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.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, and I can confirm that to be the case.
We have said this many times, and I do not want to repeat myself, but we also want to fight organized crime, drug trafficking and fentanyl, which is a terrible scourge. What we are saying is that the government cannot do it any which way.
Just because I am against criminals does not mean I agree with going around and hanging them in the streets without due process.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is 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 a lot in my campaign, and that is my sister, Rosie Caputo. I am very thankful to her for all of her help.
I have worked with my colleague extensively. I have a great deal of time for him. When we talk about these things, there is this balance between law and order, we have some court decisions that need to be addressed in terms of IP addresses, and also the balancing of civil liberties.
Does the member have any ideas how we can strike that proper balance in legislation like Bill C-2?
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Rosie, because I really enjoy working with her brother, who is a serious and hard-working member of Parliament. I am pleased to recognize that today.
That being said, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I think he is right to point out that we need to strike a balance between protecting our borders, protecting our streets, keeping people safe and respecting individual rights and freedoms.
My colleague is also right to say that the courts have provided us with guidelines in the past. It will be important to read them carefully. That is why I believe this bill needs to be studied in committee, so we can hear from experts and make sure that, in trying to fix one problem, we do not create an even more complex and dangerous one.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague, who is much more legally-minded than I am, will appreciate the parallel I am about to draw. He will have to let me know. I find this bill strangely reminiscent of the use of the Emergencies Act, which we voted on here.
After letting a situation deteriorate, after doing nothing, the government is going to the other extreme. The government's reaction is disproportionate and oppressive, when it could have taken a proactive stance from the start, which would have prevented things from reaching this other extreme.
Does that parallel make sense to my colleague?
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also a man who works hard for his riding and his constituents. I am very proud to work with him as a member of the same party.
That said, parallels can indeed be drawn between the problems we are seeing now with Bill C-2 and Bill C-5, the gag order and what is looming over our heads without us knowing it. We have been sitting for three weeks, not even four. We shall see.
There are parallels that can be drawn with all that and the proclamation of emergency measures. At the time, I was co-chair of the committee that had to examine the issue. We simply could not believe it. Nothing was done after the emergency measures were invoked that could not have been done before. We asked companies to tow trucks, which they did. The situation was resolved in less than 24 hours.
Why did the government invoke those emergency measures, extreme measures that should only be used in extreme circumstances? We wondered about that and we found it troubling.
I have similar concerns now. I am not even sure that the Supreme Court would uphold bills C‑2 and C‑5. It remains to be seen. Whatever we pass will be swiftly challenged. Unfortunately, we are opening ourselves up to rulings that will put us back to square one. I do not think that we can ignore the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution, infringe on everyone's powers and trample on rights and freedoms without being sanctioned by the courts at some point.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to congratulate you on your new appointment. As someone who did his master's thesis on a very specific thing, which I believe was the Thursday question, you have a love of this place. It is good to see you in that chair.
This is an important bill. I think all of us have heard from Canadians during the election that public safety is fundamentally important to them. It is disappointing to hear from some MPs who suggest that other MPs do not care about public safety. One of our fundamental priorities is to ensure the safety and security of our constituents. We may come at it in different ways, but we all fundamentally believe that we need to stand up and protect our constituents. I hope that is the debate we are having and will continue throughout this. It is not what we hear in question period, but oftentimes question period is a little different from what we hear at other times in this place and at committee, where I hope this bill will go very soon.
Fundamentally, I believe this bill will keep Canadians safe by ensuring law enforcement will have the right tools to keep our borders secure, to combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crack down on money laundering. It will bolster our response to increasingly sophisticated criminal networks and enhance the integrity and fairness of our immigration system, all while protecting the privacy and charter rights of Canadians.
Following the introduction of the bill, we heard from the Canadian Police Association, the largest law enforcement advocacy organization in Canada, and the national voice for over 60,000 frontline law enforcement personnel serving across every province and territory. I would like to take a moment and read what it said.
It states:
...this proposed legislation would provide critical new tools for law enforcement, border services, and intelligence agencies to address transnational organized crime, auto theft, firearms and drug trafficking, and money laundering. It’s important to emphasize that these are not abstract issues, our members see first-hand that they have real impacts in communities across the country and require a coordinated and modern legislative response.
The Bill includes important updates that would strengthen information sharing between federal and local agencies, which is essential to the success of multi-jurisdictional investigations and recognizes the reality that border security is increasingly not the sole responsibility of the RCMP. In many communities located near border crossings, local police services are called upon to play a central role in enforcing our border-related laws. Giving these agencies access to better intelligence and more timely information will significantly improve public safety outcomes.
We are also encouraged by measures that would support the work of the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Coast Guard by closing long-standing gaps in inspection and enforcement capacity. These steps, combined with new authorities for front-line law enforcement across the country, would help disrupt criminal operations at key points of entry and within domestic supply and distribution chains.
The proposed steps to disrupt the importation of illegal fentanyl and precursor chemicals are also crucial. A faster scheduling process will [also] allow for a more agile response to substances that fuel the opioid crisis and continue to cause immeasurable harm in communities across...[the country].
Bill C-2 would also strengthen the ability of police to investigate and disrupt...criminal networks by enhancing anti-money laundering enforcement, expanding data-sharing with trusted domestic and international partners...[while] improving access to information across jurisdictions. New provisions allowing Canadian law enforcement to share information collected under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act would...[provide] more effective cooperation in cross-border investigations. Additionally, the proposed mechanism to access data held by service providers in other countries acknowledges the reality that modern criminal investigations rarely stop at the border. These updates would help ensure that Canadian police have the tools and intelligence they need to hold offenders accountable, regardless of where they operate.
If passed, Bill C-2 would give police services the legal tools needed to respond more effectively to evolving threats.
This is the organization advocating for 60,000 frontline police officers.
I heard during the campaign, and I hear it a lot during question period, that we need to stand up and give police officers the tools they need. At the same time, I am hearing doubts from the opposition members, who are trying to pour cold water on this. On the one hand, they say that we need to do something, but at the same time they do not want this, even though police support it and it will make communities safer. I do not really understand the rhetoric versus the action, the rhetoric during question period versus the rhetoric we are hearing now. I appreciate the concerns being raised by some members of the opposition, but again, it does not match their rhetoric to get things done in those 30-second sound bites they like during question period.
I would also like to add a quote from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, another great organization:
The proposed Bill demonstrates a commitment to modernizing legislation and equipping law enforcement with necessary tools to combat transnational organized crime in an increasingly complex threat environment. In particular, the Bill sets out several important law amendments which will address systemic vulnerabilities within the justice system, providing critical tools for law enforcement, border services and intelligence agencies.
Canada’s legislation related to lawful access is significantly outdated and urgently needs to be revised to align with modern technology. Canada lags behind its international law enforcement partners in the ability to lawfully access electronic evidence associated to criminal activity. Transnational organised crime groups are exploiting this gap to victimize our communities across the country through serious crimes such as human, drug and firearm trafficking, auto theft, and violent profit-driven crime. The provisions contained within the Strong Borders Act are an important step in advancing Canadian law enforcement’s ability to effectively combat the ever-evolving nature of transnational organized criminal groups.
The chiefs of police have spoken. Frontline officers have spoken. Where is the outcry from the Conservative Party to get this passed as quickly as possible? I hear crickets, which is disappointing.
I would like to address a point that just came up, I believe from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, with respect to IP addresses. I appreciate the concern when we are dealing with issues like this, but I would like to quote a colleague of his, the member for Parkland, when he was asking questions of the RCMP in regard to this particular issue. He said:
Imagine a phone book that has phone numbers listed, but no names. The only names that are listed are the ISPs and the telecom companies that service those phone numbers: the Teluses, the Rogers and the Bells.
Police are being told now that they can't even look in the phone book of those IP addresses. They can't even know who the service providers are unless they have a warrant. The effect of this in the past month since this decision came in, according to frontline RCMP officers who are working in the integrated child exploitation units across this country, is that telecommunications companies, in compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, are now denying this critical information that police are using to track down and prosecute child sex offenders and child predators.
The member for Parkland says we need to take action, and I agree with him, but I guess this is the member for Parkland from last Parliament. Where are the members now? Again, I hear it in question period, time after time, day after day.
Let us expedite this. Let us move this forward and get it to committee. I can appreciate that there are concerns. I have never seen a government bill in my 10 years that has made it through unamended to the end, but let us ensure that we move this legislation forward so that perhaps the Conservatives' actions will match their rhetoric during question period. I hope we can achieve that.
Ned Kuruc Conservative Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to mention the celebration of LiUNA Local 837. They are celebrating 75 years today. I would like to say congratulations to Victoria Mancinelli, Joe Mancinelli, their family patriarch Enrico Mancinelli, may he rest in peace, and all the hard-working members of that union for building much of southern Ontario.
My question for my colleague is this. People from my constituency are having a hard time understanding the restriction on cash, because we have a lot of small businesses and a very vibrant Italian community that has a lot of weddings, and couples get a lot of cash during their wedding. I would like to give them the opportunity to have some clarity on that, because people in my riding are very concerned about that, and eastern Europeans as well.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this item that is out there. I have seen it, that we cannot pay cash anymore. I cannot pay $10,000 in cash for an item at a local business. I do not know what local businesses Conservative members are going to. These things are solved.
As a member of the Law Society of Ontario, we were told years ago to never accept that amount of cash, as we then may be complicit in something we do not want to be complicit in. We can go and get a cheque or a money order. These are easy ways around it to ensure that people are in compliance and they can still engage in gift-giving. We can still buy things.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Money order, as the hon. member said on the other side.
Mr. Speaker, these are things we can get. A bank draft is typically the most common. I do not know how these members pay for things at their local stores. If it is about $10,000 in cash, that is a different world than I operate in.
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what we heard on the campaign trail. Canadians want safer communities. Canadians want safer borders. Canadians also want to stop being aggressed by our south-of-the-border neighbour because of the terrors that have ravaged our communities and our workers.
Can the member expand on the mandate that he has been given to respond to all of the questions that Canadians had during the campaign on safety, on secure communities and the one Canadian economy?
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I will have enough time to get to all of that, but I will sum it up.
Being a member from the Niagara region, my house is only about a 10-minute drive from the border. I think everyone in my community understands that safe borders lead to safe communities. It is fundamentally important that we take action as a government to ensure that CBSA has the tools it needs, and that the RCMP and local police have the tools that they need: the tools that they have been asking for, and the tools that frontline officers have said are in Bill C-2, and they are urging Parliament to get this passed as quickly as possible.
We heard it from our constituents. We were elected as Canada's new government and we are getting to work. This is fundamentally important. I hope to see this get passed as quickly as possible.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. It is nice to see one of my colleagues recognizing people the way I do. I love that.
I just want to clarify something that my colleague mentioned. I think he was talking about the Bykovets decision, a decision that said judicial oversight or a judicial authorization, a warrant production order, is required for IP addresses. I believe many people in the law enforcement community would support the provisions he was referring to. I think where we, as Conservatives, take issue is that one step further when we are talking about getting data from Meta and things like that.
Does the member see the distinction between those two things?
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would love for the Conservatives to take that energy and apply it to all of their policies with respect to criminal justice and bring a rights-based approach first. This legislation complies with the Charter of Rights. We will continue to comply with the Charter of Rights. I hope the Conservatives engage in the future with respect to all of their policies because it has been absent from their arguments since I have been here.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to rise on an issue as important as a bill that deals with Canada's border. I have been among those people sounding the alarm for years about the Liberal government's inaction on the border. When there has been action, it was action that aggravated and exacerbated the problems. These are long-standing challenges caused by a Liberal government that, despite its proclamations, is not a new government but a continuation of what we had over the last 10 years.
While I am heartened by the fact that the Liberals have acknowledged there is a border crisis, I have a great many concerns with the way they have chosen to tackle that. Let me be clear: One of the biggest issues, in my media career, I would frequently criticize the government's handling of was the lax approach to border security. One notable example of this was allowing Roxham Road to balloon into a full-blown illegal immigration scheme that the government turned a blind eye to. This was something that happened for years and years, and the government would not act.
Issues pertaining to smuggling of firearms, drugs and even people have been allowed to become the crisis they are today. While I am grateful that the Liberals have decided to come to the party late, I have to ask why it took so long. What prevented them from taking action on this?
Let me be perfectly clear that a lot of the issues we see with crime and drugs in our country, including gang violence using illegal firearms smuggled in across the border, are issues that cannot just be neatly siloed off into one particular portfolio. Conservatives have been asking the Liberals for the last couple of weeks why there is nothing in the bill that deals with sentencing for fentanyl kingpins. Why is there nothing that deals with bail issues that allow repeat offenders to continue to be out on the street after offending?
The Liberals have always come back to the same position, which is that it is just a border bill, not a crime bill, but that is a very narrow and naive way of looking at the legislation. They do not understand that these cross-border issues are integrally connected to the crime and justice issues that they are not acknowledging, that they are not acting on and that the bill has no solutions for.
On this, I will say that I am grateful the government has taken some suggestions that the Conservatives have made over the years and put them in the bill, but the problem is that it is an omnibus bill. It tries to do a great many things. Some of it is stuff that I would say the Conservatives have been leaders on. Others are things that, when I look at the legislation, I wonder where they came from or who was asking for them.
While there is a lack of addressing bail issues and a lack of addressing sentencing issues, there are things in the bill about which I cannot imagine why the Liberals thought they were relevant for a bill that, by their own admission, is supposed to be about the border. I want to focus on two of those right now because I have a long track record of advocating for civil liberties.
One of the provisions of the bill, part 4, would give Canada Post unilateral power to open not just parcels but also letters. This means that a letter one sends to anyone in the country could be intercepted, without a warrant or judicial oversight, by someone at Canada Post. Something we have heard in the course of debate this evening and this afternoon is some misinformation from the Liberal government. The Liberals say, “Oh, no, it would be subject to warrant.”
Well, I have combed through the legislation, the entire bill, but also part 4 specifically, and in part 4, which deals with changes to the Canada Post Corporation Act, the word “warrant” does not appear once. In the act that this section of the bill cites, there is no discussion of warrants whatsoever.
Therefore we are left, as Canadians, with the questions that the Liberal government is not answering: What are the constraints on this power? What would Canada Post be entitled to do or be authorized to do, not just with goods it may seize but also with information it may seize? The bill specifically talks about intercepting letters. That does not just mean opening an envelope and looking for fentanyl; that also means opening a piece of mail and being allowed to read it. Who would have access to correspondence? What could be done with it? Would it be tracked? Would it be registered? Would it be entered into a database?
These are questions that we do not have answers for because the Liberals are denying that the text of the bill is what it is.
Moreover, the bill would give Canada Post immunity. It would take away any liability for anything arising from demand, seizure, detention or retention, which means Canadians would have no rights to question or challenge what Canada Post is doing with their mail. To be clear, Canada Post has not asked for this power, that I have seen. This is something the Liberal government would voluntarily hand over without any regard for the civil liberties concerns.
We can look at part 11 of the bill, which would ban cash transactions over $10,000. It would not put in a reporting requirement. It would not restrict it. It would not add bureaucracy or red tape. It is a clear ban. I will read directly from the bill:
Every person or entity that is engaged in a business, a profession or the solicitation of charitable financial donations from the public commits an offence if the person or entity accepts a cash payment, donation or deposit of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or in a prescribed series of related transactions that total $10,000 or more.
After 10 years of economic mismanagement, $10,000 is a regular haul at the grocery store. This $10,000 may seem like an amount, as the Liberals like to say, that no one is dealing in. They say no one is going around and dealing in $10,000 transactions unless they have something to hide. I represent a lot of rural and smaller communities in my riding, and it is not uncommon for someone to buy a used vehicle, buy a farm truck or buy a new piece of equipment for $10,000 or $15,000. Some may ask, as the Liberals do, why anyone would need to do that. We live in a free society where we do not need to justify our decision to engage in transactions with legal tender to the government.
I am very aware of the fact that, as I speak, the Liberal government is actively fighting in court against a Federal Court decision that found its use of the Emergencies Act illegal in 2022. This is a government that unlawfully and unconstitutionally froze people's bank accounts without due process and without oversight. That sent a chill throughout the country as people realized that the government would use its power without regard for the law. I do not accept that the government is permitted to say to just trust it with putting a further restriction in place on how Canadians transact, and this is incredibly important. The Bank of Canada, which the Prime Minister used to run, has been advocating for central bank digital currency, something that would put the government more in control of and make it more able to monitor the transactions that Canadians choose to undertake.
There are many reasons that people would use cash. In fact, in most cases that I am aware of, it has nothing to do with law breaking. It is simply because of convenience, avoiding staggering credit card fees and having the ability to transact and ensure that the local farmers' market or the person selling a vehicle in a riding, neighbourhood, whatever it is, can be free of government interference.
While I am grateful the bill would deal with some issues at the border that we have long been calling for solutions for as Conservatives, it is taking a very broad brush and, in doing so, is treating ordinary law-abiding Canadians as though they are criminals, as though they have something to hide from the government or must be doing something wrong simply because they are using cash, as anyone who identifies as old school would do. What other legal things is the government planning to regulate or restrict?
When we are looking at this bill, with how many different sections and different parts it has, we have to look at the good and we have to look at the bad. I think the government has tried to do too much in the course of this legislation. We have to look at the civil liberties concerns. Anytime they have been raised in the course of debating the bill, the Liberals have fallen back on either making a false claim, such as that a warrant is required under the Canada Post section, which it is not, or just relying on the notion that we are to trust them because there is no way the Liberal government would abuse this power. I do not trust them, and my constituents do not trust them either.
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the member opposite what he thinks about the mandate that Londoners sent him here with and whether he heard what I heard at the doors. What I heard at the doors is that Londoners want safer borders. They want an economy that works for everyone. They want more jobs for our communities.
I want to welcome him to the House, first of all, and hear what he thinks about the things we were hearing in London at the doors.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, while I am honoured to represent just shy of 20,000 Londoners, London is a part of a riding that also encompasses the County of Elgin and St. Thomas and Aylmer. The fact that the voters in my riding elected a Conservative member of Parliament is an important indication of what the constituents I represent believe.
They were saying they wanted the Liberals to get tough with respect to the border, but they were not. That is why the constituents were voting Conservative. They were saying they wanted a government that would get tough on crime and they were not getting that from the Liberals. I was elected because people did not want the current government to do it. Of the 26,000 doors that I knocked on, not one single person said, “I really think that government needs to crack down on people buying a truck with cash.”
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome my colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South to the House. I enjoyed his speech.
Can my colleague tell me how we have gotten to this point? In his opinion, why is the government introducing a bill that I would call too radical for the current situation, a bill that will amend about 15 acts and attack legislation affecting three different departments? Can he tell me what this government has done over the past 10 years to show that it takes border security and our refugee system seriously?
I would like to hear his answer.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's very insightful question. I cannot answer to what the government members were thinking by putting this forward, but I do know that there is a general trend that we have seen from the Liberal government, of trying to do omnibus legislation so they can advance things that are very unpopular or unconstitutional while hiding behind things that are popular and that all parties would agree with. I fear that is precisely what the Liberals are doing with this bill, by going after civil liberties while also offering things that are important that we could all agree on, such as the need to get tough on border security.
Michael Guglielmin Conservative Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's very factual and evidence-based speech.
We have been hearing a lot of comments with respect to how the Liberals are trying to identify as a new government when, in fact, they are the same government that they have been for the last 10 years. I was wondering if the member could share his thoughts with the House regarding how the current Liberal government is, in fact, the same government that it has been here for the last 10 years.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, as some members of this House may know, I used to have a career in media before I joined here. A few days ago, I saw a clip from question period that was a couple of years old, but I thought it was recent because the front bench was entirely the same. I do think that for a party that insists on saying that it is a new government, there is a heck of a lot of continuity, not just in the people but also the policies, attitudes and approaches, which is why I do not trust the current government to give itself or any other agencies tremendous powers of warrantless oversight on Canadians.
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed that the member would make such comments. In fact, Canadians and Quebeckers voted for at least 170 new members here in the House. The Liberal Party has 70 new members. These are not just the same members, but are newly elected MPs for a new government.
I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to this chamber, but ultimately the direction that the party has taken is a continuation of Justin Trudeau. In fact, the Prime Minister's most recent résumé line item was as an adviser to Justin Trudeau. If there has been a break in the timeline, I am not exactly sure when it was.
Taleeb Noormohamed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-2. Recognizing the amount of time that I have, I will make my comments somewhat brief.
I do want to begin by saying that, throughout the last campaign, and since 2021, I have had the privilege of meeting thousands of my constituents. Over and over, I have heard one message. They want a forward-looking and ambitious government that delivers for them. They want that government to fight organized crime. They want that government to fight auto theft, and they want that government to tackle the fentanyl crisis.
Members of Parliament on both sides of the House will have heard, I suspect, from their constituents, that Canadians want to feel safe in their homes, they want to feel safe in their communities, and they want our government to ensure that we deliver that for them. This bill would do exactly that. It would deliver on bold and concrete actions. It would tackle the complex interconnected threats that Canadians are facing today.
Whether it is fentanyl, auto theft, or money laundering, Bill C-2 seeks to deal with all of those issues. It does so by delivering on three important measures: securing our borders, dismantling transnational organized crime and cracking down on illicit financing.
Securing our borders means fixing long-standing gaps in our immigration system, modernizing how we share information, strengthening visa protections to stop fraud, and improving the asylum application process to make it more efficient and fair. These reforms would preserve the integrity of our system while ensuring that those who actually need protection continue to receive it.
We can only have a strong and resilient country if our security agencies are empowered to protect Canadians while preserving their freedoms. Thanks to this bill, once passed, the RCMP and our international partners would be able to better track and apprehend child sex offenders. That is why, if this bill is passed, the Canadian Coast Guard would have a clear mandate to counter drug smuggling and enhance maritime protection and enforcement, something that has been long needed in provinces such as mine and British Columbia.
This is an opportunity for Conservatives to put their money where their mouths are. They talk about law and order. They talk about keeping Canadians safe. This is their chance to vote with us, to ensure that this bill gets passed.
This bill also directly addresses the devastating rise in organized crime and the fentanyl crisis. We intend to empower our law enforcement agencies who are at the forefront of this fight, with the ability to seize illegal drugs, such as fentanyl and its components. We are also making it easier and faster to classify illicit substances before they take root in our communities. These changes would not only stop the flow of illicit and dangerous substances into Canada, but also make it harder for criminal networks to produce and distribute them domestically.
Now, we know that supporting and protecting Canadians requires additional support mechanisms across Canada. That is why we will keep traffickers, smugglers and violent criminals accountable for their crimes by giving the authorities the legal tools that they need to act decisively.
On the point of auto theft, we know that auto theft has decreased, thanks to the work that the new government has already taken, but we also know that Canadians want us to do more. With this bill, border officials would have the authority to intercept those shipments, recover stolen property and hold those responsible accountable. For too long, money laundering and terrorist financing have allowed organized crime to profit and expand, but this bill would put forward stronger penalties for financial crimes, restrict anonymous large-cash deposits and prohibit third-party transactions that allow bad actors to hide behind others.
Finally, Bill C-2 builds upon the single largest investment in border security in Canadian history, $1.3 billion, and reflects a clear and targeted approach to the challenges that we are facing. It reflects our government's commitment to responsible, balanced governance to tackle everyday issues that Canadians are facing. These are not small changes.
Let me be clear. This bill is about fixing systems, closing loopholes and ensuring Canada keeps pace with a rapidly evolving global landscape of crime, exploitation of systems and digital threats. Our allies are watching and Canadians are calling on us to protect them. Canadians have told us what they need. They want us to balance freedom and security. They want a government that takes safety seriously, confronts difficult problems, and delivers results, while protecting our fundamental rights and freedoms.
I urge my colleagues in the House to join us in passing this bill, putting aside partisanship and putting the security and safety of Canadians first.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague was here earlier when my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord made his speech.
We are glad that something is finally happening, because it has been a long time coming. It took Donald Trump bringing out the big guns to get things moving. However, we are also concerned about the presumably disproportionate and freedom‑killing response contained in this bill.
I asked some of his colleagues earlier why it took so long. I did not receive a convincing answer. I would like to ask the member if he is not concerned about certain abuses of individual freedoms that exist and that could be implied in the bill. Consider the granting of the power to open mail, for example, which has generally been considered a crime.
In other words, is my colleague concerned about certain aspects of the bill? Is he open to having the bill receive greater scrutiny in committee, given that it could contain abuses?