Debates of Oct. 20th, 2025

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

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

Madam Speaker, what I find very despicable is that the Liberals, an hour ago, refused to support my private member's bill, Bill C-225. I hope they reconsider that.

On the mail issue, I hope the member reconsiders it. I am going to read the bill one more time in hopes that he will concede. We have had our back-and-forths in this House many times. Perhaps some of them have been draws when it comes to debate, but I will not concede this one. Let me just say it one more time:

The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that

The member made my argument for me by wondering whether a mail carrier would be able to do this. Obviously, Canada Post has a policy, but the legislation as written would actually allow it if that person were part of the corporation. I commend him for helping me with my argument.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the Customs and Immigration Union estimates that we need an additional 2,000 to 3,000 officers in order to truly ensure better border control.

What are his thoughts on the fact that the Canadian Coast Guard, despite having a mandate to control and monitor the border, is not authorized to intervene and is not a part of DND?

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard my colleague very often. My French is not the best, but I will say this:

He has a great voice.

I love hearing his voice because he speaks with such power in this House. I really appreciate that.

I have had several meetings with the union leader from the CBSA, and I will be meeting with him very shortly. This is a concern. The border officer issue is quite vexing to me because the minister made an announcement, which was reannounced and then maybe reannounced twice more, about having 1,000 officers, but then just the other day, the minister caught himself and said “personnel”. What does that mean?

I stand with the union in saying that our border is porous and we need more people there. I had the opportunity over the summer to visit the border and see this. Morale is low, and these people want and need change. They are working on the front lines to do their best. We need to support them to the best degree possible.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on some of the comments made.

Bill C-12 has taken up the parts of Bill C-2 that we agree with and moved them over, but Bill C-2 is still sitting on the Order Paper. That bill, as my colleague mentioned, would give the power to Canada Post employees to do search and seizure, which is in complete violation of our charter rights. We know that through Bill C-2, the Liberals want to take cash and make it illegal to make deposits of over $10,000. Last time I looked at the back of any currency in Canada, $20 bills, $10 bills and five-dollar bills say “Canada”. We are talking about legal tender, guaranteed by the government and the Bank of Canada, yet they want to make cash illegal.

I want to ask the member whether he believes the Liberals are going to turn away from Bill C-2 and the flawed policies they still have in it. Should we be making some suggestions about them? Does he think, through Bill C-12, the Liberals are going to empower CBSA officers to police the entire border, not just ports of entry?

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

Where should I start, Madam Speaker? My colleague proved his intellectual fortitude one more time with that brilliant intervention.

On the issue of enforcement at ports of entry, my colleague raises a very important point, something that I do not believe gets enough coverage in the House. If somebody commits an offence, despite the fact that border officers with the CBSA are police officers, which grants them specific powers under the Criminal Code, their mandate does not permit them to go beyond a port of entry. Let us say somebody had a kilogram of cocaine and it was dropped outside a port of entry. Even if it was in sight, the CBSA could not get it. This has been stated to the government time after time. If it wants to make meaningful changes, that is something we should be debating in this House.

When it comes to the member's comments on Bill C-2, I could agree more. It remains on the Order Paper and we need to scrutinize it. I wonder if the Liberals will pull back from it. They have obviously shown some willingness to do that given that Bill C-12 is now before us.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that my Conservative colleague supports the Bloc Québécois's proposal to optimize the work of our officers by allowing them to leave the border crossing where they are posted to intercept migrants or goods. We know that border officers are armed and trained in self-defence. They have everything they need to better co-operate with the RCMP, which is often far from border crossings, especially in rural areas like mine.

Does my colleague agree that we should bring up this idea during our study on border security so that it can be one of the key recommendations in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security's report?

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

Madam Speaker, I have had a good experience working with my Bloc colleague, who is the critic for public safety. I hope we can maintain a good relationship working together to create the best possible legislation.

We should not shy away from asking the hard questions in this place. Sometimes they will be contentious. Sometimes the answers will be very easy and sometimes they will be difficult. I know somebody had an idea in mind when they restricted the CBSA's border mandate to not go beyond the port of entry, but we should not shy away from discussing these things.

In answer to my colleague's question, I would be happy to include this in a study. I think it is something we should be debating. We should not shy away from it. There are sometimes very tough questions. They are often difficult questions to ask because we have to consider the RCMP, which currently has the mandate. How far are they from the borders? There are going to be borders where they might have a 15- or 20-minute response time. That is unacceptable in my view. I think the time has come for us to have a robust discussion on that.

My colleague pointed out that CBSA members are armed. That was done under the Harper government. They are well trained, and I thank them for all they do to keep us safe. They do not always have the tools or the resources to do that, but let us give credit where credit is due. These people put their lives on the line for us every single day, and we as Conservatives and Canadians ought to be grateful.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to speak when you are sitting in the chair.

I would like to congratulate the newly acclaimed mayors in my riding. We recently had an election in Quebec for cities and municipalities. I would like to congratulate Alain Dubuc, who was re-elected as mayor of Beauharnois. I would also like to congratulate Daibhid Fraser in Dundee, Deborah Stewart in Elgin, Mark Wallace in Hinchinbrooke, André Brunette in Huntingdon, Michel Proulx in Les Cèdres, Sylvain Brazeau in Les Coteaux, Peter Zytynsky in Pointe‑des‑Cascade, Sylvie Tourangeau in Saint‑Anicet, Mylène Labre in Saint‑Clet, Daniel Pinsonneault in Sainte‑Barbe, Shawn Campbell in Sainte‑Justine‑de‑Newton, Jinny Brunelle in Sainte‑Marthe, Martin Dumaresq in Saint‑Étienne‑de‑Beauharnois, Yves Daoust in Saint‑Louis‑de‑Gonzague, Jean-Pierre Ménard in Saint‑Polycarpe, David McKay in Saint‑Télésphore and Miguel Lemieux in Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield. Eighteen mayors out of 25 have been acclaimed in my riding. I would like to wish them all the best and may they have a successful term for the coming year.

Today, we are discussing Bill C‑12. With the exception of three parts, it is almost identical to Bill C‑2, previously presented by the government with considerable fanfare. Viewers at home will recall that the bill's number, Bill C‑2, reflects the fact that the government was intent on bringing this bill forward urgently at the start of this Parliament. That is why today, in mid-October, we are dealing with another bill that has the same objectives, but is now known as Bill C‑12.

What does that mean? It means that this bill was initially intended to appease the President of the United States after he set a very high bar for Canada in terms of border security requirements. The Prime Minister promised to respond forcefully to the problem and to introduce a very strong bill to secure the borders, known as Bill C‑2 at that time.

The Bloc Québécois has carefully examined Bill C‑12 and we want the government to know that we support sending it to committee for study.

However, what worries me is that I heard the Minister of Public Safety say that Bill C‑2 has only been postponed, and I have read that too. In other words, in order to be able to pass the other parts of Bill C‑2 through Bill C‑12, he removed the contentious parts that were preventing it from being passed unanimously, namely all the parts that violated privacy or anything that did not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In its report, the Library of Parliament provided a whole list of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms violations, including the section that protects the right to life, liberty and security of any person in Canada, and section 8, which provides protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Obviously, we have talked at length about everything akin to opening mail without a warrant and about section 15, which provides that every individual is equal before the law.

There was a risk of arbitrary discrimination. I could not find a single organization or agency that had anything good to say about the parts that were removed from Bill C‑2. That is why we are discussing and debating Bill C‑12 today. I could not find anyone to defend those parts because they represented a potential for intrusion. One very well-known expert witness told me that parts 14 and 15 of Bill C-2 would spell the end of privacy. If those provisions were not amended, it would have been the end of privacy.

The government clearly took its shot, but it wrote this in a hurry. What scares me is that if the Liberal government had won a majority, Bill C-2 would have been passed and rammed down the throats of Quebeckers, Canadians and the opposition, all because the Americans felt it was very important. However, they do not value privacy as highly as we do here in Quebec and Canada.

That is scary, because there is no guarantee that Bill C‑2 will not be brought back to life. Parts of that legislation can still be found in Bill C‑12. The minister has not given up hope of getting the highly contentious parts of Bill C‑2 passed.

What matters is that the opposition did its job. The government realized that it did not do its job properly, that it had rushed things and had been too hasty in introducing Bill C‑2, which did not at all meet the needs of Quebeckers and the people of the other provinces.

Bill C‑12 was pared down, because it is better to have something than nothing at all. This bill does have some interesting parts, which we would like to explore. We in the Bloc Québécois do not simply oppose or criticize. As a political party, we truly want to improve things and propose ideas, especially when they are in the interest of Quebec. All the better if they are also in the interest of other Canadians.

When it comes to the whole issue of border security, the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for stronger action. We know that it took the President of the United States to tell us that our border is like a sieve. The Speaker of the House will surely recall that, at the time, we were very critical of the fact that the Liberal government opened Roxham Road and that we were told that we were racist and unwelcoming to refugees. Slowly but surely, Ontario came around to our way of thinking, as did the other provinces, and all of a sudden, the government managed to solve the problem and began welcoming refugees through the proper points of entry.

The Bloc Québécois also made suggestions about how to better monitor the borders and better protect citizens. The first was to create a department of borders. I asked the minister questions at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security two weeks ago, but instead of answering me, he looked to the president of the CBSA to answer for him. That is rather unfortunate. He needs to be accountable. This is his responsibility, and he needs to answer the questions. Given the current context, we think it is high time that the government incorporated a border department into this department, where all security interventions are entrusted to a minister who is responsible and accountable.

We also proposed a measure that we believe could improve border security. We propose that border officers be given more flexibility in performing their duties. On Friday, I visited the school where Canadian border officers are trained. The training centre is located in Rigaud, in the riding of my neighbour from Vaudreuil. I had a wonderful time seeing first-hand the serious training provided to border officers and the highly-qualified personnel it produces in all matters related to border security. Why not let these officers respond to situations as they arise, leave their post, perform interceptions and call the RCMP to come and deal with packages, shipments or people trying to enter Canada illegally?

I fail to understand the government's resistance to this proposal, since not a single border officer would deny that it is a good idea. In times of limited resources, it is wise to use our resources as effectively as possible. That is an idea proposed by the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc Québécois also continues to demand better control of firearms that are circulating illegally and are prohibited on our soil. I represent a riding that borders the Akwesasne reserve, Lake Saint‑François, Lake Saint‑Louis, and the U.S. border in New York state. We know there is trafficking of illegal arms. We are therefore asking for more patrols and more resources to be allocated to this part of the country, where we know there is a lot of smuggling and even human trafficking, which occurs more by waterways than by land.

We will continue to demand oversight to clean up the Toronto big banks and money laundering activities linked to criminal groups. We will also propose tougher penalties for border smugglers. The current penalties are a joke. We have even seen smugglers get caught and deported back to their countries, only to return to Quebec and resume the same criminal activities. Our border control system is clearly dysfunctional.

Obviously, we also want to take action in the fight against the fentanyl crisis, which, as everyone knows, is a public health crisis. In the Bloc Québécois, we agree that we need to invest in public health, which means increasing federal health transfers. The government must be more attentive to the needs of Quebec and the provinces in terms of support and funding, whether for rehabilitation centres, rapid access to emergency rooms, social worker services, supervised consumption centres, or harm reduction initiatives.

The Bloc Québécois believes that border measures to crack down on organized crime continue to be not only necessary, but extremely important. In addition, we must have seamless co-operation among American, Mexican and Canadian authorities so they can be more effective in their response and capture the criminals, who have had it easy for the past few years. These criminals have figured out the flaws in our system and learned how to take advantage of them.

Of course, Bill C‑12 also deals with the issue of refugee claimants. If the bill is sent to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we will have an opportunity to debate it there and get a better idea of the sections that amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I must say that the Bloc Québécois has some questions about Bill C‑12. Under the bill, rail companies will have to create a space in their marshalling yards, including a warehouse and offices, because right now customs officers are unable to inspect railway cars leaving Canada for the United States. To do that, rail companies such as CN, CP and CSX will have to build infrastructure in their marshalling yards. The big question I have is this: Are those rail companies going to have to cover 100% of the costs associated with setting up this infrastructure?

For example, it could cost millions of dollars to set up infrastructure that includes a warehouse and two or three offices for border officers, as well as a scanning system to detect if cars contain explosives or other important illicit substances that could threaten national security. I do not have the exact figure, but it could be more than $30 million. I know this because it is what is required at the Port of Valleyfield for border officers to be present and for containers to clear through the port. Will the rail companies also be required to set up this very expensive infrastructure? Will they receive financial support? Will they have a certain amount of time to comply with the new requirements?

As is often the case in legislation, the devil is in the details, and yet the current text of Bill C‑12 is lacking in this level of detail. In committee, we will have an opportunity to hear from many witnesses. For example, CN officials may tell us that this is not a problem, that they are willing to invest several million dollars in their marshalling yards to ensure that the agency has the infrastructure it needs to inspect the rail cars. I may be a pessimist but, given the times we are living in, I question whether a rail company would want to invest so much money in order to meet a government request. I suspect that enforcement delays may be much longer than what is anticipated in the context of the bill.

In terms of rail companies, allowing border agents to come into marshalling yards to conduct inspections is a new way of doing things. Practices are going to change as a result. Ultimately, with Bill C‑12, the government is announcing a lot of changes today. A law can be changed, but it can take several months or even years before the law is implemented and practices on the ground actually change. There are bills that were passed two years ago that we still do not have regulations for. The Official Languages Act is a good example.

Bill C‑12 also provides for changes to the mandate of the Canadian Coast Guard. As we know, the Coast Guard is responsible for patrolling various parts of Quebec and the provinces by water, but it does not have the authority to relay information to other authorities. It is not allowed. I do not know if it does so in practice, but it is not supposed to. This bill therefore corrects that by giving the Coast Guard the ability to help document information it deems suspicious.

Since the Coast Guard has been moved back under the military budget, what we are wondering is whether Coast Guard officers will be armed and how much they will be able to intervene. I did not see anything in the bill to indicate whether that might change. It is rather odd to be part of the armed forces but to not be allowed to be armed. That is another question. We can have that debate during committee hearings when we study the bill more thoroughly. As long as we do not know the answers to these questions, if the Coast Guard's only mandate is to provide information and surveillance, then we have to wonder whether it will truly be integrated under the umbrella of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I think everyone knows that this is needed first and foremost for the Arctic, to safeguard the border and protect Canada's territorial sovereignty. However, as a member of Parliament representing an area near Lac Saint-François that also borders the Akwesasne reserve and New York State, what I am seeing is a decrease of at least 50% in maritime patrols in that area. The government talks about adding resources, but I think it is more a question of managing resources. The government is going to take resources away from the Coast Guard, give it a little more power and move its officers to priority areas, thereby neglecting other areas, including areas in my riding, which is a hot spot for gun smuggling, tobacco smuggling and human trafficking.

For the past year or year and a half, the government has been making one announcement after another. I think this is the fifth official announcement of plans to hire 1,000 border officers. Hiring 1,000 new officers takes a lot of organization; after all, border officers do not grow on trees. It takes at least 18 weeks to train them, not including the specialized training delivered at various campuses in Quebec and Canada. What is less clear in the bill is who will be training them. Do we have enough instructors? Are the 1,000 officers really going to be assigned to the border? It seems not. Instead, we hear that 800 border officers will be trained at Rigaud and another 200 will be assigned to intelligence or administrative investigation duties. These are some of the areas we will have to clarify when we ask questions in committee.

In closing, we obviously intend to take a serious and thorough approach to Bill C-12. We are going to help improve it, and we hope that the governing party will listen to our amendments and recommendations.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that the member put on the record this morning. A lot of the questions she poses are no doubt concerns that people will have going forward, as we debate the legislation.

Ultimately, my question for the member is with respect to a standing committee. The Bloc seems to support the principles of Bill C-12. Is there anything specific in the legislation that the member would like to see amended? The follow-up to that would likely be something in the neighbourhood of clarity. The Bloc supports the bill going to committee, is that not correct?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think I said this, but perhaps my colleague missed the beginning of my speech. I said at the outset that the Bloc Québécois agrees to refer Bill C-12 to committee so that we can hear expert opinions on this bill. We will be able to hear from witnesses to determine whether we should propose amendments and whether we can improve the bill. The answer to my colleague's first question is yes, we will send the bill to committee.

As for the changes we might make, I would say that witnesses are very important to me. Before submitting amendments or ideas for amendments, we want to take the time to listen to witnesses and experts, who will help us make the right decisions and improve the bill, if necessary.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important in this discussion that law-abiding Canadians should not lose their liberty to pay for the failures of the Liberals, but, unfortunately, Canadians are often finding themselves paying for the failures of the Liberal government. That is the case when it comes to trade.

The Ear Falls sawmill has announced an indefinite shutdown, affecting nearly 150 workers, citing U.S. tariffs as the reason behind this decision, which will absolutely devastate the community. This comes months after the Prime Minister promised to negotiate a win for Canada. Canadians are still paying for his failures. It is time for the government to step up and support workers in northwestern Ontario and across the country.

To that end, I would ask the member if she agrees with my initial premise that law-abiding Canadians should not lose their liberties to pay for the failures of the Liberals on borders and immigration.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I tend to agree with the first part of my colleague's question; it is true that workers are losing their jobs right now because of American tariffs. It does not seem as though the government is acting very quickly to support the small regions and medium-sized businesses that do not have the cash flow they need to cope with these changes. Quite frankly, we had very high expectations of this Liberal government based on what we heard during the election campaign. Unfortunately, we have been very disappointed.

Take, for example, the aerospace industry and secondary processing facilities. There have been closures and staffing cuts in my riding and across Quebec. Unfortunately, the government is not paying much attention to that and does not seem to be acting very quickly. The government is not very quick on the draw, as they say. It is not very quick to respond to communities' urgent and pressing needs.

The most problematic parts of Bill C‑2, namely, the privacy invasions, were taken out of Bill C‑12. Bill C‑2 was completely unacceptable. Canadians, Quebeckers, all organizations and everyone were against the fact that the government would allow such a major invasion of the privacy of Quebeckers and Canadians. When the government saw that its bill would not make it any further than this if it did not make amendments, it finally listened to reason and introduced Bill C‑12, which removed the three most problematic parts of Bill C‑2.

What concerns me is that the government does not seem to have given up on these three parts. I hope that people are listening today and that they will keep up the pressure on the government so that these three parts, which invade privacy, are never passed.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon for her speech, which was very relevant given the circumstances.

First, the reason why Bill C‑2 was introduced so early on is that it was an urgent matter for the government. Donald Trump forced the government to improvise, and Canadians are under a lot of pressure in the climate of fear and insecurity that he is creating. However, with the new Bill C-12, the government is removing mail searches, privacy invasions and restrictions on cash transactions for charities.

How will the U.S. President react to that? Are we expecting the United States to retaliate? I am curious to hear what my colleague thinks will be the consequences of removing these two clauses. They were problematic, and I do not think anyone wanted to see them in a bill.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. We do not have the inside track, so we will talk hypothetically.

I agree that the U.S. President's team must be disappointed, given that the U.S. government did not get what it asked for. The Liberal government backed down on a number of decisions that were made in the House to please the U.S. government, in the hopes that it would have some impact on the tariffs that were imposed. Unfortunately, that strategy has not worked so far.

As we know, businesses continue to be impacted by the tariffs. I think that Bill C‑12 is a first step. I am sure that, in private discussions between the U.S. the President and our Prime Minister, there is talk of trying again to get us to pass Bill C-2, which contains three parts, including mail searches and the serious violation of the privacy rights of Quebeckers and Canadians. I think it is only a matter of time.

I urge everyone to be very vigilant because that is what the U.S. President really wants. I think that we can only conclude that the current Liberal government will do everything it can to satisfy the American administration.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I am just wondering what my colleague thinks about the remainder of Bill C-2. Does she have any advice for the government on what is clearly a flawed bill, a bill that Canadians have spoken out against in droves?

What are her thoughts as to what should occur with the remainder of Bill C-2, given the concerns regarding privacy and civil liberties?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague with whom I have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I would say that, to calm things down a bit, the Minister of Public Safety should make it clear that the three troubling parts that were removed from Bill C-12 need to be scrapped for good. Bill C-2 should die on the Order Paper and there should be no strategies or negotiations to bring those three parts back for debate or to be passed.

I think the minister needs to be very clear. So far, I have to say that the minister is trying to have it both ways, which means that we are not quite sure where he stands on this issue. Sometimes, in one newspaper article, he says one thing, and in another article, he says something else.

I think the best solution would be for the Minister of Public Safety to clearly announce that the three parts that have been removed will not reappear in any form.

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

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my question, I appreciate many of the comments the member from the Bloc party has raised here this afternoon. I think this is very much a responsible approach to deal with the legislation that we have before us. I can assure the member that many of the concerns and questions she has raised will no doubt be talked about extensively during the committee process. Hopefully, the member will be able to get the answers she is looking for.

Obviously, we have a minister who is committed to getting the legislation through. I appreciate the frankness and the manner in which the Bloc appears to be supporting the legislation. Ultimately, we will have to wait and see what sort of priority the opposition, collectively, will put on this legislation.

It is important for us to recognize, right at the beginning, why legislation of this nature has become such a priority. Canada's new Prime Minister, along with the cabinet, members of the Liberal caucus and others, understands that things have changed a great deal over the past year. We have seen great emphasis put on the border between Canada and the United States. Border security concerns have been elevated to a degree I have not seen in my many years of being a parliamentarian. We have a prime minister who recognizes just how important it is that the government act quickly to address a number of those concerns. That is the reason why Bill C-2 was introduced as early as it was. The Prime Minister was amplifying just how important border control is because of some of the crimes being committed in Canada. He has made it a priority in Bill C-2.

In listening to the many comments thus far, both from the Bloc and the Conservatives, I can appreciate that there are aspects of Bill C-2 they are concerned about to the degree where the legislation was not receiving the type of support that can see it go to committee in a quick fashion. In fact, I believe we had just over 18 hours of actual debate on Bill C-2.

There are some issues within Bill C-2 that are somewhat contentious, and concerns have been raised about them. However, just because they are not necessarily incorporated in Bill C-12, which we are debating today, it does not take away from the importance of other measures in Bill C-2. It is important that we recognize it is not just the government's opinion but also that of stakeholders, particularly law enforcement agencies. We recognize there are many aspects of Bill C-2 that address concerns Canadians justifiably want to see some form of action taken on.

To those who have been following Bill C-2, the government is not saying no. It recognizes that we need to get other aspects incorporated into Bill C-2 to move it more quickly through the House of Commons. We believe that the legislation we are proposing today deals with these concerns to a degree where we will hopefully see the bill get to the committee stage.

We need to take a look at the changing dynamic that Canada is facing today, compared to where it was a year ago. One only needs to look at the last national election in the United States. President Trump has made it very clear that he has concerns on a number of fronts with respect to Canada and Mexico. He wants to see specific actions taken in order to foster more co-operation, if I could put it that way.

I will use the issue of fentanyl as an example.

The United States says that fentanyl coming from Canada into the United States is a huge problem. I believe that what is being brought into the United States is less than 1%, but we still take it seriously. The Prime Minister has been very clear about the impact fentanyl is having not only in our communities but also in other nations. He recognizes the impact that drugs coming into Canada is having.

Back in late spring, the government attempted to address concerns expressed on many occasions about how Canada Post was obligated to deliver first-class mail, or size 10 envelopes, which are just standard envelopes. Canada Post was being used to distribute fentanyl in my province and in particular in northern communities. This is a legitimate concern that comes from stakeholders in rural Manitoba. The government responded by ensuring there are more checks in place to minimize the amount of fentanyl going through Canada Post. That is the goal. The Prime Minister, cabinet and the Liberal caucus want to see less fentanyl in our communities. Whether it is through Bill C-2 or Bill C-12, and our talking about the principles of these, this is what we are hoping to accomplish.

Stronger borders is another issue that has been of great concern in the last 12 months. Actually, it has been less than 12 months. Again, we have the newly elected Prime Minister. He was elected back in April. He has committed not only legislation but also budgetary measures to this. A budget is coming on November 4. We often receive questions about RCMP officers, Canada border control officers and the commitment the Prime Minister has made.

It is no small commitment. The Prime Minister says that we are serious about securing Canada's borders. This means not only bringing in Bill C-2, which would provide extra strength, but also factoring in 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new border control officers. This is a significant commitment that goes over and above the legislation. As a government, we recognize that we can bring forward legislation and that, in this situation, there is a need to put more boots on the ground. This is something that will be materializing. I suspect we will hear more about that on November 4, when we present the fall budget to Canadians through the House of Commons.

The legislative component is absolutely critical. The sharing of information is so important. Things have changed over the years. We all know that, through technology and the advancement of the Internet, there are things that can be done through the Internet with all the different types of weapons out there. I am not just talking about guns. Weapons can take many different forms. There is a need for legislation of this nature.

Bill C-12 has two pillars. The first is securing the border and the second is combatting transnational organized crime in terms of things like illegal fentanyl and illicit financing. These are the types of issues being dealt with in this legislation.

I want to recognize the efforts of our border control officers. There are interesting statistics, which we always like to talk about. Whether it is the RCMP or our border control officers, I do not think we give them enough credit for the fine work they do. When I say “we”, I am talking about parliamentarians as a whole and, even beyond the House of Commons, provincial politicians. To give a sense of the type of work that border control officers do for us, I will provide some statistics from January 1 to September 19 of this year. These are all seizures by the Canada border security agents.

Regarding cannabis products, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 37,467,000 grams were seized. For hashish, it was 379,000 grams. For cocaine or crack, it was 2,702,000 grams. For heroin, it was 73,946 grams. There were 770,534 grams of other opioids and 22,237,913 grams of other types of drugs seized. With regard to firearms, something that is constantly discussed, 662 firearms and 11,119 prohibited weapons were seized. In terms of hard dollars, it amounted to $29,961,000. In suspected proceeds of crime, the amount was $2,919,000. This work was done in the first nine months of the year. That is why I say the work our Canada border control officers do for us is so critically important, as is the RCMP's.

I asked the Conservative shadow minister or critic a very specific question related to the RCMP. I want to raise this because I take it very seriously, as I know Canadians do. When I posed my question to the Conservative opposition critic, he chose to sidestep the issue and not answer. It is the same question I posed to the minister responsible for introducing Bill C-12, and it is in relation to the RCMP.

I am offended because, over the last number of days, there has been a lot of news and social media coverage about a statement the leader of the Conservative Party made. The Winnipeg Free Press said that the leader of the Conservative Party called the leadership of the RCMP “despicable”. That is a very important issue in this debate. The government says it is going to increase security at our border, reinforce the strength of the RCMP by investing in another 1,000 officers and that we should, collectively, support those two institutions.

As I indicated, the RCMP as an institution is recognized around the world as a first-class security and law enforcement agency. Let there be absolutely no doubt about that. A politician who says that the leadership of the RCMP is despicable, and goes on in great detail, does a disservice not only to the institution of the RCMP but to all of us who sit inside the House, let alone if it is the leader of Canada's official opposition making that statement.

That is why I posed the question earlier to my colleague across the way from the Conservative Party, who was appointed by the leader of the Conservative Party to take on the role of shadow minister: Does he support what the leader of the Conservative Party is saying? I respect, to a certain degree, that the member chose not to answer the question. I suspect that he understands why it was not an appropriate thing for the leader of the official opposition to say. I believe that the leader of the official opposition owes an apology to all Canadians on this issue. What is despicable, and I would add a few other words to that, is the damage that it causes when the leader of the official opposition makes comments of that nature. I would suggest that the leader of the official opposition owes a sincere apology inside the House to all Canadians for saying what he has said.

Bill C-12 would amend the accelerated scheduling pathway that allows precursor chemicals that can be used to produce illicit drugs to be rapidly controlled by the Minister of Health. This would allow law and border enforcement agencies to take swift action to prevent the illegal importation and use of precursor chemicals and would at the same time ensure strict federal oversight over any legitimate use of these chemicals. The legislation would also provide more strength in terms of the anti-terrorist-financing regime, including through stronger anti-money-laundering penalties.

With respect to the substance of the legislation, the Bloc member referred to the Coast Guard, saying that the Coast Guard would have expanded responsibility. I believe that the sharing of information that a Coast Guard can receive can be exceptionally valuable in terms of the security of our nation. As a result, I agree that there need to be checks in place related to privacy and actions that would not adhere to our Constitution, but at the end of the day, that is valuable information and I would suggest that this information, if accessed appropriately, can ultimately save lives and a whole lot more. That is the reason some of the initiatives Bill C-12 would bring in add more value to the legislation. It becomes a question of whether we want to see that sharing of information, either with the Coast Guard or with immigration.

If I had another 20 minutes, I could go into detail as to why we need to protect the integrity of the system and to be able to recognize that there is abuse within the system and that there is the potential for significant abuse. These amendments are absolutely critical for dealing with the issue of asylum, for example.

Many issues that I have, whether they are related to asylum or other issues related to security, can best be addressed in one-on-one discussions and debates and by the presenters who go before the standing committee.

We have had Bill C-2. We now have Bill C-12. I hope we will see the legislation pass—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the parliamentary secretary's constructive tone when speaking about Bill C‑12 generally. We have a lot in common. We both agree that border security needs to be enhanced and that much tougher and more robust measures need to be taken to ensure security.

As he said, we agree that the Coast Guard should be given more powers and more tools for surveillance and communicating information. As for the other changes he is calling for relating to invasion of privacy and information sharing, it is not just the opposition parties that have a problem with that. Civil society as a whole stood up and spoke out, and many people have contacted members from all parties to express their concerns. If these parts of the bill are so important, as the parliamentary secretary said, then we need to talk about them, educate people and make sure everyone understands them. The debate needs to go beyond the House of Commons.

I am pleased with the parliamentary secretary's tone and I can assure him the co-operation of the Bloc Québécois throughout the process of studying Bill C‑12. However, does he agree with me that, on the issue of resources, we must also listen to workers, RCMP officers and border officers, who are also asking for suitable tools, technology and infrastructure? Right now, we are seeing that more people are being hired but nothing is being said on the issue of providing support through more advanced technological tools, for example. Could the parliamentary secretary expand on this issue?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it was posed to the minister earlier, based on a report, that we look at expanding the number of weeks in the training of RCMP officers. I believe there is room for discussion in regard to the whole issue of training.

For example, when I listened to the question earlier, I was sitting with one of my colleagues and I thought to myself, and shared that thought, that it would be valuable to have, every four or five years, ongoing training opportunities that reinforce the changes that take place in society.

We need to approach the issue of the security of our borders and other forms of security with an open mind. That means, at the very least, being open to ideas. Let us have that discussion and let us, when we are in a position to take action, look at doing that.

I think the Prime Minister has been, very much, open to ideas and thoughts.

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

Madam Speaker, can my colleague explain how the new law will have an impact on Canada and the security of its borders?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if I were to encapsulate it, I would suggest to my friend and colleague, who posed a very good question, that it does two things. It complements budgetary allocations in a very real way because it puts in significant changes in law to ensure that there is more information sharing, as an example. It is also complemented in terms of the significant budgetary measures that we are taking. I mentioned earlier, for example, the hiring of 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new CBSA employees.

Those two issues will, in fact, make a profoundly positive difference for the citizens whom he represents and whom we all represent.

I would hope, for that reason in itself, that we would get more co-operation in seeing the legislation get through to the committee stage.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, many interest groups looked at the immigration provisions in Bill C-2 that are now contained in Bill C-12. They have raised concerns about the constitutionality of these principles. Several groups have actually done this. The minister suggested she thinks it is constitutional.

My concern is that if we have all these groups saying it is unconstitutional when the minister thinks it is constitutional, and there are no other provisions to deal with the massive backlog of asylum claims, then how is the Liberal government going to functionally reduce the asylum claim backlog? What I am worried about with the bill is that the Liberals are just punting the problem to the courts and potentially past the next election date, as opposed to making a serious structural reform that would reduce the incentive for economic migrants to abuse Canada's asylum system.

Could my colleague comment on the fact that many groups have said it is unconstitutional when the minister has said it is constitutional, and this is likely an attempt by the Liberal government to punt the asylum claim system problem to the courts?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit surprising that the Conservatives, while in opposition, are really concerned about constitutional issues and the charter when it comes to the government bringing in laws, because they sure were not concerned before. When the member sat around with the Harper government, they were not at all concerned about these issues. Court rulings have demonstrated that the government is very much aware of the issues facing the immigration system today, including asylum seekers and potential asylum seekers.

The legislation is very important in terms of protecting the integrity of the system. I understand the issue in great detail in regard to the immigration file and the issues around asylum. I understand why there is a problem. It is not just Ottawa. We can talk about provinces; we can talk about post-secondary institutions, and we can talk about unethical employers. It is a combination of things.

As the Prime Minister has said, we are going to bring stability to the immigration file. This is part of it. We have a new Prime Minister who has made that commitment, and that commitment will be fulfilled.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the topic of immigration, I have heard the member speak about immigration quite a bit in this House. It is probably the thing I have heard him speak about most. The reality is that our country is a relatively new country. Other than those of indigenous descent, we have all immigrated here over about the last two hundred years. My father was eight years old when he immigrated from Holland with his parents, and he was able to thrive in this country because his parents chose to come to Canada.

Can the member talk to the importance of having a healthy immigration system in a country that is relatively new, such as Canada?