House of Commons Hansard #9 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Business of the House Steven MacKinnon moves motion agreed to by Members to change House Standing Orders for the 45th Parliament regarding committee composition, appointment, and procedures for suspending sittings during late-night votes. 400 words.
Strong Borders Act Second reading of Bill C-2. The bill aims to strengthen border security, combat organized crime, fentanyl trafficking, money laundering, and enhance immigration system integrity. Proponents say it provides crucial new tools for law enforcement. Critics raise concerns about its omnibus nature, lack of provisions on bail and sentencing, insufficient resources, and privacy implications of new powers, including lawful access and mail inspection, arguing it requires thorough, detailed work in committee. 44700 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Main Estimates, 2025-26 Members debate Public Safety and Transport estimates. Discussions include concerns about correctional service decisions, bail reform, gun control (including the buyback program), and border security (Bill C-2, CBSA/RCMP hiring). They also discuss efforts to strengthen the economy and create a single Canadian market by reducing internal trade barriers, investments in national transport infrastructure like ports and rail, and issues with air passenger rights. 31800 words, 4 hours.
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalMinister of Finance and National Revenue
That a ways and means motion to introduce a bill respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, be concurred in.
Motion No. 1Ways and MeansGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Motion No. 1Ways and MeansGovernment Orders
Ways and MeansGovernment Orders
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
moved that Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, be read the first time and printed.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalMinister of Public Safety
moved that Bill C-2, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating you on your election as Speaker. I know it is well deserved. In my many years of sitting beside you, I know the wisdom that you carry with you each and every day.
I want to also take this moment to congratulate all of my colleagues here who were elected on April 28.
I want to take a moment to thank the people of Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park for the mandate they have given me four consecutive times. If anyone is counting, this time it was with 64% of the vote in my favour. Throughout the campaign, I heard a lot, some of which I will be sharing with the House today.
Permit me to acknowledge the land we are gathered on, which is the traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.
On April 28, Canadians gave the Prime Minister a mandate to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. This was reinforced by His Majesty King Charles III in the Speech from the Throne last week. Canadians expect those of us in Parliament to work together and deliver for them. To be truly strong, Canada must be secure. A strong border is essential to our national security, to foster safe communities and our support for the economy. In recognition of this, our government has taken a number of important steps.
In December of last year, we introduced Canada's border plan, an ambitious $1.3-billion investment to strengthen border security. We appointed a fentanyl czar, Kevin Brosseau, to work closely with our U.S. counterparts and law enforcement agencies to accelerate Canada's ongoing work to detect, disrupt and dismantle the fentanyl trade. We made sure to have eyes on the border 24-7, with more officers, drones, Black Hawk helicopters and sensors. We listed seven cartels as terrorist organizations and launched a Canada-U.S. joint strike force.
As part of a national law enforcement operation in early 2025 targeting fentanyl production and distribution, Canadian law enforcement made 524 arrests and seized more than 46 kilograms of fentanyl, 74 kilograms of other drugs, 122 firearms, 33 stolen vehicles and over $800,000 in cash. Just last week, the CBSA released the results of Operation Blizzard, a month-long cross-country surge to intercept fentanyl and other illegal drugs. The operation resulted in 116 fentanyl seizures. Our enforcement-focused plan gives frontline officers the tools they need to secure our streets. We are seeing more busts, more arrests and safer communities.
This is important work, and I want to be clear with Canadians: Our borders are strong and secure, but we can always do more to strengthen them. The reality is that there are always new risks emerging that threaten our national and economic security.
For example, in recent years, transnational crime organizations have become more sophisticated. Increasingly, they are using technologies to evade law enforcement, which is hamstrung by outdated tools.
We need to make it harder for organized crime to move money, drugs, people and firearms and to endanger our communities. We need to ensure Canada's law enforcement is equipped with the tools it needs to stay ahead of organized crime and empowered to crack down on illicit activities. This is essential to maintaining the safety and security of our country.
Bill C-2, the strong borders act, would help achieve just that. 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 crack down on money laundering. It would bolster our response to increasingly sophisticated criminal networks and enhance the integrity and fairness of our immigration system, all the while protecting Canadians' privacy and charter rights.
Let me take a moment at the outset to talk about some of the safeguards that are in place. As we know, when we ran in the election, we did confirm and reiterate our support for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, it was a previous Liberal prime minister and justice minister who brought forward the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, it is a foundational piece of the work that we do.
King Charles III, in his Speech from the Throne last week, reiterated our government's support for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the guideposts by which we will work to govern this country. As a result, when we speak about national security legislation, which essentially enforces additional tools for law enforcement, it should be with the premise that the rights of Canadians will not be violated. Privacy rights will be protected. Charter rights will be protected, and due process will always be there for Canadians.
Let me share an experience that I had just last month, days after I was appointed to this role. I travelled to Cornwall to meet with the frontline officers of the CBSA and the RCMP, who work hard each and every day to keep our country safe and our border secure. Those officers shared with me their perspectives and ideas on how this government can best support them in their important work. I hope those officers will see their feedback reflected in the bill we are now debating in Parliament. When I spoke to them, they spoke about some of the challenges and limitations they have and some of the basic tools they are missing, tools they need in order to do their work effectively and efficiently to ensure that our borders are safer. It is a safe border, but we want to make it safer.
The strong borders act would keep Canadians safe by, for example, equipping law enforcement with the tools needed to disrupt, dismantle and prosecute the organized criminal networks threatening our communities. It would grant border officers more powers to search export containers to stop auto theft rings from smuggling stolen cars out of the country. It would update the Coast Guard's mission and responsibilities to protect our sovereignty and conduct security patrols to collect, analyze and share information and intelligence for security purposes. The bill would give us the tools needed to, for example, clamp down on clandestine drug production by stopping the flow of precursor chemicals that are used to make fentanyl. We would go after transnational child sex offenders by sharing more information with domestic and international policing partners and crack down on money laundering to hit organized crime groups where it hurts. Further, the strong borders act would strengthen measures to stamp out immigration fraud, improve the asylum system and protect the integrity of our visas.
My colleagues do not have to take my word for it; let me share some of the perspectives already offered on this bill. First off, the Canadian Police Association, the largest law enforcement advocacy organization in Canada and the national voice for over 60,000 frontline law enforcement personnel serving across every province and territory, said:
[T]his proposed legislation would provide critical new tools for law enforcement, border services, and intelligence agencies to address transnational organized crime, auto theft, firearms and drug trafficking, and money laundering. It's important to emphasize that these are not abstract issues, our members see first-hand that they have real impacts in communities across the country and require a coordinated and modern legislative response.
Mr. Speaker, permit me to share the comments by Marta Leardi-Anderson, the executive director of the Cross-Border Institute at the University of Windsor, who said that the new measures are “long overdue”.
Équité, the national authority on insurance crime and fraud prevention, said:
This legislation directly supports law enforcement and the CBSA in strengthening their ability to combat sophisticated criminal networks threatening the safety and security of communities across Canada.... [T]he enhanced authorities granted to CBSA and law enforcement agencies...will strengthen our collective ability to disrupt illegal operations, including the trafficking and distribution of drugs and firearms funded by the proceeds of auto theft.
The Canadian Centre for Child Protection, an incredible organization, a national charity dedicated to the personal safety of all children and whose goal is to reduce the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, said 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 [and] have the full support” of the organization.
Let me also quote from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which made a statement yesterday:
Canada’s legislation related to lawful access is significantly outdated and urgently needs to be revised to align with modern technology. Canada lags behind its international law enforcement partners in the ability to lawfully access electronic evidence associated with criminal activity. Transnational organised crime groups are exploiting this gap to victimize our communities across the country through serious crimes such as human, drug and firearm trafficking, auto theft, and violent profit-driven crime. The provisions contained within the Strong Borders Act are an important step in advancing Canadian law enforcement's ability to effectively combat the ever-evolving nature of transnational organized criminal groups.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada added that the strong borders act is “an important step toward combating auto theft & organized crime. This legislation shows leadership and is a win for Canadians.” The strong borders act is a win for Canadians and deals a blow to transnational organized crime.
When developing the legislation that is before the House, the government had three major objectives: one, secure the border; two, combat transnational organized crime and fentanyl; three, 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 inspections by CBSA officers, and require owners and operators of certain ports of entry and exit to provide facilities to export inspections, just as they currently do for imports. Just to be clear, currently the law allows the CBSA to do inspections upon exit of goods from Canada. However, there is no compulsion of any of these organizations to provide the adequate space and resources to do the inspection. This amendment would ensure that space will be available for that inspection to take place, which is a critical tool for us to fight, for example, auto thefts.
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 would be amending the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to share information collected under the act with domestic and international partners.
We would be amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, and we would secure and extend legislative authorities to cancel, suspend or vary immigration documents and cancel or suspend processing of new applications en masse for reasons determined to be in the public interest. A perfect example of this is the number of applications that came in for temporary resident permits during COVID. We were compelled to process them, because there was no mechanism under IRPA to be able to cancel or suspend those applications. This essentially gives additional tools to the minister of IRCC to do just that.
We would amend the act to disclose 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. As an example here, the sharing of information between federal and provincial partners is critical. However, it does not lead towards sharing of information with foreign actors without the express written consent of the minister of IRCC, which is subject to many multilateral and bilateral agreements that currently exist. It will ensure, once again, the safety and privacy rights of those who come to Canada.
The strong borders act would also create new ineligibility measures to make certain claims ineligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board. For example, it would limit the safe third country agreement provision where someone makes a claim after 14 days when they come through an irregular port of entry; they would no longer be eligible for an asylum claim. Similarly, those who have been in-country for more than a year and have not sought asylum before the one-year period are ineligible. In both cases, the safeguard that is in place is the availability of what is called a pre-removal risk assessment, which would ensure that those seeking protection and those in need of protection will have protection within Canada. It abides by our commitments to the UN convention on refugees.
To combat transnational organized crime and fentanyl, we are proposing to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to change the pathway to allow precursor chemicals that can be used to produce illicit drugs to be rapidly controlled by the Minister of Health. Currently, it can take up to a year. This would happen within days or weeks, which would enable us to be close to changes in precursors and the impact of new precursors on the drug supply. It would be an important tool for us.
We are also introducing amendments to support authorized access to information, to ensure that electronic service providers have the capabilities in place to support legally authorized requests from law enforcement and CSIS. I have already heard some misunderstandings of what we are trying to do. Let me just quickly walk through some of the major components of the amendments related to lawful access.
First and foremost, we are seeking for CSPs to be able to have the capacity to share data. Right now, not all service providers have that capability. This essentially compels service providers to have the capacity to share data. Second, it would enable law enforcement to go to a service provider and ask if the phone number they have is with that company. It is simply a yes-or-no question. If it is with that company, then, if additional information is required, law enforcement would go to court and seek a production order, which is through an affidavit and an application to court, to be able to get, on the basis of what is called reasonable grounds to suspect, authorization to get information on a subscriber, very basic information on a subscriber. It oftentimes includes name, address and phone number, very basic information.
The fourth element is this. If there is a much more serious investigation taking place, where law enforcement believes that something may have happened, it can file, on the basis of reasonable grounds to believe, an application to the court, once again, to seek authorization toward additional investigation. In all of these steps, whether it is on the basis of reasonable grounds to suspect or reasonable grounds to believe, it is through judicial authorization. It is something that I want to be very, very clear about. It is a tool that is so essential right now for law enforcement to be able to investigate many of the crimes that are now evolving in a modern era, where so much information is within individuals' control.
Bill C-2 would enact significant penalties for illicit financing, and it would enable law enforcement and agencies to enforce, in a much stricter way, penalties for any form of illicit fundraising that takes place.
Let me just conclude by saying that we committed to investing in 1,000 new CBSA officers and 1,000 new RCMP officers. They are critical.
The bill that we have brought forward is a response to what we heard at the doors. Many of us heard about the concerns that Canadians have. This is a moment when all of us can come together and ensure that our borders are safer and secure. As a result, our communities and our streets would be safer and more secure. This should be a non-partisan exercise, and I invite our friends opposite, all of the parties, to support this bill.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.
One thing the minister and I agree on is safer borders and safer streets, but the really big area where I think we part company is how to do that. On the one hand, we have the Liberal approach, which is to talk about safer streets and safer borders and do little about that, and in fact do the contrary, in the form of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Then we have the Conservatives, who want to take definitive action.
We have an omnibus bill here; let us make no mistake about it. Why is there nothing in it about precluding fentanyl traffickers from serving their sentence at home and precluding people who use firearms from serving their sentence at home? Why are there no tough-on-crime measures like that, which are tangibly needed?
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to acknowledge my critic opposite. I have worked with him before at committee, and I look forward to working with him in this role.
Let me be very clear. We will be bringing forward criminal justice legislation in due course. This is the first bill that our government has introduced, which is to ensure that we have a safer border and safer streets.
With respect to changes to the Criminal Code, once again, we look forward to working with all parties in order to keep Canadians safer.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced two days ago, and we have had to analyze all 130 pages of it. At first glance, we are generally in favour of the bill in principle.
However, given that it is 130 pages long, affects more than three departments and could possibly amend some 20 laws, I hope that the minister agrees with me that it will require thorough, detailed work in committee. There is no way that such a bill should be fast‑tracked; that would not make any sense. There are far too many clauses to consider, and we do not even know if some of them would stand up in court.
I am going to test the minister. There are so many questions surrounding this bill, but there is one that must be raised. I am thinking in particular of the suggestion to remove the possibility of compelling the minister and members of his staff to appear before the Refugee Protection Division.
Why was this included in the document presented by the minister today?
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, let me see if I understood the question properly. With respect to the measures, the additional tools that are given to the Minister of Immigration, particularly the suspension of documents, are subject to an order in council that has to go through cabinet, and it has to be approved before the minister can exercise control.
If I misunderstood the question, I would be glad to speak with the member further, but the tools are in place to ensure that the Minister of Immigration has additional tools so that in the modern era, whether we have, for example, a pandemic or issues around cybersecurity, she will have the tools to make those decisions.
Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)
Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the minister for being so quick to present this bill in the House. There are needed provisions in this legislation that fill the gaps.
As we know, we are dealing with a lot of sophisticated, organized criminal networks that are threatening our communities. These tools will help disrupt, dismantle and prosecute these individuals. I can think of some examples, and I know the minister named some in his speech: fentanyl trafficking, extortion, child exploitation and all the problems we are having that involve criminal organizations.
I am wondering if the minister could provide some other examples of criminality that this bill would help solve.
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for her hard work and her comments.
One thing the member has been advocating for for many years is the issue of auto theft. While we know the numbers with respect to auto theft are coming down, whether it is in the city of Toronto or across Canada, the tools that law enforcement need have to be strengthened, and this bill would ensure that. I highlighted the issue of inspections upon export. Right now, although the legal authority to do them exists, the physical space and capacity do not exist in most ports of exit, and this is one tangible thing included in this bill that would enable the CBSA to do searches.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, if Bill C-2 passes, it would allow CSIS, police and peace officers to demand personal info from online service providers without a warrant based only on vague suspicions of potential crime or legal breaches of any act of Parliament. Whether or not a Canadian uses an online service, where they use it and when they use it are personal information, and the government has not provided a charter statement for the same.
With Bill C-2, combined with Bill C-63, the government could target whatever it deems to be spreading hateful content. Bill C-2 would combine with Bill C-63 to essentially form Voltron-type censorship. The government has not indicated what policy concerns, aside from vague references to security, these provisions are needed for. These snooping provisions are a massive poison pill that should not have been included in this bill.
Why, as they did with Bill C-63, are the Liberals making Canadians choose between their civil liberties and safety and fixing the broken immigration system that the Liberals broke themselves?
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. The issue around lawful access requires modernization in Canada. We are the only Five Eyes and G7 country that does not have a lawful access regime. Every other country in our category has provisions to ensure that as new technology emerges, new techniques are available for law enforcement.
Having said that, this bill does not violate the civil liberties or rights of individual Canadians. It is subject to judicial oversight. This bill was only introduced two days ago. There will be a charter statement coming, and there will be a robust debate on this issue.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his bill. It addresses many of the Bloc Québécois's concerns regarding border security, organized crime and so on. However, there is one thing in this massive bill that bothers me and raises numerous questions, and that is the security of personal information. The bill would significantly expand police powers.
Would it not be possible to limit the ability to conduct searches without a warrant? This could include the obligation to prove that obtaining a warrant is impossible.
The section about communicating information to other countries is very troubling. My colleague is telling us that there will be measures, eventually. I understand that, but I would like him to tell us more. What will those measures be?
This aspect of the bill could be a concern.
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, there are two elements that I want to highlight. First and foremost, the sharing of information is subject to judicial oversight, and it is clearly written in the bill. I invite my friend, who I know is a learned individual and whom I have worked with extensively in the past, to understand that it is a safeguard built into the bill. This is not about taking away privacy rights or in any way impinging on the privacy rights of Canadians. It is about securing the ability of law enforcement to have limited access, with judicial oversight. That is in there.
With respect to the sharing of information with third countries, again, safeguards relating to IRPA are in place and are embedded in the bill.
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for the introduction of this bill.
Much of my time here in Ottawa is spent on the public safety committee, and many of these issues have been brought up for years, as has the need to improve upon the law. In my previous career in law enforcement, we had similar issues that we were bringing forward over and over again.
My question is twofold. There has been so much pressure to deal with the smuggling of firearms, the fentanyl issues and the porous borders with immigration. One, what took so long to get at this? Two, we have provisions in the act—
Bill C-2 Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I have to provide some time for a response.
The Minister of Public Safety may give a brief response.
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to having a longer discussion with my friend opposite.
We were elected on April 30. The Prime Minister had a mandate to ensure that we address the border issues. As a first act of Parliament, we brought in this legislation, and we are looking for support from all parties to get this bill through the House.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I welcome you to the chair. I am amazed at how quickly you got your robes: congratulations.
As always, it is an honour to be here. It is an honour to share this space with colleagues from all parties. As somebody who was the child of immigrants and never really thought he would see the green carpet of the House of Commons, except when I saw it at 12 years old looking through doors similar to the ones here but in Centre Block, it is such a profound honour. With that, in my first substantive intervention in this House, I want to thank the voters of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.
It is Italian Heritage Month, which seems quite poignant given that there are so many people of Italian heritage. I know we are welcoming two or three to our side of the bench and that there are a few on the other side. I congratulate all members.
Speaking of congratulations, I want to begin by congratulating a former colleague at the bar in Kamloops. Her name is Justice Lorianna Bennett. She was actually promoted to the bench, I believe, by the Minister of Public Safety when he was the minister of justice. I appeared briefly before Justice Bennett when I was still working as a lawyer for the province. I believe she will be a wonderful addition to the Supreme Court of B.C., to which she was recently elevated. It being Italian Heritage Month, I should note as well that she is of Italian heritage, like me and many others here. I wish Justice Bennett all the best in her judicial career.
On a bit of a sadder note, a lot of people have passed during prorogation and the election. Those who have heard me speak in the House before know that during my speeches, I often like to recognize people who have passed.
I want to recognize the life of David Richard Bartlett, who was just 37 years old. His father Jim was my boss when I first entered the workforce at about 22 years old as a parole officer. His dad taught me a lot. David leaves behind his brother Andrew. May perpetual light shine upon him.
On a sadder note, I also want to recognize the life of Augusto Bernardo. Like my family, he originated from Calabria in southern Italy. I have such fond memories of Augusto. I remember going to his farm when I was eight or nine years old to get chickens with my dad. He was such a character. I always remember him smiling whenever I saw him. He was always so excited and happy to say hi to me. I miss that vivacious smile. I know he lived a really good life. His children Donisa, Gisella, Marcella and Dino are all incredibly successful people, but more importantly, they all have wonderful hearts. They all serve their community in such a beautiful way. His legacy is well entrenched in his children. May perpetual light shine upon him.
Another person who passed away very young was a man by the name of Chris McKenzie. He was about my age or maybe a few years older than me. We got to know each other when we were in youth group. We travelled all the way from Kamloops to Denver to see the Pope in 1993. We went to high school together. He was a talented musician. He had a love of music, and he always had a smile on his face when we were in school. He leaves behind daughters Trystan, Brooklynn and Danica, their mother Tammy, his mother Darlene, his father Dawayne and his siblings Charla, Heather and Andrew. May perpetual light shine upon him.
I have a few more people I wish to go through, but in the meantime, perhaps I will get to the substance of my speech.
Let us make no mistake about it: This is an omnibus bill. I cannot say how many times the Liberals spoke about omnibus bills. We often hear about the ghost of Stephen Harper, and the Liberals have frequently railed against the Harper government and omnibus bills, yet here we have the government tabling an omnibus bill.
However, the bill is not quite omnibus enough to include key areas. Let us look at the bill. It is 130 pages. I am just looking at it right now, and I do not see anything about bail, which is a pretty big issue in the news today. It is pretty much in the news every single day. There is nothing about bail in the bill.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague just asked if we want bail in it. Heck yes, I want bail in it. We really want to deal with bail. We, as Conservatives, want to deal with bail. In fact, I had two private members' bills that dealt with bail during the last Parliament. One of the bills was in response to the killing of Constable Pierzchala, a police officer. He was in his mid-twenties.
I believe I could say that Constable Pierzchala was killed, as the person is no longer accused, as they went to trial. He was killed by somebody who was out on bail. It was the constable's first shift alone. He had just passed his probation period. That person also had a firearms prohibition, and those prohibitions are now being treated like they are not worth the paper they are written on.
Therefore, to my colleague from Winnipeg, who heckled me and asked if I want bail in the bill, yes, we want bail in the bill. I will gladly take him up on that. I will gladly meet with the Minister of Public Safety.
In fact, in questions and comments, I want the member for Winnipeg North to stand up. It does not take much to cajole him to stand up, even if there are 30 people behind him. The Liberals are laughing because they know it is true. I want the member to stand up to tell me whether the Liberals will pass Bill C-313 from the last Parliament, which would make the hill much harder to climb for people who were previously convicted of gun charges and placed on firearms prohibitions. This is a small, discreet group of people.
In the member's prelude, I challenge him to say that the Liberals will support Bill C-313 or my other private member's bill on bail, which targeted a very small, discreet group of people who were being accused of three indictable offences at one time, as in those files had not been resolved, with 10 years or more. Those are offences such as robbery, manslaughter, assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, by indictment. The member has been here for a long time, and he speaks on behalf of the government. Does he have the guts to stand up to say that the Liberals will incorporate the principles of those bills in this bill? I would love to work with the government to address bail.
What about fentanyl sentencing? I wonder if the member for Winnipeg North is onside with his party's views on sentencing. We are getting this tough-on-crime stuff from the Liberals. Do members know what we heard? In fact, now that I come to think of it, it was from the member from Winnipeg. I introduced a bill about sexual offences, and the whole point of the bill on sexual offences was to raise the sentences. A lot of people do not know this, but sexual offences are treated less seriously than property offences in some regards. For instance, if someone breaks into a house, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. If they rob somebody, which is theft with an element of violence, they can go to jail for life. However, if someone takes a person's dignity and consent, which is a crime of violence just like robbery, the maximum sentence is 10 years, so I brought this up. The member for Winnipeg heckled, “Tough on crime.” The Liberals are telling us how tough on crime they are now, when they mocked us the last time. They will not only tell us how tough they are on crime but also do little about it.
In this omnibus bill, it says that offenders can serve their sentence for trafficking in fentanyl from their couch. There is going to be 10 minutes for questions and comments, and I challenge any Liberal who rises to say to me, through the Speaker, “I agree with that. I agree that, for people who traffic in one of the deadliest drugs, if not the deadliest drug that we know of, who are literally peddling poison, it is okay that they sit at home playing their video game system, listening to their favourite music and sleeping in their bed, when they are literally peddling poison.” I am speaking right to the Liberals here, those who are prepared to look me in the eye to say that.
Let us go to another one, which is firearms offences. One of the offences in a case called R. v. Oud, out of British Columbia, and it was upheld by the B.C. Court of Appeal as being a constitutional mandatory minimum. Discharge with intent is a drive-by shooting and those types of things. The Liberals legislated that offenders could serve that sentence at home. Previously, it was a four-year mandatory minimum. They kept the five-year minimum if it was a handgun or a restricted firearm, but oftentimes the guns are not ever recovered. Nobody says, “I just did a drive-by. Police, here is the gun.” This does not happen.
The Liberals are telling us that they are tough on crime. They say, “Look at our borders act.” It is 130 pages. “Look at this, we are so tough on crime.” I challenge any member of the Liberals to stand up to say, through the Speaker, “I am okay with people who do drive-by shootings to serve their sentence at home.” People will say, “Oh, you are just tough on crime indiscriminately.”
To the contrary, I think most people deserve a second chance. In fact, a lot of people do. Some people deserve a second chance because they have done something stupid. They have made decisions. They got into an addiction. A lot of people I saw were in a car accident and were then prescribed opiates. The next thing they knew, they had an opiates addiction.
We are not talking about locking the door and throwing away the key for the majority of offenders. We are talking about a small, discreet group of offenders. Nowhere in this bill does it talk about those things. We are prepared to talk about everything but. We are prepared to talk about Internet service providers and whether they have to turn over their materials without a warrant. That is in response to a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision. For those who do not know, an ISP address is easily discoverable. As I recall, and I have not read or looked at the case in some time, the court said a warrant is needed. There is an expectation of privacy there.
I could go on and on about what is not in this bill. Again, I will challenge my Liberal colleagues. Will they have the guts to stand up to say, “I am okay with those things.” If they are not okay with those things, then why are they not petitioning the government to amend the bill to be tough on the crimes they say they are tough on.
This bill has a number of elements to it. It has 16 parts. Obviously, the first part we are dealing with looks at CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, and its ability to do searches. This is interesting, as the Leader of the Opposition, in the last Parliament, would say people were literally tracking their cars to our ports and seeing them go into containers. They were told they could not trespass on that port. People wanted to get their cars back, but they could not do it. We got laughed at, as Conservatives, for this, for our supposed tough-on-crime approach, yet the Liberals are saying that Conservatives need to pass this omnibus bill.
We have a lot of questions about the bill, and I think Canadians deserve to have those questions answered.
The Canada Post Corporation Act would be amended, through part 4 of the bill “to permit the demand, seizure, detention or retention of anything in the course of post only in accordance with an Act of Parliament.” As I understand that, this is a judicial authorization commonly known as a warrant. Typically, it is a warrant that is embedded there. This is really interesting, and I would love for the government to expand on this, because this is something I know I am going to get mail about, if I have not gotten it already.
Part 4 would allow Canada Post Corporation to open mail in certain circumstances. As I understand it, and I am not an expert in this regard, the nature of mail has been that it has been regarded as private since Confederation. In other words, Canada Post has not been able to open somebody's mail. This is the reason we are now talking about the language in the Charter and what is referred to as an expectation of privacy.
The highest expectation is on our bodies. Then we have things like our phones and letters, but there is still an expectation of privacy there, so I would really like for the government to explain what that threshold would be and why it is that Canada Post would be doing this. Those are questions that we really need to have answered.
Similarly, there are the Canadian Coast Guard provisions. How are they going to look in practice? This is a really significant bill that I think we need a bit more information on. I am mindful of the fact that we always will have rights of the individual, and I noticed that many of my Liberal colleagues stood up and clapped when they spoke about being the party of the Charter of Rights. As my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill noted, there is no charter statement here.
The government was able to give us a 130-page bill with 16 parts, and when we ask where the charter statement is, there is a bit of the proverbial shoulder shrug, with the statement, “It just came out two days ago.” If the Liberals can put out a 130-page bill, certainly they can put out a four- or five-page charter statement. It would amaze me if nobody in the government went through this document and asked if it was charter compliant. Certainly somebody did.
We have a government that is saying, “We are all about the charter; we believe in this,” but it will not tell Canadians what its experts have said about whether this legislation is charter compliant. As a critic, how am I to respond to people who have very good faith inquiries about this type of legislation?
The next part of the bill gets into citizenship and immigration. I am not going to touch on that, because I know that my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill will be dealing with that.
The last thing I want to do is reflect on the life of a good friend. His name was Mark Evarden. He was not Canadian, but he touched the lives of many Canadians. Mark passed away unexpectedly of a heart attack just before the election. I cannot understate the profound influence that this man had on my life. He leaves behind his children, Stephen, Lauren and Patrick. I got to spend time with Mark and Patrick right around the pandemic and just before it. Mark touched so many lives, and I wanted to recognize him here, through his work in youth ministry for the church and as a servant. May perpetual light shine upon him. It was my honour to know him.
With that, I will conclude my speech and take questions.
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the opposition member for his speech and his challenge to us on this matter. I listened to him carefully. We agree on a number of points. What we want is for all Canadians to feel safe and secure.
That being said, we must not mislead Canadians. We are talking about a bill that will be discussed and debated. There are a number of elements that I hope will lead to co-operation from the members opposite. When we present a working document, we hope to have their co-operation. That is a good discussion that we could have.
That being said, in his speech, I think my colleague tried to see what is not really in the bill and what should be added, but he seems to have forgotten to talk about the initial work that is already there. I do not really understand where the opposition is going with this. We are trying to give our police forces the tools they need to do their job. We know that criminal groups are adapting their way of doing things and accelerating their use of technology for cybercrime, among other things. We want to give police forces the tools they need.
We want to fight crime, but we see that, unfortunately, the members opposite are not following suit. In his speech, my colleague talked a lot about police work, but I see that what is missing from the opposition's discourse is prevention—
