Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, Bill C-2 is an omnibus bill that would change multiple pieces of legislation, and it really would not address the issue of strong borders. When we are addressing as many different bills as this bill does, to repeat what I mentioned earlier, we attract the attention of 300 different non-governmental organizations across Canada in a coalition. Groups with very different interests are looking at our positions on the civil society protection of charter rights.
I have looked at the government's tabling, through the Minister of Justice, of the charter statement to see whether this bill is charter-compliant, and it really comes down to a series of statements of analysis saying that, while this bill could attract challenges under section 8 of the charter and involves intrusions of privacy, it is all going to be okay because “trust us”.
At this point, we are looking at intrusions of our civil liberties, which other members of Parliament have mentioned, with a very low threshold for opening our mail. It is true, as I know a parliamentary secretary said, that a small envelope with a small amount of fentanyl can kill many people, but this bill does not try to categorize in any way or create any kind of threshold for reasonable suspicion that mail is conveying drugs. This is a very different way of approaching the protection of Canadians. What it is really about when we look at it in the current political context is what we can do to convince Donald Trump that we are going to sacrifice the civil liberties of Canadians to meet the talking points of a deranged U.S. President. It is just not acceptable.
I urge all members of Parliament in this place, all parties, to take the time it takes. This bill will get to second reading. I think it is unlikely we can stop it, although that would be great. The Liberals do not have a majority in this place. Maybe we can stop it from going to second reading. In the meantime, it is likely to go to second reading, and it needs thorough study at committee, particularly from experts, on the charter compliance questions. There is no point in passing a law that would be very soon struck down by the courts as violating our charter rights.
I know I have very little time left, but I hope I will have time in questions and comments to expand on some of these points. Bill C-2 should be rejected. It would be much easier to start over and have a bill that starts from the premise that it is about borders, not about trying to appease the White House.