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

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP knows where thousands of these drug labs are across Canada, so I do not think it would be that hard of a process to get the warrant needed to search for products.

Does the member not agree that there are already measures in place that can be used? If the government had the will in the tone it is setting for how it treats drugs in this country, that would be of great help as well.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, regulatory search powers often overlap with law enforcement. This is a question of whether we inspect first and then get a warrant or we get a warrant and then inspect. The law as it stands is fine and clear.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in June, Canadians pleaded with the Liberal government to keep Parliament open and deliver real bail reform. Its members refused, and they went on vacation. While they were away, tragedy multiplied: A three-year-old girl was assaulted in her own bed, a boy was killed by a stray bullet as he slept in his mother's arms, a father was slain while defending his family and a grandmother was murdered for her car. Each story is a heartbreak. Each one is a question: Why was the Liberals' vacation more important than protecting Canadians from crime?

Now Parliament is finally back. It is day two, and what does the government put first? It is not violent crime, not unemployment, not the cost of living and not housing affordability. Instead, the Liberals rushed forward with a bill to let the state seize our mail without a warrant and to reach into our digital life unnecessarily and without oversight. However, when I walk the streets of Newmarket—Aurora, when I knock on doors, I do not hear calls for broader surveillance powers. I hear a mother in tears, telling me that she no longer feels safe in her own home. I read emails and take calls from neighbours who tell me, with desperation, that they no longer feel safe in their home, in their streets and in their country.

Canadians are asking, “Can I feed my family? Will my children ever be able to afford a home? Are our streets safe?” That is what weighs on the people's hearts, and yet the government answers with an omnibus bill that ignores their pleas and fiddles with their freedoms.

Violent crime is up 50%. Gang-related homicide is up 75%. Extortion is up 357%. Auto theft is up 46%. Crimes against children are up 119%. Every percentage point is not a number; it is a person, a life upended, a family scarred.

There are parts of the bill where we find common ground. We support tougher measures to combat fentanyl. We support expanding the sex offenders registry so police can prevent the most horrific crimes. We support stronger powers for law enforcement to stop predators and for the CBSA to stop money laundering and terrorist financing. These are urgent issues that could pass now, but the government went further. The Liberals bundled urgent, non-contentious issues with controversial ones that overreach.

Section 8 of our charter is clear: Canadians are protected against unlawful search and seizure. The protection must come before the state acts, not after. The private information of Canadians sent through the mail should never be handed to the government without a warrant. That would be a clear breach of confidentiality.

Let us think about what we entrust to the mail: mail-in ballots, confidential files and financial statements. Where is the line? Where is the respect for Canadians' civil liberties? When I hear of a government's screening mail, I do not think of a western democracy; I think of a place where the state controls and where people are afraid to speak their mind. That is not Canada, yet that is exactly what the bill proposes.

The reality is that criminals are savvy. They adapt, they shift, they change and they will. We have already seen cases of pigeons delivering drugs in B.C., and we know that the use of drones is rapidly growing. Criminals will find other ways, and what will be left behind? It will be ordinary Canadians with their liberties, civil liberties, stripped away, and their private letters, their ballots, their most personal information left open to the government's eyes, not through due process, not with a warrant but with a will.

That is not the Canada we know. That is not the Canada we should ever accept. The bill offers no real oversight, no safeguards and no consequences for abuse. Canadians know this: Once liberties are handed away, they are rarely returned.

There is something else tucked inside the bill, quiet but troubling: restrictions on the use of cash. For generations, cash has been more than a currency. It has been independence. It has been a safeguard for seniors who do not bank online; for small businesses that still trade hand to hand, predominantly in the retail sector; and for families who rely on it in times of emergency.

The Liberal government once froze Canadians' bank accounts. Now it moves to limit the cash in their pockets. That is not financial modernization; that is control. Cash is not the problem; criminals are. Canadians deserve to know why a government that cannot control its spending is so eager to control how Canadians spend.

Canadians deserve a Parliament that deals with real concerns: safe streets, affordable living and stable jobs, while preserving the liberties that define us. Conservatives will support practical, effective measures that protect families, that support stronger borders, tougher penalties and real action against fentanyl, but we will not support a government that uses fear as a cover for overreach and that buries necessary policy inside sweeping new powers.

Let us pass what unites us, let us set aside what divides us and let us spend the chamber's precious time on the things that Canadians are truly asking of us: safety, prosperity and freedom. That is where Conservatives will stand.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that safety is paramount and of concern to Canadians. That is why the second bill we tabled in the current Parliament was Bill C-2. Bail reform and sentencing reforms are also upcoming this fall.

However, I would like to know whether the member is supportive of Bill C-2, as she did not reference it too much in her speech. I would love to know whether she is supportive of the extra measures and tools that we are giving our law enforcement. The bill was created from recommendations from officers who serve on the front lines.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very clearly laid out my concerns with the bill, predominantly around the violation of civil liberties for Canadians and government overreach and its desire for control. That is what we do not agree with.

The reality is that criminals will adapt, and they will adapt quickly. They will change their methods. We have seen pigeons and drones. Left behind will be ordinary, law-abiding Canadians with their liberties violated. We will never support that.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this heartfelt, compassionate, thoughtful speech. I am proud to be part of a caucus that cares that our loved ones come home.

We talk about borders. A member who spoke previously talked about living in a border town. All day I have heard members on the opposite side telling us how proud they are that this is the most money ever promised to be spent on border security. They are so proud of that.

However, I have to ask, and I think the member can comfortably comment, why are we in the place we are right now, where we have to spend that kind of money now to try to fix the problem?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I do not understand how government members can stand time and time again, applaud after their failures and say that they are actually trying to save Canadians from themselves.

I do want to mention that I knocked on thousands of doors in Newmarket—Aurora and heard the concerns of my constituents, which are around violent crime. If I were to go back to the mother who lost her child and say that we are finally back in session, for the 22nd day this entire year, and we are debating whether the government can search through her mail and whether it can control her cash, she would say, “Please listen to the people and their priorities. I am terrified in my own home. Clean up our streets.” Those are the priorities that Canadians have communicated.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, adaptation is a concern of ours, and that is why, in the legislation, we must adapt. We are finding that more and more criminals are using our mail to mail pieces that put together firearms, and also to mail fentanyl, which is mailed in such small quantities. This was a loophole that was being used by many criminals.

Would the member not agree that we need to adapt and catch these criminals?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spent 15 years in the financial sector, and I can say with full confidence that criminals will move way faster than the government can ever move, and what will be left over is ordinary, law-abiding Canadians with their civil liberties violated and a government that can go into anyone's mail without a warrant, just a will, and violate people's privacy. I do not support that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government was just talking about adapting for criminality. Should, perhaps, the government adapt to keeping prisoners in jail instead of releasing violent offenders immediately on bail?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have the same question for the Liberal government, which has failed to deliver real bail reform. I am glad that Conservatives have talked tough on crime. We have a member who is working on bail reform. I am very much looking forward to that, and I have been sharing that with people in my riding. I can tell members that they want a serious government to tackle violent crime.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, securing our borders is not a luxury. It is a matter of urgency. For a long time now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for strong measures to combat the export of stolen vehicles, the increase in asylum claims, the fentanyl crisis and money laundering. However, the situation had to become critical before the government would think about taking any action. After nearly 10 years of complacency, now the government is acting like a pyromaniac firefighter. It did nothing to prevent the fires, and now it wants to rush in and pretend to be the saviour putting out the flames. Yes, some measures have been taken, such as closing Roxham Road, albeit too late, and some announcements have been made about tackling organized crime. However, let us be honest. It was never enough, and never sustainable. It was too often improvised, and more importantly, it was dictated by Washington.

The goal was clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne, specifically, to rebuild public trust in the immigration system and in border security. However, Bill C-2 falls very short of that. This bill seems to be designed less to reassure Quebeckers and Canadians and more to respond to pressure from the United States, in the midst of a tariff war where Donald Trump is using migration and fentanyl as a pretext for taking trade measures.

Members will recall the fiasco of Roxham Road. For years, Ottawa tolerated an irregular crossing that overwhelmed our services. Instead of fixing the problem quickly, it allowed the situation to escalate. The result is that Quebec paid the price but did not receive sufficient compensation. This is why we doubt the government's ability to keep its new promises. Yes, Bill C‑2 includes some useful measures, but it is important to bear in mind that, without additional staff on the ground, the border will remain porous.

Take customs, for example. Bill C‑2 will finally allow officers at the Canada Border Services Agency to demand facilities for inspecting goods intended for export. For too long, they have been telling us that they cannot open containers at the port of Montreal because they do not have the warrants and facilities to do so. This will be fixed, and it is a step forward.

What are people on the ground saying? The Customs and Immigration Union estimates that it would need another 2,000 to 3,000 officers to get the current job done. The government promised 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new CBSA officers. The Speech from the Throne did mention RCMP officers, but it did not mention CBSA officers at all. That is why the Bloc Québécois keeps raising this issue. Those officers have to actually be deployed. Without boots on the ground, the new measures will be meaningless.

It is the same issue with Canada Post. Bill C‑2 removes some of the legal barriers to mail inspection. However, in my riding of Rimouski—La Matapédia, for example, we already have problems with postal services. In some municipalities, mail is only delivered every other day. A recent staffing shortage even resulted in no mail delivery for several days. If workers are already stretched thin, how can they be expected to do more? These are the government's true colours: it offers promises but no resources, laws but no officers, and heavier workloads but no support.

Another important aspect of Bill C-2 has to do with immigration and asylum claims. Vigilance is essential. Bill C-2 gives the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship the power to override his own officials' decisions before a case is referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. In other words, the minister becomes both judge and jury. That gives one person too much power with not enough safeguards. Let us be clear. If the government wants to rebuild public trust, it needs to demonstrate transparency, predictability and respect for Quebec's jurisdictions. Once again, we have a government that is centralizing decision-making in Ottawa and giving the minister discretionary powers without any real checks and balances. That does not build trust; it destroys it. The Bloc Québécois will be clear: Quebec must continue to have its say on the number of refugees it can comfortably accommodate. We are already taking on more than our share compared to the other provinces. Ottawa should compensate Quebec instead of leaving it to bear this burden alone.

Certain provisions also raise legal questions. For example, the bill prevents the minister and the minister's staff from being compelled to appear before the Refugee Protection Division. Is that consistent with transparency and accountability? The committee will have to answer that question.

The bill also provides that affected individuals may apply for a pre-removal risk assessment. However, I should point out that several countries, such as Haiti, are subject to a moratorium. In those cases, the actual scope of this mechanism is limited. Even the government recognizes that the bill raises legal issues. The proof is that it put out a charter statement in an attempt to justify them. We are going to demand that every clause be examined through that lens.

Again, it is important to recognize that this bill is a step in the right direction. Clause 77 would allow for the cancellation of fraudulent student visas obtained on the basis of fake admission letters. In the wake of the recent scandals, urgent action was needed to protect honest students and the integrity of our universities. The new grounds for inadmissibility will prevent a phantom student who is not attending classes from filing an asylum claim after one year. This practice is abusive and it must stop.

Finally, the end of the 14‑day exception in the safe third country agreement closes a loophole that encouraged irregular crossings and fuelled human smuggling networks. The government is finally taking action, but it is doing so unilaterally, without renegotiating the agreement. As a result, those intercepted after 14 days will be returned to their country of origin, unless it is a moratorium country. Evidently, the problem has not been completely resolved. On that point, it almost seems as if the government has taken inspiration from our own agenda. However, I will give it the benefit of the doubt.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of passing Bill C-2 at second reading. To be clear, this is not a carte blanche endorsement. In committee, we will demand a clear hiring plan for the CBSA and the RCMP, call for CBSA officers to be able to patrol between border crossings to provide operational depth without replacing the RCMP, set limits on the minister's new powers to prevent Ottawa from encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction, create humanitarian exceptions, including through the pre-removal risk assessment mechanism, and demand fair compensation for Quebec, which is already taking in a disproportionate share of asylum seekers.

The government says it wants to rebuild public trust in the immigration system. However, the government cannot rebuild trust by taking ad hoc measures intended to appease Washington and defuse the threat of tariffs. The government cannot rebuild trust by repeating past fiascoes, such as Roxham Road. It can only rebuild trust by making its system solid, predictable, fair and respectful toward Quebec. Bill C‑2 is a step in the right direction. That said, without sufficient staff, without guardrails and without respect for Quebec, the legislation will be incomplete. The Bloc Québécois will do its job, which is to curb excesses, demand results and defend Quebeckers' interests. In short, our guiding principle is to protect the border without trampling on rights and to respect Quebec’s choices.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the member's speech. It looks like the Bloc Québécois, or at least this member, is very supportive of Bill C-2 and this legislation. I think that is a good move. I understand that they are talking about delays in the process.

Are there any other examples the member would like to give as to how this would help combat crime in his community?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, but I did say a lot in my speech.

In April, in the middle of the election campaign, the Prime Minister himself promised to hire 1,000 additional CBSA officers. Can my colleague tell us how many new officers have been hired to date, since her counterparts in the government are unable to tell us? It is rather confusing.

The same goes for the RCMP. There was talk of 1,000 new officers. How many officers have been hired so far? No one on the government side is able to answer that question.

If there is a plan and hiring is planned, I would like someone to tell us how many officers will be hired. This will reassure the opposition parties and, above all, the public.

[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.

My colleague from the Liberals, the hon. secretary of state, asked about lowering crime in my hon. colleague's riding. I am just wondering whether my colleague shares the sentiment that the Liberals often state, which is that the Liberals have done enough to fight crime. Certainly, on this side of the House, we do not believe that. Does he share the Liberals' belief?