Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to speak to very important legislation. It is legislation that Canadians want and have been asking for.
In fact, before I get under way with the specifics, I want to take a holistic approach in terms of what the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament have been very proactive on since the last election. We have a Prime Minister who made a solemn commitment to Canadians to deal with things such as securing Canada's borders, such as bringing in substantial bail reform legislation and such as reinforcing the strength of our RCMP and CBSA. Shortly after the election, what we saw was a commitment from the Prime Minister to upsize to the degree of 1,000 new RCMP personnel. We saw a commitment to upsize in regard to the Canada Border Services Agency by 1,000 personnel. We saw several pieces of legislation brought forward to the House for debate, ultimately in the hope that they would pass through the system.
It pleases me to a certain degree that we have had some co-operation with regard to securing Canada's border. It is something, but I and my colleagues in the Liberal Party would have loved to see more legislation get passed. I can recall standing here a number of weeks ago saying that the Prime Minister pledged that we were going to get bail reform legislation in the fall and we did that, yet we are not seeing that legislation pass. We saw actions today to try to turn the tables, as if the government does not want to see it pass.
Let there be no doubt. We have a strong agenda with respect to crime and safety in our communities, trying to make all of our communities safer, whether it is at the borders or in and around the neighbourhoods in which we all live. That is something that the government has been focused on. Canada's newly elected Prime Minister, just months ago, made that commitment and the Liberals have been working diligently to materialize that.
We have substantial pieces of legislation. We can talk about Bill C-2. We can talk about the hate legislation that is before a committee right now. We can talk about the bill that we are debating today, Bill C-12, respecting strengthening Canada's borders.
We can talk about the bail reform legislation. That is my personal preference, which I would have loved to see pass, and it is never too late to see that pass. We can still do that. It would require unanimous consent at this point, but we can still do it. It is something that I said weeks ago, and I know colleagues in the Liberal caucus would have loved to see that legislation and new bail laws in place before the end of the year. That is what I was asking for weeks ago.
In terms of how we operate as a caucus bringing forward legislation that is a reflection of election commitments and platform issues that we want to deliver for Canadians, we want to be able to co-operate where we can with opposition parties when there is a willingness to do so. In a minority situation, we are very much dependent on opposition parties. In fact, Bill C-12, the act regarding securing borders, is here because of the opposition parties' desire to break down Bill C-2. They did not like what was in that particular piece of legislation and gave a clear indication that they would give no co-operation in terms of passing it. However, if we take stuff out of that legislation and put it in another piece of legislation, that being Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, then we have a chance of passing it.
I am glad we did that. At least we are getting legislation through, so that is a positive. However, there is a negative side to it. I appreciate the co-operation that was put together to get the bill to this point, but let us look at what Bill C-2 also had to offer.
I asked the question about lawful access. Lawful access legislation is something that every other country in the Five Eyes has. That is why I posed this question to the leader of the Green Party: Does she support the principle of lawful access legislation? If I understood her answer correctly, it was, yes, she supports the principles but has a great deal of concern.
There is no reason why Canada cannot have lawful access legislation, which was proposed. Why is it important? Thinking in terms of money laundering or terrorist financing, these are very serious issues that pose a genuine threat to Canadians. It is one of the reasons why Five Eyes nations have that type of lawful access.
The Conservative critic raised the issue of the mail and the letters. I genuinely believed, when I spoke on Bill C-2, that we would not have letter carriers opening up mail. My concern is that we have northern communities and communities in virtually all regions of the country where someone could put a bit of fentanyl in an envelope and mail it, and we cannot do anything about it. Taking Canada Post out and allowing us to have access, I believe, is a good thing, with checks and balances, but we are not doing that either. Whether it is lawful access or dealing with the Canada Post issue, I think we have lost something that, ultimately, Canadians would have benefited from.
If we take a look at what is in this legislation, we do need to support the Canada Border Services Agency. We are enhancing its opportunity to build up the resources, space and equipment necessary by obligating ports of entry and exit. We are also beefing up our coasts, which is a really good thing, because when we think of issues like auto theft, drug trafficking or transnational organized crime, law enforcement officers have been calling for support, and the Prime Minister and government have responded to it.
This is why I say that I am glad that we are able to get something passed through, but I honestly believe that we could have done a lot more. We have a couple of days left before the session rises, and I would have welcomed the opportunity to speak on a number of other important pieces of legislation that deal with the crime file.
We have lost that opportunity, and it is not because the government did not want to see the legislation. We brought legislation in because we want it to become law. At the end of the day, for a wide variety of reasons I suspect, and I will not go into that kind of detail right now, it is not coming forward.
On the changes to immigration and asylum and the way we can better manage those so that they becomes more efficient, I think, at this time, we need to bring them into place. I understand the concerns that the New Democrats and the Green Party have, but I really and truly do not believe that it takes away from the integrity of the system when we say to someone that if they have been here for a year, there is still a need to enable that person. If someone came under a study visa, for example, and they have been here for a year, a year later, they could say that they are going to claim asylum.
The need for change is there within the system. As the Prime Minister has indicated, we need to stabilize our immigration system, and we are doing just that. This is one part of it. I look forward to any questions members might have.