysis from the Department of Justice recognizing that Bill C-2 would raise many concerns about whether it is charter-compliant, and I have read it. I will address this more fully when we resume this debate after we have question period and members' statements. I do not want to risk impeding and encroaching on that time, and I know that I will get cut off anyway. The reality is that this charter statement from the Department of Justice does not assuage my concerns.

It says that the government would be able to access this information but would not be using it in ways that could result in a prosecution. The government would be taking private information for benign purposes, so we should not worry about it opening mail, with a very low threshold for when it is allowed to open mail, or accessing information about an Internet supplier or the information it may have about a citizen. We should not worry about that; the charter statement says the government will not be taking this information in ways that could hurt citizens in the course of protecting their charter rights.

I do not buy it. I do not think many MPs—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member will have four minutes and four seconds when the House resumes after question period.

The House resumed 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, Bill C-2 is an omnibus bill that would change multiple pieces of legislation, and it really would not address the issue of strong borders. When we are addressing as many different bills as this bill does, to repeat what I mentioned earlier, we attract the attention of 300 different non-governmental organizations across Canada in a coalition. Groups with very different interests are looking at our positions on the civil society protection of charter rights.

I have looked at the government's tabling, through the Minister of Justice, of the charter statement to see whether this bill is charter-compliant, and it really comes down to a series of statements of analysis saying that, while this bill could attract challenges under section 8 of the charter and involves intrusions of privacy, it is all going to be okay because “trust us”.

At this point, we are looking at intrusions of our civil liberties, which other members of Parliament have mentioned, with a very low threshold for opening our mail. It is true, as I know a parliamentary secretary said, that a small envelope with a small amount of fentanyl can kill many people, but this bill does not try to categorize in any way or create any kind of threshold for reasonable suspicion that mail is conveying drugs. This is a very different way of approaching the protection of Canadians. What it is really about when we look at it in the current political context is what we can do to convince Donald Trump that we are going to sacrifice the civil liberties of Canadians to meet the talking points of a deranged U.S. President. It is just not acceptable.

I urge all members of Parliament in this place, all parties, to take the time it takes. This bill will get to second reading. I think it is unlikely we can stop it, although that would be great. The Liberals do not have a majority in this place. Maybe we can stop it from going to second reading. In the meantime, it is likely to go to second reading, and it needs thorough study at committee, particularly from experts, on the charter compliance questions. There is no point in passing a law that would be very soon struck down by the courts as violating our charter rights.

I know I have very little time left, but I hope I will have time in questions and comments to expand on some of these points. Bill C-2 should be rejected. It would be much easier to start over and have a bill that starts from the premise that it is about borders, not about trying to appease the White House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the overall assessment coming from the leader of the Green Party. This bill is indeed a reflection of what came out of the last election. That is the reason it was introduced back in June. It reflects what Canadians wanted to see with regard to building one stronger economy and dealing with specific border issues. It complements the hundreds of millions of dollars in investments for beefing up our borders. This is something Canadians were told about in the last election.

I would question the privacy-related issues. This is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. We are very much aware of civil rights.

I agree with the member. Let us at least get the bill to committee and see what happens with amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I was not clear, I do not want to get the bill to committee. Let it die here at the end of first reading and fail at second reading.

The bill attracts a number of concerns, and there was never any campaign discussion that it was important to deny people the rights that they would ordinarily have to ask for refugee protection in this country. They would be denied those rights without a hearing, and that is unprecedented.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on that particular point, does the member not see the difference between that and individuals who come to Canada on a temporary visa and are in Canada for over a year? She is talking about many people, whether it is back in 2010 or today. The issue is about ensuring the refugee process is not being abused.

There is a political responsibility here. We saw that today in question period. Why will the leader of the Green Party not recognize there is value to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is because I have represented refugees in the past in my work in the private practice of law that I know the laws around the international status of refugee protection. Someone in Canada could have a reasonable expectation that they can stay in this country but then find out they have to leave. Until Bill C-2 passes, the door is open for them to make a claim if they have legitimate grounds to do so. We are shutting that door when they do not have a chance. It is a catch-22 being imposed on people who are potentially legitimate refugees. That means we are violating our international treaty obligations to protect refugee rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I know that my hon. colleague has a legal background. There is a critical point that I would love her point of view on, both as a former lawyer and as a parliamentarian.

In part 4 of the act, under “Inspection of mail”, it says, “The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that”. Then it goes on and the legislation is the exact same. A warrant is obtained generally on reasonable grounds to believe. This is on reasonable grounds to suspect, which is a lower legal threshold. I do not see any requirement for a warrant here. I wonder if the member would agree. Perhaps I am missing something.

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

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that it is unprecedented to take away a Canadian's right to the privacy of mail delivery. The amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act, which the member mentioned are in part 4, are warrantless, and the threshold is lower. It should be a source of concern to all Canadians that we are creating a law that says we can open mail if we have reason to suspect. On top of that, the sharing of information could mean that more open Canadian privacy information could go to U.S. authorities.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I move to the matter at hand, I want to say what a privilege it is to be back in Ottawa to fight for the people of Cambridge and North Dumfries.

It has been nearly three months since members of Parliament have been in this place to debate issues of importance and hold the government accountable for its actions. It is almost like the government did not want anybody to hold it accountable, or maybe it wanted a long, lazy summer vacation. Whatever it was, it certainly was no vacation for me and my team. Every day, we were out in the community attending events, helping constituents with casework and listening to all the things on our neighbours' minds.

What did they have to say? They told me, overwhelmingly, that a decade of Liberal government has made life harder, that finding a good-paying job or any kind of job is harder, that affording a home or even an apartment is harder and that affording the necessities of life, just basics like groceries, is harder. I am always going to stand up for these fundamental issues and be a champion for common sense and the for Canadian dream that hard work can pay off.

Life is also harder for the most vulnerable in our community. The exploding number of homeless encampments and of people experiencing homelessness is an incredibly visible and heart-wrenching concern for all of us. It is hard to take a walk through downtown Cambridge without seeing one of our neighbours in distress and people who do not have a warm place to sleep, a warm meal to eat or a chance of getting back on their feet. What used to be a peaceful area has now been transformed into ground zero of a tent city disaster unfolding right before our eyes. The Liberal-manufactured housing crisis, which has caused home prices to double in less than a decade, is a big part of why there are so many people sleeping on our streets.

However, another huge reason is the wave of addiction and the opioid epidemic that has flooded our communities, big and small. The Liberal government fanned the flames of that program, offering free drugs and a quick high instead of hope and recovery for the people who needed it most, and it left our borders vulnerable and open to international gangs and smugglers to use our country as a dumping ground for drugs like fentanyl. Those drugs end up on the street in cities like mine, and even a tiny amount can literally kill people.

Now the Liberals have put forward a new bill, Bill C-2, that is supposed to address the problem of fentanyl on our streets and narcotics being smuggled across our border. In all seriousness, that is like the person who set a house on fire showing up with a bucket to put out the flames. It just does not make sense. The same people who broke it cannot and should not be trusted to fix it.

Fentanyl is not just another drug; it is a lethal poison that is tearing apart families in Cambridge, North Dumfries and every community across Canada. A few grains can end a life. Paramedics in my riding respond to overdose calls daily, and our hospitals are overwhelmed with patients fighting for their life. Parents tell me they are terrified their child will be the next obituary. That is the human cost: not statistics, but loved ones lost.

Drug smugglers do not operate alone; they are tied to organized crime, violent gangs and international cartels that see Canada as an easy target. When border controls are weak, those criminals walk right through the cracks. Bill C-2 talks about tightening enforcement, but without tougher bail conditions and mandatory jail time, the same gang members will be back on our streets within days. Canadians deserve laws that protect victims, not revolving doors for offenders.

The government can pat itself on the back for introducing Bill C-2, but here is the truth: There are many parts of the legislation that fall far too short. There are no new tools for prosecutors to keep traffickers behind bars. There are no real investments in treatment and recovery that offer people hope instead of despair, and there are no guarantees that the flow of precursor chemicals, the ingredients for fentanyl, will actually be stopped at the border. For all the government's talk, there is no guarantee that the bill would end the opioid epidemic, far from it.

Conservatives believe in strong borders, serious sentences for smugglers and a pathway to recovery for the people trapped in addiction. That is what real leadership looks like.

Let me be clear that I am ready to work with anybody from any party who wants to help fix our borders, stop the drugs and get people in my community the help they need, but we simply cannot afford more of the same things from the same Liberal government: more talk and more empty platitudes with devastating consequences for Canadians, and that is what the bill is all about. It would not implement bail reform for violent gang members and smugglers who make drugs, transport drugs, sell drugs and destroy the lives of people who live in my riding and of hundreds of thousands of people across this country.

That means that the people who are driving the crisis get to keep walking through the Liberal revolving door of no consequences, free to keep flooding our streets with narcotics. If someone does happen to be put behind bars, the bill would not implement stricter sentencing provisions. We would still have no mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers and no mandatory prison time for gangsters who commit violent crimes with guns. We need to stop the smugglers, put the bad guys in jail and end the Liberal regime of endless free drugs for everyone.

Instead of cracking down on the drug traffickers and gangs that fuel the crisis, the Liberals are trying to hide the problem by shuffling people into senior housing without safeguards. Individuals dealing with drugs and creating disorder are being placed in the same apartment buildings as vulnerable seniors. The result is theft, fear and seniors who feel like a prisoner in their own home. I hear this every week from seniors in my community. They worked hard all their life, and they should feel safe in their home, but many of them no longer do. Bill C-2 would do nothing to change that. It goes after paperwork, not the predators. It leaves the real criminals free while vulnerable Canadians live in fear.

When the Liberals are not using the bill to keep letting criminals roam free on our streets, they are taking massive new steps to give themselves more power to control the everyday lives of Canadians. For instance, they want to impose a massive new restriction on the use of cash in private transactions, limiting cash payments of $10,000 or more. Our multinational banker and economist Prime Minister should realize that seniors, farmers and small businesses often rely on cash for larger purchases or sales. Restricting those transactions would not stop organized crime; it would just make life harder for people who follow the rules.

Let us talk about what the bill would do. Bill C-2 would give the government the power to open mail without oversight, force Internet companies to hand over their data and give itself more opportunities to perform warrantless searches. Canadians need to know that Bill C-2 would goes well beyond border measures; it would also introduce new surveillance powers that deserve a full and separate debate. If the government believes these powers are necessary, they should be studied carefully in their own bill with the proper scrutiny of Parliament.

To me this looks like the Liberal government is focusing on giving itself more powers at the cost of law-abiding Canadians' civil liberties, instead of actually going after the dangerous criminals who threaten the safety not just of the people of Cambridge but of all Canadians.

These measures are wrong and must be fixed, because we know that when Ottawa gets more powers, it never, ever gives them up. We would not have even needed to introduce a bill like this in the first place if the Liberal government had not broken what it inherited from Stephen Harper: a strong border, a functioning criminal justice system and a safe and secure immigration process that was the envy of the world.

Instead, after 10 years of an incompetent and out-of-touch government, drugs and guns, criminals and contraband flow across our borders with impunity. The criminals often get more rights than their victims, while getting a slap on their wrist and paying no price whatsoever, and that is not to mention an immigration system that nobody, not even immigrants themselves, trusts to work in the best interest of this country.

There is good news and bad news. The good news is that we can fix all these problems. I still believe that Canada is the best country in the world and a place we are so blessed to call home. I remain honoured to be Cambridge's voice in this place through the good and bad times. However, the bad news is that we cannot trust the Liberal government, an overbearing, incompetent and careless government, to clean up the mess it created itself.

Bill C-2 is called the strong borders act, but there is nothing strong about weak sentencing, revolving-door justice and half measures that punish honest Canadians more than criminals. If the Liberals were serious about strong borders, they would listen to the Conservative proposals, secure the border, end catch and release for traffickers and give people struggling with addiction a real chance at recovery.

We are calling for better. Police are calling for better. Victims and their families are calling for better. Is the government going to listen? Only time will tell.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Conservative Party spoke about the importance of border security and even mentioned the Harper government's record in that area.

I would like to remind her that during their last term in power, the Conservatives made significant cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency, which led to the elimination of more than 1,000 jobs. Their words today do not reflect their past actions.

For our part, we are taking meaningful steps to strengthen border security with Bill C‑2. Are the Conservatives willing to work with us to make our borders safer and stronger?

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, I am here to debate the safety of all Canadians, not engage in political games. My constituents are suffering more than I have ever seen in my life and need the government to focus on the criminals causing this, not crack down on the civil liberties of all Canadians. Bail reform is the biggest priority for keeping Canadians safe, so why is the Liberal government avoiding the topic and instead focusing on collecting Canadians' mail without a warrant?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get my colleague's opinion. Earlier the member for Winnipeg North said that we should just take the Liberals' word for it that they believe in protecting the charter rights of Canadians for privacy, because in the 1980s they were the party that brought the charter in.

Do we have to take the Liberals for granted on everything they campaigned on in the 1980s? They were against free trade then; is that also why we are not getting a deal with Trump on free trade today, because they are secretly still back in the 1980s and everything they were committed to then?

Perhaps my colleague from Cambridge can respond to the question about whether we can take the Liberals' campaign platform at its word or whether we should be looking back in time to see where the Liberals really stand on these issues.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a good point. A lot of people no longer trust the government after a decade of decay. It is truly depressing to see our seniors not even feeling safe in their own home because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime agenda. With drugs having been let run so rampant in our communities, we are seeing drug addicts housed in seniors homes rather than getting them rehab or help. We see them getting drugs from either the government or their dealers while out on bail. Seeing drug dealers and violent gang members run free while our most vulnerable, our seniors, cower in their own home is truly depressing.

Just a few weeks ago, an elderly lady in Guelph was beaten, and died of her injuries, in broad daylight. This is not the Canada I grew up in. If we wonder about trust, we should look at the last 10 years.