Debates of June 5th, 2025

Strong Borders Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I must interrupt the hon. member because the question has far exceeded the allotted time.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague. He may not know, and I did not talk about it because people are tired of hearing about it, but I was a prosecutor in my prior life, where I focused mostly on prosecuting Internet offences against kids. I am very well aware of judicial authorizations, of the hurdles those types of things can present, and of the fact that the bill is a direct response to some of the decisions. I am very clear on that.

My colleague did mention that he was rising to the challenge, but we did not actually hear him say whether he supports house arrest for fentanyl traffickers and for people who do drive-by shootings. I would invite him to get up again, very briefly, and say, “Yes, I support this.”

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I will have the honour of serving on the public safety committee, which will hopefully be convened soon.

He talked a lot about privacy. I agree with him. There will be a lot of discussion in committee on this issue, because there is a thin line between protecting security and protecting personal and confidential information.

I would like to take him in another direction. The bill would give additional powers to border services officers to inspect rail cars in marshalling yards, for example. Rail cars are currently inspected at the time of import, but not at the time of export.

Does he agree with the part of the bill that calls for rail cars to be inspected by border services officers? As a result, is he not concerned that there are not enough officers right now to meet the demand? How does he think the government is going to manage to add more powers when resources are limited?

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

Madam Speaker, it will be an honour for me as well to sit with my colleague around the committee table as the public safety critic. We have not had a chance to work together before, but I do look forward to working with her and perhaps practising my French. Her question was what I would call a fairly loaded one because it had elements of generalities with respect to our not having enough agents to do this, but also the specificity about the rail cars.

What I can say right now is that she is right; we do not have the agents to do this. The minister actually spoke about, and I think $300 million is what was was referred to earlier, how we are going to start having scanners and things like that. Why are they not there already? It is just a colossal failure by the government to not have them there.

My colleague is right that there is a labour shortage in this regard. This actually highlights one of the biggest issues I have with many of the government's interventions: It is always “we are going to” and is never “we are going do this, and this is how we are going get there.” The government cannot build homes. The government cannot even plant trees. How is the government going to secure the border?

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

Madam Speaker, the intervention by my friend and colleague was great, and I want to thank him for the expertise he brings to the chamber on the issues of public safety and criminal justice.

One of the reasons I got involved in politics in 2003 and was elected in 2004 was that I opposed the Liberals' long-gun registry. Over the past 10 years, the Liberals have continued to vilify law-abiding long-gun owners, licensed firearms owners, and to give a pass to criminals who are actually committing crimes.

I want to just ask my colleague, our shadow minister for public safety, whether he sees anything in Bill C-2 that would actually restore the property rights of law-abiding firearms owners and take guns away from criminals who are committing crimes on our streets.

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

Madam Speaker, I have learned a lot from my colleague. We first met a number of years ago, and it has been really great just to walk with him in my parliamentary journey.

I see nothing in the bill that deals with firearms.

Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, like so much of Canada, is a rural area. I believe there are 27 first nations in my riding, and hunting is integral to those first nations. We have heard the Liberals speaking out of both sides of their mouth on the issue; they say that we need to really crack down on guns and illegal guns used in shootings, yet they are burying us in more bureaucracy without going after people who repeatedly breach firearms prohibitions and things like that. I see nothing in Bill C-2 on this.

I see that the member for Winnipeg North is going to ask a question. I challenge him to stand up and say whether he is in favour of my proposed bill, Bill C-313, on bail, and whether he still supports house arrest for people who do drive-by shootings and who traffic fentanyl.

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

Madam Speaker, a little bit more relevant to the issue is whether the Conservative Party actually supports Bill C-2.

We have the Canadian Police Association, which represents tens of thousands of frontline law enforcement officers, and the Conservatives are playing this whole cat-and-mouse game, trying to put out a little bait here and there. The bottom line is that, whether this is about President Trump's concerns, Canadian concerns, or law enforcement concerns, the bill should go to committee, ideally soon.

Does the Conservative Party, and does the member opposite, who represents the Conservative Party, support the legislation? Would they not agree that time is of the essence?

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

Madam Speaker, that was the most cat-and-mouse response I have ever heard. I challenged him. He speaks more than all other Liberal members combined, so I think he could address the challenge. Does he support house arrest for people who traffic fentanyl? I challenged him, but he would not even answer; he just heckled me. He should give me an answer.

We do not even have a charter statement yet. The bill is a 130-page document. The Liberals say they want to move in an expeditious manner, but they took 10 years to get here. They have been talking out of both sides of their mouth in that regard.

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

Madam Speaker, since this is the first round of speeches on the bill, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, as the official Bloc Québécois public safety and emergency preparedness critic, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-2.

I would remind the House that, today, we are beginning the speeches and debate on a bill and related measures aimed at securing the border between Canada and the United States. As my Conservative colleague mentioned, this 130-page bill amends some 10 laws. The session has just begun, and, as the new critic in this area, I find the study of this bill very challenging. This is a massive and complex bill with three main objectives: securing the border, fighting transnational organized crime and fentanyl, and cracking down on illicit financing. The bill is divided into 16 parts

It is no secret that the Bloc Québécois has long been demanding stricter border controls, including stronger measures against the exportation of stolen vehicles, a reduction in the number of asylum seekers in Quebec and a crackdown on fentanyl and money laundering. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois agrees in principle to allow the bill to go to committee for a more in-depth study. I cannot find a better word than "in-depth", which implies thoroughness and, especially, the time needed to hear from all the experts in the matter. This is not the type of bill that can be studied at breakneck speed. It will have to be studied in depth because it grants ministers, the police, the Canadian Coast Guard and Canada Post more powers. It also allows various authorities to exchange personal and confidential information. As legislators, we will need to hear from a large number of witnesses given the many laws that will be amended.

We hope that parliamentarians will work together to better understand the bill and, especially, to enhance it based on the testimony of the experts we will hear from at meetings of the public safety and national security committee. As our reputation would suggest, the Bloc Québécois is committed to studying Bill C-2 in depth and collaborating with all parliamentarians to make it better. In fact, that is, in a sense, our trademark. Our members take their work as legislators seriously. This bill is important, and it is complex. Let us take all the time we need to study it in depth.

As I was saying, several acts will be amended, including the Customs Act. Essentially, Bill C-2 proposes forcing carriers and warehouse operators to provide access to their facilities to allow Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, officers to inspect goods destined for export. Currently, the act does not allow officers to inspect U.S.-bound rail cars in classification yards, for example. It is surprising that operators are not currently required to allow CBSA officers to inspect rail cars in their own classification yards. However, the bill proposes that operators now be obliged to establish infrastructure to receive border services officers.

This raises a number of questions, however. How will railway companies manage to set up such infrastructure to receive border services officers and allow them to conduct inspections? Anyone who has ever visited a classification yard knows that the railway companies will have to make major changes. How long will they be given to comply? How will the CBSA carry out its inspections in the classification yards?

Will they have mobile scanners?

Will the CBSA have the funds it needs to procure the tools and advanced technologies needed to carry out its inspections?

What instructions will the CBSA give its officers? It is estimated that the CBSA already has a shortage of between 2,000 and 3,000 border services officers for current duties. If they are given new responsibilities, however necessary, there will be an even greater shortage of border officers. We know that we can train approximately 600 border officers per year. I am not great at math, but it is easy enough to see that, if we train 600 border officers a year, we will not have the resources we need to inspect everything that we are supposed to inspect under Bill C-2.

There is also the fact that the promise to hire 1,000 additional border officers was not included in the throne speech. The throne speech does not mention that. We hope that we will have the opportunity to discuss that when we look at the business of supply this evening. Given the number of border services officers, granting them additional powers will be a colossal challenge.

We assume that border officers will be assigned to priority sectors. What are the priorities, and which sectors will have fewer resources to carry out their duties? Railway companies, for example, might resist establishing the infrastructure needed for inspection in the classification yards. If that were to happen, how would we send officers to inspect the yards? These are some of the many questions that we have and that we will have an opportunity to discuss in committee.

We are also wondering whether the government assessed the amount of work that will be required of railway companies. Were discussions held with them? I represent a riding that is crisscrossed by railway tracks and that is home to several railway companies. I can tell you that the railway lobby is very strong in Canada. How will companies react to this new requirement?

There are many questions to be answered. That is why it is important that we conduct an exhaustive study of this bill in committee.

With respect to giving border officers more powers, the government could pass regulations allowing border officers to patrol beyond their crossing point. This is not currently allowed. This is something the Bloc Québécois proposed as a way to improve co-operation, in particular between RCMP officers and border officers, in order to make the border more secure. As the member for a border riding, I can say that this would be extremely appreciated and very important. That way, patrolling officers who see a migrant or someone trying to cross the border illegally 50 metres off could intervene. They could intercept the person and contact the RCMP.

As I was saying earlier, this would not require any legislative amendments. It could be done through regulations easily enough. If the government commits to doing that, it will certainly have our support.

I have much more to say, but my time is running out. We know that this important law is very intrusive when it comes to privacy. I trust that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord will outline his concerns and ask questions. My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean will be speaking next, so he will be able to ask questions and talk about his doubts concerning the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He will also mention aspects of the bill with which he disagrees.

In conclusion, I would like the government to know that, if it respects our willingness to work hard in a professional way, and if it gives us the time we need to study the entire bill, we will work with it in committee to enhance and improve Bill C-2.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague for her support and the Bloc's recommendations over time that have helped inform this bill. I appreciate that she is going to allow this bill to go to committee.

I too hope the ports and the various operators involved will give their full support. The CBSA has seen at times in the past that there has not been full co-operation, which has hindered the ability of law enforcement to catch outgoing automobiles, which has become a big issue in the area I live in. I hope we will see that co-operation.

Since the member is saying that many of those stakeholders reside within her riding, I want to know whether the member would be willing to work with those stakeholders to make sure this bill is not impeded and that we have support across party lines to carry this work forward and reduce the harm coming to Canadians with automobiles that are going outside of our country.

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

Madam Speaker, let me reassure my colleague. As the member for a riding that borders the U.S., I have many contacts at the RCMP and the CBSA, among both the employers and the unions. For that reason, I can say that some of the decisions being made now are not at all consistent with the principle of Bill C-2.

Let me give an example. Two border crossings in my riding have had their hours of service cut. Border crossings used to be monitored 24/7. The CBSA cut 12 hours of monitoring. That means that, in the middle of the countryside, in the middle of a rural area, there are two border crossings, Herdman and Trout River, where there is no monitoring. Municipal officials in both Quebec and the United States disagree with the decision, since it does nothing to protect our borders.

My colleague should urge the Minister of Public Safety to review the decision to reduce the number of hours of monitoring at the Trout River and Herdman border crossings, as well as at Rouses Point, which is in the riding of my colleague from Saint-Jean.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her words on Bill C-2 today. I just wanted to bring up that back in December, under the 44th Parliament, there was an opposition day motion brought forward by the Conservative Party that listed many of the same factors we are debating here today. Some of them, as my colleague has mentioned, obviously are important to her because she is in a border riding. We had talked about getting more scanners and putting more boots on the ground. At that point in time, the Bloc, the Liberals and the NDP all voted against our opposition day motion.

I am wondering now if the member regrets that. It sounds like she is changing her mind and realizing it is important. What has been the change of heart?

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

Madam Speaker, I think that I have one topic of conversation that might interest my colleague.

I am very interested in the issue of gun trafficking. A lot of guns are being smuggled into my riding from the U.S. by water. Bill C-2 would give the Canadian Coast Guard an additional patrolling mandate. What troubles me a bit about this bill is that the government seems to be planning to assign the Coast Guard this new responsibility in the Arctic, but not in areas where gun trafficking is a documented issue.

I sincerely believe that we need to do more to curb gun trafficking. The Coast Guard's new responsibilities could help with that, if it is deployed to patrol sectors where gun trafficking is happening.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is someone who is really in touch with her constituents. I think that everyone in the House and everyone in her riding knows that.

I would like her to tell us how important border security is for the people in her riding. I would also like her to talk about how border security has been neglected over the past 10 years.

What would a bill that secures the border mean for the people in her riding? How can we achieve that?

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

Madam Speaker, I represent a southern Quebec riding where smugglers and criminal organizations exploit and abuse migrants hoping to cross the border illegally. It cannot be said that the previous government did much to limit, control or reduce this activity.

As a member of Parliament, I have worked extensively with the RCMP to document and support residents dealing with this issue. I can also say that we helped the RCMP develop a tool that tells residents what number to call when they see something or experience—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I must interrupt the member. She is well over her time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

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

Madam Speaker, this is my first speech in the House, and I am truly pleased to see you sitting in the Speaker's chair because, as you know, you are my favourite.

As this is indeed my first speech in the House in this 45th Parliament, I would like to thank the citizens of Lac‑Saint‑Jean from the bottom of my heart for placing their trust in me for a third time. It is an honour to represent them in the House. That said, this would not have been possible without all the supporters, volunteers and election workers who made sure my team came out on top in this election, and I want to thank them as well. Of course, none of this would have been possible without my partner, Mylène; my son, Émile; and my daughters, Simone and Jeanne. I really want to thank them. Thanks to them, I am once again able to represent the people of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, this time in the 45th Parliament.

Let us get to the matter before us. Obviously, I will focus more on the immigration issues in this bill. It is important to note that this 130-page document, which was introduced as Bill C-2, An act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, is a complete 180. I say this because, as I am sure members will recall, over the past few years, the Liberal government has failed to manage a large number of border crises. Consider the wave of irregular immigration at Roxham Road, thriving human smuggling rings at the border that took advantage of migrants and vulnerable people, Mexican cartels setting up operations at the border, the wave of car thefts at the port of Montreal, gun trafficking and so on.

While the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑2 in principle, we will have to wait and see how all the clauses are unpacked in committee. One thing is certain, this study will be a long-term, exhaustive effort. As every observer of federal politics knows, that is precisely how the Bloc Québécois has always worked. Our method is to be thorough and meticulous, especially when dealing with bills like this one, which affects a dozen or so laws and at least three departments. Bills like this one have to be treated very seriously.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration and refugees, I will focus on the items that concern immigration. Incidentally, this bill was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety, but it contains a whole section on immigration. As I was saying, we support the bill in principle, but there are still a lot of unanswered question that we need to ask.

On its surface, the proposed legislation reflects a stricter stance on delays, irregular entries and inefficiencies in the system, but we will wait and see if anything actually changes, since the Liberal Party does not have a very good track record in that regard. The bill uses a number of rather vague expressions like “in certain circumstances”, “reasonable grounds” and “in the public interest”. That is rather broad and could mean anything. Certain provisions even raise questions about protecting the public. I am thinking in particular of the provision that states that the Refugee Protection Division cannot compel the minister or any member of his staff or person working in his office to appear for a hearing. I am very interested to hear why this was included in the bill.

As for examinations, the minister will have more power over decisions on asylum seekers. Someone will have to explain to me how, but under Bill C-2, the minister gives himself the power to further consider all asylum claims made in Canada even if officers have already made determinations on those claims. From now on, a claim will not be sent to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada until the minister has authorized it. I can hardly wait to see how all of that works out. In addition to giving himself this broad power, the minister is also giving himself the authority to prescribe by regulation the requirements for further consideration, such as the time limits for submitting documentation, control measures or the designation of a representative for minors.

On reading parts 7, 8 and 9 regarding immigration, we quickly see that the federal government wants to change its immigration laws so it can easily cancel the resident permits of certain migrants and suspend the possibility of making certain claims for staying in Canada.

Furthermore, if the bill is passed, asylum claims filed more than a year after a potential refugee sets foot in Canada will be deemed inadmissible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which is normally responsible for assessing claims. The same would be true for asylum claims made after 14 days by someone in hiding within our borders. There are concerns there as well.

The Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement, who is also the member for Louis-Hébert, said that this measure aims to close what was seen as a loophole in the safe third country agreement. Obviously, I remain concerned on a number of levels. In practical terms, Bill C-2 would close the loophole in the safe third country agreement, which allows a person who has illegally entered Canada to circumvent the agreement by staying in Canada for more than 14 days, but that remains to be seen. We were the ones who raised the problem related to this loophole in the safe third country agreement because of the 14‑day period. What I understand today is that it will not necessarily be what we are asking for, but that there may be a way to agree on other terms. We will see what happens next.

All of the Bloc Québécois members are acting in good faith. That means that, overall, as I said, we are satisfied with the principle of the bill. We applaud the government's intention. The bill aims to address several issues that people have been raising for months, if not years. We are relieved that Bill C‑2 provides for the possibility of applying for a pre-removal risk assessment for those who are ineligible to apply for asylum. At the very least, this guarantees that those individuals are protected. As a result, we will fulfill our obligations under the Geneva Convention, which I believe is very important.

Like all Quebeckers, the Bloc Québécois remains firmly committed to welcoming people fleeing persecution and misery. The primary purpose of the bill is to ensure that the system for taking in migrants is fairer and more efficient. Nevertheless, there seems to be one thing missing from the government's approach. In June or July 2024, the then immigration minister announced with great fanfare that he would form a committee to ensure the fair distribution of asylum seekers throughout Canada. It was announced with great fanfare during a press conference. Since then, there has been radio silence.

The distribution of asylum seekers is one of the main concerns when it comes to Quebec's intake capacity. It is not right that half of all asylum seekers should end up in Quebec. It is not that we do not want to help them, but we have finite capacity. In the meantime, other provinces and territories are not taking on their share of the responsibility. Quebec and Ontario are doing all the work. Some provinces outright refuse to welcome asylum seekers. The government promised better distribution of asylum seekers throughout Canada.

In short, I think this is an important bill. It is a step in the right direction, but hard work and collaboration will be needed. I would like to remind my colleagues from all recognized parties in the House that the Bloc Québécois is well placed in committee to have good discussions with everyone, given that this is a minority government. Make no mistake: We will have to make some deals.

Above all, we will need to listen to the expert witnesses who will tell us what is feasible and what is not. They will tell us which clauses of the bill would stand up in court and which would not. When we examine the bill clause by clause—which we had two days to do—it raises concerns about passing the bill in its current form. The Bloc Québécois already believes there will be legal challenges. We will all need to talk to each other to ensure the bill achieves its main objective of securing the border and welcoming asylum seekers in a humane and compassionate way. We will also need to ensure that the other provinces do their part when it comes to the distribution of asylum seekers and that the minister is not granted excessive powers. At this time, the extent of the powers the minister would be granted is not very clear.

I will say it again: The Bloc Québécois is going to work very hard. We have extraordinary members. I am now ready to answer my colleague's questions.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑2 includes a number of measures to combat auto theft. I know that is an important issue for the Bloc Québécois. In fact, I believe that, during the last Parliament, it was the Bloc Québécois's public safety critic who got a motion adopted to have that issue taken up by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Can my colleague talk about the positive impact Bill C‑2 will have on the auto theft problem we are facing across the country?

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

Madam Speaker, I am clearly more focused on immigration-related issues, covered in parts 7, 8 and 9 of the bill. My colleague can correct me if I am wrong, but the bill appears useful on the issue of car theft in that it will make it easier for authorities to inspect the contents of certain containers in ports and certain shipments on trains. I think I am correct in saying that.

That is already a positive point. This is very positive, in the Bloc's opinion. That is why I am saying that we support the principle of the bill. However, we also have a number of questions, which is normal with an omnibus bill like this one. As we said, it is a 130-page bill that impacts several laws and several departments and contains a huge number of clauses. There is work to be done, but to answer my colleague's question, we are already seeing some positive points.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. As always, I thank all members for their interventions, including this hon. member.

The Liberals are talking a strong game about crime and things like that. I am wondering if my hon. colleague from the Bloc agrees with me that while the Liberals are talking a strong game, they have failed to take action on the issue of crime, and a lot of it has actually manifested itself in Quebec.

I am wondering if the member agrees with me that this is a little hypocritical of the Liberals and that we should not necessarily take them at their word. They had ample opportunity to do this but have done absolutely nothing over the last 10 years.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have indeed been lax on many issues.

It is abundantly clear that border security and the immigration department have been mismanaged for the past 10 years. I believe, and I am sure everyone will agree, that the most dysfunctional department in the federal government is the immigration department. Today, we will look at what the Liberals are proposing in Bill C‑2 in terms of immigration.

With regard to border security, as my colleague said earlier, the government could go ahead and take administrative steps without having to make any legislative changes. For example, the government could allow border services officers to patrol outside border services and work more closely with the RCMP.

I would also like to mention the fact that this government essentially cut in half the hours of certain border crossings that are in extremely high-risk locations in terms of gun, human and drug trafficking. Meanwhile, border officers are being prevented from doing their jobs when legislation is not even required. The government could give these officers more power tomorrow morning if it wanted to. The Liberal government has indeed been lax on these issues.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Migrant Rights Network said that this bill is anti-refugee and anti-immigrant. Does my colleague agree?