Debates of June 18th, 2025

Strong Borders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Eglinton—Lawrence on his election. He seems like a serious parliamentarian who wants to work constructively. That is exactly how the Bloc Québécois operates. We work constructively on bills.

This bill is going to take time. It will require thorough and rigorous study. In the meantime, we have proposals that could help us now at the border.

There is something I want to ask. The Bloc Québécois has made a proposal that responds to the request of the union representing border services officers. Our proposal is to give officers the power to patrol outside border crossings, as the union is calling for. It could be done through regulations right away.

Would my colleague agree that the government could take immediate action by making regulations to allow this? There would be no need to make new legislation. In any case, we will study the bill thoroughly. Does my colleague agree that the government could take action now through regulations giving border services officers more powers?

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question was very thoughtful. The fact of the matter is, we are taking action now. The piece of legislation before us has the support of all the largest law enforcement organizations in the country. When the Canadian Police Association, which is the voice of 60,000 frontline officers, and our national security agencies all commend the tools that are in the bill, we know we are on the right path. We are taking action, and I am very proud of the tools it would give our law enforcement agencies and our national security agencies to go after the bad guys.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's impressive speech. I just want to hear his thoughts on Canada's new government and the vision that we have moving forward as I can—

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to put it on the record that the member is misleading the House by saying that this is a new Liberal government, when it in fact is the same—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have now heard several points of order on this matter.

These are not points of order. These are points of debate. I invite the members to participate in questions and comments. It is a great opportunity to raise the matter.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Can we stop wasting time?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

That is not a point of order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Waterloo.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's speech and the comments in regard to Canada's new government and the vision that our new Prime Minister has. On April 28, Canadians sent us here with a strong mandate, and I hope members in this House can all work together to advance the vision of Canada's new government.

As the member of Parliament for the riding of Waterloo, I am hearing from constituents who are concerned in regard to this legislation. They are wanting to understand the process and how we can assure them that their rights and freedoms will not be infringed upon. I would love to hear the member's comments, just to provide some relief and reassurance to constituents within the riding of Waterloo and across Canada.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, I do want to go back to a quote from the National Police Federation, which says it is clear that “public safety is a top priority for this new government.” Therefore, I want to thank the organization for its support and all the other police organizations that are supporting us.

In terms of protecting civil liberties, we are doing a lot of work in committee, and this legislation continues to uphold the utmost standards to ensure that our charter rights and Canadian charter rights are being protected.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I once again rise on behalf of the good people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, a riding that has six border crossings, to speak to the legislation before us, Bill C-2.

We know that the bill is much more than a border bill. My riding and province have very much been on the front lines of an addiction crisis that has persisted for far too long. In fact, drug overdose is now the leading cause of death among B.C. youth aged 10 to 18. Too many families in our communities have lost their children to drug addiction. Too many drug kingpins, who fuel this crisis, have not been put behind bars. Even before my time here in the House, my Conservative colleagues highlighted the threat to our communities that is the drug running happening across the U.S.-Canada border, which had little to no response from the government during the lost Liberal decade.

We have long called for concrete actions to strengthen our borders while the Trudeau Liberal government chose to look the other way. Since they were first elected, there has been a 632% increase in U.S. border patrol encounters with people illegally attempting to enter the United States from Canada. This directly results from the government's failure to enforce effective border security. The Liberals have allowed this crisis to fester and grow, and it is putting Canadians at risk. Many of those crossings were to traffic illegal firearms into Canada for use by criminal gangs.

Canadian security services have identified 350 organized crime rings operating within our borders. For years, the Liberals, knowing we had severe problems at our border with the United States, dragged their feet on addressing any of these issues related to illegal firearms. Instead, they started targeting law-abiding firearms owners and treated them as if they were a source of rising firearms violence that needed to be dealt with. Hunters and sport shooters, who are vital to our tourism, are now often turned around at the border. Even if they go through extensive paperwork, checking every box, they often have their property wrongfully seized, and it takes them weeks, if not months, to get it back.

Even in my riding, we have seen the Liberal government go after my local sport shooters and archers. The Penticton Shooting Sports Association, situated on federally managed land for more than 40 years, recently saw its lease cancelled by the government without explanation. That is 40 years that they have been there. This is happening despite their facilities offering vital training resources to the RCMP, border guards, cadets and the public.

The club's services include hunter education, firearms safety instruction, youth and cadet firearms training, and a family-friendly environment for competitive shooting sports. I cannot emphasize enough that this is a vital training facility and club that needs to stay open.

In the meantime, illegal firearms stream across the border, where CBSA agents, already understaffed, are stretched thin, trying to slow the flow. Gun-related crime is up 116%, with 85% of gun offences committed using illegal firearms originating from the United States.

In terms of Bill C-2, Liberal MPs have spent the last several weeks proclaiming that the new Government of Canada will set new priorities, calling it the stronger borders act. However, upon closer examination, Bill C-2 goes well beyond the issue of borders. Conservatives, in the election, were very clear that we would strengthen the border.

The Liberals have packaged a range of measures into the legislation that were not discussed, let alone mentioned anywhere in the Liberal platform. Measures irrelevant to the management of the border or the combatting of illegal drug trafficking are rife in the stronger borders act.

There is no question that the legislation contains some measures the members of this House would probably support. However, it is such a sweeping piece of legislation that it leaves us hard pressed as members to see what the ultimate consequences of some of these changes might be, whether the measures included will actually address the problems the Liberals seek to solve or, worse, whether these measures are in direct conflict with our civil liberties.

A clear example is that the Liberals have promised to invest more money into border investigations and scanners, after years of calls to do so from my Conservative colleagues. Official statistics show that only 1% of shipping containers are inspected when coming into our country. This represents a wide-open opportunity for criminals to push drugs and guns through the other 99%. This is nothing new. More money for container scanning is welcome, but once again, the details are completely lacking. Canadians cannot be protected by a press release.

The Liberals are offering no timeline for when the investment in upgrading and expanding our scanning tools will be made or even when these resources might reach the border. It is a broken record in Canada of Liberal funding announcements being made and then the minister sitting back and assuming that changes, even positive changes, will magically appear before us all. A decade of a Liberal government has shown an addiction to taking credit for announcing measures instead of enacting or even considering them.

Canadians were not impressed by the last-minute election commitment to purchase two Black Hawk helicopters to patrol the entire Canada-U.S. border. Our border with the United States is just under 8,900 kilometres. It is unlikely that two helicopters could cover it in a month, let alone doing daily monitoring operations to look for smugglers. Even for the hundreds of kilometres of border that my riding encompasses, having two helicopters cover that large distance, even if both are in operation, stretches credibility. It is a joke.

Last, I wish to touch on an issue many Canadians have raised with the legislation regarding civil liberties, specifically the section of the bill that would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. Bill C-2 broadens the government's ability to open our mail. Canadians expect that personal, private correspondence would be beyond government intervention. The Liberals must provide a more comprehensive response as to what circumstances would justify this. As my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola asked earlier this month, is it even charter compliant?

Canadians expect Parliament to make strong laws to protect them, but they also expect that their basic liberties and privacy will be respected. Several sections of the legislation have raised concerns among privacy experts and civil liberty organizations. Their concerns must be respected. The balance of security and liberty is also at the heart of western democracy. Therefore, any government seeking to grant further powers to intervene in the everyday lives of Canadians deserves the greatest level of scrutiny. Conservatives will continue to scrutinize the legislation ahead of the next vote while continuing to argue for the proper enforcement of our border and ports, with appropriate punishments for criminals.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we have another Conservative member who continues to want to give misinformation.

Today, the reality is that Canada Post inspectors can actually go through any parcel over 500 grams. With anything under 500 grams, such as a simple letter, someone could put in fentanyl and mail it. There is no one opening up those letters. Under this legislation, we are enabling them, under a general warrant, to be able to open those letters.

It is a simple, straightforward process, yet Conservatives are trying to give the impression that we have people working in the post office, who are not Canada Post inspectors, going through the mail and opening up letters as they want to. That is just not the case.

This legislation gives us more opportunity to deal with fentanyl. Would the member not support that?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the bill is being pushed through at such a rapid rate that Canadians do not trust what is happening. They do not trust the Liberals. So many times in the last 10 years, the Liberals have promised something and nothing has happened or something else has come through.

The bill has not been explained properly to the Canadian people. I am not making up that what I am hearing from my constituents, which we are all hearing from our constituents, is that they do not trust the Liberals with the bill. They are afraid they are going to lose their civil liberties if it is passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to mention that Quebec just got some amazing news.

The three-year-old girl who has been missing for three days after being abandoned by her mother has just been found in St. Albert, Ontario. I wanted to share my happiness with everyone in the House of Commons. I want to thank the police officers and everyone else who actively helped find little Claire Bell. She is alive and doing well. Soon we will find out the whole story. Many thanks to the police and to everyone who chipped in, including the members of the public who provided tips that led to the little girl being found in St. Albert.

That said, here is my question for my colleague. To reach his objectives, the Minister of Public Safety set a target of recruiting 1,000 customs officers. Right now, Canada has the capacity to train 600 customs officers per year. Does my colleague not find it odd that, at this time, we have no idea what the minister's plan is for reaching his target of recruiting 1,000 officers?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the police on their good job.

I believe there are many problems with the bill, and one of them is that nothing is explained. The Liberals talk about hiring more border guards, but where are they going to get these people? They also talk about hiring 1,000 more RCMP members. If we talk to municipalities across the country, they are waiting for RCMP officers, but there is a lack of people applying for the job. Nobody is applying at Depot. There is a lack of RCMP officers, and they are expensive for communities. I wonder where the Liberal government plans to get 1,000 RCMP officers.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put some facts on the record, contrary to the member for Winnipeg North, who talks about misinformation. The only misinformation here is from him. A government that he is pretending is different is exactly the same as it has been for the last 10 years and the last 20 years that he has been here.

He questions the credibility of a long-serving municipal official from British Columbia about what she is hearing from her constituents. I would like to give her another chance to put the facts on the record about what she is hearing from her constituents with regard to the failures of the same Liberal government on border security and public safety as a whole.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that I am hearing this. We are hearing across the country that people are afraid. Canadians are afraid of what might happen if we allow the government to have too much power.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated that the top seven priorities for the government include “Attracting the best talent in the world to help build our economy, while returning our overall immigration rates to sustainable levels.” Bill C-2 proposes important changes to address gaps in immigration authorities, provide a more adaptive system to the rapidly changing global migration patterns and empower better decision-making and information sharing.

We must get these important steps right. Immigration is an essential part of Canada's past, present and future. As the Prime Minister noted, this is an essential channel for new workers.

This bill would also improve security along the Canada-U.S. border and help address current and future potential challenges for individuals crossing the border in either direction.

This legislation would make changes to respond to a more complex global movement of people, increasingly sophisticated fraud, the need to update information-sharing mechanisms and authority over immigration documents.

First, the bill includes certain long-awaited measures to address current and future challenges. They will resolve issues that undermined the asylum system in the past and ensure the immigration system is better prepared for the future. Streamlining processing to make it more efficient will ensure certain long-standing challenges can be overcome.

The bill proposes intelligence and information sharing and ensuring that applications are ready for processing before they are sent to the final decision-making body, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

The legislation would do this in part by clearing the way to create a single application system and intake for all asylum claims. This would make it easier for individuals filing a claim, with clear requirements for information and documents at the outset. However, just as important, the legislation means that departments and agencies across the federal government would work from shared information. Instead of multiple departments and agencies asking for the same information, these departments would work more co-operatively with the same shared information.

In order to create a more efficient system, the bill proposes amendments so that only applications that are ready to be heard are referred to the IRB for decision. Right now, the IRB is scheduling hearings for some cases before the departments or agencies have completed certain aspects of their review. These may include important measures that take time, such as security screening or confirming the identity of a person from an area affected by conflict. If only applications that are ready to be heard are referred to the IRB, decisions can be made without delay, which may reduce the number of cases.

Bill C-2 would empower the IRCC to determine if an application has been abandoned even before the application has been reviewed for decision, and to remove it from processing under certain circumstances. As simple as that sounds, applicants may not always acknowledge or advise the federal government when they are not seeking asylum anymore. For example, the board could determine that applications are abandoned when applicants are unresponsive to required documents or information. Those applications would be removed through the abandonment process, allowing officials to focus efforts on those who need protection and continue to seek asylum.

There is also an important change to the claim resolution process. People who file an application from within Canada, including those at ports of entry such as airports, must be physically present in the country for their hearing. One would generally assume that a person who fled to Canada to seek protection would remain here in order to get that protection. However, there have been cases where applicants were outside the country when a decision was being made regarding their case.

People who enter Canada irregularly, between border crossings, violate our agreement on shared border responsibilities. This regime, which was put in place in 2012, created different asylum rules for citizens from certain designated countries. Some provisions of the regime were struck down by the Federal Court of Canada. The bill would repeal the provisions relating to this regime and transfer the power to establish lists for refugee hearings to IRB to allow for more strategic case management.

To address more recent challenges and issues that might arise again in the future, we are modernizing the asylum system with important reforms to strengthen migration integrity. To protect the system against surges in claims, we are introducing new ineligibility rules for asylum. These changes confirm that asylum is not a shortcut to immigration and would reduce pressures on the system so that we are focused on those who do need protection.

We have also seen the tragic consequences of this, including the deaths of families in our freezing cold winters. Irregular crossings are often an act of desperation and may be facilitated by human traffickers and organized crime groups. We know that some people continue to cross the Canada-U.S. border despite our warnings and laws.

By waiting 14 days or more before making an asylum claim, they are trying to sidestep the safe third country agreement, which would require them to return to the U.S. to file their claim. This delay appears, at first glance, to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent our existing immigration laws and systems. Claims made by these individuals will not be referred to the board.

We are also making changes that make claims inadmissible if they are made more than one year after someone enters Canada, if they arrived after June 24, 2020. The vast majority of asylum claims are made within one year of arrival. A one-year limit will deter people from using the asylum system to extend their stay in Canada if other mechanisms fail.

These important reforms would better align our systems and resources to serve their purpose. They would align our efforts to those who need our protection, limit attempts by others to avoid and bypass our system, and streamline the process so that we can do more with existing resources.

The many aspects of this bill will not allow me to go into detail today, but let me touch on the impacts of a few measures.

These changes would streamline the work of the federal government, reduce the burden on our provincial and territorial partners, and improve communications to keep our communities safe. Sharing information with law enforcement and national security agencies can help us detect and prevent fraud.

There is concern that people are using multiple identities to access government benefits or avoid detection. With robust identity verification processes, we can ensure that all levels of government are working with accurate, consistent data.

We would also prohibit further sharing by provincial or territorial government partners to foreign entities unless there is written consent and compliance with our obligations related to mistreatment, as defined in the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act. These authorities were reviewed by the Department of Justice and reflect input from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. They are fully compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and uphold our commitment to transparency and accountability.

To conclude, Bill C-2 would streamline and improve the asylum process against issues we know about now and potential risks in the future.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the elimination of large cash deposits over $10,000. I represent a riding that is very rural. There are several small business owners in rural communities who are still dealing with cash. Oftentimes, financial institutions are hundreds of kilometres away. There might be long periods of time before they can get to the bank to deposit those cash amounts, which is driving up their costs.

I am just wondering if the Liberals will consider these small, responsible rural business owners when implementing this cash transaction limit in their legislation.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government takes very seriously and emphasizes that small businesses are the backbone of our country's economy. It is very important that we keep those businesses in mind. However, when illicit financing occurs, this limit can help crack down on money laundering and terrorist financing.

It is essential that we keep track of reporting, present stronger penalties, prohibit crimes and third party cash deposits, and add FINTRAC to financial institutions' supervisory committees.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that, currently, border officers have the ability and authority to inspect rail cars carrying imported goods. Bill C-2 now includes an additional power, the power to inspect rail cars carrying goods destined for export.

How will officers do that, though? Currently, even though they are empowered to inspect rail cars containing imported goods, they do it rarely, if at all, because they are short-staffed. How can they be given additional powers when they are unable to fully assume their role of examining and inspecting rail cars carrying exports and imports?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for mentioning that little Claire Bell was found. We are so glad. We thank the police for working tirelessly for this outcome. Fortunately, all is well.

I also thank my colleague for her question. Fighting transnational organized crime and preventing fentanyl imports are extremely important. Inspections must be done. As we mentioned, we are going to hire an additional 1,000 border officers and more RCMP officers to help address those issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that, like me, the member is very much concerned about the issue of extortion. Within the legislation and in listening to the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, we understand and have an appreciation that there is at least a step toward providing additional tools to allow law enforcement agencies to move more on that issue.

I just thought I would provide the member the opportunity to give her personal thoughts on the issue of extortion and just how serious it is. It is nice to see whatever measures we can get that would enable us to take further action on that issue.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an incredible moment for me to answer my colleague's questions. He is often in the House.

To answer his question, extortion has become a plague in Canada. It is very disconcerting to see the amount of extortion that is occurring and these strong measures would help in combatting that. Right now, we see the increase of such situations and so we are going to fight against this and other transnational crime.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Unfortunately, I have some concerns about what she considers to be the strengths and virtues of this bill. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill so that it can be considered in committee, but I am not sure the Bloc Québécois will support it when it comes back to the House for third reading. We will see what happens in committee, but as of right now, I have quite a few concerns about the bill.

Does keeping our streets and borders safe always mean waiving our rights and freedoms? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I do not think so. There must be other ways to make our streets and our borders safer. Once Bill C‑2 is passed, if it passes in its current form, what hopes will we have left for privacy? Our personal information could be accessed, captured or even shared with various organizations, both in Canada and abroad. Mail, something we once saw as almost sacred, was untouchable. It was a Criminal Code offence to open mail. Now the government wants to open it, inspect it and use it against us.

New powers are being granted to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to suspend, vary or cancel visas and documents. The conditions for doing so will be set in regulations that we know nothing about. What will these conditions be? How will this new power be defined? Will people who have applied and incurred expenses for their application be reimbursed? Will this bill jeopardize the status of people who were selected by Quebec, for example? In what circumstances can someone be told that their visa application will not be processed? In our view, these are important questions. They are matters that need to be clarified. Unfortunately, we do not have many details for the moment, aside from the fact that it will all be determined in regulations. I look forward to finding out in committee what kind of regulations we can expect.

Cash transactions over $10,000 will now be prohibited. I must admit that it is rather rare for me to walk around with $10,000 or $15,000 in cash in my pocket. I do not remember ever having to pay a bill $10,000 in cash in my life. However, the fact remains that this new ban will require the use of currently available banking tools, such as cheques, Interac cards and credit cards. All of this leads to interest charges and user fees for both the payee and the payer. How will that be done? How is that going to be structured? Are we comfortable with the idea of giving financial institutions, lending institutions an advantage? I have to wonder. It also leaves a trail. As I said, I am not in the habit of paying bills for $10,000 in cash, but I would like to hear from experts on this. Are there situations where this could become problematic? I admit that I do not see any. I have looked, but I could not find any, but I still think that this is an issue that should be addressed before we say that we are making a law about it.

I found the next part a bit extreme: "use an individual's personal information without the individual's knowledge or consent". Should not the authorities at least be required to obtain a warrant before doing that? This is about fighting organized crime, border breaches and terrorism. The Bloc Québécois has made that something of a calling card. I have introduced three bills to establish a list of criminal entities and to prohibit people from wearing symbols and doing anything else to promote criminal organizations, such as wearing the "support 81" shirts that caused such an uproar at the time. I believe the Bloc Québécois has been fighting this fight since the party's inception, and we will continue to do so.

Do we really want to adopt provisions that would make us live in a society where individual freedoms would no longer be protected and none of our information would be kept confidential?

I would like to talk about another serious danger. Normally, a lawyer who is seeking a search warrant must first argue before a judge that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence will be committed, and they must convince the judge of that. This bill changes that. Law enforcement is saying that the evidentiary threshold is a bit hard to meet, so they are asking instead for reasonable grounds to suspect. Reasonable grounds to suspect is nonsense.

For example, if I argue before a judge that I have grounds to suspect that my colleague from Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle might think, say or do this or that, but ultimately, she does not do it, I could simply say that I had suspicions about her but that I was wrong. My suspicions did not materialize, but there are no consequences. However, if someone tells me that I need to have valid reasons to believe that something is the case, then my own belief, my own credibility is at stake. That is completely different. I am really concerned about lowering the evidentiary threshold for getting a warrant. I think it merits further discussion. I would like to hear from experts on this issue.

As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois has become somewhat of a champion in the fight against organized crime in a number of ways. We are calling for stronger borders. Not so long ago, my colleague who was in charge of the public safety file and I were outraged that the Government of Quebec had to spend $6 million to send boats to patrol the Quebec-U.S. border along the St. Lawrence River. We were indignant. It is not up to the Government of Quebec to pay for border protection. That is the federal government's responsibility. We demand that it uphold it. I still believe that this is a federal responsibility and something that the federal government needs to do.

Is the current form of Bill C‑2 the solution for controlling our border more effectively? I am not so sure. The same goes for organized crime. We are also demanding that Quebec's requests regarding entry into our borders be respected. The number of individuals who can enter Quebec each year must be limited. Not only have we reached the acceptability thresholds for integrating these people, but we have been exceeding them for quite some time now. Even if they enter without any grounds, if they manage to hide in the woods for 14 days before approaching the authorities, we have to take them in, send them to school, provide them with health care, clothe them and find them housing, even though we are unable to do so for the current population. This raises some serious issues. We are therefore calling on the government to abide by this threshold.

Does Bill C-2 respond to this request? I am not sure. Once again, it is all well and good to cancel or suspend visas, but there must be grounds for doing so, and the mechanism and the procedure for that must be set out. However, all of this is a bit vague at the moment. We are being told that it will appear in future regulations. That does not reassure me.

This is all happening right when the government is asking us to pass Bill C‑5. Now, this is something we do not see every day. Under this bill, a project will be decreed to be in the national interest if the Prime Minister decides it is. Projects can be exempt from pretty much any rule whenever he sees fit. All this is happening under a closure motion. I have always believed that mixing alcohol and drugs is dangerous. Now, this mix of Bill C‑2, Bill C‑5 and the closure motion has me extremely concerned.

Are we witnessing something like a shift toward authoritarianism? I do not want to be melodramatic, but I think we need to be on our guard. We need to pay attention and be cautious, because none of this is reassuring for the society we live in, a society that values its hard-won privacy protections and other protections.

I urge everyone here to be cautious. I urge us all to be champions of the kind of society our constituents want.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, Quebeckers and Canadians made it clear that they expect all parties to take action against cross-border crime, fentanyl, gun smuggling and auto theft.

Can my colleague confirm that he and his caucus colleagues support those goals and will vote in favour of the bill?