House of Commons Hansard #18 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was fentanyl.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Department of Citizenship and Immigration Ombud Act First reading of Bill C-212. The bill establishes an independent ombud office for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to examine its practices for fairness, equity, bias, racism, and discrimination, and address complaints. 200 words.
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act First reading of Bill C-213. The bill repeals provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that allow cessation of refugee status for permanent residents who temporarily return to their country of origin, called "unjust" by the mover. 200 words.
National Renewable Energy Strategy Act First reading of Bill C-214. The bill requires developing a national strategy to achieve 100% renewable electricity generation in Canada by 2030, citing climate action and clean energy jobs. 200 words.
Marine Liability Act First reading of Bill C-215. The bill requires a national strategy to address pollution caused by shipping container spills, aiming to improve response and prevention efforts. 300 words.
Strong Borders Act Second reading of Bill C-2. The bill proposes measures to strengthen border security, combat organized crime, fentanyl, auto theft, and money laundering, and reform the immigration system. Liberal MPs argue it provides necessary tools for law enforcement and border services while protecting rights. Opposition MPs raise concerns about potential infringements on civil liberties, including warrantless access to mail and data, cash transaction limits, and argue the bill fails to address key crime issues like bail and sentencing. Bloc MPs express concerns about the bill's scope and potential impact on freedoms, while an NDP MP highlights unprecedented powers for data access. 23800 words, 3 hours.
Juanita Nathan Liberal Pickering—Brooklin, ON
Mr. Speaker, bail reform is very important, and it is one of our election commitments as well. When we sit again in the fall, I would assure my colleague, they will see the bail reform come through.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, Finance; the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Firearms; the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar, Public Services and Procurement.
Michael Ma Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be here speaking on behalf of the people of Markham—Unionville.
Today, we are discussing a bill framed around creating strong borders, yet somehow, it does so much more and so much less than its stated goal. We have a 140-page border bill that somehow also pushes for warrantless access to information about Internet subscribers. If this is the case, the Liberals are pushing for an expansive definition of strong borders. However, in earlier questions about the bill, when we, the official opposition, critiqued elements that could be added to it, our efforts were denied because the Liberals cited a narrow definition of this being merely a borders bill. Which is it? A borders bill that has extensive unlawful access provisions is clearly a bill that can include more real community safety elements, so let us touch on that.
To Conservatives, strong borders mean being tough on drugs across the entire supply chain. This includes drug production, not just drug trafficking. This includes drug producers, not just drug traffickers. In short, it is not just about the substances, but about the actors who are involved.
When we are talking about actors, we need real consequences for the perpetrators of these acts of social destruction. We need mandatory minimum sentences, not bail, when the issue is about fentanyl. How can a borders bill request warrantless access to Internet subscriber information and not also have strong measures against the fentanyl problem? An expansive definition of a strong border requires a holistic tackling of the fentanyl supply chain.
Unfortunately, even if Bill C-2 passes, Canadians will still be left with the unsafe society that the Liberals legislated into being. We live in a society where fentanyl traffickers have no mandatory minimums and can receive bail and where house arrest is considered a worthy punishment for the monsters who are killing our community.
Conservatives will keep repeating this one simple fact until the Liberals hear us: It takes only two milligrams of fentanyl to kill a fellow Canadian. If members understand this simple fact, anyone trafficking over 40 milligrams of fentanyl should be considered no different than a mass murderer who guns down 20 people. However, the Liberals want these people to walk free on bail and have a comfortable time under house arrest. They will not punish people on the same level as mass murders, yet they have the audacity to want warrantless access to our Internet information in their borders bill.
Are we truly talking about a borders bill? To Conservatives, a strong border means being tough on crime in order to secure the safety of our hard-working communities. From 2015 through 2023, total violent crime was up 50%, total homicides were up 28%, gang-related homicides were up about 78% and total violent firearms offences were up about 116%, which has increased for nine consecutive years.
Just as with fentanyl traffickers, we want to see a similar approach for firearms traffickers and the gun-wielding gangsters they serve. We want mandatory minimums, we want an end to bail for these particular offences and we want an end to house arrest. However, we live in a world where the Liberals have legislated an easy time for repeat offenders while launching a crusade against legal gun owners.
I have established what the bill does not have but should. Let me now outline what is has but probably should not.
The strong borders bill apparently finds the need to encroach upon norms we hold dear for our civil liberties. We are deeply concerned that the bill would grant people the ability to open our mail without our consent. We are deeply concerned that the bill would compel Internet companies to hand over our private data without our consent. We are further concerned that the bill even attempts to interfere in how Canadians use cash. Do the Liberals wish for a 100% digital economy?
A world where the Liberals can encroach upon cash transactions and, further, have the ability to access our private digital information leads to a world where they will eventually have complete oversight over our transactions. Is this necessary for a strong borders bill? Does this make us true north strong and free? No, it never can. The bill would curtail the freedoms of hard-working Canadians while letting repeat criminals walk free on bail. This is madness made legal.
If Bill C-2 is going to be a narrowly defined borders bill that has no room to address our drug and gun issues, it is definitely a bill that has no room for warrantless access to our mail and Internet data while limiting our capacity to use cash. However, because it is clearly a bill with an expansive definition of what constitutes a strong border, we Conservatives have some recommendations that require inclusion.
We have four points that merit consideration. One, a strong border means toughening penalties for repeat violent offenders. Two, a strong border means ending catch-and-release bail and house arrest for fentanyl traffickers and gun gangsters. Three, a strong border means eliminating the multiple murder discount in sentencing. Four, a strong border means tackling drug issues holistically, prioritizing treatment over drug distribution to support those battling addiction.
What we need is a strong borders bill that will take public safety seriously while also protecting Canadian freedoms. What we have instead is a bill that does not address the core problems on the drug and crime files while completely disrespecting the freedoms that Canadians hold dear. Bill C-2 is an omnibus bill that falls well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching on our civil liberties.
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Winnipeg West, MB
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made reference to the warrantless opening of mail. I have to ask, what part of the police obtaining warrants to open mail, the same way that now happens with services such as FedEx and Purolator, did the member not understand?
Michael Ma Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, the point the member made is not in the bill. The bill would allow the Canada Post Corporation to access mail without going through a standard police warrant process, and that in itself is a problem for Canadians overall.
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the question that I asked our hon. colleague, because I unfortunately did not get an answer.
The Customs and Immigration Union says that there is a shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 officers and that the government will clearly not be able to properly inspect all exports to combat auto theft.
I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks.
Michael Ma Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, certainly, the borders bill needs to address both the resources and the legislation.
As the member points out, many cases of auto theft go unnoticed. Cars get loaded on trailers and ships, and they exit the country without being noticed. A strong borders bill needs to build in factors that will enable and enhance our police capabilities and our border security to protect against theft outside of the country and protect us from the improper import of guns and drugs, especially fentanyl, into the country.
Michael Guglielmin Conservative Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague have any examples from his riding where constituents may have a problem with being banned from using $10,000 in cash?
Michael Ma Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, there are examples. I heard during our campaigning this year that there are concerns about transactions. The point being made is that cash is very much part of our society, and there are companies that work on the basis of not wanting to pay credit card fees and so forth. To legislate and force all transactions to go through credit cards and electronic means is just not practical for small and medium enterprises.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, the bill is purported to be a measure to address border security, fentanyl, car theft and so on, yet the Conservatives, of course, cancelled the port police, which caused part of the problem. The Liberals have been in government for 10 years, and they have not restored the port police.
In my riding of Vancouver East, we see the drugs coming in and see the crime, which are impacting our country, so my question to the member is this: Would he support the call to bring back the port police for border security?
Michael Ma Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, what we need to look at is the whole border bill, what it entails and, as I mentioned earlier, the expanded definition in the bill. Would it just address certain portions of the border or would it address more? I ask because previously I have questioned the hon. minister, and while it seems the bill is very restrictive, some of the definitions have become very expansive. That is why in my question earlier, I said the bill goes everywhere but addressing its actual needs.
Vince Gasparro LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, the strong borders act.
I want to begin by thanking our dedicated officers from the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and our frontline men and women who serve within our local police forces, as well as those who serve within our national security apparatus. I thank all of them for their service and their commitment to keeping us all safe.
Our border is maintained through rigorous enforcement, advanced technology and strong domestic and international partnerships. Although there is more to be done, this new government was elected in part to take concrete action in order to keep Canadians safe. This is why the bill in front of us, the strong borders act, is so important.
The bill would ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools to keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crack down on illicit financing and money laundering more broadly. These measures would bolster our response to increasingly sophisticated criminal networks while ensuring that we protect Canadians' privacy and charter rights.
One of the key goals of this bill is to strengthen the government's effort against illicit financing and money laundering. We know that money laundering supports and perpetuates criminal activity by allowing criminals, such as fentanyl traffickers, to profit from their illicit activities and then reinvest in their criminal enterprises.
This makes strong and effective anti-money laundering controls a critical component of keeping Canadians safe. Bill C-2 would strengthen Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime through stronger penalties for financial crimes and by addressing the most prevalent forms of money laundering.
It would enhance public-to-private information sharing and strengthen the supervision and compliance of financial institutions and other businesses and professionals with anti-money laundering obligations.
The strong borders act proposes a comprehensive set of amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to ensure that businesses and professionals regulated by the act are effective in detecting and deterring money laundering. This means strengthening the administrative monetary penalty framework through increased civil and criminal penalties while establishing safeguards for small businesses so they are not disproportionately penalized.
The strong borders act would enhance compliance program requirements and enforcement. It also means punishing serious criminal non-compliance by increasing the limits for all criminal fines 10 times. The stronger penalties proposed for non-compliance would better align Canada with other countries, including the United States and the European Union.
The strong borders act would also introduce a new offence for the provision of false information to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, more commonly known as FINTRAC.
We will strengthen the anti-money laundering framework and support the fight against financial crime more broadly—
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I have to interrupt the member. I have a point of order from the official opposition deputy whip.
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, my apologies for the interruption, but the hon. member has referred to a “new government”. The government has been in power for the last decade. I am wondering if he might correct that.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
That is a matter of debate.
I will let the parliamentary secretary continue.
Vince Gasparro Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Speaker, we will strengthen the anti-money laundering framework and support the fight against financial crime more broadly.
We will require reporting entities or business professionals who have obligations under the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act to enrol with FINTRAC if they have not already done so. Enrolment would provide FINTRAC with accurate and up-to-date information on the businesses it regulates, supporting risk management efforts and improved communication. It would also enable FINTRAC disclosures to Elections Canada to detect and deter illicit financing and foreign interference in Canadian elections.
The strong borders act addresses common and dangerous types of money laundering, including through new restrictions on large cash transactions and third party deposits where someone deposits money into an account that is not their own. We will make the rules clearer for how the public sector and private sector can share information with each other to help spot and stop money laundering.
Finally, the bill introduces amendments to the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to foster a more integrated approach and strengthen coordination among federal financial oversight agencies, reinforcing Canada's high compliance standards. These amendments would improve inter-agency coordination and communication. Specifically, bringing FINTRAC's knowledge and expertise to assist our government's financial intelligence by sharing and receiving information. We will strengthen the oversight of our financial institutions in the fight against illicit financing and money laundering.
These measures are in addition to and in support of the government's establishment of the integrated money laundering intelligence partnership with Canada's largest banks. This partnership will enhance our capacity to use financial intelligence tools to combat fentanyl trafficking and other forms of organized crime. Frankly, it will allow us to cut off the flow of illicit financing and go after the bad guys.
With these significant anti-money laundering provisions, the government is addressing the long-standing concerns stakeholders have raised in recent years. Some of these stakeholders are loud supporters of the bill. They include the National Police Federation, which stated it was “encouraged by provisions that strengthen lawful access to digital evidence, [and] improve collaboration with FINTRAC and financial institutions”. It also said that it is clear “that public safety is a top priority for this new government.”
Even the Canadian Police Association, the voice of over 60,000 frontline officers, has said that the legislation would “strengthen the ability of police to investigate and disrupt complex criminal networks by enhancing anti-money laundering enforcement,” and that “Bill C-2 would give police services the legal tools needed to respond more effectively to evolving threats.”
Transnational organized crime groups are consistently adapting to new technology and adapting new methods of criminality, and we must ensure our law enforcement and national security agencies can adapt as well. That is why the new government is being thoughtful in its approach to legislation. For example, we are proposing closing a loophole that has allowed law enforcement to open mail from FedEx and UPS, but not from Canada Post. Currently, drug traffickers can exploit this gap by shipping fentanyl in small quantities through Canada Post, beyond the reach of interception. The proposed strong borders act would change that by authorizing Canada Post to open mail with a warrant.
Previous governments have focused on the root causes of crime, and as Liberals, it is the new government that will continue that responsibility and that work. Our government, this new government, is both tough on the underlying causes of crime and tough on crime itself. By cracking down on illicit financing and money laundering, we will be tough on crime by making it more difficult for groups to fund their criminal enterprises, including the trade in illegal fentanyl, drugs, firearms and other forms of smuggling and trafficking.
It is just one of the many ways that the new government is taking the fight to the bad guys to keep our communities safe. I think we can all agree that there is no more important priority for us as—
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite mentioned “the new government” again.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. This is the second member, within a 10-minute speech, who has stood up on a ridiculous point of order, disrupting a member's speech. Members do all sorts of things with their speeches. I think it is very disturbing to hear that, and it can work both ways. I would ask members to not interrupt when a member is delivering a speech.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention. I thank the member for London—Fanshawe. Those are all matters of debate.
I will let the parliamentary secretary to the secretary of state for combatting crime finish his speech.
Vince Gasparro Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that there is no more important priority for us as lawmakers than to keep Canadian communities and everyone who lives in them as safe as possible from crime. Every Canadian deserves to live on a safe street and with a strong and secure border. That is why I call on my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House to join me in supporting the strong borders act and getting it passed as quickly as possible. I look forward to their support.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary made, in a throwaway comment, the claim that Canada Post's powers under the bill to open mail unilaterally would be subject to a warrant. I have studied the bill, and I even looked at it just after the member said that. The word “warrant” does not appear once in part 4 of the act, which deals with the powers of Canada Post. It says very clearly “the corporation”, referring to Canada Post. There is no reference to police, no reference to courts and no reference to warrants.
Will the member please point to precisely where a warrant would be required for this authority?
Vince Gasparro Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is not necessarily just in that particular section. I am actually a little surprised, because the hon. member wrote a great book about a politician who got blown out in his seat, and he is quite smart. I have a lot of respect for you. I am a little surprised that you would allow and be okay with a loophole with UPS and FedEx—
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am happy to chat with the member. He is speaking to me directly by using the word “you”, and in doing so, not answering the question.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I thank the member for that point of order. Yes, it is a reminder that members speak through the Chair to keep it neutral.
I will let the parliamentary secretary finish.
Vince Gasparro Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member. The fact is, I know there is no world in which he would want there to be a loophole between collecting data from UPS and FedEx and collecting it from Canada Post.