Debates of June 5th, 2025

Strong Borders Act

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg West on his maiden speech and his election to the House of Commons.

You spoke earlier about health care and how important it was for you in Canada to have access to the health care that we have—

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

I would say to the hon. member, before she starts in that vein, never to direct a comment directly to the other member, but to speak through the Chair.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

I would like to ask my colleague from Winnipeg West the following question.

The member made comments on the health care system and how he was very thankful that it exists in Canada the way it is today. What would he say about the measures this government has put in place to help support Canadian families with respect to health care?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was proud to have been part of some of the improvements made by this government in the 2015 mandate, including the report that was the building block of our pharmacare program.

We have also gone forward with the co-operation and valuable help of our NDP colleagues with the Canada dental care plan.

We also had the Canada child benefit, which decreased poverty across Canada. Poverty, as we know, is one of the prime drivers of ill health.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite just mentioned he was very supportive of a great many of Justin Trudeau's policies. I wonder if one of those was the consumer carbon tax, knowing that it was in full force when he was nominated as a Liberal candidate last October.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax, in its time, was something I supported. It did what it was supposed to have done. It was a victim of misinformation, and we know—

[An hon. member]

It is not at all misinformation.

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

Order.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I said, and I stand by it.

We knew that this policy could not recover, given the misinformation surrounding it.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise here today recognizing that we stand on the traditional territories of the Algonquin nation. I want to congratulate you for your role again here as Assistant Deputy Speaker.

We are debating Bill C-2, which would enact several legislative amendments, including important measures to help detect, deter and disrupt cross-border money laundering and terrorist financing networks. These are matters of utmost importance to our country, particularly British Columbia and my hometown, Richmond, a gateway city that is integral to our economy.

I want to take a quick moment before I speak to the bill; this is my first intervention, although I did have an opportunity to give a statement. I want to take a moment to thank everyone from Richmond East—Steveston for putting their trust in me and supporting me once again: my campaign team and the hundreds of volunteers and supporters who worked tirelessly because they believed in me and the very important work our new government set out to do—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is also the work I did with the member across, but I did not catch what he said. We spent some time on the mighty OGGO committee, and I know he probably wants to see me there again.

Everyone in this House knows the sacrifices families make for us to be here, and their strength helps us do the important work we all do. I remember my wedding day 23 years ago. In my reception toast to my wife, Gurpreet, I said that she makes me a better person. Without her support, I would not be here.

My kids, Hasina and Daya, stepped up and they pounded the pavement. My sister, Nav, knocked on thousands of doors once again. She is the best sister in the world, always ready to stand up for her little brother. Of course, I can never forget the sacrifices my parents made. My dad, like so many Canadians, left his homeland at a young age to make a good life here. He worked as a steelworker in England and then in Canada, and he was a dump truck owner-operator. He worked hard. My mom worked tirelessly as a seniors care aide. We had a very modest upbringing with endless opportunities before us, so I thank them and I love them.

Going back to the bill, it is a huge honour to represent the city that raised me and, most importantly, to be their voice in this House to talk on this today, Bill C-2, with respect to the strong and effective anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing measures included in it. They are integral components of a secure Canada-United States border. These measures not only protect our financial system but also safeguard our communities from the devastating impacts of crime and terrorism.

Money laundering supports and perpetuates crimes by allowing criminals, such as fentanyl traffickers, to benefit from their illicit activities. Terrorist financing enables terrorist activities in Canada, the United States and abroad, posing a significant threat to global security. To combat these threats, Canada has established a robust anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, underpinned by federal statutes, including the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Banks and other businesses and professionals with obligations under this act are on the front lines of the fight against financial crime. The bill would require that these businesses and professionals report certain financial transactions to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, as well as implement compliance programs to identify clients, monitor business relationships and keep records.

Over the last few years, the centre has identified an alarming trend regarding the difficulties reporting entities are having in maintaining effective anti-money laundering controls, as have our partners in markets where Canadian institutions operate. This led the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to issue its largest-ever administrative monetary penalties in 2023 and 2024.

The government takes financial crimes seriously. If left unchecked, these kinds of deficiencies risk undermining the effectiveness of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act in the fight against financial crimes.

The bill proposes a comprehensive set of amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and its regulations to ensure reporting entities maintain strong controls that are effective in detecting and deterring money laundering and other financial crimes. The first part of these measures includes strengthening the administrative monetary penalty framework, enhancing the compliance of reporting entities, more effectively punishing serious criminal non-compliance and strengthening supervision and the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework in general.

These changes are needed to ensure strong anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing controls, as well as that non-compliance is not treated as the cost of doing business. Recent trends also highlight the importance of close coordination between the financial sector regulators. In December 2024, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada signed a memorandum of understanding with regulators in the U.S. to ensure strong money laundering controls of cross-border banks.

In Canada, the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee facilitates consultation and the exchange of information on matters relating to the supervision of federal financial institutions. Making the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada a member of this committee would enable better coordination across agencies in Canada in fighting financial crimes.

Ensuring strong controls of reporting agencies is necessary but not sufficient in our fight against financial crime. We must also take decisive action to directly target the evolving means and methods used by criminals to launder their illicit proceeds. British Columbians know the harms money laundering can cause. Five years ago in Richmond, the operator of an underground bank was shot and killed in broad daylight. In response to this and other concerns about money laundering in B.C., the provincial government established the Cullen commission. The measures proposed in the bill would complement the commission's recommendations to the province.

Of course, British Columbians are concerned about another matter addressed by Bill C-2, fentanyl trafficking and other profit-driven crimes. These criminal activities generate large cash proceeds, and cash remains a preferred method of payment for criminals as it is autonomous and easily transferable. Organized crime networks and drug traffickers exploit money mules to make small deposits in cash in multiple accounts at numerous financial institutions to avoid detection and mandatory reporting.

Criminals also launder their illicit cash proceeds through the purchase and resale of luxury and high-value goods, as well as through large cash payments to service providers who are controlled or influenced by a criminal organization. Large cash payments for goods or services may also be used to evade taxation. For these reasons, many countries, including the United States and other G7 partners, maintain restrictions on large cash transactions.

The second part of the financial crime amendments in the bill addresses the use of cash for money laundering by prohibiting the acceptance by businesses and other professionals of cash payments, deposits or donations over $10,000, except by regulated deposit-taking institutions; and prohibiting deposits by individuals who are not the owner of the account, i.e., third party deposits.

In 2025 and 2026, Canada will undergo an international peer review by the Financial Action Task Force, the international anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing standard-setting body. The proposed measures would help address issues identified by the Financial Action Task Force and support a positive review.

The bill is a key part of the government's agenda, and I urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting its quick passage. I am happy to take any questions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is an important public safety bill before the House.

I do want to ask a question about money laundering and foreign interference. The fact is that a lot has been written about foreign interference in the member's riding in particular. Kenny Chiu, a Conservative member of Parliament in the 43rd Parliament, championed the adoption of a foreign influence registry. Much has been written and revealed about how Kenny Chiu was targeted by the United Front of the CCP because of his advocacy on a foreign influence registry. Although there has been broader adoption and recognition of the importance of that concept, he really was a pioneer on that.

Does the member agree that there were issues of foreign interference targeting Kenny Chiu in the 2021 federal election, and what would he recommend to the government in terms of combatting foreign interference in situations like that?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I shared some time on committee, and he will know that I worked quite hard in the 44th Parliament to address the issue of foreign interference. That is why we brought in Bill C-70, which includes the registry and other measures like security of information. Through it, enforcement can take place on issues of foreign interference when it has to do with things like the passage of misinformation on social media or through other channels, such as when Mr. Chiu felt he was targeted. All members in this House have been targets of misinformation and disinformation.

I am happy to continue that hard work on Bill C-70 to make sure that the security of information and shared information and where it is coming from are top of mind.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill obviously introduces some interesting improvements. However, there is a major problem when it comes to the staffing shortage at the Canada Border Services Agency and within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or the RCMP.

In its election platform, the Liberal Party promised to hire 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, officers. The Speech from the Throne mentioned the 1,000 additional RCMP officers. However, neither the Speech from the Throne nor the government have said anything about additional CBSA officers.

The customs union is saying that there is a shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 CBSA officers, so I would like to know what the government plans to do, in relation to this bill, to increase staffing at the CBSA.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Madam Speaker, under the previous Harper government the number of CBSA officers was reduced. We have made a commitment to increase the number of CBSA and RCMP officers by 1,000. I think it is an integral part of what will take place beyond the introduction of Bill C-2.

We will make those announcements in the coming days.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to listen to and follow a debate that has been, I think, kind of thoughtful for the most part today. All parties agree that there is some merit to this legislation and that perhaps amendments need to be offered. It needs to be scrutinized and studied.

I know there are constituents in Waterloo who also have a lot of questions. Constituents are concerned with regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and wondering if this legislation will protect their rights and freedoms. We do want to take that seriously.

I would like to hear from the member what some of the comments and concerns are that he has been hearing from constituents. Is there value in getting this legislation to committee sooner rather than later, so that perhaps more witnesses and experts can be called and this legislation can be scrutinized to ensure we are getting this piece of the stuff that we need to do right?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Waterloo is one of our hardest-working members. I want to congratulate her on being re-elected for a fourth term in this House.

I have heard this question a lot from constituents. Many of them are happy to hear we are working expeditiously and very quickly on these amendments.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am standing here tonight in the House of Commons, the House of the common people, with great pleasure. It is the first time I will be delivering a substantive speech since re-election.

I would first like to acknowledge my family. My family has been profound in getting me exactly where I am. There is so much work to be done, and without the family support that so many of us in this place have to get us where we are, we would not be here. I thank our families.

I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the impeccable campaign team and my electoral district association of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, which went above and beyond every single day. We ran a seamless campaign. It was impressive, and I am so grateful for all of them. I would also like to acknowledge the importance of serving with humility, grace, grit and sometimes an attitude. Respectfully, we have a tremendous responsibility to do what is right for all Canadians, and I give my word to the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga that I will do exactly that.

It is wonderful to rise on behalf of all Canadians. I would also like to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, along with a lot of the new faces and the older faces here in this place. I would also like to thank those who are not returning to the House of Commons after a hard-fought election for their dedication to their constituents in the last Parliament. The last Parliament was a historic, unprecedented Parliament, and I am extremely glad that I was able to share a lot of that with them.

To the topic at hand, as I know everyone is anxiously waiting for me to turn the page, Bill C-2 proposes a whole list of changes to various acts of Parliament, and there is a lot to unpack. According to the government-issued backgrounder, it is a catch-all crime bill claiming to stem the flow of fentanyl, cracking down on immigration fraud and fighting organized crime, among other things.

The first immediate red flag that comes up is that this is already asking our underfunded and understaffed security organizations to do more with meagre resources than they already have. In my previous role, I learned a lot about defence and military concepts, and a parallel can be drawn between what we are seeing proposed and an unfortunate constant in our armed forces, an ever-increasing commitment capability gap. We do not have the resources to do the things we need to do. In the Canadian Armed Forces, that manifests itself in a lack of manpower, kit, weapons systems, supports, housing and pay. We may very well need our police organizations to have the authority to do more, but that is completely irrelevant if they are not given the tools to do their current job and what we are asking them to do in addition.

The bill, as it stands, would only increase that gap, which, in turn, would result in more inefficient capabilities across the board as organizations take resources from already struggling sectors to plug into the newly created areas of operation. It may seem as though I am getting technical here, but we really need to dig into this. There are a few parts in the proposed legislation where this is a concern, but there is one in particular that I would like to touch on today, as I have some familiarly, I mean familiarity, with it through my previous work.

I would like to acknowledge that when I was younger, I had a speech impediment, and I have come a long way. I was actually learning sign language when I was younger, in anticipation of not knowing how far my speech would develop, and now I am speaking as capably as I can in English. I am also vigorously learning French, and I am pretty comfortable in Spanish as well, so I have come a long way, but I say to those who have speech impediments or struggle to get up in front of a group, sometimes words from the past or different syllables might catch them, but they just need to keep going. To those who struggle at home, keep going.

Getting back to the legislation, for those listening who may not be familiar with this particular legislation, out of deference to the government, lest I be accused of misleading Canadians as to the content of the bill, I will reference the government's backgrounder, which it produced to ensure that we are getting this particular piece of legislation as clearly as possible so that people can understand it. It reads:

Expand the Canadian Coast Guard’s services to include security activities that will strengthen sovereignty and maritime domain awareness, particularly in remote Arctic waters;

This will enable the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze and share information and intelligence for security purposes.

How exactly does the government plan to enable the Coast Guard to carry out these increased activities? Where are the additional ships, helicopters and personnel coming from? The legislation is silent on this. We cannot legislate sailors into existence. A bill does not create helicopters. Bill C-2, or any piece of legislation, does not create capability; it creates only verbal commitment, and that is a very serious problem.

This is not the first time that this government's legislation has widened a capability gap. In the last Parliament, the government introduced Bill C-40. The legislation was essentially created to address miscarriages of justice. While we do enjoy a relatively stable justice system, perhaps its single greatest flaw is the staggering slow pace at which it moves. The reason I wanted to speak about Bill C-40 today is the additional burden it put on the judiciary, a burden that has very real consequences.

During the last Parliament, I had the opportunity to speak with Kate, who made it one of her life goals to ensure that women do not have to go through what she did. I am not going to stand before you and repeat all of the terrible details, but, in short, she was the victim of severe intimate partner violence. Her partner tried to kill her. There was a video and photo evidence of her bloodied body as she tried to leave him. He gloated about this abuse to his neighbours. One would think it was an open and shut case. After all, this is Canada, a developed western nation, where justice is king, but after being rescheduled twice, the charges were stayed. She was granted a restraining order and told to be on her way. She had to literally flee the country just to feel safe.

Why did this happen? It happened because the courts could not handle the volume of cases. Hers was among many that were decided to be tossed out, not because of individual innocence but because of bureaucratic burdens. This is a perfect example of that capability gap that I spoke of earlier. The government needs to be able to ensure that our systems, and the people working to keep them going, can function at all times, and the same goes for our borders.

Moving on, I would like to talk about the practical nature of some of these changes that are proposed, changes that I think are more easily committed to than actually achieved. The document reads:

Enhance the ability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to share information collected under the Act on registered sex offenders with domestic and international partners, including those located in the United States.

The document continues:

Authorize Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to share client information, such as identity, status and immigration documentation with federal, provincial and territorial partners through signed information-sharing agreements;

Make it easier for IRCC to share client information between different IRCC programs (e.g. using permanent residence application data to process citizenship applications);

Allow for regulations to be developed to share client information across federal departments for the purpose of cooperation.

These four proposals are very interesting because, again, they sound great, but exactly how are they to be facilitated? Is a new database being created? Will security clearances need to be harmonized across all departments? How do we know the provinces and territories will agree to these suggestions? Will this necessitate individual processes for each signatory? What if someone moves between provinces? These are all questions that need to be answered and actioned on by an already very slow-moving public service.

I need only point to the Phoenix pay fiasco. Regardless of where blame lies, the government had a very real issue with doing something as basic as paying its employees. The procurement system in the Canadian Armed Forces is piecemeal. Passports were taking months to be issued. ATIPs take months if not years. These are all existing systems that the government has been actively working on to fix, and we are expecting the government to reform IRCC's information-sharing system and incorporate all 13 independent provinces and territories. The Liberals might as well legislate away the national debt, toothaches and bad dreams while they are at it.

The questions keep coming. Bill C-2 proposes to do the following:

Ensure that electronic services providers (ESPs) have the capabilities in place to support law enforcement agencies and CSIS in criminal and intelligence investigations by requiring them to fulfil lawfully authorized requests to access or intercept information and communications.

This is an interesting one. I am not entirely sure how legally requiring an electronic service provider to hand over information to the government when asked means they will have the capability to access, recover and transmit that information to the government, but apparently this legislation would make that happen. It would be quite impressive if it works.

This last point segues into another area of concern: the consultative process. This is an extremely sweeping piece of legislation. We are already hearing concerns about the IRCC reforms from digital security experts and personal rights organizations. I am concerned that the government did not do the due diligence that we normally see in drafting this legislation. I am not sure how much conversation was held with stakeholders, the public or, I suspect, even with its own caucus.

This brings me to another point: Why introduce this legislation so early? The answer lies behind the motive. The legislation was not introduced out of a desire for increased security or a concern with the ongoing fentanyl crisis. No, it was introduced because of one word: tariffs.

Bill C-2 is the government's attempt to assuage the concerns, legitimate or not, of the Trump administration. I would like to be clear: The Trump administration's tariffs are unprompted, unfair and unjust, and I know the House is united in our feelings about this, but the reality remains that they are here. The only way we get rid of them is by sitting down with our American counterparts, listening, and coming to an understanding that these tariffs hurt not just our economy and our people, but those in the United States as well.

Doing that will take much more than speaking out in the House to an audience that is united in their desire to restore and reinforce our trading relationship with our closest trading neighbour; it will take action. It will mean having those very difficult conversations together. This is why I am personally reaching out to industry associations, stakeholders and policy-makers on both sides of the border at the state, provincial and federal levels to open that dialogue. I intend to work collaboratively with the Canadian and American governments in an attempt to come to a mutual understanding and get these unjust tariffs on Canada's businesses and goods removed.

This morning, I had the privilege of meeting with His Excellency Carlos Manuel Joaquín González, Mexico's ambassador to Canada. We had a really good conversation about the importance of building and maintaining the relationships between our two nations.

Not two hours ago, I sat down with American officials, and we had a very productive meeting. In addition, I am in talks with Canadian embassy officials in Washington to facilitate meetings on the ground in D.C., as well as Canadian trade delegates located throughout the U.S.

I recognize the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade has just ended a visit there, and I would like to thank and applaud him for his efforts, but as the government likes to say, this requires a team approach. I will take this opportunity to invite the minister to join me in D.C. so we can have a real collaborative conversation, the government and opposition together, as we tackle these unfair and unjust tariffs with our American counterparts.

It is not always about Liberals and Conservatives. There are times when it needs to be about Canada and the United States, Canadians and Americans. Neither party nor nation can afford to lose sight of that.

Going back to the big picture and bottom line of Bill C-2, in closing, the Conservatives are committed to implementing the tougher and smarter measures that are needed to keep Canada safe. They include securing our borders, strengthening our immigration system and cracking down on terrorist financing. The safety and security of Canadians are non-negotiable.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the member went through an election experience, as all of us did, during which the issue she referenced on why we have Bill C-2 in front of us today was hotly discussed. We have a very clear mandate from Canadians, who anticipate that as a collective House of Commons, we pass legislation of this nature.

Does the member feel any sense of obligation to see the legislation pass before the House rises for the summer?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, knocking on doors and talking to a tremendous number of constituents throughout the campaign was intense, but there are a tremendous number of concerns and fears on the streets and in our neighbourhoods. It does not matter whether people are in rural Ontario or downtown Toronto. The numbers are a direct result of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, Liberal laws that made it easier for violent offenders to get bail and avoid serious jail time. Bill C-2 fails to completely fix the damage of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It moves the needle, but it does not completely fix things.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. The bill contains a slight ambiguity regarding the minister's ability to suspend visas or refuse to consider applications. Of course this bill will be studied in committee, but as my colleague surely knows, immigration is an area of shared jurisdiction with Quebec. Denying visas when people have received a Quebec acceptance certificate might be questionable.

I am wondering whether, in committee, the Conservative Party will be willing to respect Quebec's immigration powers and take a closer look at this issue.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line, hard stop, is that regardless of what community, what province or what territory we live in in Canada, parliamentarians on all sides of the House need to be strong voices, advocates and defenders of our democracy. We cannot tiptoe around the rights of criminals, and we really need to protect our victims. We need serious sentences for serious crimes. Victims need to see consequences.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on coming back here.

During her speech, the member mentioned that the Canadian Coast Guard is going to be tasked with more border security. We know the previous Liberal government dilly-dallied on purchasing and obtaining icebreakers with Arctic capabilities; it has taken years to do that. The Liberals could not even get body armour to staff in Nova Scotia to deal with illegal lobster and elver fisheries out there. It has been reported that they had to recruit enforcement officers all the way from British Columbia to go across the country to Nova Scotia to help with enforcement.

Does the member think the government is even close to being capable of enacting some of the things this bill proposes to do?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could talk for an hour or so on this particular question, but I will not.

Very briefly, let us look back at the last 10 years of the Liberal record. It is 10 years of devastation, 10 years of inaction and 10 years of non-answers. Shall go on? The bottom line is that since the Liberals took office, there has been a 632% increase in U.S. border patrol encounters with people illegally attempting to enter the United States from Canada, a direct result of the government's failure to enforce effective border security. Canadians are at risk.