Debates of June 18th, 2025

Strong Borders Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect the CBSA has, if the member is correct, approached the minister, and no doubt there would be discussions in regard to that. I would not necessarily give up hope. We have a government that is very proactive at protecting the interests of Canadians and building stronger and healthier borders.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise in this place, thanks to the support of the great people of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, many of whom I have been hearing from on Bill C-2.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach.

Conservatives have always supported toughening up our borders, and making sure that we are not just securing our borders, but protecting communities and upholding the rights of Canadians. In the last election campaign, we fought very hard, laying out a message on how to make sure we secure our borders, and that would include adding more border agents. We need at least a couple of thousand more border agents to properly police the border, and not just at ports of entry, which is all Bill C-2 would do. We want to make sure that they have the power to police the entire border, whether we are looking at illegal immigration, people who are trying to run fentanyl and other illicit drugs into our country or human trafficking. We often see illegal guns coming across the border. Of course, the bill before us does not address this in its entirety, and that is why I have some concerns.

We need to make sure that our borders are secure. In the campaign, our leader, Pierre Poilievre, talked about installing greater border surveillance, including the use of drones and towers, and more high-powered scanners at land crossings and seaports to ensure that everything that is coming into this country is looked at. This way, we would know whether there is contraband being smuggled into this country, especially the ingredients to make fentanyl and other opioids, which are creating so much tragedy in our communities and on our streets. This is really a sad part that is impacting so many families. We also need to make sure that we are scanning things leaving this country as well, but nothing in the bill addresses that. The illegal export of stolen vehicles has to stop, which means containers need to be scanned, both coming in and going out, but, again, there is nothing on that in the bill.

We are concerned that Bill C-2 does not address the issue of tracking the departures of those who are in Canada and need to leave. If they fail to meet their dates, then we are going to see that they are staying Canada illegally, and they need to be deported immediately.

The bill would do nothing to toughen up penalties for repeat violent offenders. We are talking about stopping human trafficking, gun smuggling and fentanyl as the main reasons to thicken up our borders and secure them. However, the Liberals continue to support soft-on-crime policies, like making sure that repeat violent offenders have access to catch-and-release bail policies. We believe in jail, not bail, and the Liberals continue to have their multiple murder discounts on sentencing.

This is a big bill, over 130 pages, and that in itself makes it an omnibus bill. We know that Liberals have been scrambling since the election to finally take some Conservative policies and put them in their own policies. We will continue to support things that make Canada safer and more secure, but we do have a lot of concerns about how the Liberals continue to have catch-and-release bills, like Bill C-75, and in the last Parliament, Bill C-5. We want to go after gun smugglers, but the Liberals still erroneously vilify law-abiding firearms owners in this country instead of going after the criminals who are smuggling guns and increasing the penalties for gun smugglers, which they actually reduced in Bill C-5. We want to make sure that we are actually addressing that issue.

Another issue with the bill that I am hearing about is the concern we just heard in the previous question, which is that Canada Post would be given the ability to open mail without the proper charter-protected rights that would happen with judicial oversight and warrants. This is clear in the bill, as we were just talking about, in section 41 on page 12, “The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that...”, and then it lists those reasons, which include drug smuggling. That should be done under the authority of a warrant; Canada Post cannot just start opening up mail.

I am hearing from my constituents that they are concerned about part 11, which would limit the amount of cash deposits to $10,000. That impacts those in the agriculture community who want to use cash because they have curbside sales or farmers markets where maybe they are selling livestock or processed meats, vegetables or other types of horticultural crops out of their yards and collecting cash from that. A strawberry U-pick will collect over $10,000 cash easily in a day. Cash is still legal tender. There are ways we can still enforce the money laundering and terrorist financing rules in this country without going after people legitimately collecting cash in their day-to-day business activities. That was about part 4 on Canada Post and part 11 on farm gate sales.

I want to spend a little bit of time on other parts of this bill. In part 14 and part 16, the bill talks about the erosion of privacy rights and civil liberties of Canadians, which I have been hearing about from my constituents. They have been emailing and messaging me on social media. We need to address that.

In my last four minutes, I want to talk about part 5. Part 5 would amend the Oceans Act to provide coast guard services. It would include activities related to security and authorize the responsible minister to collect, analyze and disclose information and intelligence. It provides the power for “The Minister, or any other member of the King’s Privy Council for Canada designated by the Governor in Council for the purposes of this section”. This is where we are hearing about the transfer of the Canadian Coast Guard from Fisheries and Oceans Canada to the administrative powers of the Minister of National Defence. That was announced by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence has talked about it. We have heard from the chief of the defence staff and the vice chief of the defence staff on what that is going to look like.

We know that the Canadian Coast Guard does not have interdiction capabilities. It is not a paramilitary organization; it is a civilian organization. It does not have guns on board. The ships have no defensive purposes at all. We must remember that the Coast Guard does search and rescue. It has a lot of scientific vessels that spend time studying our oceans. That is important and has to happen. It provides transit and transportation assistance by icebreaking in places like the St. Lawrence Seaway. That is all important work that the Coast Guard does. However, it is hard to make the argument that that is in the interest of national security or national defence.

This is just another exercise by the Liberals in creative accounting to move government spending from one department into National Defence without actually increasing the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces. They are not talking about changing the Coast Guard fleet to have them armed up. They are not talking about having the sailors and crew of the Canadian Coast Guard actually be trained up to use sidearms.

We know right now that if the Coast Guard comes across somebody smuggling contraband, such as illegal drugs, they have to call the RCMP to come on board to then do the interdiction of those vessels. It is the same thing if the Coast Guard were to see somebody illegally fishing. They would have to call conservation officers with Fisheries and Oceans to come on board to do the interdiction. They would also, if they come across somebody who entered our waters illegally, either because they are smuggling humans or they got lost, call Canada Border Services to come in to process those individuals and do the interdiction.

The Coast Guard has absolutely no policing powers or ability to do those interdictions on their own, and it is erroneous to think that the Coast Guard provides any type of security purposes underneath the NATO construct. I would just caution the government that if it is going to try to count all of the Coast Guard's budget under National Defence, then it has to change the organization so that it can provide those broader services that have been talked about. The bill talks about how the Coast Guard is going to “support departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada through the provision of ships, aircraft and other services; and" “security, including security patrols and the collection, analysis and disclosure of information or intelligence”.

The Coast Guard does not have that skill set right now. It does not have that ability. The government needs to come clean with Canadians. It needs to come clean with NATO and our allies to explain how it can take a civilian organization and decide this is something that really will improve our national security and our national defence, and will actually increase the lethality and kinetic power of the Canadian Armed Forces, which we know right now, after the last Liberal decade, have been broken by the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the member's comments in regard to the military and in regard to law enforcement versus the Coast Guard. I know he was the parliamentary secretary to the Conservative minister of defence a number of years back.

Is this an issue that was ever raised within the Conservative government? If so, could he maybe share with the House whether it is the Conservative position or his own personal position in regard to what direction he would take the Coast Guard?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I am commenting on is that the government plans on moving the Coast Guard under the direction of the Minister of National Defence without actually talking about how they are going to make it a security agency, which it is not; it is a civilian organization.

This is something that needs to be clearly identified. It needs to describe how this would count towards the NATO 2%, when the Coast Guard currently has no capabilities to provide that security apparatus. If they are going to now start putting either RCMP and/or National Defence personnel on board and arm up those ships, then we are talking about something completely different and we need to understand what that is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague.

In his opinion, why did it take the government so long to even lift a finger? As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean said earlier, this could have been done through an order or a decision by the government, rather than through the long process of passing a bill. All it needed to do was take immediate action at the border.

Why did it take President Trump bringing out the big guns for the government to decide to do this? Why did it wait so long? People inside and outside the House were sounding the alarm.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to the national defence committee with me. We are both serving as vice-chairs on the national defence committee.

I know there has been much debate about how the Liberals have failed on the border, how they ignored illegal migration, like we saw at Roxham Road and Emerson, Manitoba. They welcomed everybody with open arms rather than actually trying to fix the third party agreement. It took them seven years before they finally fixed the third party agreement with the United States so that this type of illegal migration would stop.

We are back in a similar situation. They waited until Donald Trump started yelling at Canada, especially under Justin Trudeau, to do something about the border to act. They have had a decade here, and have completely ignored it. Either they ran out of ideas or they are just completely incompetent.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing to the House's attention the issue around merely transferring the ministry under which the Coast Guard operates from one department to defence without actually increasing or enhancing the defence capabilities of Canada.

Taking a civilian force that undertakes civilian activity and bringing it under the authority of the Minister of National Defence does not make it a defence organization. We know the vital importance of the Coast Guard, but in order to make it a military force that increases Canada's defence capability, it needs to change.

I would like the member to comment further on that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coast Guard does play an important role. If the Liberals were going to move it over to National Defence and start transitioning it to be a paramilitary organization to actually be able to do interdictions and border security, I would be very supportive of that.

However, right now, I just want to know if this is anything that means anything in National Defence, or is this just more creative accounting by the Liberals, taking expenditures out of other departments, ramming them under National Defence like they have for the last seven years, and trying to say that is how we are going to reach 2%?

This does not increase the capabilities and operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces in any way, shape or form. We actually need to see investment in the kinetic equipment that is so desperately needed, like new planes, tanks, LAVs and ships. The Liberals are dragging their feet every time they step up; they fail to make a difference.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to give my first full speech here in this hallowed hall. It is amazing to be back. Some will likely remember that I was a Conservative member of Parliament from 2015 to 2021. With this being my first full speech since coming back, I would like to quickly thank a few people who directly helped me, especially the people of Edmonton Griesbach.

Politics truly is a team sport, and I am humbled and grateful to each and every person who helped on this amazing journey to defeat the NDP and turn Edmonton Griesbach Tory blue once again. I have always hated the colour orange, anyway. I do not think I have any of it in my wardrobe.

There were hundreds who played a part in the win. That included 1,200 people who bought Conservative Party memberships from me and my team. The nomination campaign itself took a ton of work and dedication. My team and I knocked on thousands of doors and made thousands of calls, weekdays and weekends, for a year and a half. I thank my team members for that. I am also grateful for my Conservative MP colleagues, some of whom are in this very room, who helped out on this campaign and helped us win the main campaign.

Of course, thanks goes to my wife Clare Denman, who has always worked right at my side on all campaigns. Most of all, I am grateful to all the voters of Edmonton Griesbach, who once again chose me to represent them in Ottawa. I can promise that I will always represent them to the best of my ability, regardless of who they voted for. They can reach out to me and my office anytime they need assistance. We are at their service.

There is nothing I like better than knocking on doors in politics. That gives a person the very best feedback possible about what issues are most important to people, and sometimes we get it in very colourful language. In this latest campaign, I heard loud and clear that people were eager for change. They were worried about this country. The biggest fear I heard at the doors is about the rapid rise in crime over the last Liberal decade. This crime threatens all Canadians, but let us talk about the crime facing just the city of Edmonton.

Here are a few of the headlines from a search I did on Google in just the last two months. I searched for “crime in Edmonton” and got these troubling headlines from news stories: “Killing of woman, 27, the latest in cluster of Edmonton homicide files”; “Police investigate homicide of woman fatally stabbed in central Edmonton”; “Police looking for information about shooting in southeast Edmonton”; “Two males- a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old were injured”; “Edmonton man guilty of torching homes in Alberta Avenue area; court heard fires were set at behest of notorious slain landlord”.

I found more headlines: “Death of man found unconscious in northeast Edmonton considered homicide”; “Four men charged in connection to 2020 homicide in south Edmonton”; “Edmonton youth, 15, arrested for terrorism-related offence for alleged ties to 764 online network”. I found even more headlines: “Suspect wanted in connection to 2022 nightclub killing also charged in fatal 2020 shooting”; “Second-degree murder conviction in shooting that left victim dying outside Edmonton homeless shelter for 27 hours”; “Woman facing murder charges after two others stabbed in central Edmonton”; “Two men charged with first-degree murder after fatal Edmonton shooting”.

That is quite a lot of shocking headlines. The concern about crime is something I heard time and time again at the doors during the last election campaign. I asked folks, “Don't you think the primary responsibly of a government is to make sure its citizens are safe, that they can walk around in their communities day and night safely?” Folks heartily agreed with that, but the Liberals across the floor have done nothing to truly protect us. Their soft-on-crime, turn-the-other-cheek attitude is a hopeless failure. They continue to defend Trudeau's Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, despite the fact that those bills have unleashed a crime wave. That is evident from the headlines I just read. If people want to see the result, they just need to go to downtown Edmonton and look around, or check out the challenges we are seeing in Edmonton's Chinatown.

Rampant, open drug use and social disorder are literally killing mom-and-pop businesses. People can ride the city's light rail transit at night, if they dare. I was at a community event in our riding of Edmonton Griesbach just the other weekend. I asked people to raise their hand if they feel safe walking in their community alone at night and to raise their hand if they feel safe riding transit alone. In the whole audience, nobody put up their hand, that I could see, except two Edmonton city councillors and a lone NDP MLA. People deserve better. They deserve to be safe in their communities.

We Conservatives will continue to push Liberals to stop coddling criminals and to push for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders, as well as stand up for the rights of victims, not criminals. Despite all of this evidence of the crime wave facing Canadians, the Liberal government is still avoiding the key causes of it. The catch-and-release bail system is a big problem. Instead of addressing that, the Liberal government is going after people's civil liberties.

Bill C-2 would give the government the power to search people's mail, on a whim. This does not help catch criminals. This bill is referred to as the strong borders act, but there is poison aplenty in it. It would make a host of changes the government did not run on in the last election campaign, such as those dealing with immigration. There are so many problems that I do not even have time to address them all. The Liberals will probably respond to my speech claiming that Conservatives do not care about strong border protection because we dare to criticize their beloved bill, but it is their government that oversaw a 632% increase in U.S. Border Patrol encounters of people illegally attempting to enter the United States from Canada. This bill would not make Canadians safer. Breaching our civil liberties by searching our mail for fentanyl is not the solution. If the Liberals really wanted fentanyl off the streets, why would they not punish the criminals supplying it? If they really cared about safety, why would then not bring in mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers?

We are once again in a crisis created by the Liberal government, which seems clueless on how to fix its own mistakes. Voters nationwide wanted change from the 10 years of Liberal failures led by Justin Trudeau. Eight million people voted for our Conservative candidates, but in the end, the Liberals won a minority government. Voters were told that this election really was not a fourth term for Justin Trudeau's Liberals, but just because they say that something is not true, does not make it so. My dad used to always warn me about people who over-promise and under-deliver. He would say, “Son, mark my words, be careful of carnies who make big promises.” He was talking about circus carnies. He always warned me not to get fooled by hucksters at carnivals.

The Liberals need to deliver on their election promises. I promise that Conservatives will keep pushing them to do so.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we go to questions and comments, just as a reminder to members, especially veteran, returning members, we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly, including making references to the Prime Minister's last name in a different occupation that may or may not be happening in certain environments.

The member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas has the floor.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member from Edmonton raised the issue of his observations of crime in his community: gun crime, violent crime and numerous other troubling incidents along with public safety issues.

I was just in Edmonton about a month ago and, to be honest, it reminded me a lot of Hamilton with very similar issues. Certainly the federal government has a role to play, as do municipalities. I know the member opposite was a former municipal mayor as well. Both Alberta and Ontario are Conservative-run provinces. What role does the member see provinces having in combatting crime in partnership with the federal government and municipalities?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that promotion. I was actually a city councillor, but I did run for mayor at one time.

We all have to play a part in it, but certainly the federal government has a great deal of power to do something about crime. One of the things that really galls a lot of people in my riding is that they see violent people being released on bail only to reoffend. That is one thing that the federal government has a direct role in doing something about, and we need it to do something about it. People are constantly telling me this.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 has several parts and amends a number of laws. Among other things, it allows for the inspection of goods destined for export. This is a welcome measure, in our opinion, because we remember that it was one of the reasons for the lack of action in fighting auto theft, particularly at the port of Montreal.

However, there is not a single word about increasing the number of customs officers. The customs officers' union told us there is a shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 officers, and there is every indication the government will not be able to adequately inspect all exports in order to fight auto theft.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, again, it is one thing to try to go after fentanyl coming in through the mail, but the real problem is that it is coming in through containers and so forth, and so are the precursor chemicals. This whole thing of finding fentanyl in the mail is a tiny fraction of what is inflicting this country. We really need to look at the container vessels and start inspecting. They just need to do a job inspecting.

[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. I want to give a shout-out to somebody who helped my campaign a tremendous amount, and that was Mr. Spencer Paul. I thank Spencer.

To my hon. colleague, I wonder if he would agree with my sentiment, which is that the Liberals have allowed a porous border and, at the same time, have not dealt with guns, trafficking or bail, yet none of these things are in the bill. It is like they have created a mess and put an omnibus bill here before us. Does he not see it as a bit rich that the Liberals are also not dealing with the things they have created and made a mess of?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly concur. When the Liberals talk about guns, it is always the law-abiding gun owner who takes the brunt of their interference. Those are not the people who are causing the crime. My colleague is quite right. We need to go after the real criminals and stop coddling them, which the Liberals seem to love to do.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we go to resuming debate, I have a reminder for members that the length of speeches will now be adjusted, pursuant to Standing Order 43 and Standing Order 74. There will be 10-minute speeches with five minutes of questions and comments, which means members do not need to say they are sharing their time.

Resuming debate, the member for Pickering—Brooklin.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House for the first time in debate. I am filled with a profound sense of gratitude and humility to represent the constituents of Pickering—Brooklin, a diverse and thriving community encompassing the entirety of the city of Pickering, as well as the northern region of Ajax and Whitby, including the vibrant community of Brooklin. I am deeply honoured by the trust the people have placed in me. This is not merely a privilege but also a solemn obligation.

I pledge to discharge my duties with integrity and diligence and to bring the voices, aspirations and concerns of my constituents to the chamber with the same commitment that guided my many years of service as a school board trustee and as a city councillor. As I take my place in the chamber, I do so with deep awareness of the challenges and the responsibilities that lie ahead, not only for me personally but for all of us entrusted with public office.

The people of Pickering—Brooklin, like so many Canadians, are proud of their communities, hopeful for their future and clear-eyed about the realities that we may confront. Among these, few issues are as urgent or as foundational to our national well-being as the safety and security of our borders and our neighbourhoods. These matters strike at the core of public trust, community confidence and national sovereignty. It is with this sense of purpose that I will address the critical importance of strengthening border security and enhancing public safety for the families and communities I am honoured to represent.

Pickering—Brooklin is a tapestry of natural beauty, growth and resilience. From the shores of Frenchman's Bay, Pickering's crown jewel, to the legacy of the Whitby sports park in Brooklin, our riding is a place where families build lives, businesses thrive and communities unite, but with growth comes responsibility. For decades I have fought at the local level to ensure that schools, neighbourhoods and services meet the needs of the people I serve. Today I bring that same tenacity to Ottawa.

Let me begin with Frenchman's Bay, a treasure that defines Pickering's identity. This is a once-a-generation opportunity, and the federal government must partner with our community to secure its future. By supporting the purchase and preservation of the bay, we can protect its ecological integrity, expand public access and ensure that it remains a sanctuary for generations to come. This is not just a local priority; it is a national imperative. Healthy waterways and rich third places are the lifeblood of our environment, our economy and our collective heritage.

Equally urgent is the fate of the federal lands, the Pickering airport lands. These lands must not sit idle. I will advocate fiercely for their transfer to the Rouge urban national alliance, ensuring that they become part of a protected green corridor that combats urban sprawl, mitigates climate change and guarantees sustainable growth. Let me be clear that this is not about halting progress; it is about redefining it: progress that respects our ecosystems, honours our commitment to future generations and prioritizes people over pavement.

Progress also means security. Every single day, police and border service agents across the country put their life on the line to keep us safe. Day in and day out, law enforcement identifies, mitigates and neutralizes threats to our communities. On behalf of Canadians, I would like to thank law enforcement personnel for their service and for keeping us and our country safe.

However, it is not enough to thank them for their work; we must give them the tools and resources they need to effectively do their job. Just looking at the data from Durham region alone, we see that the need for such measures is very clear. From 2021 to 2023, vehicle theft in the region increased by 100%, with over 1,500 vehicles reported stolen in 2023 alone. In response, Durham Regional Police Service launched Project Attire, a dedicated unit focusing on auto theft investigations. In its first year, the project conducted 865 investigations, laid 341 charges and recovered over 50% of stolen vehicles. Despite these efforts, the region continues to face challenges, including a 13% increase in carjacking in 2024 alone.

This is exactly what we are doing through the stronger borders act: The bill would keep Canadians safe by ensuring law enforcement has the right tools to keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crackdown on money laundering. It would bolster our response to increasingly sophisticated criminal networks and enhance the integrity and fairness of our immigration system, all while protecting Canadian privacy and charter rights.

I strongly believe that Bill C-2 is exactly what Pickering—Brooklin needs, a step forward that reflects our values, meets the moment and secures a better future for our country.

The Canadian Police Association, the largest law enforcement advocacy organization in Canada, has expressed support for the bill. It has stated, “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.” The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association supports the strong borders act for giving CBSA and law enforcement stronger tools to fight auto theft and stop stolen vehicles from being exported.

Similarly, the Future Borders Coalition calls the bill a vital step towards modernizing border security, especially through improved data-sharing and offender travel notifications that enhance public safety. Finally, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, a national charity dedicated to the personal safety of all children, has stated that the changes proposed in the strong borders act “would reduce barriers Canadian police face when investigating the growing number of online crimes against children”.

When developing the legislation that is now before the House, the government had three major objectives: secure the border, combat transnational organized crime and fentanyl, and disrupt illicit financing. To secure the border, we propose to amend the Customs Act to compel transporters and warehouse operators to provide access to their premises to allow for export inspection by CBSA officers, and require owners and operators of certain ports of entry and exit to provide facilities for export inspections, just as they currently do for imports.

We are proposing to amend the Oceans Act to add security-related activities, such as countering criminal activity and drug trafficking, and enable the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and share information with security, defence and intelligence partners. We will also amend the sex offenders act regulations to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to share information collected under the act with domestic and international partners.

Amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act would secure and extend legislative authorities to cancel, suspend or vary immigration documents and cancel or suspend processes of new applicants en masse for reasons determined to be in the public interest. Amendments would also allow IRCC to disclose immigration information for the purpose of co-operation with federal partners and to uphold the integrity and fairness of the asylum system, including by streamlining the intake, processing and adjudication of claims.

I could go on. The proposed bill has documentation and comments about modernizing legislation and equipping law enforcement with necessary tools to combat transnational organized crime in an increasingly complex threat environment.

As all members of the chamber can see, the strong borders act is a key and comprehensive component of our new government's plan to build a safe and more secure Canada. I am asking all parties to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are contacting me. They are extremely worried about the bill's allowing their mail to be opened. Some of the other speakers said there are checklists to prevent that.

Could the member explain who is going to decide who can or cannot open my mail?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Canada Post Corporation Act, the bill would remove barriers that prevent police from searching the mail where authorized to do so. Where authorized to do so, it would be with a warrant. I would like the member to let her constituents know to rest assured that a warrant would still be needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the same question that I asked another member earlier.

Why did it take Donald Trump pulling out the big guns for the government to finally start doing something? People had been sounding the alarm in the House and elsewhere. Why is the government taking action now, especially when it could be done much faster than with this bill, as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean said earlier?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing here. Canadians sent us here to deliver meaningful legislation that protects our families, our communities and our future. In Pickering—Brooklin, residents are deeply concerned about rising crimes, car thefts and the exploitation of young children through human trafficking.

That is why the Liberals are supporting the bill, and we are hoping the opposition will support the bill as well. That is why we are here for hours debating the bill, so it can pass soon. I hope my hon. colleague will support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for her fine presentation in support of Bill C-2. I would like to ask my colleague the following question: How does she think that this bill will protect Canadians?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like I said, the bill is here to protect us in three different ways. It is here to secure our borders so any trafficking, car theft and border security issues can be combatted; to combat transnational organized crimes and fentanyl coming in and out of the country; and to disrupt illicit financing. This is what we have heard about at the doors, and our government is acting swiftly. I am really hoping the opposition will support the bill.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite on her win in my region, the Durham region, and I echo her kudos and the good things she had to say about Durham Regional Police Service officers, who work hard in our community and always have our back.

I would say that I feel like what is missing in the bill are the items needed to have the officers' back. They have our back every day. With respect to the bail reforms and the things that are necessary that are missing from the bill, does the member have a comment on those so we can make sure people are not out on bail before the police are done writing their reports?