Debates of June 18th, 2025

Foreign Affairs

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the humanitarian crisis and genocide taking place in Gaza, the petitioners are calling for the government to publicly and unequivocally reject the militarized aid model currently used in Palestine; demand the full restoration of access for UN agencies and established humanitarian NGOs, including UNRWA and the World Food Programme; insist on safe and immediate entry for Canadian health care workers and other international humanitarian personnel to Palestine; withhold Canadian funding from any entity or model that does not comply with the principles of neutrality, impartiality, independence and humanity; and, lastly, ensure that all Canadian aid to Gaza is delivered through internationally recognized humanitarian channels.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Strong Borders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak again about the importance of Bill C-2. This is a continuation of sorts.

I think it is really important for us to recognize that Bill C-2 is a very important piece of legislation. We have had discussions not necessarily on Bill C-2, but on the issues. The primary purpose of Bill C-2 is to address many of the concerns that were raised in the last election.

I think it is important that we take a more holistic approach in dealing with what has been the number one issue for the Prime Minister and, in fact, the entire Liberal caucus. I have had an opportunity to expand upon that at great length in the last few days by taking a look at Bill C-2, Bill C-5 and what the Prime Minister has been doing virtually since April 28. To give that kind of perspective allows members to get a better understanding as to why this legislation is so important for all Canadians.

It is interesting. The Canadian Police Association has come onside, indicating that it strongly supports the legislation. That says something in itself. The other thing I would emphasize and amplify at the beginning is that Liberals are very much concerned about individual rights. In fact, it was a Liberal government that brought in the Charter of Rights. The issue of privacy is something we take very seriously, but we also want to deal with the issues that Canadians asked us to deal with specifically during the last election. Bill C-2 does that.

Let us reverse this a bit. We have the Prime Minister talking about building one Canadian economy. Where that comes from is that during the election, Canadians were concerned about Donald Trump, the tariffs and trade. Members will recall that the criticism being levelled by the President of the United States toward Canada was about the issue of fentanyl, of our borders not being secure. I remember late last year talking about how Canada has a strong healthy border. At the end of the day, the Conservatives constantly criticized the border and the efforts of the government to try to explain that we had strength within our borders.

Contrast that with Pierre Poilievre when he sat in cabinet. I have made reference to this in the past. When we talk about the border, this is the first thing that comes to mind for anyone who knows any parliamentary history over the last 20 years. When he sat in cabinet, Pierre Poilievre was part of a government that cut support to Canada's border security, hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of personnel.

Contrast that with the previous Justin Trudeau administration, when we saw an enhancement of border control. At the end of the day, we needed to at least deal with the issues—

[An hon. member]

An enhancement of food bank use.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

—by ultimately, to use one of the words the member is saying, enhancing our border security to make it even stronger. That is what Bill C-2 does. It addresses an issue that was an irritant, if I can put it that way, to Donald Trump.

A number of measures were put into place. Under the new Prime Minister and the new administration, we have seen a tangible investment of $1.3 billion, a commitment of 1,000 new CBSA personnel and 1,000 additional RCMP officers. This is a tangible commitment from a budgetary measure, and it will make a difference. It addresses many concerns, providing the types of supports that are necessary, the physical supports of personnel. Extend that to what we have today: substantial legislation to complement the budgetary allotment of $1.3 billion as an investment in providing safe and secure borders.

When I say we have to take a look at it from a bigger picture, it is all part of addressing concerns that Stephen Harper failed to deal with completely when Pierre Poilievre was around the cabinet table and the Conservative caucus, and improving upon the previous administration of Justin Trudeau. What we have now before us through this legislation is yet another aspect of building a stronger and healthier country.

The Prime Minister often talks about having the strongest country economically in the G7. This is part of that. One just needs to take a look at the highly successful G7 conference we just had, which I believe the Prime Minister handled exceptionally well. At the end of the day, we were able to talk about some of the measures that we have taken to address some of the shortcomings from the past. Support for our borders is one of them, and the military investment is another one. For how many years were we being challenged to provide military support?

All of this is important because when we are sitting at the table, it is from the point of view of strength. We can say that we have beefed up our borders by investing $1.3 billion, introduced substantial legislation and met the United Nations's 2% GDP requirement. Issues have been raised in the past that reflect what Canada has: our natural resources and commodities and the people of Canada. We are coming from a very strong background going to the table.

That is why I believe Bill C-2 is very important. It is not just about national security. It builds upon the bigger picture of having a stronger, healthier economy in general.

We can take a look at some of the specifics. I made reference to the fact that the National Police Association supports the legislation, and there is a very good reason it is doing that. It is because these actions demonstrate to our local, domestic and international partners that we take our borders seriously and want to start dealing in a more tangible way with things such as fentanyl, auto theft, human trafficking, irregular migration and transnational organized crime. These are very important issues.

We have an administration that is very focused on and putting a great deal of energy into dealing with those issues. I look forward to this legislation passing and going to committee. I know there are people who have concerns. At the end of the day, some of that concern comes from, I would suggest, misinformation from the Conservative Party.

The best example I could give of that is something that was referenced when the bill was first brought in. I was listening to comments by members of the Conservative Party, who were saying that this legislation would allow the police and letter carriers to open up people's mail, to open any letter they want to. Most Canadians would be very surprised to find out that law enforcement agencies do not have the authority to even get a warrant to open a letter in transit. For the very first time, through this legislation, a law enforcement officer, through a general warrant that has been justified, would be able to open a letter, when it is warranted. I do not see that as an invasion of privacy, because it has to go through checks and balances and a process to protect the individual's privacy, yet it would make a substantial difference.

Imagine if anyone could put fentanyl into an envelope and mail it anywhere in the country. Under the current system, the police or a law enforcement officer could do nothing about it. Once it arrives, yes, they could, but not while it is in transit between destinations. I think most Canadians would be very surprised to hear that. Contrary to the misinformation we witnessed the other day when the Conservatives were talking about the legislation, it is not a free-for-all. Letters are still going to be confidential. It would not be a violation of privacy, but we need to protect people. There are communities in Canada that are very concerned about mail going to their communities, the illegal things that are put into envelopes. It is a legitimate concern.

We hear a lot about extortion. Last Saturday evening, I was sitting in a house on Sanderson Avenue and individuals were sharing with me stories of serious extortion. That has been raised in the House. Again, this legislation would enable additional tools for law enforcement agencies to do more in combatting extortion, child abuse or child pornography. It would allow more work to be done on the money-laundering file and other types of illegal money transactions. The legislation would allow for more communications with immigration and refugees. It would enable provinces, territories and Ottawa to do more in terms of sharing information. Canada, thinking internationally, is one of the Five Eyes countries, which allows us to share more information through different agencies. I see this as a very healthy positive.

For the individuals who really want to see a stronger and healthier border where Canadians will be protected more and where we can protect the integrity of our immigration system even more, dealing with asylum and things of that nature, this is good legislation. I look forward to the Conservatives recognizing that and allowing the legislation to go to committee at some point.

[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. Before I begin, I want to give a shout-out to somebody who helped me tremendously on my re-election campaign. I am grateful for Jesus Bondo's help.

I have to say this. I said this a couple of days ago and nothing changes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

You say that all the time, Frank.

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

Now the member from Winnipeg is heckling me.

Mr. Speaker, the member is here doing a 20-minute speech. For those watching at home, we often divide our time into 10-minute speeches. He is doing a 20-minute speech while Liberals are either watching him or looking down. There are other Liberals who I am sure are all very capable. I have heard some of them speak, and yet today, crickets. I almost invite them to put up their hand and say, “Yes, I would love to speak”, and I would seek unanimous consent to have them speak.

Why is it that on such an important bill, the member gets up, gives the speeches and asks all the questions? What is with the Liberal Party today that only he gets to talk on behalf of it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite heckling me for the first five to 10 minutes of my comments. I think the member, more than anyone else, does not necessarily like to hear the truth. When it comes to truth and transparency, I am always happy to talk about the many things this government has been doing. There are many members of the Liberal caucus who have stood up and added value to the discussions and the debate. For some reason, the member seems to be offended if I decide to stand up on behalf of my caucus or my constituents to share some thoughts. He has the option: He does not have to stay in the chamber if he does not want to hear what we have to say.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am very pleased to see you in the Speaker's chair. However, I must also say that I would have liked to see you take part in today's debate in your former role as immigration critic. I would have liked to see someone as thorough as you participate in the debate on a bill of this nature.

The Liberals are concerned about borders. Finally. After 10 years, they are finally realizing that the refugee system is not working. They would not have introduced such a bill otherwise. This is obviously a step in the right direction. However, it will take time. This bill is 130 pages long, amends some 15 laws and affects at least three departments. It is going to take work, and the government will not be invoking closure.

However, there are things that can be done now, at the administrative level, as requested by the union representing border service officers. We could allow officers to patrol outside border crossings, as they are requesting. Is this a solution that could be considered?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, within the legislation, we will see border control agents being able to go to a warehouse and have access to it so they can inspect. There are some very progressive measures within this legislation that border control officers are no doubt very pleased about.

I think it is a holistic approach to dealing with a number of very serious issues. That is the reason why I am anticipating that, at some point, it will go to committee and we will get all sorts of presentations. If history has anything to do with it, we will see a government that is very open to ideas and thoughts in terms of how the legislation might be improved.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 would give unprecedented powers, without judicial review or a warrant, to the RCMP or CSIS to access information or demand information from any service provider in the country. It does not matter if it is someone's doctor, dentist, landlord, bank or psychiatrist. It does not matter who it is. They can demand information about when someone went to see them and for how long they have seen them. This has nothing to do with border security.

How could the member possibly defend this violation of Canadians' privacy?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that within the legislation we will find that the need to share and have access to information between departments and between agencies is something that is in fact necessary. To imply that there is no sense of accountability, or that individuals' rights and privacy would be violated, is premature at best. I think the member should read the legislation more thoroughly and not necessarily buy into everything that the members of her caucus might be espousing at this point in time.

Give the legislation a chance. We look forward to the presentations that might be made.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. His explanations were truly comprehensive and he presented some very interesting ideas. It is a very interesting and different angle from what can be gleaned from the cursory reading that the opposition obviously did.

I have a very clear question for my colleague. We know that there is a major fentanyl crisis going on. Public safety and any other organizations tasked with dealing with this crisis really need to target precursor chemicals, including the components of fentanyl.

Can he elaborate on this or tell us where to find this information? How can we target the precursors that can be used to make fentanyl?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that within the legislation, there is a serious attempt to clamp down on clandestine drug production by stopping the flow of precursor chemicals that are used to make fentanyl. That is why I try to amplify the fact that we need to take a holistic approach, and if we do that, there are all sorts of things within the legislation that are there to protect Canadians. A lot of the fentanyl is being imported into the country in different forms, and the legislation would deal with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to give a shout-out to someone who helped with my campaign: Zach Brubacher. I thank him very much for everything.

The member said last time during debate, one of the many times he spoke, or perhaps it was in a heckle, I am not sure, that Canada Post could not open our mail under this legislation without a warrant, so I am going to read him the provision, and perhaps he wants to retract that. This is at page 12 of the bill, proposed subsection 41(1): “The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that”.

Members will note that this would not be judicially authorized; there would be no production order and there would be no warrant, so perhaps the member would like to clarify the record here, because he has been telling people that Canada Post would need a warrant. It is not even the RCMP or a peace officer. Would he like to clarify the record on this important point, please?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let us flash back to the day the member is referring to. We had Conservative member after Conservative member giving the false impression that mail would be easily violated by a letter carrier or someone sorting at the mail office and so forth.

It is all part of that fear factor that the Conservatives like to do. The reality is that it is not as simple as the Conservative Party tries to portray it. There are checks that are put into place to ensure that the privacy of the individual is there. The legislation would enable a law enforcement officer to get a general warrant so they can actually open a letter while it is between destinations.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have time for a brief question and a brief answer.

The member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be quick.

I asked the member for Winnipeg North a question earlier. It is not that complicated. The CBSA union wants this, the officers want this and the Bloc Québécois supports this demand: the ability to patrol between border crossings. It would not require new legislation. It could be done through regulations.

My question is, why does the government not do this right now?

There is no justification for taking so much time. It could act now, immediately. Why not do this right away?