Mr. Speaker, finally! Finally, that is the word.
Ottawa has finally understood the need to look at border security. In recent years, Ottawa has consistently turned a deaf ear to calls from all sides, including our own. Now, Ottawa seems to be starting to wake up. How unfortunate that it took a barrage of hostile comments and tariff threats from the newly appointed President Donald Trump for Ottawa to realize that it had to appear like it was taking the border security issue seriously. I was in Washington last week with the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean. The Americans are still very concerned about border security.
However, we have long called for stronger measures to combat the export of stolen vehicles, reduce the number of asylum seekers, and tackle the flow of fentanyl and the issue of money laundering. We need to address all of these issues. We have been talking about them for a long time. It cannot be said that they were never discussed by anyone in government, and that the problem was unknown. Unfortunately, it took a radical shake-up in Canada‑U.S. relations before we saw anyone start to wake up.
However, it is unfortunate that this belated awakening has resulted in an extremely lengthy and highly technical bill with potentially serious consequences. The bill is 130 pages. It amends no fewer than 12 laws and cannot be examined hastily or treated lightly. Unfortunately, this same bill is potentially rife with infringements on privacy and rights and freedoms.
While the Bloc Québécois does support Bill C‑2 at this particular stage so it can be studied in committee, where members can hear from experts, groups and affected individuals, we need to be clear that we will not accept any expedited procedures, gag orders, short studies or any other such strategies intended to force it down our throats. The bill is 130 pages long, and it is complicated and technical. It contains many more questions than answers. We have to get this right.
Let me start with the immigration aspect of the bill. Bill C‑2 gives the minister more control over asylum claims, allowing him to further consider all asylum claims, even if they have been deemed admissible by officers. The minister must authorize all claims before they are sent to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The minister also has the power to determine if an asylum claim has been withdrawn. It is therefore up to the minister to set the requirements through regulations.
Additionally, the minister and the minister's staff will no longer be required to appear before the Refugee Protection Division. That is a major change.
Bill C‑2 also stipulates that claimants will have to be in Canada to have their case heard. While we understand why the bill gives the minister the power to suspend or refuse to consider permanent and temporary resident visas, work permits and study permits, and while we welcome the intention behind these expansions of power, it is imperative that an in-depth study be conducted to determine whether there will be any consequences on permanent residents selected by Quebec. Given Canada's tendency toward increasing centralization, we have every reason to be skeptical.
Furthermore, we are pleased that Ottawa has finally listened to reason on the infamous 14-day loophole. What is the 14-day loophole? It is the idea that people who have entered through a route other than an official border crossing can file a claim if they are not caught during the first 14 days after crossing the border. This exception obviously encourages people to cross the border illegally. It is being removed, ensuring that such individuals would instead be deported.
The section on enhancing border services powers is full of good intentions, but chances are that the understaffing will undermine Ottawa's efforts. Let us talk about intentions. Transporters and warehouse operators are required to provide access to their facilities to allow Canada Border Services Agency officers to inspect goods destined for export. That is a good idea.
The bill would also add security-related activities to the Coast Guard's mandate, allowing it to conduct patrols and share information. That is not such a bad idea either. They also want better sharing of information by the RCMP concerning sex offenders and to change the legal threshold for disclosing information gathered in the national sex offender registry. The problem is knowing how to apply all that. The bill is full of good ideas, but the mandates it seeks to expand are those of institutions that are having a hard time recruiting and also retaining their employees.
In its election platform, the Liberal Party promised to hire 1,000 more RCMP officers, as well as 1,000 more CBSA officers, no less. How is it going to do that? We do not know. According to the Customs and Immigration Union, the same union that is rarely consulted when Ottawa is preparing yet another costly fiasco at the border, in order to fulfill its mandate, the Canada Border Services Agency would require nearly 3,000 additional officers. Without these hires, any real strengthening of border security will remain wishful thinking. Ottawa also needs to allow CBSA officers to patrol between ports of entry, which does not require a legislative amendment, only a regulatory change. That alone could help, and it is also very easy to do.
The biggest problem has to do with privacy, rights and freedoms. We do not yet know if they will be respected. Ineffectiveness is one thing, but this could lead to people being unjustly deprived of their freedoms. For any society, the balance between security and freedom can sometimes be precarious. Fighting crime obviously means giving law enforcement the tools it needs to do its job. We have no issue with that principle.
However, we have reason to fear that the bill could lead to security overreach. Nowadays, surveillance of everything we do is steadily increasing. Simplifying procedures is one thing; implementing an extremely intrusive provision is another. Would this give law enforcement the right to open people's mail, as some have suggested? We know the bill would require electronic service providers to support the investigations of law enforcement agencies and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, by responding to their requests and intercepting information and communications. It also allows a bank, credit union or insurance company to collect and use an individual's personal information without their knowledge or consent under certain circumstances. These are just a few examples.
Are these provisions justified in some cases? Are groups and civil law experts right to be concerned? We have been hearing a lot of concerns and a lot of perspectives. I want to emphasize that. Is the balance between increased security and the protection of freedoms being upset in favour of the former and to the detriment of the latter? There is no way to be sure at this point, but there are, as they say, red flags. There is reason enough to worry, even though we agree with the principle of the bill, which addresses a need that should have been addressed a long time ago.
This massive bill raises more questions than it answers. One thing is certain: it warrants serious, in-depth study before we can determine whether the bill can and should be improved and, of course, whether it should be passed in the end. This circumstantial support should not be seen as a blank cheque. We will be keeping a close eye on things.
