Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to rise on an issue as important as a bill that deals with Canada's border. I have been among those people sounding the alarm for years about the Liberal government's inaction on the border. When there has been action, it was action that aggravated and exacerbated the problems. These are long-standing challenges caused by a Liberal government that, despite its proclamations, is not a new government but a continuation of what we had over the last 10 years.

While I am heartened by the fact that the Liberals have acknowledged there is a border crisis, I have a great many concerns with the way they have chosen to tackle that. Let me be clear: One of the biggest issues, in my media career, I would frequently criticize the government's handling of was the lax approach to border security. One notable example of this was allowing Roxham Road to balloon into a full-blown illegal immigration scheme that the government turned a blind eye to. This was something that happened for years and years, and the government would not act.

Issues pertaining to smuggling of firearms, drugs and even people have been allowed to become the crisis they are today. While I am grateful that the Liberals have decided to come to the party late, I have to ask why it took so long. What prevented them from taking action on this?

Let me be perfectly clear that a lot of the issues we see with crime and drugs in our country, including gang violence using illegal firearms smuggled in across the border, are issues that cannot just be neatly siloed off into one particular portfolio. Conservatives have been asking the Liberals for the last couple of weeks why there is nothing in the bill that deals with sentencing for fentanyl kingpins. Why is there nothing that deals with bail issues that allow repeat offenders to continue to be out on the street after offending?

The Liberals have always come back to the same position, which is that it is just a border bill, not a crime bill, but that is a very narrow and naive way of looking at the legislation. They do not understand that these cross-border issues are integrally connected to the crime and justice issues that they are not acknowledging, that they are not acting on and that the bill has no solutions for.

On this, I will say that I am grateful the government has taken some suggestions that the Conservatives have made over the years and put them in the bill, but the problem is that it is an omnibus bill. It tries to do a great many things. Some of it is stuff that I would say the Conservatives have been leaders on. Others are things that, when I look at the legislation, I wonder where they came from or who was asking for them.

While there is a lack of addressing bail issues and a lack of addressing sentencing issues, there are things in the bill about which I cannot imagine why the Liberals thought they were relevant for a bill that, by their own admission, is supposed to be about the border. I want to focus on two of those right now because I have a long track record of advocating for civil liberties.

One of the provisions of the bill, part 4, would give Canada Post unilateral power to open not just parcels but also letters. This means that a letter one sends to anyone in the country could be intercepted, without a warrant or judicial oversight, by someone at Canada Post. Something we have heard in the course of debate this evening and this afternoon is some misinformation from the Liberal government. The Liberals say, “Oh, no, it would be subject to warrant.”

Well, I have combed through the legislation, the entire bill, but also part 4 specifically, and in part 4, which deals with changes to the Canada Post Corporation Act, the word “warrant” does not appear once. In the act that this section of the bill cites, there is no discussion of warrants whatsoever.

Therefore we are left, as Canadians, with the questions that the Liberal government is not answering: What are the constraints on this power? What would Canada Post be entitled to do or be authorized to do, not just with goods it may seize but also with information it may seize? The bill specifically talks about intercepting letters. That does not just mean opening an envelope and looking for fentanyl; that also means opening a piece of mail and being allowed to read it. Who would have access to correspondence? What could be done with it? Would it be tracked? Would it be registered? Would it be entered into a database?

These are questions that we do not have answers for because the Liberals are denying that the text of the bill is what it is.

Moreover, the bill would give Canada Post immunity. It would take away any liability for anything arising from demand, seizure, detention or retention, which means Canadians would have no rights to question or challenge what Canada Post is doing with their mail. To be clear, Canada Post has not asked for this power, that I have seen. This is something the Liberal government would voluntarily hand over without any regard for the civil liberties concerns.

We can look at part 11 of the bill, which would ban cash transactions over $10,000. It would not put in a reporting requirement. It would not restrict it. It would not add bureaucracy or red tape. It is a clear ban. I will read directly from the bill:

Every person or entity that is engaged in a business, a profession or the solicitation of charitable financial donations from the public commits an offence if the person or entity accepts a cash payment, donation or deposit of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or in a prescribed series of related transactions that total $10,000 or more.

After 10 years of economic mismanagement, $10,000 is a regular haul at the grocery store. This $10,000 may seem like an amount, as the Liberals like to say, that no one is dealing in. They say no one is going around and dealing in $10,000 transactions unless they have something to hide. I represent a lot of rural and smaller communities in my riding, and it is not uncommon for someone to buy a used vehicle, buy a farm truck or buy a new piece of equipment for $10,000 or $15,000. Some may ask, as the Liberals do, why anyone would need to do that. We live in a free society where we do not need to justify our decision to engage in transactions with legal tender to the government.

I am very aware of the fact that, as I speak, the Liberal government is actively fighting in court against a Federal Court decision that found its use of the Emergencies Act illegal in 2022. This is a government that unlawfully and unconstitutionally froze people's bank accounts without due process and without oversight. That sent a chill throughout the country as people realized that the government would use its power without regard for the law. I do not accept that the government is permitted to say to just trust it with putting a further restriction in place on how Canadians transact, and this is incredibly important. The Bank of Canada, which the Prime Minister used to run, has been advocating for central bank digital currency, something that would put the government more in control of and make it more able to monitor the transactions that Canadians choose to undertake.

There are many reasons that people would use cash. In fact, in most cases that I am aware of, it has nothing to do with law breaking. It is simply because of convenience, avoiding staggering credit card fees and having the ability to transact and ensure that the local farmers' market or the person selling a vehicle in a riding, neighbourhood, whatever it is, can be free of government interference.

While I am grateful the bill would deal with some issues at the border that we have long been calling for solutions for as Conservatives, it is taking a very broad brush and, in doing so, is treating ordinary law-abiding Canadians as though they are criminals, as though they have something to hide from the government or must be doing something wrong simply because they are using cash, as anyone who identifies as old school would do. What other legal things is the government planning to regulate or restrict?

When we are looking at this bill, with how many different sections and different parts it has, we have to look at the good and we have to look at the bad. I think the government has tried to do too much in the course of this legislation. We have to look at the civil liberties concerns. Anytime they have been raised in the course of debating the bill, the Liberals have fallen back on either making a false claim, such as that a warrant is required under the Canada Post section, which it is not, or just relying on the notion that we are to trust them because there is no way the Liberal government would abuse this power. I do not trust them, and my constituents do not trust them either.

Andrew Lawton