Debates of Sept. 16th, 2025

Strong Borders Act

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am inclined to believe the Liberals are not going to do anything they said they would do because the Prime Minister has been there for the last six months. In that six months, he has made a bunch of promises, none of which have been fulfilled. It was the Prime Minister and the Liberals who decided to prorogue Parliament, to not come back for the summer and to not allow committees to work. In many cases, the committees are not even working this week, the first week back. I do not trust what they say.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a brief comment and then ask a question.

My colleague spoke about border security. I would like to remind everyone that a little over 10 years ago, when I was an assistant, the Conservatives made cuts to border posts. That had an impact on border security.

I, too, did a lot of work on the ground this summer. While people are indeed concerned about security, they are also worried about the cost of living. The vision at the federal level, from both the Liberals and the Conservatives, is focused on centralization. There is a tendency to implement programs, particularly in the areas of homelessness and housing, that are unsuitable for rural communities like the ones in my riding of Shefford, though it does include one major city, Granby. The money is not reaching our communities.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was here 10 years ago. I was part of the Conservative government. We had an immigration system that was the envy of the world. We had an immigration system that worked. It responded to newcomers coming to the country. It provided the best possibility for positive outcomes for them and their families, while at the same time contributing to the Canadian economy.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government decided to forego a lot of the strategies, policies and controls we had in place, such as the vetting of new people coming to the country. It relaxed them. That has created the tremendous amount of problems we are seeing with crime in our communities, including the crime in the community the hon. member who asked the question is from.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I want to build on the intervention by my colleague from Winnipeg North. He talked about a warrant being required. I am going to read this section, which is a proposed amendment to section 41 of the Canada Post Corporation Act. It states, “The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that”. I do not see a warrant requirement there. I have read the charter statement, which says a warrant is required, but I do not see a warrant requirement there. Perhaps that provision is in the proposed amendments to section 40.1, but I do not read it there.

Does the member agree that it does not seem to be present there? If anybody is watching and knows this, I would ask that they contact me. I would love to see why it does not say that a warrant is required, but the government is saying that a warrant would be required. Perhaps I am missing something.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question and the point my learned colleague has made. Certainly, it is not part of the legislation. The warrant requirement is not there. I happen to believe, as many Canadians believe, that we should not leave the opening of our mail to the discretion of the mailman who has the piece before him.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to start my speech with this: Jesus is Lord.

There has been an outpouring of condolences to the family of Charlie Kirk, and I would like to give the family of Charlie Kirk my condolences as well. He was a big advocate for the Christian faith and for declaring that Jesus is Lord, and here I do that as well.

The bill we are discussing today, Bill C-2, has a whole section dedicated to how law enforcement deals with the sex offender registry and the sex offender list, and I would like to dedicate most of my time today to discussing that.

I will start by reading what it says on the inside of every Canadian's passport, right on the front page:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada requests, in the name of His Majesty the King, all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely, without delay or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.

This passport is the property of the Government of Canada. It must not be altered. You must take every precaution to safeguard it.

In the front of our passport is an endorsement of the individual bearer of the passport, which is basically saying that Canada is hoping that the countries Canadian people use their passport to travel to will give security and allow their passage, so to speak. We are asking people to welcome Canadians to their country when we offer them a passport.

There are some good things in Bill C-2, particularly in part 13. Under this government, convicted sex offenders or child predators have had more freedom to travel than Canadians who chose not to get vaccinated. Under the Liberal government in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, massive restrictions were placed on people's ability to travel, yet the government continued to issue passports to folks who were on the registered sex offender list.

This is not required or necessary, because in 2015 the Conservative government amended the passport act to give the Minister of Foreign Affairs tools to refuse or cancel passports in order to prevent the commission of sexual offences against a child in Canada or abroad. Basically, it was to stop Canadian sexual predators from travelling and exploiting youth in other parts of the world, especially in underdeveloped countries. However, I recognize part 13 would allow law enforcement and border security agents to communicate better, and I am hopeful that this would help a lot.

We have also talked in this place about managing passports and marking passports to show that somebody is a registered sex offender. When I talked to those in the passport office, they said they were unable to get that information from the RCMP, because the RCMP is not allowed to share that information with them, and so I am hopeful that the bill before us will pass. I have not heard anything from the Liberal government saying one way or the other whether this would fix that problem, as it has not been part of the- stated messaging around the bill.

I would note that section 13 is a large section of the bill, yet we hear very little about it. Nonetheless, this is something that I have worked on for many years. Every year or so I do an Order Paper question to the government asking how many passports it has revoked, how many passports it has cancelled and how many refusals of passports it has offered. From 2015 to 2018, over the first two years of the Liberal government, only 13 cancellations or revocations took place, and only five refusals, to prevent the sexual abuse of children abroad. Many of these were initiated under a Conservative government. Initially there were a number of them, but then it kind of just fell off, and by the time 2018 rolled around, there was none.

Canada has nearly 60,000 registered sex offenders; 72% are child sex predators, so that is over 42,000 convicted child sex offenders. The Liberal government has only cancelled 13 passports, zero passports in the last three years, and has only refused eight.

Based on the work of organizations that I work with, we are aware that Canadian child sex offenders who have been convicted of horrific crimes against children receive passports from the government and, in the past few years, have been travelling abroad. For example, horrendous child abuser Donald Bakker, one of Canada's most notorious, served jail time for travelling to Southeast Asia to abuse children as young as seven years old. Under the Liberal government, he got his passport back and was travelling abroad to impoverished countries over the past number of years. I find this to be unconscionable.

Of 42,500 convicted child sex offenders, over the first seven years of the Liberal government only 13 passports were cancelled or refused. Every year, I submit Order Paper questions to the government, asking what it is doing about this. Interestingly enough, I received one of these Order Paper questions back just yesterday. I asked the RCMP, for example, how many sex offenders leave the country. It wrote back to me saying the RCMP is unable to track the number of sex offenders who leave the country.

What is the point of having a national sex offender registry if we cannot track where these people are going? I thought that was kind of the entire point of it. Particularly, if the RCMP is responsible for this registry, certainly it should be able to track this kind of thing, but it says it is unable to track this. How is this possible? That is my question to the government. Do we not have a moral obligation to prevent the abuse of children outside of our jurisdiction?

There is a requirement for sex offenders to register when they leave the country, and it is an offence to fail to do this. I asked the RCMP how many sex offenders fail to report their absence, and of course, because it does not know how many people are leaving, the RCMP came back to me and said it is unable to confirm how many registered sex offenders fail to report their absence. The RCMP may become aware of it after the fact and then be able to investigate, but it is unknown how many failures happen.

Now, this is where section 13 may be on the right track. I have yet to hear much from the government about this. Would section 13 fix this problem? Section 13 talks a lot about inter-agency communication to try to prevent this kind of thing. I am hopeful that this would be the case. However, the law has been in place since 2015 for all of these things to happen, and under the Liberal government's watch, it has not been enforcing it. It has not been using the law. It has not been using the official registry at all.

Our reporting system seems to be, basically, voluntary and without any accountability. If it were not for the work of civil society groups calling attention to this, there may be no action whatsoever. The only thing the government could share with us was how many notifications the RCMP has received from sex offenders who are on the national sex registry and who had indicated their intention to travel internationally, broken down by year. In 2022, it had 1,773 registered sex offenders register to travel outside of Canada; in 2023, 2,204; in 2024, 3,320. As of May this year, we had nearly 1,000 registered sex offenders notify that they are leaving the country.

I am pleased to see that the government is addressing the barriers that exist in the area of communications back and forth. I think it is doing this entirely because the American government has been complaining about this. The Americans have noted that every time a registered sex offender comes to Canada, nearly 1,000 times a year, they at least inform the Canadian authorities that a registered sex offender is approaching the border, and we have refused many of these people. The Americans have asked that we do the same thing back, and I think that that is why it is being done.

What is not clear from this is, will it work inside Canada? Will the CBSA be able to speak to the passport office? Will the CBSA be able to speak to the RCMP about the sex offender registry? That is not clear at all from the particular communications that the government has come out with.

In Canada, sex offenders are required to report, within seven days before leaving the country, their dates of departure and return, and every address or location at which they expect to stay while outside of the country. As I stated before, we do not really know whether they are reporting or not. The RCMP, because of the lack of information sharing, is unable to even pursue these cases.

I am hopeful Bill C-2 would fix this problem, and I hope the government can assure me this would indeed be the case.

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

Madam Speaker, the legislation would do many things. One of the issues the member raised and spent a great deal of time on is sex offenders. Within the sex offender registry, there is a considerable amount of information, and this act would enable the RCMP to share a lot of that information, both domestically and internationally. This is a very strong, positive thing in terms of what the member is talking about.

When we go 30,000 feet in the air and ask what kind of things we are looking at, we can think of the $1.3 billion to invest in things like hundreds of RCMP border control officers, and then the enabling of sharing of information. These are tangible things that are going to make a difference, yet we continue to see Conservatives not wanting to pass legislation.

Does the member feel any obligation to encourage his colleagues to see legislation go to committee stage, at the very least, so we can hear what Canadians and others have to say and have more debate on the issue?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Chair, I think my entire speech outlined the fact that I have zero confidence in the particular Liberal government across the way to actually implement any of these things. I gave a speech about all the great things in section 13 of this bill and my hopefulness about what they are.

However, the government has had 10 years to implement all of these things. These are complaints and issues that have been raised from the day I got elected, back in 2015, so I am not hopeful. There has been zero communication about section 13 in light of passport revocation and any of these kinds of things I have raised around this. I think this bill deserves all the scrutiny we can give it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

The Liberals often talk about the Harper years, and they talk about where we legislated, especially with respect to minimums: drugs, guns, sex offences. The Liberals have legislated on guns; they actually weakened sentences on guns in Bill C-5. They have legislated on drugs. They have not touched sex offences once. They have not touched sex offences.

They have refused to legislate on sex offences, the most pernicious and often the most insidious type of offence, with victims serving psychological life sentences, and now they are going to tell us about how they are dealing with sex offences here and that this bill is a panacea? Give me a break.

What does my hon. colleague think?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola could not be more right. We have worked together a lot on trying to fix a lot of these problems.

I would note, again, the Harper government put in place the ability to mark sex offenders' passports, to revoke sex offenders' passports and to prevent them from getting passports on the front end. Again, we are talking about fewer than 20 actions taken by the government to deal with sex offenders going abroad to perpetrate their crimes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is incredible that the members opposite would make reference to Stephen Harper. More importantly, when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat in cabinet, the Conservatives actually cut border control services. That was a cut. We have increased it by over $1 billion; that is with a “b”. We have invested in more RCMP, more border control. We have brought in substantive legislation. The word that comes to my mind is hypocrisy.

Will the Conservative Party members not recognize a good thing when they see it and allow legislation to pass so we can better serve Canadians, get off the political side of things and start doing work for Canadians? Even Conservative voters want them to do better on the floor of the House of Commons.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the antics of the member opposite, which kind of prove our point. The point is that under a Conservative government, we did not have border issues like we do today. We did not have to spend billions of dollars on border security.

The Liberals say we did not spend as much money as them, but the goal is not how much money we spend; the goal is how secure our border is. If we had to spend zero dollars to have a secure border, I would be in favour of that. We do not have a secure border anymore. The Roxham Road situation totally proves that point, and it is a significant problem that appeared under the Liberal government.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the freedom-loving residents of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-2, the Liberals' so-called strong borders act.

Conservatives will always support secure borders, the rule of law and the protection of Canadian sovereignty, but we must ensure those who enter our country do so legally, safely and with respect for our values. We support measures that protect Canadians from illegal drug trafficking, human smuggling and organized crime. We support reforms that streamline immigration processes and ensure fairness in our asylum system.

What we will not support are the measures that target law-abiding Canadians. We do not support criminalizing the use of cash. We do not support the warrantless surveillance of Canadians' Internet activity. We do not support giving law enforcement the power to search Canadians' mail without judicial oversight. These are not border issues; these are surveillance measures. These are control measures, and they have no place in a free and democratic society.

In many ways, this bill is an admission of failure by the Liberal government. It has allowed crime and chaos to run rampant. The government claims this bill is about going after international gangs that push fentanyl on Canadians, yet it includes no mandatory prison time for traffickers. There are no new mandatory prison times for gangsters who use guns. This bill proves that the Liberals can swap out their leaders but keep the ideology.

Thanks in part to the Liberals' new censorship law, many Canadians have no idea that the Prime Minister is seeking to ban cash transactions. The Liberals want to make it a criminal offence for businesses, professionals and charities to accept cash payments of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or a series of related transactions. This is not a targeted measure against money laundering. It is a blanket restriction that affects law-abiding citizens. It treats legitimate transactions as suspicious simply because they involve physical currency. It forces Canadians into digital payment systems that are traceable, surveilled, controlled and hackable.

Using cash is not a crime. It is a legal form of payment. It is a tool for privacy, autonomy and financial freedom. Criminalizing its use sets a dangerous precedent. Today it is $10,000. Tomorrow it could be $5,000, then $1,000 and eventually nothing. This is a slippery slope toward a cashless society where every transaction is monitored and every citizen is tracked.

We must ask who benefits from this. It is not ordinary Canadians, not small businesses and not charities. The beneficiaries are governments, banks and corporations that profit from data collection and digital control.

Conservatives believe in financial freedom. We believe Canadians should have the right to use cash for legal transactions without fear of prosecution. We oppose this provision and call for its removal from the bill.

I know that many government members were first elected in 2015. They have never sat in opposition. As we all learned from the Liberals' caucus turmoil last year, this is very much a top-down party. I raise this because this bill resurrects the so-called lawful access measures, which grant the government access to Canadians' Internet data without a warrant. This is not the first time the “securitycrats” have tried to bring this into law. They tried to get us to pass it in 2012, when we were a majority government. Fortunately, we had a prime minister who respected and listened to his caucus colleagues. That is why we withdrew the bill.

It is no surprise that fresh off an election, while the Liberal ministers are still trying to find the bathrooms and staff up their offices, the “securitycrats” would slip this in. They want law enforcement to have the power to demand data such as IP addresses, usernames, device identifiers and service usage history based on a mere suspicion standard. This is not on reasonable grounds or probable cause, but just suspicion.

While many actors across the aisle were not here during the last debate on so-called lawful access, my biggest fan, the member for Winnipeg North, was. Here is a great question he raised during that debate:

...the vast majority of the public, and individuals who are watching, are very curious as to the degree that law enforcement officers, or any others who might be designated through the minister, might have to access their history on websites and the content of emails. The minister makes reference that this does not change what is in place today.

Could the minister assure those who are listening to the debate that the government does not, in any fashion whatsoever, allow for any sort of invasion of privacy without some form of a judicial court warrant to enable police to do so?

I am sorry. I am not a great mimic. Even if the Liberal ministers cannot speak honestly about their opposition to these parts of the bill here in the House, I hope they find the courage to do so in caucus.

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. That clear wording is why police require reasonable grounds to obtain a warrant. Anything short of that will invite abuse. The problem is in defining “reasonable”. It is why people who are trying to defend their homes are being thrown into jail instead of the armed intruders.

This is not about border security. This is about giving the state unchecked power to monitor Canadians' digital lives. This is the natural precursor for the Internet censorship bill that the Prime Minister has pledged to reintroduce. Warrantless access to Internet data, combined with the vast digital safety bureaucracy the Liberals envision, would make the communists who control China blush.

The only thing that could make this worse is if the government had access to technology that could sift through vast amounts of data quickly and tease out surprising connections. Wait. It does. The Liberals brag about it all the time. That is why they have contracts with U.S. company Palantir. In 2012, when we last debated so-called lawful access, that kind of technology was science fiction. Now it is scientific fact. Canadians do not want Liberal AI spying on them. These snooping sections of the bill must be deleted when it reaches committee.

The Internet is an integral part of 21st-century society. We can see in China that despite vast state surveillance, citizens tolerate the lack of privacy for the convenience of using the Internet for shopping, school or socializing. However, that is not the case with the mail and Canada Post. The Liberals plan to allow police to search the mail without a warrant. That fact would be a decapitating blow to the zombie corporation we refer to as Canada Post.

Not only would this obviously violate section 8 of the charter, but it would also infringe on section 3, the right to vote. Nothing would undermine the confidence of mail-in ballots faster than Liberals giving themselves the power to open mail. For Canadians living overseas, there are no alternatives to voting by mail. If the state can inspect someone's ballot, then their right to vote has been infringed. The mere threat of ballot inspections would be enough for unsavoury actors to pressure overseas voters. Those unsavoury actors would not just be rogue partisans, but foreign agents seeking to undermine our democracy.

Meanwhile, the fentanyl dealers will switch to FedEx, UPS or drones. Two years ago, correctional officials in B.C. intercepted a pigeon with a tiny backpack filled with drugs. Drug dealers are using Canada Post because it is cheap and easy. Allowing warrantless searches might stop the dealers from using the mail, but it would not stop the dealing and the distribution of drugs. What it would do is stop regular Canadians from trusting the mail, and given the decline in trust and confidence we have seen across democratic countries, this bill would do too little to help and too much to hurt.

Canadians want to have confidence in their government. They want to know that it is tackling security. They want criminals in jail and our border under control, but we cannot have trust in a government that gives itself the power to spy on its citizens without a warrant based on reasonable grounds. It is checks and balances on state power that instill trust. It is still the competent execution of those powers that builds confidence. Conservatives call on this government to remove the sections where trust is undermined.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I took great exception when the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke said the Liberal Party has a top-down approach. As a matter of fact, the headlines we heard about the Conservative Party were that the Leader of the Opposition maintains tight control over what Conservative MPs say and do.

However, my question hits much closer to home for the member. The word on the street right now, the rumour that has been flying around, is that the newly elected member for Battle River—Crowfoot plans to run in her riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke in the next general election and might even be trying to push her out in order to do that.

Can she assure us that she will be the candidate—

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

I would remind hon. members that such questions are not really about government business.

The hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was wondering who started that rumour, but let us get back to the bill.

Bill C-2 is a Trojan Horse. It promises security but delivers surveillance. It promises order but delivers control. It is not the kind of legislation that Canadians expect from a government that claims to respect the charter. Let us work together to craft legislation that truly strengthens our borders without weakening our freedoms.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about confidence. She referred to foreign interference and confidence in the democratic system. Many articles have been published on the issue of how to restore public confidence.

The government is currently a minority government. This is what the voters have chosen. The government members should act accordingly. They should try to listen to the opposition parties and have a discussion. As for the members of the official opposition, they should use a constructive tone in their discussions.

In terms of confidence in the electoral system, there is the issue of foreign interference but also how we behave here in the House. What does my colleague think about that?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am having trouble getting that out too.

In the House, government members should be respecting, listening to and answering questions according to what speakers actually say. A small modicum of respect for opposition parties will build confidence not only in Parliament but among the people who watch us from home.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague talk about cash transactions. As we know, cash facilitates money laundering and anonymity.

Canadian banks abide by the Basel accords, which is why Canada's banking system is one of the best in the world. Does my colleague want us to continue letting people use cash, which increases the number of crimes committed by the very criminals we want to lock up by strengthening our laws, while the current government seeks to prevent rather than cure?

What is her stance? Does she think Canada should allow money laundering to continue, or does she think it should abide by the Basel accords and ask Canadian banks to do their job?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, cash is legal tender in Canada. The way we can strengthen security in transactions is not through taking away cash. It is by FINTRAC taking the information that it gathers, all the forms people fill out every time they make deposits or transfer $10,000 or more, and actually acting upon it, not just collecting the paper.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising the alarming civil liberties violations that the Liberal government is trying to sneak in under the auspices of this border bill. Much of the response we get from the government effectively boils down to “just trust us”.

Do Canadians have any reason to trust the government that it will not abuse the broad latitude it is trying to give itself with Bill C-2?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians have lost trust in the government. They did so during COVID when the Liberals refused to allow parliamentarians to see the contracts for the vaccines. They lost trust when different scandals came up. Canadians no longer trust the government. We certainly do not want to see the types of riots occurring across Europe and parts of the Middle East come to Canada. The Liberals have to be respectful and have a budget and then ensure that they are completely—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-2, the strong borders act, was introduced in June by the public safety minister. Framed as legislation to strengthen border security, fight fentanyl trafficking and address U.S. irritants, the 140-page omnibus bill would make sweeping changes across more than 11 existing acts, and it proposes a new framework for digital surveillance of Canadians.

Many aspects of the bill have little or nothing to do with border security. The government is seeking unrelated powers it has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain in the past that present significant threats to human rights and civil liberties. Bill C-2 is not about safety; it is about normalizing surveillance, criminalizing migration, bypassing Parliament and public debate, and attacking Canadians' privacy and charter rights. It would undermine due process, and it is a power grab.

The Liberal government's new strong borders act is one of the most serious threats to Canadians' civil liberties we have seen in years. It makes Stephen Harper's infamous Bill C-51 look tame by comparison. Framed as a national security measure, the legislation would give sweeping new powers to police and intelligence agencies, powers that would override long-standing privacy protections and skirt judicial oversight.

At the heart of Bill C-2 is a deeply troubling expansion of warrantless surveillance. Under the proposed law, the RCMP, CSIS and even undefined “public officers” would be able to demand personal information from a wide range of service providers without ever going before a judge. This includes doctors, banks, landlords, schools and even psychiatrists, and the list can go on.

Let that sink in for one minute. Government agencies could make information demands for when and how long someone has accessed service from a provider or an associate provider related to that service. This of course means that government agencies would know where the provider is located and the timeline, how often and for how long someone has sought service from the provider. Under the bill, the government would be able to access online activity that someone is engaged in, without having to justify it to a court.

These kinds of unchecked powers are ripe for abuse, and historically, we know who pays the highest price. When governments start cutting corners on civil liberties, it is often racialized, low-income, marginalized communities that bear the brunt, but they will not be the only ones. We all would be under this kind of scrutiny.

Even more alarming, Bill C-2 would open the door to increased information sharing with foreign governments, including the United States. Ottawa is currently in talks to join the U.S.' CLOUD Act, the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, which would allow U.S. law enforcement to access Canadian data stored on servers abroad. That could include deeply personal records, such as whether someone accessed abortion services.

In a post-Roe America, where abortion is criminalized in several states and reproductive health is under surveillance, this is profoundly dangerous. In the Trump era, where the LGBTQ2IA+ community is under attack, this is extremely dangerous. Canadians should never have to worry that their personal medical decisions might be exposed to another country's government, yet the bill makes that possibility very real.

Matt Hatfield of OpenMedia critiqued Bill C-2 for having an “astonishing scope of who can receive data demands without a warrant that is unprecedented in Canada.” He is right; we have never seen anything quite like this in Canada being pushed through. It is alarming. It is American-style surveillance creeping north of the border. Canadians were warned about this during the last election. Did the Prime Minister, during the election, tell any Canadians that this is what he was going to do? No, and all of this is to appease Trump.

Groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group are sounding the alarm. They are rightly pointing out that Bill C-2 threatens charter-protected rights to privacy and to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. These are not abstract concerns; these are rights that go to the heart of a free and democratic society.

If the Prime Minister and the public safety minister are serious about protecting those rights, they must scrap the bill and send it back to the drawing board. It should not be brought forward as an omnibus bill. If they want to address border safety, they should bring forward a bill that addresses border safety. If they want to address fentanyl trafficking, they should bring forward a bill that addresses fentanyl trafficking. They should not lump them in with a 140-page bill and sneak in provisions that would turn Canada into a surveillance state.

Of course we all want safety. Communities want safety, and we want secure borders. However, we already have existing legal tools, like warrants and court orders, that respect civil liberties and let law enforcement do its job while still protecting civil liberties. Stripping away judicial oversight is not the answer, and that is not how we do things in a democracy.

The public safety minister, in an op-ed about refugee asylum seekers, in 2016, wrote the following:

Our country will never be the same again, and collectively our doors should always be open, not just to those who come to our shores, but those taking extraordinary risks to cross other shores in search of refuge. We must understand that people in normal circumstances do not risk their lives—and the lives of their families—to [flee] for reasons such as economic stability. They do so out of desperation and as a last resort.

Now, as minister, he is putting up walls and barriers through the legislation. Yes, refugees and those who need safety are under attack under the bill. Bill C-2 would deny hearings entirely to refugees from the United States, block applications from those who have been in Canada over a year, and ignore risks of persecution, torture or even death. It echoes Trump's asylum policies, and if I might add, there are over 150 Canadians in ICE detention right now. What is the government doing? Nothing. We have heard nothing about what the government is doing with Canadians who are held in ICE detention in the United States.

Bill C-2 is not about border security; it is about expanding government surveillance. It threatens to chill freedom of expression, erode trust in doctors and service providers, and normalize the sharing of personal information with foreign powers. Canadians deserve better. We cannot allow democratic norms in Canada to become roadkill under pressure from an increasingly authoritarian and unhinged American president.

This is not the Canada I know. This is not the Canada I think Canadians voted for. I call on every member of the House to vote against the bill and send the government back to the drawing board.

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

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt: It is easy to tell where the member stands on the legislation. I do want clarification on one specific issue. She makes reference to the issue of being able to claim refugee status.

In Canada, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people today who are on some form of a temporary visa. Does the member believe that, if people have been in Canada for a lengthy period of time on a temporary visa, every one of them should be able to claim refugee status, even if they have been in Canada for over a year?